43Mbps HSPA+ milestone for Vodacom

Selloml said:
Shocking...This is really really bad news i ever heard on a monday! It seems EDGE is the standard(stable) connection for VC country never mind the so-called major cities. Now i am in Polokwane(Lebowakgomo).....EDGE. Over the weekend i was in Baviaanspoort(Pretoria)...EDGE again. I always nearly cry when reading posts like these exposing major operators like VC.
Click to expand...
No operator covers all of South Africa with 3G. But some do cover much more than others. And it's a fact that Vodacom covers the most. Vodacom has the most 3G towers, the biggest 21.6 network and, by far, the biggest 43.2 network. That's just a fact. And across all these network, speedtest.net shows Vodacom has the fastest average speed. Another fact.

If you use the standard that most networks use to calculate coverage, i.e. a decent signal level that will actually give a decent connection, Vodacom covers 74% of the population today.

If you use, like some, questionable levels to calculate coverage based on very weak signals that will probably result in disconnects, Vodacom could claim 90%. This "90%" could then be directly compared to other doubtful coverage claims. Yet another fact.
 
jannievanzyl said:
No operator covers all of South Africa with 3G. But some do cover much more than others. And it's a fact that Vodacom covers the most. Vodacom has the most 3G towers, the biggest 21.6 network and, by far, the biggest 43.2 network. That's just a fact. And across all these network, speedtest.net shows Vodacom has the fastest average speed. Another fact.

If you use the standard that most networks use to calculate coverage, i.e. a decent signal level that will actually give a decent connection, Vodacom covers 74% of the population today.

If you use, like some, questionable levels to calculate coverage based on very weak signals that will probably result in disconnects, Vodacom could claim 90%. This "90%" could then be directly compared to other doubtful coverage claims. Yet another fact.
Click to expand...

I doubt you can prove any of your claims

No operator covers all of South Africa with 3G. But some do cover much more than others. And it's a fact that "Cell C" covers the most. "Cell C" has the most 3G towers, the biggest 21.6 network and, by far, the biggest 43.2 network. That's just a fact. And across all these network, speedtest.net shows "Cell C" has the fastest average speed. Another fact.

If you use the standard that most networks use to calculate coverage, i.e. a decent signal level that will actually give a decent connection, "Cell C" covers 74% of the population today.

If you use, like some, questionable levels to calculate coverage based on very weak signals that will probably result in disconnects, "Cell C" could claim 90%. This "90%" could then be directly compared to other doubtful coverage claims. Yet another fact.

I CAN ALSO MAKE FACTS... ;)
 
Last edited:
kilobitsperyear said:
Instead of challenging us to look up these complaints and counter complaints... perhaps post links to these.

The ASA seems to want money from people requiring details of anything other than the most recent 20 complaints.

You registered with the ASA to have access to these ?
Who on the forum has this access ?

Perhaps you could make this easier for those here and post a list of Cell C vs Vodacom complaints with the ASA and Vodacom vs Cell C ?

With outcomes too would be smashing.
Click to expand...

Lets see if he will do that...
 
jannievanzyl said:
No operator covers all of South Africa with 3G. But some do cover much more than others. And it's a fact that Vodacom covers the most. Vodacom has the most 3G towers, the biggest 21.6 network and, by far, the biggest 43.2 network. That's just a fact. And across all these network, speedtest.net shows Vodacom has the fastest average speed. Another fact.

If you use the standard that most networks use to calculate coverage, i.e. a decent signal level that will actually give a decent connection, Vodacom covers 74% of the population today.

If you use, like some, questionable levels to calculate coverage based on very weak signals that will probably result in disconnects, Vodacom could claim 90%. This "90%" could then be directly compared to other doubtful coverage claims. Yet another fact.
Click to expand...
And yet in Sandton, it is almost a miracle if you can complete one voice call.
;) And this is FACT !!
 
"And yet in Sandton, it is almost a miracle if you can complete one voice call.
And this is FACT !!"

Plus 1
 
jannievanzyl said:
As stated (numerous times) the issue is not higher speed but higher capacity. So we can do exactly what you're asking.
Click to expand...

I would rather worry about reliability - case in point over the weekend: my iPad bounced between Edge and 3G in both Bryanston and Broadacres. I will get a better signal from my Wifi router 200m away from my house compared to Vodacom.

That YELLOW and that BLACK company have full signal strength. Nothing more annoying doing email/surfing the web on an iPad while connected to Vodacom when one gets the "signal lost" message every 5 minutes and watching Edge and 3G bounce like being on crack.
 
jannievanzyl said:
No, while the correct term is 43.2 (grab your calculator and multiply 21.6 by 2. You'll be surprised at the result. ;)), both terms are used interchangeably. We don't speak of 21.6 all the time, it's cumbersome. Most people just call it it 21. And then it's a logical extension to talk of 42 / 84 / 168. Even thought it's technically and commercially required to call it by its proper name: 21.6 / 43.2 / 86.4 /172.8.
Click to expand...

So what you saying is that technically Cell C's network is also 43.2?
jees that means vc doesn’t have the biggest dick anymore. Well theoretically the biggest dick.
 
Coverage claims are based on very complex radio planning software that calculated propagation areas and overlays it over population distribution. All the networks use these.

I'll re-extend my offer to anyone, to come and sit down so we can show you how it's done. I would also suggest you ask the other networks to do the same for you. Then YOU can compare the numbers and report back.

Let me know when you want to do this. I'll immediately arrange it.

For others who won't be able to join any such excursion, let me give a brief overview.

If any radio planning guys are here, please give a better explanation. Once you've seen and done it yourself, you can come and explain better.

Basically you have a map of the population distribution of South Africa on a geographical map of South Africa. Geography is obviously very important as it affects RF propagation.

You then overlay your towers on this map and give the software a signal level to work against. Most networks use -100dBm for 3G. The software then calculates each towers radiation pattern to the point where the signal level falls below that level. The result is the typical coverage map you see posted by all the operators. By adding up how many of the population falls within the coverage, you can quote a single number. For VC it's over 99% for 2G and 74% for 3G.

You can see if you pick a lower level as the cutoff you'll get a much bigger map and subsequently can quote a much higher %coverage.

But you have to pick a realistic cut-off number, one that'll still give you a decent connection. And you have to take to the number of actual users into consideration. Otherwise you end up with a number that does not reflect the real world.

The end result of picking the wrong numbers is a map that does not bear resemblance to actual experience and you'll quickly get lots of complaints by subscribers who say they're in coverage on the map but cannot connect at all to 3G or get very poor throughputs.

To avoid this, Vodacom always run the prediction on the conservative side, exactly to avoid these type of complaints. I've seen a flood of these complaints recently (not about VC) on the forum and it's the exact result you'll get if you're overly aggressive with radio planning prediction tool.

For example, if you use -115dBm (as some networks do, actually only one I know about), you can either claim a much bigger % coverage, but what's the quality like. Vodacom's 3G coverage of 74% suddenly becomes 90% but who are you fooling? So we stick with the standards and do not try and spin the numbers.

For those who do not know the dB scale as it relates to power output; Every -3dBm is half of the previous level, so going from -100 to -115 is 32-times weaker. You'll agree that's going to make a huge difference. Not 15 times, but 32 times.

The second important point revolves around the 3G phenomena of cell shrinking. This is part of WCDMA and affects all networks, even those ones running on 900MHz. ;)

As soon as you load the cell, it gets smaller. And very quickly. Put a few users on (less than 10) and the cell shrinks to a fraction of what is was unloaded. Again, users will see this suddenly losing 3G when they used to have it. Or very low speeds. (The only way to fix this is by adding more towers, but that's another topic, although it's been discussed here recently)

To get back to radio planning, the question is then; what loading do you use to run your prediction? If you use no loading and a low signal level, you can calculate you're *best* coverage number. But you probably should not as those complaints of lost-3G and slow speeds will hit you again. And you forumites are quick to point them out! ;)

Again, Vodacom is very conservative around this.
 
Last edited:
jannievanzyl said:
No, while the correct term is 43.2 (grab your calculator and multiply 21.6 by 2. You'll be surprised at the result. ;)), both terms are used interchangeably. We don't speak of 21.6 all the time, it's cumbersome. Most people just call it it 21. And then it's a logical extension to talk of 42 / 84 / 168. Even thought it's technically and commercially required to call it by its proper name: 21.6 / 43.2 / 86.4 /172.8.

But aren't you nitpicking perhaps? ;)


It's not so visible, most of it is done via software or even after hours.

But I guess you want to know how *viable* it is?

Very, if you have a network that's actually got something under the hood. Going from 80 to 1000 over two months is pretty easy when the networking technology is so advanced. As a matter of fact, if modems were available we could have looked at 86.4.

The 1000 will be closer to 2000 by the end of next month.

Upgrading towers take more than just painting them black. ;)
Click to expand...

I won't argue with how you have explained the capacity - 43Mbps, it just didn't cross my mind. However, putting it as "nitpicking" is perhaps over sensitive on your part but I understand given the negative feedback VC has been receiving lately.

As for point 2, well corrected to "viable".

For the important part, I still need your feedback on why these areas have poor services:

1. Pretoria
2. Soweto
3. Johannesburg - Central
4. Sandton
5. Centurion - Central

True, no celco can claim 100% coverage but I believed these areas should be top on your list? Sandton, in particular is your test centre for LTE, surely that should say something.
 
I dont care how the networks do whatever it is they do.
Point is on Vodacom, and I am talking about voice, it is almost impossible to complete a call in THE REAL WORLD in Sandton.
If you guys have such sophisticated tests and equipment then surely you already know this and have a plan to fix it? :rolleyes:
 
MyLeftFoot said:
So what you saying is that technically Cell C's network is also 43.2?
Click to expand...

Yup, 43.2 and I'm sure they'll call it as such. They're calling their current network 21.6, so 21.6 times 2 is 43.2. At least if they use Dual-carrier to get to 43.2.

Although they can't call it any number in advertising as it would be in breach of the ruling they got against MTN that prohibits using any number that can be interpreted as speed as in the "AYOBA 21.1 HSPA+" case.

I've checked and worldwide a number of networks call it 43.2 while some call it 42.
 
jannievanzyl said:
(grab your calculator and multiply 21.6 by 2. You'll be surprised at the result. ;)

Upgrading towers take more than just painting them black. ;)
Click to expand...

Then grab yours and divide R185,00 by 500 and you'll also be surprised by the result (37 cents and not 34 cents). Then multiply that 3 cents difference by 500.... wow you have misquoted your prices by a whopping R15,00!!!
It's not painting it RED?
http://www.vodacom.co.za/portal/sit...cted=4_a_Bro_0_Bro_1221&ciFormat=default&ht=t
 
jannievanzyl said:
It's not so visible, most of it is done via software or even after hours.

Upgrading towers take more than just painting them black. ;)
Click to expand...

Wow! It's been exactly two years since I complained about poor networking signal in my area, I usually get GPRS and if I am lucky I get EDGE, if it's done via software how come I am still in a GPRS area? What kind of software is that, tenderpreneur supplied (Gijima)

Well you have painted everything red but it's still slow, in fact even more slower. You can change the frame but the picture remains the same, same old Vodascum! Putting lipstick on a pig?
 
omegaselect said:
You know it was Cell C that lodged the complaint. Like all the other complaints they've lodged.

I challenge you to look up how many competitor complaints were lodged by the cellular operators against each other.

Cell C is the one running to the ASA over every little thing. They even tried (and lost) to get the ASA to rule that MTN cannot call their network HSPA+.

Just like they lodged a complaint that MTN cannot call their network 21.1 when they were calling their network 21.6. :rolleyes:

The reality is Cell C is the cry-baby that runs to the ASA but then tells everyone they're the victim of 'corporate bullying' and that Vodacom is the one 'running' to the ASA. (You'll find Vodacom lodged 2 complaints against Cell C in the last year and in both cases there was a clear ruling against Cell C.)

But it's just another one of Lars' lies. He counts on the fact you're not going to check up that most of the complaints at the ASA involve Cell C and that Cell C actually START them based on really flimsy arguments. And subsequently lose most of them.

So, go check just how 'innocent' Lars is with all these ASA complaints. He's the real bully. And just like any bully, when he starts a fight and he loses, he cries "bully". And then post sobbing apologies in the newspapers or on forums. The Julius Malema of telecoms he was describes as by people on Techcentral. Quite fitting.

Why do you think the ASA wants to impose sanctions against Cell C?

They've been forced to change their name from the ASA to the CCHCA ("Cell C Honesty Check Association"). :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The red paint is making you dizzy.
 
jannievanzyl said:
How do you want me to prove it? I'll be happy to accommodate you.

Coverage claims are based on very complex radio planning software that calculated propagation areas and overlays it over population distribution. All the networks use these.

I'll re-extend my offer for you, or anyone else, to come and sit down so we can show you how it's done. I would also suggest you ask the other networks to do the same for you. Then YOU can compare the numbers and report back.

Let me know when you want to do this. I'll immediately arrange it.

For others who won't be able to join Odracir, let me give a brief overview.

If any radio planning guys are here, please give a better explanation. Once Odracir has seen and done it himself, he can come and explain better.

Basically you have a map of the population distribution of South Africa on a geographical map of South Africa. Geography is obviously very important as it affects RF propagation.

You then overlay your towers on this map and give the software a signal level to work against. Most networks use -100dBm for 3G. The software then calculates each towers radiation pattern to the point where the signal level falls below that level. The result is the typical coverage map you see posted by all the operators. By adding up how many of the population falls within the coverage, you can quote a single number. For VC it's over 99% for 2G and 74% for 3G.

You can see if you pick a lower level as the cutoff you'll get a much bigger map and subsequently can quote a much higher %coverage.

But you have to pick a realistic cut-off number, one that'll still give you a decent connection. And you have to take to the number of actual users into consideration. Otherwise you end up with a number that does not reflect the real world.

The end result of picking the wrong numbers is a map that does not bear resemblance to actual experience and you'll quickly get lots of complaints by subscribers who say they're in coverage on the map but cannot connect at all to 3G or get very poor throughputs.

To avoid this, Vodacom always run the prediction on the conservative side, exactly to avoid these type of complaints. I've seen a flood of these complaints recently (not about VC) on the forum and it's the exact result you'll get if you're overly aggressive with radio planning prediction tool.

For example, if you use -115dBm (as some networks do, actually only one I know about), you can either claim a much bigger % coverage, but what's the quality like. Vodacom's 3G coverage of 74% suddenly becomes 90% but who are you fooling? So we stick with the standards and do not try and spin the numbers.

For those who do not know the dB scale as it relates to power output; Every -3dBm is half of the previous level, so going from -100 to -115 is 32-times weaker. You'll agree that's going to make a huge difference. Not 15 times, but 32 times.

The second important point revolves around the 3G phenomena of cell shrinking. This is part of WCDMA and affects all networks, even those ones running on 900MHz. ;)

As soon as you load the cell, it gets smaller. And very quickly. Put a few users on (less than 10) and the cell shrinks to a fraction of what is was unloaded. Again, users will see this suddenly losing 3G when they used to have it. Or very low speeds. (The only way to fix this is by adding more towers, but that's another topic, although it's been discussed here recently)

To get back to radio planning, the question is then; what loading do you use to run your prediction? If you use no loading and a low signal level, you can calculate you're *best* coverage number. But you probably should not as those complaints of lost-3G and slow speeds will hit you again. And you forumites are quick to point them out! ;)

Again, Vodacom is very conservative around this.
Click to expand...

The FACT that you change parameters to get different coverage maps(predictions) and the FACT that you are getting poor coverage in places that you would think should have great coverage, and the FACT that you used the word "prediction" means that you cant prove what you are saying and we cant disprove what you saying. Hence you can say whatever you want and call it a FACT. For all we know you changed the coverage maps (predictions) for what the perfect scenario for vc is and used that as your marketing or like you are now you are using theoretical numbers...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X