Slow VM Data Speeds

[pkid]

My speeds were very slow last night at 23:00 but are fine now...

 

[ld13]

My speeds were very slow last night at 23:00 but are fine now...

Strange,my speeds was fine...or just not slow enough for me to notice.

 

[ajax]

I got 210 kbps on a multithreaded international download on VM last night. Very nice

 

[MyDraadloos]

I would hate to see a direct competitor (VM) to Vodacom being blamed for what I think is essentially Vodacom's problems in most cases. The slow speeds and freezes talked about here are the same as what I get on Vodacom's GPRS network both when using them and when roaming through VM. Before anyone logs any complaint against them they should first make sure that the problem is indeed VM's fault by manually selecting Cell-C as the network operator if possible and checking that Vodacom does not show up as the network operator. It would be very sad if people didn't make use of the cheap data rates as a result of Vodacom.

What is ironic is that these problems on the Vodacom network are only surfacing now. I have heard of Cell-C's GPRS having a bad reputation, but at R2/MB also it didn't bother me much. After getting decent speeds on VM which runs on Cell-C's network I now know that they do have a reliable network and am actually wondering how many of Cell-C's problems are attributed to Vodacom. The reason not many people have been complaining about Vodacom's GPRS is probably because most people were using 3G and now that everyone is forced to use GPRS to get the cheaper rates all these problems are suddenly surfacing.

I filed a lot of complaints with VC regarding the state of their GPRS network, they sent people out, but in the end their recommendation was that I should use 3G/HSDPA or find another network.

When I confronted them with data for all the disconnects, freezes, slow coneection they responded by quoting the their standard contract chapter line and verse.

The chap in Vodacom billing then blew me off by saying that I can forget about a legal case as they recently won a case given them the right to bill for any call or data even if you have benn disconnected.

Essentially they have the right to bill with impunity.

So I agree the problems are partly due to VC.

 

[Skeptik]

I filed a lot of complaints with VC regarding the state of their GPRS network, they sent people out, but in the end their recommendation was that I should use 3G/HSDPA or find another network.

When I confronted them with data for all the disconnects, freezes, slow coneection they responded by quoting the their standard contract chapter line and verse.

The chap in Vodacom billing then blew me off by saying that I can forget about a legal case as they recently won a case given them the right to bill for any call or data even if you have benn disconnected.

Essentially they have the right to bill with impunity.

So I agree the problems are partly due to VC.

That sort of response comes as no surprise to me. It's one they would discuss during a course on the never, never, never do chapter on customer services. Their customer base is reputed to be pretty low so I think they need all the business they can get.
Mind you Vodacom haven't improved at all in the last 6 months either.

 

[Prometheus]

I filed a lot of complaints with VC regarding the state of their GPRS network, they sent people out, but in the end their recommendation was that I should use 3G/HSDPA or find another network.

When I confronted them with data for all the disconnects, freezes, slow coneection they responded by quoting the their standard contract chapter line and verse.

The chap in Vodacom billing then blew me off by saying that I can forget about a legal case as they recently won a case given them the right to bill for any call or data even if you have benn disconnected.

Essentially they have the right to bill with impunity.

So I agree the problems are partly due to VC.

This is the major issue I have them, apart from their exorbitant charges and them having the audacity to think that Virgin's 50c rate should not have an effect on their business model. <off-topic>Even IBurst which isn't a direct competitor to Vodacom saw the impact their R399/GB could have and reduced their rates accordingly (even if it's only on a lock-in contract). But Vodacom seems oblivious to Virgin's 50c rate possibly because they regard it as inferior when it's everything but. So I heard recently that Vodacom has 100,000 data subscribers and Virgin has 10,000 subscribers (and growing) that might use it mainly for data. 10,000 over 100,000 seems like a lot of business Virgin is grabbing from Vodacom.</off-topic>

I used to think Vodacom was 'the' cool network until I tried their data. And their attitude towards it REALLY SUCKS. When you offer a service you must ensure that it runs almost immaculately. You can't blow your customers off and tell them to use a 'better' service. The service is there, Vodacom should insure that it runs smoothly and fast or disconnect it altogether. If Cell-C can do it then so can Vodacom. Cell-C pays Vodacom for the use of their towers and gprs network, Virgin pays Cell-C, I pay Virgin. The way I see it, and I see it even more clearly now, is NOT that Virgin or Cell-C should ensure that everything runs smoothly like someone here said. As I see it the buck stops with Vodacom and we, including Cell-C and Virgin are the paying customers who are NOT getting our money's worth. If Vodacom doesn't wan't to provide service to Cell-C they should just say so instead of sabotaging their network and reputation. But until then I expect to get near 10KB/s on gprs when I switch to a Vodacom tower because that is what I am paying for.

I guess it is really in Vodacom's best interest not to keep their gprs network functioning in good condition as it costs them less to deliver the same amount of data over 3G/hsdpa.
Any Cell-C representatives here that can comment on this? Can Cell-C please force Vodacom to correct the situation and upgrade their old equipment as our pleas are falling on death ears or as an alternative take legal action against Vodacom as they are not providing us with the service we and Cell-C are paying for.



PS. @ Skeptik: Can you please remove that statement from your sig as it is not the truth. Virgin is NOT that slow. It beats Vodacom's gprs/edge? even on one of their good days. If I had a better signal it would be even faster, but at 40-60% it is still faster than Vodacom. Just find a good place to stash your phone/modem.

 

[ginggs]

Cell-C pays Vodacom for the use of their towers and gprs network, Virgin pays Cell-C, I pay Virgin. The way I see it, and I see it even more clearly now, is NOT that Virgin or Cell-C should ensure that everything runs smoothly like someone here said

It may have been me who said it, if not, then I was thinking it...
If you are paying Virgin for a service, and their suppliers are unable to deliver, it is up to Virgin to change their supplier, or lose business. It is not up to you.

But until then I expect to get near 10Kbps on gprs when I switch to a Vodacom tower because that is what I am paying for.

I assume you mean 10 kilobits per second, as 10 kelvin bits per second doesn't mean much, unless you are using your data card for central heating. And, to quote Ali G, if you are paying that much for 10 kilobits per second, you are being ripped off, mate.

PS. @ Skeptik: Can you please remove that statement from your sig as it is not the truth. Virgin is NOT that slow. It beats Vodacom's gprs/edge? even on one of their good days.

I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Skeptik here, Virgin is slow. And, the crazy thing is I get my (currently >= 200kbps) MTN signal from the very same Cell-C tower from which I get my Virgin connection. It's actually a Cell-C tower on which MTN co-locate their equipment.

 

[Prometheus]

It may have been me who said it, if not, then I was thinking it...
If you are paying Virgin for a service, and their suppliers are unable to deliver, it is up to Virgin to change their supplier, or lose business. It is not up to you.

No, I know who it was, but don't feel like naming names here. Virgin has Cell-C as their supplier and Cell-C has Vodacom as a supplier. Virgin can change suppliers, but at what cost. I won't pay any more than 50c/MB. It's easier to just switch to Cell-C only instead of paying Vodacom for service I don't get. Virgin went with the better network in this case. Cell-C has far more people covered by edge and Vodacom has more of the boendoes covered by edge than abyone else. On Vodacom you would either pay more or get even worse service.

But until then I expect to get near 10Kbps on gprs when I switch to a Vodacom tower because that is what I am paying for.

I assume you mean 10 kilobits per second, as 10 kelvin bits per second doesn't mean much, unless you are using your data card for central heating. And, to quote Ali G, if you are paying that much for 10 kilobits per second, you are being ripped off, mate.

Actually I meant to write 10KB/s as in 10 kilobytes a second. Writing KB instead of kB just looks better to me and people know what I mean. If you want to get really technical I should actually write 10kiB which is 10x1024 bytes as opposed to kB which is 10x1000.

I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Skeptik here, Virgin is slow. And, the crazy thing is I get my (currently >= 200kbps) MTN signal from the very same Cell-C tower from which I get my Virgin connection. It's actually a Cell-C tower on which MTN co-locate their equipment.

Yes it's slow, but it's waaaaay faster than Vodacom and they have egde coverage here which MTN and Vodacom doesn't. I never got these speeds on MTN or Vodacom, so for someone to say that it is the slowest on the planet can't be correct if I get it even slower on Vodacom. Everyone's experience is different based firstly on their location. 200kbps is very near the maximum for current edge devices so maybe Cell-C just doesn't have edge where you are. Check on their map/list and check on MTN's map.

 

[ginggs]

Virgin has Cell-C as their supplier and Cell-C has Vodacom as a supplier. Virgin can change suppliers, but at what cost. I won't pay any more than 50c/MB. It's easier to just switch to Cell-C only instead of paying Vodacom for service I don't get. Virgin went with the better network in this case. Cell-C has far more people covered by edge and Vodacom has more of the boendoes covered by edge than abyone else. On Vodacom you would either pay more or get even worse service.

According to Cell-C's web site, they currently provide 85% of their coverage themselves. The remaining 15% is provided by Vodacom, and that's mainly in the "boendoes" as you say.

Everyone's experience is different based firstly on their location. 200kbps is very near the maximum for current edge devices so maybe Cell-C just doesn't have edge where you are. Check on their map/list and check on MTN's map.

I'm in a Cell-C EDGE area and I get an EDGE connection while on Virgin. While connected to Virgin I get peaks of around 200kbps, but the average throughtput is sometimes as low as 10kbps. Yes, 10 kilobits per second. Connected to the same tower through MTN I get averages of 150 - 200kbps.

 

[sean12]

I'm in a Cell-C EDGE area and I get an EDGE connection while on Virgin. While connected to Virgin I get peaks of around 200kbps, but the average throughtput is sometimes as low as 10kbps. Yes, 10 kilobits per second. Connected to the same tower through MTN I get averages of 150 - 200kbps.

If you are getting varying speeds from the same tower, then the problem must be with Cell C / VM as ISP. Maybe they do not have enough bandwidth to handle all the data.

Is there any difference in signal strength, between MTN and VM? Off the point a bit.

Sean

 

[ginggs]

If you are getting varying speeds from the same tower, then the problem must be with Cell C / VM as ISP. Maybe they do not have enough bandwidth to handle all the data.

I think you're right there.

Is there any difference in signal strength, between MTN and VM?

Thats a good point, just because they are sharing the same tower doesn't mean they have the same antenna configuration. The MTN antenna could be pointing straight at me and the Cell-C one could be pointing at the ground. I'll check that out.

 

[Prometheus]

According to Cell-C's web site, they currently provide 85% of their coverage themselves. The remaining 15% is provided by Vodacom, and that's mainly in the "boendoes" as you say.

That's very interesting. One day they might not need Vodacom anymore. The coverage I was talking about very edge coverage. Cell-C has most of their edge in areas where there is a high density of users where Vodacom has edge coverage mostly where there is a low density of users and nothing in Gauteng where the highest density of users are. This is contradictory to their policy of rolling out services where there is the highest demand for it.

If you are getting varying speeds from the same tower, then the problem must be with Cell C / VM as ISP. Maybe they do not have enough bandwidth to handle all the data.

Is there any difference in signal strength, between MTN and VM? Off the point a bit.

Sean

I also think that is the case. Their speed reduced substantially as their user base increased. It has improved again over the last two weeks. Seems they are doing improvements on the network. Hope it will get even better.

 

[ginggs]

If you are getting varying speeds from the same tower, then the problem must be with Cell C / VM as ISP. Maybe they do not have enough bandwidth to handle all the data.

Is there any difference in signal strength, between MTN and VM?

I got -77dBm from MTN and VM from the same tower, readings taken 12 minutes apart.

 

[ginggs]

Cell-C has most of their edge in areas where there is a high density of users where Vodacom has edge coverage mostly where there is a low density of users and nothing in Gauteng where the highest density of users are. This is contradictory to their policy of rolling out services where there is the highest demand for it.

I think this is all just due to the timing. In the beginning, Vodacom and MTN start putting up towers which are GPRS only starting in the highest density areas and moving out to the less dense areas.

EDGE and Cell-C come along. Cell-C start putting up EDGE capable towers starting in the highest density areas and moving out to less dense areas. In the meantime MTN and Vodacom are still expanding into less dense areas, but with newer EDGE capable equipment. Presumably they also upgrade what they consider their prime areas.

3G and HSDPA come along. Now MTN and Vodacom are upgrading their towers starting in the highest density areas and moving out to less dense areas. Some older towers in medium density areas that were GPRS only will go straight to 3G and not be first upgraded to EDGE.

 

[Prometheus]

I think this is all just due to the timing. In the beginning, Vodacom and MTN start putting up towers which are GPRS only starting in the highest density areas and moving out to the less dense areas.

EDGE and Cell-C come along. Cell-C start putting up EDGE capable towers starting in the highest density areas and moving out to less dense areas. In the meantime MTN and Vodacom are still expanding into less dense areas, but with newer EDGE capable equipment. Presumably they also upgrade what they consider their prime areas.

3G and HSDPA come along. Now MTN and Vodacom are upgrading their towers starting in the highest density areas and moving out to less dense areas. Some older towers in medium density areas that were GPRS only will go straight to 3G and not be first upgraded to EDGE.

This is quite possible. The question is can Vodacom and MTN really claim to provide edge coverage when they aren't really putting in the effort. Edge roll-outs began end 2001 but was only rolled out recently in SA and just before 3G. So I was wordering... did Vodacom perhaps get the units second hand from some other country and installed them on their new base stations. An edge unit can handle both gsm and edge data. A case of SA getting the crumbs from the table again? Still no excuse for their dismal gprs performance.

In contrast to this Cell-C has their edge coverage where they are likely to have had towers for years. Where would hsdpa be if it didn't just require a software update which could most likely be done remotely. Wondering who is really the leading network here...

 

[AirWolf]

When the upgrade was advertised I remember VC saying they would not be concentrating on EDGE but would rather go straight to 3G. MTN on the other hand said they would be rolling out EDGE first.

 

[Prometheus]

Just finished doenloading two 2.5MB files at an average of 12kB/s. This is just normal downloads which are usually slow. I wonder how a segmented download will go...

 

[ld13]

Just finished doenloading two 2.5MB files at an average of 12kB/s. This is just normal downloads which are usually slow. I wonder how a segmented download will go...

Nice,my (international) segmented downloads run just under those speeds. What file & from where did you download it?

 

[Syndyre]

In contrast to this Cell-C has their edge coverage where they are likely to have had towers for years. Where would hsdpa be if it didn't just require a software update which could most likely be done remotely. Wondering who is really the leading network here...

Don't really see your point, fact is Vodacom and MTN offer a better, faster service, namely 3G/HSDPA. So how can Cell C be the leading network when it doesn't even offer this?

 

[sean12]

I am having problems with VM, Very slow speeds and frequent disconnecets.

Using MTN E620 data card.

I am now back with MTN at R1/MB. VM has been very slow all day.

Sean