Related
I wrote them an email asking why my data connections were so slow. Here was my reply:
Hi *****,
Thanks for your email to Virgin Mobile about your new phone.
We can only provide you with the information that's stated on the website when it comes to the technical information as we're not given any additional facts of the phone. After checking the website it doesn't state anything in regards to what the speeds should be when the phone is connected to the internet. If you'd like to take a look, click here.
There isn't any speed caps involved on your Virgin Mobile contract. Your HTC HD2 is able to connect at up to 3.5G, also known as HDSPA. You may find the connection slow if the tower you are connecting to is a 2G tower. You can identify what speed your connection is by looking at the top-right corner of the phone, a G icon would mean a slow connection. A 3 or a H should allow you to view web pages extremely quickly.
If you find that you're not getting on with the phone and you're unhappy with how it runs you've got 28 days from purchase to return the phone.
We hope that the above information provides useful.
If there's anything else we can help you with, just reply to this email. You can also give us a call on 789 from any Virgin Mobile phone – it's just 10p, no matter how long you talk for. Or, you can call us on 0845 6000 789 from a fixed line phone. These calls are charged at local rate.
Kind regards,
*****
Virgin Mobile
So I've got a phone capable of 'up to 3.5G' but they make no claim about what speeds I should be getting.
Bear this in mind if you're thinking of going Virgin too.
There is no network in the world that can gaurantee that you will be getting HSDPA speed 100% of the time.
Thats just common sense mate.
:facepalm:
Audio Oblivion said:
There is no network in the world that can gaurantee that you will be getting HSDPA speed 100% of the time.
Thats just common sense mate.
:facepalm:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are correct.
But surely there should be a minimum amount of service a customer should expect.
Imagine a water utility company saying they couldn't guarantee how much water would come through the pipes, but you should pay your bills anyway for 'up to' a certain amount of water per month. And if it falls to a cupful of water per day, then too bad, it just means your neighbours were using a lot of water, tough.
I'm not expecting full speed 3G. I'm expecting pages like this one to load faster than 1 minute later, and without constant drop outs when I'm sat still in a chair in central London with full bar reception and my phone displaying 3G at the top.
There are so many variables to consider, forum usage can slow down, bandwidth usage in your area, atmospheric conditions etc, I'm also on virgin and when browsing this site on opera via 3G speeds are plenty addequate, no more than 3 seconds between links.
Sometimes i will get dropouts too but they are very rare the 3G network is massively over stretched with the popularity of 3G dongles and people sat there torrenting and what not, this is why the FUP is in effect, the 3G network at the moment cannot sustain a free for all.
Having said this you should be expected to get a reasonable service, in the past when on Tmobile, same as Virgin as it happens I have complained when not having any service for 3 days and they have knocked a few quid off my bill.
I found this on another forum from a poster called DBMandrake:
----
Having been with Virgin (with my iPhone) and then leaving them due to their poor data network I feel I should comment here.
Virgin can not (or will not) provide true HSDPA speeds on a mobile plan. Even if you see an HSDPA indicator on your phone, at best you will get around 350kbit/sec, which is standard 3G speed not HSDPA, as they throttle the bandwidth. You can get HSDPA speeds on a mobile broadband dongle from Virgin, but not on a data plan for a phone.
Before a dozen people jump in and say "but I get more than 350Kbit on Virgin", some older grandfathered plans may still have uncapped speeds, but currently selling ones do not.
I contacted technical support on more than one occasion regarding this and they were unable to do anything or offer any means of increasing the speeds above 350kbit, (even by paying more) and were unaware of what speeds I should be receiving in the first place, and had no idea whether 350kbit constituted an acceptable speed.
Secondly, Virgin put all web traffic through an image optimizer that dramatically compresses the images. While that may look acceptable on a 1 inch screen, and speed up page loads, it looks god awful on an iPhone screen, especially when zooming in, and there is NO way on a mobile phone to disable or bypass this image optimizer.
Both of these policies are in place because T-Mobile (whose network Virgin piggybacks on) also have these policies, except in T-Mobile's case you CAN pay more to get your speed uncapped (web 'n walk plus tethering addon) but you still cannot get the image optimizer disabled.
For these reasons (and others) I left Virgin and went to 3 and never looked back. No annoying image optimizer, and uncapped speeds which regularly exceed 1.2Mbit and go as high as 3Mbit in some locations, and far better 3G coverage to boot. No comparison if data is important to you as it is to me.
-----
http://www.talk3g.co.uk/showthread.php?p=36854
I can only assume it's a problem in certain areas, which by the nature of things there's not much that can be done, other than put more masts in, its purely down to location and network load.
But if the limit on Virgin/Tmobile is capped at 350kbit is that really a problem for general browsing, email and social networking? I certainly haven't encounted a lack of bandwidth since moving to virgin last week.
I would think the limit is there to keep the network usuable to all, as said before an unlimited uncapped network would surely grind to halt. If you read virgins T&C they state they cannot guarantee any speeds, to do so would be wrong due to the nature of the of the whole system.
I'll admit I'm being a bit hyper sensitve to the data rates. It's because I was really excited about the HD2 and really putting it through its paces. Which I can do, apart from mobile web, which is more of a gentle Sunday stroll after lunch... with my gran.
I appreciate that it's a bit of a phone mast lottery when it comes to data rates, but when you work in Zone 1 of London you'd expect the infrastructure to be better able to cope by now.
And I detest the whole 'up to' measurement on data when advertising plans. I understand why it's written such, but providers should have to provide a realistic picture of what the average punter can expect on a daily basis. Not what theoretical person could get while pigs are landing on the moon.
Virgin Speed
I have seen this in other forums.
I have gone to a speed test site (www.dslreports.com) and run from opera browser with both phones on my desk showing 4bars (H)
- on my HD with orange 1M to 1.2M
- on my HD2 with Virgin getting 200k - 250k.
Will be looking into this further with a view to returning HD2 under 28day return policy.
So now that the front end radio speeds are 50mb/s, we'll hit our 2gbit limit in like 1 hour vs 20 days - yet make a very impressive speedtest. Yawn. I'm sorry, guys. This circa-1980 2GB limit thing has just got to go. ATT and Ver blames it on their lack of backhaul capacity (towers to internet). Perhaps their inability to police full time tethering. Perhaps a cash rich executive bureaucracy that rivals the gov't. Remember, they're STILL the phone company.
Even if you have unlimited, they'll sniff packets and start the clock on you anyway. "No way you can use more than 2GB of local phone-only data if you're not tethering" they cry. Even the tethering plan is a limited, overly complex structured rate plan also. For those of you that've figured a way around these lobbyist-inspired rate plans then more power to you. But for the other 99% of us, a 2mb radio will just have to do.
Believe me, Ver and ATT are lawyering-up as we speak to deal with the upcoming onslaught from you LTE heathens.
In any event, why bother with LTE?
sigh
.
Thread moved to networking. Would advise you to read forum rules and post in correct section.
Failure to comply with forum rules will result in an infraction and/or ban depending on severity of rule break.
buckwheat.phd said:
Even if you have unlimited, they'll sniff packets and start the clock on you anyway. "No way you can use more than 2GB of local phone-only data if you're not tethering" they cry. Even the tethering plan is a limited, overly complex structured rate plan also. For those of you that've figured a way around these lobbyist-inspired rate plans then more power to you. But for the other 99% of us, a 2mb radio will just have to do.
Believe me, Ver and ATT are lawyering-up as we speak to deal with the upcoming onslaught from you LTE heathens.
In any event, why bother with LTE?
sigh
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've had unlimited LTE on Verizon since March and still seeing 60mbps download speeds. No throttling. Just purchased first AT&T LTE smartphone SGS2 LTE Skyrocket, grandfathering unlimited data into my LTE device. Can't wait to test LTE here in NYC.
Internet experience is all I'm doing on my phone and the last thing that I want is to crawl.
LTE all the way!
I was just wondering what the opinions of T-mobile was for the members here. I have been on a Radioshack/AT&T employee plan since 2006 and even though I quit in 2008 I have continued to be on this plan. It was amazing (2000 minutes, unlimited text, and unlimited data for $25 a month), however I just received notice today from my old AT&T rep that I will finally be taken off it. I am currently looking at switching to one of the major US carriers and am looking at the plan prices. I want to stick with an Android phone, so I'll need data. Verizon's cheapest plan looks to be $89.99/month for what I want (450 minutes, unlimited text, 2GB of data), with AT&T and Sprint's around $10 cheaper. I rarely use minutes (average of 250 a month), but I text quite a bit so I would want unlimited text. I also don't use data much. My max in the past year has been 134MB, however I know if I have a faster phone I will probably use data more. I was looking at T-mobile's plans and noticed they are drastically cheaper. $49.99/month for 500 minutes, unlimited text, and 2GB of data. Is their service much worse than AT&T, even though they are both GSM? I'd hate to switch to them and end up hating my service.
So in short, does anybody who has had AT&T and T-mobile notice a major difference between the two? Would I be better with sticking with Verizon or AT&T or are they all about equal nowadays?
Thanks in advance!
I recommend you buy an unlocked phone (hello Nexus!) and get a sim card from Straight Talk. They are a MVNO that runs on the AT&T network. I believe plans are $45.
It always depends on your area. For years I used Cingular(now At&t) and I had pretty decent service. About 5 years ago, T-Mobile was carrying a phone I wanted, so I decided to switch. (This was before I knew about the glory of unlocking ;P). T-Mobile's network was so horrible I never (read:NEVER) got service within a 2 mile radius of my home, and about the same at work.
I couldn't make a phone call with out it dropping, so I was forced to switch back to At&t. The guy at T-Mobile pulled up a "coverage map" and it claimed I should have the best service right in the area I needed it. So it was a bunch of bull if you ask me.
My suggestion has always been to talk to people who you know in the area of where you will be using your phone. I know some people from around my area who get great reception with T-Mobile and get awful service with At&t. I honestly have no idea how it happens, but it does.
Another route would be to get the phone to test (perhaps one of their pre-paid, no contract options?) and use it for a few days. If you are unhappy, simply return it. If you are returning it because of bad coverage they HAVE to take it back and give you a full refund.
I still think the asking people around the area is the best option. Perhaps you could give a general location, and ask people on the forums who are located near by to give you some of their opinions on their coverage? Its probably the best way to be sure, if you ask me.
T-Mobile was great to me in the East Bay area of northern California, until last November, when they instituted traffic-shaping policies that meant every single JPEG image on the internet was horribly compressed into an ugly mess of artifacts and banded gradients.
I really miss T-Mobile's HSPA+ speed. AT&T just can't quite get as fast. But I'll take a 20-25% slower connection that isn't adulterated over a faster one that's been tampered with.
I've had ok experiences with T-Mobile. When I lived in Atlanta there were many areas where I simply didn't get a signal, but that's probably due to to the terrain. As suggested you should probably ask others in the area where you will be how their coverage is. In regards to plans, I'm on a contracted unlimited talk/text, 2GB data for $90. I'll be modifying that at the soonest opportunity... I guess at least the phone itself was cheaper at the time :/
Thanks for info!
.
Thread moved. Would advise you to read forum rules and post in correct section.
Failure to comply with forum rules will result in an infraction and/or ban depending on severity of rule break.
I've had T-Mobile for a few years now, and I can't wait to leave this company. I'm currently in the process of jumping ship. I've driven from California to Tennessee, Tennessee to Iowa, Iowa to Michigan, and back again. I've never seen such garbage coverage from a cellular company. I have a 4G compatible phone, but I've only ever seen 4G when I fly through Chicago's O'Hare Airport. Their 3G coverage area is also terrible.
So, Cons are as follows:
4G: What 4G?
3G: Doesn't exist
2G: Covers the entire country with data speeds barely faster than dial-up, unless you live more than 25 miles outside a big city, or in North Dakota in general.
Reception: It's a well known fact that T-Mobile cannot maintain or even guarantee any sort of standard level of service indoors.
Pros:
Pricing: They are cheap for a reason.
"Unlimited" Data Plans: They "throttle" them after a certain amount of time, and it's throttling to less than 2G speeds. In fact, you should try being throttled while trying to drive across the country using Google maps...
Customer Service: The only pleasant part of my time with T-Mobile.
cdchris12 said:
I've had T-Mobile for a few years now, and I can't wait to leave this company. I'm currently in the process of jumping ship. I've driven from California to Tennessee, Tennessee to Iowa, Iowa to Michigan, and back again. I've never seen such garbage coverage from a cellular company. I have a 4G compatible phone, but I've only ever seen 4G when I fly through Chicago's O'Hare Airport. Their 3G coverage area is also terrible.
So, Cons are as follows:
4G: What 4G?
3G: Doesn't exist
2G: Covers the entire country with data speeds barely faster than dial-up, unless you live more than 25 miles outside a big city, or in North Dakota in general.
Reception: It's a well known fact that T-Mobile cannot maintain or even guarantee any sort of standard level of service indoors.
Pros:
Pricing: They are cheap for a reason.
"Unlimited" Data Plans: They "throttle" them after a certain amount of time, and it's throttling to less than 2G speeds. In fact, you should try being throttled while trying to drive across the country using Google maps...
Customer Service: The only pleasant part of my time with T-Mobile.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Those may have been YOUR experiences and I'm not discounting that BUT....
I have FIVE LINES with T-Mobile
NEVER HAVE I HAD an issue with signal or coverage indoors.
Full bars in my home, excellent signal (68dBm-72dBm).
Very good coverage in Jersey City, NJ where I live.
My husband whom travels all over the tri-state area (NY,NJ,CT) doesn't have any reception issues either.
Fast HSPA+ (yes, it's a 3.5G technology) speeds depending on the device used. (I have the Amaze,,Sensation and, a Nexus S on T-Mobile ATM)
Wasn't me!! I didn't do it!
I completely disagree with cdchris12 however I always lived in area with good T-Mobile coverage and their throttle speed is fast enough to view website and use Google Maps. I do find that depends on the phone, usually older ones can have problem keeping data and gps in door, unless you're next to a window. With newer big phones with good antenna is not so much a problem.
I'd say get an unlocked phone and go with T-Mobile prepaid $50/month plan which give you unlimited everything and throttle to 2G after 2GB of usage. Unless you need roaming which isn't available with prepaid. I have family and friends who use ATT 3G and T-Mobile 3G network is always faster to me. In fact, with a Galaxy SII with dual HSPA+ antenna I get speed excess of 20mbps. Straight Talk has the same plan for $45 I believe and they go through T-Mobile network.
T-Mobile also allows you to tether which ATT don't, although recently I heard they changed that for people with $70 plan.
You might also find this useful: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=21604722&postcount=2
To get T-Mobile 3G you need a phone that support 1700/2100Mhz band.
In the East Bay area T-Mobile's HSPA+ speeds are really quite fast. I often saw 8-9Mbps downstream on my Galaxy Nexus before I switched to AT&T.
Unfortunately a fast internet connection is useless if your carrier alters all images on the internet so everything looks like dogpoo.
I have no idea what you are talking about, you might be accessing website through some kind of proxy like Opera Mini/Turbo. I know you will reply that that isn't the case, but I really can't think why that would be the case, but it has to be through some kind of proxy. I also notice some roms are set to connect to SimpleMobile by default instead of T-Mobile, which also causes problems. With Opera Mobile using desktop user agent, it looks exactly like my PC, and I've tried 5 different Android phones with T-Mobile. I haven't heard of millions other T-Mobile users complaining about degrading pictures quality from browser.
eksasol said:
I have no idea what you are talking about, you might be accessing website through some kind of proxy like Opera Mini/Turbo. I know you will reply that that isn't the case, but I really can't think why that would be the case, but it has to be through some kind of proxy. I also notice some roms are set to connect to SimpleMobile by default instead of T-Mobile, which also causes problems. With Opera Mobile using desktop user agent, it looks exactly like my PC, and I've tried 5 different Android phones with T-Mobile. I haven't heard of millions other T-Mobile users complaining about degrading pictures quality from browser.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's a proxy, but the proxy is on T-Mobile's end, not mine. It's a transparent proxy and it works exactly like the Opera Mini proxy, but I can't choose to turn it off. Connecting through a VPN would obviously fix the problem, but there's no easy way to force Android to auto-connect to a VPN every time I open the browser.
Trust me, I was thorough. The user agent wasn't an issue. The APN was set correctly. I spent over ten hours on the phone with T-Mobile's technical support and I hard reset the phones on both lines multiple times, restored to unrooted stock multiple times, and nothing fixed the issue. When I bought my Galaxy Nexus, I tested it before unlocking the bootloader and rooting it, and had the same exact issue.
Just to be absolutely sure, I even tested the issue on an iOS device (iPhone 3GS) and a WP7 device (HD7) with the same results--heavily compressed JPEG images when viewing any unencrypted page.
It no longer matters since I left T-Mobile for AT&T, which uses no such proxy.
Edit: I should note that I'm not the only one with this problem. Every person I know in the SF Bay area who uses T-Mobile has this problem. It may be automatic traffic shaping algorithms used on a tower-by-tower basis (which would explain why some people don't have the problem), but yeah, it's all over the place here. I tested demo phones in every T-Mobile store I could easily reach in the area--three in SF, two in Oakland, one in Berkeley and one in El Cerrito, and they all exhibit the same problem.
For example:
Actual quality, downloaded over wifi (180kb)
Very low quality, downloaded over T-Mobile 3G (55kb)
Yea, the compression thing on TMo is a well known thing. It doesn't bother me personally.
To throw in my experience with AT&T/T-Mobile here, I review phones as a side project. I've noted several differences in the two networks. Most are well known things that others have commented on. T-Mobile EASILY has better customer service. They always have. They pride themselves in their outstanding customer care. As long as you aren't being retarded or yelling at them, they will do everything possible to make you a happy customer.
As far as coverage goes, check the maps. AT&T has a bigger network footprint. T-Mobile has better network speeds. I get better speeds on T-Mobile 3G than on AT&T LTE. Obviously this is very dependent on location, but that's how it is here.
If you have coverage from T-Mobile and don't mind the picture compression, I strongly suggest it. I lived without 3G from T-Mobile for 2 and a half years while I was in the Army on base in Georgia. EDGE speeds are respectable from them. Their customer service and my ridiculously old $50 unlimited everything plan kept me going.
T-Mobile does throttle users once you reach your limits. I've never been throttled personally, but I've maxed out a test SGS2 just to see what it's like. You are still able to browse the web. No videos or streaming music, though. Speed tests put the throttling at around 70-110 Kbps. This is within EDGE speeds. Their unthrottled EDGE speeds are between 160-320 Kbps here. By comparison, GPRS speed drops down to about 20-40 Kbps.
My preference is for good customer service. T-Mobile has always been there for me, even when things got tight for me. I see no reason to leave them now. Look at the news just within the last 6 months. AT&T couldn't care less about its customers. It doesn't change anything until it gets sued.
cajunflavoredbob said:
Yea, the compression thing on TMo is a well known thing. It doesn't bother me personally.
To throw in my experience with AT&T/T-Mobile here, I review phones as a side project. I've noted several differences in the two networks. Most are well known things that others have commented on. T-Mobile EASILY has better customer service. They always have. They pride themselves in their outstanding customer care. As long as you aren't being retarded or yelling at them, they will do everything possible to make you a happy customer.
As far as coverage goes, check the maps. AT&T has a bigger network footprint. T-Mobile has better network speeds. I get better speeds on T-Mobile 3G than on AT&T LTE. Obviously this is very dependent on location, but that's how it is here.
If you have coverage from T-Mobile and don't mind the picture compression, I strongly suggest it. I lived without 3G from T-Mobile for 2 and a half years while I was in the Army on base in Georgia. EDGE speeds are respectable from them. Their customer service and my ridiculously old $50 unlimited everything plan kept me going.
T-Mobile does throttle users once you reach your limits. I've never been throttled personally, but I've maxed out a test SGS2 just to see what it's like. You are still able to browse the web. No videos or streaming music, though. Speed tests put the throttling at around 70-110 Kbps. This is within EDGE speeds. Their unthrottled EDGE speeds are between 160-320 Kbps here. By comparison, GPRS speed drops down to about 20-40 Kbps.
My preference is for good customer service. T-Mobile has always been there for me, even when things got tight for me. I see no reason to leave them now. Look at the news just within the last 6 months. AT&T couldn't care less about its customers. It doesn't change anything until it gets sued.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This^^^^ %110. That being said, I've only experienced image compression in NYC, in a few areas (mostly midtown Manhattan). I live in Jersey City, NJ and haven't experienced it here. Even with image compression, images don't look THAT BAD....at least IMO.
Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk
Babydoll25 said:
This^^^^ %110. That being said, I've only experienced image compression in NYC, in a few areas (mostly midtown Manhattan). I live in Jersey City, NJ and haven't experienced it here. Even with image compression, images don't look THAT BAD....at least IMO.
Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For me, they looked so bad I was willing to pay $40 more a month to AT&T in order to make it go away permanently. The other line on my account is used by my partner, and she would frequently read manga raws on her phone. When the image compression started, the Japanese characters in the raw manga scans became totally illegible. She was, to put it mildly, rather upset. This is probably 90% of why she owns a smartphone and is willing to pay for it, so I'm sure you can see the issue here.
For me it was an aesthetic issue, but for her it was a functionality issue. In any case, we pay a little more a month, but we also get more--and I personally prefer AT&T's method of handling data. At least on AT&T if I want more than 3GB a month I can pay to get extra GBs. On T-Mobile, you'd get throttled regardless and EDGE in the East Bay is completely unusable.
I would have stayed with T-Mobile had I been able to figure out how to automatically log into a VPN every time I opened an app that pulled image assets from the web (the browser, the Android Market, etc). Unfortunately, the only solution I found also wakelocked the phone permanently, preventing it from sleeping and killing any semblance of good battery life.
synaesthetic said:
For me, they looked so bad I was willing to pay $40 more a month to AT&T in order to make it go away permanently. The other line on my account is used by my partner, and she would frequently read manga raws on her phone. When the image compression started, the Japanese characters in the raw manga scans became totally illegible. She was, to put it mildly, rather upset. This is probably 90% of why she owns a smartphone and is willing to pay for it, so I'm sure you can see the issue here.
For me it was an aesthetic issue, but for her it was a functionality issue. In any case, we pay a little more a month, but we also get more--and I personally prefer AT&T's method of handling data. At least on AT&T if I want more than 3GB a month I can pay to get extra GBs. On T-Mobile, you'd get throttled regardless and EDGE in the East Bay is completely unusable.
I would have stayed with T-Mobile had I been able to figure out how to automatically log into a VPN every time I opened an app that pulled image assets from the web (the browser, the Android Market, etc). Unfortunately, the only solution I found also wakelocked the phone permanently, preventing it from sleeping and killing any semblance of good battery life.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think that's the main problem with the way TMo handles it. It's not consistent. It seems to be worse based on location and usage. More compression in more populated areas or something. For me, I can tell that the images are compressed if I zoom in inside a webpage, but otherwise, it's business as usual.
Same with the data speeds. A lot of people say that it drops to regular GPRS speeds when they get throttled. I only tested it the one time with that review unit SGS2, but it wasn't that bad. 100Kbps is fine for web browsing. The problem seems to be that it's all very much a "your mileage may vary" situation.
AT&T is evil, but at least they are consistent.
They're all evil. We simply pick the lesser evil in any given location.
I'm kind of surprised that nobody's mentioned T-Mobile's Wifi Calling. It allows you to get service anywhere that has a Wifi network available, and you can do everything as normal (Call, text, internet) through your plan. I use it everyday, and I think it's great.
theholyfork said:
I'm kind of surprised that nobody's mentioned T-Mobile's Wifi Calling. It allows you to get service anywhere that has a Wifi network available, and you can do everything as normal (Call, text, internet) through your plan. I use it everyday, and I think it's great.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's nice to have, but kind of crappy that it still counts against you, even though you aren't using their towers...
Okay.
I moved my family to a new apartment in a new area.
Wifi isn't up yet, and I've been trying to get all of our business conducted by means of a WiFi Hotspot on my Droid X.
We were past the 2 GB threshold 36 hours into the billing cycle, and I suspect we're being subjected to Verizon's Network Optimization 'feature'.
I suspect this because we will intermittently become unable to use the Internet when we're hanging out at the local cafe working, or at the apartment working. (We can't use the wifi provided freely at the cafe due to restriction imposed by a certain vendor we do business with.)
Is there any way that I can tell that I am, for certain, being effected by Network Optimization instead of just bad luck or oddities of the building/weather/etc?
from http://support.verizonwireless.com/information/data_disclosure.html
How do I know if I will be impacted by Network Optimization?
A good rule of thumb as of September 2011 is this: If you’re on an unlimited data plan, have a 3G device and are using more than 2 GB of data in a month, you’re in the top 5% of data users and will be impacted by Network Optimization when you’re connected to congested 3G cell sites.
Starting at the end of August 2011, if you are on an unlimited plan, are a high data user and had a contract prior to February 3, 2011, we’ll notify you through bill messages and on your My Verizon account if you may be affected.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
While I appreciate your digging that up for me, it wasn't what I was looking for.
I want to know *when* I'm on what VZW considers a congested site, and as such am being 'throttled'.
Will it make me half as fast, or will it push me down to 5K ?
I know that I'm a data hog, per their definition.
you are not going to get more detail than that.
Because this process is in place to ensure the best service to our customers, the speed will vary at any given time. It will depend on how many users are on the same site at that time and what data applications are being used on that site at that time.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Is there a way I can tell which cell sites are congested?
There is no way for you to easily determine that today. There are many variables that can contribute to a cell site being congested including, but not limited to, the number of active users and the type of applications being used on that site. While we work to ensure we have the most reliable network for every location, these variables combined with other environmental factors determine whether or not a particular cell site reaches the limits of its capacity and becomes congested at any particular time.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Okay.
I was hoping the community had experience with how slow "throttled" was, but all I can find is a thread or two on other forums where it seems like the throttling in question is still faster than I'm getting when things go sideways.
I have multiple incidents per day where I lose the ability to connect outbound from my laptop.
Based on readings on other forums, people who are throttled may be unable to stream video nicely, but continue to be able to at least browse text-based websites and run traceroutes.
So... I'm either sitting in bad locations or have a problem with my phone.
CoffeeCrown said:
Okay.
I was hoping the community had experience with how slow "throttled" was, but all I can find is a thread or two on other forums where it seems like the throttling in question is still faster than I'm getting when things go sideways.
I have multiple incidents per day where I lose the ability to connect outbound from my laptop.
Based on readings on other forums, people who are throttled may be unable to stream video nicely, but continue to be able to at least browse text-based websites and run traceroutes.
So... I'm either sitting in bad locations or have a problem with my phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't believe they throttle. They just charge more
Sent from my SCH-I605 using xda premium
SuperDefcon5 said:
I don't believe they throttle. They just charge more
Sent from my SCH-I605 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm on the grandfathered unlimited data plan.
Looks like John Legere just said, "hahaha sucka.. you've been baited to our unlimited data cap"
It has come to our attention over the past few days – thanks to a couple of our readers – that T-Mobile has changed the fine print to its unlimited 4G LTE Simple Choice plans. Head on over to the individual plans or family plans page on T-Mobile’s website and you’ll see the following short line added at the bottom of the page:
“*Unlimited 4G LTE customers who use more than 21 GB of data in a bill cycle will have their data usage de-prioritized compared to other customers for that bill cycle at locations and times when competing network demands occur, resulting in relatively slower speeds.”
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://www.tmonews.com/2015/06/21gb...mobiles-unlimited-4g-lte-simple-choice-plans/
What are you thoughts?
I avg 35-45gb a month. But how do we know if our area is congested?
Legere has been bashing other companies about their throttle, but yet he's doing the same thing.
twe90kid said:
What are you thoughts?
I avg 35-45gb a month.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What and how much are you downloading?
twe90kid said:
Looks like John Legere just said, "hahaha sucka.. you've been baited to our unlimited data cap"
http://www.tmonews.com/2015/06/21gb...mobiles-unlimited-4g-lte-simple-choice-plans/
What are you thoughts?
I avg 35-45gb a month. But how do we know if our area is congested?
Legere has been bashing other companies about their throttle, but yet he's doing the same thing.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not trying to pick a fight, but I'd like to hear how you consistently use that much data on your phone. I'd consider myself a heavy user, and I do break the tethering rules a few times a week, and I don't think I've ever passed 20GB in a month.
ummduh said:
Not trying to pick a fight, but I'd like to hear how you consistently use that much data on your phone. I'd consider myself a heavy user, and I do break the tethering rules a few times a week, and I don't think I've ever passed 20GB in a month.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A fight it is, lol. But seriously is not about how much data someone's uses but if this is true then it's the fact that John goes around bashing AT&T and Verizon but then pulls this $hit. How much data you use is non of my business but have you ever watch a 5 min YouTube video in 1080 or 1440? There goes about half a Gb.
ummduh said:
Not trying to pick a fight, but I'd like to hear how you consistently use that much data on your phone. I'd consider myself a heavy user, and I do break the tethering rules a few times a week, and I don't think I've ever passed 20GB in a month.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Breaking 30 - 40 GB is easy depending where you are. Last year I took a family vacation to Disney World and forgot to bring my laptop to store each days videos and pictures. At the time I had a G3 and wife had a Note 3.
At the end of the day our phones would be out of storage when recording videos in 4K and taking pictures in max resolution. Our only two options for making storage space available was to either buy storage for our phones or to upload everything to google drive, dropbox, youtube, box .... Having the unlimited dataplan, why not use it and just upload everything each night so we can clear our phones the next day. Doing this over five days four nights we used over 80 GB of data combined (all videos ended up on youtube while phones were saved in the cloud.
We are going to Disney and Universal in a couple weeks and I plan on doing this again. Outside of special occasions like this, I think we used between 6 and 10 GB combined a month.
moehagene said:
Breaking 30 - 40 GB is easy depending where you are. Last year I took a family vacation to Disney World and forgot to bring my laptop to store each days videos and pictures. At the time I had a G3 and wife had a Note 3.
At the end of the day our phones would be out of storage when recording videos in 4K and taking pictures in max resolution. Our only two options for making storage space available was to either buy storage for our phones or to upload everything to google drive, dropbox, youtube, box .... Having the unlimited dataplan, why not use it and just upload everything each night so we can clear our phones the next day. Doing this over five days four nights we used over 80 GB of data combined (all videos ended up on youtube while phones were saved in the cloud.
We are going to Disney and Universal in a couple weeks and I plan on doing this again. Outside of special occasions like this, I think we used between 6 and 10 GB combined a month.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yup.
With a rooted phone and having xposed. My youtube is set to play 1440P as long as it's available.
I also upload my 4k videos that I record at car events.
Photos that you take are about 5mb each (16mp).
Just streaming music and video daily will easily eat 21 GB in less than two weeks. I have a feeling this might get repealed or changed to 31. At least that's a gig a day. It's kinda hypocritical like people have said. There's some interesting comments on tmonews under the article. This will really screw the commuters in big cities plus those who listen to music or videos via headphones at work etc. I guess we really need to see how it goes because there are a few unanswered questions here like what are the peak times and if this changes from tower to tower after depriorization. We'll have to just see how this affects people.
sino8r said:
Just streaming music and video daily will easily eat 21 GB in less than two weeks. I have a feeling this might get repealed or changed to 31. At least that's a gig a day. It's kinda hypocritical like people have said. There's some interesting comments on tmonews under the article. This will really screw the commuters in big cities plus those who listen to music or videos via headphones at work etc. I guess we really need to see how it goes because there are a few unanswered questions here like what are the peak times and if this changes from tower to tower after depriorization. We'll have to just see how this affects people.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I still like to know what the deprioritize speed is.. for example, if you hit 21gb. And your in a congested area, what speed are you capped at? 1mbps? 5mbps? 10mbps?
Also, does it mean that if we jump from one network to another network, the prioritizing stops? What happens if we go back to the original network, does it start again?
twe90kid said:
I still like to know what the deprioritize speed is.. for example, if you hit 21gb. And your in a congested area, what speed are you capped at? 1mbps? 5mbps? 10mbps?
Also, does it mean that if we jump from one network to another network, the prioritizing stops? What happens if we go back to the original network, does it start again?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly... Not sure. Some people in the comments on tmonews are clarifying some of those concerns. But really it just seems like speculation so far. I guess we'll see... Not really happy about this myself.
I wouldn't get too upset about it. A good network always has a QOS system in place.
Note that the statement says 'de-prioritized', not throttled. Instead of assigning your account to a lower bandwidth speed, you could be placed in a lower tier in a packet queuing scheduler. This doesn't necessarily limit your bandwidth, it just lets other user's packets go first. When an area is 100% congested, your 'share' of the bandwidth will be less than others. Once there is free network capacity your bandwidth would go back to normal as there would be enough free resources to do so. Realize that network saturation changes by the second, so unless a congested area is constantly overloaded at 100% capacity, you shouldn't experience much speed reduction.
This is completely within the new FCC rules, and is actually a good network management practice.
xanmato said:
I wouldn't get too upset about it. A good network always has a QOS system in place.
Note that the statement says 'de-prioritized', not throttled. Instead of assigning your account to a lower bandwidth speed, you could be placed in a lower tier in a packet queuing scheduler. This doesn't necessarily limit your bandwidth, it just lets other user's packets go first. When an area is 100% congested, your 'share' of the bandwidth will be less than others. Once there is free network capacity your bandwidth would go back to normal as there would be enough free resources to do so. Realize that network saturation changes by the second, so unless a congested area is constantly overloaded at 100% capacity, you shouldn't experience much speed reduction.
This is completely within the new FCC rules, and is actually a good network management practice.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah it's good in theory (compared to plain throttling) but we haven't really seen it in practical application so far. I live in medium sized city (300 thousand city/1 million metro) and don't have much to worry about really. I have WiFi at work/home and no real excuse to use 60GB a month like I do. Just bad habits. I just have to remember to leave WiFi on lol! No biggie for me. The folks I feel bad for is those who work outside or have no WiFi in office (other than work purposes. Strick company policy a holes etc) and/or commuters that have to ride the subway. I don't really feel sorry for those (and I have a few friends like this) that are too cheap to buy broadband Internet at home. This isn't meant to be a replacement for home Internet unless you have a Hotspot device or whatever they call it these days. I get that. I guess we'll have to see. This plan has been in place a few weeks now. We'll have to see how much it affects people. Hopefully not too much. Good reply though! Clarification is always welcome here:good:
sino8r said:
Yeah it's good in theory (compared to plain throttling) but we haven't really seen it in practical application so far.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, until we get some technical info or some really good test results, we won't know exactly what they are using. Though priority queuing and class based queuing are common in today's networks. I can guarantee they are already using hierarchical fair service curves as it is pretty much required for the HD voice feature to be reliable.
If this system is already in place, then they probably are not using regular throttling tiers, as I am well past the soft cap and am still putting down 80/20 speed. Though I am most likely in an un-congested area. I am wondering just how weighted the de-prioritization scale is for users above the cap.
I use alot of data (70gb) one month that was the most extreme. I download alot of movies and torrents while i sleep. Theres know doubt in my mind that they mess with my speeds especially during peak hours. I with search and get lte then 5 seconds later it drops down. I will search and get it again and the same thing will happen. Meanwhile my wifes phone stays on lte. I also noticed at times ill be on lte but will only be downloading at 100 or 200 kbs where im normally at 1 mbs. But like i said it's usually only at peak hours and lasts for 30min to a hour
twe90kid said:
Looks like John Legere just said, "hahaha sucka.. you've been baited to our unlimited data cap"
http://www.tmonews.com/2015/06/21gb...mobiles-unlimited-4g-lte-simple-choice-plans/
What are you thoughts?
I avg 35-45gb a month. But how do we know if our area is congested?
Legere has been bashing other companies about their throttle, but yet he's doing the same thing.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wait, this is just now making news? That's been in their fine print for almost a year now ever since they started their unlimited data campaign.
I average about 150-200GBs a month on my line alone. I really heavily on my phones data for everything I do while I'm not at home. Sometimes even when I'm home I'll use data just for the heck of it.
T-Mobile is throttling but not as rampant as the other carriers. T-Mobile's throttling depends on network congestion. Other carriers just throttle once you hit a certain number.
There really isn't a way to tell though if your area is heavily congested unless it's a major city; i.e Denver Metro, Manhattan, LA, etc etc.
I am very torn by this as I live in a congested neighborhood that this cap is designed to manage. The tower that serves my neighborhood is oversold. I routinely suffer from slow network speeds on the best of days and I personally have never used enough data to hit the cap. So on one hand, I certainly want my fellow users capped if they are data hogs as bandwidth is very constrained in my local neck of the woods. On the other hand, because my tower is so congested, if I did hit the cap and was de-prioritized, I would immediately hit 2G speeds because there is so much traffic to compete with. So T-Mobile has essentially told me that I have a 21GB data plan as in my neighborhood I will never get more.
With that figure in mind, I have to say that a 15GB plan from Verizon that actually would give me decent speed now seems not so far off from my 21GB "unlimited" plan. T-Mobile is supposed to be adding bandwidth in my neighborhood, but it is no longer a comparison of XGB vs unlimited, but XGB vs 21GB. Verizon and for that matter, Sprint (yes, I know) are offering competitive packages to 21GB and it is possible that even Sprint may give me faster speeds. I am not so sure that I may not make the jump to someone if they can deliver better speeds. For those that live in non-congested neighborhoods, that 21GB cap may never be seen. But in my area, that is a wall.
They are doing what Verizon started doing. Throttling only on congested towers to the top data people. I use to get throttled by Verizon when the Detroit Lions or the Tigers were playing since I work downtown Detroit. Once the games were done I would get better data speeds.
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
Using over 80gb a month is taking advantage of a good thing. People who consistently abuse the data limits are the same people who screwed this for everyone. These are the people who feel entitled to abuse every inch they can. Hotels have wifi, there are other ways. I have the unlimited data package fir years, never abused the privilege. Whenever at home I use my wifi even though I have sick DL speeds at home. I will never abuse a situation, just the way I am.
Sent from my Note 4.
So sorry that us heavy users misunderstood what unlimited means. Dangit I knew I should have paid more attention in vocabulary class.
Now I just need to remember not to buy that nice car I want because that would taking advantage of a good thing as others aren't buying it.
Not to step on anyone posting, but I believe that T-Mobile is at fault here. Notwithstanding the individuals that break the rules and tether more than the rules allow, T-Mobile sold me an unlimited plan. I have not exceeded the 21GB limit. My data, according to T-Mobile, is at 11GB. But when I subscribed to the unlimited plan, I asked what that meant and I gave some far out there examples (streaming videos 24 hours a day, etc.). I was told by the T-Mobile customer rep, unlimited means unlimited. No sweat.
The problem is that T-Mobile wanted to attract more business and they used and still use unlimited data plans to attract that business and their network wasn't really ready for that level of activity. I read comments to an article as much as 6 months ago that had users saying that T-Mobile's network was, unlike the other carrier's networks, impervious to slowdowns from added traffic which is simply not true.
But I believe T-Mobile has helped build that impression with the selling all of these unlimited data packages. TMONews had an article a couple of weeks ago asking if unlimited data packages are going away and they quoted John Legere saying that unlimited data packages are only guaranteed for 2 more years. (http://www.tmonews.com/2015/05/is-unlimited-data-going-to-disappear/) Then shortly after they announced this cap. The article's point is that unlimited packages are unsustainable. But T-Mobile keeps selling the idea. All carrier's need to sell what they can provide and not promise more than they can deliver. Perhaps they should say no to a new customer that lives in a neighborhood that is oversold. But they won't.
I love T-Mobile, but I experience very slow speeds due to a wildly oversold network. I would have been much better off if T-Mobile only promised what they can deliver. They can't really deliver unlimited to me. What they told me last week is that unlimited is actually 21GB, if you could get 21GB at the slow download speeds they are currently delivering. For the fellow that got 80GB, if he followed the rules, he is paying for an unlimited plan. In my neighborhood, except for DSL that is unusably slow, I have no other options except wireless. No cable, nothing. I am willing to pay for my data needs. But I want and need the data at reasonably fast speeds. It is not clear that in my neighborhood that T-Mobile can deliver. But now that the cap is in place, T-Mobile has made the comparison clearer. Who can deliver 21GB faster, cheaper and more reliably than anyone else. Because in my oversold neighborhood, 21GB is all that I will get. YMMV.
Good luck finding another carrier that will only delay your packets after 21gb when there is congestion instead of crippling access all together. Your situation is unique and the result should be expected. There is nothing a carrier can do if your area is under serviced when it comes to internet access. xanmato completely gets the concept here. This is not a cap, even calling it a soft cap is a bit much. This is Quality of Service (QOS) at its best and T-Mobile shouldnt be slammed for doing this. Just because its unlimited doesn't mean you can go ahead and use it as your sole internet source for everything you ever do. That was never its intended purpose. If everyone used 80gb a month it would cripple any cellular network unless the heavy users had some kind of consequence and maybe make them use their wifi for once. Maybe in the future the cell network or whatever comes after that will be robust enough to handle everyone using large amounts of bandwidth at once but until then we have to respect the fact that a cellular carrier is not the same thing as an ISP