Orange France Capping iPhone Speeds

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Orange France is admitting that they are capping iPhone 3G speeds to 384kbps; this as a recent survey has showed significant regional differences in speed.

Orange will be bumping the cap to 1Mbps on September 15, however that cap is still under HSDPA's theoretical maximum and less than what European T-Mobile users have been experiencing (up to 1.8 Mbps).

[IT Wire (http://www.itwire.com/content/view/20244/1151/) via France Info (http://www.france-info.com/spip.php?article177369&theme=34&sous_theme=35) (French)]

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2008/08/26/orange-capping-iphone-speeds/)

[craigverse]

Lameeeeeee.

[trunksu]

wow that sucks. imagine if AT&T did that.....

[bmcgrath]

Well thats a bit s...

[applehappy]

They were probably SHOCKED by the increase in network usage after the iPhone went on sale!:eek:

I think ATT has done well to handle bandwidth considering how many iPhones are surfing via 3g now.

[TEG]

They likely were doing this to accommodate the influx of bandwidth.

TEG

[brinycbri]

384?more than what we're getting at ATT in NYC

[mikey.f]

You guys should be more specific. Orange is in more countries than just France (and I'm assuming you're writing about the French one)... I have Orange's 3g plan in Slovakia and my tests show 3g speeds up to 1.3 Mbps, and sometimes even more, depending on the signal. The "real" speed of the 3g network here is, however, 3.6Mbps, and Orange Slovakia is planning on increasing it to 7.2 in September, and even more next year. When an Orange representative was asked if the iPhone users will feel these speed increases, he answered positive.

[longofest]

You guys should be more specific. Orange is in more countries than just France (and I'm assuming you're writing about the French one)... I have Orange's 3g plan in Slovakia and my tests show 3g speeds up to 1.3 Mbps, and sometimes even more, depending on the signal.

True. Changed the article

[sprice25]

to me this is okay practice. the iphone is way ahead of the times in terms of internet reliance. the iphone makes the internet a necessity in our daily lives. the carriers can't handle the traffic. if anything, this is good because the cell companies are realizing that there is a demand for faster cell data speeds and therefore will work on fixing this issue. before the iphone, cell data speeds were not an issue. looking forward to the future, 1-2 years from now the speed issue will be non-existent. if they didn't cap the network, there would be no access at all due to exceeding their capable bandwidth.

[staypuffinpc]

Of course this is not OK, as long as they have advertised and are charging for the 3G service, they need to deliver on their promise. One thing is to not have network that can handle what you claim to deliver; it's another thing entirely to deliberately cripple service in order to protect the weak network and to not say anything about it.

[daneoni]

Thats just a little above EDGE speeds. My EDGE connection is usually around 208kbps. I'd be royally pissed for my 3G to only muster 384kbps

[SpinThis!]

Just FYI, Orange is capping the entire network, not just the iPhone. The article should say "Orange France Capping 3G Speeds." I guess you guys just like to spin stuff eh?

[peterbaby]

UPDATE!
In an article from L'express (http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/high-tech/sous-pression-orange-debride-l-iphone-3g_554448.html) a French newspaper, Orange states that he could modify the cap "from 1 to 2Mbps depending on customer feedback".

MacGeneration.com (http://www.macgeneration.com/news/voir/131514/-maj-orange-a-encore-du-jus-pour-l-iphone-3g) adds unconfirmed reports that Orange would update the cap to 1.8Mbps as soon as now for new customers, and that existing customers will be migrated to this higher limit before mid-September.

I deeply believe Orange is fearing legal retaliation...they don't have any right to use technical bytecaps. The only contractual limit is the technical quality of the network and its load, which can of course vary and makes it difficult to achieve 100% of the theoretical HSDPA speeds.

[SpinThis!]

From a network provider's POV, it's hard to quantity how much bandwidth you'll actually need, especially if they were anticipating a lot of new iPhone traffic before launch. Instead of opening it up and risk potential slowdowns for some users, limit what they know will be enough and then raise the caps when demand levels off. 384K is a little conservative imo, though—that's 48K/sec.

However, what would you rather have: erratic spikes in traffic or a slower, more consistent speed across the entire network to make sure there's enough to go around—especially during launch time? Especially in network IT, damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[DMann]

UPDATE!
In an article from L'express (http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/high-tech/sous-pression-orange-debride-l-iphone-3g_554448.html) a French newspaper, Orange states that he could modify the cap "from 1 to 2Mbps depending on customer feedback".

MacGeneration.com (http://www.macgeneration.com/news/voir/131514/-maj-orange-a-encore-du-jus-pour-l-iphone-3g) adds unconfirmed reports that Orange would update the cap to 1.8Mbps as soon as now for new customers, and that existing customers will be migrated to this higher limit before mid-September.

I deeply believe Orange is fearing legal retaliation...they don't have any right to use technical bytecaps. The only contractual limit is the technical quality of the network and its load, which can of course vary and makes it difficult to achieve 100% of the theoretical HSDPA speeds.

"Let them eat cake...." Orange ought to be heavily discounting their 3G plans during their imposed period of technological regression. This will not likely be tolerated for even a short term - Orange ought to commit to rapidly building their network to meet demand.

[sibruk]

My iPhone 3G would go straight back if O2 dared to cap my bandwidth!

[manhattanboy]

They were probably SHOCKED by the increase in network usage after the iPhone went on sale!:eek:

I think ATT has done well to handle bandwidth considering how many iPhones are surfing via 3g now.

What???
You mean by AT&T having absolutely ******* towers and 3G speeds equivalent to EDGE???

Your comments make me sick.

[manhattanboy]

From a network provider's POV, it's hard to quantity how much bandwidth you'll actually need, especially if they were anticipating a lot of new iPhone traffic before launch. Instead of opening it up and risk potential slowdowns for some users, limit what they know will be enough and then raise the caps when demand levels off. 384K is a little conservative imo, though—that's 48K/sec.

However, what would you rather have: erratic spikes in traffic or a slower, more consistent speed across the entire network to make sure there's enough to go around—especially during launch time? Especially in network IT, damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Build a better network or do not sell the phone.

[Buschmaster]

What???
You mean by AT&T having absolutely ******* towers and 3G speeds equivalent to EDGE???

Your comments make me sick.
You're going to have a heart attack some day if you don't take a chill pill. :)

[shadowfax]

What???
You mean by AT&T having absolutely ******* towers and 3G speeds equivalent to EDGE???

Your comments make me sick.
What???

AT&T'S TOWRS R SO AWSOME THAT I CRAP MYSELF DELI! UR COMENTS MAEK ME SIK!

But seriously, in Houston I get over 1mbps on 3G on a pretty regular basis. Wireless technology is complicated. It won't be perfect all the time and everywhere.

EDIT: BTW, you'll never get good cell reception underground. Maybe you'll have better luck if you come out from under that rock. :p

[Fuchal]

What???

AT&T'S TOWRS R SO AWSOME THAT I CRAP MYSELF DELI! UR COMENTS MAEK ME SIK!

But seriously, in Houston I get over 1mbps on 3G on a pretty regular basis. Wireless technology is complicated. It won't be perfect all the time and everywhere.

EDIT: BTW, you'll never get good cell reception underground. Maybe you'll have better luck if you come out from under that rock. :p

BS, there are plenty of times I'm outside and the 3G refuses to load any site at all.

[applehappy]

What???
You mean by AT&T having absolutely ******* towers and 3G speeds equivalent to EDGE???

Your comments make me sick.

Maybe living in manhatten your coverage is crap. In Honolulu my coverage and bandwidth is impressive. Usually 5 times that of edge. From what I've read in these forums, people across the USA are more likely to have my experience than yours. Considering ATT had MANY less 3g phones on the network prior to iPhone 3g, I'd say they have been successful considering the exponential increase in network usage.

If those comments make you sick, then don't play.

[shadowfax]

BS, there are plenty of times I'm outside and the 3G refuses to load any site at all.
... Don't be silly. I never said that anyone would be guaranteed a signal if they were outside, I just said that they might have better luck above ground. This is obviously true, not a shred of BS contained therein.

Also please note is was a joke, but you have to be a more thorough reader to get it.

Cheers.

[peterbaby]

However, what would you rather have: erratic spikes in traffic or a slower, more consistent speed across the entire network to make sure there's enough to go around—especially during launch time? Especially in network IT, damned if you do, damned if you don't.

That makes perfect sense...as long as it is stated in the contract, which I remind is NOT the case in France (except after 500Mb of download in the same billing month).
So, FIRST, disrespect of legal contracts.

That would also make perfect sense...as long as it was not advertised otherwise. The adds says "3G+ with bitrates up to...". So sure, nobody guarantees to achieve the highest speed (nobody probably can), but this means there is no barrier to achieving the highest speed except the presence of the right antenna, the distance and a the potential load on a particular base station.
So, SECOND, misleading and false advertising.

That would also make perfect sense if there was no regulator. Don't know in the US, but licensees of 3G networks have coverage obligations here, that clearly state 'coverage with effective access for customers' (not just putting stations and not "switching them on").
I do not know the details for France on this particular issue, but I'm afraid there is a third point: disrespect of legal coverage obligation.

I do understand technical constraints, but does that imply breaching the law? Don't you think SpinThis ?

[Rybold]

In the words of Johnny Cochrane (O.J. defense lawyer),

"I am Outraged !!!!!!!!!!!!"

Just imagine how Orange subscribers must feel, and how much resentment there will be ! Lost new subscribers! Defecting subscribers!

[Dmac77]

That's BS! They should get off of their lazy a$$es, and work on increasing network bandwidth, instead of just capping it.

Don

[manhattanboy]

What???

AT&T'S TOWRS R SO AWSOME THAT I CRAP MYSELF DELI! UR COMENTS MAEK ME SIK!

But seriously, in Houston I get over 1mbps on 3G on a pretty regular basis. Wireless technology is complicated. It won't be perfect all the time and everywhere.

EDIT: BTW, you'll never get good cell reception underground. Maybe you'll have better luck if you come out from under that rock. :p

Well maybe everything is bigger in Texas, not. And I used to get old school TDMA AT&T Underground... and DC has total underground service via Verizon.
You people in texas need so much d*mn space.
3G speeds are obviously not a problem if the ratio is 1 3G tower per 3 people in the countryland. Come to NYC and READ the NYC thread and watch the CBS news video and the thestreet's video and you will see that indeed the network in NYC is sssslllllllllooooooooowwwwwww.
We are a fast city and demand a fast network.
IMO AT&T and Apple should be thrown in the East river for awhile.

[hotshotharry]

to me this is okay practice. the iphone is way ahead of the times in terms of internet reliance. the iphone makes the internet a necessity in our daily lives. the carriers can't handle the traffic. if anything, this is good because the cell companies are realizing that there is a demand for faster cell data speeds and therefore will work on fixing this issue. before the iphone, cell data speeds were not an issue. looking forward to the future, 1-2 years from now the speed issue will be non-existent. if they didn't cap the network, there would be no access at all due to exceeding their capable bandwidth.

Hogwash!!!! LOL

if they have the capacity for everyone to run at a reduced rate then they certainly have the capacity to allow uncapped speeds.

What do you suppose would happen if they lowered the speed limit on the interstates/highways to 50kmph/30mph???? can you say traffic jam!!!

The only thing slow data rates do is Pi$$ people off and then they dont use the net! LOL

How is that acceptable practice. They should increase the speeds to the absolute max and by doing that everyone would have a better experience and it would DECREASE congestion on the network. Not too mention that if the network was overload it would slowly adjust it self downward, absolutely no need to restrict it prematurely.

In this day and age we certainly have the resources to have a good network!! Just need to get rid of managers who don't have a clue!!! Todays managers need to see the whole picture, the old way of doing stuff wont cut it anymore ...

[longofest]

Just FYI, Orange is capping the entire network, not just the iPhone. The article should say "Orange France Capping 3G Speeds." I guess you guys just like to spin stuff eh?

If you are going to accuse people of spinning stuff, why not provide a link to back up what you are saying? The IT Wire story and the French Info story both specifically say it is the iPhone 3G that is being capped, not all 3G handsets, so that is how we wrote it.

http://www.itwire.com/content/view/20244/1151/
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.france-info.com%2Fspip.php%3Farticle177369%26theme%3D34%26sous_theme%3D35&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=fr&tl=en

[whooleytoo]

if they have the capacity for everyone to run at a reduced rate then they certainly have the capacity to allow uncapped speeds.

Not sure I understand that logic. :confused:

I'm actually surprised we haven't heard more of these kind of stories. I've had several 3G Nokia phones now, but have probably transferred more data with my iPhone in 4 weeks than with those phones in 4 years; and I'm sure it's true for a lot of others too. The data networks are probably being hit harder than at any time previously, so it's not surprising if both networks and users are having problems.

[hotshotharry]

OK for example lets say 100 people need to check their email, each of them has an attachment that is exactly 384kb. (assume network capacity is 38400kb/s)

If the data speed was 384kb/s then it would take everyone 1s to download there attachment.

If the data speed was double or 768kb/s you could handle 200 users at the same load or 100 users would spend half (.5s) the time on the network.

If the data speed was 1536kb/s then you could handle 400 users at the same load or 100 users would spend .25s at the current rate.

So in reverse by dropping the max throughput you congest the network and now everyone is slower and on for longer. By having higher instantaneous speeds you increase transfer efficiency because because you can divert more bandwidth to the ones that are currently checking there mail, using the bandwith that would have been wasted if it were capped. Since not everyone would be checking the mail at the exact same time it would allow for more efficient allocation of available bandwidth. So by capping the data rate they are infact making the problem worse!

For example if the network capacity was double, 76800kb/s, then you would be only using 50% of network capacity and therefore restricting everyone unnecessarily. If available bandwidth is split between all users, then everyone is assured of the highest possible download speeds at the given time. Yeah it will fluctuate, but at least its not dog slow ALL the time, just at peak usage.

However after having said that, more people would be inclined to use it if it were faster, say watching youtube or something, which would increase the load further ... But network management through frustration of low data speeds is rather a pathetic way to control it

[ryanw]

to me this is okay practice. the iphone is way ahead of the times in terms of internet reliance. the iphone makes the internet a necessity in our daily lives. the carriers can't handle the traffic. if anything, this is good because the cell companies are realizing that there is a demand for faster cell data speeds and therefore will work on fixing this issue. before the iphone, cell data speeds were not an issue. looking forward to the future, 1-2 years from now the speed issue will be non-existent. if they didn't cap the network, there would be no access at all due to exceeding their capable bandwidth.

Bull crap.. this is a MYTH! I know people that run massive networks with massive traffic. they have learned that capping bandwidth causes MORE traffic on the network. People have specific needs and specific purposes. They're going to get the data whether or not they have to wait for it or not. If you give the people what they want quicker, then they're off your network. If their network doesn't have enough bandwidth then they introduce throttling to keep the traffic from pegging the network hoping that people give up getting the data they want. But if everyone is getting the data they want without giving up, then throttling is pointless cause it would just happen quicker relieving the network.

[Rybold]

to me this is okay practice. the iphone is way ahead of the times in terms of internet reliance. the iphone makes the internet a necessity in our daily lives. the carriers can't handle the traffic. if anything, this is good because the cell companies are realizing that there is a demand for faster cell data speeds and therefore will work on fixing this issue. before the iphone, cell data speeds were not an issue. looking forward to the future, 1-2 years from now the speed issue will be non-existent. if they didn't cap the network, there would be no access at all due to exceeding their capable bandwidth.

I completely agree with you. I would rather have a slower iPhone than no iPhone at all. If capping bandwidth is what they need to do to buy themselves time while they build up the network, then that is what they need to do. But they need to communicate with their customers; they need to tell everyone "We were overwhelmed by the number of iPhones that came online, and we are temporarily capping the max speed while we build up the network. The cap will be removed sometime in October." At the same time, keep in mind that the original iPhone has been out since June2007, and iPhone3G development began soon thereafter. Remember in 2007 when AT&T's CEO let it slip by accident that there would be a 3G iPhone "sometime next year," and Apple was upset? The network operators have had the original iPhone for well over a year now, they have known the 3G iPhone would be coming more than 9 months ago, and they have had 3G Blackberries, other 3G phones, and Laptop Connect cards for going on two years now. If these are responsible companies that prepare ahead of time, then they should have foreseen this a long time ago.

[hotshotharry]

1) Bean counters in most companies are not in the proactive camp, most companies operate in the reactive!

2) Capping speeds increases congestion and decreases overall network throughput and performance (efficiency) unnecessarily.

If you are in favor of having your data capped, then do the rest of us a favor and stay on edge so we can use your 3G bandwidth.

[applehappy]

Well maybe everything is bigger in Texas, not. And I used to get old school TDMA AT&T Underground... and DC has total underground service via Verizon.
You people in texas need so much d*mn space.
3G speeds are obviously not a problem if the ratio is 1 3G tower per 3 people in the countryland. Come to NYC and READ the NYC thread and watch the CBS news video and the thestreet's video and you will see that indeed the network in NYC is sssslllllllllooooooooowwwwwww.
We are a fast city and demand a fast network.
IMO AT&T and Apple should be thrown in the East river for awhile.

Dude, read you post. You come across like a moron. "IMO ATT and Apple should be thrown in the East river". What a joke. You no likey service, you no pay. Simple as that.
"We are a fast City and demand a fast network". Who the he** do you think you are? I'm sure ATT is working the network issue in NYC, but just for you I hope they take a while. :eek:

[macwall]

wow capping speeds eh? are they going to hire at&t to setup the networks? cause they do a bang up job of screwing over 3G GSM networks.

[dextertangocci]

That's lame.

[franzmueller]

I think Orange is doing this so customers switch to Edge ( which runs at the same speed ) and save battery .

Very , very clever

Way to go Orange :D

Saludos

[compuguy1088]

Well maybe everything is bigger in Texas, not. And I used to get old school TDMA AT&T Underground... and DC has total underground service via Verizon.
You people in texas need so much d*mn space.
3G speeds are obviously not a problem if the ratio is 1 3G tower per 3 people in the countryland. Come to NYC and READ the NYC thread and watch the CBS news video and the thestreet's video and you will see that indeed the network in NYC is sssslllllllllooooooooowwwwwww.
We are a fast city and demand a fast network.
IMO AT&T and Apple should be thrown in the East river for awhile.

You should note that Verizon's network in the DC metro system is an analog system, that was made in part at the same time a private communications system for the DC metro was installed, at a huge loss. This is why they have not upgraded it yet. Good luck getting a signal in the NYC subway system.

[Shasterball]

BS, there are plenty of times I'm outside and the 3G refuses to load any site at all.

You should try this iPhone that uses a more reliable network (EDGE). I have it and it's pretty good. No connection problems...

[iNfowarrior]

Well maybe everything is bigger in Texas, not. And I used to get old school TDMA AT&T Underground... and DC has total underground service via Verizon.
You people in texas need so much d*mn space.
3G speeds are obviously not a problem if the ratio is 1 3G tower per 3 people in the countryland. Come to NYC and READ the NYC thread and watch the CBS news video and the thestreet's video and you will see that indeed the network in NYC is sssslllllllllooooooooowwwwwww.
We are a fast city and demand a fast network.
IMO AT&T and Apple should be thrown in the East river for awhile.

I actually find it a bit funny given the crazy ego-maniac personality of nyc residents that you have such poor 3G. Its the perfect compliment to your "fast city" lifestyle. Maybe the slower 3G will slow you down a little and help get some perspective on life.

Or you could just realize that 8 million residents and 2 million illegals packed into 300 square miles is a guaranteed recipe for slow wireless. And the best part is, its ALWAYS going to be that slow. Its a ratio that AT&T sees in only a handful of locations across the country, and no matter what they do to improve overall speeds, they can't do anything about the fact that there are too many of you too close together. There in lies your permanent "slow" bandwidth. Even if 4G comes out and is 10 mbps average, NYC will be the low numbers bringing it down.

[SpinThis!]

If you are going to accuse people of spinning stuff, why not provide a link to back up what you are saying? The IT Wire story and the French Info story both specifically say it is the iPhone 3G that is being capped, not all 3G handsets, so that is how we wrote it.
Good journalists check sources or present both sides of the story before blindly reposting something else. Normally you guys are pretty good at checking sources—did anyone bother to contact Orange and find out? Apparently not.

Macworld is reporting (http://www.macworld.com/article/135238/2008/08/iphonespeed.html) all handsets on the network are capped, not just the iPhone.

Additionally, in the comments of the articles you posted, a lot of posters seemed to indicate this doesn't just affect iPhone speeds. This at least deserved a mention.

12) If you are in favor of having your data capped, then do the rest of us a favor and stay on edge so we can use your 3G bandwidth.
They're not capping the amount of data you can download, they're capping bandwidth. (Look it up—there's a difference.)

[peterbaby]

Hey guys, don't fight over small missunderstandings and bad translations of French articles ! :)


Macworld is reporting (http://www.macworld.com/article/135238/2008/08/iphonespeed.html) all handsets on the network are capped, not just the iPhone.

Additionally, in the comments of the articles you posted, a lot of posters seemed to indicate this doesn't just affect iPhone speeds. This at least deserved a mention.


NO, it doesn't seem to be ALL handsets. In the original article to a reliable national French Radio, Orange admitted just capping "hybrid" handsets, otherwise said all smartphones, but not standard phones.
http://www.france-info.com/spip.php?article177369&theme=34&sous_theme=35


They're not capping the amount of data you can download, they're capping bandwidth. (Look it up—there's a difference.)

This is true, well at least, it's the reason of the scandal as no contract states a limited bandwidth for the first 500Mb you use every month.
However, FYI, even though Orange does never cap data in recent contracts (both in iPhone contracts and non iPhone contracts which we are allowed to use with the iPhone), they do officialy cap bandwitdh after 500Mb of download/upload per month (this is stated in all contracts).
All information is available (in French only...) on iphone.orange.fr (http://iphone.orange.fr)

Pretty irconically also, it seems Orange never actually applied this over 500 bandwitdh cap...which may be explained simply by the fact that, with the illegal cap of the first 500Mb, few users actually reached more ;-)

[swarmster]

UPDATE!
In an article from L'express (http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/high-tech/sous-pression-orange-debride-l-iphone-3g_554448.html) a French newspaper, Orange states that he could modify the cap "from 1 to 2Mbps depending on customer feedback".

MacGeneration.com (http://www.macgeneration.com/news/voir/131514/-maj-orange-a-encore-du-jus-pour-l-iphone-3g) adds unconfirmed reports that Orange would update the cap to 1.8Mbps as soon as now for new customers, and that existing customers will be migrated to this higher limit before mid-September.

I deeply believe Orange is fearing legal retaliation...


Legal retaliation? I think Jobs retaliation is the bigger concern. *shudders*

[peterbaby]

Legal retaliation? I think Jobs retaliation is the bigger concern. *shudders*

You may be right, simply because many articles of non technical magazines (and the general impression of the public) state by mistake that the iPhone (not the network) is faulty...it's an important image loss for Apple in France, clearly.

However, too bad that if there were such retaliation, it couldn't be public...Apple cannot afford to attack its only retailer!
:apple: would have options:

Do nothing at all
Shut up in the press, but yell at Orange in the backoffice
Support Orange officialy, and pretend that this caps were meant to be temporary
Support the users againts the bad operator, remind his phone is totally "3G+" compatible, and that they will shout at Orange to solve the problem


I think only the first 2 are possible, the other 2 could hurt the sales even more than the present issue.

[VaDor]

They were probably SHOCKED by the increase in network usage after the iPhone went on sale!:eek:

I think ATT has done well to handle bandwidth considering how many iPhones are surfing via 3g now.

I think is because the 3.5G cards internet subscribers, they are the ones o uses mostly 3.5G almost 24hour at least in Portugal with tmn, vodafone or kanguru 3.5G internet cards.

In Portugal speeds is at 7,2 Mbps (HSUPA) it's 3,5G, so I think they cap mobile phone connections to 1,8Mbps.

Internet 3,5G card example: http://www.tmn.pt/portal/site/tmn/menuitem.13aad151ea0dd79ae8f48210751056a0/?vgnextoid=6f181639addae010VgnVCM1000005401650aRCRD

[Hands0n]

You have to remember that Orange are owned by France Telecom. And that FT is the old national PTT. It will take several centuries for the European PTTs to come out of the dark age and into the blinding white light that is the rest of the world.

Of course, all of this is backed by the GSMA - that very obvious cartel of mobile network operators - who will heartily approve of Orange France's latest antics.

Orange could try that in the UK - but then they'd succeed in placing themselves in fifth place, below 3, which is probably exactly what they deserve.

Orange, an icon of how to do it right, now a complete laughing stock.

[shadowfax]

Well maybe everything is bigger in Texas, not. And I used to get old school TDMA AT&T Underground... and DC has total underground service via Verizon.
You people in texas need so much d*mn space.
3G speeds are obviously not a problem if the ratio is 1 3G tower per 3 people in the countryland.

Man, I was just kidding around about the underground thing. Of course if there are towers underground you will get reception there.

About Texas--I see that you have NEVER been here, so I would advise you to think before you speak. Or maybe research (http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0027/tab22.txt) a bit more (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_cities_in_the_United_States_by_population_by_decade#2000). Houston is one of the biggest cities in the US, and while the density is quite low compared to NYC and Chicago, it's quite high compared to most of the rest of this country. If you knew very much about wireless, you'd also know that 3G is fairly rare in low population areas. You'd have checked out http://www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer/ and you'd know that Texas doesn't have all that great coverage in terms of land area--there is certainly not any such place in Texas that has 1 tower for 3 people or anything remotely on that order.

I guess it's fitting that someone as bigoted and judgmental as yourself should be a caricature of a stereotype. I am sorry I tried to joke at/with you, you don't seem to need it for the rest of the readers to be entertained at your expense. Perhaps another telco can prescribe some medicine for you to cure you of your AT&T 3G sickness. Maybe an LG Voyager? that looks pretty tight. :D

[kornyboy]

Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_0_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5C1 Safari/525.20)

wow that sucks. imagine if AT&T did that.....

I never get higher than 600kbps with AT&T so who says they aren't cappig it. I guess capping is a good way to save bandwidth.

[anjinha]

I don't know if it's true but I heard a rumor that Vodafone here in Portugal is capping speeds to 512 Kbps.