Orange France Capping iPhone Speeds

[MacRumors]

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 via France Info (French)]

Article Link

[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!

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 a French newspaper, Orange states that he could modify the cap "from 1 to 2Mbps depending on customer feedback".

MacGeneration.com 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]

Originally Posted by peterbaby

UPDATE!
In an article from L'express a French newspaper, Orange states that he could modify the cap "from 1 to 2Mbps depending on customer feedback".

MacGeneration.com 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]

Originally Posted by applehappy

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

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 sh*tty towers and 3G speeds equivalent to EDGE???

Your comments make me sick.

[manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by 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.

Build a better network or do not sell the phone.

[Buschmaster]

Originally Posted by manhattanboy

What???
You mean by AT&T having absolutely sh*tty 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]

Originally Posted by manhattanboy

What???
You mean by AT&T having absolutely sh*tty 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.

[Fuchal]

Originally Posted by shadowfax

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.

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

[applehappy]

Originally Posted by manhattanboy

What???
You mean by AT&T having absolutely sh*tty 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]

Originally Posted by Fuchal

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]

Originally Posted by SpinThis!

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 ?