Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Orange France Capping iPhone Speeds
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
manhattanboy
macrumors 6502a
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.
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
Editor emeritus
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/transla...e=34&sous_theme=35&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=fr&tl=en
whooleytoo
macrumors 604
Not sure I understand that logic. 😕
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.
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
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
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
macrumors 6502a
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.
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.
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.
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. 😱
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.
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 😀
Saludos
Very , very clever
Way to go Orange 😀
Saludos
compuguy1088
macrumors 6502a
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
Suspended
You should try this iPhone that uses a more reliable network (EDGE). I have it and it's pretty good. No connection problems...
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.
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 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.
They're not capping the amount of data you can download, they're capping bandwidth. (Look it up—there's a difference.)
Hey guys, don't fight over small missunderstandings and bad translations of French articles ! 🙂
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
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
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 ;-)
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
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
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
macrumors 6502a
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!
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
macrumors regular
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/m...toid=6f181639addae010VgnVCM1000005401650aRCRD
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.
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
macrumors 603
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 a bit more. 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. 😀
Attachments
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)
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.
trunksu said:
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.