1. Welcome to Verizon Forums - the unofficial Verizon community! Have a question about Verizon? Click HERE to get started.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Expecting Cell Phone Forums? We recently moved Verizon specific content to VerizonForums.com. If you previously had an account on CPF, it has been transferred!
    Dismiss Notice

How fast is the Verizon wireless service for my laptop? (CT/NYC)

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by Kab, Mar 11, 2004.

  1. N9WOS

    N9WOS Guest

    > Agreed, but that has no real relation to 3G cellular data.
    >
    > Different dynamics. 3G cellular data is more akin to WiFi/802.11whatever
    > access, and it's difficult to provide 802.11 over a wide area *cheaply.*
    > (I know, I've run the numbers myself.)


    > But that's not what we're discussing with GPRS/1xEV.


    I thought that the topic drifted off of cellular two post back? :)

    On the cellular side.
    If cigular ever offers unlimited EDGE/data only for 50 to $70 a month,
    (I am not going to hold my breath.)
    I would take them up on it.

    I would get one of them EDGE data modems and a yagi, and I would be set.
    It cost around $35 a month for a second phone line for the computer,
    and around 21 dollars a month for unlimited access.
    I use around 300 hours of dial up time a month.

    If I got that, I could drop the second phone line, and drop
    the ATT subscription down to 5.95 a month.
    So total additional price would be about $20 a month
    for $70 a month price.
     



    › See More: How fast is the Verizon wireless service for my laptop? (CT/NYC)
  2. N9WOS

    N9WOS Guest

    > If cigular ever offers unlimited EDGE/data only for 50 to $70 a month,

    I keep forgetting to put the N in cingular!!!!!!!!!!
     
  3. N9WOS <n9wos@nobug.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
    >> Agreed, but that has no real relation to 3G cellular data.
    >>
    >> Different dynamics. 3G cellular data is more akin to WiFi/802.11whatever
    >> access, and it's difficult to provide 802.11 over a wide area *cheaply.*
    >> (I know, I've run the numbers myself.)

    >
    >> But that's not what we're discussing with GPRS/1xEV.

    >
    > I thought that the topic drifted off of cellular two post back? :)


    Sure did. I'm trying to bring it back on-topic.

    > If I got that, I could drop the second phone line, and drop
    > the ATT subscription down to 5.95 a month.
    > So total additional price would be about $20 a month
    > for $70 a month price.


    EDGE isn't very fast, though... is it?


    --
    JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
    Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
    Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/
    "someone once called me a sofa, but i didn't feel compelled to rush out and buy
    slip covers." -adam brower * Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows 98/2000/2003
     
  4. N9WOS

    N9WOS Guest

    > EDGE isn't very fast, though... is it?

    It should hold a good 120kbps.
    That is a lot faster than a modem that is doing it's best
    to hold 28kbps.
    Some modems I have tried, will do around 24k.
    But this one will hold a reliable 28k connection.

    If I could get 56K, I would be happy.
     
  5. Jesse McGrew

    Jesse McGrew Guest

    N9WOS wrote:
    > The only problem that satellite has is lag time.
    > On programs that require real time interaction,
    > stick with a wired connection.


    Indeed. Cellular has a pretty hefty lag time too... not quite as much as
    satellite, but at least the satellite latency is predictable. The
    latency on my 1X connection can go from 100 to 600 ms within a fraction
    of a second.

    Jesse
     
  6. N9WOS

    N9WOS Guest

    "Jesse McGrew" <jmcgrew@hanshorseprestigepelican.com.remove.animals> wrote
    in message news:40522d47$0$162$a32e20b9@news.nntpservers.com...
    > N9WOS wrote:
    > > The only problem that satellite has is lag time.
    > > On programs that require real time interaction,
    > > stick with a wired connection.

    >
    > Indeed. Cellular has a pretty hefty lag time too... not quite as much as
    > satellite, but at least the satellite latency is predictable. The
    > latency on my 1X connection can go from 100 to 600 ms within a fraction
    > of a second.


    Where are you connecting to?
    (ie)What is the two points that you are reading the figures from?

    I have read some things about latency issues with the 1X systems.
    I don't know what about the latency on a 1xEV-DV connection.

    But the reason I was thinking about the EDGE system is
    it has a fixed in the clear channel with less error correction going on.
    Error correction and resends really mess up the turn around time.

    EDGE should hold closer to wired communications.
    The normal TX interval would be the main hold up time.
    That being around 30 times a second.

    You would have around 36ms of latency introduced by the
    transmission layer, Not including buffering on both sides.
    That would be about 80+ms to the tower and back.
    (not including buffering)
    That wouldn't be bad
    My modem usually runs 180 to 200ms to the ISP node and back.
    And to Tokyo Japan and back is usually under 500ms.

    Any one want to ping this ip address, and tell me the total round trip?
    129.250.4.174
    It is the Japan side of the Tokyo/Seattle transpacific verio link.
     
  7. Jesse McGrew

    Jesse McGrew Guest

    N9WOS wrote:
    > "Jesse McGrew" <jmcgrew@hanshorseprestigepelican.com.remove.animals> wrote
    > in message news:40522d47$0$162$a32e20b9@news.nntpservers.com...
    >
    >>N9WOS wrote:
    >>
    >>>The only problem that satellite has is lag time.
    >>>On programs that require real time interaction,
    >>>stick with a wired connection.

    >>
    >>Indeed. Cellular has a pretty hefty lag time too... not quite as much as
    >>satellite, but at least the satellite latency is predictable. The
    >>latency on my 1X connection can go from 100 to 600 ms within a fraction
    >>of a second.

    >
    >
    > Where are you connecting to?
    > (ie)What is the two points that you are reading the figures from?


    I get that from any site I ping.. usually yahoo.com or google.com. In
    contrast, I get pretty reliable latency of 30-45 ms to yahoo.com and
    85-95 ms to google.com with my cable modem.

    Jesse
     
  8. Jesse McGrew <jmcgrew@hanshorseprestigepelican.com.remove.animals> wrote:
    > N9WOS wrote:
    >> The only problem that satellite has is lag time.
    >> On programs that require real time interaction,
    >> stick with a wired connection.

    >
    > Indeed. Cellular has a pretty hefty lag time too... not quite as much as
    > satellite, but at least the satellite latency is predictable. The
    > latency on my 1X connection can go from 100 to 600 ms within a fraction
    > of a second.


    I agree with you on the latency, though I've never seen 600 ms.


    --
    JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
    Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
    Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/
    "someone once called me a sofa, but i didn't feel compelled to rush out and buy
    slip covers." -adam brower * Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows 98/2000/2003
     
  9. N9WOS <n9wos@nobug.worldnet.att.net> wrote:

    > Any one want to ping this ip address, and tell me the total round trip?
    > 129.250.4.174
    > It is the Japan side of the Tokyo/Seattle transpacific verio link.


    Yuck, Verio. Blah. :)

    Average of about 134.5 ms.

    --
    JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
    Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
    Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/
    "someone once called me a sofa, but i didn't feel compelled to rush out and buy
    slip covers." -adam brower * Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows 98/2000/2003
     
  10. N9WOS <n9wos@nobug.worldnet.att.net> wrote:

    > Any one want to ping this ip address, and tell me the total round trip?
    > 129.250.4.174
    > It is the Japan side of the Tokyo/Seattle transpacific verio link.


    OBTW the 134.5 is from a multihomed FreeBSD shell box connected to a
    WIRED network. It's not from a cell phone.

    --
    JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
    Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
    Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/
    "someone once called me a sofa, but i didn't feel compelled to rush out and buy
    slip covers." -adam brower * Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows 98/2000/2003
     
  11. N9WOS

    N9WOS Guest

    > > Where are you connecting to?
    > > (ie)What is the two points that you are reading the figures from?

    >
    > I get that from any site I ping.. usually yahoo.com or google.com. In
    > contrast, I get pretty reliable latency of 30-45 ms to yahoo.com and
    > 85-95 ms to google.com with my cable modem.


    30ms??????????
    Did you forget a zero on the end of that?
    30ms is normally the delay time between fiber hops
    And there is several fiber hops on the way to google.
    What ping program are you using?
    I think it may be fried. :-o
     
  12. N9WOS

    N9WOS Guest

    "Steven J Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
    news:G4ednXoEQv5h28_dRVn-gw@lmi.net...
    > N9WOS <n9wos@nobug.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
    >
    > > Any one want to ping this ip address, and tell me the total round trip?
    > > 129.250.4.174
    > > It is the Japan side of the Tokyo/Seattle transpacific verio link.

    >
    > OBTW the 134.5 is from a multihomed FreeBSD shell box connected to a
    > WIRED network. It's not from a cell phone.


    No fair!!!!
    You are in California.
    You have got, like... three fiber hops to the US side. :)

    Target Name: p16-0-2-2.r21.tokyjp01.jp.bb.verio.net
    IP: 129.250.4.174
    Date/Time: 3/12/2004 6:39:58 PM

    1 191 ms [199.69.83.73]
    2 202 ms [199.69.83.65]
    3 234 ms gbr2-p51.sl9mo.ip.att.net [12.122.252.225]
    4 265 ms tbr2-p013602.sl9mo.ip.att.net [12.122.11.117]
    5 312 ms tbr2-cl7.cgcil.ip.att.net [12.122.10.45]
    6 343 ms ggr2-p3120.cgcil.ip.att.net [12.123.6.69]
    7 359 ms att-gw.chi.verio.net [192.205.32.194]
    8 390 ms p16-0-1-1.r21.sttlwa01.us.bb.verio.net [129.250.2.6]
    9 421 ms p16-7-0-0.r81.sttlwa01.us.bb.verio.net [129.250.2.239]
    10 453 ms p16-0-2-2.r21.tokyjp01.jp.bb.verio.net [129.250.4.174]
     
  13. Jesse McGrew

    Jesse McGrew Guest

    N9WOS wrote:
    >>>Where are you connecting to?
    >>>(ie)What is the two points that you are reading the figures from?

    >>
    >>I get that from any site I ping.. usually yahoo.com or google.com. In
    >>contrast, I get pretty reliable latency of 30-45 ms to yahoo.com and
    >>85-95 ms to google.com with my cable modem.

    >
    >
    > 30ms??????????
    > Did you forget a zero on the end of that?
    > 30ms is normally the delay time between fiber hops
    > And there is several fiber hops on the way to google.
    > What ping program are you using?
    > I think it may be fried. :-o


    Nope...

    Pinging yahoo.com [66.218.71.198] with 32 bytes of data:

    Reply from 66.218.71.198: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=242
    Reply from 66.218.71.198: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=242
    Reply from 66.218.71.198: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=242
    Reply from 66.218.71.198: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=242

    Ping statistics for 66.218.71.198:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
    Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 36ms, Maximum = 53ms, Average = 41ms

    Jesse
     
  14. N9WOS

    N9WOS Guest

    > Nope...
    >
    > Pinging yahoo.com [66.218.71.198] with 32 bytes of data:
    >
    > Reply from 66.218.71.198: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=242
    > Reply from 66.218.71.198: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=242
    > Reply from 66.218.71.198: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=242
    > Reply from 66.218.71.198: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=242
    >
    > Ping statistics for 66.218.71.198:
    > Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
    > Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    > Minimum = 36ms, Maximum = 53ms, Average = 41ms


    Could you run a tracert on that?
    That just don't look right.

    It is almost like your ISP is blocking ping traffic.
    (ie) The router that connects your cable system to
    the internet back bone is reflecting all ping traffic.
    So you would be pinging your ISP router.

    The TTL looks right, but I can not believe the time.

    Are they using a FTL (faster than light) communications method. :)
     
  15. N9WOS

    N9WOS Guest

    > > EDGE isn't very fast, though... is it?

    > If I could get 56K, I would be happy.


    (Side note.)
    As long as it's performance is better than
    vodafone's GPRS network.

    Some of the test results I have seen from that network is terrible.
    A phone has 30 second drop outs while it is sitting still!
    But data latency is around 200ms on the down link when it is working.
    If the cingular EDGE network is more stable, and they
    can keep the delay below that figure, then I am interested.
     
  16. Jesse McGrew

    Jesse McGrew Guest

    N9WOS wrote:

    >>Ping statistics for 66.218.71.198:
    >> Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
    >>Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    >> Minimum = 36ms, Maximum = 53ms, Average = 41ms

    >
    >
    > Could you run a tracert on that?
    > That just don't look right.
    >
    > It is almost like your ISP is blocking ping traffic.
    > (ie) The router that connects your cable system to
    > the internet back bone is reflecting all ping traffic.
    > So you would be pinging your ISP router.


    Tracing route to yahoo.com [66.218.71.198]
    over a maximum of 30 hops:

    1 10 ms 3 ms 1 ms 192.168.1.1
    2 * * * Request timed out.
    3 9 ms 8 ms 9 ms 12.244.20.97
    4 20 ms 19 ms 18 ms 12.244.0.17
    5 16 ms 19 ms 17 ms 12.118.106.5
    6 24 ms 20 ms 25 ms tbr2-p013802.st6wa.ip.att.net
    [12.122.5.158]
    7 16 ms 18 ms 18 ms ggr1-p3100.st6wa.ip.att.net [12.123.44.133]
    8 19 ms 19 ms 19 ms att-gw.sea.level3.net [192.205.32.22]
    9 27 ms 23 ms 19 ms ge-6-1-0.mp1.Seattle1.Level3.net
    [209.247.9.49]
    10 36 ms 35 ms 34 ms unknown.Level3.net [209.247.9.118]
    11 34 ms 33 ms 35 ms ge-9-0.ipcolo3.SanJose1.Level3.net
    [64.159.2.9]
    12 36 ms 36 ms 34 ms unknown.Level3.net [64.152.69.30]
    13 34 ms 40 ms 33 ms UNKNOWN-66-218-82-230.yahoo.com
    [66.218.82.230]
    14 42 ms 35 ms 35 ms w1.rc.vip.scd.yahoo.com [66.218.71.198]

    Satisfied yet? :p

    Jesse
     
  17. N9WOS

    N9WOS Guest

    Tracing route to yahoo.com [66.218.71.198]
    > over a maximum of 30 hops:
    >
    > 1 10 ms 3 ms 1 ms 192.168.1.1
    > 2 * * * Request timed out.
    > 3 9 ms 8 ms 9 ms 12.244.20.97
    > 4 20 ms 19 ms 18 ms 12.244.0.17
    > 5 16 ms 19 ms 17 ms 12.118.106.5
    > 6 24 ms 20 ms 25 ms tbr2-p013802.st6wa.ip.att.net
    > [12.122.5.158]
    > 7 16 ms 18 ms 18 ms ggr1-p3100.st6wa.ip.att.net

    [12.123.44.133]
    > 8 19 ms 19 ms 19 ms att-gw.sea.level3.net [192.205.32.22]
    > 9 27 ms 23 ms 19 ms ge-6-1-0.mp1.Seattle1.Level3.net
    > [209.247.9.49]
    > 10 36 ms 35 ms 34 ms unknown.Level3.net [209.247.9.118]
    > 11 34 ms 33 ms 35 ms ge-9-0.ipcolo3.SanJose1.Level3.net
    > [64.159.2.9]
    > 12 36 ms 36 ms 34 ms unknown.Level3.net [64.152.69.30]
    > 13 34 ms 40 ms 33 ms UNKNOWN-66-218-82-230.yahoo.com
    > [66.218.82.230]
    > 14 42 ms 35 ms 35 ms w1.rc.vip.scd.yahoo.com [66.218.71.198]
    >
    > Satisfied yet? :p


    Please to a tracert of

    129.250.4.174

    I want to do a demonstration here.
     
  18. N9WOS

    N9WOS Guest

    ......... edit.............

    Please do a tracert of

    129.250.4.174

    I want to do a demonstration here.
     
  19. Jesse McGrew

    Jesse McGrew Guest

    N9WOS wrote:

    > ........ edit.............
    >
    > Please do a tracert of
    >
    > 129.250.4.174
    >
    > I want to do a demonstration here.


    Tracing route to p16-0-2-2.r21.tokyjp01.jp.bb.verio.net [129.250.4.174]
    over a maximum of 30 hops:

    1 4 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.1.1
    2 * * * Request timed out.
    3 8 ms 8 ms 9 ms 12.244.20.97
    4 17 ms 15 ms 18 ms 12.244.0.17
    5 17 ms 18 ms 20 ms 12.118.106.5
    6 18 ms 20 ms 17 ms tbr1-p012402.st6wa.ip.att.net
    [12.122.5.174]
    7 33 ms 35 ms 32 ms tbr2-cl1.sffca.ip.att.net [12.122.12.113]
    8 32 ms 35 ms 32 ms ggr2-p390.sffca.ip.att.net [12.123.13.194]
    9 35 ms 34 ms 48 ms p16-0-1-1.r20.plalca01.us.bb.verio.net
    [129.250.9.73]
    10 39 ms 38 ms 47 ms xe-0-2-0.r21.plalca01.us.bb.verio.net
    [129.250.4.231]
    11 57 ms 56 ms 56 ms p16-0-1-1.r20.sttlwa01.us.bb.verio.net
    [129.250.5.82]
    12 78 ms 80 ms 77 ms p16-6-0-0.r81.sttlwa01.us.bb.verio.net
    [129.250.2.219]
    13 157 ms 160 ms 152 ms p16-0-2-2.r21.tokyjp01.jp.bb.verio.net
    [129.250.4.174]

    Jesse
     
  20. N9WOS

    N9WOS Guest

    > Tracing route to p16-0-2-2.r21.tokyjp01.jp.bb.verio.net [129.250.4.174]
    > over a maximum of 30 hops:
    >
    > 1 4 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.1.1
    > 2 * * * Request timed out.
    > 3 8 ms 8 ms 9 ms 12.244.20.97
    > 4 17 ms 15 ms 18 ms 12.244.0.17
    > 5 17 ms 18 ms 20 ms 12.118.106.5
    > 6 18 ms 20 ms 17 ms tbr1-p012402.st6wa.ip.att.net
    > [12.122.5.174]
    > 7 33 ms 35 ms 32 ms tbr2-cl1.sffca.ip.att.net [12.122.12.113]
    > 8 32 ms 35 ms 32 ms ggr2-p390.sffca.ip.att.net

    [12.123.13.194]
    > 9 35 ms 34 ms 48 ms p16-0-1-1.r20.plalca01.us.bb.verio.net
    > [129.250.9.73]
    > 10 39 ms 38 ms 47 ms xe-0-2-0.r21.plalca01.us.bb.verio.net
    > [129.250.4.231]
    > 11 57 ms 56 ms 56 ms p16-0-1-1.r20.sttlwa01.us.bb.verio.net
    > [129.250.5.82]
    > 12 78 ms 80 ms 77 ms p16-6-0-0.r81.sttlwa01.us.bb.verio.net
    > [129.250.2.219]
    > 13 157 ms 160 ms 152 ms p16-0-2-2.r21.tokyjp01.jp.bb.verio.net
    > [129.250.4.174]


    From Washington to San Francisco California to Palo alto California to
    Washington
    to Tokyo in 160ms.
    and a total distance traveled of about 20,000 miles.
    I wish all normal internet traffic was that fast.
    but it is not.

    You are using a tracert program that sends packets out that are
    marked as time sensitive.
    (ie) VoIP, and the like.
    Normal WWW traffic flow through the system is not that fast.
    What you are seeing with those numbers is the speed that
    voice data is routed.

    Get a program that sends out the ping packets as normal priority
    The same priority as WWW traffic,
    and the return times will drop(badly).

    Here is a tracert from paloalto California, from a computer using
    normal priority packets.
    Note, this is taken at 1AM when traffic loading is very low.
    So times will be faster than normal.

    >traceroute to p16-0-2-2.r21.tokyjp01.jp.bb.verio.net (129.250.4.174): 1-30

    hops, 38 byte packets
    >1 lpagwb01-vlan151-phy.hpl.hp.com (192.6.19.2) 1.95 ms 0.976 ms 0.977

    ms
    >2 palgwb01-vbblpa.americas.hp.net (15.243.170.49) 0.977 ms 0.0 ms

    0.976 ms
    > 3 * * *
    >4 svl-edge-15.inet.qwest.net (65.115.64.25) 1.95 ms 0.976 ms 0.977 ms
    >5 svl-core-01.inet.qwest.net (205.171.14.146) 1.95 ms 1.95 ms 1.95 ms
    >6 pax-brdr-02.inet.qwest.net (205.171.214.38) 2.92 ms 2.93 ms 1.95 ms
    >7 p4-0.qwest.plalca01.us.bb.verio.net (205.171.1.18) 1.95 ms 2.93 ms

    1.95 ms
    >8 p16-0-1-1.r21.plalca01.us.bb.verio.net (129.250.3.84) 1.95 ms 2.92 ms

    2.93 ms

    All the above is bouncing around the same computer centers in palo alto.

    9 p16-0-1-1.r20.sttlwa01.us.bb.verio.net (129.250.5.82) 21.4 ms 22.4 ms
    21.4 ms

    It goes from palo alto to Seattle Washington.
    it takes around 20ms, same as the other tracert.
    we are now at the Seattle router in the other tracert.

    10 p16-6-0-0.r81.sttlwa01.us.bb.verio.net (129.250.2.219) 71.2 ms 71.2 ms
    71.2 ms

    It goes from one Seattle router to the router on the US side of the
    transpacific link.
    A link that has a moderate amount of traffic, so blanket traffic will be
    high.
    jump time between those links is now around 50ms, not 20ms like other
    tracert.

    11 p16-0-2-2.r21.tokyjp01.jp.bb.verio.net (129.250.4.174) 201 ms 200 ms
    200 ms

    It goes to Japan,
    it takes over 130ms for it just to turn around on that link.
    If you done it with a high priority packet, it would be sub 80ms

    On the other tracert I did in the other post, I was lucky as heck to get
    that turn around time.

    Like this return off a tracert server using high priority packets.

    9 p16-0-1-1.r20.sttlwa01.us.bb.verio.net (129.250.5.82) 56.637 ms 56.714
    ms 57.313 ms
    10 p16-6-0-0.r81.sttlwa01.us.bb.verio.net (129.250.2.219) 56.738 ms
    56.710 ms 56.674 ms
    11 p16-0-2-2.r21.tokyjp01.jp.bb.verio.net (129.250.4.174) 133.627 ms
    133.794 ms 133.810 ms

    Same routers, same time, different priority packets.

    And if you really want to see where high priority packets make a difference,
    look at web servers.
    You will not get a sub 100ms response off of any web server during the day
    with normal priority packets.
     

Welcome to VerizonForums!

Unfortunately you can't reply until you log in or sign up.


Forgot your password?