I am thinking about getting a new phone to replace my extremely slow loser Intercept so I am looking for some feedback. I am wondering whether it is the phone that is the problem or the VM service.
I did the SpeedTest and these are the results on the 3G:
Download 0.05 Mbps
Upload 0.04 Mbps
Ping. 576 ms
In comparison, these are the results on my home wifi:
Download 17.62 Mbps
Upload. 5.13 Mbps
Ping. 52 ms
The RAM in use is 135 out of the 160 available RAM on the phone--does this play a part in the slow data speeds? I am frequently clearing the RAM because if I don't, it won't clear itself, it will just freeze the phone. The main reason I want a new phone is that the Intercept is so slow and I attribute this (rightly or wrongly) to the pitiful RAM. I don't want to spend the money for a new iPhone if it will be equally as slow.
I appreciate any feedback on this issue...thanks!
Last edited by gekkota; 06-07-2012 at 11:43 AM. Reason: forgot to say "thanks!"
Unfortunately, it's not the phone. The Intercept was probably one of the worst phones I've ever had the pleasure of owning, and I never got high speeds at any places that mattered to me. But I have clocked speeds in excess of 1mbps with it in select places. It is an evdo rev0 device, which means upstream suffers, but the downstream is mostly there.
So basically, I could expect the same slow speeds even with an iphone? The bettter phone wouldn't matter at all?
I live in the Northern VA/Washington DC area, and I am surprised by the slow connection speed on Sprint...pitiful...
Most often the mobile speedtest.net app chooses the closest server. However speedtest.net via a laptop does not.
I've had mobile speedtest.net produce super inaccurate results on countless occasions, just like your results did!
Here is a thread I found regarding the mobile speedtest app.
When I upgraded from my Intercept to my Optimus V, there was a noticeable increase in upload speeds and a slight increase in download speeds. The reason for that was that the Optimus V is a an EVDO Rev. A device, so the radio is more efficient.
So what did that mean in everyday use for me? Whenever I would stream music using TuneIn Radio, it would buffer constantly, whereas on the Optimus it would only do so every know any then.
So, to summarize a new phone will get you faster speeds, but don't expect much if the network in your area is congested.
Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2
<<Achieved on "America's Most Affordable 4G Network!"
Android specific topic, meet Android specific subforum.
Become a Premium Memeber
Want to use a referral link in your signature, support the forums by becoming a Premium Member!
Have you read the rules lately? They're usually in a sticky at the top of the page.
If you have a problem with a post for any reason, please report it rather than responding to it, and a moderator will be along shortly.
As a former Intercept owner myself, I can tell you that phone suffers from an under-powered processor. Unlike the Optimus V (which had a dedicated 400 Mhz modem processor) the Intercept would crawl on processes which involved using cellular data networks.
If you're looking to upgrade and become future-proof for awhile, I would strongly recommend the Evo V 4G. However, if you're wanting to stick with a $25 grandfathered plan, the Optimus V will do just fine if you're on a strict budget.
Yes, the truth of the matter is that the EVO is exactly what people were hoping for with the Triumph last year. And for the price, it's still a great deal, even as a 3g device. The dual core processor is very necessary, given the poor coding that's been going on in the modern era with regards to efficiency.
I don't know if I'd necessarily attribute the piss poor data to urban settings necessarily, but that is a good rule of thumb.
I lived in Oakland and never got close to 1mbps. Travel up to Pinole and I rarely ever got below 1mbps. The few times I went down to San Jose, I NEVER saw below 1mbps. Couldn't believe it, and just kept hammering speedtests. This was on the Intercept too. Testing was mostly SJ downtown, and whatever that college is by downtown.
I moved to Brooklyn, and essentially never even saw above 100kbps. Data was pretty much unusable, which part of why I finally made the move to TMO. HOWEVER, the times that I went to Manhattan, I rarely saw below 1mbps. !!!!! Way more populated than the parts of Brooklyn I frequent (obviously not saying I live in the sticks in BK, if there is such a thing), and yet speeds were fantastic.
When it comes down to it, for what we pay for service, it's almost reasonable to understand the speeds we're getting. I'd be livid as hell if I were a Sprint customer seeing the speeds I saw.
Beyond that, in other area, the norm to see for me was 100-800kbps, the lower end of the spectrum being more common. Still, I was fine with that when it was fluid, and it wasn't until I moved back to TMO now that their hspa is more developed that I had my eyes re-opened.
Again, for $25, it's pretty hard to look at other options. Even at $35 if you're going the EVO route for a phone that actually WORKS, it's a great deal if you're in an area with reasonable service.
I would say one of the problems with VM is the resale value of phones, since they're only good on VM, but I've had no problem selling my phones at reasonable prices. In all honesty, the original MSRP of $300 for the Triumph is pretty damn good. Of course, that was assuming the phone actually worked.
OP, I'm surprised in the No VA / DC area, you're not seeing better speeds. I thought people in DC said they got 1mbps on average with VM. Maybe you're a little further out?
As it stands, I can't imagine the iPhone flood being good for data by any means, but who knows what'll happen.
I've noticed consistently (i.e. 99% of the time) that data speeds in the denser urban areas are noticeably slower than those in rural towns just outside where I live. For example, I could get flawless streaming of Pandora or SiriusXM in a rural city like Geneseo, IL or Eldridge, IA...but once my car hit the airport on the outskirts of Moline, the audio started to buffer. By the time I hit downtown Davenport, I couldn't even pull up a webpage on Opera Mini.
The more people you have using data in a given area, the more likely you are to encounter capacity issues. That has certainly been the case where I live. Sprint has been upgrading capacity here in recent months. Some locations are getting better, but there are still numerous spots where data speeds struggle to hit 100 Kbps.
Meanwhile, Verizon's 4G LTE is humming right along in this market. My mom just got a RAZR Maxx and it makes my WiMax speed look sluggish by comparison. For whatever reason, Sprint is not adequately serving the data capacity requirements here.
I agree with the above statements. You might see a little increase going from rev.0 to rev.A, but probably not much. I wouldn't expect much. But you will notice a more satisfying android/iOS experience with any other VM phone.
Samsung Blaze 4g -- All-Star JB 4.1.2 @1.8ghz
Acer A100 ----- GodDroid CM10 4.1.2 @1.5ghz
Others: OV, MT, Rise, Elite
Thanks...I appreciate the feedback.
Guess I will have to really think about whether I want to spend a lot of money on an iPhone if the data speeds aren't significantly faster than my Intercept.
Maybe the EVO would be a compromise between spending so much on an iPhone and unhappily staying with my Intercept...
Speeds are no different between any of the phones on 3G. The issue is capacity, as it's been said before.
I had the Intercept. It's a not bad "first time" phone. I tweaked a lot and between rooting and gutting it... I was able to make it quite usable. Problem is that it's simply not up to spec for running Android 2.x... It's better suited to be a 1.6 phone.
Still has the best keyboard layout I've ever used, though. I miss that much of it dearly.
That said, you're in DC. You're in a WiMax area. Worth getting the EVO for.