Some more updates to the interference bit: since it appears that 3G is more affected than 4G by the physical placement of the phone, I decided to test it out again in Jinnah Park (Rawalpindi).
All tests were done in the car park, inside my car, in the same row that McDonalds is in. The car had bushes in front of it. Tests were done in the OpenSignal app. The phone was on the seat (it wasn't exactly in any line of sight of anything).Also, the
upload speeds are wonky in the app, but in most cases, speeds fluctuated between 220-500 KB/s.
Telenor:
1.95 down, 0.088 up, 41ms latency.
Telenor:
1.94 down, 0.214 up, 61ms latency.
Pretty bad (or average?) speeds. Latencies aren't that great either... but then, it's 3G.
Decided to put in the Mobilink SIM in and test that out. The phone was now somewhere near the roof (not on the seat), inside of the car, but above the visible bushes in front of the car.
5.70 down, 2.33 up, 42ms latency (I had tested the same area on Mobilink 4G: 8.95 down, 6.60 up, 27ms latency).
I then decided to test the distortion theory (since I was technically measuring the speeds in different locations and in different environments/interferences), and decided to put the phone on the seat after starting the speed test (similar to how I was testing Telenor): speeds fell down from the initial burst and the test ended at
3.91 down (it went down and tapered a little above 2Mbps),
0.107 up, 38ms latency.
This gives credence to my theory: Telenor has its towers "hidden", others are more in the open (and visible), and thus, are less prone to distortion.
And while I like to think the big three operators provision enough backhaul to their towers, Mobilink, as a result of throttling prepaid users, can give postpaid users more bandwidth (I would have liked to test prepaid and postpaid in Jinnah Park, with postpaid getting these speeds, to check if there was a difference). Also, the towers are located in different locations (because inside Cinepax, Telenor 3G had the weakest signal - ranging between -93dBm and -81dBm (2G was much better), whilst Mobilink/Zong/Warid/Ufone were all around -67dBm to -73dBm) so this would affect the outcome as well.
I'm not going to test Telenor with this other SIM I have any more - I'm going to port my number, and THEN conduct tests (it's easier that way as I would use my number as I should).
Meanwhile in Saddar, on Mobilink 3G, with a signal strength ranging from -73 dBm and -69dBm (opposite Bank Alfalah on The Mall) (within a range of 10 meters between the two tests), this is what I got:
2.47 down, 0.622 up, 71ms (I was actually parked in front of Fresco Sweets here);
3.09 down, 0.061 up, 69ms (I was on Mall Road here, before the signals, opposite Alfalah). The car moved a bit forward (around 5-10 meters, maybe), and I then get this:
6.32 down, 1.14 up, 50ms. I crossed the signal, and before HBL SDV Branch (opposite PTCL's exchange, rather), I got this:
5.53 down, 0.600 up, 54ms.
After all of this, I want to give Telenor a second chance. Yes, they're not as fast as Mobilink with full signals and zero distortions, but I do have a few questions:
- When there's zero traffic on the towers, why is it that Mobilink is able to provide a higher speed (to postpaid users) vs. Telenor (judging from past speed tests of Telenor)? Is it because Mobilink throttles prepaid and supplies postpaid/MBB users with more bandwidth (as opposed to sharing it equally like Zong or Telenor), or is it because Telenor's backhaul bandwidth is insufficient?
Remember, I said when there is no load.
- The distortion theory seems to prove itself every time, so is building more towers (
by reducing individual cell coverage but expanding overall coverage) the only way to overcome this distortion? Yes? No?
- To increase capacity, can operators add more frequencies (spectrum) to each EXISTING tower to give phones different "options" for connecting (like adding more doors to a car)? Looks like Telenor has a lot of 3G towers in each geographical cluster (to workaround the low spectrum), if you ask me.
- If all phones in a cell connect to the 2100 Mhz frequency, when a new phone connects to the 850Mhz frequency, would they get unlimited bandwidth (assuming unlimited backhaul and zero throttling policy)? I'm sure the cell towers are using both frequencies simultaneously (can they?) to cater to the load of the users.
The more I read about spectrums and networks and frequency (co-channel) interference, the more I realize how mind numbing it is! And I just read 5Mhz vs. 10Mhz means nothing major if operators are going to reuse frequencies anyway (it does, however, allow each tower more frequencies so more phones can connect simultaneously, before being reused, and you can only connect so many people before needing more spectrum - it sounds like a road with one wide lane (10Mhz) vs. two separate roads (5Mhz), both to the same place, but recently got some of their roads widened (the new 5 Mhz)).
And if my thinking is correct (I hope I'm wrong because I'm tired of reading up so much on this - I'm not paid for this!), I think Telenor managed to bump its capacity even more after acquiring 850Mhz because their initial strategy of building more sites (for the initial capacity) helped them in the short run, but now they have more frequencies to cater to more users on that already-developed big capacity so...
So I may be wrong, but I think I just answered my own question: Telenor probably restricts the amount of bandwidth made available to 3G users intentionally (so that one person doesn't hog), given the fact that they are now deploying more spectrum for 3G services (4G is not under discussion here). It's apparent that during PEAK times (see my long response a few pages back), they were able to offer speeds around 1 MB/s (and in some cases, speeds near 1.5 MB/s) in fairly densely populated areas - you just had to have a clear line of sight. Which most people won't. Because most towers are not high enough to overcome obstacles in its path between the cell and your phone (see section
2.3.2 Fading here).
Think about it. If you have a cell on the roof of your house, broadcasting to all areas, the first hinderance would be the concrete of your house. The next would be the neighboring houses. The next would be the trees (if any). Then other houses. The signal has to penetrate several layers of concrete before travelling a distance, and when it does, it becomes weak.
As opposed to a tall mast. On your house. The cell is on the top. The signal strength to your neighbor's house and the other houses would be better because the mast doesn't need to travel through your house, or the immediate houses, or the trees as such (it's "jumping above" these obstacles), so it has a less interference-prone pathway which it can travel in.