Experiencing call drops on Jio? Blame it on AVOID cartel; COAI vs JIO fight intensifies!
- Thread starter swatkats
- Start date
- Status
hotshot05
Herald
Use Reliance Net Velocity app. It is present in Jio App store. I got the link for it from the main Jio thread.
I am on 2300MHz band at home. In Office I get band 5 mostly.
EDIT - https://jioappstore.jio.ril.com/cms/
Get NetVelocity app from here. In App, click on + button and then choose the first option (RF Info)
blr_p
Oracle
Jio is using 3 bands, how do you know which one you're on with no call drop ? easy to tell on a sammy, not so easy on others.
If you use airtel or vodafone, you can select which G or auto which means it decides and keeps jumping.
Stick your phone on 2g only then tell me how many drops you get.
Most likely its on 3G, so 2100Mhz, bingo call drop and when it tries to find the 2G it does not find it, or takes too long and you lost your call. Could be the tower is further away or other is closer.
Which leads to the next point, just because you get a good signal on airtel/vodafone does not mean the network isn't congested. And the converse just because you have a weak signal does not mean bandwidth is insufficient.
Why is it congested. Too many subscribers in the cell. Not enough spectrum available. Jio will look good now because they don't have the numbers. Try not to get carried away.
How much to set prices is a complex topic, there is a 100+ pg pdf on TRAI's site.
A company with long term debts isn't likely to offer great service because they will be cash strapped for years and not confident of spending and expanding. By keeping prices low you create a glut of supply, that's when prices come down.
When everybody is strapped to expand the services are going to remain similar that is until one of them gets greedy. How long will that take.
blr_p
Oracle
band 5 is the best so what is the max download speed you get with it and how does it compare with band 40 or 3 for speed ?
heard about that net velocity app thought it was for beta testers only.
blr_p
Oracle
Ok want some info from you, the mifi has much more data than you can get on a phone.
Go to LTE status tab
Under network Information, mention what you get for band, bandwidth & RSRP in dBm
is there any way to force a change of bands ? here it shows band 5, what about 3 or 40. If so what do you see for the above with different bands.
Next is System performance tab
What is the max upload & download you got ? does it change with different bands.
What is the longest number of hours you got out of this mifi ? their faqs say 5 hrs which is a bit short for a 2300mah battery.
Band: 5 Bandwidth: 5MHz RSRP: -103dBm dBm: -10dB
I don't see any way to force a change of band other than moving around with the device hoping it switches to a different band.
Max download: About 11Mbps
I have not been able to check with bands other than band 5.
Maximum number of hours on battery: about 4.5 with downloads throughout that time.
How Reliance Jio vs COAI controversy is hurting customers
No one can deny that as far as the issue of enhancement of interconnect capacity is concerned, it is fairly and squarely covered in the scope on interconnection agreement. Both the parties—RJio and COAI—are admitting that there is an interconnect agreement signed between them. The agreement would cover the provisions for payment of termination charge, procedure for enhancement of interconnection capacity, minimum period for which commitment should be provided by the seeker to hold the enhanced capacity, etc.
The agreement would have a clear provision for interconnect testing which prescribes for and signing of test certificate between the parties to confirm that the testing is successful. It is only after this that the traffic flow and payment of IUC starts between the parties.
I assume this is in place and that is why RJio is paying 0.14 paise termination charge. I don’t remember, with my previous experience in this sector, of any provision in the standard interconnect agreements linking up this IUC payment with trial/commercial launch.
If this is so, then it is difficult to understand the objection from COAI? Each call terminating in the network of COAI members is earning 0.14 paise as termination charge—a charge which is fixed by the current regulation. One can understand the stand to refuse enhancement of capacity if RJio is terminating traffic in the guise of test traffic as free from any termination charge or is not honouring the terms of interconnect agreement in any manner. At least the COAI ground of objection which appeared in the papers fails to indicate any such issue.
In fact, if the traffic pumped into the network of COAI members is more, then they earn more than what they pay to RJio. However, in case COAI is challenging the 0.14 paise termination charge as such not being adequate, which they are entitled to challenge, then they must take that up with Trai in an exercise on review of IUC payment which is currently under way.
On the other hand, if RJio is asking for any relaxation in any of the conditions of interconnect agreement such as waiver of termination charge or to cut short the period for enhancement of capacity against what is agreed mutually, in that case COAI’s objection is justified as any relaxation in the condition of agreement cannot be claimed as a matter of right by RJio.
The customer is confused today whether they should look at RJio as a possible operator or not? Because if RJio is not allowed to enhance their interconnect capacity, it will, in turn, affect the quality of service. In such a scenario, the customer would rather like to stay away from subscribing to RJio service. RJio should also restrain from selling the free SIM cards if they cannot provide a good quality service to customers. For a customer, terms like trial or commercial are irrelevant.
It is incumbent upon the regulator to clear the smoke on this issue and issue necessary legally-enforceable directions to the party whichever is violating the terms of the interconnect agreement. The operators are required to file a copy of the interconnect agreement with the regulator as per interconnection regulations relating to “register of interconnect agreements” and therefore the regulator has an access to the agreement which will help in clearly identifying the defaulter.
Perhaps both the parties are trying to resort to arm-twisting to settle the larger issue of review of IUC in the name of capacity enhancement. The regulator must discharge its duties and exercise its authority under the Act to come out with a clear response and direct the defaulter as far as issue relating to capacity enhancement is concerned by interpreting the interconnect agreement executed between the parties.
As far as the issues relating to review of IUC is concerned, both parties should be clearly advised to file their views on that issue in the ongoing consultation and respect the regulatory process.
This will not only allow the customer to take a calculated call on choosing its service provider, but will also bring an end to the current war of words and mud-slinging.
The author is founder & CEO, Tathya Consulting
http://www.financialexpress.com/ind...coai-controversy-is-hurting-customers/364761/
No one can deny that as far as the issue of enhancement of interconnect capacity is concerned, it is fairly and squarely covered in the scope on interconnection agreement. Both the parties—RJio and COAI—are admitting that there is an interconnect agreement signed between them. The agreement would cover the provisions for payment of termination charge, procedure for enhancement of interconnection capacity, minimum period for which commitment should be provided by the seeker to hold the enhanced capacity, etc.
The agreement would have a clear provision for interconnect testing which prescribes for and signing of test certificate between the parties to confirm that the testing is successful. It is only after this that the traffic flow and payment of IUC starts between the parties.
I assume this is in place and that is why RJio is paying 0.14 paise termination charge. I don’t remember, with my previous experience in this sector, of any provision in the standard interconnect agreements linking up this IUC payment with trial/commercial launch.
If this is so, then it is difficult to understand the objection from COAI? Each call terminating in the network of COAI members is earning 0.14 paise as termination charge—a charge which is fixed by the current regulation. One can understand the stand to refuse enhancement of capacity if RJio is terminating traffic in the guise of test traffic as free from any termination charge or is not honouring the terms of interconnect agreement in any manner. At least the COAI ground of objection which appeared in the papers fails to indicate any such issue.
In fact, if the traffic pumped into the network of COAI members is more, then they earn more than what they pay to RJio. However, in case COAI is challenging the 0.14 paise termination charge as such not being adequate, which they are entitled to challenge, then they must take that up with Trai in an exercise on review of IUC payment which is currently under way.
On the other hand, if RJio is asking for any relaxation in any of the conditions of interconnect agreement such as waiver of termination charge or to cut short the period for enhancement of capacity against what is agreed mutually, in that case COAI’s objection is justified as any relaxation in the condition of agreement cannot be claimed as a matter of right by RJio.
The customer is confused today whether they should look at RJio as a possible operator or not? Because if RJio is not allowed to enhance their interconnect capacity, it will, in turn, affect the quality of service. In such a scenario, the customer would rather like to stay away from subscribing to RJio service. RJio should also restrain from selling the free SIM cards if they cannot provide a good quality service to customers. For a customer, terms like trial or commercial are irrelevant.
It is incumbent upon the regulator to clear the smoke on this issue and issue necessary legally-enforceable directions to the party whichever is violating the terms of the interconnect agreement. The operators are required to file a copy of the interconnect agreement with the regulator as per interconnection regulations relating to “register of interconnect agreements” and therefore the regulator has an access to the agreement which will help in clearly identifying the defaulter.
Perhaps both the parties are trying to resort to arm-twisting to settle the larger issue of review of IUC in the name of capacity enhancement. The regulator must discharge its duties and exercise its authority under the Act to come out with a clear response and direct the defaulter as far as issue relating to capacity enhancement is concerned by interpreting the interconnect agreement executed between the parties.
As far as the issues relating to review of IUC is concerned, both parties should be clearly advised to file their views on that issue in the ongoing consultation and respect the regulatory process.
This will not only allow the customer to take a calculated call on choosing its service provider, but will also bring an end to the current war of words and mud-slinging.
The author is founder & CEO, Tathya Consulting
http://www.financialexpress.com/ind...coai-controversy-is-hurting-customers/364761/
N
NotMyRealName
^ 0.14 paise or Rs. ?[DOUBLEPOST=1472849240][/DOUBLEPOST]Ok, confirmed from other source, it's 14 paise or 0.14 rupees.
This is a horribly written article. Tons of assumptions without any facts, no doubt the questions he's asking is on everyone's mind, but the article really serves no purpose. And wtf does he mean by "RJio should also restrain from selling the free SIM cards"
This is a horribly written article. Tons of assumptions without any facts, no doubt the questions he's asking is on everyone's mind, but the article really serves no purpose. And wtf does he mean by "RJio should also restrain from selling the free SIM cards"
Last edited by a moderator:
Incumbent telcos must be asked to pay Rs 9,900 crore fine: Justice Patel
Incumbent operators -- Airtel, Vodafone and Idea -- should be asked to pay a penalty of Rs 9,900 crore combined for alleged breach of licence conditions by not providing interconnection to Reliance Jio, former Chief Justice of Delhi High Court, Justice B C Patel has said.
In a letter to telecom minister Manoj Sinha, Justice Patel said that the actions of these operators are in "clear violation of several clauses of their licence which should invite strict action from the Department of Telecom in its capacity as Licensor" and hence a penalty of Rs 3,300 crore should be imposed on these operators individually.
"Having studied this matter in detail, I am convinced that this is a clear case of anti-customer and anti-competitive actions being taken by these operators which must be stopped at all costs," the letter said.
http://telecom.economictimes.indiat...pay-rs-9900-crore-fine-justice-patel/54537104
Some one actually nailed it.
Incumbent operators -- Airtel, Vodafone and Idea -- should be asked to pay a penalty of Rs 9,900 crore combined for alleged breach of licence conditions by not providing interconnection to Reliance Jio, former Chief Justice of Delhi High Court, Justice B C Patel has said.
In a letter to telecom minister Manoj Sinha, Justice Patel said that the actions of these operators are in "clear violation of several clauses of their licence which should invite strict action from the Department of Telecom in its capacity as Licensor" and hence a penalty of Rs 3,300 crore should be imposed on these operators individually.
"Having studied this matter in detail, I am convinced that this is a clear case of anti-customer and anti-competitive actions being taken by these operators which must be stopped at all costs," the letter said.
http://telecom.economictimes.indiat...pay-rs-9900-crore-fine-justice-patel/54537104
Some one actually nailed it.
N
NotMyRealName
I'm not taking any sides, but what authority does a former judge have to pass these comments? Or am I missing something? Like he's been appointed by the PMO to speak on behalf of TRAI, who themselves have said they will not take any action till they've thoroughly discussed the issue with all parties concerned.
N
NotMyRealName
- Status