Slashdot Mirror
Comparing 3G Networks
bsk_cw writes "Brian Nadel got hold of cellular network cards from AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon, and tried them out with a Lenovo ThinkPad X300 notebook. He watched videos on commuter trains, worked with e-mail at cafes, listened to Internet radio at the airport, and downloaded large files while in a moving car. AT&T came out on top in his tests in the New York area (summary here). Some of the reader comments report different conclusions, so a YMMV is in order."
It seems like the high end is $60-$80 with a 5GiB cap. ATT and Sprint have lower end plans with a insane limit of 4-5MiB, Verizon 50MiB.
The lower end plans seem so limited as to be useless. How much Google maps usage can you fit into 4MiB before it is $1-8 per extra MiB?
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
and that cost a lot less.
My big question would be: what's the lag?
The last time I tried to use a cell network for internet access, the lag was horrid (300+ms) compared to real broadband. How is the lag on these systems? I'd rather have the responsive 450kbps connection than the unresponsive 1.5mbps connection.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Philadelphia's muniWiFi network goes dead next month when Earthlink pulls the plug.
Oddly, the telcos start allowing metered access of their 3G networks; no all-you-can-eat plans anymore. In megabyte increments in one case.....
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
I don't think the reviewer did a very fair comparison. Most significantly, he should have used similar data cards- preferably using cards over USB. The AT&T and Verizon cards were larger, and probably able to pick up weaker signals better. They also included built-in batteries, which greatly impacted the laptop battery life test.
I'm also a little skeptical of his bandwidth testing method. I've never heard the Alken site, and the tests I did right now on my own system aren't even close to my actual performance (although, maybe they're justing getting slammed with traffic). It would have been interesting to see if signal strength played a factor as well.
In any case, most people I've heard from have had exactly the opposite results. Usually Sprint is the fastest, with Verizon not far behind and AT&T bringing up the rear. Sprint also has considerably more 3G coverage than the other two carriers. Without saying anything about their customer service, I think Sprint is the clear choice when it comes to data plans.
Maybe something already exists, but wouldn't it be cool if there was some kind of app that people could install on their laptops that would upload metrics to a central server and make it available to review?
The app could tie into the 3G card and pull your approximate location, your carrier, and your average speed and upload it all to a server. As long as it doesn't also upload personal data, or your IP, etc, I can't foresee privacy issues (and it would be opt-in anyway).
With enough people running an app like this, the data could come together quite nicely and allow people to view a map overlayed with the different networks and average performance.
And I bet such a site could be supported by ad revenue. (3: Profit)
-David
As an IT manager for a consulting business, 80% of my workforce is on the road 80% of the year. Broadband cards are absolutely critical to our success. We field test all over the nation and offer all three options. Our people have decided on 2 Verizon cards, 6 dozen Sprint cards and nobody has opted for the ATT card.
Our consultants are regularly in NYC, Philly, Houston, Chicago, LA, San Francisco, Seattle, Vancouver and Dallas.
If it helps anybody, Sprint is weak in New Jersey and parts of the Dallas area. Verizon picks up New Jersey nicely and this is where both of our Verizon cards are primarily deployed. Verizon and ATT are both not superior in Dallas so perhaps something else makes them all less than perfect.
One last thing...as soon as iPhone 2.0 comes out, and sells like hotcakes, the ATT network is going to be overburdened...you watch.