AT&T Wins Gizmodo 3G Bandwidth Test

ink writes "Gizmodo has completed a 12-city test of 3G cellular bandwidth speed. Verizon won four of the twelve, however AT&T scored higher with six: 'Let's get this straight right away: We didn't test dropped voice calls, we didn't test customer service, and we didn't test map coverage by wandering around in the boonies. We tested the ability of the networks to deliver 3G data in and around cities, including both concrete canyons and picket-fenced 'burbs. And while every 3G network gave us troubles on occasion, AT&T's wasn't measurably more or less reliable than Verizon's.'"

Comments

app for that

[Anonymous Coward]

On a related note, Gizmodo is writing an app for that.

What about sustained transfers?

[gad_zuki!]

I find I can get a nice burst for the first couple of megabytes then Im throttled pretty badly. Id like to know which carrier doesnt do this. It doesnt look related to reception.

Re:What about sustained transfers?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is an Apple fanboi site, as is Giz. They're going to limit tests results to what they want to see. The reality is 3G is bloody slow regardless of what carrier we have, and performances differences of something slightly less slow than something that is slow is utterly pointless.

Re:What about sustained transfers?

[AliasMarlowe]

I find I can get a nice burst for the first couple of megabytes then Im throttled pretty badly. Id like to know which carrier doesnt do this. It doesnt look related to reception.

Short answer: it seems that all US carriers do this, either because (i) they underestimated demand and under-invested in infrastructure, or (ii) because they can maximize their revenues while minimizing their costs, and the customers are trapped into long term contracts.
This sort of throttling by carriers is unheard-of in more advanced countries, such as Finland or Sweden. None of the carriers do that here; if they tried it, they'd have no customers left within a month or two (terminating a contract is trivial, and does not entail penalties). There are no usage caps on 3G either - unlimited actually does mean unlimited.

Re:What about sustained transfers?

[yoyhed]

Also, try going to Gizmodo without Adblock on. Note ALL the AT&T "Better 3G Experience" ads - especially the one with fucking Luke Wilson that is masquerading as an ACTUAL FUCKING STORY. Yeah, I'm sure this is a completely unbiased test. And 3G is not slow for me, on Verizon I get sustained 150 kiloBYTE/s downloads. That was my cable internet speed a few years ago, but now I have it on my phone!

Re:What about sustained transfers?

[babblefrog]

Actually, it's surprising that nobody else has noticed that this discussion is really about aviation, not telecommunications. Slashdotters are really slipping.

Re:What about sustained transfers?

[Blakey Rat]

Yes but I managed to get the elusive +2 Flamebait mod. Wooo.

Re:What about sustained transfers?

[furball]

I get 150KB/s downloads out in Manassas in Virginia with AT&T 3G. Sustained. It's actually better than the cable service that when I need to download anything of significant size (Ubuntu, iPhone SDK, etc.), I break out the 3G. The free cable service with the HOA is only 50KB/sec by comparison. It sucks but hey it's free.

Re:What about sustained transfers?

[gilgongo]

I get 150KB/s downloads out in Manassas in Virginia with AT&T 3G.

Wha?? Is anyone in the UK reading this and thinking what I'm thinking? I've got an iPhone 3GS and download speeds are ridiculously slow all the time no matter where you are (I live and work in London).

This post reminded me to ask somebody else about this - O2's 3G seems to go at about the same speed as my 14.4K modem did in 1996. Is that other people's experience too?

Re:What about sustained transfers?

[Mike Buddha]

Yeah, that's great, but you have to live in Sweden or Finland, blech.

Re:What about sustained transfers?

[TheRaven64]

I don't have an iPhone, so I can't comment on that specifically, but I've used to use my phone as a bluetooth modem while I'm on the bus or train and I can get 50KB/s (bottleneck appears to be the phone's Bluetooth implementation; I can't get much more transferring files from the phone either) on T-Mobile's UMTS network. Service drops out in tunnels, obviously, but works well through most of South Wales. No idea about London - I try to avoid the place when possible.

Re:What about sustained transfers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the hell was this modded flamebait, for pointing out the fact that Gizmodo is plastered with AT&T ads, some of which are insidiously structured just like an actual story on the site?

Re:What about sustained transfers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, Airbus is for suckers.

Re:What about sustained transfers?

[zippthorne]

Try a sustained download of a single large file. I don't have an iPhone, but I did have tethering on my non-ATT, non-smart, non-iPhone a while back. The download speed was fine, but I was getting 1000 -- 2000+ ms latency, which killed everything else.

Re:What about sustained transfers?

[bemymonkey]

Seems limited to London/England - O2 Germany's HSDPA is awesome around here (Cologne, Duesseldorf, Aachen... that area), with sustained downloads usually between 100 and 400KByte/s depending on the time of day and signal quality.

Re:What about sustained transfers?

[Rich0]

Well, you hit the nail on the head on the contracts. There are a few other issues as well:

1. No phone subsidies. That makes the cost of the service the cost of providing the service, only. It greatly simplifies the relationship with the consumer and gets rid of those long-term tie-ins.

2. Everybody is GSM. That means that you can walk over to a store, plug in a new SIM, port your phone number, and now you're in business with the new customer.

These kinds of arrangements mean that you could switch providers every month without an inordinate amount of hassle (I'm sure there is some kind of switching cost, but it is probably nominal).

In the US, you're stuck for 2 years, and if you switch providers you're going to need new phones, and have an entirely different coverage map.

The US is also geographically large, so coverage actually still is a problem in many areas.

If a law were passed requiring that phone subsidies be sold separately from service (and that the service component cannot have early-cancellation penalties) then you'd probably see a quick change (although the fractured technologies would still tend to keep people where they are).

Look at the latency

[mdm-adph]

From what I can see, the latency on the Verizon lines is much better. That's more important to me, at least, considering the amount of VoiP I do on my cell phone.

I mean, uh, browsing I do on mobile networks.

Re:Look at the latency

[Trepidity]

It seems to vary, like the throughput does, and roughly correlated with it. For example, AT&T latency seems better at all the locations in Atlanta. It does have some absolutely terrible ones in some cities, though (700ms+ latencies).

Re:Look at the latency

[Anonymous Coward]

San Francisco seems to be a trouble spot for AT&T with 700+ ms latencies; AT&T's latency is also significantly worse than other carriers' latencies in LA, Las Vegas, and NYC.

Re:Look at the latency

[Otterley]

I agree, and this is why I have nothing but contempt for typical "best provider performance" conclusions that are driven solely by single-connection TCP transfer tests (e.g. speedtest.net).

In most cases, latency matters more than bandwidth (where bandwidth is roughly the same within an order of magnitude or so). This is why there's a very strong correlation between the provider that had the lowest measured latency and the provider that had the lowest page retrieval time. In the end, real-world page loading is precisely what we use smartphones for, and so we need to know how that application performs, instead of what raw transfer rates are.

I still think the Gizmodo tests are deficient, though, as they are unclear as to whether they repeated the tests at regular intervals over a 24-hour period. Network congestion varies throughout the day, and at any given moment one path may be more congested than another. A valid test, IMO, would take the average (or median) of each metric over a 24-hour period (or even longer, covering both a weekday and a weekend, since usage varies among them).

Re:Look at the latency

[sonnejw0]

Engadget did a similar test a year-ish ago. AT&T was leaps and bounds faster than Verizon's 3G, in fact AT&T's 2G tested as fast as Verizon's 3G, and the latency was measurably lower on AT&T as well, at least where they tested the four providers: [engadget]

Re:Look at the latency

[ircmaxell]

I'd be curious to see the results of a test conducted as follows:

Setup a test rig that automatically tests download speed and latency from a few different servers (globally dispersed) every 30 seconds. Have it geotag each result.

Drive around each of the cities (and metro area surrounding them), and gather the data over a few days for each city.

Then, compute a few different metrics. First, for each carrier, generate a heat map of download speeds (It would wind up looking something like Verizon's 3g Map, but with different colors denoting speed ranges). If there are multiple readings in a given area (Say 100m^2), average them.

Second, figure out the peak speed, minimum speed, average speed (Both mean and RMS) as well as the standard deviation for each carrier.

There's so much focus on peak speed these days (well, at least that's what gets the press), that I think people forget that what matters is the average experience. It's like with stereo amplifiers: Peak wattage tells you nothing about overall power output, RMS wattage (Root Mean Square) tells you about power output...

Just my idea. Feel free to steal or rip it to shreds...

Re:Look at the latency

[blargster]

No wonder AT&T is complaining about Verizon's "we have 5x more 3G" campaign when Verizon's 3G is the same as AT&T's 2G (which does have more coverage than Verizon's 3G).

The truth is that the provider's definition of "*G" is what ever their marketing departments say it is. There is no absolute standard of comparison on the marketing front. You have to dig into the actual specs to do so.

Re:Look at the latency

[Arthur Grumbine]

Second, figure out the peak speed, minimum speed, average speed (Both mean and RMS)...

I always thought RMS and mean were synonymous.

Re:Look at the latency

[CAIMLAS]

Here's some anecdotal evidence of how horrible Verizon is, in practice, in my area and how they're losing ground to other carriers. My area is the "rural midwest", specifically the state of South Dakota.

Mission, South Dakota. If you haven't heard of it, look it up on Wikipedia or something. It's nowhere.

A friend and I drove there recently to visit another friend from Rapid City. Our reception along i90 was fairly similar: we'd both lose signal completely in the 'valleys' between the hills from time to time between Wall and Mission (note: this is plains country, so a hill is still pretty marginal) - a ~150 mile stretch of major interstate.

My friend has a HTC Touch Pro 2 (which is a really nice phone) on t-mobile. His actual signal/sound quality was significantly better when he had reception. My phone, a common "free" flip phone from Verizon, lost signal along i90 approximately 2/3 as often, but the conversations had a lot of "say that again" in them due to lack of audio quality/over-encryption and the like.

Then we got south of i90 to head directly to Mission. Suddenly, he's got full bar EDGE signal (through iwireless, I think). I don't think I had more than 2 bars the entire trip, yet he was able to sync with his Exchange server and a bunch of other nice things (for all intents and purposes) unavailable on other providers.

Re:Look at the latency

[Tumbleweed]

Mission, South Dakota. If you haven't heard of it, look it up on Wikipedia or something. It's nowhere.

That is among the many punishments you get for living in South Dakota.

Re:Look at the latency

[DJRumpy]

Speedtest.net already does this, although I don't think they publish the information broken down with 3G only numbers. It specifically tests 3G speeds using the iPhone app, and geo-tags your location to get the closest server with the lowest ping times. They do have the info on file though. I wonder why they don't publish it?

http://www.speedtest.net/global.php

Re:Look at the latency

[Anonymous Coward]

why not make an iphone app that clones the features of speedtest.net?

I doubt that Apple would allow it though.

Re:Look at the latency

[Com2Kid]

Then we got south of i90 to head directly to Mission. Suddenly, he's got full bar EDGE signal (through iwireless, I think). I don't think I had more than 2 bars the entire trip, yet he was able to sync with his Exchange server and a bunch of other nice things (for all intents and purposes) unavailable on other providers.

Was he roaming on AT&Ts network? That occurs to me when I am away from big cities and using T-Mobile.

Re:Look at the latency

[demonlapin]

And to contradict it, I have my hospital, which has minimal AT&T coverage, no T-Mo, and crystal-clear Verizon. Verizon's got one hell of a good network, but if it doesn't cover you where you work, who cares?

People asked me if I thought the Droid was an iPhone killer. And my honest answer was: the iPhone gets no service where I work, while the Droid gets 4 bars. I'd probably choose the Droid anyway, but that sort of thing makes it a no-brainer.

Re:Look at the latency

[ceriphim]

People asked me if I thought the Droid was an iPhone killer. And my honest answer was: the iPhone gets no service where I work, while the Droid gets 4 bars. I'd probably choose the Droid anyway, but that sort of thing makes it a no-brainer.

People ask me all sorts of questions, all the time. Does it mean my opinion matters in every one of those instances? Not so much. Have you some credentials that make your opinion stand out among the rest of the /. crowd?

Re:Look at the latency

[ircmaxell]

Simple. For the test to really provide any meaningful data, it would have to be performed on more than just AT&T's network... Perhaps an Android App, an iPhone App and a WinMo App would do it. The more data, the better the result set would be.

But there's another logistical challenge... Running a 3g modem and a GPS receiver at the same time at a fast enough rate to get the kind of data coverage we're talking about would be hell on a battery. Which is why I don't know if an App would cut it (it would almost necessitate "someone" doing it with all 4 or 5 phones at the same time, while connected to a charger (to negate battery effects)...

Re:Look at the latency

[demonlapin]

Have you some credentials that make your opinion stand out among the rest of the /. crowd?

No, I was just bored.

JPEG artifacts

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at this ugly crap. The tables are JPEG images. Isn't gizmodo a technology website? Shouldn't they know what they're doing? For computer generated art (i.e., anything that's not a photograph) JPEG's are ugly and full of artifacts. PNG's use lossless compression, have no artifacts, and are usually smaller.

Re:JPEG artifacts

[mujadaddy]

No, it's a hipster gadgets website. They even have GIRLS working there!

Re:JPEG artifacts

[Anonymous Coward]

1. "Tables are images", is a usual trick to prevent trivial copy-pasting and promote linking to the original site.

2. "PNG v. JPEG." Were you born yesterday or what? JPEGs look crap precisely because they are over-compressed to minimize potentially high traffic. PNGs are larger, sometimes magnitudes larger in comparison to JPEGs.

Re:JPEG artifacts

[MR.Mic]

PNG will be smaller when the image contains large areas of the same color.
Rasterized vector graphics is usually great for this.
The the image the parent linked to is a perfect candidate for PNG compression.

Better Sample Size

[rliden]

While I care about speed, I care more about coverage and reliability. Did the testers cherry pick AT&T friendly locations? I know when I went to Washington D.C. earlier this year that not only was my 3G coverage under AT&T spotty, my ability to simply connect to AT&T and make calls was also poor. It would be a much more interesting test if this was performed in every city over a certain population size. In my opinion 12 cities does not make a good test.

I'll admit I'm biased though. I've been an AT&T mobile customer for a bit over 2 years now and I don't like their service or support.

Re:Better Sample Size

[Darkness404]

Exactly, and also they completely left out the midwest. Well, thanks Gizmodo, if I move to the coasts I'll know what service to get, but since there weren't any tests done even close to where I live the data is totally useless.

They also failed to give a price to service ratio, that would have made things a lot more fair. Yeah, you might get a faster network but if the price difference is $15 a month, many people might reconsider.

This test the way it is, is akin to someone comparing an Intel Atom to a Pentium 4 to a Core i7 based on pure speed and saying that the Core i7 is the better bet, all the while ignoring the fact that a Pentium 4 box is much cheaper and an Intel Atom CPU is going to give you better battery life.

Re:Better Sample Size

[Darkness404]

Yeah, because everyone lives on Maui....

Re:Better Sample Size

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the USA /. population seems to live in basements in the midwest. Scientists have yet to determine whether they are drawn to the midwest by the basements, or whether the basements actually create /. readers. We need to radio-tag and observe another generation to be sure.

Re:Better Sample Size

[mcsqueak]

The coasts probably got most of the love because that's where you always hear of people having major connection issues (such as NYC and SF). You don't often hear of people in, oh... Kansas worked up because their iPhone's aren't connecting to the network.

Re:Better Sample Size

[pwnies]

Seems to be just randomly chosen, most likely based up on where they had Gizmodo people traveling to during the holidays. If they wanted a more fair test, they ought to probably hit the top cities based on population and/or density - thus covering the largest sample of people. Seems right now that they're just using convenience sampling though, which has huge flaws behind it.

Re:Better Sample Size

[Skuld-Chan]

Well, thanks Gizmodo, if I move to the coasts I'll know what service to get, but since there weren't any tests done even close to where I live the data is totally useless.

Live on the Oregon Coast - AT&T's coverage is complete ass.

Re:Better Sample Size

[dbcad7]

I've been an AT&T mobile customer for a bit over 2 years now and I don't like their service or support.

Why are you still with them ?.. If it's because they are the only game in your town, then you do like their service.. If it's because they are the only one who has the phone you want, then you do like their support.. Your with them for a reason.. it's just more fun to bitch.

Re:Better Sample Size

[interkin3tic]

Exactly, and also they completely left out the midwest. Well, thanks Gizmodo, if I move to the coasts I'll know what service to get, but since there weren't any tests done even close to where I live the data is totally useless.

Man, what assholes, conducting their own limited experiment, on their own dime, and then publishing their results for anyone to read free WITHOUT even ATTEMPTING to conduct it WORLDWIDE!

I hardly see why gizmodo should be sarcastically thanked for this. Their results are noteworthy: that verizon is not significantly better than ATT in areas sampled, that all this "Ours is faster!" is somewhere between "complete fucking marketing bullshit" and "Depends." Your area isn't directly sampled, but this was never meant to be a nationwide census, it was just a sampling. If you want to know how it will be in your area, do your own damn tests, don't complain because someone hasn't flown out to where you live and spent the time and money to answer your questions for you.

Re:Better Sample Size

[rliden]

I've been an AT&T mobile customer for a bit over 2 years now and I don't like their service or support.

Why are you still with them ?.. If it's because they are the only game in your town, then you do like their service.. If it's because they are the only one who has the phone you want, then you do like their support.. Your with them for a reason.. it's just more fun to bitch.

I had a two year contract with them which was up this month. Ah, maybe you didn't consider that before you jumped to far gone imaginary conclusions.

I don't like their coverage. I don't like their crappy support. And now that my contract is up I'm in the process of switching carriers. Though I'm sure you could have said something worthwhile... it's just more fun to just come across as a pedantic asswad.

Re:Better Sample Size

[drinkypoo]

Exactly, and also they completely left out the midwest. Well, thanks Gizmodo, if I move to the coasts I'll know what service to get, but since there weren't any tests done even close to where I live the data is totally useless.

That's unfortunate for you, but most of the world's population lives close to a coast, and the USA is no exception. There's better coverage on the coasts because there's more people there. Gizmodo wisely chose to serve the vast majority of their readership.

Re:Better Sample Size

[Overzeetop]

12 cities is a fairly good test, presuming it was done without foreknowledge of coverage. Really, it's a much better test than your one city version.

I've only had three cell carriers in the past decade, and they were all about the same when it came to CS - they all suck donkey balls. Coverage is utterly random - or rather it's entirely RF physics based, which is to say effectively random - and you'll find mysterious dead areas on every carrier. I even tried a dual-phone month on my last switch (two 30 day prepaid phones on AT&T and Verizon), and determined that they were the same in my area most of the time, and had roughly the same crappy service percentage but in different areas.

Somehow (without RTFA) I have a hard time declaring an actual winner of the result was 4 to 6 with two ties. To me, that's a toss up.

Re:Better Sample Size

[laffer1]

Last I checked, the Great Lakes are a coastline and in the midwest. Cities like Detroit and Chicago reside there. I'd say there is a lot of people in Chicago.

Price/speed needed

[Darkness404]

What would make this more useful is if Gizmodo took the prices, speed and quality and looked at it that way. Also missing are bandwidth caps and if there is throttling. Yeah, AT&T might have a faster network for browsing, but it has other flaws, namely high price, throttling and the fact 3G is scarce. If they added in all these things it would be a much better and fairer look.

It's not the 12 that counts, it's the rest...

[Anonymous Coward]

I travel all over. I usually consult in city that are not the major metropolitan centers. If you are NOT in the major metros, Verizon wins 9 times out of 10. I know from experience - I used to be Verizon, switched to ATT then found major, as in huge gaps in service (out to major metros) --- ATT had no signal. Not some signal, I mean zero. Once I got back on Verizon, covered. So this test is irrelevant.

If you don't travel, get the best signal provider in your area. If you travel, Verizon is best.

Re:It's not the 12 that counts, it's the rest...

[aristotle-dude]

I travel all over (in the US). I usually consult in city that are not the major metropolitan centers (in the US). If you are NOT in the major metros (in the US), Verizon wins 9 times out of 10. Once I got back on Verizon, covered (in the US).

If you don't travel, get the best signal provider in your area. If you travel (only in the US), Verizon is best.

There, I fixed that for you. A CDMA phone is going to be useless outside of the US unless you have a "world" phone which also includes a SIM and GSM radio for the rest of the world outside of the US. If you travel internationally, you are better off with a GSM/HSPA phone.

Re:It's not the 12 that counts, it's the rest...

[Anonymous Coward]

Verizon now has the HTC Touch Pro 2, which is, as I understand it, a World phone (EDGE) with CDMA 3G.

And no, I'd not recommend anyone get it, despite it being one of the only good phones you can use on their networks. Get a different provider.

Re:It's not the 12 that counts, it's the rest...

[haapi]

My US Verizon CDMA phone lit up just fine in India (Mumbai/Pune), thank you very much.

They all suck.

[aussersterne]

Having been through Verizon, T-Mobile, and AT&T over the years (never tried Sprint), my conclusion is they're all way oversold with shitty reliability and doubly shitty and uneven customer service. Typical megacorporations to whom any individual customer matters NOT AT ALL.

Re:They all suck.

[Velorium]

So who do you use now?

Piss off, 3G

[girlintraining]

3G is a joke, but it's not a funny one. The FCC promised that we'd start to see high speed wireless internet now that the spectrum's been auctioned off. But like everything else, they seem to have lied -- shoving costs down the consumer's throat in the middle of a recession, raking in the money with a smile from the auctions... Everything about the so-called digital transition was a scam. Price fixing of LCD TV prices, running out of converter boxes -- and charging twice as much as they were worth in the store to soak up the free money those vouchers gave them... hmph.

Where's the alternatives here? They all have bandwidth caps. None of them are investing in the backhaul infrastructure. The network coverage is a joke, the handsets have disabled tethering, locked in the search engines... I mean, hell -- a pringles can and a wifi card does better than every other solution we have here in the United States for mobile internet. What the hell happened?

Re:Piss off, 3G

[timeOday]

I am a huge fan of the digital TV conversion, since the picture is so good (better than cable or satellite digital), and not encrypted. I didn't pay much above the coupon price for my analog converter boxes, either.

I am very curious, though, has anybody brought out services on the freed-up analog TV bandwidth? Are these 3g services using that?

Re:Piss off, 3G

[Anonymous Coward]

we just got clearwire wimax here in austin tx... city wide broadband, no 3g required, operating off of the fore-mentioned spectrums you spoke of.. maybe you should write your congressman and tell them to work to get wimax in your city

Re:Piss off, 3G

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, the next time we give them free money it will be different.

BWUAHAHAHAHAHAAHA

Re:Piss off, 3G

[Anonymous Coward]

Can I suggest a method I use to spread the word?

If I get a dropped call, I YELL "Fucking piece of shit! Fuck AT&T!!!".

Being in manhattan around 50+ ppl in audible range multiplied by several drops a day....

I'd like to think I lose AT&T at least one potential customer every 6 hours or so.

Re:Piss off, 3G

[girlintraining]

I am a huge fan of the digital TV conversion, since the picture is so good (better than cable or satellite digital), and not encrypted. I didn't pay much above the coupon price for my analog converter boxes, either.

The picture is good. But that's no excuse for what they did. Switching to a widescreen format meant that for those still using standard TVs, 33% of the available viewing space was lost for those who stuck with it. For those who upgraded, the smallest LCD TV sets cost over $500. Comparably, they were about twice as expensive as the previous generation. That's a lot of cash to be forking out at a time when we're in a recession and 10% or more of the population is unemployed -- let alone under-employed. We all knew the prices were being fixed, but it took the government two years to blow the whistle on it -- and even with the fines they still came out way ahead. So the FCC collected billions from the spectrum auction, the LCD manufacturers collected billions more by creating artificial shortages and price fixing schemas, and all of that came out the pockets of every person who bought a DTV.

3G services do NOT use the freed up spectrum. They use already-allocated space. As to what does use that new spectrum? Well... nothing you'd care about. In fact, very little at all right now. The licenses have been sold, but the consumers haven't seen any benefit. Don't worry though -- you'll be paying for the licenses those companies bought. One way or another, you'll pay.

Re:Piss off, 3G

[timeOday]

Well, I'm still sticking with my old Trinitron, and my digital converter box offers a "zoom" mode so I don't waste any scanlines on black bars.

I did get finally upgrade my computer monitor recently, a 21.5" 1920x1080 for a little under $100 from staples.com on Black Friday, so I can watch full-res HDTV on that using a USB ATSC receiver.

I certainly can't condone price-fixing though.

Re:Piss off, 3G

[Burdell]

A 16:9 image on a 4:3 screen leaves 25% (not 33%) black, and 16:9 digital TVs were available for under $300 (not over $500). 3G spectrum was allocated years ago, long before the analog TV cut-off; it takes time (and a lot of money) to roll out new services in new frequency bands. Since Congress kept changing the analog cut-off date, nobody was going to spend a dime buying and building out equipment to utilize the old high-UHF frequency until it was actually available. You might start seeing some of it in use next year.

Re:Piss off, 3G

[CAIMLAS]

Except, in rural areas, where reception was spotty previously. Sure, you'd get TV signal, just slightly 'snowed'.

Now, good luck watching TV if there's inclement weather.

Re:Piss off, 3G

[flimflammer]

The smallest LCD TV costs over $500? You're not even close. I've seen them under the $200 mark. They're not the best TV's around but it's hardly impossible to find a decent TV for less than $500.

Re:Piss off, 3G

[Com2Kid]

For those who upgraded, the smallest LCD TV sets cost over $500

Really?

Vizio 720p 32" $350

Heck the 32" Panasonic is $399.

I would hardly call a 32" TV "small" by any means.

Under 30" the price drops to well under $300.

Re:Piss off, 3G

[Pichu0102]

What the hell happened?

Human nature to screw over each other as much as possible.

Re:Piss off, 3G

[Wireless Joe]

AT&T is reserving the 700mhz spectrum it won in the auction and purchased from Aloha Wireless Partners exclusively for their 4G LTE network. You won't see it up and running until about 2011, which is not a bad turnaround time to basically build an entire network overlay with new spectrum, radios, etc.

Wha?

[Itninja]

AT&T's wasn't measurably more or less reliable than Verizon's

So how is this a 'win' exactly? Sounds more like a tie to me.

Re:Wha?

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Title of article "AT&T Wins Gizmodo 3G Bandwidth Test".
Not Article Title "AT&T Wins Gizmodo 3G Reliability Test".

Notice any difference in the two?

Re:Wha?

[Arthur Grumbine]

AT&T's wasn't measurably more or less reliable than Verizon's

So how is this a 'win' exactly?

I think they forgot the asterisk after "wins" in the title:
* true only for sufficiently extreme values of fanboyism

I mean, c'mon, it is Gizmodo.

hahahahaha

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like AT&T gets the last laugh after all...

That isn't the problem with AT&T

[dynamo]

Someone should go do a test of the dropped call quantity and voice quality when in these same areas. That is where AT&T is so difficult to have to use as a primary phone line. The data service is actually much more reliable, and ironically makes Skype average much higher in quality / reliability from the same phone in the same place.

At least, in my experience.

Re:That isn't the problem with AT&T

[amohat]

I agree. Who cares about data speeds when you can't rely on your PHONE to make calls?

"dang, this is taking a little longer to download."

"WTF?!? HELLO? HELLO? ARRGH!!! I was on hold for a hour to talk to that rep!!!"

One of these scenarios irritates me, the other makes me want to murder death kill.

Re:That isn't the problem with AT&T

[LackThereof]

I think AT&T's network issues must be highly localized in the northeast, because I've been an AT&T user since before they were using GSM, and I've never had an unexplainable dropped call anywhere I've traveled. My cell is and has always been my only phone; I don't have a landline. However, I keep hearing about all these dropped calls on AT&T.

Sure, if I'm way out in the woods and I lose signal, it drops. If I go through a deep tunnel and lose signal, it drops. But if I've got signal, the call goes through and the line stays open.

I've never used anything but a free-with-contract handset with the service, either. I HAVE developed a deep loathing for LG handsets, though. My first 3g handset was a free Cu575 that was absolute shit - laggy buggy interface, OS crashes, strange "call failed" messages, etc.. I actually went back to using my old 2g Motorola rather than wait out the 2 year contract with that thing. I could not replace it fast enough when the contract expired. My fiance had similar problems on her Verizon LG handset.

I've primarily used my phone in Seattle.

Re:That isn't the problem with AT&T

[dynamo]

Just for the record, the issues I've seen with dropped calls were while in the southwest, so the problems are at least not totally localized in the northeast.

Honest question

[dnaumov]

Why do you, Americans, put up with your mobile operators specifically disabling features (like tethering or bluetooth) on phones being sold via contracts? Here where I live (Finland), such action would be considered blatant fraud, because the operator would be advertising a specific phone model, while in reality, the phone model being advertised in reality has more or better features than the one sold to you under it's name by the operator.

Re:Honest question

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple answer. The congress is owned by corporate interests in this country.

Re:Honest question

[Anonymous Coward]

How we Americans deal with it (some of us anyway) is we hack the phone to tether anyway for free, and smile every time we use it.

Re:Honest question

[Attila Dimedici]

The thing that Europeans always forget is that the U.S. is more like the E.U. than it is like Finland. Actually, many Americans make the same mistake. When Europe becomes a single cellular market the way that the U.S. is, we will be able to compare the business practices of the providers.

Re:Honest question

[BronsCon]

Amen. Mod parent up.

Re:Honest question

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't have an answer to this. but PERHAPS it's the same reason they put up with lobbying which in most contries would be known as bribery.

My guess is, answer one question and you can answer the other.

Re:Honest question

[Anonymous Coward]

And the problem with this argument is that then we'd surely see regional cellphone operators covering at least one state with near 100% geographic coverage like Finland and Sweden have, and have unlimited mobile broadband at least in that state. But they're nowhere to be seen.

Hell, if anything, being able to operate anywhere in the USA should bring a lot of benefits in terms of being able to provide good network coverage in places that aren't otherwise economically feasible (you know, subsidizing). But on the contrary, coverage is bad in rural areas *and* cities, and service is bad no matter what major carrier you pick. Why?

Re:Honest question

[Anonymous Coward]

It's because our lawmakers' clients (AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint, etc....) are much more organized and powerful than the American public. We are corporate America's bitches, and they know it.

Re:Honest question

[mjwx]

The thing that Europeans always forget is that the U.S. is more like the E.U. than it is like Finland. Actually, many Americans make the same mistake. When Europe becomes a single cellular market the way that the U.S. is, we will be able to compare the business practices of the providers.

One, the EU will not become a single market for mobile communications for decades due to the fact that each nation has it's own telco's and telecommunications laws. The only ones that could reach across Europe are Hutchinson and Vodafone. Secondly this is likely not to happen because of three reasons.

1. The EU will not balkanise the market like the US did, by giving telco's local monopolies.

2. The EU will be willing to regulate the market to prevent uncompetitive or anti-consumer behaviour. Amongst this will be standardisation, this will prevent carriers from locking in customers by creating separate networks like the WCDMA/GSM split in the US.

3. The EU is pro-consumer, EU telco's will not get away with the same shenanigans as US telco's do.

Size has nothing to do with the way US telco's act. They act this way because they are permitted to, first by being given local monopolies and secondly by not being punished by an ombudsman or regulatory agency for abuses. The problems with the US telco's are political not geographical, they need to be fixed by political means (I.E. changing laws to become more pro-consumer).

Re:Honest question

[interkin3tic]

Why do you, Americans, put up with your mobile operators specifically disabling features (like tethering or bluetooth) on phones being sold via contracts?

A -few- of us see cell phones as interesting toys at best. Sure, I like all the features, and I do obviously read some of the slashdot news articles on mobile phones because I'm a nerd, but I'm not going to march on washington just because my mobile options are more limited than they are in other markets.

Re:Honest question

[Nkwe]

How we Americans deal with it (some of us anyway) is we hack the phone to tether anyway for free, and smile every time we use it.

Or we purchase a plan that (legitimately) allows tethering. Yes, it is more expensive, but it is available. If you actually abide by your contract with your carrier, the carrier doesn't try and disable features that you have paid to use.

I am on AT&T with a tethering plan and I overall get good performance. I use it when I am at client sites that don’t have unrestricted Internet access for consultants or at hotels that have a crappy Internet connection (which is common). In the cities I travel to (Portland, Seattle, Cleveland, Dallas, Boston, Wash DC, Jacksonville) I typically get several hundred KB to a MB worth of download speed and a couple hundred KB upload speed. When I am in fringe areas the speed drops down and sometimes I have to fall back to the slow "edge" speed, but I can almost always get a connection. I found that the tethering software provided by AT&T sucks, but WMWifiRouter works great on my HTC Tilt phone.

Re:Honest question

[Pichu0102]

Because we can get nothing better, and because we cannot improve our situation in any way due to the deathgrip companies have on our government and media.

In other words, we put up with it because we know it's only going to get worse as time goes on, and we might as well enjoy what we can now before they strip it from it.

Re:Honest question

[Anonymous Coward]

Americans are stupid. I thought this was a globally known fact. Have you seen who we elect for presidents?

Re:Honest question

[Attila Dimedici]

3. The EU is pro-consumer,

Up until the EU's ruling elite decide that being pro-consumer is no longer in its self-interest. The EU is set up to have little or no accountability. Right now the people who run the EU wish to increase the power of the central government, the people of the various countries that make up the EU are opposed to this. Therefore, those who actually run the EU wish to appear responsive to the needs and wants of the common man. Once they have the power they are in the process of acquiring, that will no longer be necessary.

Re:Honest question

[strikethree]

"Why do you, Americans, put up with your mobile operators specifically disabling features (like tethering or bluetooth) on phones"

That is like asking why the innocent prisoner tolerates being shackled up or why the Jews tolerated Hitler or Pharaoh enslaving them. Some escape by not using mobile phone technology. Most just put up with whatever is forced on them. Will you play the part of Moses and lead us to freedom in the promised land of unlocked phones and reliable 3G service?

I guess what I am really asking you is this: Are you suggesting that I move to another country because of the state of mobile phone technology in my country? How else would I stop "putting up with it"? Vote for different representatives? Expose the corruption? Assassinate CEOs?

Seriously, your question makes little sense. Yes, we know it is a fucked up situation. No, there is nothing we can do to stop the rape.

Regards,

strike

use a 3rd party cell phone company

[Anonymous Coward]

There are smaller cell phone companies that offer lower prices ($30 month, for unlimited talking) than the big four. If the big cell phone companies don't put the money into infrastructure, they will be underpriced by the local companies. Wait for LTE to come along. Things will change... if enough spectrum is freed up.

Average speeds are meaningless.

[jtownatpunk.net]

What matters to me is the performance I get from the tower I'm connected to at the moment I'm trying to use it. I don't give two shits if the tower five miles up the road is giving 1700/350kbps when the one I'm using is doing 100/300. And I don't care if the one that was giving me 100/300 on Friday afternoon is able to do 1500/320 on Saturday morning because I'm not there Saturday morning. I need their network to function wherever I happen to be at whatever time I need to use it.

I use AT&T,

[aussersterne]

specifically because of the iPhone and iPhone upgrades. Yes, I like the iPhone. It's the first smartphone (having used Palm for a long time, then Blackberry for a while) that I really use to its potential, and that really simply transparently works for me for all of my calendaring, contacts, email, etc. in a way that doesn't feel "phone-ish."

Of the three, Verizon is the one I would absolutely refuse to go back to no matter what, for two reasons: 1) GSM [lack of], and 2) Verizon is the one of the three that caused the biggest billing cock-ups, which took months to clear up in each case and led to my determination to leave them ASAP.

Re:I use AT&T,

[BronsCon]

It's pretty easy to use a device that can only run one app at a time to its potential. That said, I've been with AT&T for 9 years now and...

Well, if you ever have to call them for anything, be prepared to translate Habib-English. Other than support consistently getting WORSE (it's rare that I have to call, so this is minor), AT&T has been improving steadily the entire time I've been with them.

Re:I use AT&T,

[pgmrdlm]

Well, if you ever have to call them for anything, be prepared to translate Habib-English. Other than support consistently getting WORSE (it's rare that I have to call, so this is minor), AT&T has been improving steadily the entire time I've been with them.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean, I have never had to 'translate Habib-English' and I have been with AT&T shoot, almost 20 years now that I think about it. First in North eastern Pennsylvania and now in Cleveland Ohio?

I'll stay with AT&T just because twice they gave me breaks on my billing when they did not have to.
Once when I was out of area during my brothers funeral, they back dated my coverage change so I wouldn't have to pay roaming calls.
And once when I first moved to Ohio, I had back to back 400 dollar cell phone bills. They gave me a 200 dollar break.
And no, I asked for neither break.

So, they have won my loyality.

Re:I use AT&T,

[mjwx]

Yes, I like the iPhone. It's the first smartphone (having used Palm for a long time, then Blackberry for a while) that I really use to its potential

That's easy to do when the potential of a device is so limited.

I on the other hand will say that I will never use the full potential of my Android phone and that is not through lack of trying. I have a phone that sync's my Gmail, ISP mail and work mail into separate programs that can be open at the same time each with different notification settings, can be turned on and off independent of each other and programmed to operate on different schedules (I.E. I want my personal mail on Saturday, not my work mail).

Saying that you use the full potential of anything is not good, this means that you will reach the limitations of the device leaving no room for growth. The Iphone is a closed ecosystem, a completely controlled environment where there is little variation, thus little change (mutation, the iphone is akin to monoculture farming, which tends to degrades the species over time) where as Android is an entirely open ecosystem where new variables can enter easily leading to new functions or enhancements of existing ones.

Re:I use AT&T,

[Karlt1]

t's pretty easy to use a device that can only run one app at a time to its potential. That said, I've been with AT&T for 9 years now and...

Let's look at the great multitasking capability of the BlackBerry compared to the iPhone -- I have a BB Curve on Sprint.

1. You can't use the web and talk on the phone at the same time
2. The media player doesn't work in the background
3. The browser doesn't stream music at all -- let alone in the background -- and the included Sprint TV media streaming service doesn't work in the background.
4. You can't use any GPS aware app on my BB while talking to someone.

All of this can easily be done on the iPhone.

Re:I use AT&T,

[rsborg]

I too hate Verizon for forcing $300 of overage on me the only one month I had significant usage (transitioning jobs - lots of telephone interviews that I couldn't take at my desk).

No amount of pleading with them could get them to change even though I threatened to move (my contract was up). I was basically told that they did NOT want me, so I switched as soon as I could.

The worst that Sprint,t-mobile and ATT ever did to me was overpriced international and text (they all do that)... Verizon is truly in a class of it's own with regards to it's rapacious overage.

Re:I use AT&T,

[BronsCon]

1. Network limitation -- 3G technologies allow voice and data to be used simultaneously. This is a SPRINT issue (and a Curve issue, as even GSM Curves aren't 3G). The first two iPhones couldn't do this, either, as they were 2G phones. The iPhone 3G, much like my BlackBerry Bold, being a 3G phone, is capable of this.

2. Carrier-imposed restriction. This worked fine on my AT&T Curve, and works fine on my AT&T Bold.

3A. The iPhone browser does? Oh, wait, it can't run in the background AT ALL. This works on the Bold, however (though still not in the background). Try Pandora, which works on the Curve, Bold, many other BB models, all iPhones, and most WinMo devices. On all but the iPhone, it streams just fine in the background. On the iPhone, you simply can't put it in the background.

3B. This would be a software limitation of Sprint's application, not the device -- see Pandora, above. Don't you know how terrible Sprint is?

4B. Another Sprint-imposed restriction. I had not problem doing this with my Curve on AT&T, and it works fine on my Bold. Probably works on the iPhone, as well, never tried it.

Don't bash the phone when the technology the carrier's network uses doesn't support a feature, or when the carrier disables a feature, or when 3rd party software the carrier includes on the phone doesn't do what you want. All of those fall squarely on the shoulders of the carrier. I've known Sprint sucked since '99. You still haven't figured it out. I almost pity you.

Re:I use AT&T,

[BronsCon]

And in the last 5 years, they've been outsourcing to India for support. Sometimes it takes a few tries to get someone without a heavy accent.

Yes, they help when you can understand them. Yes, they do go out of their way to do so. My issue is that, really, as much as I'd rather not work the phones, it would be nice to have that job right now.

That said, what part of my comment was anti-AT&T?

Re:I use AT&T,

[Karlt1]

Safari can stream music in the background. As far as the not being able to play music in the background, isn't the "Media" app a standard BB app?

Don't bash the phone when the technology the carrier's network uses doesn't support a feature, or when the carrier disables a feature, or when 3rd party software the carrier includes on the phone doesn't do what you want. All of those fall squarely on the shoulders of the carrier

So why is it that Apple, a complete newcomer, was able to demand that network carriers don't artificially cripple the iPhone and RIM couldn't do the same?

Re:I use AT&T,

[BronsCon]

Well, I don't think it's that Apple demanded that AT&T didn't cripple the phone, so much as Apple didn't give AT&T the opportunity to customize the firmware. Further, AT&T didn't cripple the BB media player in the same way Sprint apparently did. I listen to my MP3s and AACs in the background (while browsing) all the time on my Bold; I did so on my ST&T curve, as well.

Ever consider that Apple only sells the iPhone through AT&T in the US because they're the only carrier that would accept not having the ability to fuck up the firmware beforehand?

Why does Verizon insist on disabling every useful feature on their phones?

Better question: If you bought a car, and the dealer had disconnected the brake lines, would you blame the car when you rammed into a wall? Don't blame the phone for the carrier's modifications.

Re:I use AT&T,

[Vancorps]

That's weird, on my Sprint cheapo slider phone I could play Pandora in the background. My ATT smart phone for work is useless though, when I get 3g coverage, and I'm in a city, Phoenix to be specific, it'll constantly switch back and forth to edge, and forget using WIFI since Automatic network connection simply doesn't work. I was trying to call into a support line with it a week ago and I got so fed up with waiting in the queue only to have my call dropped that I just called with my damned Sprint phone. Sure it used my personal minutes but it got the job done and without a call drop. They both had the same number of bars.

We just switched to ATT because Sprint is retardedly expensive for business lines and our support representative was less than what I consider responsive. We switched to Sprint from Verizon a couple years ago. Seems like any option you take is going to suck pretty hard. If you want your phone to, you know, make phone calls, Sprint seems to be the best for service, they even had the fastest Internet for a long time. But they do crush their phones and their selection of handsets was ridiculous for a long time. Seems like they are starting to see the error of their ways though. We'll see how the landscape changes with these new players, it's good to see some shake-up although I still see very little progress.

Re:I use AT&T,

[BronsCon]

Mind naming the phones here? A bad phone is a bad phone, and if it can't decide which network to use and WiFi is crap (can't blame the provider, there -- it's not their WiFi) then it sounds like a phone issue.

Also...

You'll notice that I said both BlackBerries I've owned can play Pandora in the background. You'll also notice that they only make mobile apps for WinMo, BlackBerry, and iPhone, which is how I noticed that you're lying about your cheapo slider.

Re:I use AT&T,

[pgmrdlm]

I didn't mean it to come off as you was anti ATT.

My comment was just meant that I had never had India indiviudals on the help desk when ever I called.

Thats all, sorry.

Re:I use AT&T,

[eharvill]

And in the last 5 years, they've been outsourcing to India for support. Sometimes it takes a few tries to get someone without a heavy accent.

Yes, they help when you can understand them. Yes, they do go out of their way to do so. My issue is that, really, as much as I'd rather not work the phones, it would be nice to have that job right now.

That said, what part of my comment was anti-AT&T?

It really depends which support department you are calling. Basic phone service, billing issues, roaming issues, data phones, etc are all handled by different departments. I know for a fact the Roaming and Data support departments are domestic. So if you have an issue with your BB, iPhone, PDA, etc, you will be speaking with someone in the U.S. Whether or not English is their primary language is a different story however. :-)

Re:I use AT&T,

[BronsCon]

Nah, the effed my bill a couple of times. Habib-English is apparently the only language they're allowed to speak in the billing department.

Otherwise, as I thought I had implied at least fairly strongly, I'm quite happy with AT&T. There's no way in hell I'd still be with them going on 10 years if I wasn't.

I always wonder if people who can't get reception worth a damn just have the free phones. I know I thought all the services sucked when I just had free phones. When I came to accept this and decided I should just make the best of it, I forked over some cash for a better phone and all of a sudden everything got better.

That's why you keep seeing me try and get phone models when people complain about a provider -- some phones just suck. On the flipside, you'll notice I've spent a fair bit of this thread tearing down the providers when people are blaming their phones.

To be blunt, it's easier to find a good phone than a good provider, so if you're having a bad experience, try a better phone.

Really quickly, though, I'd like to sum up the reason I'm with AT&T, by listing my options and a quick pro/con rating of each.

Sprint:
Pros: Mediocre service, decent phones, at least back in 1999.
Cons: Billing. Really, they shut your phone of a week before your due date if it's not paid (they did it to me in 99, the did it to my mom from 02 to 03, they do it to one of my best friends to this very day)

Verizon:
Pros: I'm not a VZW customer.
Cons: Insane termination fee, lack of world roaming capability (I know, some phones can do it, but you have to buy service with another provider and end up with a second number), crap reception in the places I actually USE my phone. Oh, and dropped calls. I've never had this issue when calling a non-VZW number, so I'm gonna chalk it up to a VZW issue -- when calling a VZW phone fro ma Sprint, T-Mobile, or AT&T phone (probably others, but I haven't tested), about 20% of the time the call will connect but one party won't be able to hear the other. The common factor here is VZW.

T-Mobile:
Pros: A few nice phones.
Cone: They were great when they were VoiceStream. Now, they have crap coverage, because they haven't kept up their network since the name change.

Revol:
Pros: Unlimited calling for one price...
Cons: ...in most of north-east Ohio. No coverage anywhere else; I travel.

AT&T:
Pros: Great phones, reliable service, 3G speeds, about as competitively priced as I'd expect to find in this market.
Cons: Some support is outsourced and poorly trained, 3G latency.

Well, you can see that AT&T's the only one that fits the bill for me. Mind you, my experiences with each company cover several states, not just the northeast Ohio area, and AT&T consistently comes out ahead.

I don't know why I have the urge to type this right now, but I'm going to because i laughed a bit when I thought it... Assume AT&T and VZW's networks both suck. Ok, now, assume they're vacuum cleaners, rather than cellular networks. Which one sucks more, the bigger, or the smaller? That's right, VZW, you could have every square inch of the globe covered, but if you can't manage it properly, there's not much point!

Re:I use AT&T,

[theantipop]

Another slashdotter who fails to realize his needs are not the same as everyone. Leave no satisfied iphone user unrebuked. The echo chamber around here is getting disgusting.

Re:I use AT&T,

[mjwx]

Another slashdotter who fails to realize his needs are not the same as everyone. Leave no satisfied iphone user unrebuked.

Another fanboy who fails to realise that the mobile phone market is changing. Leave no criticism unattacked, no matter how accurate.

Most people (including me and you) do not use the full power of their personal computers, yet almost everyone has one. This is where the mobile phone market is going, being headed by Android, it is being turned into something similar to the PC market where the hardware, software and service provision is separated from each other. Frankly this isnt happening soon enough.

Just like in the personal computer industry there is little desire nor room for a closed ecosystem, vertical integration was effectively killed back in the 80's.

The echo chamber around here is getting disgusting.

Oh, I agree. Especially when fanboys must attack any criticism of their precious phone's no matter how accurate. Next time please post some facts rather then pointless frothing at the mouth, thank you.

Re:I use AT&T,

[theantipop]

Wow. And I'm the one frothing at the mouth? I think you've got a bit too much invested in this. I'm so terribly sorry I like my phone.

Re:I use AT&T,

[Vancorps]

Since you're an idiot that can't read their page and still have the nerve to call me a liar. Here's a list of phones that aren't BB, WinMo, or iPhone. Sprint Phones including Sliders

As for Wifi, I didn't say the wifi didn't work, I said that automatic detection didn't, because every ATT does to lock you in means that it favors MediaNet even when reception is crappy and WIFI reception is good. So I force it to manually use WIFI for each of the services. This is fine for me, but I can't expect my users to want to go through the massive inconvenience.

Re:I use AT&T,

[BronsCon]

9 months ago, last time I looked at that page, they only supported WinMo, BB, and iPhone. In fact, the most recent copy of that page on archive.org is from July 30, 2008, which leads me to believe that it hasn't changed in that long, until the recent addition of other platforms. Since archive.org hasn't picked that up just yet, I'm going to guess that it's very recent. Since you've resorted to name calling, you must not have considered this possibility. That's sad, as I mention that I actually use the service on my BlackBerry; that, itself, should indicate that I've read that page.

You still haven't named which phone(s) you use and have used. Like an idiot (see that? I'm not calling you an idiot), you don't realize that this makes a difference. Just because you had a problem with ONE AT&T phone dies NOT mean all phones have that problem.

On my BlackBerry, I just have to configure a WiFi network one time. During that configuration, I tell the phone whether I want it to automatically connect. If I tell it to do so, it will connect automatically every time that network is in range.

Each application does, out of necessity, need to be configured to actually use the WiFi. Let me explain; I'll simplify it for you. You see, some people will use their home WiFi, some will use their work WiFi, some will use Starbuck's WiFi, and some will use WiFi in areas where multiple networks are available.

Maybe you don't care what goes out over your home WiFi; I'll guess that most people fall into this category. Maybe your workplace does care what goes out over their WiFi. You'll want services that aren't allowed on that network to use EDGE of 3G, instead, even though you might want other, allowed services to use the WiFi at the same time; thus, you have to configure them to use the services you want to use. I sure as fuck know I don't want to do my banking over someone else's WiFi, so that always goes over 3G, which itself is encrypted; an extra layer of security on top of SSL.

If everything automatically used WiFi when I connected to an access point, I'd be in want of the ability to configure it. Most people, including myself, prefer the ability to configure the way we want things to work, not the other way around.

Re:I use AT&T,

[Vancorps]

Actually you called me a liar so you started it by saying I was lying about my cheapo slider phone. ;)

I don't take kindly to being called a liar because quite simply, as a sysadmin, my word is relied upon by a great many and thus, it is important to be honest. The M520 from Samsung is what I had with Pandora and that was two years ago now. This is not even remotely recent as the M520 was one of the first to receive the Pandora app. Was kinda why I bought it to begin with.

That said, one of my duties is that of a PBX admin for my company and so I deal with cell problems everyday. The change to ATT has dramatically increased my workload. Simply put, ATT service sucks hard. I'm in Phoenix, this is pretty much an ideal place to role out service since we don't have any mountains or tall buildings and sprawl means individual towers are not likely to be overly congested.

We have problems with the Samsung Jack, the iPhone 3GS and a few different ATT feature phones. I have resorted to deploying a separate dedicated WIFI network but again, it's crippled. The phones will indeed automatically connect but the WinMo phones in particular do not use WIFI by default for Internet connections. When you select Automatic for network detection it will prefer 3G since we have 5 bars of signal despite a 30% dropped call rate.

Contrast that with Sprint where we had weak reception, 2 bars but service always worked and calls almost never dropped. Sometimes you found yourself in a particularly weak spot which would cause the drop.

Also, in regards to Edge, it is the difference between your phone lasting through the day and needing a charge half way through. Edge service is bullshit even though it has more coverage. It's relatively fine for ActiveSync but years on Sprint has spoiled my users, they liked consistency which is what Sprint offered. Albeit, at a much higher cost per business line.

All that said, even though I grew to despise BB phones in the days when BES was required for Exchange it has much improved and is a much better platform than the iPhone and WinMO. Of course in the WinMo case its more about the carrier crippling the OS as my iPaq does everything just fine with the WinMo 6.5.

Android devices only recently became a good idea as they have working ActiveSync now, some builds don't work as well as others though.

The last thing is about network selection since you seem to think it's reasonable to have to manually change which connection WAP will use. For technical users this is not a problem, for my VP users, executives, and downright regular folk this is simply not acceptable. I'm resorting to a custom rom to enable all the functionality that the OS already supports. Fortunately WinMo has a huge developer community. I would say that banking with any phone on any network is not a good idea. Most banks will alert you when funds are low and if you need to confirm a check then that is best from a computer where a proper ledger can be reconciled.

Re:I use AT&T,

[BronsCon]

I'm sorry to have offended you. That said, was the "you started it" really necessary? :)

I have zero WinMo experience, mostly because WinCE sucked hard when I used that, partially because people I know who have WinMo phones tell me it sucks equally hard, if not harder, so I was replying based on my experience with my BB.

You do realize that, with a BB and BES, you can configure these things on the BES and the user never has to see them, right? I've, personally, never touched a BES, but I'm told by colleagues who have that you can literally control every aspect of ever BB on your network with it.

That means that, with BES, your users never have to configure whether they want to use WiFi or 3G. Presumably, you can configure certain applications based on which WiFi network you are connected to, as well.

I sure as hell know I don't want most of what I do on my phone on my breaks and during my lunch going out over my work WiFi, so, to me, not havign the ability to select that myself would be a BAD THING (TM). Further, at least on a BB, which connection to use is selected by the application, not the OS, so out of the 3 browsers I have on my BB, one is configured to always use WiFi, one is configured to always use 3G, the other chooses WiFi if available, and falls back on 3G if not. In order, those are used as: Work Browser, Home Browser, Anywhere-but-work Browser.

As for your remark about phone banking; not only can I make a record of my transaction on a scrap and enter it into my ledger later that day, my bank offers an online ledger, or I could simply record a ledges in the BB notes app. Actually, i use one of the many freeware personal finance apps available for the BB.

I'm curious, which banks, in this day and age of "grab as many fees as we can", still alert you when your balance is low? I used to see it everywhere.

Because any state of affairs

[aussersterne]

in which we do not agree to be raped every hour on the hour by corporations is in fact socialism, and socialism we leave for the "evildoers."

Same reason we prefer the poor to starve and the sick to have no medical care.

Re:Because any state of affairs

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh brother...

There are countries where the poor do starve and where the sick really do go without care because there is none. That country is not the United States. The politicians desperately need us to believe that people are dying without medical care so that they can pass their legislation, but of course such persons (including illegals) get wonderful, free care in emergency rooms. There is need for reform, but not that way. Fortunately recent polls show that the mainstream populace are no longer playing suckers to these fools.

As for the phone companies, they "get away" with what they do because most Americans simply don't care or aren't annoyed enough to do anything about it. Even those of us here on Slashdot complaining will still keep on paying our monthly phone service bills. We complain about it, but the truth is we obviously value the service enough to keep paying for it, even though we may not enjoy paying the bill since most of us see it phone service as a need. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with any of this. If we ever got to the point where we didn't value the service above the cost we payed, we would simply not pay it.

Re:Because any state of affairs

[furball]

Same reason we prefer the poor to starve and the sick to have no medical care.

How else are we going to fight poverty?

Re:Because any state of affairs

[Anonymous Coward]

There are countries where the poor do starve and where the sick really do go without care because there is none. That country is not the United States.

Yeah, no one starves to death in The United States, and no one has died in the US from lack of medical care. Actually, the truth is that you're so full of crap they can smell you in Canada.

Re:Because any state of affairs

[Anonymous Coward]

SO the answer is..... We're fucking stupid? And we should wake up and bitchslap all these greedy fuck corporations. But we can't because the people who have the power to do that. Are all getting paidoff with perks, kickbacks, bribes...

Hmm... Yep. I'll believe that. 100%

At least it gives us free leave to rip off and steal from corporations any chance we get. Fair is fair.

Cap:unfair (funny how those are so accurate sometimes)

Re:Because any state of affairs

[trickyD1ck]

"Same reason we prefer the poor to starve and the sick to have no medical care."

As if anyone is preventing you from donating to charities who feed the poor and provide medical care. Unless you want to donate other people's money, of course.

more or less?

[johanatan]

So, which is it? Was AT&T's network more or less reliable than Verizon's? And, is this really about reliability (or rather bandwidth)? I imagine reliability tests would be as painful as the coverage tests which you opted out of.

Milestone vs. Droid

[tepples]

Why do you, Americans, put up with your mobile operators specifically disabling features (like tethering or bluetooth) on phones being sold via contracts?

Because we get such a deep "discount" on the handset. Ideally, a 24-month plan with a $175 ETF would have a $7.50 per month discount if I bring my own phone, but the carriers offer no such discount. Besides, the CDMA carriers (Verizon and Sprint) don't use CSIM cards.

the operator would be advertising a specific phone model, while in reality, the phone model being advertised in reality has more or better features than the one sold to you under it's name by the operator.

Not necessarily. The standard unlocked GSM phone is sold under one name, and the carrier's version carries a slightly different name. For example, Motorola Droid is Verizon's customized version of Motorola Milestone.

Re:Not a valid test anyhoo - for the whiners

[Maniacal]

Funny

I get a kick out of those map ads. The "Island of forgotten toys" one cracks me up. Probably because that Rudolph special was a must see every year when I was a kid.

I have no particular interest in multitasking

[aussersterne]

on a phone. Here are the things I did want:

- Phone + Google + Evolution + Mac OS calendar, all synced, automatically, all the time
- GTD system task manager that syncs automatically to a web-based GTD system (Toodledo)
- A rapidly accessible text + voice + photo notes system with tagging that syncs automatically to a web-based interface
- No more "event" syncs (i.e. put in dock/plug into USB, have to remember to sync), all syncs immediate and transparent
- The REAL web of non-"mobile" pages, including AJAX capability
- Flexibility to grow in capabilities

I also got along with it:

- A kindle (with Kindle app)
- YouTube anywhere
- Great GPS integration for nearly every app both for consumption (shopping, dining, directions) and production (contextualizing input data)

iPhone gave me all of this. I tried Palm and Blackberry and they never came close to what I wanted. The iPhone is actually the first technology device in a very long time that I'm absolutely fully satisfied with. No complaints, no qualms, no niggles. That never happens, but it happened with the iPhone. You'd have to pry it out of my cold, dead hands.

Re:I have no particular interest in multitasking

[BronsCon]

on a phone. Here are the things I did want:

- Phone + Google + Evolution + Mac OS calendar, all synced, automatically, all the time
- GTD system task manager that syncs automatically to a web-based GTD system (Toodledo)

I Googled GTD Blackberry
First result: http://www.isaacbowman.com/gtd-blackberry-productivity but it doesn't sync... so
I Googled toodledo blackberry and, low and behold, the first result:
http://www.taskjot.com/

- A rapidly accessible text + voice + photo notes system with tagging that syncs automatically to a web-based interface

http://www.brighthub.com/mobile/blackberry-platform/reviews/35220.aspx
Another first result

- No more "event" syncs (i.e. put in dock/plug into USB, have to remember to sync), all syncs immediate and transparent

http://www.google.com/mobile/products/sync.html#p=default
First result, again

- The REAL web of non-"mobile" pages, including AJAX capability

http://www.opera.com/mini/
fi.... oh fuck it, you know...

- Flexibility to grow in capabilities

Ability to develop my own apps and not need RIM's blessing before use. Oh, and... thousands of applications and games available to me.

I also got along with it:

- A kindle (with Kindle app)

Blackberry kindle app is in dev... I can't imagine doing any serious reading on that screen (or the iPhone screen), though.

- YouTube anywhere

Built in. Visit http://www.youtube.com/ from the BB browser and yes, you can watch the videos.

- Great GPS integration for nearly every app both for consumption (shopping, dining, directions) and production (contextualizing input data)

Built in. No, really, it's there, and it works.

iPhone gave me all of this. I tried Palm and Blackberry and they never came close to what I wanted. The iPhone is actually the first technology device in a very long time that I'm absolutely fully satisfied with. No complaints, no qualms, no niggles. That never happens, but it happened with the iPhone. You'd have to pry it out of my cold, dead hands.

I don't know about Palm, but you must not have owned a BlackBerry for more than an hour, or you'd already know it can do all of this. In fact, it can do all of it AT THE SAME TIME.

Can you do that on the iPhone? Sorry, there's no "app for that".

My primary device is a BlackBerry Bold. I also have a 2nd gen iPhone that I use primarily for testing layouts and web features in Safari mobile.

I seriously don't know why the hell people bow down to the iPhone. It's just a damned phone, and a fair bit less capable than my primary device, which is why it's my secondary.

Re:I have no particular interest in multitasking

[BronsCon]

Oops, I missed the first point...

That's ok tho, Google Sync, mentioned in the 4th point, has it covered :)

Re:I have no particular interest in multitasking

[eharvill]

- Great GPS integration for nearly every app both for consumption (shopping, dining, directions) and production (contextualizing input data)

iPhone gave me all of this. I tried Palm and Blackberry and they never came close to what I wanted. The iPhone is actually the first technology device in a very long time that I'm absolutely fully satisfied with. No complaints, no qualms, no niggles. That never happens, but it happened with the iPhone. You'd have to pry it out of my cold, dead hands.

No complaints at all? How about battery life (or lack thereof) when using the GPS. Hope you always have a car charger available or don't need to use the phone after about 2 hours of GPS use.

Re:I have no particular interest in multitasking

[Anonymous Coward]

Having spent three weeks with a BlackBerry Curve...

Good luck doing multiple things at the same time on that particular phone, and enjoy your multiple battery pulls/QuickPull app launches per day since the phone's memory gets full. Often. I loved having it choke on loading a webpage because the thing won't let go of memory when all the apps are closed.

I was happy to wander back into Worst Try on a Sunday afternoon (weaving through American Football traffic in both directions on a scooter) and tell them to downgrade me back to my old dumbphone (Samsung A900, which I restart perhaps once a month), because it WORKED.

Incidentally, I'm not an iPhone worshipper. I don't want an iPhone, and have this nigh-irresistable urge to go wash my hands for 10 minutes if I have to touch one for any reason. (Same goes for any iProduct, really... :) )

I would call you a TROLL.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have made a few calls to AT&T/Cingular customer service over the years (most recently related to a new Win Mobile phone that refused to work). Not even one time have I had to deal with a customer service rep in Habib-English. I always got a nice person from a location in the US.

Also, I ever ever get a person who I can't understand, I will politely ask them if they could transfer me to another rep with a less intensive accent. Also, when I call, I don't scream at the person on the other side of the phone line. What ever the problem is, it is not their fault ... they just work for the company. You get better, faster and more positive results when you are polite than when you are an a-hole. When you do this, if they can't help, they will usually transfer you to somebody who can or can give you a deal you can live with.

Re:I would call you a TROLL.

[BronsCon]

When did I say I screamed at them?

I'm always polite with support staff; after all, it's not their fault AT&T shipped those jobs to their country.

It's actually very rude and quite presumptuous of you to assume that, because I complained about AT&T's outsourcing to India that I must automatically be an asshole.

I'd like you to meet my friend. His name is Kettle.

Kettle, this is Pot.

AT&T == Cherry Picker

[erroneus]

Here's the thing -- everyone knows Verizon has a much larger square-mile coverage than AT&T. Wide coverage is important to many people for many reasons. But to accomplish this, you must do less cherry picking. AT&T on the other hand, does not concern itself with wide coverage, but instead focuses on the investments that yield the highest return.

You can decide for yourself which strategy is better. As a customer, I prefer a company that favors customer satisfaction. That said, I am neither an AT&T customer nor a Verizon customer. I am a T-Mobile customer largely because it was convenient at the time and presently have no incentive to change... Sprint burned their bridge with me... I hated that I had to become angry and threaten to leave in order to get anything done with my account. While I am sure there is no shortage of horror stories about T-Mobile, I haven't had any myself.

Re:AT&T == Cherry Picker

[Chinaecarts]

dual band mobile phone, dualband cell phone, dual band cellphone http://www.chinaecarts.com/categories/dual-band-cellphones

Re:AT&T == Cherry Picker

[Anonymous Coward]

Not in Texas Verizon sucks here. Chances are if you are off a major freeway or out of a major city you have no coverage. The map Verizon puts up on TV for there coverage is a freaking joke. Not to mention blatant fraud. AT&T actually has better coverage (Not all of it 3g but you can call).

True I am starting to get more dropped calls. I wish that the iPhone would open up so that network traffic could be a little more spread out.

Because they didn't use the iPhone

[TroyM]

A big part of AT&T's problem is really that the iPhone's radio sucks. When tests are done using a different device, AT&T scores pretty good. I switched from AT&T (not the iPhone) to Verizon, and I don't see any improvement in call quality.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/business/13digi.html?_r=4&ref=technology

Re:Because they didn't use the iPhone

[Ender_Wiggin]

It's not a problem with the iPhone's radio. The problem is that AT&T segregates iPhone data from the rest of the network and locks it at a certain percent of the network traffic. I suppose it's so that the data-hungry iPhone users don't make the network crawl for everyone, but the downside is that iPhone users get screwed with dropped calls etc.

Re:Because they didn't use the iPhone

[cerberusss]

A big part of AT&T's problem is really that the iPhone's radio sucks.

I'm a North-West European iPhone user and I never have dropped calls.

Re:Because they didn't use the iPhone

[TheRealDamion]

I've been using mobiles in NW Europe for over ten years and know many others like me and I've never heard of this dropped call phenomenon. I do recall seeing mobile phone network adverts when visiting America which contained "now with fewer dropped calls" and wondering WTF?! I think Americans need to seriously berate their carriers if dropped calls are the norm.

Devil's Advocate

[SuperKendall]

Here's the thing -- everyone knows Verizon has a much larger square-mile coverage than AT&T. Wide coverage is important to many people for many reasons. But to accomplish this, you must do less cherry picking. AT&T on the other hand, does not concern itself with wide coverage, but instead focuses on the investments that yield the highest return.

What you call cherry picking, I call serving the densest markets first.

Isn't that better serving more customers in the end than the strategy of getting a wider blanket out?

Of course, that assumes the same capex outlay - and there's the problem, AT&T has not spent as much as Verizon in network upgrades over the last few years, frankly inexcusable given the influx of data-hungry iPhone customers they have received.

Re:Devil's Advocate

[erroneus]

Verizon covers all the same areas as AT&T. Nice attempt at spin though.

Statistics not valid on small numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't make any real conclusions with so small a sample size especially considering the too-many-variables-anyway context. For a sample size of 12 in this case, 4 is the same as 6 because the noise buries the signal.

You can't DO statistics on small numbers like this, not with so many variables taking part in the show.

Interesting test, but the result is a tie within reasonable limits of error. This ain't a horserace where you can "win by a nose".

As much as AT&T is bashed, they're not too bad

[jht]

At least here in metro Boston (and Eastern new England in general) I've had pretty good luck with AT&T since the latter part of 2008 - about six months after the iPhone 3G came out my service improved a lot. Most of my old dead spots are gone now, and there are places where my iPhone 3GS works well (like the client in Gloucester I was at today) and my colleague's Verizon Blackberry dies. Data speeds are very good anywhere I get 2 or more bars of service, and though there are still dead spots (eastbound on 128 through Manchester, for instance, anytime after dark) or Devereux Beach in Marblehead) they are far fewer than they ever were before.

On the other hand, my sister and her husband both went to iPhones this year in southern CT and they were much happier with Verizon's service. I don't visit them too often but I haven't noticed any issues when I've been there - I think it really depends on how much you use it and rely on it in a place.

Overall, using an iPhone's been a much better experience than my old Verizon Treo 700p provided - not only is it far more useful as a device, but I don't have to reboot it several times daily. The AT&T experience outside the coasts and major metro areas may be different, but mine's not bad. And the few times I've needed to call customer service they've been helpful.

Odd, but I'm not complaining!

Gizmodo? Those things are dangerous.

[Shinmizu]

You'd better not feed that thing any bandwidth after midnight.

No they don't

[SuperKendall]

Verizon covers all the same areas as AT&T. Nice attempt at spin though.

I didn't spin anything, I attempted to explain something to you. Since reception failed, I will sum up.

Verizon doesn't "cover the same areas" from the standpoint of data speeds, which is what the primary article is all about. AT&T has chosen to optimize for those people instead of wider physical basic coverage. That's the devil's argument in a nutshell, that AT&T has optimized differently to serve a large number of core users with higher data speeds.

And going back to the "spin" part, lest you think I am covering for AT&T do not forget that I said in the end things were not equal because AT&T has made the idiotic choice to not outspend Verizon on network infrastructure even with a huge influx on iPhone users. If you find that comment to be positive "spin" for AT&T, then you are as dense as any Apple Hater I have ever seen and I hope you find your way out of that black forest someday.

Well, I feel a little better now....

[jemenake]

Well, this test comes closer to my personal experiences with AT&T. Frankly, I've been pretty baffled by all of the iPhone users who bag on AT&T like it was the scourge of god. I live in a semi-rural area between San Francisco and Los Angeles and I've gotta say that I get voice and data (not always 3G, but so what?) service on all but the back roads that snake through canyons. My previous provider, T-Mobile, actually did have coverage out there but hey... it's a back-road... I considered coverage there to be a "bonus".

Now, don't get me wrong... I'm ready to bolt from AT&T as much as the next guy when Apple gets some contracts with other providers, but my reasons are because of pricing (I got more minutes, same unlimited data, for $20 less per month under T-Mobile) and because AT&T isn't offering tethering and they dragged their heels on MMS messaging. But to get that worked up because you don't get 3G everywhere... just seems like your expectations are a little high. Anyway, like I said, at least report is a little more congruent with my personal experiences with AT&T, so I don't feel all that crazy anymore.

And yet...

[Anonymous Coward]

AT&T handles about 40X the data traffic of Verizon.

Results can also depend on the device used.

[Blimey85]

At one friends house, I can get signal and download apps while my friend can't even though we are using seemingly identical 3gs iPhones. Anywhere in my house, on my wifi, he gets full bars while I can be sitting right next to my router and have it drop to just one bar. I typically get better wifi reception from outside than I do inside, while for him it's generally the opposite.

Just for the record, my iPhone is in an Otter Box case while his is not cased, and I still get much better reception at his house. And no, not his first iPhone 3gs... last one had the same issue for him. And I know other people with iPhones and it always seems like wherever we are, someone will have signal issues while someone else will have great signal... but it varies on who will have the better signal.

I think AT&T has won this one...

[Anonymous Coward]

With AT&T you can be less involved with a phone conversation while trolling Slashdot at the same time! Let's see you do that on Verizon.

I mean, everybody puts people on their speaker phone just to browse the web for no apparent reason. I mean, who cares if Verizon has all this other great stuff... it only matters if I can tweet my status while on a call to 911 after I merged through 8 lanes of traffic without looking while I was playing solitaire.

That's my take - 3G is awful

[betona]

I have a Sprint air card for my laptop and with the strongest of strong signals no matter where I go around the country, it's slower than dialup, worse than ancient Wifi-B. I run speedtest.net and get abysmal results. And then I watched a friend wait over 5 minutes to load a single web page on an iPhone. gag.