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.'"
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.
Don't think of it as a flame, more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage.
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).
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
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.
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]
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.
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!
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
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.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.