Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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.
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.
It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
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.
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.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
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?
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
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.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
So how is this a 'win' exactly? Sounds more like a tie to me.
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
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.
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.
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.
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.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
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.
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.
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
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."
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.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
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.