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

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.

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: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!