2013 U.S. Wireless Network Tests: AT&T Fastest, Verizon Most Reliable

adeelarshad82 writes "For the fourth year running, PCMag sent drivers out on U.S. roads to test the nation's Fastest Mobile Networks. Using eight identical Samsung phones, the drivers tested out eight separate networks for four major carriers across 30 cities evenly spread across six regions. Using Sensorly's 2013 software, a broad suite of tests were conducted every three minutes: a 'ping' to test network latency, multi-threaded HTTP upload and download tests including separate 'time to first byte' measures, a 4MB single-threaded file download, a 2MB single-threaded file upload, the download of a 1MB Web page with 70 elements, and 100kbps and 500kbps UDP streams designed to simulate streaming media. Nearly 90,000 data cycles later, the data not only revealed the fastest networks (AT&T) and the most consistent (Verizon), but also other interesting points. The tests recorded the fastest download speed (66.11 Mbits/sec) in New Orleans and the best average in Austin (27.25 Mbits/sec), both for AT&T's LTE network. The tests also found T-Mobile's HSPA network to have the worst Average-Time-To-First-Byte, even when compared with AT&T HSPA network. Also according to the tests, Sprint's LTE network didn't even come close to competing with other LTE networks, to the point that in some cities its LTE network speed averaged less than T-Mobile's HSPA network speed."

Comments

Re:Which one is more NSA-friendly?

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

The one without wires.

Verizon does have the best coverage

[Lucas123]

I don't like their service, pricing models or willingness to disclose my information to the prying eyes of the government, but in terms of mobile coverage, I guess you get what you pay for. And, I almost never drop a call.

Re:Verizon does have the best coverage

[ColdWetDog]

And I don't like AT&T becauseCALL FAILED.

Re:Verizon does have the best coverage

[h4rr4r]

I dislike their total ripoff practices.
To keep my plan I have to pay "full price" for the next phone. Yet, I get no discount. The full price is actually more than what they retail for if not bought from verizon.

Not to mention their inability to provided/allow timely updates for non-fruit devices. My next device will not be on their network.

Re:Verizon does have the best coverage

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

I was looking closely at their month-to-month offerings, but their Android devices were all neutered versions of the contract versions. There is a lengthy process of converting an S4 or HTC One into a month-to-month phone but it requires a sacrificial lamb (a month-to-month device) and if Verizon catches wind of your rooting, you'll be dropped like a call on Sprint and be out the cash you spent on both devices.

I'm sticking with T-Mobile and my Nexus 4. HSPA is fast enough for my remote browsing needs and in most places I'm surrounded by WiFi anyway. I admit that they're not the most reliable or the fastest, but they are the most consumer friendly.

Re:Verizon does have the best coverage

[mea_culpa]

If my business didn't rely on reliable mobile coverage I would have left Verizon long ago. VoIP works surprisingly well on their LTE network.

Re:Verizon does have the best coverage

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Why do you want to keep you plan? Grandfathered unlimited data? The "discounted" phone is supposed to be the carrot that keeps you on a two year contract, not the contract being the carrot for the phone purchase.

Re:Verizon does have the best coverage

[h4rr4r]

Yup, grandfathered unlimited plan and far less minutes than they now offer.

The point is if I have to pay full price I want a discount. I will want a new phone when my contract expires so I will go elsewhere.

Re:Verizon does have the best coverage

[Cigamit]

I am in the same boat. Verizon is the only carrier to have coverage in my area, so switching isn't an option. They have been dangling the upgrade carrot in front of me since 2011 (when my contract was up), but I haven't upgraded yet. Switching to the cheapest new plan with only 1GB of data is $20 more expensive per month than my current unlimited plan (and thats after my Employee discount). So its technically cheaper in the long run for me to buy a new phone outright and keep the old plan considering they want to charge me $200 still for the "upgrade", then another $35 "upgrade fee", plus the extra $20 per month for less data.

Re:Verizon does have the best coverage

[h4rr4r]

Where do you live that this is true?
I find it hard to believe there is no other carrier at all. Have you tried getting a phone from another carrier to try? They normally have some trial devices or ones you can get for X days and return if you do not like.

My contract expires in March and I am done with them then. It is actually more about lack of timely updates than money at this point. I hope VZW never gets another nexus device.

Re:Verizon does have the best coverage

[jeffmeden]

I dislike their total ripoff practices.
To keep my plan I have to pay "full price" for the next phone. Yet, I get no discount. The full price is actually more than what they retail for if not bought from verizon.

Not to mention their inability to provided/allow timely updates for non-fruit devices. My next device will not be on their network.

Sadly the only option to pay a "fair" price for your phone is with Tmobile, and as you can see in these tests, the way they give you this "Fairness" is by investing jack shit into their network. The Big 3 may be greedy, but they _are_ competing to have the fastest/widest network, just like we want them to. Now, I guess we can spend our time nitpicking the lack of choice in their contracts.

Re:Verizon does have the best coverage

[h4rr4r]

Hell, if they did not delay updates by 3+ months I might even pay their insane charges. My Not A Nexus Galaxy Nexus was the straw that broke the camels back. I will be buying my phone right from the company selling them next time.

Re:Verizon does have the best coverage

[Ichijo]

I'm on T-Mobile's $30/month prepaid plan with 100 minutes and unlimited data (the first 5GB at HSPA+ speed, after that it's 3G speed). Skype lets me avoid using my minutes while giving me HD quality audio.

Re:Verizon does have the best coverage

[jeffmeden]

Hell, if they did not delay updates by 3+ months I might even pay their insane charges. My Not A Nexus Galaxy Nexus was the straw that broke the camels back. I will be buying my phone right from the company selling them next time.

From one certified geek to another, was running CyanogenMod or a similar AOSP based firmware really out of the question if the need is there? I spent a while doing this but eventually threw in the towel after realizing that it's just not that painful to have to put up with software that is months out of date. My Galaxy S3 with standard software does everything but "photosphere", is as stable as they come, and shipped a year ago with enough cpu/ram/flash to still handle any new app.

Re:Verizon does have the best coverage

[h4rr4r]

That is not the point of a Nexus.

I run CM on some other device and love it. That defeats the purpose of my buying a Nexus though. I have no interest in being that far out of date, because of what should be a dumb pipe.

Re:Verizon does have the best coverage

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

I'm simply restating what was told to me by the Verizon customer service rep I talked to. In practice maybe they don't drop you, but they are legally allowed to.

Re:Verizon does have the best coverage

[Cigamit]

I live out in farm country in Central Texas, NW of College Station, E of Temple, SE of Waco. The closest small "town" is ~7 miles away, most of that is down a dirt road. Its 45m - 1h to any major city to go grocery shopping (ironic considering the food is grown out here) and I only have 4-5 neighbors within a 5 mile radius. I had Sprint when I moved out here, but after their agent looked at their map they let me drop my contract for lack of service without penalty. I switched to Alltel (where I got my unlimited plan) and then Verizon bought them out.

My closest neighbor has AT&T but the service is bad enough that he has to take most calls outside his house (not going to cut it when you work from home like I do). Their coverage map shows my area as "MODERATE: The areas shown in the light orange should have sufficient signal strength for on-street or in-the-open coverage, but may not have it for in-vehicle coverage or in-building coverage." Even that is really being over generous.

Last time my friend with TMobile came over, he had to stand on top of truck to get even any signal, but then couldn't successfully talk for more than a few minutes. He said he pretty much loses most of his signal 15 minutes outside of most major towns. Their coverage map shows my area as "Service Partner: Check your plan for speeds, no access for laptop sticks, tablets, etc..."

Even with Verizon, I get 1-3 bars depending on which side of the house I am on, rarely does a call drop, but there are times when my phone just never rings. 3G? I get dial speeds on it when it does work at all. Luckily there is a WISP near me for internet, even if they are super expensive ($150 for 3Mbps). To get a hard line ran out to my house they want to charge me by the foot, and its a long way.

It certainly is peaceful out here though, and I can look out my back window and know that I own everything I can see (or the bank does for the time being at least).

Re:Verizon does have the best coverage

[amiga3D]

It really depends on where you live and or work. At my house verizon is really flaky. AT&T is strong and raging fast. At work some places Verizon is better and some AT&T depending on which building I'm in. AT&T the company sucks but because nothing else works at my house I end up using them. The signal is good but the customer service is about a 1 out of 10.

Re:Verizon does have the best coverage

[amiga3D]

They have no problem with you using skype? That's interesting, I thought carriers frowned on that practice.

Re:Verizon does have the best coverage

[amiga3D]

I'm thinking they can't tell the phones are rooted. I have one friend that uses verizon and he rooted his 'droid. He uses it as a hotspot for his laptop which is in violation of the TOS but they apparently can't tell.

Re:Verizon does have the best coverage

[Miamicanes]

> if Verizon catches wind of your rooting, you'll be dropped like a call on Sprint and be out the cash you spent on both devices.

No you won't. Verizon might be evil control freaks, but not even THEY will terminate you just for rooting your phone.

That said, be aware that your likelihood of getting any phone not sold by Verizon to ever be fully-functional (especially EVDO and LTE), on Verizon is close to 'nonexistent'. People have occasionally found ways to reflash Sprint identical twins of Verizon phones with Verizon radio modems, but if you ever got a completely "alien" non-Verizon CDMA phone to do full-speed EVDO on Verizon, it would make headlines over at xda-developers.com. Radio modems are an entirely different beast from Android phones (which contain radio modems, but interact with them at arm's length).

Re:Verizon does have the best coverage

[TheSeatOfMyPants]

Sadly the only option to pay a "fair" price for your phone is with Tmobile ...

Not true -- there's also Ting (a Sprint MVNO), which has similarly good pricing and great customer service.

Re:Verizon does have the best coverage

[Miamicanes]

Unfortunately, there ARE a few places where Verizon IS pretty much your only viable option for wireless data that's faster than 250kbps indoors. Most of those places have solid AT&T coverage, but only have EDGE-speed data. Sprint is nonexistent in those areas (they just let you roam on Verizon & drop you if more than 50% of your use is roaming), and T-Mobile isn't even a wild fantasy.

If I recall, the biggest area where this tends to be the case is hardcore-rural central Pennsylvania, extending down into the Smoky Mountains & Appalachia. It's not the WHOLE area, but that's the area that seems to get mentioned the most as one where AT&T decided to just let Verizon have anybody who wasn't happy with EDGE.

It goes against what most people believe, but CDMA phones actually CAN have significantly greater range than GSM (even though that's rarely the case in urban environments, especially with Sprint). Due to the way legacy TDMA-based GSM worked, it literally hits a brick wall at around 30 miles. Further than that, and the phone won't work... period, end of story. Not even with a high-gain yagi or dish on a fixed tower. Legacy GSM timing was literally carved in stone, and beyond ~30 miles, it conflicted with the limits imposed by the speed of light and just quit working. CDMA's spectral efficiency goes down the toilet in far-fringe rural coverage areas, but if push comes to shove, you can shove an 800MHz signal a lot harder & farther than an 800MHz TDMA-based legacy GSM signal.

That's why Canadian mobile phone companies (mostly) started out with CDMA, and kept CDMA as their fallback voice/data mode even after choosing HSPA for high-speed data. Legacy GSM would have been unusable in many parts of Western and Northern Canada where CDMA voice (and 1xRTT data) works perfectly well. Australia had the same problem with phone service in the outback, and rural Australians were FURIOUS when their urban overlords decreed that everyone was moving to GSM (HSPA is WCDMA and can be coaxed into working in rural areas with a fixed high-gain antenna and high power, but WCDMA is still more demanding than oldschool IS95 CDMA and CDMA2000-1xRTT).

Re:Verizon does have the best coverage

[enos]

T-Mobile doesn't seem to mind what you do. The branded G2X even came with Android's mobile hotspot feature enabled. I spent many months tethering as my primary way to get internet at home, and a friend still does. Note that you need a good phone to have descent Skype, the G2X is too slow. It works much better with the desktop client going through the tether than the Android client.

It seems faster phones give faster service as well. The G2X would top out at about 1 Mbps, but I've gotten 16Mbps/5Mbps (up/down) on my Nexus 4.

The first-to-byte measurements are important, though. I get ping times of 300-600ms. That kind of latency makes VOIP annoying sometimes. I find Skype handles the latency better than others like Viber or Tango.

Re:Verizon does have the best coverage

[jeffmeden]

> if Verizon catches wind of your rooting, you'll be dropped like a call on Sprint and be out the cash you spent on both devices.

No you won't. Verizon might be evil control freaks, but not even THEY will terminate you just for rooting your phone.

That said, be aware that your likelihood of getting any phone not sold by Verizon to ever be fully-functional (especially EVDO and LTE), on Verizon is close to 'nonexistent'. People have occasionally found ways to reflash Sprint identical twins of Verizon phones with Verizon radio modems, but if you ever got a completely "alien" non-Verizon CDMA phone to do full-speed EVDO on Verizon, it would make headlines over at xda-developers.com. Radio modems are an entirely different beast from Android phones (which contain radio modems, but interact with them at arm's length).

He wasn't suggesting simply rooting (something many many people have done without incident) but instead, rooting with the purpose of switching the IMEI and other low-level data on the handset to trick it into looking like a different phone on the network. This is something that network providers (as they should) take very seriously and will not hesitate to blacklist the offending device if they think it is anything but genuine.

Re:Verizon does have the best coverage

[Miamicanes]

IMEI-cloning isn't "rooting" -- it's "IMEI cloning", and if convicted, it's just about the most heavily-punished illegal thing you can possibly do with a mobile phone in America without causing somebody to die. And if you're caught, you almost certainly WILL be convicted, because all the prosecution has to prove is that you did it (no need to prove criminal intent). For prosecutors, it's a hole-in-one easy victory they can assign to their summer intern and let him score a guaranteed win.

More importantly, there's NO NEED to clone an IMEI to use a non-Verizon phone on Verizon. Contrary to popular myth, Verizon WILL allow you to activate non-Verizon phones. HOWEVER, they literally won't lift a finger to help you, or even furnish you with the most trivial of information you'll need to make it work... and if you accidentally create denial-of-service conditions while trying to reverse-engineer something, or incompletely-implement something important, yes, they WILL terminate your service on the spot.

To nontechnical people, that might sound like what the OP said... but there IS a subtle shade of difference between banning something outright, vs allowing you to try, then punishing you for nearly-guaranteed failure.

Now, if you're trying to activate a phone Verizon blacklisted for being stolen or from a broken contract with unpaid ETF, that's another matter. At least Verizon, unlike T-Mobile, won't tell you that a phone's IMEI/ESN is "clean", then turn around and blacklist it anyway -- without recourse -- 3 months later. That's something T-Mobile is INFAMOUS for doing, and it's gotten them a LOT of well-deserved hate. Here's how it happens: A T-Mobile customer buys a subsidized phone, then sticks the SIM in his old phone (or a different phone) and sells the subsidized phone to someone else. The buyer calls T-Mobile, checks the ESN, verifies that it's "clean", buys the phone, and happily uses it as a T-Mobile customer (possibly prepaid) for months. Then, for whatever reason, the original buyer walks away from his contract without paying the ETF. Within days or hours, your phone quits working, and when you contact T-Mobile, they tell you that you're SOL unless you pay the ETF of the guy who sold the phone to you several MONTHS ago. Sprint/AT&T/Verizon don't do this. They won't allow you to newly-activate the phone once it's been blacklisted, but they'll grandfather you in if the phone was in use long before the blacklisting occurred.

Data Caps

[asicsolutions]

I did read the article.
I'm surprised part of the rankings didn't address this.
I have Sprint and I have used upwards of 8GB in a month, something prohibitive with another carrier.

Re:Data Caps

[fermion]

I have all three on various devices. Verizon on my iPad is often so slow as to be usable. I sometime have to go to my phone, which is on ATT, to get internet access. Verizon is often theoretically more available, but ATT often has better coverage. I just don't think that Verizon is worth the extra cost. My next tablet will probably not be Verizon.

I have Sprint through virgin mobile. The 'unlimited' data is nice, but the coverage data sucks. Also, it seems as the month goes on and I get up into multiple gigabytes, the service becomes less reliable. Also, when I renew for new month there always seems to be an issue with the renewal and reconnection. Out of the past 6 months, I might have had two good ones.

Re:Data Caps

[icebike]

I think they referenced it in passing, but it probably didn't matter for the purposes of this article.

They may have had to use multiple accounts to avoid hitting the datacaps, but as long as those caps only resulted in
a bigger bill and not throttling it wouldn't affect the results.

Also, you are in the minority, as most users never come near their cap. Those like you probably all
choose Sprint for that very reason.

Re:Data Caps

[ColdWetDog]

I have all three on various devices. Verizon on my iPad is often so slow as to be usable.

Use a terminal program with some buffering. It's not 1998 anymore.

Re: Data Caps

[jsh1972]

Seconded. I'm 25 days into my billing period and am at 9.19 GB.

T-mobile the one that doesn't cost a damn fortune

[TWiTfan]

Seriously Verizon, $120+ for a basic data/voice plan?

What is boils down to:

[mu51c10rd]

AT&T - Fastest
Verizon - Reliable
TMobile - Cheapest
Sprint - Service

Re:What is boils down to:

[girlintraining]

AT&T - Fastest
Verizon - Reliable
TMobile - Cheapest
Sprint - Service

And compared to European vendors...
AT&T - Slow. Expensive. Unreliable.
Verizon - Slow. Expensive. Unreliable.
TMobile - Slow. Expensive. Unreliable.
Sprint - Slow. Expensive. Unreliable. :(

Re:What is boils down to:

[PRMan]

Well, since they are still cheaper than everyone else and I get great service, I guess I can't blame them. If you know the right people to call (hint: don't activate in a store), you can get around many of those charges.

Re:What is boils down to:

[ducomputergeek]

Last job we had AT&T. When I left and started my own company, Sprint was the only one with sensible deposit as I wasn't going to do a personal guarantee on advise of the attorney filing the incorporation paperwork. AT&T wanted $1,000 per line deposit and Verizon was $700 IIRC. Sprint was $150 per line (phone & mobile hotspot). I forgot about the deposit until my phone bill arrived this year and it had a negative balance. I had a year of good payment history and this year they credited those deposits. Furthermore my iPhone & Mobile hotpot was still $40 a month less than Verizon or AT&T's iPhone with tethering.

Is data speeds as fast, well the 3GS on AT&T I had was much faster than the 4S on Sprint's network. But the mobile hotspot is fast enough and comes in extremely handy it's saved the day a couple times before a presentation to clients.

And days like today where I'm meeting my fiancé for later for Spamalot at the Muny. So instead of being stuck in an office and slacking off on slashdot I'm slacking off on Slashdot from the Grand Basin in Forest Park St. Louis with a good parking spot.

Re:What is boils down to:

[LiENUS]

Arent the european networks avoiding LTE at the moment? so it should be
Compared to European vendors...
AT&T - Expensive. Unreliable.
Verizon - Expensive. Unreliable.
TMobile - Expensive. Unreliable.
Sprint - Expensive. Unreliable.

Re:What is boils down to:

[AmiMoJo]

You forgot:

All - Shit

Re:What is boils down to:

[ImprovOmega]

That is a fact. I was willing to put up with Sprint's craptacular 2g network where I live, since I was mostly using it for voice at the time, but a handful of issues with my wife's phone and we packed up and went to Verizon. Lo and behold! Friendly service, no dropped calls, no weird echo-feedback on the line, competent 3g speeds, and once their share-everything plan came down the pipe, reasonable pricing! I will never go back to Sprint. What good is unlimited data anyway when your "4g" connection only lets you maybe download at 3g speeds anyway.

Re:What is boils down to:

[BlueGMan]

I believe this has as much to do with your geographic location as anything.. I used to be Cingular until they were bought out by ATT.. when they reprovisioned their towers to ATT (away from cingular) and left us in the cold I switched to verizon.. everything was great until 4g. I work in DC and I cannot even get web pages to load under verizon 4G.. it has beome a joke to think that with all that "bandwidth" I cannot watch more than 5 seconds of a streaming video until it pauses for 15-30 seconds to buffer.. that is defnintely not 4g speeds. Conversely, my ATT mifi screams in DC. Now text messages are falling into the abyss (nothing like getting yelled at by the wife for not responding when you didn't get it).. Anymore, even FB gives me a "network error" occured numerous times EVERY DAY. So as for verizon being "reliable", NOT IN DC.

Re:What is boils down to:

[mu51c10rd]

I thought that was a constant and already understood. I should have added that.

$45 /month Unlimited

[rea1l1]

I use Straight Talk / Net 10 for $45 a month unlimited everything. I also regularly tether my devices to my phone and haven't had any issues. I've heard this service piggybacks on the major network's hardware , but I can't understand why the major networks would allow this - does anyone know?

Re:$45 /month Unlimited

[macromorgan]

The terms of service for Straight Talk prohibit you from tethering, and they tend to get really cranky if you use more than 2GB of data (even though they say they are unlimited). Depending upon which type of SIM you grabbed when you signed up, you are either on AT&T or T-Mobile's network. Source: I used Straight Talk for a few months back in 2012 and found it to be a decent enough experience.

Re:$45 /month Unlimited

[bonehead]

You're leaving out US Cellular.

Most definitely not an MVNO, and in my neck of the woods they blow all of the big 4 out of the water in every aspect (aside from being beaten on price a little by Sprint).

I recently switched and now have solid LTE at several locations where my sprint phone had no service.

Re:Which one is more NSA-friendly?

[Nexus7]

They're all NSA-compliant, but looks like T-Mo is doing its own snooping before getting the spooks into the loop (highest time to first byte).

The Real Good News

[Anonymous Coward]

The drivers weren't running the tests. Software ran the tests while the drivers drove the cars.

bad time to be testing this

[Tumbleweed]

T-Mobile's LTE roll-out is about to get serious, and they claim they'll have around 200 million people in the U.S. covered by the end of the year (with rumors of my beloved Seattle area getting it by the end of this month). Sprint's LTE roll-out is also chugging along.

The landscape will look very different by year's end.

Re:bad time to be testing this

[93 Escort Wagon]

I get T-Mobile LTE on UW's campus already.

Re:bad time to be testing this

[Tumbleweed]

Did you do a speedtest?

Re:bad time to be testing this

[93 Escort Wagon]

Nope.

I tend to think of speed tests as largely pointless. When I'm connecting to some site or server, there are too many other culprits that can (and do) affect the transmission of data back and forth between my device and the remote one. It's not generally the network I'm on, unless I'm on EDGE.

Re:bad time to be testing this

[adeelarshad82]

the test is done every year

Re:bad time to be testing this

[girlintraining]

The landscape will look very different by year's end.

This can be said at any point since the invention of the cell phone. These are the facts as of today, and those are the ones that matter in a purchasing decision.

Re:bad time to be testing this

[Tumbleweed]

the test is done every year

Nevertheless, right now, this year, it's an especially bad time for it, as it gives a very misleading idea of what's going on. Most years you don't see much change, but 2013 is going to be a big turning point.

Re:bad time to be testing this

[Tumbleweed]

The landscape will look very different by year's end.

This can be said at any point since the invention of the cell phone. These are the facts as of today, and those are the ones that matter in a purchasing decision.

Most years, the networks in the U.S. don't change that much. This year is HUGE, though, and basing a purchasing decision on things right now would be a gigantic mistake.

Re:bad time to be testing this

[WillAffleckUW]

Yes, but we'll be getting even faster wireless speeds on campus soon, that will make the LTE from both T-Mobile and AT&T look pitiful.

(caveat - I get the AT&T service)

Re:bad time to be testing this

[TheEyes]

I thought T-Mobile was putting all their eggs into the HSDPA+42[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HSPA%2B_networks#U] basket.

That was in 2010, before the failed AT&T merger. Now T-mobile is flush with cash and spectrum, thanks to a billion dollar breakup fee from AT&T, and has started to rapidly deploy LTE across the country by refarming their 1700 MHz HSPA network to the 1900 band and using the freed up 1700 band for LTE (aka Band 4 LTE). Spectrum refarming, btw, is also what has given T-mobile enough 1900 MHz HSPA throughout the country to start selling the iPhone legitimately, as they can now gaurantee iPhone-compatible HSPA coverage in nearly all markets (iPhone can't communicate on the 1700 band.)

Re:bad time to be testing this

[TheEyes]

The landscape will look very different by year's end.

This can be said at any point since the invention of the cell phone. These are the facts as of today, and those are the ones that matter in a purchasing decision.

Most years, the networks in the U.S. don't change that much. This year is HUGE, though, and basing a purchasing decision on things right now would be a gigantic mistake.

But again, the same could be said of any year, especially in recent memory. 2011-12 was when AT&T deployed most of its LTE network; any tests done then would be unfair to AT&T. 2008-09 was Verizon's time for LTE; same there. 2013-14 is T-mobile's turn, and 2015-2017 is when the real synergy effects from the T-mobile/MetroPCS merger, when the MetroPCS spectrum will be finally integrated into the T-mobile network.

Re:bad time to be testing this

[adolf]

Really?

About 20 years ago, people still sometimes had to use dialing codes to make a phone call to a cellphone. We had a list in the kitchen next to the telephone of some common ones. "I think Mom said she'd be in Cleveland today...let's try that one first."

This was AMPS, of course. Things have improved a bit since then.

Oh, and then D-AMPS happened. And CDMA2000 1xRTT. And EVDO. And 3G. And LTE. Coverage has gone from "it usually works if you're near a highway" to pretty much just being expected to work just about everywhere.

Overall, it has been a steady stream of improvements. This year really is no different. So LTE's being rolled out. Cool! But that's not so different than a few years ago, when 3G was being rolled out.

*shrug*

Re:bad time to be testing this

[bonehead]

It's only misleading to people who are stupid enough to think that the way things are today are going to matter in 6 months.

For the rest of us people with a little common sense, it's an interesting bit of anecdotal info.

Re:T-mobile the one that doesn't cost a damn fortu

[rsborg]

Seriously Verizon, $120+ for a basic data/voice plan?

Absent my equipment loans (ie, what a carrier subsidy should be - ie, limited duration, can pay of early to unlock completely, etc), I pay $110 for 5 lines. Each with it's own 500MB+tethering.

I get HD Voice on my iPhone5s (great for me and the wife to actually hear each other on the commute home), and unlike AT&T customers, I had Facetime over cellular for the past 2 months.

I used to pay around $100 for a single line on Verizon (wife paid same for AT&T).

The *only* downside is that data in very large buildings (museum, costco) can be literally zero. If you work in a large shielded building and don't have internal wifi, then you might want to reconsider - but that's what the test drive period is for. For all other things, tmobile has been about as reliable as either AT&T or VZ for a whole lot less and with better voice.

Re:Sprint

[icebike]

Enjoy it while it lasts.

If I were homeless and had no wifi, and was addicted to porn that might matter to me.

Sprint people are good, service is awful here

[Entropius]

Sprint is the only cellphone company that has treated me like a person. But -- here in Washington DC -- their service is garbage. It's so bad that I have to constantly ask voice callers to repeat themselves because of dropped frames. At home I have to pick up the phone with "Let me call you back on skype".

There is LTE service randomly in random places, but never consistently or predictably.

Re:Sprint people are good, service is awful here

[dgatwood]

Cities are hard. Multipath distortion can cause very problematic handoff situations even when there's a moderately strong signal. This, in turn, can cause the sorts of glitches you're experiencing. My advice would be to complain to Sprint and ask if they'll set you up with a free picocell for your home. That should completely eliminate the problem.

BTW, if you think Sprint's glitch rate is bad, you should see how much worse AT&T is. Admittedly, I'm not in D.C., but at least here on the opposite coast, the difference is staggering. As I understand it, CDMA is much more resistant to dropouts than TDMA/GSM, so unless AT&T's tower density is on the order of 4x Sprint's tower density (half the mean distance), Sprint *should* have fewer problems, ignoring hardware bugs, deployment mistakes (high collision rate from nearby towers), etc.

And yes, their LTE service is still a long way from where I'd like to to be. Then again, they started out way behind (WiMAX being a dead end and all), so I'm willing to have a little patience. For now. :-)

Re:Sprint people are good, service is awful here

[pixelpusher220]

It's that cities are hard, Sprint literally has no LTE coverage in DC...at all. They're busy rolling it out to great bustling places like Chattanooga, but not the fscking nations capitol. If you look at their coverage maps for the DC region, Baltimore is mostly covered, the I-81 corridor to the west is covered, south is covered, but DC and suburbs? Not a drip of anything decent.

Our contract is up in a couple months and Verizon is looking pretty good depending on the deal I can get. I'm happy to pay for service, Sprint needs to up its game in a big big way or it's going bye bye

Re:Sprint people are good, service is awful here

[Isca]

Expect Sprint to get a lot better very soon.

On June 30th the nextel iDen network will be shut down. This operates in 5 mhz chunks in the lower half of the 800mhz range nationwide. In many rural areas they have already transitioned most of their services to the same range and have kept 2 chunks of frequencies in the 800mhz range for iden customers but in urban areas they still had a Million customers on iden as of May 1 and they can't convert any part of those frequencies over. Especially in DC with all kinds of government contracts.

Once these are shut down they can start freeing using that bandwidth for LTE or CDMA. In most areas of the country they have already preconfigured equipment to use the new frequencies after this shutdown happens and will be enabling this with just a software load on the new equipment.

Re:Sprint people are good, service is awful here

[dgatwood]

I doubt LTE has anything to do with your voice call glitches. AFAIK, except for very limited testing by Sprint and T-Mobile, LTE is not used for voice calls by any of the U.S. carriers except MetroPCS. The reason for this is that (unless something has changed fairly recently) there's no mechanism for a call handoff from VoLTE/SRVCC to CDMA, so if you are using VoLTE, the moment you leave LTE range, you'd get a hard call drop. For this reason, you shouldn't expect widespread deployment of VoLTE until the LTE rollout is very nearly complete.

Re:Sprint people are good, service is awful here

[pixelpusher220]

Think maybe you replied to the wrong comment. My voice calls are fine, it's data that's abysmal.

Re:Sprint people are good, service is awful here

[dgatwood]

Ah. I assumed you were the person I'd originally replied to. My "cities are hard" comment was talking about the original poster's voice call service dropouts, not the data service performance problems. Data performance problems are usually just caused by inadequate backhaul bandwidth.... :-)

Re:Sprint people are good, service is awful here

[Smerta]

Sprint is the only cellphone company that has treated me like a person. But -- here in Washington DC -- their service is garbage.

Funny, I had exactly the opposite experience with Sprint (this was several years ago, in Los Angeles). Their service was reliable and inexpensive (relatively speaking), but their customer service wasn't worthy of sitting in my toilet bowl.

I'm generally a patient guy, but their shit customer service brought me to a boil. I'd detail my harrowing experiences with those fuckers, but it would probably take a year off my life to re-live the horror.

I'm honestly acknowledging that things might be much better now, but why roll the dice and give them another chance when I don't have to right now?

From what you wrote, it sounds like they've gotten their customer service straightened out. I guess that's a step in the right direction...

Re:T-mobile the one that doesn't cost a damn fortu

[93 Escort Wagon]

Yeah, I was going to post the same thing, more or less. We've got four lines - we're paying $110 for that because I added 2GB/month to one of them.

AND if you happen to go over your bandwidth quota, you just get dropped to EDGE - it's slow, but you still have data access.

Re:Sprint

[93 Escort Wagon]

Nope, T-Mobile offers one as well.

And even with their limited plans, you don't have a cap - you just get throttled to EDGE speeds if you go above the cap.

AT&T ONLY IF....

[3seas]

... The speed test is NOT YOUTUBE!!!

Re:AT&T ONLY IF....

[Sedated2000]

That actually may be due to a caching service of their own rather than AT&T itself. Try surfing with a different DNS server, like Google or OpenDNS. Verizon had this problem too on FiOS and the only solution was to use a different DNS server. They finally upgraded their aging Youtube caching servers though.

Re:Which one is more NSA-friendly?

[Runaway1956]

Verizon of course. How can any network be friendly to anyone unless it's RELIABLE?

Verizon does have the best coverage, but......

[mendax]

As a long time Verizon Wireless customer I would have to agree. However, their hiring practices are illegal based upon what a friend's experience. I would not want to work for such an unenlightened and short-sighted company.

Re:T-mobile the one that doesn't cost a damn fortu

[garcia]

I have Verizon (I have had T-mobile and various rebranded AT&Ts over the years as well) and have found the Big Red to be the best overall for a few reasons:

- Coverage
- Data sharing
- Cost

I think my wife and I pay about $150 for our two lines which include unlimited voice and text with 4GB of data shared between us and our chosen devices.

AT&T was less money (about $130/month) however we had 450 anytime minutes/1000 night/weekend with rollover and no SMS plan. Being that my wife is using around 1000 SMSs a month, the cost savings from that alone is worth it.

Now, Verizon's 3G is noticeably slower than AT&T and while that doesn't matter much in the metro area where our primary residence is located as there is LTE, at our lake home (which has LTE about 500 feet outside of the cabin) we are stuck w/pokey 3G service that is comparable to the 1300/700 DSL service we get there.

For me I dropped more calls in dead zones with both T-mobile and AT&T than I have noticed w/VZW but the single biggest advantage Verizon has over any other carriers is coverage. I should NEVER, EVER, EVER have No Service show up along major interstates yet with both T-mobile and AT&T I did. I have never been w/o VZW service in the last year I've had it.

To me the $150/month is well worth it. YMMV.

Re:T-mobile the one that doesn't cost a damn fortu

[mendax]

Well, it depends upon what you want. I pay $50/month for unlimited voice/data/text with Verizon... but I don't use a smartphone. I use a plain ordinary Samsung pay-as-you-go phone at Target for $20 which included a $10 credit. It depends upon what you really need a phone for. I need a phone for voice stuff. When I want the Internet I use my MacBook. Who needs a smartphone or a pad when you have a portable REAL computer.

Who cares about speed...

[kehren77]

...if you don't have a connection? I'd rather sacrifice some speed for reliability.

Re:T-mobile the one that doesn't cost a damn fortu

[tepples]

Wow, you got an iPhone 5s?

How to get iPhone 5s (fivez, not five ess):
1. Buy iPhone 5 for self
2. Buy iPhone 5 for spouse
3. Activate both on a single family plan

Re:T-mobile the one that doesn't cost a damn fortu

[GoatCheez]

Seriously Verizon, $120+ for a basic data/voice plan?

I'm on Verizon and I pay $100 a month for grandfathered unlimited data and a subsidized phone. I have enough minutes that I don't bother keeping track. I find it reasonable.

Re:Sprint

[stephanruby]

Nope, T-Mobile offers one as well.

And even with their limited plans, you don't have a cap - you just get throttled to EDGE speeds if you go above the cap.

Which may be true for some peoeple, but in my case, whenever I get above the 2 GB threshold on T-Mobile, it takes me to edge, but then it's soo slow, everything and anything I try to use just times out (even email).

Now don't get me wrong, the Unlimited data plan for Sprint is also a lie. First of all, Sprint tacks on a dummy $10 premium data fee, which they don't mention when they compare their rates with their competitors in advertisements (the fact that the FTC or the FCC hasn't fined them for false advertisement is beyond me). Plus their 4G unlimited data used to be great in my home apartment, but then it got so bad, I couldn't even get 1 single byte of data even on 3G using their network (even thought, I never changed my home address, they're the ones who either became oversubscribed, or shut down towers in my area a year or two ago). Sprint should just have called their data plan the Unlimited Data Premium No-data plan, that would have been more truthful.

fastest vs most reliable

[csumpi]

Doesn't most reliable make your network the fastest? What's the point of having 20% extra speed if you lose 50% of the packets?

Re:T-mobile the one that doesn't cost a damn fortu

[sootman]

Yeah, I'm getting close to switching. With 3 smartphones on AT&T's old 200MB-per-month-per-line plan (and $15 each time you go over), 550 shared minutes, and unlimited texting, we're at about $155/mo. The T-Mo plan you describe (unlimited everything, 500 MB of 3G data+tethering, followed by EDGE speeds/no tethering when you pass that) is $50 for the first line, $30 for the second, and $10 for each additional. Plus some taxes and fees, and minus a discount for belonging to AAA, we could have all 3 lines for under $100/mo. The only downside: I'm testing them this month with an old iPhone 3G and I'm seeing EDGE as often as not. :-(

Re:Which one is more NSA-friendly?

[Miamicanes]

Sprint is probably the least-interesting to the NSA. Their data service is so dysfunctional, not even criminals and terrorists will use them anymore.

Re:Sprint

[jeauxkewl]

is still the only major carrier with a true Unlimited Data plan.

True, and as a Sprint customer, that means exactly jack shit. I have 3 phones on a family plan with unlimited data. The price would be fantastic IF we could get data to flow. 3G speed? Fail. 4G WIMAX (our phones are all WiMax models)? Fail. 4G LTE? According to the comments on this same article on the Houston Chronicle website today, FAIL. We started on Sprint when we were all on a family plan, thinking when the contract is up we're gonna have to cough up some cash and go back to blue or red, 'cause yellow isn't cutting it. It wouldn't matter if Sprint was GIVING unlimited data away, it's practically unusable.

Re:T-mobile the one that doesn't cost a damn fortu

[Rich0]

The only downside: I'm testing them this month with an old iPhone 3G and I'm seeing EDGE as often as not. :-(

I'm surprised that an iPhone 3G can connect to T-Mobile as anything BUT EDGE. ATT and T-Mobile use different frequencies for 3G (maybe that started to change when T-Mobile got all that spectrum as part of the failed merger). For the most part you'll need T-Mobile hardware to get 3G on T-Mobile. I think HSPA is more compatible between the two, and LTE might be as well once T-Mobile rolls that out. So you might be able to get 2G and 4G on both networks with the same hardware, but generally not 3G.

In any fairly populated area on T-Mobile you should get 4G coverage these days (and 3G as well if that is all your device handles). However, hardware designed for ATT might not fare as well. My stepdaughter has an iPhone 4 and I think she is basically on EDGE for the most part.

Rich

Re:T-mobile the one that doesn't cost a damn fortu

[Rich0]

For two lines on T-Mobile WITH data (which will never cost you more regardless of how much you use) and unlimited voice you could be around $80/mo these days I think. T-Mobile is significantly cheaper. The last time I switched contracts I found that going to ATT would have doubled my costs to start, and would have put me at risk of overage costs depending on usage. Only catch with that is that if you want a new flagship smartphone you'll be paying an extra $20/month or so for 18 months. I just paid $350 cash for a Nexus 4 (no other phone comes close to that as far as value goes).

Sure, I'd be willing to believe that Verizon has better coverage. However, you really can't compare them to T-Mobile on cost.

Re:T-mobile the one that doesn't cost a damn fortu

[dugancent]

T-mobile is refarming their 3G network to the same frequency as AT&T

Who cares?

[YoungManKlaus]

I don't post network tests of my country on /. either so stfu.

Re:Which one is more NSA-friendly?

[YoopDaDum]

From the article:

T-Mobile's HSPA+ 42 network hides a secret. While it delivers excellent sustained download speeds, those speeds don't look as fast in real life because of a very long time to negotiate the connection, which we measured as "time to first byte." This seemed to have to do with the network frequently switching between UMTS and HSPA+ modes when a connection was opened.

That explains the higher time to first byte compared to ATT HSPA. And then the latency on HSPA is higher than on LTE in general (plus on LTE the data connection is always on, not set-up on demand), as one key design goal of LTE was to allow a low latency (though there can be high variation depending on each operator core network, the radio part contribution is low with LTE).

Sprint's network is actually imaginary

[gelfling]

As a long time Sprint customer who uses them strictly for their lower prices, I can tell you that Sprint's 'network' is imaginary. It does not exist. There is no data network. In fact it's so pathetic that there are hundreds of blogs and forums dedicated solely to identifying the tiny random pockets of signal in 'rolled out' markets. Here in Raleigh NC for instance not only is there no LTE and they're closing down WiMax, the phone voice service is slowly coming apart as well. If you see someone standing outside their house talking on the phone, the odds are they're a Sprint customer.

The best thing that Sprint can do at this point is to close down their retail operations, stop selling Sprint branded service and become the bulk minutes carrier (there's an acronym for that I forget what it is) for brands like Virgin and Boost. Those brands get BETTER Sprint service than Sprint's own retail subscribers because those brands have negotiated SLAs with Sprint and they get priority over the retail customers.

In fact once they stop fighting over which foreign company gets to buy Sprint, pay off their stockholders and take the firm semi-private that's more than likely what they will do.

It stopped being interesting or funny YEARS ago when Sprint year after year after year after year was the worst of the worst of the phone companies - with 1/10th the feeds and speeds and a quarter of the coverage of anyone else. When you're a Sprint customer you're basically using a ghetto burner phone with a subscriber contract. And data is imaginary. But - the upside is that you never really have to worry about smartphones or apps at all since they're useless and pointless. Just get a free phone a la 2001 flip phone. You can save yourself the $10/month 'surcharge' they assess you for owning a smartphone.

Suck with AT&T apathy.

[Nexion]

Not when AT&T is throttling me. Seriously, they are luck I'm too lazy to change providers and they'll cut a month's bill when they irritate the shit out of me to make up for it so I stay on their network. Thank god I live in the city now, living on the edge to the sticks or in the sticks sux. AT&T had zero coverage in BFE.

Multi-vendor

[aitchisonbj]

Wouldn't it be better for testing to use different phones to test. It may be that one phone works better on one network while the other works better on the other. With DSL this is certainly the case.

Re:T-mobile the one that doesn't cost a damn fortu

[TWiTfan]

I'm on Verizon and I pay $100 a month for grandfathered unlimited data and a subsidized phone.

Yeah, just wait until you try to upgrade. You're in for some serious sticker shock.

Two things...

[chrish]

I'd like to see their data charges for each network while running these tests.

Also, I'd like them to come up here to Canada and re-run the tests. No, wait, I'd dread them doing that, it would show how awful our cellular networks really are...

Re:T-mobile the one that doesn't cost a damn fortu

[rsborg]

Yeah, my wife was paying the "data overage" every other month. Insane, $30 for 400MB of data, where it's essentially free for her now.

I put our old AT&T iPhone4 to use as my mom's daily driver and it's doing fine (San Jose) for getting 3G (which tmo/att call 4G) speeds. Hopefully when t-mobile moves over it's spectrum to use more of the 1900 PCS for 4G, coverage will get better. This doesn't help older devices like the iPhone OG/3G/3GS which were pretty much stuck on using AT&T frequencies - only HSPA+ supporting devices like the iPhone4 and later will benefit from t-mobile's rollout/refarm (IIRC, someone please correct me if I'm wrong on this).

A 4/4S (or equivalently radio-specced Android if that's your preference) would be decent, and an LTE iPhone5 gets me very very good coverage (again, outdoors - in larger buildings the higher frequency used by tmobile data fares poorer than ATT/VZ - not sure about sprint)

Re:T-mobile the one that doesn't cost a damn fortu

[rsborg]

I think HSPA is more compatible between the two, and LTE might be as well once T-Mobile rolls that out. So you might be able to get 2G and 4G on both networks with the same hardware, but generally not 3G.

I'm on TMO with an iPhone5 and I see LTE, 4G, 3G and very occasionally, (E)dge on my top ribbon. However, this is with a model A1428 that's been retooled to work with TMO's 4G network (ie, bought after APR12).

I also have an unlocked ATT iPhone4 that gets 3G where we live. Haven't tested speeds - mom is using it and she hardly needs to mobile usage.

66 Mbps the fastest? Sucks to be American

[phoenix_rizzen]

Rogers (way up North here in Canada) ran a contest a year or so ago asking people to post their fastest LTE downloads. A lot of them were over 90 Mbps (Rogers theoretical LTE limit is 150 Mbps). Granted, that was all in the Toronto, ON area, but it was consistent.

Out here in the West, I got a consistent 50 Mbps in the Vancouver area. And co-workers get 70-odd Mbps on Bell in Kamloops.