Verizon and T-Mobile Are In a Virtual Tie For the Best Network In the US (androidcentral.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Verizon and T-Mobile Are In a Virtual Tie For the Best Network In the US (androidcentral.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Thursday February 9, 2017 @01:00AM from the neck-and-neck dept.

Verizon has tied T-Mobile for the fastest carrier in the United States and both carriers are virtually tied for the "best" in overall LTE download speeds, according to Open Signal's State of Mobile Networks: USA report. Android Central reports: Using data collected from 169,683 users, 4,599,231,167 data points were used to measure network speeds on both 4G and 3G, network availability and latency. The data is collected by users installing the Open Signal app from Google Play or the App Store and going about their daily routine. In their analysis of the collected data, they say that Verizon has improved their 4G network speeds to pull even with T-Mobile who has traditionally done well in this category. They also mention that the average overall network speeds in the U.S. have risen slightly, and over 81% of U.S. residents have access to LTE networks. Availability of high-speed data services shows that all four carriers have improved, but T-Mobile (86.6%) is now within two percentage points of Verizon (88.2%) when it comes to finding an LTE signal. The company with the most improvement here is Sprint, who jumped from covering 69.9% in August to 76.8% in February 2017.

105 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Awesome news!! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-09 01:01 · Score: 0

Thanks
1. Re: Awesome news!! by dougdonovan · 2017-02-09 04:10 · Score: 0
  
  im w/ t. the lgk7 is a good phone until u get to tethering to a win 7 machine. welcome back to dial up. it works great w/ my linux box as well as both macs.
I thought not all US carriers use LTE by Zombie+Ryushu · 2017-02-09 01:06 · Score: 1

I thought some carriers in the US like T-Mobile uses HSPA+ for 4G mode in the US rather than LTE, and Verizon is a CDMA Network. So, isn't this apples to oranges?
1. Re: I thought not all US carriers use LTE by wasteoid · 2017-02-09 01:08 · Score: 2
  
  T-Mobile switched from HSPA+ to LTE a few years ago.
2. Re:I thought not all US carriers use LTE by Pizza · 2017-02-09 01:16 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  No, T-Mobile's HSPA+ was sort of "3.5G" . Their "4G" stuff was always LTE.
  But honestly, this "download speeds" metric of network superiority presumes you can even get a signal at all -- Out where I'm intending to move (rural NW Florida), the only carrier with coverage is Verizon, and not LTE at that. I have to drive a 5-10 miles to get any T-Mo service at all, and don't pick up LTE until I hit the outskirts of town or major highway, about 20 miles away.
  
  --
  -- I ain't broke, but I'm badly bent.
3. Re:I thought not all US carriers use LTE by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-09 01:16 · Score: 0
  
  With the advent of LTE, there are no more "CDMA" networks. All LTE radios are based on the great grandparent of GSM.
4. Re:I thought not all US carriers use LTE by Zombie+Ryushu · 2017-02-09 01:18 · Score: 1
  
  When I am in the US, my (BLU) Android Phone says 4G HSPA+
5. Re:I thought not all US carriers use LTE by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-09 01:24 · Score: 0
  
  Sprint, Verizon, and US Cellular maintain CDMA networks. Other regional carriers may support it as well still, too.
6. Re:I thought not all US carriers use LTE by Daemonik · 2017-02-09 01:33 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Yeah, T-Mobile is fine if you never leave the city limits, it sucks in rural areas. AT&T or Verizon are the big carriers with most rural coverage or there's the rural off brand MVNO's but they typically won't sell you a contract unless you live in their area.
7. Re:I thought not all US carriers use LTE by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-09 01:37 · Score: 0
  
  Well, radio-wise it is more the other way around. LTE is more similar to WCDMA/CDMA than GSM. Using codes to transmit all on the same frequency (but with extensions to that). GSM is time-division based on a single frequency (but with hopping etc).
  However, 3gpp is a standardizing body for GSM,WCDMA(HSDPA) & LTE ..
8. Re:I thought not all US carriers use LTE by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-09 01:45 · Score: 0
  
  Yes but T-mobile is building towers like crazy, I have a weekend place that is close to a town with a population of 300 pretty much in the middle of no where. A year and a half ago I barely got 3g service, then last summer T-Mobile stuck a new tower somewhere out there and I get as good an LTE signal as I do when I'm at home in Chicago.
9. Re:I thought not all US carriers use LTE by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-09 01:48 · Score: 0
  
  T Mobile used marketing BS to call HSPA+ 4G. But they also eventually rolled out 4G LTE and have had it for a long time. They also have a different band they use for long distance communication and that's called LTE+ or some such BS.
10. Re:I thought not all US carriers use LTE by msauve · 2017-02-09 01:48 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Yea, this. "Best" isn't just speed, latency, and uptime, which is all this report covers. It's also coverage when you're out in the middle of nowhere. I understand that TMo's gotten somewhat better in some places, but it still doesn't nearly match VZW.
  
  In TMo's own words, they "cover 97% of Verizon's population." Meh. Them's weasel words - it's not covering where the customers are, it's also covering where they aren't, like on a rural highway.
  
  That misleading statistic reminds me of another in recent Sprint advertising, where they claim their network is within 1% of VZW for reliability. Sound good? Nope, it's terrible. The standard for telecom reliability is "5 nines," or 99.999% uptime. That's about 5 minutes of downtime per year. If you have a network which is only 99% reliable (e.g. within 1% of VZW), that's over 3 1/2 days of downtime per year.
  
  --
  "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
11. Re:I thought not all US carriers use LTE by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-09 02:01 · Score: 0
  
  They aren't talking about network uptime - they are talking about dropped calls. Even Verizon can't claim anything around 99% on that metric.
12. Re: I thought not all US carriers use LTE by squiggleslash · 2017-02-09 02:03 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  T-Mobile runs both in parallel. Essentially T-Mobile is running three versions of GSM, regular 2G GSM, UMTS, and LTE. HSPA+ is kinda sorta the latest-greatest UMTS.
  I _think_ T-Mobile is planning to drop 2G GSM, but I hope they don't as it's always been the most solid voice system in my experience and is nice as a fallback.
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
13. Re:I thought not all US carriers use LTE by squiggleslash · 2017-02-09 02:07 · Score: 1
  
  From the beginning they called their HSPA+ "4G". Some of their devices, such as the myTouch Slide 4G, which was an HSPA+ device, not an LTE device.
  And, you know, this is fine. 4G is a marketing term, not a technical term. People got upset because it wasn't IMT-Advanced, but there was never any official relationship between IMT-Advanced and 4G. Moreover, at the time HSPA+ was being called 4G, it was more or less equivalent to LTE in terms of data throughput. If LTE was 4G, HSPA+ certainly is too.
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
14. Re:I thought not all US carriers use LTE by NormalVisual · 2017-02-09 02:15 · Score: 2
  
  Them's weasel words - it's not covering where the customers are, it's also covering where they aren't, like on a rural highway.
  
  For sure, and it doesn't even have to be a rural highway. I have T-Mo, and I call my wife every day on the way home from work along U.S. 1 on the east coast of Florida, one of the busiest highways in the state. I get calls dropped 100% of the time - always at least once in a particular location, and often 2-3 times.
  
  --
  Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
15. Re:I thought not all US carriers use LTE by squiggleslash · 2017-02-09 02:20 · Score: 1
  
  I live in suburban Florida and have to drive through rural parts and even a national park on my way to work every day. I've never had a problem with T-Mobile's coverage in recent memory. Ten years ago, sure. But it's been a very long time since I saw my phone go to zero bars when I've been outside.
  T-Mobile has been doing some major upgrades on its coverage over the last few years, but these things take time. They essentially got licenses eleven years ago that covered the entire country, but it takes a long time to actually get towers everywhere, especially if you're also having to constantly upgrade your existing towers.
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
16. Re:I thought not all US carriers use LTE by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-09 02:24 · Score: 0
  
  LTE uses OFDMA which is a variant on TDMA but using multiple frequencies. It does not use orthogonal codes like CDMA, but orthogonal frequencies. As such it's typically considered more similar to GSM. Feel free to look up the details on OFDMA, I'm not about to try to explain it here as it's a bit head spinning when you get into the details.
17. Re:I thought not all US carriers use LTE by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-09 02:34 · Score: 0
  
  Western Marion County here. Verizon is the only way to go. Everything else seems to be hit-or-miss. This was somewhat acceptable living in the hills of New England where you get full strength at the top of a hill, but this is mostly flat land here. Simply not enough towers.
  Not like I'm in the boonies either--there's a Super Walmart 3 miles from here. :-D
18. Re:I thought not all US carriers use LTE by ctilsie242 · 2017-02-09 02:35 · Score: 1
  
  This. I'm on occasion at a couple farms where the closest town is at least 20 miles away. I've had good luck with T-Mobile, and even can stream YouTube without issue.
19. Re:I thought not all US carriers use LTE by unixisc · 2017-02-09 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  LTE is OFDMA, which is a completely different technology. It's however a point of convergence for both CDMA and GSM, but companies do have to support their old networks for places that do not have LTE or even 3G coverage, b'cos there, their legacy tech would be the fallback
20. Re: I thought not all US carriers use LTE by orlanz · 2017-02-09 03:21 · Score: 2
  
  That's not a coverage issue, that's a congestion issue. Too many clients hopping onto one tower. That used to happen everyday here 3 years ago where the highways cross... on ATT. The phones on the highway side of the building become useless for 30 minutes in the morning and 30 minutes in the evening. If you get a call going, it's fine; else keep trying.
  Coverage is easy to fix. It's very easy for the carries to see when people "fall off" their network and when they see a lot, they put up a tower to cover the hole. Congestion is harder to figure out and could mean backhaul upgrades.
21. Re: I thought not all US carriers use LTE by NormalVisual · 2017-02-09 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  That's not a coverage issue, that's a congestion issue. Too many clients hopping onto one tower.
  
  I doubt it's a congestion issue - I leave work well before rush hour, and have had the same problem in the same area at 4:30am.
  
  --
  Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
22. Re:I thought not all US carriers use LTE by Higaran · 2017-02-09 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  5 nines is perfectly reasonable when you have a wired system, but not as much when you have a wireless one. Wired phones are alot less prone to interference or just damage in general
23. Re:I thought not all US carriers use LTE by usuallylost · 2017-02-09 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  I have T-Mobile as my provider. Their coverage has gotten much better over the last two years. I still find areas where I have nothing, though. Especially down in coastal North Carolina where my mother lives. Verizon's network is clearly better as their network seems to be everywhere and it has at least tied for best performance.
  When I compare the performance to the cost I can see why people take Verizon and I can see why people take T-Mobile. I had AT&T before T-Mobile and when I changed my bill, including financing a phone, was half what it was under AT&T. Also when operating in my area I get fewer dropped calls and generally faster performance than I did with AT&T. I can see how Verizon justifies their cost over T-Mobile. I have considered changing to Verizon myself just to have coverage when visiting family. I am having a real hard time seeing how AT&T justifies their cost compared to their service quality. Perhaps they are great someplace I don't go? In the areas, I do go T-Mobile works better and costs substantially less. I'd argue that Sprint actually does a better job of making their costs match up with the performance and coverage of their network than AT&T does.
24. Re:I thought not all US carriers use LTE by tepples · 2017-02-09 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  When a call drops because the subscriber left the service area during the call, does that count as a "dropped call" for this statistic?
25. Re:I thought not all US carriers use LTE by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-09 05:08 · Score: 0
  
  At home I have weak signal from T-mobile as well, but since I have cable and wifi its not an issue. T-mobile wifi calling works in almost every environment I'm in.
26. Re: I thought not all US carriers use LTE by Wycliffe · 2017-02-09 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  Coverage is easy to fix. It's very easy for the carries to see when people "fall off" their network and when they see a lot, they put up a tower to cover the hole. Congestion is harder to figure out and could mean backhaul upgrades.
  Congestion is probably easier to figure out. Do you not think they know when their tower is at or close to capacity? They might not be able to tell how many people are unable to connect but they can sure likely tell when it's full. Congestion can many times be fixed with an upgrade to an existing tower. Coverage can sometime be difficult to fix as "putting up a new tower" is easier said than done. My drive home goes thru a state park. ATT, Verizon, Tmobile, and Sprint ALL drop calls on that road. It has a fair amount of traffic too. The problem is likely that no one can get permission to put up a tower.
27. Re: I thought not all US carriers use LTE by dgatwood · 2017-02-09 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  That's not a coverage issue, that's a congestion issue.
  I would argue that congestion issues are a form of coverage issues. Full coverage requires that cell sites' coverage area must overlap by a large enough margin that you are able to start talking to a new cell site before you lose the old one. If the towers' fringe reception area doesn't overlap enough out to allow a seamless switch under typical load, you need more towers to have full coverage in any meaningful sense of the word. But that's just me.
  I suspect this is some combination of the towers not shedding load aggressively enough (forcing a handoff for cell handsets that are within range of a less busy tower) and cell phones dropping the connection to the old tower too soon after a handoff then losing the new cell site and being unable to reconnect to the old one quickly, but that's just a gut feeling. I've noticed that rain fade seems to make the problem a lot worse in many of the places that I drive, which tells me that low single-digit dB make the difference between towers overlapping and not. So there's definitely a general lack of towers involved, at least in the greater SF Bay Area.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
28. Re:I thought not all US carriers use LTE by R3d+M3rcury · 2017-02-09 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  In TMo's own words, they "cover 97% of Verizon's population." Meh. Them's weasel words [...]
  I gotta admit, I've always chuckled when I hear AT&T talk about how they "cover 97% of Americans"--not 97% of America.
  A subtle but important difference.
29. Re:I thought not all US carriers use LTE by LynnwoodRooster · 2017-02-09 06:44 · Score: 1
  
  Not just rural... This last weekend, i was at a trade show in a NYC hotel where we had our own 4G based connection for streaming audio (the hotel only had WIFI available, and it was swamped/dead - 50 kbps if you were lucky). The little T-mobile hot spot we bought was terrible - we were lucky to get 1 bar, and maybe 100 kbps. Out came my Verizon Note 5, on went the hot spot, and we had 4 full bars and 2 Mbps available. Rock-solid. And this was at the Marriott Marquis right at Times Square - heart of Manhattan!
  People complain about the cost of Verizon, but you know - at least it works. Yes, it's expensive compared to the others but when your options are expensive and works and cheap and doesn't work - I'll take the former thankyouverymuch...
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
30. Re:I thought not all US carriers use LTE by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-09 06:49 · Score: 0
  
  Your phone might probably does not support LTE.
31. Re:I thought not all US carriers use LTE by farble1670 · 2017-02-09 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, T-Mobile is fine if you never leave the city limits, it sucks in rural areas.
  Which is great for them, as they get much greater bang for their infrastructure buck by focusing on high density areas.
32. Re:I thought not all US carriers use LTE by swb · 2017-02-09 08:07 · Score: 1
  
  I was in Manhattan 4 years ago we stayed at the Embassy Suites in Times Square and I couldn't get data *at all* unless we got 2-3 blocks away. The only time I had usable data was in the middle of the night.
33. Re:I thought not all US carriers use LTE by schnell · 2017-02-09 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  No, T-Mobile's HSPA+ was sort of "3.5G" . Their "4G" stuff was always LTE.
  Nope. In fact, T-Mobile was partly responsible with the whole BS confusion about "4G" and LTE.
  Flash back to about five or six years ago. "4G" was generally understood by people in the cellular industry to refer to the 3GPP standardized Long Term Evolution (LTE) technology, which represented a quantum leap in the GSM family of technologies. Unfortunately, LTE was new and nobody was deploying it yet in the US (Verizon was first eventually, followed by AT&T). At this point, neither Sprint or T-Mobile had announced LTE plans.
  Sprint - even then struggling for a positive message to tell about its network and one up its competitors - came up with the brilliant marketing idea to take its WiMAX (remember WiMAX?) Clearwire network and claim that it was the first "4G" network in the US. Whether you could claim WiMAX as a fourth generation digital cellular technology is debatable but if you squint just right it might have been okay.
  T-Mobile saw this move and wanted to be able to make similar marketing claims to Sprint about 4G. They basically said, "our HSPA+ is faster than WiMAX. So it must be 4G too!" So even though there was no justifiable way to claim that HSPA+ was a 4G technology, T-Mobile started saying "we have 4G too!" Of course, AT&T didn't want to appear behind Sprint and T-Mobile so they adopted the ruse later too. (Verizon was still using 3G CDMA so it wasn't an option for them to join in the fun.)
  If you look carefully at carrier ads today, you will still usually see their LTE coverage maps listed as "4G LTE" in order to distinguish it from their "faux G" HSPA+ or other 3G technologies. All because of some dodgy marketing decisions on Sprint and T-Mobile's parts.
  
  --
  "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
34. Re: I thought not all US carriers use LTE by ncc74656 · 2017-02-09 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  I _think_ T-Mobile is planning to drop 2G GSM
  
  It's AT&T that's shutting down EDGE (aka "2G") service in the near future (it may have already happened, as the link says "by the end of 2016"). T-Mobile, OTOH, has committed to keeping its EDGE service going through at least 2020, ostensibly to support gadgets with cellular-data connections that aren't easily updated to newer standards.
  
  --
  20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
35. Re:I thought not all US carriers use LTE by vilanye · 2017-02-09 10:06 · Score: 1
  
  Be fair, over 80% of America is empty. 15% is just small towns with ignorant rednecks that couldn't use a "smart" phone if their pathetic lives depended on it.
36. Re: I thought not all US carriers use LTE by starblazer · 2017-02-09 10:38 · Score: 1
  
  Not exactly. In my area there is one area that always drops calls along a state highway, no matter who you were with. VZW, US Cellular, AT&T, Nextel. Still happens to this day. It's purely a cost limitation. They COULD put a tower there, but it would be not worth it for the 1/2 mile that the signal dies for in the middle of nowhere.
37. Re:I thought not all US carriers use LTE by Shirley+Marquez · 2017-02-10 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  T-Mobile did refer to their HSPA+ service as 4G for marketing reasons, but they were also building out LTE service at the same time. In the places where they had HSPA+42 available on the 1700 MHz band the speeds were actually comparable to first generation LTE service, though the latency was worse and they couldn't support as many users. Since then they have reallocated their spectrum; 1700 MHz is now being used for LTE. They're running HSPA+ on their smaller 1900 MHz allocations and are only running HSPA+21 there. Their data service actually got worse for the handful of phones that support HSPA+42 but not LTE.
  There are still parts of T-Mobile's coverage map where the fastest service available is HSPA+. They are mostly remote areas with relatively low demand, so it's good enough for now. They are continuing to roll out LTE to those areas, as well as upgrading more densely populated areas with higher speed LTE and band 12 (700 MHz) service.
38. Re:I thought not all US carriers use LTE by Shirley+Marquez · 2017-02-10 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  Since you speak of "when you are in the US", your phone probably doesn't support the bands used for LTE in North America. They're not the same as the ones used in the rest of the world. Nobody produces a true LTE world phone yet, though we're gradually getting closer.
Meta-network is the best. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-09 01:07 · Score: 0

How do these stats compare to a meta-network like Google Fi?
1. Re: Meta-network is the best. by nitehawk214 · 2017-02-09 02:11 · Score: 1
  
  Fi is a combination of T-Mobile and Sprint.
  For me that means it is basically always T-Mobile. The places where Sprint's map claimed it had coverage where T-Mobile doesn't, it simply failed to connect at all.
  However, Fi doesn't tell you which it is on, as far as I know.
  
  --
  I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
2. Re: Meta-network is the best. by dreamchaser · 2017-02-09 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  It also uses US Cellular.
Speed ain't everything by MattSinger · 2017-02-09 01:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

Speed doesn't matter is you have "zero bars"
1. Re:Speed ain't everything by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-09 01:46 · Score: 0
  
  Speed doesn't matter is you have "zero bars"
  Yeah. Being the best of the shit still means you're still shit.
2. Re:Speed ain't everything by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-09 02:01 · Score: 0
  
  I know it's slashdot, and reading the actual article is a bit like a bloke stopping and asking for directions, but the coverage aspect is covered in the summary....
3. Re:Speed ain't everything by twocows · 2017-02-09 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  My experience with T-Mobile has been that their coverage is spotty at best. They're a great company with great service and good business ethics, which is why I chose and continue to choose them over their competitors. But if you're judging based on coverage, they're not the greatest.
4. Re:Speed ain't everything by twocows · 2017-02-09 02:11 · Score: 1
  
  I should mention that they are getting better, though, which is another reason I like them.
5. Re:Speed ain't everything by nine-times · 2017-02-09 03:10 · Score: 2
  
  Right in the summary:
  
  Availability of high-speed data services shows that all four carriers have improved, but T-Mobile (86.6%) is now within two percentage points of Verizon (88.2%) when it comes to finding an LTE signal.
  Now that doesn't mean that T-Mobile coverage is as good as Verizon's where you live, but it does indicate that according to this study, T-Mobile's LTE coverage is on par with Verizon's nation wide.
6. Re:Speed ain't everything by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-09 04:43 · Score: 0
  
  yeah, I love how all these city folk talk about great coverage like it is supposed to convince me to switch when for the last ten years only ONE cell carrier has covered me. Verizon. People ask why I pay so much when I could pay half (or less) for carriers. And they never get it when I say, well, they do not have coverage where I live.
  It could be the greatest thing in the world in metro LA/NYC/Boston/Atlanta, but here in Podunk, USA it does not exist.
7. Re: Speed ain't everything by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-09 08:53 · Score: 0
  
  Switch to Total Wireless, use Verizon towers at 1/2 the price.
8. Re:Speed ain't everything by antdude · 2017-02-09 09:59 · Score: 1
  
  T-Mobile lost to Verizon barely in my rural area. :P However, Verizon doesn't get good signals much.
  
  --
  Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
"Best" for me is not the fastest... by QuietLagoon · 2017-02-09 01:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

"Best" for me is coverage in the areas that I frequent and require a good cell signal. For me, Verizon fails the test, not even havingg one bar at one location I frequent, while AT&T has at least four bars in all the locations I frequent. I've not had a chance to try T-Mobile at this point.
1. Re:"Best" for me is not the fastest... by Sporkinum · 2017-02-09 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  May not want to bother. T-Mobile has terrible coverage. They also use high frequencies that can't penetrate buildings, so if there aren't any T-mobile indoor repeaters it won't work in a lot of buildings.
  
  --
  "He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
2. Re:"Best" for me is not the fastest... by drinkypoo · 2017-02-09 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  I am on T-Mobile but I don't think they actually have any towers in my town so I'm roaming at all times. My lady's prepay phone is on Verizon and usually doesn't work here at all. So I'm right there with you. It is possible to use T-Mobile where I live, and impossible to use Verizon.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
3. Re:"Best" for me is not the fastest... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-09 02:25 · Score: 0
  
  After reading all of the reviews and hearing the advertisements about how much better the Verizon network was I switched five lines last year. I traveled all over the US and my father in law traveled abroad. Verizon was CONSTANTLY a worse sounding connection in EVERY location. I switched back at great expense and inconvenience. I have no idea what measure is used for 'network quality'.
4. Re:"Best" for me is not the fastest... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-09 02:58 · Score: 1
  
  This info is a little dated. T-mobile is rapidly deploying "band 12" support throughout the nation. Band 12 is actually relatively low frequency (and consequently lower bandwidth which may explain the slower speeds tested in the article). If you are in an area where Band 12 is deployed _and_ you're using a Band 12 phone T-Mobile's coverage is getting pretty good. Until recently my wife had a Moto X 2014 which does not support Band 12 and my Nexus 6P does. Standing side-by-side there were quite a few times where she had no signal and I did. She now has a Pixel and she reports much better coverage.
5. Re:"Best" for me is not the fastest... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-09 04:37 · Score: 0
  
  yeah, 'dated'. Sure.
  My fiancée and I have lived in our current location for 4 years and every year T-Mobile in our location says they are going to improve coverage. We still aren't covered.
  So, I counter your ONE data Point with my ONE DATA POINT.
  Guess which one matters to me?
6. Re:"Best" for me is not the fastest... by blackomegax · 2017-02-09 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  band 12 is a scam to give them "LTE" coverage in more areas, but at 2g speeds (or less based on my experience with it)
7. Re:"Best" for me is not the fastest... by rotorbudd · 2017-02-09 11:10 · Score: 1
  
  You're right, band 12 is the thing.
  My house was built in the '40s and with the walls being plaster and lath with wire mesh in between I pretty much live in a faraday cage.
  I'm on Project Fi and the best Tmobile signal I ever saw was 2 bars.
  They added band 12 about 3 weeks ago and I've had full bars anywhere in the house ever since.
  
  --
  A bullet may have your name on it, but artillery is addressed to " Whom It May concern"
If you're outside FTE deployment areas... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-09 01:52 · Score: 0

Verizon wins!
Seriously, there are many parts of the country where you can only complete a call on Verizon. A handful that only work on AT&T... And you're out of luck if you have TMo or Sprint or an MVNO that uses the wrong other network.
1. Re: If you're outside FTE deployment areas... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-09 02:13 · Score: 0
  
  When I switched from Verizon to T-Mobile a few years ago, my coverage during my daily routine -- Fairfax County, VA, a suburb of DC -- improved quite a bit. Rural coverage was awful, but has improved a ton.
2. Re: If you're outside FTE deployment areas... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-09 07:17 · Score: 0
  
  Go head out pass Leesburg, VA into western Loudoun Co and T-Mobile goes to complete shit. You'll bounce between LTE and EDGE. If you keep heading out further toward VA Route 9 heading towards the casino in Charles Town, WV..good luck. Pretty much need Verizon or AT&T out that way.
3. Re: If you're outside FTE deployment areas... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-09 09:14 · Score: 0
  
  Who gives a fuck about those areas filled with inbred rednecks?
This duopolists both suck by idji · 2017-02-09 01:58 · Score: 1

I don't care if they tie. Where one fails the other works. Why can't we have comprehensive coverage? I live in Orange County where houses are on average 1.8M$, and still no comprehensive coverage. Mountainous Austria gets it right. They just ignore the same amount of population.
1. Re:This duopolists both suck by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-09 02:05 · Score: 0
  
  I would imagine that the telcos have a really hard time getting an easement or right of way in Orange County. All those people want the tower on someone else's property. Too ugly to have on OUR property. Nimbys reap what Nimbys sow.
2. Re:This duopolists both suck by NormalVisual · 2017-02-09 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  I'd love having a 150' tower in my back yard, so long as I also had rights to put my own antennas on it as well.
  
  --
  Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
3. Re:This duopolists both suck by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-09 04:21 · Score: 0
  
  you don't need a 150 foot tower. You need 20 - 40 microcells, each costing $10k. it's easy actually. Cell companies know about them and use them when all else fails. That tower and one cell at the bottom will cost over $1 million.
  put them in high buildings, attached to already existent structures. Happens all the time.
  FWIW, I used to be a cell engineer.
4. Re:This duopolists both suck by farble1670 · 2017-02-09 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  I live in Orange County where houses are on average 1.8M$
  WTF does that to do with anything? Is your wireless bill proportional to your property value?
5. Re:This duopolists both suck by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-09 08:52 · Score: 0
  
  I don't think he's putting up his own cell tower. He sounds like a ham radio operator.
Second best is good enough? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2017-02-09 02:01 · Score: 4, Funny

When Avis was in second place to Hertz, they created the iconic ad campaign, We are in second place. So we try harder.
Now Sprint is doing a campaign, We are in second place. That is good enough.
How much the attitude of corporations has changed and how low our expectations have fallen!

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
1. Re:Second best is good enough? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-09 02:31 · Score: 0
  
  Except Sprint is not in 2nd place, or 3rd.
2. Re:Second best is good enough? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-09 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  Second best IS good enough if it is cheaper. That is the point of the Marketing campaign. Why pay more for a network that is 1%-2% better? I have no idea if those claims are true.
3. Re:Second best is good enough? by Bearhouse · 2017-02-09 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  Except they didn't. (Try harder, that is)...
4. Re:Second best is good enough? by 0100010001010011 · 2017-02-09 04:07 · Score: 1
  Now Sprint is doing a campaign, We are in second place. That is good enough.
  Most of the ads I've seen point out the price differences associated with being in the different places.
  If you had the option of 3 phone services:
  #1 - $500/mo
  #2 - $100/mo
  #3 - $25/mo
  Which one do you pick? If the #3 provider covered the area where you'll use it would you really splurge another $450/mo on #1 just because it was #1?
5. Re:Second best is good enough? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2017-02-09 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  Do you really believe what they say in the ads?
  Why did they have to create Truth in Advertising laws?
  BTW courts have held corporations are people endowed with all the rights of real people, including speech and religion.
  They have help spending money is speech to gut campaign finance regulations
  Companies have argued protection to lie in advertisements claiming first amendment freedom of speech
  So far courts have made a distinction for "commercial speech" and applied restrictions based on tort and contract laws
  Not sure how long this distinction will last, given all other rights given to the corporation people on equal footing to living people.
  We might lose Truth in advertisement, fair disclosure laws, not sure how long this distinction can last given so much of rights given to people created by one person by a 120$ filing fee in 2 minutes, over people created by two people over nine months.
  
  --
  sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Two problems with T-Mobile by OneHundredAndTen · 2017-02-09 02:14 · Score: 1

One, coverage outside urban areas is patchy. Two, even in urban areas, coverage in some shops (Target, Home Depot, etc.) is nonexistent.
1. Re:Two problems with T-Mobile by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-09 03:03 · Score: 0
  
  Inside Target the coverage of Target Guest Wi-Fi is excellent.
2. Re:Two problems with T-Mobile by tepples · 2017-02-09 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  But then don't you have to open a web browser, agree to the terms that the captive portal presents, and convince the party on the other end to install the same VoIP app you're using, if it's even available for his or her computer or smartphone?
3. Re:Two problems with T-Mobile by SeaFox · 2017-02-09 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  But then don't you have to open a web browser, agree to the terms that the captive portal presents, and convince the party on the other end to install the same VoIP app you're using...
  Yeah, Wi-fi Calling... have your heard of it?
4. Re:Two problems with T-Mobile by blackomegax · 2017-02-09 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  Tmobile does wifi calling and wifi texting once you auth.
5. Re:Two problems with T-Mobile by tepples · 2017-02-09 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  If you don't have a signal inside a store, and you forget to sign in to the captive portal, incoming calls will go straight to voice mail. It's even worse with stores that make the in-store hotspot available only to paid subscribers to the store's discount club.
6. Re:Two problems with T-Mobile by SeaFox · 2017-02-10 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  The point is it negates that whole "convince people to use third-party VoIP app" nonsense, which would be a bigger problem than remembering to sign in a portal when you come in the door at a business.
In other news by Hognoxious · 2017-02-09 02:40 · Score: 0

In other news, Bullroarer Took voted tallest Hobbit.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Same here by daninaustin · 2017-02-09 03:07 · Score: 2

When we go on vacation i pick up a sim card for cricket (which uses ATT network) to go along with our TMobile phones. Last time we took a vacation and drove from the Texas panhandle up through the black hills in South Dakota we had absolutely no service from TMobile the whole way. Normally here in Austin and in other populated areas TMobile works great and is much cheaper than getting a plan from ATT or Verizon (who actually do have coverage in a lot of the sparsely populated areas.) The meager 5 MB of roaming that TMobile offers (per month) was completely useless since it was immediately eaten up by google maps and syncing email.
Urban vs the rest by damn_registrars · 2017-02-09 03:20 · Score: 1

Sure, T-Mobile works great if you live in a city or well-populated suburb. But if you're outside a city, Verizon usually has a distinct advantage in actually making calls. For some people, that doesn't matter but for others the ability to make a phone call is vastly more important than your mobile data bandwidth.

--
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
T-Mobile actually spends on infrastructure by SuperKendall · 2017-02-09 03:23 · Score: 2

according to this study, T-Mobile's LTE coverage is on par with Verizon's nation wide.
I think at this point that may be about right...
I've been with T-Mobile a number of years now, and was with Verizon before that. At first I would say T-Mobile coverage was not nearly as good. But in the past year or two I think T-Mobile has really focused a lot on building out infrastructure, as now almost anywhere I go in the U.S. has been really good. In particular, I was never able to get much signal at all on trips to Alaska in past years, but last year was able to get LTE in pretty much every coastal city (taking a cruise).
The only places they lag behind are on more remote roads (though even there they have improved), and also on things like repeaters in hotel conference areas (I think Version/AT&T have a lot more of those set up).
One last thing about coverage - in one sense at least T-Mobile is vastly ahead of Verizon, and that is if you travel internationally at all. With Verizon I had to page some pretty huge fees for a small amount of data. With T-Mobile I have good all over the place in Europe and South America, and was able to use my phone with data the whole time for zero extra fee - that is a huge benefit.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
1. Re:T-Mobile actually spends on infrastructure by nine-times · 2017-02-09 03:41 · Score: 2
  
  The only places they lag behind are on more remote roads (though even there they have improved), and also on things like repeaters in hotel conference areas (I think Version/AT&T have a lot more of those set up).
  Also, I didn't read the whole report, but they seem to be saying that T-Mobile is on par with Verizon for LTE coverage. From that information alone, it's possible that Verizon still has better 3G and 2G coverage in rural areas that don't get 4G coverage from anyone.
Appalachian Trail coverage by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-09 04:05 · Score: 0

As other commenters report, many times you need coverage not speed. My wife hiked the Appalachian trail (trail name Very Mary). Starting in Georgia, up to New England T-mobile coverage was adequate, if often spotty (sometimes dropped out in the valleys.) Getting into New England, T-Mobile just went away; she got an ATT SIMM for her unlocked phone and made it another couple hundred miles, then had me send her an old Verizon phone which I activated for a month. Verizon too went away deep in Maine.
The Trail is a real conveyor-belt of electronic devices with almost all hostels along the trail providing USB outlets.
1. Re:Appalachian Trail coverage by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-09 04:16 · Score: 0
  
  let's be smarter than that, speed means nothing if you have no coverage. It is like saying my Rocket goes 2.5 times lightspeed, but unfortunately it only travels between alphaa centauri and betelguese.
  Meanwhile you are stuck here on earth.
speed? How about coverage? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-09 04:14 · Score: 0

I live in a rural area, maybe 70 miles from DC and 45 miles from Richmond. I do not give a rat's ass about download speed because download speed means NOTHING when they don't cover you. T-Mobile does not cover me. Verizon does.
All these cell carriers all report what they get in the major metropolitan centers and ignore the rest of us.
See how that worked out for President Hilary? Ignore the HUGE areas of the USA because only the cities matter and guess what happens?
Fundamentally Flawed by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-09 04:27 · Score: 0

People get the network that's best where they live. Tmobile coverage is HORRENDOUS on a nationwide basis compared to Verizon. Source: I've been to 45 states in the last 12 months with devices for both networks.
Cellular is local by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-09 04:35 · Score: 0

National rankings matter little. Where I live, AT&T, T-Mobile are worthless. I know because I tried both. The only one with enough towers to give decent indoor coverage is Verizon.
When you're considering a carrier and most of your use with be local, talk with your neighbors. Don't bother with these studies.
1. Re:Cellular is local by OrangeTide · 2017-02-09 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  I save about $50/mo with T-Mobile over Verizon for my family, so even though it barely works indoors I compensate with WiFi. Most of my phone conferences for work are done with WiFi and not 4G because Google Voice doesn't feel the need to charge me anything for a rather useful service. Per-minute plans with T-Mobile or one of the resellers (Ting, etc) is pretty cheap if you avoid using minutes, messages and megabytes excessively.
  
  --
  “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Rank placement is not a real property by Solandri · 2017-02-09 04:50 · Score: 1

1st place by a mile is very different from 1st place by a whisker. The best example I've seen is a couple webcomics who got into an argument with each other. One tried to point out that it was ranked like 1000th in popularity while the other was ranked around 3000th. That's irrelevant and in fact downright deceptive when the viewership numbers between the two only differed by about 30% (both were well down in the bell curve, so a small difference in viewership translated into a huge difference in ranking)..

Rank placement is not a property of the thing being analyzed. It's an artificial property which arises from putting data into a database. it has about as much meaning as the number and letter of the cell in a spreadsheet. Only stupid marketers crow about ranking. Real data analysis would use a scatter plot (with both axes starting at zero) so you can easily see how close or far apart the different competitors are.

Would you rather buy a computer which tells you the exact processor speed, amount of RAM, and HDD storage; or a computer which says it has the 5th fastest processor, the 3rd most RAM,and the 2nd largest HDD that the brand name sells?
Rural areas seem pretty covered also by SuperKendall · 2017-02-09 06:25 · Score: 1

it's possible that Verizon still has better 3G and 2G coverage in rural areas that don't get 4G coverage
Many rural areas I've been to in the U.S. in the past year or two now have 4G coverage (from T-Mobile at least). By remote I mean more like, the middle of Utah or a very large national park. Even there you can sometimes find service, depending (at a Zion overlook I had three bars of LTE!).
At my mothers house (which is in the countryside) I used to never be able to get a signal at all, Verizon or T-Mobile. In the past year I now get two bars of LTE there.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
1. Re:Rural areas seem pretty covered also by nine-times · 2017-02-09 10:23 · Score: 1
  
  I just mentioned this because, at my parents house, the only option was Verizon 3G up until just a couple years ago. These days T-Mobile and Verizon both have LTE, but I don't know if this is that case in more rural areas in general.
race to the bottom by OrangeTide · 2017-02-09 06:31 · Score: 1

There is no [absolute] best network in the US, it's all relative. We usually ignore the hundreds of countries that have a better wireless infrastructure than the US.
The nearly unregulated mobile carrier industry in the US is about minimizing services while maximizing customer billing. In this business you only have to be better enough to capture market share.

--
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Customer service? by farble1670 · 2017-02-09 07:39 · Score: 1

Someone should say ... T-Mobile is fine, as long as you never, ever need to speak to a customer rep. Literally, if you have a problem where you need an actual person to be involved, you might as well get a refund.
ATT Before cingular by BrookHarty · 2017-02-09 08:46 · Score: 1

Worked at ATT Wireless during the Cingular merger. ATT had the best network in the US and Cingular the worst. When we merged, we ran reports of with blue vs orange to show the quality of the wireless network. Management didn't like being shown how bad cingulars network was, outages, dropped connections, slow bandwidth, told us to merge our reports into orange only to mask problems. Its only gone down hill since then.
Watching Dr Who while walking by Maxo-Texas · 2017-02-09 09:31 · Score: 1

So I watched Dr Who S9E3 on my phone while walking last night. It made the miles evaporate, it was flawless (so fast enough!), on my Metropcs phone which is on the Tmobile network. Used very little of my 16gig alotment to boot. I used to be Tmobile but they were more expensive. And verizon was even more expensive than Tmobile.
Crazy compared to even 10 years ago.
What is the "metropcs" equivalent for the Verizon network? I go to a convention yearly which only has Verizon repeaters and is surrounded by 2' of concrete and also underground under the hotel! Would be nice to have a 'drop' phone for the con.

--
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Big deal by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-09 09:46 · Score: 0

"best network in America" is meaningless when there are more than 20 countries with better connectivity of all types.
America is the best second world country in the world. 'murica!!!
T mobile was off the grid for me by talesofchangeand · 2017-02-10 06:21 · Score: 1

I'm in the NY metro area and tried T-mobile switching the whole family from Verizon. Was told there was coverage. Got home; no signal whatsoever. Drove around and lost coverage everywhere we went. Family was ready to kill me. Went crawling back to Verizon.. Really couldn't believe it that in 2017 and with all the commercials..I was really dumbfounded but people in the area seems to think it works.