Slashdot Mirror
Verizon, AT&T Customers Are Getting Slower Speeds Because of Unlimited Data Plans (recode.net)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Recode: Unlimited data plans are slowing down mobile speeds for Verizon and AT&T customers, according to data released today by mobile network measurement company OpenSignal. Verizon and AT&T reinstated their unlimited plans in February to compete with T-Mobile and Sprint, which have long offered unlimited data plans, and have since seen a deluge of demand. Greater data demand -- either more data usage or more customers -- means slower speeds. Think of it as increased traffic on a highway. Verizon and AT&T also have nearly double the subscribers of T-Mobile and Sprint, so changes in their offerings hit their networks harder. Both Verizon and AT&T saw a notable decline in speeds after introducing unlimited plans. T-Mobile and Sprint have been able to gradually account for the increase in data demand, so their speeds weren't negatively affected this year -- indeed, they both got faster since OpenSignal's February report. Verizon and T-Mobile were basically tied for speeds at the beginning of this year. Now, T-Mobile has taken the lead with an average LTE download speed of 17.5 Mbps, compared with Verizon's 14.9 Mbps.
Here's a good comparison of the unlimited plans currently offered by the "Big 4" carriers.
So the bandwidth per subscriber is best at T-Mobile?
Reality is a slackware box running on a 386 tucked away in god's sock drawer.
> implying they were getting the advertised speeds before this.
top kek
They charge a premium for those unlimited plans. I'm sure they aren't going to complain about the extra revenue they're pulling in.
Greater data demand -- either more data usage or more customers -- means slower speeds. Think of it as increased traffic on a highway.
This is only true if the provider doesn't improve its infrastructure, increasing total bandwidth available to better support that increased demand.
#DeleteChrome
Also, I'd much rather not get charged overage at $15 per GB, so I'll deal with slower speeds. But, I won't tolerate them forever.
vos nescitis quicquam, nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat.
It's called competition. Company A offers "up to x" bandwidth and deliver "q". Company B offers "up to x" bandwidth and delivers "r". Consumers quickly realize q > r and switch to company A. Company B get's it's shit together and now r > q. Consumers switch.
Assuming prices stay the same, this is how it's supposed to work. But, with lock in contracts, hard to tell speeds, and confusing contracts, it seldom works out this way.
Recent argument on fark, someone suggested cars shouldn't bother having internet connectivity because they'll just become rapidly obsolete like the Leaf did. Leaf came out in 2010, and used 2G. By the time the Leaf was first sold, 4G phones were already out. 2G was a quarter century old, and was planned to be dead by 2015. Looking forward...4G/LTE can support 1Gbps. We're not even 2% in to the capability of 4G/LTE - why is thought even given to 5G?
than the 1st world USA.
The problem is that as soon as more bandwidth is added at a cell tower, it is almost instantly consumed. There is way more appetite for bandwidth than carriers can add, and any order-of-magnitude increases in bandwidth are usually quickly met with new, more bandwidth-hungry apps. There were online radio stations, then grainy YouTube videos, then Netflix, and now 4K streaming over the internet is coming as soon as more bandwidth is commonly available. Net Neutrality can't do anything about this, because carriers won't add more bandwidth if it won't pay for itself before the equipment has to be replaced for the new hotness. They'll add as much as they need to to stay competitive with comparable carriers.
"Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"
Up to 4G.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
We want better connectivity, but less cell towers nearby. We want unlimited data, but no speed limits, We want the latest technology, but don't want to pay for it, etc. T-Mobile seems to have made some sensible compromises on these topics, and they finally have something to show for it.
They have unlimited 4G, but throttle video to "mobile optimized" speeds. If you want you can disable it, but by default they save data while you are using 5" screen to watch latest Netflix episodes.
They offer cheaper plans, but don't give free phones. If you want them you need to pay full price (or in installments, but you see what the actual costs are).
They try to suck up every bit of spectrum they can find. Of course it still does not work when we visit Yosemite or other parks, but it works very well in the city. I have a minor issue though. The plan to implement LTE-U, which will use WiFi spectrum for 4G. Which will make already bad home WiFi connections even worse (can your access point fight a fair battle against a cell tower)?
Anyways they made enough noise that both AT&T and Verizon started copying them. The competition actually worked (yay!), and I hope we see a similar situation for landline cable service as well. (That's a very long shot).
T-Mobile prepaid butt scratcher reporting in.
46.57 / 6.79
you're a pal and a cosmonaut
It's $60 for limited minutes and 5GB data.
No unlimited plan is a non starter.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
The speeds would be much better if we blocked access to useless content like all cat videos, most of Netflix, and right wing websites. Get rid of the useless crap and the speeds will go back up. No, you most certainly don't need access to that stuff. Stop taking away bandwidth from those of us who actually need it and do important stuff.
Yea, damn that net neutrality! You keep posting these much needed wakeup calls Ajit Pai... er.. .I mean anonymous but wise coward.
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
Don't respond to trolls. That's a troll. Nobody's actually that stupid.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
So when people use what they're paying for, things slow down.
Well, it's not the users fault.
It's the fault of the company that OVERSOLD IT'S NETWORK !
This is nothing new, the douchehats have been doing that for decades!
Too bad they like to blame what's their fault on their customers though.
Sprint lost ~39K? subs in last quarter yet should have a n many places ample spectrum , don't know about infrastructure, but would imagine less subs would offer less congestion plus their rates lower. Only one post mentioned Sprint for being able to make a call in Co. when the big 2 had issues. Guess Sprint users are enjoying their Tidal subscriptions and not wasting bandwidth on /.
4G/LTE can support 1Gbps.
Per tower, right?
We're not even 2% in to the capability of 4G/LTE - why is thought even given to 5G?
I assume carriers are looking at LTE Advanced and the like because it can support a greater total speed per tower than LTE. With the same number of active users per tower, a greater total speed also means a higher speed per active user without having to acquire land for more towers.
Verizon, AT&T Customers Are Getting Slower Speeds Because Of Lacking Infrastructure To Support Unlimited Data Plans
Even these "degraded" speeds are perfectly good enough to more than keep up with regular internet usage. Having a higher total bandwidth is infinitely more important than being able to download a web page in 0.7 seconds rather than 1.0 seconds.
My favorite analogy is that the phone providers are like someone who builds a toll highway.
They want to sell monthly access to the road. They find out they can only sell so many people monthly access before they either need to improve the road or the traffic slows down to make parts of the road unusable. So their solution to the problem is to tell people ( well you have monthly access to the road , but only a certain number of times per month).
Basically they want as many people as possible to pay a monthly fee for the road and as few as people as possible to use it as little as possible , so they can sell it to many more then would naturally or normally be able to fit on the road.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.