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.
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.
than the 1st world USA.
Well, yeah. But some are more concerned with coverage per area.
If you live in a major metro, and never leave, TMo might be great. If you travel and want coverage wherever you go, not so much.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Net neutrality is the opposite of wanting to fix the problem of new bandwidth being consumed by new and less efficient apps.
Net neutrality guarantees that apps can be however inefficient they want, and the user can't be penalized for that with slower speeds.
Net neutrality is only good because the ISPs are evil. Theoretical non-evil ISPs would allocate bandwidth equitably between users and prioritize more important information. Perhaps a streaming video would be high priority for enough bandwidth for regular resolution, and lowest priority for HD data volume. Maybe HTML and CSS files should be prioritized. Perhaps hosted jpgs should have higher priority than third party linked ones. But we can't trust the Powers That Be with any of those decisions.
Eventually somebody will offer good service, and the whole stinking house will fall down, and we'll quickly forget what we used to tolerate.
"There is way more appetite for bandwidth than carriers can add"
That's bull. These companies just don't want to spend the MONEY to make those towers capable of supporting more bandwidth.
For similar fuckery, see the 1996 Telecommunications Act.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
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).
So the bandwidth per subscriber is best at T-Mobile?
Yes. I have T-Mobile. The bandwidth is great, and the prices are low. But, as always, there are tradeoffs: The coverage sucks. Many rural areas have no coverage, and even in the city there are some dead zones. But it is "good enough" 99% of the time, and I am cheap.
Well, yeah. But some are more concerned with coverage per area. If you live in a major metro, and never leave, TMo might be great. If you travel and want coverage wherever you go, not so much.
That problem is also helped by T-Mobile supporting calls over a regular Internet connection on newer Android phones (I don't know offhand if iPhones support it). It might not be enough if you do a lot of driving outside of urban areas, but it certainly helps if you're visiting friends or family.
No, that's certainly not how it's supposed to work. You left out the false advertising where they advertise x/y and deliver q/r respectively. If q/r were what was advertised, it might be different.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
I was able to get coverage living in a ghost town in Montana up in the mountains for a few months about 20 miles away from the nearest town. And by "coverage", I mean I could set my phone in the window to get bare minimum GSM signal. But I had a signal. Nobody else in the town did, unless they went with the local only communication services that worked via a series of repeater towers across the mountain tops.
All nonsensical bullshit aside from that part of my life, I've traveled quite frequently for work. I've yet to hit a location that I don't have decent service, except when truly in the middle of nowhere. Service may not be perfect in all areas of a particular city (like parking garages, elevators), but I've yet to be in a location without service at all. The one and only exception to this that comes to mind is when visiting Kalaloch WA, which is about 30 miles from the nearest town. But this is a place with zero service for anyone!
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.
Verizon, AT&T Customers Are Getting Slower Speeds Because Of Lacking Infrastructure To Support Unlimited Data Plans
We paid for that giving out hundreds of billions in tax breaks over the years.
Uhh, yea, those same companies subject to the 1996 TC act are almost always also the owners of the wireless carriers, once you folow the money.
So we already paid. They need to own up and provide.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
"We paid, they built, and now we've grown our usage"
Uhh, they did not deliver. minimum household speed was to be 25 mbit, MINIMUM by now. We've still got DSL packages that don't even come close.
And you rarely can get close to that on current wireless cellular networks.
They bilked us and did all kinds of legal trickery to make it legal.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.