T-Mobile Won't Stop Claiming Its Network Is Faster Than Verizon's (theverge.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

T-Mobile Won't Stop Claiming Its Network Is Faster Than Verizon's (theverge.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Monday October 2, 2017 @10:10AM from the backed-up dept.

T-Mobile says it will continue to claim it has the country's fastest LTE network even after the National Advertising Division, a telecom industry watchdog group, "recommended" that it stop doing so in print, TV, and web advertisements. In a statement given to Ars Technica, "NAD previously recognized third-party crowdsourced data as a way to look at network performance, so we looked at the latest results, and verified what we already knew. T-Mobile is still the fastest LTE network and we'll continue to let consumers know that." The Verge reports: The dispute arose earlier this year as part of a T-Mobile ad campaign that insinuated that Verizon's network was older and slower, and that its service did not feature unlimited plans. Verizon then filed a complaint with the NAD, which is a self-regulatory body of the telecom industry designed to settle disputes, avoid litigation, and protect against unwanted government regulation. Verizon said at the time that because T-Mobile was relying on crowdsourced data from third-party speed test providers Ookla and OpenSignal, the data was skewed in favor of T-Mobile. The data was pulled from a one-month period after Verizon first reintroduced its unlimited plans. Verizon's logic wasn't super bulletproof: the company claimed that because it had never before offered unlimited plans, T-Mobile customers -- who were familiar with the concept of throttling after a certain data threshold -- were more likely to be sampled in the crowdsourced data set provided to the NAD. Still, T-Mobile discontinued the disputed commercial, and the NAD felt the need to offer guidelines last week, advising the company not to claim its network was faster or newer. In addition, the NAD also told T-Mobile to modify its claim that it covered 99.7 percent of Verizon customers to make clear that the coverage is by population and not geographic area.

106 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

TMobile Rocks, Especially if You're Over 55 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-02 10:16 · Score: 1

https://www.t-mobile.com/offers/t-mobile-one-unlimited-55
1. Re:TMobile Rocks, Especially if You're Over 55 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-02 10:25 · Score: 0
  
  I can't drive 55.
2. Re:TMobile Rocks, Especially if You're Over 55 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-02 11:46 · Score: 0
  
  t-mobile sucks the fastest
3. Re:TMobile Rocks, Especially if You're Over 55 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-03 00:08 · Score: 0
  
  I get annoyed with the current T-Mobile ads where they talk about how their reliability is within 1% of Verizons but don't bother to mention that their coverage is nowhere near as close. I live in a rural area and the only reliable cell service is Verizon.
4. Re: TMobile Rocks, Especially if You're Over 55 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-03 00:56 · Score: 0
  
  That's Sprint's claim. Sprint sucks and has no discernable network growth. TMobile on the other hand has been growing their geographical coverage quite fast.
Cheaters always Win by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-02 10:17 · Score: 0

Well yeah, obviously. T-Mobile is still cheating at speed tests, right? One bored teenager is all it takes to prove speed test apps are given priority over all other data.
1. Re:Cheaters always Win by ArmoredDragon · 2017-10-02 11:00 · Score: 1
  
  I kind of doubt it, because users on all carriers would be doing the same thing. Anyways, I tend to think the third party crowdsourced data is probably more likely to reflect real world usage than Verizon's source, rootmetrics. Third party crowdsourced data looks at where the users are (i.e. in their houses, in their offices, or otherwise on private property, in addition to public property) while rootmetrics just measures places only accessible to the public.
2. Re:Cheaters always Win by retchdog · 2017-10-02 11:28 · Score: 1
  
  when i called my cable company to complain about the speed of my home internet service (after stuttering on youtube prompting me to do a speed test), they told me that they would only accept a complaint like that if it came from a specific speed testing service, and to try it again with that one. what a surprise that this speed test registered my connection as being ~10x faster.
  utterly shameless.
  
  --
  "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
3. Re:Cheaters always Win by Obfuscant · 2017-10-02 11:38 · Score: 1
  
  Would you accept a complaint if you were selling service that someone's video stream to some server somewhere was buffering a lot, when you probably have no control over the network to that service? Or would you want a standardized test that shows what your service is providing? What value would you put on the statement "my data connection to Obfuscant's web server is running at only 50kbps"? If you spend time debugging that, then you've wasted your time, since my web server is passing through a 10Mbps connection and is serving 100 people.
  Yes, they could be gaming the speed tests by looking at the destination, but it is reasonable that they'd want a known source to test your speeds against, not something they don't know.
4. Re:Cheaters always Win by Aighearach · 2017-10-02 11:47 · Score: 1
  
  If it wasn't already verified numerous times over that the speed tests are being gamed, you'd have a point. Your comment made sense 15 years ago. Now it is just a lie.
  There are lots of examples online using traceroute. It isn't a hypothesis. It is a well established fact that cheating is the whole speed test market. The reason people still use them is that it does tell you the relative speed of your connection from one day to the next, as long as you ignore the actual numbers given which are horseshit.
5. Re:Cheaters always Win by retchdog · 2017-10-02 12:06 · Score: 1
  
  i understand that they would want a known source. i even acknowledge that my comment is almost off-topic, because hopefully the self-regulatory body of mobile providers would not green-light blatantly compromised speed tests for one provider.
  however, your argument by hypothetical contradiction aside, yes, i will give more credence to the speedtest which reflects the poor performance i observe in practice rather than the suspiciously specific speedtest my provider tells me to use, especially in light of all the other bullshit my de facto monopoly cable provider does.
  
  --
  "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
6. Re:Cheaters always Win by Obfuscant · 2017-10-02 12:34 · Score: 1
  
  Your comment made sense 15 years ago. Now it is just a lie.
  No, it is quite true that it reasonable to use a standard measure and not an unknown. Maybe experiment design is a skill that isn't taught anymore, but when it is, removing extraneous effects that will lead to incorrect results is always a major design element. That means not testing against an unknown.
  Since I didn't claim that they didn't game anything, calling me a liar for denying it is a bit, well ... ad hominemish.
  
  There are lots of examples online using traceroute.
  
  Traceroute measures latency, not bandwidth. In many cases not even that, given the routine blocking of ICMP TTL expired response packets. The fact that it takes 30s to get a '*' back from a distant server during a traceroute doesn't mean it is taking 30s for packets to get there and back, you know.
  Depending on the endpoints of the bandwidth tool, you can be measuring your connection, your ISPs network, the network of someone unrelated to your ISP, the bandwidth of the source, or a combination of all four. Usually it is the latter. And I forgot to include "border gateway available bandwidth".
  Yes, I've seen people say "well, I've measured the throughput from site A somewhere in the world to my local system and it proves that Comcast is deliberately throttling Netflix", or whatever they think the target dejoure might be. It doesn't, but that doesn't stop it from happening over and over again. The only way to get a real number for your connection to your ISP is to use a server on the ISPs network that is set up to perform such tests. The fact that it is set up to do those tests and belongs to the ISP proves, to some, that it's a rigged game. Yeah, rigged to give more accurate numbers for your connection and try to ignore other networks' issues.
  The real gem during one of these discussions was the fellow who used his home connection to his business connection to measure the bandwidth of his business connection. Even though he was paying more for business class speeds, and the ISP was the same for both, the results for his business connection were never better than those for his home. That proved that the ISP was throttling his business connection. Pure gold. You can't make that kind of stuff up.
  So, yeah, the ISP can demand speed test results from a specific source so they could game the system. They could also demand speed test results from a known source so they can actually determine if the problem is on their network or somewhere else. Telling the difference between the two is hard, but assuming the worst is not always the right answer.
7. Re:Cheaters always Win by Obfuscant · 2017-10-02 12:46 · Score: 1
  
  yes, i will give more credence to the speedtest which reflects the poor performance i observe in practice rather than the suspiciously specific speedtest my provider tells me to use,
  When I get home tonight I will set up a data source on one of my Raspberry Pi systems that connects via a 10MBps link to my home router. Please set up a conference call including me when you call your ISP and complain that you aren't getting the 100MBps throughput you are paying for based on testing with my indisputably unbiased data source. I'd almost pay to hear that conversation. I'll mute my mic because I will certainly be laughing when you try to get them to act based on that data, and I'll laugh even harder if they do act on it.
  It is not suspicious to anyone who understands networks that they would want you to use a known source when testing your network connection. On the extreme, it would be like complaining that your network connection is down because you get no response when you ping 192.168.20.20. The fact that the "test source" happens to be unroutable if it is not on your own internal network is significant, just like the fact that the speed test site you prefer to use is on someone else's network that your ISP has no control over.
8. Re:Cheaters always Win by stephanruby · 2017-10-02 14:25 · Score: 2
  
  You make a good argument, but it has been proven that T-Mobile has been gaming the system of speed tests.
  Not that Verizon is any better by going through National Advertising Division (NAD), which belongs to the BBB. Verizon is rated A+ by the BBB and T-Mobile is rated F. And I'm sorry, Better Business Bureau, but if you're going to lie for your paid member, you should at least try to make your lie somewhat halfway believable.
  There is no way in hell that anyone would believe Verizon Communications would be rated A+. I would know. I was a Verizon customer for a bit. The coverage was great, but the nickel and diming, the bait and switching, and the fraudulent charges. There is no possible way that they could get a higher rating than T-Mobile (which is what I am currently using right now and which has never tried to rip me off like Verizon was doing).
9. Re:Cheaters always Win by omnichad · 2017-10-02 14:54 · Score: 1
  
  It is not suspicious to anyone who understands networks that they would want you to use a known source when testing your network connection.
  Yes, it is. The ISP having control over it means that it's likely within the provider's network. That is, no peering agreements involved. That's not even really "Internet" speed. That's just private network speed - the speed you may be able to connect to other users of that ISP with, were it not for asymmetric plans being standard.
  And they may even further cheat by geo-routing DNS for the test to a server at the nearest hop. How fast can you connect within your ISP's network to the nearest city? Not really relevant to real-world usage.
10. Re:Cheaters always Win by nasch · 2017-10-02 15:16 · Score: 1
  
  The only way to get a real number for your connection to your ISP is to use a server on the ISPs network that is set up to perform such tests.
  Who cares about that though? My ISP doesn't host anything I'm interested in. They could deliver me gigabit speeds to their network and it won't do me any good unless the speeds from outside their network are good too.
11. Re:Cheaters always Win by Aighearach · 2017-10-02 20:34 · Score: 1
  
  You don't even comprehend the role that traceroute plays in investigating their reports, so why pretend you have something relevant to say? You don't understand the things you already said, so there is no rebuttal.
  If you really cared to correct your blatant ignorance, you'd look it up on that cat/tube thing.
12. Re: Cheaters always Win by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-03 00:56 · Score: 0
  
  Simple solution. Pay for a high speed VPN service. They don't throttle that...but they WILL throttle video streaming services!
13. Re:Cheaters always Win by retchdog · 2017-10-03 01:42 · Score: 1
  
  yeah, although i will accept his narrow nitpicking point about my claim, this autistic prick is missing the forest for the trees.
  the ISPs, by and large, lobbied to have the definition of "internet" changed to include preferential peering, traffic shaping, and literally every hypothetically possible trick imaginable, and yet they want to advertise "internet speed" in the most advantageous way (to them) possible. nope. if "internet" now includes gaming the shit out of connection metrics, then the private network speed is not the same thing as internet speed, and the advertising is fraudulent.
  
  --
  "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
14. Re:Cheaters always Win by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-03 01:56 · Score: 0
  
  I wasn't aware that there are still people who believe the BBB is legitimate. They are bought and paid for.
15. Re:Cheaters always Win by WankerWeasel · 2017-10-03 02:03 · Score: 1
  
  I don't see the issue there. They can only guarantee speed on their own network. The second you leave their network, they don't have control of those other factors. Worked for a cable company years ago. School district customer with a fiber connection complained about speeds. Seems he thought he'd be able to download at 1000Mbit from anyone he liked. We went out and put the light gear on his connection and tested it. Speeds were perfect. He was seeing slowing off network. We don't control the routing of traffic outside our network nor do we control the speed of the servers you connect to. Sorry, that's just not how the internet works.
16. Re:Cheaters always Win by plague911 · 2017-10-03 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  "It is not suspicious to anyone who understands networks that they would want you to use a known source when testing your network connection"
  Correct, it is ,however, suspicious to anyone who is familiar with the concept of impartiality that they get to choose their own reference. Double suspicious that they choose references that are not standard for their end users own personal tests. Triple suspicious that the results never align with real world experiences.
17. Re:Cheaters always Win by parkinglot777 · 2017-10-03 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  I don't see the issue there. They can only guarantee speed on their own network. The second you leave their network, they don't have control of those other factors. Worked for a cable company years ago. School district customer with a fiber connection complained about speeds. Seems he thought he'd be able to download at 1000Mbit from anyone he liked. We went out and put the light gear on his connection and tested it. Speeds were perfect. He was seeing slowing off network. We don't control the routing of traffic outside our network nor do we control the speed of the servers you connect to. Sorry, that's just not how the internet works.
  I agree that they lose network speed control outside of their network. That doesn't mean the way they advertise on Internet speed is acceptable. The meaning of the word "Internet" gives you the sense of global (around the world). If they can't do it as global but still want to advertise their own network speed, then the word should "Intranet" speed instead.
18. Re:Cheaters always Win by Obfuscant · 2017-10-03 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  Who cares about that though?
  Anyone who is honestly trying to measure the bandwidth of their current network connection.
  
  My ISP doesn't host anything I'm interested in. They could deliver me gigabit speeds to their network and it won't do me any good unless the speeds from outside their network are good too.
  Do you want to verify that you have a gigabit connection, or just whine about it not being fast enough because other networks are slowing you down?
19. Re:Cheaters always Win by Obfuscant · 2017-10-03 09:57 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, it is. The ISP having control over it means that it's likely within the provider's network.
  
  Yes, I think we've said as much. Why is this a problem?
  
  That is, no peering agreements involved. That's not even really "Internet" speed. That's just private network speed
  Yes, no peering gateways that connect to other networks. I think we've said as much. Yes, it's "private network speed", but it also the speed that the ISP has sold you. They haven't sold you "gigabit to every place on the planet".
  
  And they may even further cheat by geo-routing DNS for the test to a server at the nearest hop.
  As long as the limiting factor is your connection to their network, then it doesn't matter where in their network the server is.
  
  How fast can you connect within your ISP's network to the nearest city?
  No faster than I can connect to it in this city. If the test shows I have a connection that manages 100Mbps to the local city, then I know that any throughput less than that is caused by something else.
20. Re:Cheaters always Win by Obfuscant · 2017-10-03 10:06 · Score: 1
  
  this autistic prick
  We're discussing the bandwidth of your connection to the ISP. That you want to turn this into personal insult shows a lack of support for your argument, not your superiority.
  
  the ISPs, by and large, lobbied to have the definition of "internet" changed
  
  Of, for goodness sake. No, they haven't.
  
  to include preferential peering, traffic shaping,
  By "preferential peering" you mean gateway congestion, of course. And "traffic shaping" has always been a part of the TCP/IP standard. "Internet", as you call it.
  
  and literally every hypothetically possible trick imaginable,
  
  Hyperbole is your friend.
  
  and yet they want to advertise "internet speed" in the most advantageous way (to them) possible
  The do not advertise "internet speed". They have always advertised the speed of your connection. They cannot advertise "internet speed" because there is no such measurement. What is "internet speed"? Is it 100MBps? Gigabit? 10Gbps? Different parts of the internet run at different speed. No ISP can advertise speeds for any other network than their own, and they don't even do that. They are always referring to your little connection to their network. If you don't understand that, well, there are books and stuff to look things up in.
  
  if "internet" now includes gaming the shit out of connection metrics,
  You can run your own software to measure the speed, and how they can game that is anyone's guess.
  Now, if you can show that the number their speedtest sites report do not match the measurement you make during the same test, you'd have an argument. But somehow the ISP is gaming your software and you can't.
21. Re:Cheaters always Win by omnichad · 2017-10-03 10:23 · Score: 1
  
  They said "Internet speed" in their claim. You sound like a Verizon lawyer. If private network speed is all that counts, they could just sell you a gigabit LAN router with a dial up modem attached.
22. Re:Cheaters always Win by Obfuscant · 2017-10-03 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  They said "Internet speed" in their claim.
  Here is what retchdog wrote in the GGGP of this posting: "when i called my cable company to complain about the speed of my home internet service". "They" didn't say nothing about "internet speed".
  
  You sound like a Verizon lawyer.
  
  Where have I been talking about Verizon? Are they retchdog's cable company?
  
  If private network speed is all that counts,
  I didn't say that, and you know it. What I did say is that when testing your connection to the internet, measuring your connection to the internet is what is important, not measuring the output of someone's web server somewhere on the other side of the planet.
  
  they could just sell you a gigabit LAN router with a dial up modem attached.
  Then your connection to the internet would be at dial-up modem speeds, now wouldn't it? Or do you really believe that because your router is gigabit on LAN it will always do gigabit on WAN, and so such a connection would fulfill the actual promises made about your connection to the internet? Yes, they COULD just sell you that kind of connection, but it is irrelevant because that is not what they do and it is not what they claim.
23. Re:Cheaters always Win by Obfuscant · 2017-10-03 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  Correct, it is ,however, suspicious to anyone who is familiar with the concept of impartiality that they get to choose their own reference.
  It isn't supposed to be impartial, it is supposed to be accurate, and there are technical reasons why using a server on their own network results in more accurate measurements. That removes the suspicion.
  
  Double suspicious that they choose references that are not standard for their end users own personal tests.
  I don't understand what you mean by this. If you mean it is suspicious because they aren't using the same distant servers from other people's networks to test their own network performance, well, no, it isn't. We've been over that point.
  
  Triple suspicious that the results never align with real world experiences.
  
  "Real world experiences" are mostly subjective, and depend on all kinds of factors that are not under the control of the ISP. They also change from minute to minute based on network usage. Why is it suspicious that quantitative answers from "calibrated" sources differ from subjective experience with arbitrary data generators?
24. Re:Cheaters always Win by plague911 · 2017-10-03 10:55 · Score: 1
  
  "That removes the suspicion" No it does not. I am going to go out on a limb here and use hyperbole. But no one even here gives a shit about what you are calling "accuracy" What people want it an impartial metric to compare the performance of different ISPs to. If google.com takes 5 minutes to load on my PC I could not give a crap that your internal metrics tell you your network is amazing, because it is not, it is shit.
  There are two roads, from your house, both go a bar . Your dipshit friend says "The road on the right is faster I can get to my house in exactly 10 minutes!!!!" Your not moron friend says the road on the left is faster it would take me about 15 minutes to get to the bar!!
  The dipshit friend of yours is incorrect to use the standard of how fast it takes him to get home even if he is more accurate
  Why? Because that standard is not useful in this context.
25. Re:Cheaters always Win by Obfuscant · 2017-10-03 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  You make a good argument, but it has been proven that T-Mobile has been gaming the system of speed tests.
  Did you even bother to read what that link points to? The article you linked is a story about someone finding a hole in a network access filter. T-Mobile allowed access to websites that contained the string "/speedtest" even after paid service had run out.
  That's not "gaming the system of speed tests". That's allowing people to run speed tests using devices that currently don't have service, as a way of evaluating the network performance. The only "gaming the system" going on was when the person who found this error started hosting web data with "/speedtest" in the URL so he could get access through T-Mobile without paying.
26. Re:Cheaters always Win by Obfuscant · 2017-10-03 11:12 · Score: 1
  
  What people want it an impartial metric to compare the performance of different ISPs to.
  No. Most people have one ISP. How do they compare two if they don't have service from both?
  But even if they do have two ISPs, then comparing between the two is something very different than verifying if the service you are paying for is what you are getting. If you want to know if your connection to ISP A is running at "up to 100MBps", you test that connection using a source on ISP A's network. You don't use a source on ISP B, because that makes it trivial for ISP B to "game the result" by being slow in sending you data. You don't trust A to be honest, but you trust B -- who could benefit by lying to you and getting you to switch to B.
  
  If google.com takes 5 minutes to load on my PC I could not give a crap that your internal metrics tell you your network is amazing, because it is not, it is shit.
  
  And you will ignore the fact that the google.com servers could be suffering a meltdown right at that moment, and you will blame your ISP for every fault you find in any data service you try to connect to. This is "impartial" and "accurate". Sure.
  
  The dipshit friend of yours is incorrect to use the standard of how fast it takes him to get home even if he is more accurate
  
  Not when you're testing the claim of which road is faster for him to get home.
  
  Why? Because that standard is not useful in this context.
  
  Exactly what standard is useful when you want to test whether your connection to your ISP is providing the bandwidth you are paying for? No, I'm sorry, but "google.com loads slow" isn't it. There are simply too many outside actors involved that all can slow things down. If you don't understand why you try to eliminate all the interfering effects from irrelevant sources when making a measurement, then there is nothing left to explain.
27. Re:Cheaters always Win by Obfuscant · 2017-10-03 11:16 · Score: 1
  
  You don't even comprehend the role that traceroute plays in investigating their reports,
  I know what traceroute is, what it does, and what it measures. I don't have to "comprehend" what role "they" thought traceroute plays in "their reports", I know what role it CAN play, and measuring bandwidth is not it. I also understand, apparently better than you, that latency and bandwidth are not the same metric.
  Your insults notwithstanding, the fact remains. Proving that someone is "gaming speed tests" based on traceroute is nonsense.
28. Re:Cheaters always Win by Obfuscant · 2017-10-03 11:29 · Score: 1
  
  I agree that they lose network speed control outside of their network.
  Then how can using a speedtest server outside of their network be suspicious, unfair, unethical, or "cheating"? That's what the claim is.
  
  That doesn't mean the way they advertise on Internet speed is acceptable.
  Here's how CenturyLink, as one example, talks about their "internet speed" (which they don't actually say): "Private, Direct Connection and Speed Claims: Private, direct connection and/or speed claims are based on providing High-Speed Internet customers with a dedicated, virtual-circuit connection between their homes and the CenturyLink central office."
  Between their homes and the central office. Nothing about "internet globally". Also: "Speed Demo Chart: Speeds provided above may not be typical or standard and each user may not experience the exact same results as depicted for each category. Listed broadband speeds vary due to conditions outside of network control, including customer location and equipment, and are not guaranteed."
  It seems like CenturyLink is quite explicit in saying "not guaranteed" and "due to conditions outside of network control". I've see the same kind of disclaimers on other ISPs ads, so CL is not unique in this honesty.
  
  The meaning of the word "Internet" gives you the sense of global (around the world).
  Oh, please. Anyone who thinks that the use of the word "internet" in some advertising makes every claim about the service being sold a guarantee that applies to everywhere on the Internet is just, well ... there has to be a reasonable person test to every ad, and if a reasonable person would not think that his 100MBps fiber internet meant he could get data from a server in Lower Elbonia on a 56k dialup at 100MBps, then that passes the test.
29. Re:Cheaters always Win by nasch · 2017-10-03 13:19 · Score: 1
  
  Anyone who is honestly trying to measure the bandwidth of their current network connection.
  It could be useful in determining where a problem is if you're not getting the speeds you want. Beyond that I don't see the use. What do you use it for?
  
  Do you want to verify that you have a gigabit connection, or just whine about it not being fast enough because other networks are slowing you down?
  I want a useful measure of how fast my internet connection is. As I said, I don't care how fast my connection to my ISP is, because I don't pay them so I can get a connection to their network. I pay for a connection to the internet. That's what I care about.
30. Re:Cheaters always Win by omnichad · 2017-10-03 13:46 · Score: 1
  
  "They" didn't say nothing about "internet speed".
  That is what they ISP calls it in their advertising material - they call it Internet speed.
  
  Then your connection to the internet would be at dial-up modem speeds, now wouldn't it?
  You said that the only speed that matters is your connection to the private network provided by the ISP. In that case, that would gigabit, not dial-up speed. And if your ISP is the one providing it, what difference does it make what its reach is? You said that any private network provided by the ISP is "The Internet."
  Without peering agreements, most of "the Internet" (the actual service connection on offer) is inaccessible. So being able to connect to your ISP's private network at 100Mbps means absolutely nothing at all.
  
  measuring your connection to the internet is what is important, not measuring the output of someone's web server somewhere on the other side of the planet.
  So let's assume they're picking some private speed test server in Korea, and not something like Ookla's Speedtest.net that has endpoints literally everywhere around the country.
31. Re:Cheaters always Win by plague911 · 2017-10-03 15:22 · Score: 1
  
  "No. Most people have one ISP. How do they compare two if they don't have service from both?"
  The use-case for 99.9999% of consumers is to compare ISPs. I am sorry that is just the reality. Not in having both at once, but to see if a switch is worth it between different providers. "Hey I just switched to FIOS can I now download my porn faster? Y/N if so how much faster"
  You are right that the the system can be gamed, that is exactly the problem everyone else is pointing out here.
  When ISP's force their customers to try and use their own in-house test to validate their they are basically pissing on their own clients as rightfully no one trust their in house tests to be honest.
  The solution is to use some 3rd party trusted appraiser. No one should trust A or B. In virtually every situation where side A and B can not be trusted and you can't afford to do a rigorous system test yourself , the solution is always to find an independent source C who you can put some faith in.
32. Re:Cheaters always Win by parkinglot777 · 2017-10-04 00:41 · Score: 1
  
  Then how can using a speedtest server outside of their network be suspicious, unfair, unethical, or "cheating"? That's what the claim is.
  Who said I claim that? Where in my post say that it is suspicious, unfair, unethical, or cheating to use speed test server "outside" of their network? Reread again. I simply agree with the parent that speed test using server within the network could, of course, be guaranteed for the advertising speed. And that's cheating.
  
  Here's how CenturyLink, as one example, talks about their "internet speed" (which they don't actually say): "Private, Direct Connection and Speed Claims: Private, direct connection and/or speed claims are based on providing High-Speed Internet customers with a dedicated, virtual-circuit connection between their homes and the CenturyLink central office."
  And that's exactly what I am against -- wrongly use and/or associate the word Internet. They don't do it directly but attempt to play with words. Humans mind will attempt to associate what they see with what they know. If they don't know, they will associate whatever closest to their experience with those words. In other words, assumption happens, and providers know exactly what they are doing.
  Playing around the edge of the meaning by associating words with something humans are familiar with, but not quite know exactly what those words are, could (and would) psychologically mislead their mind. No need to "explicitly state" that it is not about global Internet in this case. Just use the word "speed" and may add "streaming faster" would be suffice to make most people associate that with the "real" Internet. Why? Because they don't know or understand how Internet works. They all are not engineers (especially have interest in networking) and their experiences are from using computer and get on world wide web / email only.
  
  It seems like CenturyLink is quite explicit in saying "not guaranteed" and "due to conditions outside of network control". I've see the same kind of disclaimers on other ISPs ads, so CL is not unique in this honesty.
  Oh please, honesty! I wouldn't say "quite explicit" at all. In every commercial and/or advertising, this kind of definition is "always" either in a small print or a fast talking at the end of a commercial on TV while other things else are flashing by in order to distract audiences. Please don't exaggerate or conflate this kind of behavior as "explicit" because it is not.
  
  Oh, please. Anyone who thinks that the use of the word "internet" in some advertising makes every claim about the service being sold a guarantee that applies to everywhere on the Internet is just, well ... there has to be a reasonable person test to every ad, and if a reasonable person would not think that his 100MBps fiber internet meant he could get data from a server in Lower Elbonia on a 56k dialup at 100MBps, then that passes the test.
  Oh please. Reasonable person? Let me see... Do you believe the majority of people are reasonable? Do you think laymen are reasonable? Don't use yourself as a standard. You should have known it by now that average people are NOT reasonable. That doesn't count those who are reasonable at a certain degree but then let their bias/faith/belief blind their reasoning, and as a result, they become unreasonable. Do you want an obvious example? Deity religious is one of them. So stop using "reasonable person" as an excuse to say that misleading/falsify ads are OK because consumers should already know if they are reasonable.
  I understand that you come from technical point of view that there is no guarantee on Internet speed. But at the same time, you completely ignore psychological point of view that providers play on their consumers. If there is total honesty in any business, there shouldn't be advantages or disadvantages but rather a co-exist that help each other to grow. I highly doubt that ISP and consumers are in that kind of relationship because all ISP are taking advantage of consumers in some way along the way (later or sooner).
33. Re:Cheaters always Win by Obfuscant · 2017-10-04 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  Who said I claim that?
  Nobody, including me. I said that was the claim.
  
  They don't do it directly but attempt to play with words.
  So they don't say it, but you want them to have said it, so you will assume they did and go from there. They didn't say it directly or indirectly. Nobody advertises what speed you will be able to get data from arbitrary sources across the internet. They can't. THAT would be false advertising, and their lawyers are smarter than that. No, instead, they are pretty explicit in telling you that the speeds they quote are for your connection to their network. Nothing past that. And they can't guarantee anything past that. Nobody can, and it is lunacy to assume that they could.
  
  I wouldn't say "quite explicit" at all.
  I quoted the statement from CenturyLink example that the service speed they were offering was from your end of the connection TO THEIR CENTRAL OFFICE. That's pretty explicit. Not "from you to the world", and not even "from you to our network". It was limited to the central office -- a specific place.
  
  Oh please. Reasonable person?
  Yes. Unreasonable people can make all kinds of specious and moronic arguments about anything that is advertised and the law protects the advertiser from them. This is just one example. "Gee, you said "internet" and "20 gigs" in the same ad, so that "20 Gigs" must mean that you can get anything from anywhere on the Internet at "20 Gigs." Wow. That would be so fantastically impossible to guarantee that no reasonable person would believe such a claim was being made, especially given the clear limit of "from your home to our central office".
  Before you start with the false advertising claims again, you should look at any of the ridiculously outrageous ad claims that are so obviously parodies that no reasonable person would believe them, and thus no lawsuits are ever filed. Do you remember the "money out the wazoo" ad for eTrade, I believe it was? Do you REALLY think that using the eTrade product will cause hundred dollar bills to spew from your rectum? That's what the ad showed. Then why would you believe that a service that is advertised as "up to 20 Gigs" means "exactly 20Gbps from anyplace on the planet"?
  
  Deity religious is one of them.
  Wow, way to turn a technical discussion into an anti-religious rant. When have you seen a company advertising "deity religious", whatever that is, and are they advertising bit rates for a connection to it?
  
  So stop using "reasonable person" as an excuse to say that misleading/falsify ads are OK
  It's not false advertising, so I'm not trying to excuse it as such. Don't tell me to stop doing something I'm not doing.
  
  I understand that you come from technical point of view that there is no guarantee on Internet speed.
  That is not just a "point of view". That is an indisputable fact. It is true whether you choose to believe it or not.
  
  But at the same time, you completely ignore psychological point of view
  Yes, I ignore the false facts from ignorant people who ignore not only the fact that the speed cannot be guaranteed to such an extent, but the fact that they are told the specific limits of that guarantee. Ignore the words at your own peril. Yes, I've been bit by that. I bought a radio from eBay at what I thought was a great price, thinking it was the VHF version. When it showed up and I realized it was UHF, I felt cheated. Then I reread the eBay listing. Yep, the information was there, I just ignored it. That was MY fault, not the seller's. Why is it not YOUR fault if you don't bother reading the information about the service you are buying to see what it actually is?
  
  there shouldn't be advantages or disadvantages but rather a co-exist that help each other to grow.
  Here's
34. Re:Cheaters always Win by Obfuscant · 2017-10-04 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  I want a useful measure of how fast my internet connection is.
  Your connection to the Internet is through that line from you to the ISP. That's the bandwidth YOU pay for. That's the service you need to test if your connection speed is in question.
  
  As I said, I don't care how fast my connection to my ISP is, because I don't pay them so I can get a connection to their network.
  
  That is EXACTLY what you are paying them for. Access to the rest of the internet depends on having that connection to their network. They do not advertise, nor are you paying them for, a specific bandwidth gateway to other people's networks. (Yes, if you talk to Level3 or one of the other major backbone providers you might talk details like that, but not when you talk to Comcast Home or CenturyLink, and those are the kinds of ISPs we're talking about here. If you are talking details like that, they will be spelled out in the contract you sign for service and you damn well better be reading that contract.)
  But let's remember the context here. Someone said that his ISP was not accepting speed test data from arbitrary outside sources when he was calling them about the internet connection to his home. That is specifically an issue of his connection to the ISP. While it might be nice to know how fast you can get data from Lower Elbonia servers, it is irrelevant when determining if the connection to your home is providing the service you are paying for.
35. Re:Cheaters always Win by Obfuscant · 2017-10-04 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  That is what they ISP calls it in their advertising material - they call it Internet speed.
  I have never seen an advertisement for "internet speed". I've seen ads for the speed of your connection to the ISP. Can you provide a link to one?
  
  You said that the only speed that matters is your connection to the private network provided by the ISP.
  No, actually, I did not make such a blanket statement. What I actually said is that if you are talking about whether your home internet service is providing the bandwidth that the ISP is selling you, THEN the only speed that matters is the speed on the connection that your ISP is selling you.
  In your contrived example, the speed of the connection would be 56k since that is the connection from you to the ISP. Putting a gigabit LAN router on the local end of a dial-up modem doesn't change that.
  
  In that case, that would gigabit, not dial-up speed.
  You can't be that technically ignorant, so I have to assume you are misstating the situation for a reason. No, putting a gigabit LAN on your end of a dial-up modem doesn't change the service you are paying for into gigabit.
  
  You said that any private network provided by the ISP is "The Internet."
  No, I didn't say that, either. Are you sure you are replying to the person you think you are?
  
  So let's assume they're picking some private speed test server in Korea, and not something like Ookla's Speedtest.net that has endpoints literally everywhere around the country.
  I'll point out that the discussion has been about the "suspicious" nature of an ISP using a speed test server on their own network, so there is no assumption about Korea. Why should we make such an assumption, and how would it make the measurement any more accurate to do that than to use a server on the same network?
  I'm assuming you mean they have physical servers co-located in many ISPs networks when you talk about their numerous "endpoints", since every speed test connection has two endpoints. One of those endpoints is always on the network connection being tested, and thus are "literally everywhere on the planet", not just "around the country". If that's what you mean, then of course an ISP should accept that data since they've explicitly vetted it and it is on their own network. But nobody has said "ookla" until now, and the discussion has been about speed test servers located on other people's networks, not the ISPs.
36. Re:Cheaters always Win by Obfuscant · 2017-10-04 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  The use-case for 99.9999% of consumers is to compare ISPs.
  Citation required. Since I doubt that 99.9999% of consumers have two ISPs with the same service from both, your claim seems to be outside the norm, and thus requires support. While I have access to several ISPs services, none of them are the same quality or level, so comparing any one of them against another would be useless. I.e., a speed test I do on my phone compared to my home cable internet would be meaningless, as would a comparison of my home cable to my business cable service (ignoring for the sake of argument that I can't switch cable providers even if the comparison was valid.)
  
  Not in having both at once, but to see if a switch is worth it between different providers.
  You can't compare two things if you don't have two things to compare. How can I test ISP B to see if it is worth switching to ISP B unless I already have ISP B to test with? You might try claiming that I can do it from my friend's house, but that is his service from ISP B, not mine. He may have 100Mbps service and I have 30Mbps -- the comparison will be useless because B will always look faster than mine, and I may wind up switching to a service that is actually slower.
  
  You are right that the the system can be gamed, that is exactly the problem everyone else is pointing out here.
  And I haven't denied it. I'm pointing out that there are valid and reasonable technical reasons for an ISP to rely on speed test servers that are on their own network and not on servers elsewhere, whether or not they are "gaming the system". In fact, "gaming the system" is one very good reason why they SHOULD ignore outside servers. If you believe that YOUR ISP is gaming you, then why would you accept a speed test run on ISP B's network?
  If you use your ISPs speed test server and both your and your ISPs measurement shows that your connection is operating at or above the specified speed, you have corroborated evidence you are getting what you paid for. While the ISP can fudge the number on their end, you are making the same measurement. If you aren't getting what you paid for, then at a minimum your measurement from their server will show that.
  IF you use a speed server on someone else's network and it and your own measurement shows a data rate below advertised, then you have learned nothing about your connection. The server could be seeing a connection from a Comcast IP address and deliberately sending slowly, and both the server and your measurement will detect that. But it isn't the fault of your connection, it's the remote server. Calling your ISP to complain about your connection based on that data would be wasting everyone's time. Yours included.
  The only useful result from the latter test would be if both the server and your measurement show you are getting rated speeds. In that case you aren't calling your ISP, so it doesn't matter what server they want data from.
  
  When ISP's force their customers to try and use their own in-house test to validate their they are basically pissing on their own clients as rightfully no one trust their in house tests to be honest.
  But you will trust someone else. And you won't make your own measurement, or you don't trust your own measurement.
  
  The solution is to use some 3rd party trusted appraiser.
  You've missed the point entirely. If that 3rd party uses a server that isn't on the ISPs network, then there are too many places outside the control of the ISP where the speed can be limited. It can be gaming on the part of the other network operator, or it can be simple network congestion or a normally slower network path.
  What I will agree is that as long as the 3rd party server is on the ISPs network where that ISP is solely responsible for service to both the server and you, THEN it should be valid for testing. And I've always said that the server nee
37. Re:Cheaters always Win by omnichad · 2017-10-04 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  Can you see the forest yet or is your head stuck in a tree?
  Using Ookla as a test, you can still test to a geographically close network that isn't specifically in the provider's own private network.
  Yes, outside networks matter. it's the "inter" part of Internet. Few web sites are actually collocated within Charter or Comcast's network outside of some edge caching services. Just because they don't say "Internet" speeds, it's implied - enough that the FTC would assume they mean Internet. Secretly meaning no high speed access to the outside world is just plain weaselly.
  You didn't get the dial up modem story. I won't explain much further. But deciding what counts as uplink and what is local is arbitrary - and saying that you have 50Mbps but only to the node in the alley is not much different. How many hops until it counts as a valid speed to advertise with in your book? The clear assumption is that the internetworking speed is what's relevant here.
38. Re:Cheaters always Win by nasch · 2017-10-04 12:08 · Score: 1
  
  That is EXACTLY what you are paying them for.
  Nope. If that's all I got, I wouldn't pay for it.
  
  They do not advertise, nor are you paying them for, a specific bandwidth gateway to other people's networks.
  I'm not really even paying them for a specific bandwidth to their own network - it's "up to" a number. Though for some reason I have occasionally seen speeds significantly above that number.
  
  But let's remember the context here. Someone said that his ISP was not accepting speed test data from arbitrary outside sources when he was calling them about the internet connection to his home.
  There needs to be something between "downloads from this random server are too slow" and "we will only accept speed tests from this service that we have artificially juiced to make sure you always get good speeds". Without actual competition between ISPs we will probably never get that though.
39. Re:Cheaters always Win by gl4ss · 2017-10-04 18:59 · Score: 1
  
  look, if they insist on using specific speed test then it's likely they don't throttle that one AND that they got their transparent proxy tweaked for it.
  really it's no use complaining with them, switch the provider if you can.
  they only will guarantee the last link speed, which is pretty useless.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
40. Re:Cheaters always Win by stephanruby · 2017-10-04 21:07 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I linked exactly to the article I wanted to.
  And I'm sorry, but your assumption(s) that non-customers would be allowed to do a speed test is just complete nonsense.
  The string "/speedtest" is not some random error. The kid didn't just stumble unto it by accident. Filtering by url to give false readings of speed is a well-known marketing practice that has been going on for decades. And that practice isn't limited to cell phone carriers either, many ISPs have done something similar. If you don't believe me, I can dig up those other examples and even find examples of former ISP employees admitting as much.
  Why don't we do that? I'll find examples of what I'm talking about at other companies and other ISPs, and you find examples of what you're talking about at other companies and other ISPs? Then, we can see which one of us found what he was looking for. What do you say?
41. Re:Cheaters always Win by Aighearach · 2017-10-05 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, you would have to have comprehended the role that the tool plays in a particular context in order to understand what the fuck anybody is talking about. That is always true.
  And no, you don't know if you understand some other technical detail better than somebody else, or not. That isn't knowable to you. Therefore you wrong about it, even without knowing how much anybody knows about the detail.
  Random words notwithstanding, it is already well proven that the speed tests are being gamed and instead of looking it up somewhere you made up some fake "facts."
Compromises by shellster_dude · 2017-10-02 10:17 · Score: 3, Funny

In my experience T-Mobile was faster, but you had to find the single cell tower in the country and stand right under it. That's a bit of a downside.
1. Re:Compromises by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-02 10:36 · Score: 0
  
  Mesh networks will fix this. If you mount your phone on the tower and enable tethering and run a mesh network to your house then you can use wifi calling from your house through your mesh network to your phone. Lets crowdsource this thing and everyone agree to use open wifi on our friendly community mesh network providing access connected to this guys phone.
2. Re:Compromises by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-02 10:58 · Score: 0
  
  It must be true because one person feels this way. Maybe other people with an emotional attachement to throwing money at Big Red and will agree with them.
  Or maybe T-Mobile really is a better network, and not just per dollar spent.
  Or maybe T-Mobile just hates their customers the least and so people rally to support them. Don't worry Cinnamorons, once T-Mobile buys Sprint they will be so poisoned by that mess that they wont be able to compete with Cricket.
3. Re:Compromises by WankerWeasel · 2017-10-03 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  T-Mobile recently ran billboard ads in the Twin Cities claiming they now have 4x the coverage! Other providers can't do the same because you can't have in excess of 100% coverage. Only T-Mobile still had room to increase their coverage by 4x and STILL not be at 100%.
Idiots by sexconker · 2017-10-02 10:19 · Score: 1

In addition, the NAD also told T-Mobile to modify its claim that it covered 99.7 percent of Verizon customers to make clear that the coverage is by population and not geographic area.
Why would anyone think anything else? X percent of Y refers to Y, not Z.
1. Re:Idiots by Junta · 2017-10-02 10:34 · Score: 2
  
  Because people will easily conflate "hey it covers 99.7% of the people" with "hey, it works almost everywhere that verizon does", which as a t-mobile customer I am painfully aware that coverage is much more spotty as I go to rural areas with t-mobile than my family members that use verizon. For a large portion of the population, *where* it works as they travel is critically important. On the other hand it pretty much doesn't matter *who* it can work for apart for yourself, so 99.7% of other people isn't a metric that has value to a customer, so one assumes it should mean something of value and leaps to coverage area.
  
  --
  XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
2. Re:Idiots by R3d+M3rcury · 2017-10-02 10:46 · Score: 1
  
  I gotta admit, this made me chuckle.
  AT&T used to have ads which claimed to cover 99% of all Americans. Not America--Americans. Sprint has some similar ads, stating that they're within 1% of all of Verizon's customers.
  At one point, I was thinking of a Verizon ad which played on AT&T's old slogan, "We're everywhere you want to be" by saying that, "We're also everywhere you want to be--as well as a lot of places you don't want to be!" with a picture of a car broken down by the side of the road out in the middle of nowhere (say, some desert) and person using their cellphone to call for help.
3. Re:Idiots by sexconker · 2017-10-02 11:15 · Score: 1
  
  "We're everywhere you are." led to "We're everywhere you want to be.".
  I don't recall seeing an ad that flipped it around again.
4. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-02 11:38 · Score: 0
  
  "For a large portion of the population, *where* it works as they travel is critically important."
  Citation needed.
5. Re:Idiots by plague911 · 2017-10-03 03:19 · Score: 0
  
  "On the other hand it pretty much doesn't matter *who* it can work for apart for yourself, so 99.7% of other people isn't a metric that has value to a customer" Yes it does. I simply do not care about you or your family. The 99.7% of the population convers literally everywhere I will go in the United States. Don't want terrible service? Don't live in the backwater. It amazes me how much people whine when the cause of their problems is that they don't live in civilization.
6. Re:Idiots by parkinglot777 · 2017-10-03 03:26 · Score: 1
  
  "For a large portion of the population, *where* it works as they travel is critically important."
  Citation needed.
  If you carefully read, the statement is more in general and not specific to T-mobile users. It is for anyone (population). It depends on demography of where mobile users live and their activities. Ask yourself, which choice do you prioritize -- their service strength outside of big cities (especially when you travel) or the price? Does it really need a citation?
7. Re:Idiots by Junta · 2017-10-03 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  Or pay extra for Verizon to have the coverage.
  The problem is if you travel, *even* if you never do something like go camping in mountains, even if you don't have relatives in a rural area, you *still* are likely to be going down some road that is neither urban nore even a major interstate and not have coverage at some point.
  It's not a big enough issue for me to pay extra, but the advertising should at least not mislead people to think in terms of geogrpahy rather than demographics.
  Besides, what does 99.7% of the population even mean? Coverage of their home address? Coverage of their average location? I am 'covered', but I will venture places where I know I am not covered, but I presume I count as 'covered' in the metric, even when I'm not *currently* covered due to location.
  
  --
  XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
How do you cover 99.7 one way and not the other? by El+Cubano · 2017-10-02 10:37 · Score: 1

In addition, the NAD also told T-Mobile to modify its claim that it covered 99.7 percent of Verizon customers to make clear that the coverage is by population and not geographic area.
That sentence made me do a double-take. How can T-Mobile cover 99,7 percent of Verizon customers without also covering 99,7 percent (or something very close) of the same geographic area? I suppose if Verizon had a small number of customers spread over a very large area it would be possible to cover 99,7 percent of Verizon customers but only, for example, 75 percent of the geographic area covered by Verizon. Still, I just do not understand how it can be in practice anything beyond a rounding error difference. If Verizon's customer base were so skewed in that way, they would be spending very large amounts of money to serve a very small customer population across a very large area. It does not strike me as something that a big company like Verizon would do.
Re:How do you cover 99.7 one way and not the other by msauve · 2017-10-02 10:41 · Score: 3, Interesting

"How can T-Mobile cover 99,7 percent of Verizon customers without also covering 99,7 percent (or something very close) of the same geographic area?"

Because people don't use their cell phones exclusively at their billing address, which is what TMo is looking at. When I travel out of an urban area, I'm still covered by VZW. Not so much for those I know with TMo.

--
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Re: How do you cover 99.7 one way and not the othe by Monster_user · 2017-10-02 10:48 · Score: 1

The difference between just covering homes and offices, and covering their commutes and daily travels about. Such as whether they get cell coverage at a cousin's farm.

If a cell phone only had coverage in a metropolitan area where phone service is normally had by many means, a cell phone has little use.

However, if the cell phone has coverage out beyond the city limits, or areas where one is likely to be without access to a phone otherwise, then the cellular phone has significant value. So it is something Verizon would do.
Our Network is Yooge! Yooge, I tell you! by IonOtter · 2017-10-02 10:50 · Score: 3, Funny

I mean, hey, if Our Fearless Leader can do it and get away with it, why not everyone else?

--
[End Of Line]
Re:Our Network is Yooge! Yooge, I tell you! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-02 10:55 · Score: 0

Ayyy, there it is. Literally everything is Trump's fault when you really think about it, right?
It's been 40 minutes though; what took you so long? Out buying more tinfoil?
Re:How do you cover 99.7 one way and not the other by Ichijo · 2017-10-02 11:17 · Score: 1

Because people don't use their cell phones exclusively at their billing address, which is what TMo is looking at.

The summary says T-Mobile is looking at crowdsourced data, not billing addresses.

--
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
That's exactly what the carriers complain about by raymorris · 2017-10-02 11:23 · Score: 3, Informative

> If Verizon's customer base were so skewed in that way, they would be spending very large amounts of money to serve a very small customer population across a very large area.
Just the other day we had a couple stories about a carrier sending notices to something like 0.3% of their customers, who live out in the boonies and are roaming on towers owned by another carrier, but they are streaming TV shows.
Consider some Texas counties. Harris county (Houston) and Dallas county each have millions of people. Loving county has 100 people. They are roughly the same size in terms of geographic area.
Suppose Verizon covers Dallas county and Loving county. T-Mobile covers Dallas county, but not Loving. T-Mobile would then cover roughly HALF the geographic area that Verizon does, while covering 99.996% of the people.
1. Re:That's exactly what the carriers complain about by El+Cubano · 2017-10-02 11:47 · Score: 1
  
  Suppose Verizon covers Dallas county and Loving county. T-Mobile covers Dallas county, but not Loving. T-Mobile would then cover roughly HALF the geographic area that Verizon does, while covering 99.996% of the people.
  I get this and I get how in certain localized examples it might be the case. However, I don't really see how this can be the case on a national scale.
  Also, as I understand, they are not claiming to serve 99,7% of the areas served by Verizon, rather they are claiming to serve 99,7% of the people served by Verizon. The latter would be a true statement in the example you cited.
  The reality is that numbers can be sliced and diced many ways to seem impressive. "He has a batting average of .397 when batting against left-handers whose primary uniform color is blue whenever the most recent weather forecast has called for a greater than 40% chance of precipitation, except on Mondays." Or something like that. This just seems like another case of that.
Re:How do you cover 99.7 one way and not the other by retchdog · 2017-10-02 11:45 · Score: 1

anecdotally, i have a great experience with t-mobile while in nyc (even better than my friends with verizon or at&t), but it absolutely degrades to shit when i'm in the middle of nowhere.
statistically, i can't offer a thorough analysis. however, it's worth noting that i can cover 99.77% of the population of the entire United States while covering only 84% of its area. it is quite simple: omit Alaska entirely. similarly, i can cover 90% of the population while covering 51% of area by picking the top 25 most densely-populated states.
hopefully this will at least suggest that games can be played by cherry-picking major metropolitan areas, even more easily than picking states. data is available here based on 2013 census: https://pastebin.com/nDsVCK9U

--
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
faster by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-02 11:49 · Score: 0

Faster isn't important if you have no signal. I prefer slow and available to fast and not available.
1. Re:faster by squiggleslash · 2017-10-02 13:57 · Score: 1
  
  A signal isn't important if you can't make out what anyone's saying. I prefer a quality network to Verizon's.
  And the coverage argument is pretty much dead. Anyone who claims T-Mobile doesn't have coverage rivaling Verizon hasn't used it recently. It's very, very, rare I see no bars, and if I do, it's usually because I'm somewhere where nobody else seems to get coverage either.
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re: Our Network is Yooge! Yooge, I tell you! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-02 11:58 · Score: 0

Get used to it. We heard your shit for 8 years about how our president wasn't a citizen. How our president was a radical Islam supporter.
So suck it up pickle tits, and deal with it snowflake.
Re: Our Network is Yooge! Yooge, I tell you! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-02 12:05 · Score: 0

Difference was you ONLY heard about that from a few nutjobs online (or Fox News, which you probably didn't watch anyway), not from every last goddamned media outlet, television show, movie, celebrity, formerly-apolitical website, or random fucking person on the street.
Trump Derangement Syndrome is orders of magnitude worse (or pervasive, at least) than Obama Derangement Syndrome ever was.
Talk and surf by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-02 12:17 · Score: 0

I've got T-Mobile and at least I can talk and surf at the same time.
Verizon is a bunch of sucubuses
Verizon sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-02 12:33 · Score: 0

Had Verizon for years. They were really evil. Switched to TMobile and never looked back.
measurement by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-02 12:34 · Score: 0

pissing contest
1. Re:measurement by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-03 05:21 · Score: 0
  
  It's a good thing Trump doesn't read.
  Imagine if he saw your post - he'd probably sign an executive order declaring it our new national pass-time.
Re:How do you cover 99.7 one way and not the other by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-02 13:02 · Score: 0

Unfortunately, the crowd sourced data does not include any cases where the user could not get to the speed test site because of lack of coverage.
63% of people on 3% of the land by raymorris · 2017-10-02 13:25 · Score: 2

> I get this and I get how in certain localized examples it might be the case. However, I don't really see how this can be the case on a national scale
Nationally, almost two-thirds of the population lives in only 3.5% of the land area, according to one government publication. Another set of census data has 80% of Americans living in "urban areas", which total 3% of the land.
So it's very easy for the percentage of people covered to be very different from the percentage of land area covered.
This fact makes all kinds of infrastructure in the US very different than other countries. We have vast areas, millions of square miles, with very few people. France has 1,717 people per square mile, the US has 85. With 25 times as many people in a given area, communication, transportation methods and other infrastructure that makes sense in France or other European countries doesn't work at all in the US, which has 96% less people per area.
1. Re: 63% of people on 3% of the land by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-02 16:09 · Score: 0
  
  Norrland, the northern part of Sweden (58% of the area) has 1.7 people per square mile, good cell phone coverage, and fiber to the home...
2. Re: 63% of people on 3% of the land by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-02 20:58 · Score: 0
  
  But that's an unfair comparison. Sweden is a developed country.
3. Re:63% of people on 3% of the land by fgouget · 2017-10-03 00:37 · Score: 1
  
  This fact makes all kinds of infrastructure in the US very different than other countries. We have vast areas, millions of square miles, with very few people. France has 1,717 people per square mile, the US has 85.
  Your numbers way off! The French population density is 300.4 people per square mile while the US density is 90.6 people per square mile. So instead of having density ratio of 20 it's only 3.3.
4. Re:63% of people on 3% of the land by parkinglot777 · 2017-10-03 03:37 · Score: 1
  
  Your numbers way off! The French population density is 300.4 people per square mile while the US density is 90.6 people per square mile. So instead of having density ratio of 20 it's only 3.3.
  I guess you should use this table instead of separated page link... And it shows that your number is still off a bit (France is at 93rd place with 319/mi^2 and US is at 185th place with 86/mi^2).
5. Re:63% of people on 3% of the land by fgouget · 2017-10-03 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  I guess you should use this table instead of separated page link... And it shows that your number is still off a bit (France is at 93rd place with 319/mi^2 and US is at 185th place with 86/mi^2).
  It really does not matter. Either way your numbers were off by a factor > 5!
6. Re:63% of people on 3% of the land by parkinglot777 · 2017-10-03 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  It really does not matter. Either way your numbers were off by a factor > 5!
  Not my number! >:(
Re: Our Network is Yooge! Yooge, I tell you! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-02 13:52 · Score: 0

Difference was you ONLY heard about that from a few nutjobs online (or Fox News, which you probably didn't watch anyway),
We heard it from the MAN YOU ELECTED PRESIDENT you stupid fuckhead.

Trump Derangement Syndrome is orders of magnitude worse (or pervasive, at least) than Obama Derangement Syndrome ever was.
Obama never praised neo-nazis, put white supremacists in his cabinet, encouraged violence against protesters during his election campaign, smeared Muslims and immigrants (or, well, any group of people), never tried to ban people fleeing war from the country, never picked fights with mayors of underwater cities... do I need to continue? You're equating right wing criticism where people literally made up bullshit about Obama to mainstream criticism of Trump.
Get out of your bubble, snowflake.
Re:How do you cover 99.7 one way and not the other by msauve · 2017-10-02 14:51 · Score: 1

That's for speed, not coverage. They're two different metrics. That should be clear, since following the summary's quote from the article is an addition, starting with "In addition,". Duh.

--
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Re: Our Network is Yooge! Yooge, I tell you! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-02 15:26 · Score: 0

>We heard it from the MAN YOU ELECTED PRESIDENT you stupid fuckhead.
Who, at the time, was just some random twitter loudmouth. Do you want to talk about all the things Obama (or Hillary) was up to before running for president?
>Obama never praised neo-nazis
Neither did Trump. Though Obama praised BLM plenty.
>put white supremacists in his cabinet
Neither did Trump
>encouraged violence against protesters during his election campaign
The Hillary campaign directly paid people to go to Trump rallies and start riots. Trump asked people to "knock the crap out of" hypothetical protesters about to commit physical assault against him, which would be perfectly legal under self-defense laws.
>smeared Muslims and immigrants (or, well, any group of people)
Yeah, talk to me when the left gets off their "Every white person is a nazi and every Trump voter (including women) is a sexist." crusade.
>never tried to ban people fleeing war from the country
The countries in Trump's travel ban were the same ones that had been identified as dangerous under the Obama administration and were already under increased travel scrutiny. Anyway, it's not America's problem if their countries are wartorn shitholes. There's plenty of left-wing governments in Europe who seem more than happy to let them flood in and don't mind dealing with the odd 'traffic incident' now and then as a result.
>never picked fights with mayors of underwater cities...
If you think Trump's going to sit by and let some corrupt loser preen in front of cameras and blame him for their own failures, then you really don't know Trump.
>people literally made up bullshit about Obama to mainstream criticism of Trump.
But the tape with Trump and the hookers totally exists, right? And Trump and Putin were totally in cahoots? Voting machines were hacked? Russia stole the DNC emails? Trump's campaign totally wasn't wiretapped even though the lead headline on page one of the NYT on inauguration day was about wiretaps of Trump's campaign?
Re: That's exactly what the carriers complain abou by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-02 15:54 · Score: 0

Dude, drive across Nebraska and Wyoming. Close to a thousand miles with 100 people outside the cities, decent Verizon service and no t-mobile service.
Re: Our Network is Yooge! Yooge, I tell you! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-02 15:57 · Score: 0

Obama did however, nominate racist bigots and avowed communists, and tacitly supported calls for genocide against rural cultures
Re:Our Network is Yooge! Yooge, I tell you! by amiga3D · 2017-10-02 16:32 · Score: 1

RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA
101 Mbps. by SvnLyrBrto · 2017-10-02 18:31 · Score: 1

I turned off WiFi on my phone and fired up speedtest. And it turns out T-Mobie is actually better than my home ISP: 101Mbps download and 24Mbps up. I'm not sure what Verizon would be here, but why would I care? 101Mbps is fast enough for everything I use the phone for, and TMO is a lot cheaper than Verizon, includes more features for my money, and unlike Verizon is not run and staffed exclusively by slimy assholes. I know people do like to go on about Verizon's supposedly superior coverage. But I've only ever noticed one place that I go where tmo tends to fade out: The Costco down by SFO. And even then, it's just data that goes. I can still call and text just fine.
I know... the plural of anecdote is not data, and all that. But T-Mobile has done fine by me. I'm happy to be paying about half what I was before for better (for me) service. And, Frankly, after having *been* a customer of theirs once, and having declared "never again" Verizon can bite my shiny metal ass. I'd even go back to AT&T before I'd deal with those scum again.

--
Imagine all the people...
1. Re:101 Mbps. by bluefoxlucid · 2017-10-03 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  Uhhhhh, the plural of anecdote is data. Where do you think data comes from?
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
T-Mobile is not only slow it hardly works at all. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-02 23:44 · Score: 0

My experience is that T-Mobile is the slowest. In fact there was no T-Mobile connectivity at all during my stay in an apartment 5 minutes walk away from the centre of Mountain View. Meanwhile in the office in San Jose the signal was so weak it hardly worked at all.
Mind you, extensive testing since then has shown AT&T and Verizon to also be very intermittent and unreliable with poor coverage even in heavily populated areas.
Why are mobile services in the USA so terribly bad? Even in the midst of Silicon Valley!
I call BS on the Verge by karlandtanya · 2017-10-03 02:25 · Score: 1

Headline:
"T-Mobile Won't Stop Claiming Its Network Is Faster Than Verizon's "
Article:
"T-Mobile says it will continue to claim it has the country’s fastest LTE network even after the National Advertising Division, a telecom industry watchdog group, “recommended” that it stop doing so in print, TV, and web advertisements."
Those are two *very different* assertions.
Saying your "the best" in some way means absolutely nothing.
Saying you're "better than some specific competitor" is comparative advertising, and does actually mean something. Which is why you see it far less often than the other.
Presenting a misleading headline to an audience that you *know* is already sensitized to BS just tells us to ignore "The Verge" as a source of useful information.

--
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
Re:Our Network is Yooge! Yooge, I tell you! by bluefoxlucid · 2017-10-03 03:08 · Score: 1

I don't know. I need to answer for the things I say, so I'm even shy of simplifying claims about complex processes because they can imply odd things in simplified form.
Then again, I'm an odd sort for a politician.

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Re:How do you cover 99.7 one way and not the other by plague911 · 2017-10-03 03:23 · Score: 1

Verizon's customer base were so skewed in that way, they would be spending very large amounts of money to serve a very small customer population across a very large area"
That is exactly what they are doing.
The result is a stupidly high price which is basically a subsidy from urban populations to the backwater.
They do that because the average American is easily manipulated into spending more for services and features they don't need.
Re:How do you cover 99.7 one way and not the other by plague911 · 2017-10-03 03:25 · Score: 1

Do you know what the NYCer's solution is? Don't go to the middle of nowhere. There is nothing of value in the middle of nowhere anyway and thus they get to cut their cellphone bill in half.
Re:How do you cover 99.7 one way and not the other by retchdog · 2017-10-03 04:18 · Score: 1

i try. believe me, i try.

--
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
Re: Our Network is Yooge! Yooge, I tell you! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-03 06:09 · Score: 0

No, he didn't.
Right wing: "ARGLE BARGLE OBAMA MUSLIM COMMUNIST BENGHAZI!"
Left wing/centrist/not-batshit-insane right: "Trump is saying some awfully racist things these days and appears to be manifestly incompetent."
You: SEE, BOTH SIDES DO IT!!!!1!!!
You are stupid. That is all.
Re:How do you cover 99.7 one way and not the other by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-03 06:44 · Score: 0

I drove cross country this summer and got service with both AT&T and Verizon. What I found was both had no service in much of the country. Then each had service where the other did not in large parts as well. The reality is today it doesn't matter much who you go with unless you are in an area that isn't services well by one or the other. For most people the money is going to really be the only important factor given service is equally as good. It's so close that one can't tell the difference. The price of at least some companies that lease from AT&T like Pure Talk however are MUCH cheaper, at least depending on your package.
Re:T-Mobile is not only slow it hardly works at al by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-03 13:33 · Score: 0

My experience is that T-Mobile is the slowest. In fact there was no T-Mobile connectivity at all during my stay in an apartment 5 minutes walk away from the centre of Mountain View. Meanwhile in the office in San Jose the signal was so weak it hardly worked at all.
Mind you, extensive testing since then has shown AT&T and Verizon to also be very intermittent and unreliable with poor coverage even in heavily populated areas.
Why are mobile services in the USA so terribly bad? Even in the midst of Silicon Valley!

NIMBY - Not In My Back Yard
People love to whine and cry about poor cell service, but the minute you suggest placing a new antenna to resolve the issue you get never-ending vehement and relentless opposition/hate.
Most of the so called "cities" in Northern California are so anti-antenna that it just does not pay to try to improve cell coverage in their little fiefdoms.
The matter may change with "small cell" & DAS ("distributed antenna system") technologies where smaller antennas and more cell sites are deployed, but then the inevitable issues of "zoning compliance" come into play. Northern California governments have evolved "government red tape" to very high levels.
Of course there are those "Left Wing Nut" people in Berkeley that protest everything and think RF waves are destroying their minds. Sorry, but you can't destroy what has already be "wasted" since you are simply rearranging the rubble.
Anytime you say "antenna" to people in Northern California they think "big towers", but it doesn't have to be that way. In built up urban areas, placing towers does not help matters; the "slant angle" of the antennas cannot see into some "urban canyons". Placing "flat panel" antennas on the sides of buildings along a street should improve coverage, but then the local planning commissions all start screaming about how that detracts from the "look and feel" of their private little community/fiefdom. Not even painting the antennas to match the buildings seemed to satisfy most so called "planning departments" and "architectural review commissions" that I have encountered.
Seriously, I don't see how US cell companies can ever improve coverage when the local citizenry refuse to even have a calm civil conversation on the matter.
Said another way, THERE MUST BE SOMETHING IN THE WATER IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA that makes all of those people BAT CRAP CRAZY.
Actually, they're all the same speed by stigmerger · 2017-10-03 16:11 · Score: 1

Oh, you meant bandwidth?
Re:How do you cover 99.7 one way and not the other by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-04 00:28 · Score: 0

Because Verizon has coverage in places like Buckingham county Virginia, a place that has 17,140 people in an area of 584 sq miles. If you've got a T-Mobile plan your phone dies as you enter the county and doesn't connect until you leave. Since I spend a couple of weeks in Buckingham every year a T-Mobile account is useless to me.
As for not living in "civilization" some people consider that a feature not a bug.