×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Eight Major 3G & 4G Networks Tested Nationwide

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the who-coddles-their-packets dept.

Cellphones 123

adeelarshad82 writes "Building on last year's efforts, PCMag once again hit the road on a 6,000 mile trip to test out eight 3G and 4G networks to determine which ones were the fastest (and slowest) in 21 different cities. With 10 stops in each city for at least 15 minutes each, the team used custom speed test software on 16 different handsets which ran HTTP upload and download tests every 25 seconds to 3 minutes. The test results were broken down by city as well as region. As expected, Verizon's 4G led the pack. It performed the best in Dallas, where it averaged 15.75 Mbsp and also hit the highest download speed of 37.66 Mbsp. On the other hand, Sprint's 4G results were disappointing; in some cities even AT&T provided better download speeds. Beyond the 4G, T-Mobile's HSPA+ offered blazing fast speeds as well, going as high up as 15.93 Mbsp in Detroit while averaging the best in Dallas at 6.44 Mbps. Amongst the 3G networks, AT&T mostly outperformed all others."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

123 comments

I have less Gs than you (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36588056)

otherwise this would be first post

IT'S A LIE !! THERE IS NO 4G !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36588062)

It's all a scam perpetrated by the man to suck your wallet empty !!

Re:IT'S A LIE !! THERE IS NO 4G !! (-1, Redundant)

crashumbc (1221174) | more than 2 years ago | (#36588164)

True but the "standard" being pushed by some for 4g is just plain stupid.

--------The formal standard for 4G status has not even been formally ratified, but speeds of 150mbps on the uplink and 1gbps on the downlink are likely milestones---

So they want speeds 10 times WIRED speeds for wireless? LOL

Re:IT'S A LIE !! THERE IS NO 4G !! (1)

errandum (2014454) | more than 2 years ago | (#36588302)

I'm quite sure you can achieve something like this.

If you're standing 2 feet from your cell tower.

Re:IT'S A LIE !! THERE IS NO 4G !! (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#36588352)

10 times what wired speed?

I have 10Gbps gear here at work, and even at the house 1Gbps. My FIOS connection is 25/25 and if I was willing to pay would go up to 150/150.

You sir, are far behind the times.

Re:IT'S A LIE !! THERE IS NO 4G !! (1)

crashumbc (1221174) | more than 2 years ago | (#36589344)

I'm talking about consumers not businesses.

You represent 1% of the nation? I just checked my area and the MAX(FIOS) is 150d/35u which is STILL 6 times slower then what they claim they want for 4G wireless. And I can't even get FIOS, only Comcast which only offers 105d/10u which by a weird coincidence is about 10 times less then the 4G standard... so it seems maybe more likely that your just blowing smoke...

Re:IT'S A LIE !! THERE IS NO 4G !! (1)

RoFLKOPTr (1294290) | more than 2 years ago | (#36591982)

I'm talking about consumers not businesses.

You represent 1% of the nation? I just checked my area and the MAX(FIOS) is 150d/35u which is STILL 6 times slower then what they claim they want for 4G wireless. And I can't even get FIOS, only Comcast which only offers 105d/10u which by a weird coincidence is about 10 times less then the 4G standard... so it seems maybe more likely that your just blowing smoke...

Yeah umm they're not going to OFFER actual speeds of 1000/150Mbps, that's just what they want the technologies to be capable of. The highest speed I can get on Comcast around here is 50down/15up (or thereabouts) but that doesn't mean that's the highest speed DOCSIS supports.

Verizon's LTE speeds (1)

Daniel_is_Legnd (1447519) | more than 2 years ago | (#36588076)

were mind-blowing the first time I used it. I honestly couldn't believe I was using a mobile data connection.

Re:Verizon's LTE speeds (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#36588162)

Check the latency and you will have no trouble believing you are using a mobile connection. Too bad that with the new tiers LTE is worthless.

Re:Verizon's LTE speeds (1)

royallthefourth (1564389) | more than 2 years ago | (#36588276)

It's not at all worthless. I come in well below 2 gigs (like most users), but I'd certainly love to have web pages and maps load more quickly.

Re:Verizon's LTE speeds (2)

kaiser423 (828989) | more than 2 years ago | (#36588888)

Latency with LTE is drastically reduced than with 3G.

This is because ,the 4G LTE standard was drafted to allow it to be more directly shoved into packets. In the 3G world, there's actually a lot of processing time spent turning them into IP packets, and sometimes you actually have to wait for more data/control signals form the 3G side before you finish crafting your packets and send them off.

Re:Verizon's LTE speeds (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#36588984)

This is true, that does not mean it is down to what we expect of wired connections though.

Re:Verizon's LTE speeds (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 2 years ago | (#36590180)

that does not mean it is down to what we expect of wired connections though

You're right. It's a complete rip-off and entirely useless until it's as fast a reading from a local disk drive.

Re:Verizon's LTE speeds (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#36590254)

I never suggested such a thing, merely that the latency is not so low that is is not hard to believe it is a mobile connection.

Besides that a nice 10Gb ISCSI connection to 30 15k SAS drives is much faster than most cheap SATA drives.

Re:Verizon's LTE speeds (1)

Drathus (152223) | more than 2 years ago | (#36589234)

As an existing unlimited data plan subscriber I don't have to worry about the tiers. For a while at least.

Re:Verizon's LTE speeds (1)

shadowfaxcrx (1736978) | more than 2 years ago | (#36590640)

Apparently if you have an unlimited plan before 7/7/11, you'll be grandfathered in and won't lose it until you cancel service.

Re:Verizon's LTE speeds (3, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#36588662)

True. Latency be damned, when it downloads its fast.

But what I found interesting in the charts is that they more or vindicated AT&T as far from the worst carrier, and
usually second only to T-Mobile in the 3G arena. From the grouse level on the web you would be lead to believe that
AT&T were the slowest and offered no connectivity at all in most place.

With an independent assessment, will any of these carriers change their advertising to avoid false advertising claims.

Re:Verizon's LTE speeds (2)

MyFirstNameIsPaul (1552283) | more than 2 years ago | (#36588806)

I have AT&T and I have driven all over the U.S. for my job with my 3G phone. I have yet to drive down a freeway anywhere and continuously receive a 128 kbps stream. Again, 1 mbps is all I ask.

Re:Verizon's LTE speeds (1)

chuckugly (2030942) | more than 2 years ago | (#36589550)

If I recall correctly movement can mess up the quadrature modulation scheme that such systems use.

Re:Verizon's LTE speeds (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 2 years ago | (#36588846)

True. Latency be damned, when it downloads its fast.

But what I found interesting in the charts is that they more or vindicated AT&T as far from the worst carrier, and
usually second only to T-Mobile in the 3G arena. From the grouse level on the web you would be lead to believe that
AT&T were the slowest and offered no connectivity at all in most place.

With an independent assessment, will any of these carriers change their advertising to avoid false advertising claims.

Your take is it was AT&T users that complained the most? I always figured it was iPhone users complaining the most. Not to mention, AT&T did have pretty low availability scores in tests gone by, and they have been dumping all that iLoot they earned from exclusivity into network upgrades (as they should) which seems to have brought the problem under control.

Mbsp (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36588098)

I thought it was a typo for Mbps, but it's repeated over and over... What does this new acronym mean?

Re:Mbsp (1)

Andy Dodd (701) | more than 2 years ago | (#36588182)

Million board support packages.

Odd unit... And not particularly practical. Really, how many mobile users have a vxWorks license and are downloading BSPs on the go?

Re:Mbsp (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36588190)

Mablespoons. It's a measurement of data in liquid form.

WHAT THE FUCK IS Mbsp ?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36588110)

You are ignorant, and consistently so.

Northwest? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36588136)

What, no Portland or Seattle?

Re:Northwest? (0)

Aighearach (97333) | more than 2 years ago | (#36588212)

Here in the Pacific Northwest we've all upgraded to entangled electron brain implants for instant lag-free communications.

Re:Northwest? (1)

swb (14022) | more than 2 years ago | (#36588336)

Quantum communications -- you're aware of all thoughts simultaneously as they occur. Actually sharing them is no longer necessary.

Re:Northwest? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36588406)

Here in the Pacific Northwest we've all upgraded to entangled electron brain implants for complete Microsoft brain domination.

I corrected it for you.

Repeat after me:

BRAIIIINNSSSSS

Re:Northwest? (1, Interesting)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#36588446)

They sent in teams last year to both cities, but they quickly went insane from having to listen to all the hippies telling them about their damn urban chicken coops. Several of them never really recovered (one still pisses himself when he hears the word "composting"). They felt it was just safer for everyone to just forgo them this year.

Re:Northwest? (1)

Ruke (857276) | more than 2 years ago | (#36589262)

Man, I don't know what you're talking about. Chickens make for delicious pets! As a bonus, you can compost the leftovers. Really. [seattle.gov]

Re:Northwest? (1)

Naosuke (662973) | more than 2 years ago | (#36588654)

I also like how Minneapolis/St Paul was left out when it's a bigger metro area than Oklahoma City and Nashville combined.

Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36588150)

Breaking News: Next Gen 4G LTE tech blows away older techs. Surprise!

This is actually important to test (3, Insightful)

AcidPenguin9873 (911493) | more than 2 years ago | (#36588258)

When Verizon markets their network as "4G", I expect it to blow away other 3G networks. It's good that it does, and it's also good for PCMag to verify that it does. As a counterexample, Sprint's 4G network wasn't really much faster than AT&T's 3G network.

Re:Wow (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 2 years ago | (#36589396)

I don't think that's the real story. Disclaimer: I used to work for Clearwire.

Clearwire, which is Sprint's 4G provider, is providing WiMAX at about 2.5ghz, whereas Verizon, AT&T and other 3G providers are providing their 3G at much lower frequencies.

Sure, higher frequencies do mean that there are higher theoretical limits to bandwidth, you also need more power to penetrate farther and provide the available actual bandwidth at higher frequencies. I don't know whether or not Clearwire is transmitting at higher wattages than current 3G providers. However my guess is, no; this wasn't my part of the business anyway and even if it was, I don't know jack about 3G transmission.

Currently, VZW is running LTE at 700mHz, hence it's faster, and has better penetration.

If WiMAX ran at 700mHz, the shooting match would be much closer.

typo (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36588166)

spelled mbps "Mbsp" in the last part o.O

Re:typo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36588184)

It's short for "maybespoon"

Cue the Inevitable threads... (5, Insightful)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | more than 2 years ago | (#36588172)

We will now proceed to the obligatory 579 posts as follows -

"This is bunk. In [Insert City], [carrier A] sucks donkey balls. [Carrier B] is much better!"

"Are you joking? [Carrier B] STINKS here in [City C]. I love [Carrier A]! "

"I wish I could just buy a phone that makes calls!"

...followed by anecdotes about cell coverage, speed and pricing in Korea.

Re:Cue the Inevitable threads... (1)

toastar (573882) | more than 2 years ago | (#36588224)

We will now proceed to the obligatory 579 posts as follows - "This is bunk. In [Insert City], [carrier A] sucks donkey balls. [Carrier B] is much better!" "Are you joking? [Carrier B] STINKS here in [City C]. I love [Carrier A]! " "I wish I could just buy a phone that makes calls!" ...followed by anecdotes about cell coverage, speed and pricing in Korea.

Pffft.... Clearly you've never used [Carrier F], Otherwise you wouldn't be complaining about [Carrier A] and [Carrier B]

Re:Cue the Inevitable threads... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36588428)

I've been used, nay, "F'd" by multiple carriers...

Re:Cue the Inevitable threads... (1)

swb (14022) | more than 2 years ago | (#36588240)

Won't there be the inevitable threads praising/bashing Apple, praising/bashing Android, threads comparing the two, Nokia advocates bashing both and at least one person each evangelizing for webOS and Windows Phone 7?

Re:Cue the Inevitable threads... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36588256)

- Anecdotes about horrible customer service and how "I will never go back to [CARRIER]".

Re:Cue the Inevitable threads... (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 2 years ago | (#36588296)

Tell me about it! I tried to call technical support but this ISP is so incompetent that L3!%z]`~C,9_+z=é}~\[NO CARRIER]

Re:Cue the Inevitable threads... (1)

frog_strat (852055) | more than 2 years ago | (#36588466)

I think "Queue the Inevitable threads..." would also work.

Re:Cue the Inevitable threads... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36588838)

I think "Queue the Inevitable threads..." would also work.

You'll need a few miles of queue for all that FAIL.

Re:Cue the Inevitable threads... (1)

demonbug (309515) | more than 2 years ago | (#36588560)

We will now proceed to the obligatory 579 posts as follows -

"This is bunk. In [Insert City], [carrier A] sucks donkey balls. [Carrier B] is much better!"

"Are you joking? [Carrier B] STINKS here in [City C]. I love [Carrier A]! "

"I wish I could just buy a phone that makes calls!" ...followed by anecdotes about cell coverage, speed and pricing in Korea.

All true. But it would have been nice of them to say what cities in CA they tested in, rather than just lumping "the west" together as CA, AZ, NM without stating where they tested. How can I complain that they didn't include my nearest city if they don't even list the cities?

That said, I'm pretty sure I would fall under the "rural America" category anyway, so AT&T it is. Oh, and I don't have a data plan anyway, so I'll just stick to complaining about the price of data plans in general (and I will mostly refrain from whining that if I lived in Seoul I could download billions of bytes to my cell phone for pennies a day - or so I've heard).

Re:Cue the Inevitable threads... (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 2 years ago | (#36588600)

I would say that coverage for a certain area, in my opinion, is much more important than speed. I recently tried sprint. I was on the coverage map, and I even checked for antennas. They seemed reasonably close. However when I go the device there was minimal connectivity, and even though they said the device was returnable, there was drama at the store.

Lesson is I would not use this for anything. I may in the market for 4G broadband service and my plan to to check for nearby antennas to where I am going to mostly use it. Whoever has the coverage, I wil use.

There is no 4G (-1, Redundant)

Captain.Abrecan (1926372) | more than 2 years ago | (#36588206)

4G does not even technically exist yet...what the hell is wrong with these people?

Re:There is no 4G (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36588236)

Outdated troll is outdated:
http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2010/48.aspx

Re:There is no 4G (1)

Daniel_is_Legnd (1447519) | more than 2 years ago | (#36588254)

Yeah. The FCC should step up and charge the carriers with false advertising. Although their rebuttal would probably be something along the lines of "We aren't saying it's 4G. We are saying it's 4G LTE."

You get what you pay for... (1)

SamuraiHoedown (1769404) | more than 2 years ago | (#36588218)

In DC I normally get around 6 Mbps down and 2 up on Sprint 4g, but I pay $53 a month. I'm pretty happy with that.

Re:You get what you pay for... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36588324)

Ditto that. I am on Sprint in San Francisco, and though I was dis-heartened to see them come in 4th on all of these tests, I felt better knowing I have UNLIMITED downloads at a low fixed cost. With the hotspot feature on my Evo 4G I use it as my home internet, even on days when I need to WFH. And (now) I have been watching Netflix downloads via an HDMI connection to my TV. Very smooth picture quality.

If I were on Verizon it just seems that faster network serves to accelerate the speed at which I start to incur overages. I don't do any heavy downloading on Sprint, but I'm certain with normal home usage, usage for work, on the road usage and Netflix I would blow out all of the pricing tiers on Verizon or ATT.

Re:You get what you pay for... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36588494)

How about a plot of cost for 100GBytes downloaded vs. time?
That would be an interesting metric to determine value.
I bet Sprint would be on top as long as you didn't need a lot of bandwidth.

Re:You get what you pay for... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36588904)

So if you stay in that 10-15 mile corridor, you're fine!

I've never seen speeds faster than dialup (1)

billrp (1530055) | more than 2 years ago | (#36588230)

33kbps at most on AT&T: watching simple web pages load on an iphone is painful and reminiscent of dialup days

Re:I've never seen speeds faster than dialup (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36588262)

Dialup days (colloq.) : Time in one's life when a phone never dropped calls when held in the wrong hand.

Re:I've never seen speeds faster than dialup (1)

alen (225700) | more than 2 years ago | (#36588288)

and what kind of iphone do you have? is it jailbroken without the latest baseband?

AT&T is always updating the firmware on their towers and apple is sending out new basebands.

Re:I've never seen speeds faster than dialup (1)

billrp (1530055) | more than 2 years ago | (#36590036)

This is an iPhone 3, with latest ios possible, no jailbreak. I just ran the speedtest.net app, and I consistently get 0.010 Mbps down, and 0.00 Mbps up on the AT&T 3G. (Yes, that 10 Kbps down, and less than 10 Kbps up) An iphone 4 and an HTC aria appear to get similar performance with web page downloads (I didn't try speedtest). So - this is even way below dialup days. (We live in the DC/Baltimore area, about 1.5 miles from 2 interstates, it's 6 pm, I have 4 bars, and I'm about 1/2 mile from two cell towers). Note with the iphone on wifi in the house it's 5 Mbps down / 8 Mbps up.

True 4G (1, Redundant)

nemasu (1766860) | more than 2 years ago | (#36588232)

It's too bad they're branding 4G as something that isn't truly 4G. What are they going to call 4G when it really comes out?? 4G+? 4.5G? Slippery slope.

Because ITU-T was stupid with it (3, Informative)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 2 years ago | (#36588318)

These new standards like LTE are much, MUCH faster than existing 3G standards. So it makes sense for them to be called something new for marketing sake and for consumer understanding. However ITU-T decided that to be "4G" you had to be much faster than could currently be done.

Well the companies decided to just ignore that, and call the current stuff 4G and I don't blame them at all. I mean with LTE on Verizion you are talking a new frequency band, new encoding, much faster speeds, and you don't want to call that a new generation of wireless?

Standards organizations need to be reasonable with what can be met. Nobody is saying that the current wireless technologies are where we should stop but they are what we can deliver NOW and they are a big step up. Targets shouldn't be set so far advanced. Set that for 5G, or whatever.

Re:True 4G (2)

afidel (530433) | more than 2 years ago | (#36588368)

Uh, even the ITU relented and says that LTE and HSPA+ are 4G technologies. When LTE Advanced becomes available sometime around the end of the decade it might be called 4.5G or perhaps 5G for marketing purposes.

Slippery Slope (1)

Ruke (857276) | more than 2 years ago | (#36588552)

Fun fact: In classical rhetoric, "Slippery Slope" is a logical fallacy; it's invocation usually signifies an inability to create a logically convincing chain of events that would lead to the referenced disastrous outcome. In modern form, "slippery slopes" can be logically valid, if a logically consistent (and probable) chain of events is constructed; however, this is rarely satisfactorily performed.

I guess we can let you off the hook, though. I don't think you even proposed an actual slippery slope; you merely alluded to the possibility of one being there, and left it up to the reader to guess the trigger, chain of events, and logical conclusion.

I don't even disagree with your core sentiment; I think it is a shame that companies are allowed to use the label "4G" when describing technologies that don't actually comply with the 4G standard. (The reason for this, if I recall correctly, is that they began advertising under that label before the standard was proposed.) However, I would like to see the Slashdot community hold itself to higher standards in these comment threads, and I believe that involves pointing out logical flaws even in points that I fundamentally agree with.

Re:Slippery Slope (1)

nemasu (1766860) | more than 2 years ago | (#36589060)

Interesting and fun indeed. Curious though, let's say I'm following the modern (and logically valid) form, where do you find my logic flawed (not saying it's not) in thinking that: Giving a current technology the name of a future technology will result in all future names of this technology being skewed, unless some major re-evaluation takes place. (Eg. The standards change completely) If this re-evaluation did not take place, and the names were indeed skewed, is it not logical that all future names of this technology would not conform to the standard? As of right now, real 4G is nowhere near what they are marketing as 4G, when real 4G is available, there is no way they are going to brand it as 4G. So, it will probably come off as 4.5G or 4G+ or maybe even 5G. If the standards organization and the marketing departments are not aware of each other (Ie. No naming re-evaluation takes place), I don't see how they would ever catch up. Although, I guess the problem with that line of reasoning is that it is not probable that the two would never adjust their naming schemes to line up eventually. Guess I answered my own question.

Well sure - but (4, Funny)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 2 years ago | (#36588234)

Beyond the 4G, T-Mobile's HSPA+ offered blazing fast speeds as well, going as high up as 15.93 Mbsp in Detroit

Of course the downside is - you have to live in Detroit.

Re:Well sure - but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36588410)

the name of your handle makes it seem you would be out classed in detroit.........

Total Bandwidth / Total Usage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36588242)

The testing shows that Verizon has a lot of capacity & not enough users. Either due to lack of mobile devices that support 4G or consumers not liking the expensive rates for data usage.

Sprint has had 4G out awhile & has many more users without fear of expensive bills so users are taking full advantage of the rates. Net effect is lower available bandwidth for users.

Re:Total Bandwidth / Total Usage (1)

Ruke (857276) | more than 2 years ago | (#36588624)

This is an interesting analysis of why the speeds are different, but I'm not quite sure that it makes a terrific difference. Unless Sprint makes some effort to expand their capacity, or it is expected that Verizon will use up their capacity in the next year or so, I don't really why Verizon is faster than Sprint; I just care that it is faster.

Do we have reason to believe that Verizon will use up their capacity? I admit that I am less familiar with their growth trends than you seem to be. If so, that certainly is an important consideration to take into account when deciding upon a carrier.

Re:Total Bandwidth / Total Usage (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 2 years ago | (#36588768)

I think one could make assumptions about it and try and justify.

If Verizon just did a build out, and is unlikely to make huge capital investments for the foreseeable future, it will go down, perhaps Sprint is at equilibrium, or ready to upgrade again.

I think it is unlikely Verizon will grow capacity as fast as customers, causing them to slowly drop, and when AT&T merges with T-Mobile, I imagine TMO is gonna get worse.

country? (-1, Troll)

hierophanta (1345511) | more than 2 years ago | (#36588306)

not even one single mention of which nation they are talking about. egocentrism reaching new highs, society reaching new lows: story at 10 on every channel and every new source (in America of course)

Re:country? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36588340)

And yet somehow you managed to figure it out anyway. Will wonders never cease?

Re:country? (1)

Daniel_is_Legnd (1447519) | more than 2 years ago | (#36588342)

Did you not read the sub-heading (right under the title of the article?) "PCMag hit the road to test eight 3G and 4G networks in 21 U.S. cities"

Mbsp? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36588338)

Mbsp? ... maybe Mbps...

yeah...

Exact Trafic Speed as PRNG (0)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 2 years ago | (#36588400)

A single 3G/4G modem is not a very good test of throughput speeds because numerous other factors such as phone usage, subscribers in the area, and the not level painting of signals all contribute to the results. As long as there's a connection and a basic returning of a web page most customers will be happy. I wonder if the exact count of bits would be good enough to generate random numbers?

Re:Exact Trafic Speed as PRNG (2)

grimsweep (578372) | more than 2 years ago | (#36588866)

Theoretically, on a completely empty highway I can achieve speeds in excess of 200mph in a sufficiently powerful car. In practice, most highways will be congested, police officers will be present, the weather may be bad, etc., and I will never be able to go above an average of 60 (in rush hours of many cities, even less). To that effect my compact car is all I really need, and I am more interested in routes to and from work that will avoid congested areas instead of freeways that offer a theoretically higher speed.

Likewise, this article isn't about raw speed, it's about what is practically possible. This is an excellent guide for those interested in data plans.

Barely Touched the West Coast (1)

wbav (223901) | more than 2 years ago | (#36588464)

I find it odd that they did a little of Southern California and Nevada and called that all Rural West. Seems like they missed a big portion of the west coast. including Silicon Forest.

Re:Barely Touched the West Coast (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36588782)

we couldn't get our drivers as far as the Northwest.

I guess they are unaware that Seattle and Portland have major airports.

Re:Barely Touched the West Coast (1)

neowolf (173735) | more than 2 years ago | (#36589212)

They didn't hit the mountain west either, like Colorado. "... we couldn't get our drivers as far as the Northwest." Probably would have done been better if it was ski season.

Too early for most of us (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36588488)

It's interesting that Verizon seems to have broad 4G coverage, because AT&T's 4G speed (where available) has been found to be much faster than Verizon's. Relatively few people care about 4G speed right now, because relatively few have 4G devices. When 4G devices become more ubiquitous, then we should all care which service provider offers the highest speed in the most places. Only the few folks who live on the bleeding edge of battery life care about 4G now. For the vast majority of users, it's still the 3G speed that matters.

Doesn't seem to bad? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36588568)

That doesn't seem to bad, then?
Here in Europe, there are still a lot of places with GPRS-only coverage, with an average.

Damn =( (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36588656)

Comcast (albeit their cheapest plan available) here in Houston gives me 1.41 mbps down and 0.36 mbps up lol sad when mobile internet is faster than my home one.

There is an app for tha.. Oh wait... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36588706)

There is an app for tha... Oh wait... hmmm... This can't be right... No their isn't. They only have an app for Android. I wonder if this is because they just haven't created the app for iPhone or Apple would not allow the app to be on the apple app store.

Wanted: EDITORS THAT CAN FUCKING READ (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36588750)

"Mbsp"? Seriously? Is that like a really big tablespoon (tbsp) of data going through the tubes?

FFS, editors: learn to read.

Re:Wanted: EDITORS THAT CAN FUCKING READ (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 2 years ago | (#36588972)

Mbsp is a new data format. Milton Berles Squared per parsec.

Really revolutionary cutting edge stuff.

Legit testing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36589090)

... or just a ranking of who paid the most to PCMag for positive reviews? PCMag is not exactly known for an unbiased, scientific approach.

How about testing IN BETWEEN the cities? (3, Interesting)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 2 years ago | (#36589242)

Geez, guys. The whole POINT of wireless is that you can use it anywhere, rather than tethered to a personal access point.

Yet the wireless companies, during the upgrades from analog to digital and voice to voice-plus-data, have abandoned the space between the cities in favor of serving only the concentrated populations wandering around in urban areas. You aren't limited to your hardwired tether. But you ARE tethered to your "coverage area". And even within that, some areas are drastically degraded compared to others.

How about some testing of service ON THE ROAD and otherwise out in the boonies, rather than going cross-country yet measuring only in one big city after another.

Re:How about testing IN BETWEEN the cities? (1)

prestonmichaelh (773400) | more than 2 years ago | (#36589740)

Umm, they did exactly that. Check out the last four pages of the article. Basically, T-Mobile is really good if you live in the middle of no where (until AT&T buys them that is).

Re:How about testing IN BETWEEN the cities? (1)

Idbar (1034346) | more than 2 years ago | (#36590512)

Point to that! I was traveling through the country using my Android phone as GPS. It's amazing that historical markers and important US spots completely lack of any data (yes, not even Edge).

I stopped by the Four Corners monument (I have to say that there's not much to see), and I had to make a phone call to get me out of there, because there was no way to get any map information from the network.

(NOTE: Yes, I know there are applications to download the maps such as MapDroyd and I can also get a GPS dongle and map software on my computer, etc, but that's not my point)

So.... you mean 'nationwide in the US'? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36589848)

Just checking, am one of those beings that lives not in the US. That's right, we do exist.

Quickly lets do a test for HANDHELDS ONLY (1)

gar_man (556291) | more than 2 years ago | (#36590148)

It seems a bit weird that they didn't bother standardizing the tests using USB dongles. They are provided by all carriers, more insulated against hardware design differences, and take advantage of the fastest network speeds from all the carriers. I was especially turned off when I saw the T-mobile device only used their 21Mbps network and not their 42Mbps network. It seems like a "Oh... the thunderbolt was released...quickly do a test for HANDHELDS ONLY so we can get some awesome numbers before we would have to include more comparable technologies."
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...