Testing 3G Networks Across the US 108
PCWorld recently tested the 3G networks of AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint in 13 different cities across the US. They've now posted the results, which show that Sprint and Verizon are neck-and-neck for reliability, while AT&T has consistently higher upload rates. From the article: "Across more than 20 testing locations in each of the 13 cities we tested, Verizon had an average download speed of 951 kbps. Verizon demonstrated good reliability, too; the network was available at a reasonable and uninterrupted speed in 89.8 percent of our tests. Sprint's 3G network delivered a solid connection in 90.5 percent of our 13-city tests. Sprint's average download speed of 808 kbps across 13 cities wasn't flashy (at that speed, a 1MB file downloads in 10 seconds), but dependability is an important asset. The Sprint network performed especially well, both in speed and in reliability, in our test cities in the western part of the United States. The AT&T network's 13-city average download speed in our tests was 812 kbps. Its average upload speed was 660 kbps. Reliability was an issue in our experience of the AT&T system: Our testers were able to make a connection at a reasonable, uninterrupted speed in only 68 percent of their tests." What have you noticed about the various carriers in your city?
Re:And then the commercials (Score:4, Interesting)
Needless to say, I only had AT&T for less than the 14-day trial period. I tested all of this on a Treo 750.
My results on ATT (Score:5, Interesting)
I use an HTC - ATT Tilt branded smartphone.
I'd like to point out that the testing methodology is not remotely suited to use in selecting a carrier.
Average is useless.
Verizon's has coverage that is far and away the fastest in areas not within major metropolitan areas, whereas ATT does not.
Sprint has traditionally been known as Highway Wireless, meaning that they tend to have excellent coverage along interstate highways, but when veering more than a mile or two from the highway in search of a late night fuel up, you'll lose signal much more frequently than with Verizon.
In the Portland Oregon metro area. Verizon does have the most granular coverage, and ATT has the fastest HSPDA speeds.
It should be noted that hspda speeds are significantly higher than vanilla 3g, and if speed is your primary criterion, 3g only phones are out of the running.
Granular coverage notwithstanding, ATT has the best voice and data coverage in my employer's physical locations in Portland.
However, my experiences do agree with the report with respect to ATT data dropouts.
The reason for the dropsouts seems to be prioritization of voice traffic over data at peak times.
ALL of the carriers have issues with capacity during peak times - like 5pm rush hour.
Because of the tight convergence of cell using driver along major arterials, and the towers that serve them, it's not unusual to drop a call when moving from cell to cell.
Data is no different in this regard, but added is the fact that consumers are more sensitive to inability to place a call than they are to data not flowing, hence the prioritization of voice.
On my commute route,
Re:It's not the cities, it's the spaces in between (Score:5, Interesting)
While to believe the commercials from the larger players, there will never be absolutely seamless coverage across the nation because ..
1. There are places nobody lives (or it's economically unfeasible to cover)
2. Transmit powers are 1/12 of what they were in the analog era
3. They can't just throw a tower up anywhere
Back when analog bag phones were the norm, I never found anyplace without coverage .. why? Because on analog they had a nominal 3 watt transmit power on the phone, which let you have towers dozens of miles apart and still get a reliable signal. Today's mobiles operate at .25 of a watt or less, and since the 3G spec devices currently at or becoming the norm are based on CDMA technology (CDMA or WCDMA/HS?PA), the transmit power will only go down based on the load of the tower. (Under CDMA, the transmit power decreases when the load rises, lowering the noise floor and allowing more devices on the tower, with the net effect of creating islands of service if the network has hot spots and they don't plan accordingly).
As far as towers and stuff are concerned, I remember reading an article from upstate new york about a stretch of state highway that had pristine views, and a very high mortality rate in the winter because nobody had cell service up that way. The local government bodies sued and cajoled the cell carriers to build coverage, but wouldn't let them put the tall towers up to allow service in an economically feasible way. Net result, no coverage and more death, but the view was still great.
Re:And then the commercials (Score:3, Interesting)
I have AT&T for my cell phone. Even though I live in a major urban area, it drops calls all the time. Their service and coverage sucks.
I live in NYC (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:It's not the cities, it's the spaces in between (Score:2, Interesting)
Hardest thing for me is the payment rates between them. The Verizon phone with 900 minutes and no SMS/MMS was $115 a month. The Sprint phone was $79.99 a month, 400 minutes including an unlimited data plan, AT&T was $100+ and my phone (T-Mobile) is $80 a month for two phones with 700 minutes and unlimited data/mms/sms/email.
Anecdotal evidence, but from my brother at the Grand Canyon, on the surface, everyone had connection (same situation, bunch of carriers) except for the MetroPCS/Cricket users. In the Canyon AT&T showed full connectivity but would not connect, Verizon still connected as did Sprint and T-Mobile, but all 3 dropped consistently.
My biggest concern is El Paso. At any random moment I lose data connectivity as I am randomly connected to an antenna in Mexico that charges roaming data on my plan (I have my phone setup to disconnect data if it detects it will be roaming for data). Also, there are periods of no signal for all 4 carriers across parts of Texas from El Paso into San Antonio, but getting outside of Houston towards Louisiana and it is actually worse.
Re:And then the commercials (Score:5, Interesting)
Comcast is another company whose commercials strike me as pure lies and misinformation based on a grain of truth
Well, the problem is they advertise "speed" and "availability", neither of which are really decent metrics. Speed is a crap metric because it's a scalar (math) quantity, and most often is measured by peak, rather than average, or worst-case. And "Availability" depends entirely on the service level agreement. If the power goes out, does that count toward availability? No, because "they" can't control it. Routine maintenance on their network? Nope. Lightning strike? Nah. So they can say almost whatever they want and get away with it because of some clever word-play. You'll be careful to note that in these endless commercials about high speed internet from any company they're careful to never put any number in it except the phone number to call. So it's not so much that they're lying -- it's really more that they're speaking sweet nothings, which is perfectly legal (and disingenuous).
Us geeks know that network performance isn't a scalar (math) quantity. Bigger numbers don't mean shit. It's the matrix of bandwidth (in bytes), latency (in milliseconds), packet loss (a percentage), all averaged over a long enough time-frame (hour, day, week, month, or billing cycle) to account for all systemic variables (bandwidth caps, network load averages, etc) is what matters.
I suppose you could derive from this information a weighted index, but it would still be largely useless to the average consumer. The problem is when you get down to brass tacks, different users have different needs. A heavy game player's internet needs will likely be low bandwidth, but low latency. A few milliseconds of extra time, or a few lost packets, will make that user's experience very poor. Someone who has an internet-TV has a large need for bandwidth, but latency is not an issue (even if the transfer is delayed by hours it might not matter). And then there's the little old grandma who doesn't do anything but check her e-mail and read CNN. If it wasn't for latency problems, she could be using a modem and never know the difference between either. Especially if she installed Vista -- god, network latency is nothing when it takes 8 seconds to render the downloaded page.
Comcast delivers an acceptable experience to a certain class of internet users and has crafted their service accordingly. The problem is that this service isn't tiered or can be adapted to serve several different markets. There is only one service, one market, and if you don't like it--you may not have any other options. Comcast is constrained by a need to maximize profitability, minimize costs, and is using an infrastructure which they are unwilling (or unable) to modify to deliver an acceptable experience to a larger user-base. There's no competition in most of its markets, and hence no reason to invest in doing so. The lack of competition ensures that Comcast's prices will continue to inflate while the number of customers who receive an acceptable experience will fall.
The bandwidth caps being imposed now are not the (direct) result of TV-over-internet competing with its internet offering, and instead the logical result of a lack of competition with its internet service. Any business in the same position and market(s) as Comcast would be doing the exact same thing, because Comcast doesn't exist to bring internet to the masses, so we can all celebrate the information age and live in peace, tranquility, and gigabytes of free porn. They exist to make money for their shareholders.
And the reason why service is shit in so many parts of this country isn't because of Evil BigCorp and their profiteering ways, but rather;
a) Infrastructure costs are a very high barrier to entry into the market. The United States is a big place with a low population density (taken as a whole) compared to other geographical regions like, say, Japan. The cost per customer is higher because there's a lot more wire and
Road warrior perspective (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm constantly on the road traveling and have had all three services, i can tell you Verizon has had the best coverage around the county, specially rural areas, whats the point of having the fastest network if when you need it you cant connect. this is where ATT and sprint fall short on.
Re:Combination of AT&T + NYC = screwed (Score:1, Interesting)
That's been true since 1999. Posting anonymously for obvious reasons, as I used to work for AT&T.
Around the time they went back into the local market in '99, Verizon started making life very hard for AT&T customers in New York by blocking access to Verizon cell towers.
Since Verizon has local utility rights on the rooftops, they get certain extra leeway in the coverage.
Put simply, you're never going to get good AT&T coverage in New York as long as Verizon holds all the cards.
Re:And then the commercials (Score:5, Interesting)
Ha!
The only thing you can do when in a two year contract. Bitch and moan.
BTW,
I can be in the middle of a call, stopped...not moving, 5 bars, great connection. Then nothing. Signal gone, can't connect again.
Seems like a brown out type of thing. I bet they don't have enough capacity.
AT&T vs Sprint or Verizon (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder why they left T-Mobile out. I'm with AT&T currently would love to see where the other major GSM carrier stands.
It's a good thing they didn't test T-Mobile's 3G (Score:3, Interesting)
It would have been a laughingstock.
T-Mobile's 3G is like Swiss cheese here in Miami.
And when it does work, it's usually less than a megabit.
Re:It's not the cities, it's the spaces in between (Score:3, Interesting)
The local government bodies sued and cajoled the cell carriers to build coverage, but wouldn't let them put the tall towers up to allow service in an economically feasible way. Net result, no coverage and more death, but the view was still great.
It's interesting to compare that attitude (on both the part of government and the providers) to how AT&T was originally created and managed by the Federal Government. Universal coverage was mandated, as were QOS standards, and the old AT&T put in service to all kinds of places that weren't remotely "economically feasible". That was the price of their monopoly, and by and large they lived up to that end of the bargain.
Of course, there were a lot of things our government handled more intelligently back then.
Bad SIM can cause dropped calls (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's a good thing they didn't test T-Mobile's 3 (Score:3, Interesting)