PC Mag "Fastest" Mobile Networks

[jamisonshaw125]

Figured we should have a dedicated thread to this. Its invading other threads all over.

 

http://www.pcmag.com...mobile-networks

 

Edited: Reworded first post in thread to appropriate intro.

[JonnygATL]

There's a new article out saying sprint has the slowest speeds. Lol. I can't wait until spark comes into play....

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I saw this and wanted to slap the nearest person standing next to me.  But it turned out to be Adrienne and I really like her...so I didn't slap her.  HOWEVER....it just enraged me because I'm so tired of people hating on Sprint's network.  It's just non stop and I really don't get it.  The article was honestly well written and seemed pretty fair (it's from PCmag for anyone who's wondering) but I think they missed the point.  Sprint's network has improved in incredible ways since their last survey one year ago.

 

We've gone from unusable 3G speeds to a nationwide average - per their results - of around 0.8 mbps.  This may seem slow compared to ATT or Tmo 3G speeds (which i think here are HSPA+ speeds) - but they are perfectly usable for casual web browsing and even downloading and/or streaming music.  To go from unusable to a low ping decent 3G connection is night and day.  But they didn't mention that.

 

Regarding LTE, Sprint's nationwide average - again, per their results - hovers right around 7 mbps.  Um...that's really good and certainly falls within Sprint's advertised LTE speeds (outside of launched Spark markets).  It's also a HELL OF AN IMPROVEMENT from last year or the year before when Sprint didn't even have LTE in many of the cities in which these tests were conducted.  And who isn't happy with a 7 mbps cellular data connection anyway?  Oh yeah, I forgot - people who don't really know much about how all of this works.  Marketing teams love people like that.  What do you need to do on a mobile device that a 7 mbps (also with a decently low ping) connection couldn't easily handle?  

 

The rollout of b41 will only improve on this even further.  But I forgot...Sprint "sucks."  Yeah, right.

[cornelious2]

What I wish they would do with these tests is factor in all areas covered by at least one of them then average the speeds across complete available area because if I only cover one city and one city really well its not the same as someone covering 100 cities.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[Fubie]

What I wish they would do with these tests is factor in all areas covered by at least one of them then average the speeds across complete available area because if I only cover one city and one city really well its not the same as someone covering 100 cities.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

They actually test all over the country.  http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2459185,00.asp

[Adam G]

I saw this and wanted to slap the nearest person standing next to me.  But it turned out to be Adrienne and I really like her...so I didn't slap her.  HOWEVER....it just enraged me because I'm so tired of people hating on Sprint's network.  It's just non stop and I really don't get it.  The article was honestly well written and seemed pretty fair (it's from PCmag for anyone who's wondering) but I think they missed the point.  Sprint's network has improved in incredible ways since their last survey one year ago.

 

We've gone from unusable 3G speeds to a nationwide average - per their results - of around 0.8 mbps.  This may seem slow compared to ATT or Tmo 3G speeds (which i think here are HSPA+ speeds) - but they are perfectly usable for casual web browsing and even downloading and/or streaming music.  To go from unusable to a low ping decent 3G connection is night and day.  But they didn't mention that.

 

Regarding LTE, Sprint's nationwide average - again, per their results - hovers right around 7 mbps.  Um...that's really good and certainly falls within Sprint's advertised LTE speeds (outside of launched Spark markets).  It's also a HELL OF AN IMPROVEMENT from last year or the year before when Sprint didn't even have LTE in many of the cities in which these tests were conducted.  And who isn't happy with a 7 mbps cellular data connection anyway?  Oh yeah, I forgot - people who don't really know much about how all of this works.  Marketing teams love people like that.  What do you need to do on a mobile device that a 7 mbps (also with a decently low ping) connection couldn't easily handle?  

 

The rollout of b41 will only improve on this even further.  But I forgot...Sprint "sucks."  Yeah, right.

 

 

I certainly get the criticism.  I don't think Sprint deserves brownie points for their network being a little less bad than it was last year.  I want a network that's at least competitive with what else is out there and Sprint is not, relative to Verizon/AT&T/T-Mo.  I live a block away from a fully converted tower, and with my Nexus 5 I have never gotten more than 8mbps down with an average of 4-5mbps down. Reception has gotten worse since 4.4.3.  I can't believe I waited seven months for this kick in the nuts.

 

All of the true believers and Sprint corporate have been telling me and everybody else that it's going to get zomg awesome! here really soon for two years, if not more.  Any day now, guys!

[kojitsari]

I certainly get the criticism. I don't think Sprint deserves brownie points for their network being a little less bad than it was last year. I want a network that's at least competitive with what else is out there and Sprint is not, relative to Verizon/AT&T/T-Mo. I live a block away from a fully converted tower, and with my Nexus 5 I have never gotten more than 8mbps down with an average of 4-5mbps down. Reception has gotten worse since 4.4.3. I can't believe I waited seven months for this kick in the nuts.

 

All of the true believers and Sprint corporate have been telling me and everybody else that it's going to get zomg awesome! here really soon for two years, if not more. Any day now, guys!

Did you see my post a few pages back? That's a band 25 tower in the middle of a town of about 15k. Actually everywhere I've gone I have noticed a steady increase in my average speed and a steady lowering of ping times on b25 since January. For instance it went from 4-5 with a 100ish ping to 15-18 with a 40ish ping. Most of the areas don't even have b41 or 26 online yet so it really is quite the accomplishment. Also for everyone having issues with the reception on 2.13 still its been narrowed down to an issue with b41 or 26 needing ecsfb in your area. The new radio is actually as good for b25 as .17 in my experience and provides a way better evdo/ehrpd and 1xrtt/1x800 connection. Plus it's been letting my connect to 1x800 more reliably like Sprint has intended(I think).

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[WiWavelength]

I certainly get the criticism.  I don't think Sprint deserves brownie points for their network being a little less bad than it was last year.  I want a network that's at least competitive with what else is out there and Sprint is not, relative to Verizon/AT&T/T-Mo.  I live a block away from a fully converted tower, and with my Nexus 5 I have never gotten more than 8mbps down with an average of 4-5mbps down. Reception has gotten worse since 4.4.3.  I can't believe I waited seven months for this kick in the nuts.

 

All of the true believers and Sprint corporate have been telling me and everybody else that it's going to get zomg awesome! here really soon for two years, if not more.  Any day now, guys!

 

Is 4-5 Mbps not a big enough e-penis for you?  It is already at the point of diminishing returns for legitimate uses on a smartphone and is smack dab in the middle of the average speeds that Sprint has projected.  If you need to be the fastest, if that is what gives you a hard on, you may need to go somewhere else.

 

But look at the greater picture.  Maybe Sprint cannot compete with VZW LTE deployment.  T-Mobile and AT&T are another story.  Sprint has deployed LTE to ridiculously greater area than T-Mobile has.  Heck, Sprint even has LTE in places where Ma Bell does not and may not for years because of spectrum issues.

 

However, people and comparison articles -- like the recent PC Mag test -- are alternately wowed by or envious of cherry picked peak speed tests run in city A, while neglecting highway corridor X or rural area Y.  In other words, that does not tell the whole story.

 

AJ

[Adam G]

Is 4-5 Mbps not a big enough e-penis for you?  It is already at the point of diminishing returns for legitimate uses on a smartphone and is smack dab in the middle of the average speeds that Sprint has projected.  If you need to be the fastest, if that is what gives you a hard on, you may need to go somewhere else.

 

But look at the greater picture.  Maybe Sprint cannot compete with VZW LTE deployment.  T-Mobile and AT&T are another story.  Sprint has deployed LTE to ridiculously greater area than T-Mobile has.  Heck, Sprint even has LTE in places where Ma Bell does not and may not for years because of spectrum issues.

 

However, people and comparison articles -- like the recent PC Mag test -- are alternately wowed by or envious of cherry picked peak speed tests run in city A, while neglecting highway corridor X or rural area Y.  In other words, that does not tell the whole story.

 

AJ

 

Frankly, I'd like to go back to how it was before Spark was enabled.  Better reception. 

 

Not sure why you'd get snarky with me.  I was responding to the guy who wanted to punch somebody for pointing out something that's true.

[WiWavelength]

Frankly, I'd like to go back to how it was before Spark was enabled.  Better reception. 

 

Not sure why you'd get snarky with me.  I was responding to the guy who wanted to punch somebody for pointing out something that's true.

 

I am not any more snarky in responding to you than I am to anyone else.  But if people are going to grumble over 4-5 Mbps average speeds, they deserve snark.  LTE speeds should be about usability, not a pissing contest -- though many seem to want to turn them into one.

 

AJ

[Adam G]

I am not any more snarky in responding to you than I am to anyone else.  But if people are going to grumble over 4-5 Mbps average speeds, they deserve snark.  LTE speeds should be about usability, not a pissing contest -- though many seem to want to turn them into one.

 

AJ

 

And I would wholeheartedly agree with you if I had better usability in the heart of the third biggest city in the country.  I'm still waiting for that as well.

 

While we're at it, if we're going to equivocate 5mpbs with 50mpbs and just say lulz what's the difference, yo?, then we have some credibility issues.

[uecker87]

But look at the greater picture.  Maybe Sprint cannot compete with VZW LTE deployment.  T-Mobile and AT&T are another story.  Sprint has deployed LTE to ridiculously greater area than T-Mobile has.  Heck, Sprint even has LTE in places where Ma Bell does not and may not for years because of spectrum issues.

 

^^ This.  Where I live, my only options are Sprint, USCC, and Verizon.  No native service at all from AT&T or T-Mobile.  Coverage wise around here, USCC is probably the best, but they tend to think they are Verizon and charge a ridiculous amount for the size of their native footprint.  I travel quite a bit, which makes them a no-go.  (also their LTE tends to have very high pings around here)

 

I have just always hated Verizon with their pricing and how they have pretty much taken over the market.  Sprint intrigued me last fall with their unlimited data (although I realistically only need a couple GB a month, but to know that I can use more if needed is nice), and honestly because of this site.  This was the only site that I found about a carrier and the work being done to improve its network.  Here, I feel like I can be in the loop to what is going on around me because of this site.  With Verizon and USCC, you don't tend to get this much dedication and involvement from the community. 

 

Partial rant/preach over --  In my experiences with Sprint's LTE, I average 20-30 in small towns (where I live) on B25 and around 8 now with B26 active where I work in a crowded university setting.  Sprint has more than met my expectations. 

[MacinJosh]

Can we please take the PCMag article discussion elsewhere? This is the Nexus 5 thread. Thank you!

 

 

Sent from Josh's iPhone 5S using Tapatalk 2

[WiWavelength]

While we're at it, if we're going to equivocate 5mpbs with 50mpbs and just say lulz what's the difference, yo?, then we have some credibility issues.

 

That is a straw man argument, a distortion.  Do not do that.

 

Now, what are the legitimate smartphone uses for 50 Mbps?  Please define them.  If anything, 50 Mbps speeds indicate cherry picked speed tests or an underutilized network.  But if Sprint can supply a reasonably consistent 5 Mbps, that is a network being utilized and one that is ready for nearly all legitimate smartphone use cases.

 

AJ

[rgcrockett]

That is a straw man argument, a distortion.  Do not do that.

 

Now, what are the legitimate smartphone uses for 50 Mbps?  Please define them.  If anything, 50 Mbps speeds indicate cherry picked speed tests or an underutilized network.  But if Sprint can supply a reasonably consistent 5 Mbps, that is a network being utilized and one that is ready for nearly all legitimate smartphone use cases.

 

AJ

 

I have plenty of uses for 50 Mbps, including faster access to large work files, and streaming video, among other things. I also use my phone to tether to my laptop all over town.

 

I do agree, however, that I would be content with a rock solid 5 Mpbs connection in any situation. However, I usually don't see that unless the speeds are much higher under optimal conditions. 

[Adam G]

That is a straw man argument, a distortion.  Do not do that.

 

Now, what are the legitimate smartphone uses for 50 Mbps?  Please define them.  If anything, 50 Mbps speeds indicate cherry picked speed tests or an underutilized network.  But if Sprint can supply a reasonably consistent 5 Mbps, that is a network being utilized and one that is ready for nearly all legitimate smartphone use cases.

 

AJ

 

Yeah, not really.  The numbers are immaterial.  As I understand your points, anybody who thinks that they could use more than 5mbps/down deserves to be mocked.  If you put that up on a message board outside of the Sprint friendly confines of S4GRU, I assure you that I wouldn't be the one getting mocked.

 

What about tethering and/or hotspots?  It seems like you're pigeonholing all users into the box that's most convenient for your argument.  An 84 hp Chevy Spark provides enough horsepower for nearly all legitimate car use cases.  But wouldn't you know it, some people still buy 450+ hp Corvettes.  

[S4GRU]

I wish I could get 5Mbps out of my AT&T Nexus 5 hotspot at work. I have to keep my VZW hotspot because of speed tests like these on AT&T. Taken just now...

 

P.S. - I had to connect my AT&T N5 to my VZW hotspot just to upload this photo!!!

Robert via Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[Destroyallcubes]

Yeah, not really.  The numbers are immaterial.  As I understand your points, anybody who thinks that they could use more than 5mbps/down deserves to be mocked.  If you put that up on a message board outside of the Sprint friendly confines of S4GRU, I assure you that I wouldn't be the one getting mocked.

 

What about tethering and/or hotspots?  It seems like you're pigeonholing all users into the box that's most convenient for your argument.  An 84 hp Chevy Spark provides enough horsepower for nearly all legitimate car use cases.  But wouldn't you know it, some people still buy 450+ hp Corvettes.

 

People buy $80k with 450+ HP to show off. It is a status symbol. Hey looky what I have compared to your Prius. Hotspots are limited on Data per $ meaning they are not unlimited unless you pay more. But Hotspots are not meant to be land line internet replacements. They are meant for those who may not get internet, but they cost.

[dedub]

To continue something that started elsewhere;

 

Most people I would expect, understand implicitly that peak speed is not average speed and is generally irrelevant to most tasks performed on a mobile phone device.

 

I would further expect that in most peoples minds, and experience, higher peak speeds generally equate to better average speeds or better perceived usability (ie things get done faster). Because, duh, the higher the peak is, the greater the difference is between zero and peak.

 

Let's not forget also, that higher peak performance also allows for more users to achieve the targeted average speeds.

 

I would say that is the primary impetus for all the e-peen speed test measuring.

[Adam G]

People buy $80k with 450+ HP to show off.

Not a car guy, are ya Jeremy.

[Fraydog]

I have read the entire report for every city. I have failed to see why people are so upset.

 

First off, if everything was so peachy, why are Bob Azzi and Steve Elfman gone? Sprint has, even before the publishing of the data and most of the gathering of it for that matter, recognized that buildout was not up to their standards. Dan Hesse had to make a very difficult decision to let people who were considered good people, people who had worked at Sprint for a long time go. That decision did not come easy.

 

Secondly, the average speeds for Spark and non-Spark devices were significant in what PC Mag identified as developed Spark markets. Spark devices had much greater downloads. This is what the S4GRU staff had said since Spark devices hit the market. Get a Spark device.

 

Finally, it has identified that Sprint has to move more quickly with B41 Spark TD-LTE, which dovetails back to point 1. Fortunately since the changes in the network team have been made, movement of deployment of 8T8R has begun, much faster than anticipated. This is where Sprint will begin to make gains in network speeds.

[JonnygATL]

Getting back to intelligent discourse...my N5 after the update here in Atlanta is performing admirably well.  It very effectively switches between bands 25 and 26 as necessary and very rarely falls back to 3G.  I am happier with this phone now than I have ever been since purchasing it.  I am curious as to when PcMag did these speed tests in Atlanta but, as we all know, network performance is very dynamic and so I would venture to guess that the speeds and coverage now are far better than they were when these tests were conducted.

 

I have no experience with band 41 yet so I can't really comment on that though I know that there are many active band 41 (old Clear) sites within the city.  Once I have some experience with b41 on my N5 I will post comments on its performance here in Atlanta.

 

But my speeds are far more than adequate and my coverage has increased quite a bit due to the increasing prevalence of b26.

 

One final note - if you drill down into the PCMag article, you will see mention of bouncing back and forth between 3G and LTE in several of the 30 cities studied.  This would seem to me to be an ecsfb issue which I would imagine by now has been resolved.  This is a HUGE reason that Sprint seemed to perform so RELATIVELY poorly if I am correct.  Again, I think a lot of that has since been cleared up.  I don't think the article's author was aware of any of that. 

[jamisonshaw125]

Johnny, they were probably aware of it. But they couldn't postpone the article for the eCSFB issues to be cleared up. The world keeps spinning. My only concern about this article is that it really does make sprint look like it's in for yet another year of "almost there"...when in reality this is supposed to be be "sprints year" for a come back.

 

Edit: I've come to the conclusion this is the only page that needs to be viewed. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2459189,00.asp

[Ascertion]

 And who isn't happy with a 7 mbps cellular data connection anyway?  

 

Sprint's speeds in comparison to the competition is slow - but it's still usable.  Some cities had 7mbps on avg, while others had 4.  I've never been limited to what I can do on a smartphone with a steady 4mbps.  

[utiz4321]

And I would wholeheartedly agree with you if I had better usability in the heart of the third biggest city in the country. I'm still waiting for that as well.

 

While we're at it, if we're going to equivocate 5mpbs with 50mpbs and just say lulz what's the difference, yo?, then we have some credibility issues.

What is the difference between 5mbs and 50 from a smart phone? In terms of use? The answer is none.

[jamisonshaw125]

What is the difference between 5mbs and 50 from a smart phone? In terms of use? The answer is none.

That isn't how the average consumer thinks though. More is better. Always

 

Edit: for appropriate image.