PC Mag "Fastest" Mobile Networks

[JonnygATL]

I am talking about how long it is taking for the network, and also I been having ecsfb issues for more than a couple months now.

I can personally tell you how beautiful it is once ecsfb issues are cleared up. The difference is definitely night and day. Instead of wanting to bash my phone to smithereens with a hammer, I now feel at least at parity with my vzw, att and tmo toting amigos. What's more I can see the light clearly at the end of the tunnel when I will be THEIR envy as soon as b41 is fully rolled out by the holidays here in Atlanta. That's going to be un dia muy dulce!

[Destroyallcubes]

I'm seeing lots of posts about "usefulness" of very high peak data rates on our smartphones, and without a doubt pulling 50Mbps to a single device definitely isn't necessary in order to achieve a great user experience. However, what many avoid to point out is that for a great user experience, capacity needs to be readily available on the network.

 

For instance, in case of Verizon's network, their initial 700MHz network performed very well up until about a year ago when it started slowing down significantly, which resulted in rapid deployment of AWS capacity layer. Today they seem to be the fastest once again. T-Mobile's strategy was to deploy as wide as possible regardless of relatively low amount of LTE subscribers on their network. They've had to rip and replace most of their sites as well. This obviously resulted in more available capacity and a solid user experience in LTE coverage areas. It all requires strategic planning and execution.

 

So once again, let's not avoid the purpose of these performance benchmarks, and that is to showcase network capacity, not whether excessively high data rates on smartphones are needed or not.

Speedtesting is just one of the ways for a consumer to understand network capacity and performance in any given location.

The problem with the capacity argument is I thought few still have access to Aws LTE on Verizon, and same for the 20x20AWS LTE Tmobile has. Just the same for spark. It doesn't take a speed test to tell who will have the spare capacity. Sprint will always be last in that sense most test are going to be b25 and a few b26/b41. The point of these test are pointless until the networks are complete by all companies.

[WiWavelength]

I could have sworn we've already discussed these kind of things before. Let's find out:

 

Don't post angry.

 

 

AJ

[Fraydog]

The only real issue I have with the PC Mag test is that the sample size isn't large enough.

 

The national PC Mag used 90,000 tests. The national RootMetrics scores used 4,666,641 over driving 217,618 miles.

 

http://www.rootmetrics.com/us/rsr/united-states/2013/2H

 

Sprint was a pretty distant 3rd place and T-Mobile was 4th. Big Red was the winner with the Death Star a close second. By looking at the 1st half speed titles based on RootMetrics tests done this year, Verizon probably gained the national speed crown back from AT&T.

 

Sprint probably beat T-Mobile due to having more rural 3G and LTE, but let's make no mistake, a fundamentally different marketplace needs to exist to have three strong national competitors. Sprint and T-Mobile might not even be enough together! You may even have to have USCC on top of that along with some LTEiRA-esque partnerships to ever be in the same ballpark as Verizon on speeds everywhere.

 

Finally the market is just going to have to be much more heavily regulated. The Title II bomb may have to be dropped to ensure competitiveness. Wireless has to be regulated as a utility, in my view, to turn America to be a globally competitive broadband market.

[Nickel]

Don't post angry.

 

AJ

[jamisonshaw125]

 

Ps: people on this site should stop telling users to switch carriers. People are smart enough when to switch. A little rant shouldn't lead to automatically replying to switch carriers.

I wasn't really saying he should leave sprint, although I have been guilty of that before to people who endlessly rant. This is not the case. I was just curious if there are other providers that can meet his needs because sprint clearly is not yet. I mean at this point of the NV deployment, I don't think anyone should leave because it's so close to being complete. 

[sbolen]

Cool speed tests, brah. I'm paying under $100 for my wife and I to have unlimited data on our maxed-out Framily. I doubt I could get that kind of deal on AT&T, Verizon, or T-Mobile.

[Hurrcayne_dre]

The only real issue I have with the PC Mag test is that the sample size isn't large enough.

 

The national PC Mag used 90,000 tests. The national RootMetrics scores used 4,666,641 over driving 217,618 miles.

 

http://www.rootmetrics.com/us/rsr/united-states/2013/2H

 

Sprint was a pretty distant 3rd place and T-Mobile was 4th. Big Red was the winner with the Death Star a close second. By looking at the 1st half speed titles based on RootMetrics tests done this year, Verizon probably gained the national speed crown back from AT&T.

 

Sprint probably beat T-Mobile due to having more rural 3G and LTE, but let's make no mistake, a fundamentally different marketplace needs to exist to have three strong national competitors. Sprint and T-Mobile might not even be enough together! You may even have to have USCC on top of that along with some LTEiRA-esque partnerships to ever be in the same ballpark as Verizon on speeds everywhere.

 

Finally the market is just going to have to be much more heavily regulated. The Title II bomb may have to be dropped to ensure competitiveness. Wireless has to be regulated as a utility, in my view, to turn America to be a globally competitive broadband market.

 

one test is from 2014 and one is 2013

[Terrell352]

I understand exactly what you mean now after just using my phone and stop using speed test so much Sprint is better. I can also see why people complain about 5mbps because T-Mobile hspa+ is faster than that and that has been around longer than Sprint's LTE. Sprint's equipment is suppose to be the latest newest network built from the ground up while everyone else just threw some panels up and called it a day yet somehow all of these test from basically everywhere but here says that they still have better networks regardless of this. That combined with the pace of the rollout makes network vision seem over hyped a bit. Not disappointed but not as amazing as I thought it would be for how long we had to wait.

[centermedic]

It was a sham last year and this year is no different. In Raleigh, AT&T may have the fastest speeds but they are third in coverage being easily bested by Sprint and Verizon.

[centermedic]

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.  

Going to have to chime in here. What size work files are you using. They would have to be HUGE for 50 mbps to make a noticeable difference. Besides that you totally missed the point AJ was making and anybody who mocks him is also missing the point. 50 mbps indicates an underutilized network. So, would you rather have the constant usable 5 mbps or a network with significant peaks and valleys? Just to drive home a point, I work in public safety and we use Verizon's LTE network. As much as I despise Verizon it offers us rock solid performance even though it is far from the fastest network in my area if you buy the magazine results.

[jamisonshaw125]

I will take consistency over fastest download speeds any day, anytime, anywhere.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bkco14]

I will take consistency over fastest download speeds any day, anytime, anywhere.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So would I. If I could get 5-7 Mbps consistently I would be happy. I think the fear sets in that VzW and Att have triple to 4 times the speed and they also have double to triple the subscribers. We know that VzW's LTE went way down once more people used the network; how do we know that Sprints won't crumble if they get more subscribers since their speed is already the slowest with almost the least subscribers of the 4 carriers.

[milan03]

In order to achieve that 5Mbps consistency, you have to build wide and dense to stay ahead of capacity crunch and support the potential growth in subscriber base. Especially in dense urban environment... Those 50Mbps data rates will come down sooner or later, that's why most operators advertise 5-12Mbps average data rates, not 50-60Mbps.

 

Poor network planing and management is when you over promise and under deliver.

[Fraydog]

In order to achieve that 5Mbps consistency, you have to build wide and dense from the get go to stay ahead of capacity crunch and support the potential growth in subscriber base. Those 50Mbps data rates will come down sooner or later, that's why most operators advertise 5-12Mbps, not 50-60Mbps average data rates.

 

Poor network planing and management is when you over promise and under deliver.

Sprint promised 6-8 Mbps in 5x5 band 25 deployments. I'm the first to rip on Sprint when they don't meet targets, but there's lots of areas where they hit that speed.

 

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2459186,00.asp

 

In fact the national average is 6.8 Mbps, within what was promised. The problem was that Sprint could not get Clear to ride with Network Vision from the get go. If B41 was more widespread the entire conversation might be different. What happened there, I have no clue. Maybe Sprint could have bought Clear much earlier. Where they would find the money? Who knows.

[milan03]

Sprint promised 6-8 Mbps in 5x5 band 25 deployments. I'm the first to rip on Sprint when they don't meet targets, but there's lots of areas where they hit that speed.

 

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2459186,00.asp

 

In fact the national average is 6.8 Mbps, within what was promised. The problem was that Sprint could not get Clear to ride with Network Vision from the get go. If B41 was more widespread the entire conversation might be different. What happened there, I have no clue. Maybe Sprint could have bought Clear much earlier. Where they would find the money? Who knows.

We both know that PC Mag Sprint's average speed results include 20MHz TDD LTE and SMR along with PCS G. 

[Fraydog]

We both know that PC Mag Sprint's average speed results include 20MHz TDD LTE and SMR as well.

I also know that from reading the entire article that Sprint had Spark deployed in very few places that PC Mag detected. I'm thinking that the lion's share of the tests done come from B25. I just don't think Sprint has enough B26 and B41 to give those bands that much weight right now.

[milan03]

I also know that from reading the entire article that Sprint had Spark deployed in very few places that PC Mag detected. I'm thinking that the lion's share of the tests done come from B25. I just don't think Sprint has enough B26 and B41 to give those bands that much weight right now.

If you want their B25 results only, I guess you could potentially look at 2013 PC Mag article, although Sprint had way less LTE subscribers. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2420334,00.asp

[Fraydog]

If you want their B25 results only, I guess you could potentially look at 2013 PC Mag article, although Sprint had way less LTE subscribers. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2420334,00.asp

It was 5.55 Mbps. Not great but not that far off the 6-8 target.

[WiWavelength]

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.

 

I have been very busy the last few days, but now I have some free time.  I like this thread and will offer further comment.  And I truly like our S4GRU community.  However, I am not going to pull any punches -- for good reason -- as will be apparent in a moment.

 

Adam G, you need to do better.  Are you really going to put forth that "friendly confines" and "getting mocked" argument?  I understand what you are saying.  But look at the level of wireless discussion at S4GRU compared to that of other online outlets.  

 

In nearly all other cases, it is the uninformed leading the uninformed.  Giving even a second thought to "getting mocked" outside of S4GRU is akin to me worrying about a dumb high school kid calling me a "douchebag" or thinking my teaching is "lame."

 

AJ