milan03

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.

"We tested mostly during business hours, during a period from May 1st to May 23rd, 2014; we visited different cities on different days. In each city, our drivers stopped in 10 to 12 locations for at least 15 minutes (five test cycles) each. We also collected data while moving, both within and between cities." http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2459188,00.asp

It's an annual test, done over three weeks period of time, and it's supposed to showcase data performance of all four Tier 1 wireless operators at this point in time. That's exactly what they did. They've also used commercially available user equipment, and travelled to same metro areas year after year to capture the progress. Although I'm not a fan of these tests, at least they are consistent.

Already been happening in Manhattan over the past three months. Sprint's median data rates have surpassed AT&T's. http://explorer.netindex.com/maps It should only get better once TDD LTE grid gets denser on the island, and TDD capacity layer should absolutely shine in this kind of environment.

Make sure to check out the audio link at the bottom of the interview.

I actually don't mind their color.

Thought this was pretty funny, and dead on

Thanks for the charts, AJ. Yeah I agree, once the legacy networks start to go offline, PCS swaps will become much easier to execute. If the merger happens to go through, in markets were PCS is already aligned they could start leveraging the contiguity immediately.

When I say contiguous, I mean contiguity of combined PCS licenses. They're already aligned in quite a few Top 50 markets. It'd be great to see AJ chiming in, but here are a few examples: Boston: Dallas: NYC: Phoenix: Seattle: I'm sure they'll have to divest some of their excessive spectrum, but in markets where they're setup for success, it would be smart to keep as much PCS as possible considering that CDMA/W-CDMA also has to be served out of PCS (for the time being). I'd much rather see them divest EBS/BRS.

In my opinion divesting PCS would be the worst possible move as in many markets two operators are contiguous in this spectrum band and could deploy 10MHz FDD LTE or more at some point. Not sure which technology their merged company will pick, but they could also leverage HSPA+42 in the PCS since many existing Sprint UE could attach right away.

Pretty sure he's talking about Woodside, Queens

No doubt, but at the same token I doubt that Masa has been experiencing "terrible" Comcast speeds in his Silicon Valley home like he wants us to believe...

As mentioned earlier TWC in NYC is boosting their speeds as FiOS is making their move in areas like Astoria. Standard 10/1 50/5 Turbo 20/2 100/10 Extreme 30/5 200/20 Ultimate 50/5 300/20 I've made a move to FiOS because of their higher uploads, lower latency, and much, much better picture quality comparing to cable providers. They're also known to put some major "fluff" on their advertised upload speeds, so my 50/25 connection is really 50/39. That's as close to symmetrical as it gets here, at least in consumer marketplace. 75/35 is really 85/39. 150/65 is more like 160/80Mbps, etc... They also offer 300Mbps and 500Mbps tiers, which aren't very affordable, but readily available for those that may need them. So what Masa is really doing here is using car salesman or infomercial approach to create, blow up the problem, make fun of americans, then introduce himself as an external solution to all of our problems... of course if the government allows him to buy a direct competitor, even though he owns a massive amount of spectrum and cash already with Sprint. In the process, he also tries to divert this whole acquisition by blaming wireline industry, etc... This all is very laughable to me, but it'll most likely work.

If you selectively chose not to acknowledge the entire Uncarrier strategy, and rapid network deployment over the past 18 months, then I guess you have a point...

Someone calls Legere #magentagod?! Just wondering, 'cause I've never see it, and it's ridiculous. I do see lots of carrier agnostic people loving what he is doing with the company that used to lose millions of subscribers just two years ago.

All I can think of is Comcast/TWC fiber backhaul going into 2015 and massive Small Cell deployment. Could be also just wishful thinking and end up being the worst deal ever...

Absolutely true, but you know they'll ride it until they can't anymore. It was gonna end at some point, just like AT&T's claim did, and Verizon's before that.

T-Mobile hasn't had LTE capacity issues like Verizon, yet. They also have less than half of Verizon's subs base, so in all honesty I don't think they're sweating over capacity. Also, I'm pretty sure T-Mobile has been fully aware of Verizon's AWS deployment plans all along.

Definitely wasn't my intention, AJ. I don't feel I'm overstating Verizon's achievements though. It's been less than a year since Verizon announced deployment of AWS capacity layer, and 8-months or so since someone actually connected to that layer and reported on public forums. Either way, reaching 250 markets with their capacity layer in a a given timeframe is a remarkable achievement in my humble opinion.

That's what I'm suggesting. First few commercially accessible AWS sites started popping up last fall. Since then they're reaching 250 markets with AWS layer 500+ markets with 700c. It's a capacity layer just like Sprint's B41.

Well with them announcing AWS deployment last summer it still means they've reached 250 markets goal in less than a year, right? In all honesty, that's a pretty remarkable achievement by any standard. At least in my book.

That still makes it less than a year. First live sites were reported in the fall by HoFo users. in NYC it was October as well.

Actually it's been much less than a year. They've announced planned deployment last summer, and the first reported live site happened around the September-October timeframe. T-Mobile is another breakneck example going from no LTE to 200 million pops in less than a year.

Since October 2013 they've overlaid 250 large and small markets, which makes it the fastest LTE deployment ever. http://s7.vzw.com/is/content/VerizonWireless/eCatalogs/Verizon-XLTE-markets.pdf

Chicago O'Hare airport with thousands of people around, Unlimited Data plan.