[PCWorld]

Post your comments for 3G/4G Performance Map: Data Speeds for AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon here

[MattWu]

I don't believe the Verizon 4g numbers in this report. With my Galaxy Nexus, in Dallas I was getting about 30-40 Mbps, and in LA I get about 20 Mbps downloads.

[matthewcc]

I routinely get 15+ mbps on t-mobile in boston...

[truthbuster]

I was reading this, and wondering if AT&T is still the "Fastest".

I wonder if the Federal Trade Commission will agree with being "Fastest".

But then again, being from Texas, perhaps AT&T is the "Fastest" to drain money out of your wallet.

As for myself, I use Edge Service on T-Mobile, with an unlocked iPhone, and well, for all intents and purposes, I don't need to watch videos while in my car. I use wifi at work and home for that.

[truthbuster]

truthbuster, on 07 May 2012 - 07:17 PM, said:

I was reading this, and wondering if AT&T is still the "Fastest".

I wonder if the Federal Trade Commission, who enforces "Truth In Advertising" will agree with AT&T being "Fastest".

But then again, being from Texas, perhaps AT&T is the "Fastest" to drain money out of your wallet.

As for myself, I use Edge Service on T-Mobile, with an unlocked iPhone, and well, for all intents and purposes, I don't need to watch videos while in my car. I use wifi at work and home for that.

Yeah, Truth In Advertising is a bitch.

[MarkSullivan]

matthewcc, on 07 May 2012 - 07:10 PM, said:

I routinely get 15+ mbps on t-mobile in boston...

I'd wager that we test data speeds differently than the speed test app in your phone. But really, if you're getting more than 5 mbps on the downlink, the services you use will probably run very nicely indeed. -Mark

[MarkSullivan]

truthbuster, on 07 May 2012 - 07:19 PM, said:

truthbuster, on 07 May 2012 - 07:17 PM, said:

I was reading this, and wondering if AT&T is still the "Fastest".

I wonder if the Federal Trade Commission, who enforces "Truth In Advertising" will agree with AT&T being "Fastest".

But then again, being from Texas, perhaps AT&T is the "Fastest" to drain money out of your wallet.

As for myself, I use Edge Service on T-Mobile, with an unlocked iPhone, and well, for all intents and purposes, I don't need to watch videos while in my car. I use wifi at work and home for that.

Yeah, Truth In Advertising is a bitch.

I've noticed that the carriers are moving away from saying "fastest" and toward saying "largest". -Mark

[linuxrants7xpg]

matthewcc, on 07 May 2012 - 07:10 PM, said:

I routinely get 15+ mbps on t-mobile in boston...

Yea, I've tested a pretty regular 20+ in Phoenix on Verizon.

[technegro]

I'm very skeptical of the results of these tests. I live in Brooklyn, NY and in my basement apartment in a brownstone, I get on average 12 Mbps down and 3 Mbps up on T-MOBILE, that's right, I said T-Mobile. So whoever is conducting these tests must be doing them with a 2005 Sidekick, not a newer phone like my Galaxy S II.

[MarkSullivan]

technegro, on 07 May 2012 - 10:04 PM, said:

I'm very skeptical of the results of these tests. I live in Brooklyn, NY and in my basement apartment in a brownstone, I get on average 12 Mbps down and 3 Mbps up on T-MOBILE, that's right, I said T-Mobile. So whoever is conducting these tests must be doing them with a 2005 Sidekick, not a newer phone like my Galaxy S II.

Believe me, you are getting unusually high speeds for T-Mobile if you regularly get 12 mbps down. You may live very close to a cell tower.

[waldojim]

linuxrants7xpg, on 07 May 2012 - 09:58 PM, said:

matthewcc, on 07 May 2012 - 07:10 PM, said:

I routinely get 15+ mbps on t-mobile in boston...

Yea, I've tested a pretty regular 20+ in Phoenix on Verizon.

Same here in Fort Worth. I have friends who claim to see 30 on a regular basis out this way. I guess it is possible these PCW tests are being done in the worst parts of town though. That might explain why the speeds are so slow. Like Oak Cliff, where the locals like to steal fiber thinking it is copper!

This post has been edited by waldojim: 07 May 2012 - 11:48 PM

[karps]

In a city, at least for now, there is always a land-line phone if you need it. The real place for cell phones and their data capabilities is when you're traveling. How about data speeds on I-80 between Des Moines and Omaha, or I-90 between the Twin Cities and Fargo? How's the coverage in central Arkansas or the Mojave Desert? That would actually be a useful article. Nobody lives in those big cities anymore - it's too crowded.

[karps]

I should have added the profusion of Wi-Fi hotspots in cities, which don't exist in flyover country.

[waldojim]

karps, on 08 May 2012 - 03:28 AM, said:

In a city, at least for now, there is always a land-line phone if you need it. The real place for cell phones and their data capabilities is when you're traveling. How about data speeds on I-80 between Des Moines and Omaha, or I-90 between the Twin Cities and Fargo? How's the coverage in central Arkansas or the Mojave Desert? That would actually be a useful article. Nobody lives in those big cities anymore - it's too crowded.

do you realize how contradictory that single statement is?

[ScottColbertfexo]

karps, on 08 May 2012 - 03:28 AM, said:

In a city, at least for now, there is always a land-line phone if you need it. The real place for cell phones and their data capabilities is when you're traveling. How about data speeds on I-80 between Des Moines and Omaha, or I-90 between the Twin Cities and Fargo? How's the coverage in central Arkansas or the Mojave Desert? That would actually be a useful article. Nobody lives in those big cities anymore - it's too crowded.

Landline? I haven't had a land line for at least 8 years. The same with most people I know, so these tests are very relevant.



"Nobody lives in those big cities anymore - it's too crowded." - This doesn't even make sense.

[xracer1994]

Phoenix is the fifth larges city in the United States. Why weren't any tests done here?

[RRKASH]

Your testing certainly revealed some surprising results (based on my personal experience from frequent business trips to most of your test cities), but sure was nice to see an unbiased report with detailed reports based on what appears to be apples to apples comparisons. Were you able to use the same phone model (unlocked) in each city, and how big of a factor is the phone model in affecting your collected data? Also, I believe what karps was trying say is that many companies and most wireless customers are located and live outside these major cities. Maybe data points collected based on census data for the large cities and urban sprawl out to the suburbs would show not only the fastest in your four main categories, but it would also show a population number as percentage covered to help validate the areas chosen. I agree with MattWu's statement about Verizon. I have recently had both AT&T and Verizon wireless services, and throughout my coast-to-coast travels it was no contest as Verizon was the faster carrier by a wide margin. I hope you will continue this analysis (maybe once per quarter) as it keeps the carriers honest and fuels competition between them,-which can only lead to better coverage and faster speeds for the customer.

[bankerdanny]

OK, I took a look at the map for Chicago and am mystified as to how you came to choose the locations. None in the Loop? WTF? Every business day hundreds of thousands of people travel to and from the central business district and to and from the main shopping areas of the Gold Coast, but you choose two locations 2 and 3 miles south of the Loop? Englewood? Seriously?

No Lincoln Park or Lakeview? Nothing at all on the far north side or near north suburbs? Has the person/people who chose these locations ever even BEEN to Chicago?

[Evolution2001]

technegro, on 07 May 2012 - 10:04 PM, said:

I'm very skeptical of the results of these tests. I live in Brooklyn, NY and in my basement apartment in a brownstone, I get on average 12 Mbps down and 3 Mbps up on T-MOBILE, that's right, I said T-Mobile. So whoever is conducting these tests must be doing them with a 2005 Sidekick, not a newer phone like my Galaxy S II.

Actually, TechNegro, they did use the equivalent of your Galaxy S II, however, it was used for the Sprint tests, not T-Mobile.
It helps if you read the lead-up articles, as any study like this usually lists it's testing methodology at the beginning of the study. Each carrier supplied the phone they felt was best suited for this test. Feel free to check the first part of the test here (as it was available linking back from this article)

[Yargs]

waldojim, on 08 May 2012 - 09:08 AM, said:

karps, on 08 May 2012 - 03:28 AM, said:

In a city, at least for now, there is always a land-line phone if you need it. The real place for cell phones and their data capabilities is when you're traveling. How about data speeds on I-80 between Des Moines and Omaha, or I-90 between the Twin Cities and Fargo? How's the coverage in central Arkansas or the Mojave Desert? That would actually be a useful article. Nobody lives in those big cities anymore - it's too crowded.

do you realize how contradictory that single statement is?

From the Wikipedia entry for Yogi Berra: "On why he no longer went to Ruggeri's, a St. Louis restaurant: 'Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded.'"

Great minds think alike.