Speed tests: AT&T fastest data, 4G no faster on average 23
Fri, 04 Jun 2010 1:08 pm EDT 
With webOS available on three of the four major US carriers, there’s no time like the present to kick some dust around and see who comes out on top. According to PCMag.com’s exhaustive cross-country testing of the Sprint, T-Mobile, Verizon, AT&T, and Cricket, Ma Bell came out on top as far as the nationwide averages are concerned. AT&T also took the speed crown in every region of the US excepting the northeast, where T-Mobile dominated.
While it’s little surprise that AT&T took the crown in 3G testing, the network also bested Sprint’s fledgling 4G network when available. The problem turns out to be the WiMax network’s consistency - while tremendous bursts of speed up to 3.14 MB were observed with 4G, when averaged with PCMag’s consistency scoring Sprint’s 3G network usually proved to be faster and reliable. Of course, we expect that to improve and can remember similar growing pains when 3G EVDO and HSDPA first hit the scene.
Of course, we do have to mention that all that was tested here was data speed (and we’re sure AT&T will be touting the results in ads in no time). Being able to download stuff really fast is great and all, but you should always remember to take the entire package of call quality, dropped calls, signal strength in the areas you frequent, and, of course, whether or not they have webOS phones available, when looking for a carrier.
Source: PCMag.com, via Boy Genius Report
23 Comments
I would love to see a test with 3 PRE's using different networks.
P.s T-mobile is no king on the east cost here.
Looks like 4G is faster overall, although not by much.
AT&T's next ad will be "for a better 4G experience..."
up to 3.14 MB were observed with 4G
Nononono. That's 3.14Mb, not MB. Big difference!
Yeah, they were all like, "3.14 MB," and I was all like, "Whaaa?"
they already taunt they're the fastest 3G..problem is, at least in my area, coverage is horrible.
there's a MAP for that, ya know...
lol
verizon is the boss of the bosses and that is for sure.
Useless observation for the day. Anyone notice the graphic for this article is the Pixi vs. the Pre? (Read: the slower WebOS device / not on AT&T yet).
Notice how in the comments everyone is laughing at how ridiculous the report is. Sprint 4G wins in 3 of 4 markets, but doesn't win the crown in any. Not even a mention.
Really, a lot of it depends on your area. Out here in Seattle, AT&T's coverage is pretty much on a par with Verizon's, while I have a lot of trouble getting reliable signal on Sprint (or staying connected when I do). But when I go back east, AT&T's coverage is abysmal, while Verizon's pretty solid and Sprint (at least in certain metropolitan areas) is nearly on a par with Verizon in my experience.
What I like looking at is the Consistency percentage. Sprint is in the top 2 in every region. Give me a reliable connection over 95% of the time and I will gladly wait the extra 10 milliseconds for the page to load.
Here is St. Louis that consistency was 100%. FAR better than AT&T's 70%, which explains why us STL Pre users get to laugh at iPhone users on a regular basis. "Yeah, you can show me that cool new app once you can connect to your network. By the way here is what you were searching for."
My personal, fairly limited experience in the DC area (Northern Virginia)...
AT&T coverage was okay for many years, and the 3G was pretty speedy when you had it, but coverage went to crap pretty steadily/fast last year. I had a massive increase in dropped calls and data outages (from never to several times a week).
Early this year I bailed for Verizon. The 3G is definitely slower, but it's EVERYWHERE around here. I have a hard time finding places without a solid 3G signal, even if I head west or south into the rural areas of Virginia (provided I stay near the highways ;-)).
Something else I noticed was a 'latency' thing... with AT&T 3G, I'd enter a URL, hit enter, wait a couple seconds, and then the page would load super fast. With Verizon 3G, I enter a URL, hit enter, and then the page loads acceptably fast (note no 2-second pause).
That 2-second latency before the data comes through on AT&T made it FEEL a lot slower, even though the actual throughput was much better once the data started flowing. So, when you're browsing the web, I think it FEELS faster on Verizon regardless of the actual Mb/s rates.
Most important though is the coverage and consistency with Verizon. Like some others have said, I'll take an 'always-on' but slower connection over a 'sometimes-works' speed demon.
I'm in Tennessee and my AT&T coverage is great! The only time I get a dropped call is when I'm on an old country road. lol I don't know why a lot of people think Verizon is better then AT&T because AT&T has more towers, better signal, and according to this, better speeds.
Well, that article seems all flawed in a way to skew the results towards making AT&T win. At least they are open and mention it although not very prominently in the text. Quote:
"Sprint 4G and Cricket were not eligible for regional and national awards, and were not included in the regional and national Speed Index calculations, because they weren't available in all the cities we tested in."
If you look at the results Sprint 4G clearly beats AT&T 3G, I admit it is not by the margins you would expect. But they may not have been completely fair in choosing test locations that favor one carrier more than the other, due to their intentions to show off HSPA and HSPA+ technologies. And always bashing EvDO for its theoretical maximum speed per sector, a problem that can is easy to overcome by the correct division of sectors. I even doubt if at some of those results they were effectively using Sprint's 3G network and not 4G. There are also no tests for latency, only tests for initial connection time.
AT&T SUCKS ASS you see the news about what they just did 2 nights ago?
Can any engineers get in here and explain to me how GSM keeps winning these speed battles??? I thought all the maths that put this stuff together predicted CDMA should be faster for data??
thanks!
here is a nother reason why AT&T sucks
http://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/04/att-apologizes-for-legal-threat/?i...
Where the hell did they test? I get 6-7mbps with my overdrive from sprint in most of the major cities I travel to, and at home here in Houston.
Sure at&t has the fastest 3G network when it works, no one has ever denied that. Most reliable it is not, and we all know that. Since the article is about speed one might think there should be 2 winners sprint for 4G (but it has no contenders) and at&t for 3G. I'm not too impressed by the 4G speeds it's less than a 25% increase in speed and is actually less reliable than at&t's 3g. Seems to me at&t is the better choice if speed is your only concern.
that's funny. My buddy's evo gets 4.5 mbs in stockton cal.
even for Mobil 4g thats not bad at all :)
Too funny, I would like to know where in Los Angeles does AT&T beat Verizon and Sprint. My company tried AT&T mobile broadband cards, it was a nightmare, Verizon and Sprint networks run circles around AT&T. It Does not make sense that AT&T is "supposedly" the fastest, at the same time the least consistent. I hope PCmag got paid well. I find it suspicious that PCmag would put this out right before the EVO launch.
If you look at the documentation for WiMax and LTE. Initial roll out is not much faster than the AT&T's 3G. When you can find AT&T 3G. But within a year both WiMax (if its still around) and LTE will be blowing the door off of all 3G connections. And within three years it will be faster than your home connection. All Sprint and Verizon smart phones should have 4G by this time next year.