Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When we first tested AT&T’s 4G HSPA+ network last spring, it was the slowest of the four major carriers. Its average speeds across the country on Speedtest.net were 2.24 Mbps for downloads and 0.59 for uploads.
Compared to those numbers, the new LTE network is a huge improvement. AT&T never even came close to Verizon’s Chicago scores of 18.93 Mbps down and 3.01 Mbps up.
AT&T averaged just 5.9Mb/s down on their shiny new vacant LTE network. T-Mobile's populated network rocked 5.93Mb/s, while Verizon's clocked in at 18.93Mb/s in the same test. AT&T also came in third place in site load times, with Sprint in second and Verizon in first.
Remember that these tests were done on AT&T's new 4G network, not their old 4G network, which actually used to be the new 3G network until AT&T renamed it into the new 4G network (now the old 4G network). So if you want AT&T's top speed, you'll need to go on the new 4G network, unless you live in an area where there's no service, in which case you'll need to go on the old 4G network, provided you have enhanced backhaul in that area, and if you don't, you'll need to be on the old 3G network (which is now the new 3G network, even though it's older than the old 3G network).
There's good news for AT&T, though. If you plan on downloading 155-meg files to your smartphone, their network will be slightly faster than everyone else's.
I have AT&T 3G, and most of the time it feels like dial-up.
I hear you. I gave up on them because of their poor speed. Poor network planning + overcrowded network + dumping money into litigation instead of innovation = a crappy end-user experience.
As Android Central put it, the word "backhaul" should never be placed in front of a customer. "HSPA+" should never be seen by someone who doesn't either write about or sell smartphones for a living.
Users expect results, not buzzwords. AT&T is loaded with the latter and not much of the former.
Last edited by DowntownHarrisburg; 09-22-2011 at 02:42 PM..
Apparently, AT&T's LTE speed will vary based on how much bandwidth they have allocated to the matter in your trading area. So I guess ... individual consumers will need to research with the FCC prior to making a purchase in order to determine how fast they should reasonably expect their AT&T 4G to go?
In defense of AT&T, I suppose they have no real incentive to actually build a reliable, fast network. Their history of advertising only the peak theoretical speeds demonstrates why.
Apparently, AT&T's LTE speed will vary based on how much bandwidth they have allocated to the matter in your trading area. So I guess ... individual consumers will need to research with the FCC prior to making a purchase in order to determine how fast they should reasonably expect their AT&T 4G to go?
In defense of AT&T, I suppose they have no real incentive to actually build a reliable, fast network. Their history of advertising only the peak theoretical speeds demonstrates why.
Our cable company does this then at the end of their commercials (or at the bottom of the ad) they tell you not to expect those speeds. It's said softly and very, very fast.
Our cable company does this then at the end of their commercials (or at the bottom of the ad) they tell you not to expect those speeds. It's said softly and very, very fast.
Politicians should have to do the same.
I would fully support legislation requiring all network providers (and politicians!) to declare their average throughput in advertising. Sure, my Comcast can theoretically give me 105 Mb/s ... but I hardly ever do. I'm usually in the 50-60 range. I don't know how much of that is server load, how much is network congestion, and how much is my own firewall / switch / wiring, but the point is I almost never see 105.
Consumers really shouldn't be expected to take on this much responsibility for figuring out advertising. No consumer should have to figure out whether or not they have enhanced backhaul, or whether they have the "new 4G" or the "old 4G", or how much bandwidth their carrier has allocated in their market.
That actually goes to a different level; if a provider is technically incapable of providing the advertised speeds in a given area, then they shouldn't be permitted to advertise those speeds in the area.
AT&T plans to tie with Verizon on speed for their deployment. Unfortunately, given Sprint's and Verizon's massive coverage advantages, AT&T is going to have to create a competitive edge. Could it be that they intend to launch one market at higher speed, then advertise that speed nationwide as they did for HSPA+ with enhanced backhaul?
AT&T averaged just 5.9Mb/s down on their shiny new vacant LTE network. T-Mobile's populated network rocked 5.93Mb/s, while Verizon's clocked in at 18.93Mb/s in the same test. AT&T also came in third place in site load times, with Sprint in second and Verizon in first.
How fraudulent,
Also, from that article.
"As I pointed out in our test results story, Chicago stands out; it's not considered one of AT&T's strongest markets, and AT&T's LTE coverage there isn't as comprehensive as it is in the other launch cities."
"According to Phone Scoop, AT&T has 24MHz of 700MHz spectrum in its Texas launch cities, but only 12MHz in Chicago. That means it can run its LTE network on paired 10-MHz channels in Texas, but it has to use 5MHz channels in Chicago. Verizon, on the other hand, has at least 22MHz everywhere in the nation, so it can use at least 10MHz channels everywhere.
AT&T plans to supplement its network with its AWS 1700MHz holdings as well, which could help the situation in the future. It's just not using it yet. As this Phone Scoop map shows, AT&T (then Cingular) also owns AWS spectrum scattered throughout the country, including in Chicago.
"that's where AT&T's spectrum strength is: while Verizon owns more 700Mhz spectrum than AT&T, AT&T generally owns considerably more 1900Mhz than Verizon"
Comparing the AT&T 4G to Verizon Communications Inc.'s (VZ) own 4G offerings, they found that AT&T handily won.
AT&T's 3G network already has showed itself to be the nation's fastest data network, being nearly three times faster than Verizon in some tests.
The AT&T 4G network is similarly impressive. *It hit peak download speed of 42.85 Mbps (on the Momentum 4G modem) and an average download speed of 24.65 Mbps, while the Verizon network only mustered a peak of 23.81 Mbps (with the UML290 modem) and an average of*16.70 Mbps. *Uploads showed an even broader gap, with 11.44 Mbps for the AT&T modem versus 4.01 Mbps for the Verizon modem.
In short, AT&T was about 50 percent faster in downloads, and almost three times as fast in uploads.
AT&T plans to tie with Verizon on speed for their deployment. Unfortunately, given Sprint's and Verizon's massive coverage advantages, AT&T is going to have to create a competitive edge. Could it be that they intend to launch one market at higher speed, then advertise that speed nationwide as they did for HSPA+ with enhanced backhaul?
Deceptive, but profitable.
Did AT&T really do that, or are you being fraudulent again?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
