Fastest Mobile Networks 2021

NewsKrawler

unread,

Oct 5, 2021, 2:38:57 AM10/5/21

to

Fastest Mobile Networks 2021
https://www.pcmag.com/news/fastest-mobile-networks-2021

For our 12th annual test, we drove more than 10,000 miles, speed-testing
AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon 4G and 5G in cities, towns, and rural regions
all over the US. We found a radically new landscape−and a surprising winner.

Joerg Lorenz

unread,

Oct 5, 2021, 2:51:15 AM10/5/21

to

Am 05.10.21 um 08:38 schrieb NewsKrawler:

That is utter bullshit and at best a tiny little bit of anecdotal evidence.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Wade Garrett

unread,

Oct 5, 2021, 9:03:03 AM10/5/21

to

Yeah well it all doesn't matter anyway.

Everybody's network is plenty fast enough to easily handle any task you
do on a little screen. It's all marketing BS and "We're Number One-itis."

Like the Olympics- eight guys finish the race separated by only a couple
of hundredths of a second. They're all fast as hell. What difference
does it make...

--
Q: How often do planes crash?
A: Just once...

Ken Hart

unread,

Oct 5, 2021, 10:01:57 AM10/5/21

to

On 10/5/2021 1:2 PM, Wade Garrett wrote:
> They're all fast as hell.
> What difference does it make...

badgolferman

unread,

Oct 5, 2021, 11:41:43 AM10/5/21

to

> all over the US. We found a radically new landscapeâˆ’and a surprising winner.
>

This is no surprise to those of us who have T-Mobile 5G service. I have
been reporting this for the past several months. sms will not like this
however since it doesn’t agree with his narrative.

The fastest speeds I’ve gotten so far are 641 down and 19.7 up.

sms

unread,

Oct 5, 2021, 12:16:52 PM10/5/21

to

On 10/5/2021 8:41 AM, badgolferman wrote:
> NewsKrawler <news...@krawl.org> wrote:
>> Fastest Mobile Networks 2021
>> https://www.pcmag.com/news/fastest-mobile-networks-2021
>>
>> For our 12th annual test, we drove more than 10,000 miles, speed-testing
>> AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon 4G and 5G in cities, towns, and rural regions
>> all over the US. We found a radically new landscapeâˆ’and a surprising winner.
>>
>
> This is no surprise to those of us who have T-Mobile 5G service. I have
> been reporting this for the past several months. sms will not like this
> however since it doesn’t agree with his narrative.

LOL, I never argued about 5G speeds, I simply pointed out the
significantly poorer geographic coverage of T-Mobile. No one disputes
that fact.

You can compare coverage differences using the FCC mapping site at
<https://fcc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=6c1b2e73d9d749cdb7bc88a0d1bdd25b>

Or you can use the Rootmetrics web app at
<https://webcoveragemap.rootmetrics.com/en-US>.

Here are two examples:
<https://i.imgur.com/fuP3G3w.png>
<https://i.imgur.com/jAWKsbC.png>

sms

unread,

Oct 5, 2021, 12:18:29 PM10/5/21

to

Exactly.

What really matters is geographic coverage, not minor speed differences.
T-Mobile makes a very big deal about its low-band 5G in order to divert
scrutiny of its coverage issues.

Chris

unread,

Oct 5, 2021, 12:19:23 PM10/5/21

to

Only one of them is remembered.

nospam

unread,

Oct 5, 2021, 12:32:28 PM10/5/21

to

In article <sjhtpj$4lk$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> > This is no surprise to those of us who have T-Mobile 5G service. I have
> > been reporting this for the past several months. sms will not like this

> > however since it doesnšt agree with his narrative.

>
> LOL, I never argued about 5G speeds, I simply pointed out the
> significantly poorer geographic coverage of T-Mobile. No one disputes
> that fact.

many industry surveys and t-mobile customers dispute that fact.

> You can compare coverage differences using the FCC mapping site at

maps are not reliable.

nospam

unread,

Oct 5, 2021, 12:32:30 PM10/5/21

to

In article <sjhtsj$4lk$2...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> What really matters is geographic coverage, not minor speed differences.

there aren't any significant issues with t-mobile coverage.

> T-Mobile makes a very big deal about its low-band 5G in order to divert
> scrutiny of its coverage issues.

nope. they make a big deal about it because it is better than their
competitors.

Alan Browne

unread,

Oct 5, 2021, 1:16:10 PM10/5/21

to

Given their test method and presented data it is certainly not anecdotal.

--
"...there are many humorous things in this world; among them the white
man's notion that he is less savage than the other savages."
-Samuel Clemens

Joerg Lorenz

unread,

Oct 5, 2021, 1:29:40 PM10/5/21

to

Am 05.10.21 um 19:16 schrieb Alan Browne:

> On 2021-10-05 02:51, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> Am 05.10.21 um 08:38 schrieb NewsKrawler:
>>> Fastest Mobile Networks 2021
>>> https://www.pcmag.com/news/fastest-mobile-networks-2021
>>>
>>> For our 12th annual test, we drove more than 10,000 miles, speed-testing
>>> AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon 4G and 5G in cities, towns, and rural regions
>>> all over the US. We found a radically new landscape−and a surprising winner.
>>
>> That is utter bullshit and at best a tiny little bit of anecdotal evidence.
>
> Given their test method and presented data it is certainly not anecdotal.

It certainly is.

Joerg Lorenz

unread,

Oct 5, 2021, 1:31:34 PM10/5/21

to

Am 05.10.21 um 17:41 schrieb badgolferman:

> The fastest speeds I’ve gotten so far are 641 down and 19.7 up.

This is extremely bad. Mobile networks are symmetric. 19.7 up is
early-4G-style.

sms

unread,

Oct 5, 2021, 1:41:48 PM10/5/21

to

On 10/5/2021 10:16 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2021-10-05 02:51, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> Am 05.10.21 um 08:38 schrieb NewsKrawler:
>>> Fastest Mobile Networks 2021
>>> https://www.pcmag.com/news/fastest-mobile-networks-2021
>>>
>>> For our 12th annual test, we drove more than 10,000 miles, speed-testing
>>> AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon 4G and 5G in cities, towns, and rural
>>> regions
>>> all over the US. We found a radically new landscape−and a surprising
>>> winner.
>>
>> That is utter bullshit and at best a tiny little bit of anecdotal
>> evidence.
>
> Given their test method and presented data it is certainly not anecdotal.

Correct. Joerg is wrong of course™.

Remember, they were testing speed, not coverage. T-Mobile has made a big
effort to roll out their low-band 5G service on their existing 4G LTE cells.

Verizon had sufficiently high 4G LTE speeds that low-band 5G was a lower
priority. Verizon is making a big push with mmWave 5G in order to enter
the home broadband and IOT markets, probably because their market
research has shown that few customers really care about the difference
between 4G LTE and 5G low-band speeds.

Look at <https://www.tomsguide.com/features/5g-vs-4g>. T-Mobile's 5G
speed is about 6% faster than Verizon's 5G speed, but Verizon's LTE
speed is 68% faster than T-Mobile's LTE speed. T-Mobile's 5G speed is
33% faster than Verizon's LTE speed.

T-Mobile and AT&T needed 5G a lot more urgently than Verizon because
their LTE speeds were so slow, even though practically speaking, going
from 36.3 Mb/s (T-Mobile LTE) to 71 Mb/s (T-Mobile 5G) would not be
noticed by many users except if they are running a speed test or
downloading some very large files.

The big advantage of 5G, for the carriers, is an increase in capacity.
For the end-users, in capacity-constrained areas, 5G users free up LTE
capacity so even those without 5G phones benefit, without the power
consumption impact of 5G.

In terms of marketing, T-Mobile can boast about having the most 5G
coverage, while not having to talk about total coverage.

Joerg Lorenz

unread,

Oct 5, 2021, 1:45:51 PM10/5/21

to

Am 05.10.21 um 19:41 schrieb sms:

> On 10/5/2021 10:16 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2021-10-05 02:51, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>> Am 05.10.21 um 08:38 schrieb NewsKrawler:
>>>> Fastest Mobile Networks 2021
>>>> https://www.pcmag.com/news/fastest-mobile-networks-2021
>>>>
>>>> For our 12th annual test, we drove more than 10,000 miles, speed-testing
>>>> AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon 4G and 5G in cities, towns, and rural
>>>> regions
>>>> all over the US. We found a radically new landscape−and a surprising
>>>> winner.
>>>
>>> That is utter bullshit and at best a tiny little bit of anecdotal
>>> evidence.
>>
>> Given their test method and presented data it is certainly not anecdotal.
>
> Correct. Joerg is wrong of course™.

You do not understand mobile networks.

Gronk

unread,

Oct 5, 2021, 2:37:29 PM10/5/21

to

sms wrote:
> Remember, they were testing speed, not coverage.

On speed alone, Verizon won in only 2 of 30 representative cities, and
Verizon lost in each of 6 large sections of the country's rural regions.

AT&T won in only 4 of 30 cities and in 5 of the 6 large rural regions.

T-Mobile won in 24 of 30 cities but only in 1 large rural region
(the rural northeast).

By speed alone, Verizon is looking like a really bad choice.
Given Verizon loses big on speed, they'd better have something else.

Maybe they cost a lot less at least?

Wade Garrett

unread,

Oct 5, 2021, 2:45:53 PM10/5/21

to

That is a sporting event and if you participate, the idea is to win.

Here, we're talking about effin' cell phone service fer cryin' out loud.

Coverage, reliability and cost are the meaningful differentiators...not
a gazillionth of a second faster load on your Facebook page ;-)

--
There are two distinct classes of men in the nation: those who pay
taxes, and those who receive and live upon the taxes
- Thomas Paine, 1792

Martin Brown

unread,

Oct 5, 2021, 2:48:39 PM10/5/21

to

On 05/10/2021 11:41, sms wrote:
> Look at <https://www.tomsguide.com/features/5g-vs-4g>. T-Mobile's 5G
> speed is about 6% faster than Verizon's 5G speed, but Verizon's LTE
> speed is 68% faster than T-Mobile's LTE speed. T-Mobile's 5G speed is
> 33% faster than Verizon's LTE speed.
>
> T-Mobile and AT&T needed 5G a lot more urgently than Verizon because
> their LTE speeds were so slow, even though practically speaking, going
> from 36.3 Mb/s (T-Mobile LTE) to 71 Mb/s (T-Mobile 5G) would not be
> noticed by many users except if they are running a speed test or
> downloading some very large files.

Why would anyone care about the band more than they care about the speed?

I'm confused by your explanation because your first paragraph above says
that the lower band Verizon speeds are faster than the lower band T-Mobile
speeds and then in the next sentence you say that a doubling of speed
wouldn't be noticed.

It's more likely the other way around, isn't it?

Aren't people more likely to care a lot less about the band their phone
users (which they can barely see at the top of the phone) versus the actual
speeds they get?
--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Robin Goodfellow

unread,

Oct 5, 2021, 2:59:49 PM10/5/21

to

Wade Garrett <Wa...@cooler.net> asked

> Coverage, reliability and cost are the meaningful differentiators

Without facts, those are just meaningless words from you, Mr. Garrett.
All the apologists own the brain of small children who own no facts.

FACTS:
Let's compare actual plans by the facts... Mine is T-Mobile.
<https://i.postimg.cc/L6dFGXVd/tmopromo03.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/nhpbcP50/tmopromo04.jpg>

*Cost first:*
I pay about $25/line per month (plus taxes) for a family plan.
That covers unlimited everything (calls, text/mms & data).
Plus I got a handful of _free_ Android Samsung Galaxy A325G phones.
Plus a few iPads have the free 200MB/month SIM for life.
And I recently bought also an iPhone 12 mini (at about half price).

*Coverage second:*
I live in the boonies and my coverage was shown to be just fine.
When I travel in the USA, my coverage has been just fine.
When I travel to Europe, the free roaming covers me just fine.
(In Europe everything is unlimited except calls are 20 cents/minute.)

*Reliability third:*
My signal never disappears.
I call them and I get what they call "my own team of experts."
I never am stuck with conversing with a machine.

How does your plan compare with that cost, coverage, & reliability.
How does anyone's plan compare with T-Mobile as shown above?
--
I've had all three carriers, sequentially, over time, and their reliability
is about the same, as was their coverage - but T-Mobile cost was the lowest.

sms

unread,

Oct 5, 2021, 3:05:01 PM10/5/21

to

On 10/5/2021 11:45 AM, Wade Garrett wrote:

<snip>

> That is a sporting event and if you participate, the idea is to win.
>
> Here, we're talking about effin' cell phone service fer cryin' out loud.
>
> Coverage, reliability and cost are the meaningful differentiators...not
> a gazillionth of a second faster load on your Facebook page ;-)

For most people that is true. However when a carrier's only
differentiator is slightly more Mb/s that's all they really have to talk
about, so they avoid talking about coverage.

The consumers that lack the critical thinking skills to evaluate
coverage and reliability are the legal prey of companies that talk only
about speed. You also often see people who consider only whether their
carrier works where they live or work and who don't look at coverage in
places that they are likely to travel to (or through).

---------------------------------------------------------------
“It's best not to argue with people who are determined to lose.
Once you've told them about a superior alternative, your
responsibility is fulfilled and you can allow them to lose in
peace.” ― Mark Crispin, inventor of the iMAP e-mail protocol
---------------------------------------------------------------

Robin Goodfellow

unread,

Oct 5, 2021, 3:54:38 PM10/5/21

to

sms <scharf...@geemail.com> asked

> The consumers that lack the critical thinking skills to evaluate
> coverage and reliability are the legal prey of companies that talk only
> about speed.

Am I getting a good deal or a terrible deal or the same deal as you get?

I'm not sure if I'm one of those customers who lack the critical thinking
skills you speak of, but I consider myself relatively intelligent (I have
very high test scores on every standardized test I ever took, for example).

I chose T-Mobile in the Santa Cruz mountains, which, admittedly, are in the
boonies (we have no cable, no water, no sewage, no gas for example). They
don't want to add infrastructure so we're zoned for 40 acres [16.2 hectares,
1.742e+6 sq feet] which means if you have 79 acres [32 hectares, 3.441x10^6
sq feet], you can still put only one house on that lot.

The only services we have are power and electrical (and phone but nobody has
a landline anymore) where it all must be underground from the last pole on
the street the house where nothing can be built within 100 feet of the road.

Given the fact I'm in the boonies, my numbers will likely be lower than
youers, where this is real time ad hoc signal strength data from my home.
<https://i.postimg.cc/xCbVQ2pj/signal02.jpg>

Roughly, when I turn off the internal towers inside my house, I get in the
mid to high negative nineties on cellular signal strength (dBm).

Here is real time technical data on signal speed at home on my phone (Mbps).
<https://i.postimg.cc/C5vgmtRd/speedtest15.jpg>
Roughly, when I'm on 5G, I get around 100Mbps to about 300Mbps speeds.

When I'm on LTE, it seems to be about half the 5G speeds (they fluctuate).
<https://i.postimg.cc/pdXF4Mtz/speedtest03.jpg>

The data is "unlimited" and it never stops, but T-Mobile says that they can
throttle if I go over 50GB/month on any one "congested tower", but that's
not going to happen anytime soon (I use about 1GB to 3GB a month lately).

The key point is that I'm miles from any carriers' cell tower (maybe ten by
road but maybe only four or so by LOS) so my signal should be as bad as
anyone's signal would be for a residential (but definitely rural) area.

Luckily the phone can roam for free as long as it can see any compatible
tower, whether I'm in the USA or traveling in Europe (I didn't check Canada
or Mexico).

I forgot to mention the free tethering/hotspotting (they call it the same
thing even as they're quite different to me) is only 5GB/month in the USA
and 0GB/month in Europe.

Overall, I think that explains my situation where I wonder if I'm one of
those people you speak of who don't evaluate the entire picture (based on my
needs).

How does your mobile plan & coverage & speed compare with mine?
Am I getting a good deal or a terrible deal or the same deal as you get?
--
Note I live in paradise so I don't vacation elsewhere as I can just hike in
the mountains and that's something most people have to drive to get to.

Joerg Lorenz

unread,

Oct 5, 2021, 4:49:12 PM10/5/21

to

Am 05.10.21 um 20:45 schrieb Wade Garrett:

> On 10/5/21 12:19 PM, Chris wrote:
>> Wade Garrett <Wa...@cooler.net> wrote:
>>> Like the Olympics- eight guys finish the race separated by only a couple
>>> of hundredths of a second. They're all fast as hell. What difference
>>> does it make...
>>
>> Only one of them is remembered.
>>
> That is a sporting event and if you participate, the idea is to win.
>
> Here, we're talking about effin' cell phone service fer cryin' out loud.
>
> Coverage, reliability and cost are the meaningful differentiators...not
> a gazillionth of a second faster load on your Facebook page ;-)

*FACK*!
Like small kids: Mine is bigger than yours ...
Speed is also a differentiator but not an important one for privat users
in the wild. There are simply no applications that depend on speeds that
are possible with LTE or 5G.

Wade Garrett

unread,

Oct 5, 2021, 6:29:50 PM10/5/21

to

You're missing the point of my post Robbie- that small differences among
the carriers data download speeds are essentially meaningless...given
that they're all at lest pretty good...and that the other three carrier
attributes iI mentioned are the meaningful differentiators.

I was not writing a treatise of how to select a carrier- which is what
you appear compelled to be doing here.

Lighten up, dude ;-)

--
I see what the problem is here. I'm talking in English and you're
listening in dumbass.

Chris

unread,

Oct 6, 2021, 4:18:03 AM10/6/21

to

Wade Garrett <Wa...@cooler.net> wrote:
> On 10/5/21 12:19 PM, Chris wrote:
>> Wade Garrett <Wa...@cooler.net> wrote:
>>> On 10/5/21 2:51 AM, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>>> Am 05.10.21 um 08:38 schrieb NewsKrawler:
>>>>> Fastest Mobile Networks 2021
>>>>> https://www.pcmag.com/news/fastest-mobile-networks-2021
>>>>>
>>>>> For our 12th annual test, we drove more than 10,000 miles, speed-testing
>>>>> AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon 4G and 5G in cities, towns, and rural regions
>>>>> all over the US. We found a radically new landscape−and a surprising winner.
>>>>
>>>> That is utter bullshit and at best a tiny little bit of anecdotal evidence.
>>>>
>>> Yeah well it all doesn't matter anyway.
>>>
>>> Everybody's network is plenty fast enough to easily handle any task you
>>> do on a little screen. It's all marketing BS and "We're Number One-itis."
>>>
>>> Like the Olympics- eight guys finish the race separated by only a couple
>>> of hundredths of a second. They're all fast as hell. What difference
>>> does it make...
>>
>> Only one of them is remembered.
>>
> That is a sporting event and if you participate, the idea is to win.

Exactly.

> Here, we're talking about effin' cell phone service fer cryin' out loud.

Right. So why make an analogy to the olympics, then? Your analogy didn't
work.

Wade Garrett

unread,

Oct 6, 2021, 7:17:50 AM10/6/21

to

Actually, it does. The point I made- and which you missed- is that
people make a big deal over small differences among similarly well
qualified/high performing entities and need a "winner".

I used the Olympics (all the athletes are top notch).

But I could have just as easily used the Miss America Pageant or Dallas
Cowboys Cheerleaders tryout finalists (all hottie babes) or maybe the
best shotgun from a collection of fine 19th century English double
barrels (they're all beautifully engraved works of mechanical art) or
maybe the best Old Masters painting in the Metropolitan Museum or Louvre
collections.

--
On the internet you can be anything you want. It’s strange that so many
people chose to be stupid.

sms

unread,

Oct 6, 2021, 12:23:12 PM10/6/21

to

On 10/6/2021 4:17 AM, Wade Garrett wrote:

<snip>

> Actually, it does. The point I made- and which you missed- is that
> people make a big deal over small differences among similarly well
> qualified/high performing entities and need a "winner".
>
> I used the Olympics (all the athletes are top notch).

IMVAIO, it's not a good analogy.

Olympic contests that are races have a winner based on a single
criteria, speed. Speed is all that matters, and a fraction of a second
difference in speed matters.

For mobile networks, there are multiple factors that determine the
"best" network. Speed, above a certain minimum threshold, is not a
factor that many people use in the selection of a carrier because they
would not be able to detect a difference in most cases.

What matters to most people is price and coverage. The subsidies on new
phones are also often a consideration. There are some other
considerations as well, like international roaming cost and
availability, freebies like Netflix, Spotify, Apple Music, Hulu, etc.,
and on T-Mobile free or discounted fast food items on Tuesdays, i.e.
this week you get $1 off a purchase at Dunkin', while in the past you
could get a free Taco Bell taco, or a free Burger King Whopper.

Read the report at
<https://assets.contentful.com/ob7bbcsqy5m2/5RH6DcqWKrNjbfGDPkfWkb/677aec385a91e8f1859703242aff739e/RootMetrics_US_State-of-Mobile-Union-1H_2021-FINAL.pdf>
which gives a comprehensive evaluation of the U.S. carriers.

Speed
-----
1. AT&T
2. Verizon
3. T-Mobile

Root Score Awards (Overall, Reliability, Accessibility, Speed, Data,
Call, Text)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Verizon: 264
AT&T: 217
T-Mobile: 16

A lot more detail in the report.

Alan Browne

unread,

Oct 6, 2021, 12:52:02 PM10/6/21

to

Look up what an "anecdote" is and get back to us.

Alan Browne

unread,

Oct 6, 2021, 12:55:30 PM10/6/21

to

On 2021-10-05 13:31, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 05.10.21 um 17:41 schrieb badgolferman:
>> The fastest speeds I’ve gotten so far are 641 down and 19.7 up.
>
> This is extremely bad. Mobile networks are symmetric. 19.7 up is
> early-4G-style.

They may be bandwidth symmetric, but they are not power symmetric. The
base station (towers) can output "the right" amount of power to each
receiver (phones) at full bandwidth, but the phones cannot output
adequate power all of the time given their transmitter, antenna and non
ideal location when transmitting. Thus, with reduced power, the actual
bandwidth is reduced.

Joerg Lorenz

unread,

Oct 6, 2021, 12:58:06 PM10/6/21

to

Am 06.10.21 um 18:52 schrieb Alan Browne:

> On 2021-10-05 13:29, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> Am 05.10.21 um 19:16 schrieb Alan Browne:
>>> On 2021-10-05 02:51, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>>> Am 05.10.21 um 08:38 schrieb NewsKrawler:
>>>>> Fastest Mobile Networks 2021
>>>>> https://www.pcmag.com/news/fastest-mobile-networks-2021
>>>>>
>>>>> For our 12th annual test, we drove more than 10,000 miles, speed-testing
>>>>> AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon 4G and 5G in cities, towns, and rural regions
>>>>> all over the US. We found a radically new landscape−and a surprising winner.
>>>>
>>>> That is utter bullshit and at best a tiny little bit of anecdotal evidence.
>>>
>>> Given their test method and presented data it is certainly not anecdotal.
>>
>>
>> It certainly is.
>
> Look up what an "anecdote" is and get back to us.

"Andecdotal evidence" is a terminus technicus. Come back when you
figured out what that is. Being precise the PC-Mag-survey is not even that.

Alan Browne

unread,

Oct 6, 2021, 1:10:42 PM10/6/21

to

On 2021-10-06 12:58, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 06.10.21 um 18:52 schrieb Alan Browne:
>> On 2021-10-05 13:29, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>> Am 05.10.21 um 19:16 schrieb Alan Browne:
>>>> On 2021-10-05 02:51, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>> Am 05.10.21 um 08:38 schrieb NewsKrawler:
>>>>>> Fastest Mobile Networks 2021
>>>>>> https://www.pcmag.com/news/fastest-mobile-networks-2021
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For our 12th annual test, we drove more than 10,000 miles, speed-testing
>>>>>> AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon 4G and 5G in cities, towns, and rural regions
>>>>>> all over the US. We found a radically new landscape−and a surprising winner.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is utter bullshit and at best a tiny little bit of anecdotal evidence.
>>>>
>>>> Given their test method and presented data it is certainly not anecdotal.
>>>
>>>
>>> It certainly is.
>>
>> Look up what an "anecdote" is and get back to us.
>
> "Andecdotal evidence" is a terminus technicus. Come back when you

1) You're casting it as anecdotal evidence.

Definition of anecdote.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/anecdote

> figured out what that is. Being precise the PC-Mag-survey is not even that.

The PC Mag survey sampled information in many places and published the
data and the reduction of same.
https://www.pcmag.com/news/fastest-mobile-networks-2021#our-testing-methodology

Not anecdotal.

badgolferman

unread,

Oct 6, 2021, 2:00:38 PM10/6/21

to

Alan Browne wrote:

>On 2021-10-05 13:31, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>Am 05.10.21 um 17:41 schrieb badgolferman:
>>>The fastest speeds I’ve gotten so far are 641 down and 19.7 up.
>>
>>This is extremely bad. Mobile networks are symmetric. 19.7 up is
>>early-4G-style.
>
>They may be bandwidth symmetric, but they are not power symmetric.
>The base station (towers) can output "the right" amount of power to
>each receiver (phones) at full bandwidth, but the phones cannot
>output adequate power all of the time given their transmitter,
>antenna and non ideal location when transmitting. Thus, with reduced
>power, the actual bandwidth is reduced.

I think the phone matters too. My iPhone 12 seems to have better
signals in places which had poorer signal strength in the past. Either
that or T-Mobile has expanded their cellular network around here.

Robin Goodfellow

unread,

Oct 6, 2021, 2:05:01 PM10/6/21

to

Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> asked

> The PC Mag survey sampled information in many places and published the
> data and the reduction of same.
> https://www.pcmag.com/news/fastest-mobile-networks-2021#our-testing-methodology
>
> Not anecdotal.

Alan,
You are full correct, and Joerg Lorenz is not only wrong, but a moron.
Joerg Lorenz clearly doesn't understand what the scientific method entails.

What he's doing is calling all facts he simply doesn't like, "anecdotal."
It's no different than when Lewis calls all facts he doesn't like "lies."
Or when Jolly Roger claims any fact about Apple by Gorden Kelly is a "lie."

What apologists _hate_ are facts about Apple products.
(Apologists prefer to life in a fantasy make-believe world of Apple's ads.)
--
What's hilarious is that even Apple's ads aren't even tested for bugs!
*iOS 11 bugs are so common they now appear in Apple ads*
<https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/16/17131148/apple-ios-11-bug-face-id-ad>

badgolferman

unread,

Oct 6, 2021, 2:07:44 PM10/6/21

to

badgolferman wrote:

>NewsKrawler <news...@krawl.org> wrote:
>> Fastest Mobile Networks 2021
>> https://www.pcmag.com/news/fastest-mobile-networks-2021
>>
>> For our 12th annual test, we drove more than 10,000 miles,
>>speed-testing AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon 4G and 5G in cities,
>>towns, and rural regions all over the US. We found a radically new

>>landscapeâˆ’and a surprising winner.

>
>This is no surprise to those of us who have T-Mobile 5G service. I
>have been reporting this for the past several months. sms will not

>like this however since it doesn’t agree with his narrative.

>
>The fastest speeds I’ve gotten so far are 641 down and 19.7 up.

Proof
https://ibb.co/jkDJLpw

Robin Goodfellow

unread,

Oct 6, 2021, 2:12:31 PM10/6/21

to

badgolferman <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> asked

>>They may be bandwidth symmetric, but they are not power symmetric.
>>The base station (towers) can output "the right" amount of power to
>>each receiver (phones) at full bandwidth, but the phones cannot
>>output adequate power all of the time given their transmitter,
>>antenna and non ideal location when transmitting. Thus, with reduced
>>power, the actual bandwidth is reduced.
>
> I think the phone matters too. My iPhone 12 seems to have better
> signals in places which had poorer signal strength in the past. Either
> that or T-Mobile has expanded their cellular network around here.

Hi badgolferman,

You're not an apologist so an actual adult conversation can be had with you,
where people discuss openly what they think and what they need to know.

While Joerg Lorenz is a moron not worth discussing further, I think Alan
Browne brought up an excellent point about asymmetries in speedtest results.

The high transmitting power of the cellular tower ties with the (presumed)
decent receiver sensitivity of the cellphone in the outbound direction.

But in the inbound direction, the puny transmitting power of the cellphone
has to tie in with the (presumed) excellent tower receiver sensitivity.

What would be interesting is to list those four typical values:
a. What is the typical transmit power of a typical cellphone tower?
b. What is the typical receiver sensitivity of that typical cellphone tower?
c. What is the typical transmit power of a typical cellphone?
d. What is the typical receiver sensitivity of that typical cellphone?
(Other things matter, like SNR, but those seem to be the most important.)

Without those four numbers, we really can't talk about what the speeds
should be in both directions.

I wonder if the moron Joerg Lorenz can supply us with those accurate values?

Chris

unread,

Oct 6, 2021, 2:51:51 PM10/6/21

to

The differences are not small.

> I used the Olympics (all the athletes are top notch).

Athletes are supreme beings and the pinnacle of human performance.

Mobile broadband is for the masses where differences in average speed can
make big differences to individual use cases.

> But I could have just as easily used the Miss America Pageant or Dallas
> Cowboys Cheerleaders tryout finalists (all hottie babes) or maybe the
> best shotgun from a collection of fine 19th century English double
> barrels (they're all beautifully engraved works of mechanical art) or
> maybe the best Old Masters painting in the Metropolitan Museum or Louvre
> collections.

There's no such thing as best art. Art is intrinsically subjective.

Robin Goodfellow

unread,

Oct 6, 2021, 2:53:10 PM10/6/21

to

badgolferman <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> asked
>>The fastest speeds I▔e gotten so far are 641 down and 19.7 up.
>
> Proof
> https://ibb.co/jkDJLpw

Hi badgolferman,

You're not an apologists, so, as an adult, you provide real world data.

Like you, I'm pleasantly surprised at the high speeds I'm getting on 5G,
where yours are three times mine, yet I'm still happy with what I get.
<https://i.postimg.cc/C5vgmtRd/speedtest15.jpg> (~100Mbps to ~300Mbps)

You can't graph received 5G signal strength on an iPhone but here's mine:
<https://i.postimg.cc/xCbVQ2pj/signal02.jpg> (~-100 to ~-90 decibels)

Those are far lower than yours will be most likely, but still respectable.

It's interesting that we're proving what we get, which from prior
conversations we know had to be _after_ we got our free or low cost 5G
phones, while others are showing uncaptioned maps which don't even have
dates (so they can be from ten years ago for all we know).

Worse, they're so zoomed out as to be worthless, given the area shown has
about 1 person per square mile (the Santa Cruz Mountains) in the center
(it's almost all completely public lands reserved for recreational use).

What matters, and what has always mattered, is the coverage and signal
strength and cost in the places you are in a lot, such as:
a. Your home
b. Your work (and commute)
c. Your frequent travel (e.g., a summer rental)

While coverage maps are merely advertising ploys, that's all we have other
than yours and my individual reports of signal strength & data speeds.

That is highly individualistic, so I suggest others look at these maps:
1. AT&T: <https://www.att.com/maps/wireless-coverage.html>
2. T-Mobile: <https://www.t-mobile.com/coverage/coverage-map>
3. Verizon: <https://www.verizon.com/coverage-map/>

Since I'm retired, my home matters, which is covered by all three.
What do those current coverage maps show for your area?
--
Note I have no reason to shill for any one carrier over another.

Alan Browne

unread,

Oct 6, 2021, 3:36:43 PM10/6/21

to

Could be. Or subjective. Providers are always improving over time (in
most places). IAC, the phone will never be able to adapt to all
situations very well, never mind output at the power levels that the
cell towers are capable of, and pretty directionally as well...

Joerg Lorenz

unread,

Oct 6, 2021, 3:58:13 PM10/6/21

to

Am 06.10.21 um 19:10 schrieb Alan Browne:

> On 2021-10-06 12:58, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> "Andecdotal evidence" is a terminus technicus. Come back when you
>
> 1) You're casting it as anecdotal evidence.
>
> Definition of anecdote.
> https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/anecdote
>
>> figured out what that is. Being precise the PC-Mag-survey is not even that.
>
> The PC Mag survey sampled information in many places and published the
> data and the reduction of same.
> https://www.pcmag.com/news/fastest-mobile-networks-2021#our-testing-methodology
>
> Not anecdotal.

Certainly. The results cannot be replicated. The results are of
anecdotal value at best and lack any scientific predication.

If you would understand which parameters influence the result of such an
undertaking you would undoubtedly agree.

EOD and temporary transfer to my killfile

Joerg Lorenz

unread,

Oct 6, 2021, 4:02:00 PM10/6/21

to

Am 06.10.21 um 18:55 schrieb Alan Browne:

> On 2021-10-05 13:31, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> Am 05.10.21 um 17:41 schrieb badgolferman:
>>> The fastest speeds I’ve gotten so far are 641 down and 19.7 up.
>>
>> This is extremely bad. Mobile networks are symmetric. 19.7 up is
>> early-4G-style.
>
> They may be bandwidth symmetric, but they are not power symmetric. The
> base station (towers) can output "the right" amount of power to each
> receiver (phones) at full bandwidth, but the phones cannot output
> adequate power all of the time given their transmitter, antenna and non
> ideal location when transmitting. Thus, with reduced power, the actual
> bandwidth is reduced.

Sure and it reinforces my arguments. Lousy base-station-planning bad
phone or both. All this is a marketing stunt.

Rod Speed

unread,

Oct 6, 2021, 4:12:30 PM10/6/21

to

Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote

They are actually fools stupid enough to waste great slabs
of their pathetic excuses for lives doing nothing useful.

> and the pinnacle of human performance.

Only in doing something completely pointless.

> Mobile broadband is for the masses where differences in average
> speed can make big differences to individual use cases.
>
>> But I could have just as easily used the Miss America Pageant or Dallas
>> Cowboys Cheerleaders tryout finalists (all hottie babes) or maybe the
>> best shotgun from a collection of fine 19th century English double
>> barrels (they're all beautifully engraved works of mechanical art) or
>> maybe the best Old Masters painting in the Metropolitan Museum or Louvre
>> collections.

> There's no such thing as best art. Art is intrinsically subjective.

That’s bullshit too.

Joerg Lorenz

unread,

Oct 6, 2021, 4:28:07 PM10/6/21

to

Am 06.10.21 um 20:07 schrieb badgolferman:

Only the donwload-value is 5G-style. The rest is mediocre at best.
Sorry to say.

Rod Speed

unread,

Oct 6, 2021, 5:14:43 PM10/6/21

to

Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> wrote
> Alan Browne wrote

>> Joerg Lorenz wrote

>>> "Andecdotal evidence" is a terminus technicus. Come back when you
>>
>> 1) You're casting it as anecdotal evidence.
>>
>> Definition of anecdote.
>> https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/anecdote
>>
>>> figured out what that is. Being precise the PC-Mag-survey is not even
>>> that.
>>
>> The PC Mag survey sampled information in many places and published the
>> data and the reduction of same.
>> https://www.pcmag.com/news/fastest-mobile-networks-2021#our-testing-methodology
>>
>> Not anecdotal.
>
> Certainly. The results cannot be replicated.

That’s not what anecdotal means. We realise
that english isn't your first language.

> The results are of anecdotal value at best
> and lack any scientific predication.

Separate issue entirely.

> If you would understand which parameters influence the result
> of such an undertaking you would undoubtedly agree.

Not that its anecdotal, because it isn't.

> EOD and temporary transfer to my killfile

That’s what little kids do, close their eyes, put their fingers
in their ears and chant "nyah nyah, can't hear ya"

Rod Speed

unread,

Oct 6, 2021, 5:15:55 PM10/6/21

to

Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> wrote

Nope, its competing with wired broadband.

Alan Browne

unread,

Oct 6, 2021, 5:32:48 PM10/6/21

to

Base stations are usually well optimized given the local constraints.

The only thing you could do to really improve the phones is to make them
bigger (larger transmission power) and have an external antenna array.
Not very practical.

How can it be a marketing stunt if it is comparing 3 companies? It's
clear you're just venting at PC Mag. But their tests were done in a
reasonable manner - controlled, data collected, reduced and presented.

Alan Browne

unread,

Oct 6, 2021, 5:39:27 PM10/6/21

to

On 2021-10-06 15:58, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 06.10.21 um 19:10 schrieb Alan Browne:
>> On 2021-10-06 12:58, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>> "Andecdotal evidence" is a terminus technicus. Come back when you
>>
>> 1) You're casting it as anecdotal evidence.
>>
>> Definition of anecdote.
>> https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/anecdote
>>
>>> figured out what that is. Being precise the PC-Mag-survey is not even that.
>>
>> The PC Mag survey sampled information in many places and published the
>> data and the reduction of same.
>> https://www.pcmag.com/news/fastest-mobile-networks-2021#our-testing-methodology
>>
>> Not anecdotal.
>
> Certainly. The results cannot be replicated. The results are of
> anecdotal value at best and lack any scientific predication.

BS.

>
> If you would understand which parameters influence the result of such an
> undertaking you would undoubtedly agree.

Anyone doing the same experiment should get similar results - but of
course not identical. Like most experiments of this kind, actually.

> EOD and temporary transfer to my killfile

Sure.

sms

unread,

Oct 6, 2021, 6:04:59 PM10/6/21

to

On 10/6/2021 2:32 PM, Alan Browne wrote:

<snip>

> How can it be a marketing stunt if it is comparing 3 companies? It's
> clear you're just venting at PC Mag. But their tests were done in a
> reasonable manner - controlled, data collected, reduced and presented.

Correct.

As long as people realize that they were _only_ conducting speed tests,
and only in places where all three carriers had coverage, the results
are fine.

The results also reflect what each carrier has been spending their Capex
funds on.

Verizon has been spending heavily on mmWave 5G so it's not surprising
that Verizon showed the highest maximum speed by around a 2 to 1 margin.
Verizon really wants to compete against Comcast and AT&T in home
broadband and acquiring the optimum sites for their 5G small cells,
before other carriers grab them, is very important. They also are
looking at the enterprise segment, which T-Mobile has never been
interested in
<https://www.fiercewireless.com/operators/head-start-5g-mec-gives-verizon-edge-enterprise>.
Whether or not Verizon can actually make any money from their mmWave 5G
investment is the real question.

T-Mobile has been adding low-band 5G to its existing 4G cells which
increased their average speed far above AT&T or Verizon, but has lagged
in mmWave deployment. T-Mobile had the poorest network availability and
the most latency, also not surprising.

Personally I would have weighted "% Above 25Mbps" higher since that's
the threshold below which users might begin to notice speed differences,
at least if they were streaming high-resolution video at 120 fps.

As others have pointed out, these small speed differences, that users
are unlikely to ever notice, are meaningless. In 2020, Verizon was the
fastest <https://www.pcmag.com/news/fastest-mobile-networks-2020> and it
was equally meangingless. 2020 was interesting because T-Mobile had more
than 13x the 5G than Verizon yet had much lower average download speeds.
5G capable phones now account for about 20% of phones in use, so LTE
speeds, where Verizon excels, are still important.

nospam

unread,

Oct 6, 2021, 6:17:16 PM10/6/21

to

In article <sjl6ia$j61$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> The results also reflect what each carrier has been spending their Capex
> funds on.

another diversion.

> Verizon has been spending heavily on mmWave 5G so it's not surprising
> that Verizon showed the highest maximum speed by around a 2 to 1 margin.

verizon's mmw coverage is *extremely* limited.

> Verizon really wants to compete against Comcast and AT&T in home
> broadband and acquiring the optimum sites for their 5G small cells,
> before other carriers grab them, is very important.

home broadband is not relevant to cellular coverage.

sms

unread,

Oct 6, 2021, 8:49:16 PM10/6/21

to

On 10/6/2021 2:39 PM, Alan Browne wrote:

<snip>

> Anyone doing the same experiment should get similar results - but of
> course not identical. Like most experiments of this kind, actually.

Joerg is wrong of course™. If you conducted an identical experiment the
results would be very close.

Of course the different entities conducting these tests rarely use the
exact same methodology when doing speed tests. Coverage tests are more
straightforward.

Robin Goodfellow

unread,

Oct 7, 2021, 10:57:51 PM10/7/21

to

Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> asked

> Only the donwload-value is 5G-style. The rest is mediocre at best.
> Sorry to say.

Joerg,

Did you read what Alan Browne suggested about the asymetric cellphone
transmit power (used to send data back to the cellular tower)?

What do you think average cellular transmit power is compared to the average
transmit power of the cellular tower, Joerg?

Is it symmetric?