All useless drivel for the masses 1) Who gives a rats ass if you can hit 23Mbps if you may render a web page or at the least stream a 2-3Mbps video? Granted there is marginal battery life to stronger signal.
2) Do any of these vendors have magic LTE genies that give them wizardry of technology to make it better than the other, NO. Frequency matters for cell penetration....
3) What does speed have to do if you are speed testing next to the tower? Try driving around and answering that question. AT&T in the NorthEast SUCKS compared to Verizon, and Sprint is an F-. What were the speeds at the fringe, and what is the fringe?
4) When I first got my HTC-- kill the batter --beta Thunderbolt, the Verizon LTE network was a little ol babe of 1 month. Download an upload speeds were amazing (over 20 Mbps). Guess what put some load on it, now we are talking 7 Mbps--still FAST ENOUGH.
AT&T just launched LTE in my town like two months ago, so do you think it is at the saturation of Verizon LTE network that was launched 2 years ago here? STUPID...... BTW I can get LTE signal almost everywhere for Verizon now, AT&T not. My colleagues all have iphone 5 (AT&T) and try driving around Boston or NYC and keep a phone call going, or get consistent speeds, unless you are lucky to hit a hotspot.... One threw theirs last week, and now has a iphone 5 on Verizon. He is happy. I will say it depends HIGHLY upon where you live the experience of your cell vendor...
These metrics are all crap because what matters is consistent coverage and speed to render facebook and your webpage in 1-2 seconds. Nobody ever talks about that, because America likes big engines and just big. Also, nobody ever put out a metric to say: @ 23 Mbps you will burn through your 1 GB in say 400 seconds, and if 1 GB costs $15, it is costing you over $2 a minute to use your phone. When you think about that, $2 a minute on a voice call would be considered GOUGING.... Ahh the lemmings
AT&T can do no good It seems like AT&T can't do anything to please DSLReports members. People cried foul when AT&T called their 15Mbps HSDPA service 4G, and hailed Verizon's "true" LTE 4G as having superior speeds, even though it was unsaturated and had a fraction of the coverage of AT&T's 3G network.
Now AT&T has been aggressively building-out LTE, and they surpassed Verizon in both average and absolute speeds, and the argument changed to "Speed doesn't matter, coverage does."
I don't see why anyone is angry over this report. Competition is good. Verizon has forced AT&T to aggressively invest in their LTE rollout, which is good for all consumers.
Re: I agree...
said by Snuffbox:Really? That's a bummer. I have an old plan too.
I'm also still on the grandfathered data plan - however they will still throttle your speed if you use significant bandwidth...
AT&T LTE is good IMO My experience with AT&T LTE has been somewhat limited, as I don't often travel to areas with it. The fastest I've had so far was 51.55/14.08 Mbps while passing through Palo Alto on Highway 101. I passed through Bakersfield a few days before it officially went live there and got 42.72/12.94. In Vegas, it was somewhere around 10-15 Mbps down, forgot how much up. HSPA+ was useless there, barely 1 Mbps down and 1000+ ms latency.
For now, where I live AT&T has HSPA+, Verizon has LTE (surprisingly got it last fall, ~15k people in my town, under 90k in the county), and T-Mobile is EDGE-only. No Sprint. Outside of the main towns in the county (Ukiah, Willits, Fort Bragg), Verizon is mostly 1xRTT, whereas all of AT&T's footprint is HSPA+. It's pretty fun getting 4-13 Mbps down in the middle of nowhere . It's definitely good that Verizon did LTE in town, EV-DO was nearly useless from all of the traffic. My work Blackberry Tour struggled to get basic emails. The only way to get any amount of data in a timely manner was with WiFi, which unfortunately my BB doesn't support.