|
AT&T bests rivals in 13-city 3G speed test
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 23 February, 2010
PCWorld has reported this week the results of their annual 13-city 3G wireless data test, and the changes in results from last year are drastic.
Averaging the lowest average download and upload speeds last year, AT&T has brought itself back, registering the best average speeds for this year, including the best performance in 10 of the 13 cities, besting rivals Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint.
... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
Member
|
23. February 2010 @ 21:14 |
Link to this message
|
Very impressed... Props for ATT...
I hope sprint get back in game, cause they have best prices on smartphones for me at least... But i realy wish i had verizon reliability and freedon of T-mobile that seems to adopt worldwide(sim cards) technology and has nexus one...
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
|
jetyi83
Member
|
23. February 2010 @ 21:26 |
Link to this message
|
|
att's reliability is 85 and 95% in new york and san francisco? Something is up with that data for sure.
|
|
jetyi83
Member
|
23. February 2010 @ 21:34 |
Link to this message
|
ive used att and tmobile this year, as well as sprint a few years ago. They all suck in comparison to Verizon, at least up here. I live in very northern ca and there isnt much around up here. Im completely surprised by how much coverage Verizon has even when im driving hours into the middle of ballsville.
|
|
llongtheD
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
23. February 2010 @ 22:38 |
Link to this message
|
|
I do not live in one of these cities, so I can't speak of the validity of the test results. I do currently have AT&T as a carrier, and am not overly impressed with the 3G performance in my area.
I have had a subscription to PC world, and dropped it because their tests and reviews are slanted at best. I could be wrong but it seemed like alot of their tests and reviews were almost like paid advertisements for companies. That is only my opinion, but I get no where near the speeds shown in these charts even when the signal is excellent.
If your fish seems sick, put it back in the water.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 23. February 2010 @ 23:10
|
|
dragnandy
Senior Member
|
23. February 2010 @ 23:52 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by jetyi83:
ive used att and tmobile this year, as well as sprint a few years ago. They all suck in comparison to Verizon, at least up here. I live in very northern ca and there isnt much around up here. Im completely surprised by how much coverage Verizon has even when im driving hours into the middle of ballsville.
okay, now I know your lying because you just said 'ballsville'
|
|
sailow
Newbie
|
24. February 2010 @ 00:29 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Originally posted by jetyi83:
ive used att and tmobile this year, as well as sprint a few years ago. They all suck in comparison to Verizon, at least up here. I live in very northern ca and there isnt much around up here. Im completely surprised by how much coverage Verizon has even when im driving hours into the middle of ballsville.
okay, now I know your lying because you just said 'ballsville'
a quick google brings you to Ballsville, VA. Yay for balls !
I know it's just averaged but, anyone else from Sprint getting downloads speed up to 1500? - New York
|
|
xnonsuchx
Senior Member
|
24. February 2010 @ 08:11 |
Link to this message
|
|
I'm on Verizon, but not any 'smartphone.' I live in Seattle and can attest to the fact that none of my friends w/ iPhones report the problems many others online do...and those charts seem to show why.
|
Senior Member
5 product reviews
|
24. February 2010 @ 22:26 |
Link to this message
|
|
If that's the case, then tell me this: why in the hell is 3 towers of at&t blocking my reception for verizon? before the 3rd one went up we got at the very least decent service on EVDO coverage with 2 bars, but not i'm lucky to get EDVO coverage at all, let alone a 1X coverage with 1 or 2 bars. yeah, that tells me alot about at&t's coverage: needs 3 towers to overtake verizon's one, smooth move indeed!! (rolls eyes)
|
|
salsa36
Member
|
26. February 2010 @ 11:26 |
Link to this message
|
|
It's a very interesting study, now is it always done using the same cities????
I don't see Philadelphia and let me tell you I use AT&T here just because of my Iphone and I can tell you that AT&T sucks. I don't believe this so called "study" Maybe AT&T paid for it or something or I should move to one of those cities to haver a decent service.
|
|
hermes_vb
Senior Member
|
27. February 2010 @ 10:57 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by jetyi83:
att's reliability is 85 and 95% in new york and san francisco? Something is up with that data for sure.
Yeah. Somehow I don't buy it either.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
peluynati
Senior Member
|
27. February 2010 @ 15:01 |
Link to this message
|
|
if they checked it in my city they would have to drive around for an hour to find decent signal.
|
