T-Mobile Won't Stop Claiming Its Network Is Faster Than Verizon's (theverge.com) 106
T-Mobile says it will continue to claim it has the country's fastest LTE network even after the National Advertising Division, a telecom industry watchdog group, "recommended" that it stop doing so in print, TV, and web advertisements. In a statement given to Ars Technica, "NAD previously recognized third-party crowdsourced data as a way to look at network performance, so we looked at the latest results, and verified what we already knew. T-Mobile is still the fastest LTE network and we'll continue to let consumers know that." The Verge reports: The dispute arose earlier this year as part of a T-Mobile ad campaign that insinuated that Verizon's network was older and slower, and that its service did not feature unlimited plans. Verizon then filed a complaint with the NAD, which is a self-regulatory body of the telecom industry designed to settle disputes, avoid litigation, and protect against unwanted government regulation. Verizon said at the time that because T-Mobile was relying on crowdsourced data from third-party speed test providers Ookla and OpenSignal, the data was skewed in favor of T-Mobile. The data was pulled from a one-month period after Verizon first reintroduced its unlimited plans. Verizon's logic wasn't super bulletproof: the company claimed that because it had never before offered unlimited plans, T-Mobile customers -- who were familiar with the concept of throttling after a certain data threshold -- were more likely to be sampled in the crowdsourced data set provided to the NAD. Still, T-Mobile discontinued the disputed commercial, and the NAD felt the need to offer guidelines last week, advising the company not to claim its network was faster or newer. In addition, the NAD also told T-Mobile to modify its claim that it covered 99.7 percent of Verizon customers to make clear that the coverage is by population and not geographic area.
TMobile Rocks, Especially if You're Over 55 (Score:1)
https://www.t-mobile.com/offers/t-mobile-one-unlimited-55
Re: (Score:2)
I kind of doubt it, because users on all carriers would be doing the same thing. Anyways, I tend to think the third party crowdsourced data is probably more likely to reflect real world usage than Verizon's source, rootmetrics. Third party crowdsourced data looks at where the users are (i.e. in their houses, in their offices, or otherwise on private property, in addition to public property) while rootmetrics just measures places only accessible to the public.
Re: (Score:2)
when i called my cable company to complain about the speed of my home internet service (after stuttering on youtube prompting me to do a speed test), they told me that they would only accept a complaint like that if it came from a specific speed testing service, and to try it again with that one. what a surprise that this speed test registered my connection as being ~10x faster.
utterly shameless.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it wasn't already verified numerous times over that the speed tests are being gamed, you'd have a point. Your comment made sense 15 years ago. Now it is just a lie.
There are lots of examples online using traceroute. It isn't a hypothesis. It is a well established fact that cheating is the whole speed test market. The reason people still use them is that it does tell you the relative speed of your connection from one day to the next, as long as you ignore the actual numbers given which are horseshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Your comment made sense 15 years ago. Now it is just a lie.
No, it is quite true that it reasonable to use a standard measure and not an unknown. Maybe experiment design is a skill that isn't taught anymore, but when it is, removing extraneous effects that will lead to incorrect results is always a major design element. That means not testing against an unknown.
Since I didn't claim that they didn't game anything, calling me a liar for denying it is a bit, well ... ad hominemish.
There are lots of examples online using traceroute.
Traceroute measures latency, not bandwidth. In many cases not even that, given the rou
Re: (Score:2)
The only way to get a real number for your connection to your ISP is to use a server on the ISPs network that is set up to perform such tests.
Who cares about that though? My ISP doesn't host anything I'm interested in. They could deliver me gigabit speeds to their network and it won't do me any good unless the speeds from outside their network are good too.
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares about that though?
Anyone who is honestly trying to measure the bandwidth of their current network connection.
My ISP doesn't host anything I'm interested in. They could deliver me gigabit speeds to their network and it won't do me any good unless the speeds from outside their network are good too.
Do you want to verify that you have a gigabit connection, or just whine about it not being fast enough because other networks are slowing you down?
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who is honestly trying to measure the bandwidth of their current network connection.
It could be useful in determining where a problem is if you're not getting the speeds you want. Beyond that I don't see the use. What do you use it for?
Do you want to verify that you have a gigabit connection, or just whine about it not being fast enough because other networks are slowing you down?
I want a useful measure of how fast my internet connection is. As I said, I don't care how fast my connection to my ISP is, because I don't pay them so I can get a connection to their network. I pay for a connection to the internet. That's what I care about.
Re: (Score:2)
I want a useful measure of how fast my internet connection is.
Your connection to the Internet is through that line from you to the ISP. That's the bandwidth YOU pay for. That's the service you need to test if your connection speed is in question.
As I said, I don't care how fast my connection to my ISP is, because I don't pay them so I can get a connection to their network.
That is EXACTLY what you are paying them for. Access to the rest of the internet depends on having that connection to their network. They do not advertise, nor are you paying them for, a specific bandwidth gateway to other people's networks. (Yes, if you talk to Level3 or one of the other major backbone providers you might tal
Re: (Score:2)
That is EXACTLY what you are paying them for.
Nope. If that's all I got, I wouldn't pay for it.
They do not advertise, nor are you paying them for, a specific bandwidth gateway to other people's networks.
I'm not really even paying them for a specific bandwidth to their own network - it's "up to" a number. Though for some reason I have occasionally seen speeds significantly above that number.
But let's remember the context here. Someone said that his ISP was not accepting speed test data from arbitrary outside sources when he was calling them about the internet connection to his home.
There needs to be something between "downloads from this random server are too slow" and "we will only accept speed tests from this service that we have artificially juiced to make sure you always get good speeds". Without actual competition between ISPs we will probabl
Re: (Score:2)
You don't even comprehend the role that traceroute plays in investigating their reports, so why pretend you have something relevant to say? You don't understand the things you already said, so there is no rebuttal.
If you really cared to correct your blatant ignorance, you'd look it up on that cat/tube thing.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't even comprehend the role that traceroute plays in investigating their reports,
I know what traceroute is, what it does, and what it measures. I don't have to "comprehend" what role "they" thought traceroute plays in "their reports", I know what role it CAN play, and measuring bandwidth is not it. I also understand, apparently better than you, that latency and bandwidth are not the same metric.
Your insults notwithstanding, the fact remains. Proving that someone is "gaming speed tests" based on traceroute is nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you would have to have comprehended the role that the tool plays in a particular context in order to understand what the fuck anybody is talking about. That is always true.
And no, you don't know if you understand some other technical detail better than somebody else, or not. That isn't knowable to you. Therefore you wrong about it, even without knowing how much anybody knows about the detail.
Random words notwithstanding, it is already well proven that the speed tests are being gamed and instead of look
Re: (Score:2)
i understand that they would want a known source. i even acknowledge that my comment is almost off-topic, because hopefully the self-regulatory body of mobile providers would not green-light blatantly compromised speed tests for one provider.
however, your argument by hypothetical contradiction aside, yes, i will give more credence to the speedtest which reflects the poor performance i observe in practice rather than the suspiciously specific speedtest my provider tells me to use, especially in light of all
Re: (Score:2)
yes, i will give more credence to the speedtest which reflects the poor performance i observe in practice rather than the suspiciously specific speedtest my provider tells me to use,
When I get home tonight I will set up a data source on one of my Raspberry Pi systems that connects via a 10MBps link to my home router. Please set up a conference call including me when you call your ISP and complain that you aren't getting the 100MBps throughput you are paying for based on testing with my indisputably unbiased data source. I'd almost pay to hear that conversation. I'll mute my mic because I will certainly be laughing when you try to get them to act based on that data, and I'll laugh even
Re: (Score:2)
It is not suspicious to anyone who understands networks that they would want you to use a known source when testing your network connection.
Yes, it is. The ISP having control over it means that it's likely within the provider's network. That is, no peering agreements involved. That's not even really "Internet" speed. That's just private network speed - the speed you may be able to connect to other users of that ISP with, were it not for asymmetric plans being standard.
And they may even further cheat by geo-routing DNS for the test to a server at the nearest hop. How fast can you connect within your ISP's network to the nearest city? Not r
Re: (Score:2)
yeah, although i will accept his narrow nitpicking point about my claim, this autistic prick is missing the forest for the trees.
the ISPs, by and large, lobbied to have the definition of "internet" changed to include preferential peering, traffic shaping, and literally every hypothetically possible trick imaginable, and yet they want to advertise "internet speed" in the most advantageous way (to them) possible. nope. if "internet" now includes gaming the shit out of connection metrics, then the private netw
Re: (Score:2)
this autistic prick
We're discussing the bandwidth of your connection to the ISP. That you want to turn this into personal insult shows a lack of support for your argument, not your superiority.
the ISPs, by and large, lobbied to have the definition of "internet" changed
Of, for goodness sake. No, they haven't.
to include preferential peering, traffic shaping,
By "preferential peering" you mean gateway congestion, of course. And "traffic shaping" has always been a part of the TCP/IP standard. "Internet", as you call it.
and literally every hypothetically possible trick imaginable,
Hyperbole is your friend.
and yet they want to advertise "internet speed" in the most advantageous way (to them) possible
The do not advertise "internet speed". They have always advertised the speed of your connection. They cannot a
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it is. The ISP having control over it means that it's likely within the provider's network.
Yes, I think we've said as much. Why is this a problem?
That is, no peering agreements involved. That's not even really "Internet" speed. That's just private network speed
Yes, no peering gateways that connect to other networks. I think we've said as much. Yes, it's "private network speed", but it also the speed that the ISP has sold you. They haven't sold you "gigabit to every place on the planet".
And they may even further cheat by geo-routing DNS for the test to a server at the nearest hop.
As long as the limiting factor is your connection to their network, then it doesn't matter where in their network the server is.
How fast can you connect within your ISP's network to the nearest city?
No faster than I can connect to it in this city. If the test shows I have a connection that manag
Re: (Score:2)
They said "Internet speed" in their claim. You sound like a Verizon lawyer. If private network speed is all that counts, they could just sell you a gigabit LAN router with a dial up modem attached.
Re: (Score:2)
They said "Internet speed" in their claim.
Here is what retchdog wrote in the GGGP of this posting: "when i called my cable company to complain about the speed of my home internet service". "They" didn't say nothing about "internet speed".
You sound like a Verizon lawyer.
Where have I been talking about Verizon? Are they retchdog's cable company?
If private network speed is all that counts,
I didn't say that, and you know it. What I did say is that when testing your connection to the internet, measuring your connection to the internet is what is important, not measuring the output of someone's web server somewhere on the other
Re: (Score:2)
"They" didn't say nothing about "internet speed".
That is what they ISP calls it in their advertising material - they call it Internet speed.
Then your connection to the internet would be at dial-up modem speeds, now wouldn't it?
You said that the only speed that matters is your connection to the private network provided by the ISP. In that case, that would gigabit, not dial-up speed. And if your ISP is the one providing it, what difference does it make what its reach is? You said that any private network provided by the ISP is "The Internet."
Without peering agreements, most of "the Internet" (the actual service connection on offer) is inac
Re: (Score:2)
That is what they ISP calls it in their advertising material - they call it Internet speed.
I have never seen an advertisement for "internet speed". I've seen ads for the speed of your connection to the ISP. Can you provide a link to one?
You said that the only speed that matters is your connection to the private network provided by the ISP.
No, actually, I did not make such a blanket statement. What I actually said is that if you are talking about whether your home internet service is providing the bandwidth that the ISP is selling you, THEN the only speed that matters is the speed on the connection that your ISP is selling you.
In your contrived example, the speed of the connection would be 56k sinc
Re: (Score:2)
Can you see the forest yet or is your head stuck in a tree?
Using Ookla as a test, you can still test to a geographically close network that isn't specifically in the provider's own private network.
Yes, outside networks matter. it's the "inter" part of Internet. Few web sites are actually collocated within Charter or Comcast's network outside of some edge caching services. Just because they don't say "Internet" speeds, it's implied - enough that the FTC would assume they mean Internet. Secretly meaning n
Re: (Score:2)
"It is not suspicious to anyone who understands networks that they would want you to use a known source when testing your network connection"
Correct, it is ,however, suspicious to anyone who is familiar with the concept of impartiality that they get to choose their own reference. Double suspicious that they choose references that are not standard for their end users own personal tests. Triple suspicious that the results never align with real world experiences.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct, it is ,however, suspicious to anyone who is familiar with the concept of impartiality that they get to choose their own reference.
It isn't supposed to be impartial, it is supposed to be accurate, and there are technical reasons why using a server on their own network results in more accurate measurements. That removes the suspicion.
Double suspicious that they choose references that are not standard for their end users own personal tests.
I don't understand what you mean by this. If you mean it is suspicious because they aren't using the same distant servers from other people's networks to test their own network performance, well, no, it isn't. We've been over that point.
Triple suspicious that the results never align with real world experiences.
"Real world experiences" are mostly subjective, and depend on all kinds
Re: (Score:2)
"That removes the suspicion" No it does not. I am going to go out on a limb here and use hyperbole. But no one even here gives a shit about what you are calling "accuracy" What people want it an impartial metric to compare the performance of different ISPs to. If google.com takes 5 minutes to load on my PC I could not give a crap that your internal metrics tell you your network is amazing, because it is not, it is shit.
There are two roads, from your house, both go a bar . Your dipshit friend says "The roa
Re: (Score:2)
What people want it an impartial metric to compare the performance of different ISPs to.
No. Most people have one ISP. How do they compare two if they don't have service from both?
But even if they do have two ISPs, then comparing between the two is something very different than verifying if the service you are paying for is what you are getting. If you want to know if your connection to ISP A is running at "up to 100MBps", you test that connection using a source on ISP A's network. You don't use a source on ISP B, because that makes it trivial for ISP B to "game the result" by being slow in se
Re: (Score:2)
The use-case for 99.9999% of consumers is to compare ISPs. I am sorry that is just the reality. Not in having both at once, but to see if a switch is worth it between different providers. "Hey I just switched to FIOS can I now download my porn faster? Y/N if so how much faster"
You are right that the the system can be gamed, that is exactly the problem everyone else is pointing out here.
When ISP's force their
Re: (Score:2)
The use-case for 99.9999% of consumers is to compare ISPs.
Citation required. Since I doubt that 99.9999% of consumers have two ISPs with the same service from both, your claim seems to be outside the norm, and thus requires support. While I have access to several ISPs services, none of them are the same quality or level, so comparing any one of them against another would be useless. I.e., a speed test I do on my phone compared to my home cable internet would be meaningless, as would a comparison of my home cable to my business cable service (ignoring for the sake
Re: (Score:3)
You make a good argument, but it has been proven [androidauthority.com] that T-Mobile has been gaming the system of speed tests.
Not that Verizon is any better by going through National Advertising Division (NAD), which belongs to the BBB. Verizon is rated A+ by the BBB and T-Mobile is rated F. And I'm sorry, Better Business Bureau, but if you're going to lie for your paid member, you should at least try to make your lie somewhat halfway believable.
There is no way in hell that anyone would believe Verizon Communications would be r
Re: (Score:2)
You make a good argument, but it has been proven that T-Mobile has been gaming the system of speed tests.
Did you even bother to read what that link points to? The article you linked is a story about someone finding a hole in a network access filter. T-Mobile allowed access to websites that contained the string "/speedtest" even after paid service had run out.
That's not "gaming the system of speed tests". That's allowing people to run speed tests using devices that currently don't have service, as a way of evaluating the network performance. The only "gaming the system" going on was when the person who found
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I linked exactly to the article I wanted to.
And I'm sorry, but your assumption(s) that non-customers would be allowed to do a speed test is just complete nonsense.
The string "/speedtest" is not some random error. The kid didn't just stumble unto it by accident. Filtering by url to give false readings of speed is a well-known marketing practice that has been going on for decades. And that practice isn't limited to cell phone carriers either, many ISPs have done something similar. If you don't believe me
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see the issue there. They can only guarantee speed on their own network. The second you leave their network, they don't have control of those other factors. Worked for a cable company years ago. School district customer with a fiber connection complained about speeds. Seems he thought he'd be able to download at 1000Mbit from anyone he liked. We went out and put the light gear on his connection and tested it. Speeds were perfect. He was seeing slowing off network. We don't control the routing of traffic outside our network nor do we control the speed of the servers you connect to. Sorry, that's just not how the internet works.
I agree that they lose network speed control outside of their network. That doesn't mean the way they advertise on Internet speed is acceptable. The meaning of the word "Internet" gives you the sense of global (around the world). If they can't do it as global but still want to advertise their own network speed, then the word should "Intranet" speed instead.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that they lose network speed control outside of their network.
Then how can using a speedtest server outside of their network be suspicious, unfair, unethical, or "cheating"? That's what the claim is.
That doesn't mean the way they advertise on Internet speed is acceptable.
Here's how CenturyLink, as one example, talks about their "internet speed" (which they don't actually say): "Private, Direct Connection and Speed Claims: Private, direct connection and/or speed claims are based on providing High-Speed Internet customers with a dedicated, virtual-circuit connection between their homes and the CenturyLink central office."
Between their home
Re: (Score:2)
Then how can using a speedtest server outside of their network be suspicious, unfair, unethical, or "cheating"? That's what the claim is.
Who said I claim that? Where in my post say that it is suspicious, unfair, unethical, or cheating to use speed test server "outside" of their network? Reread again. I simply agree with the parent that speed test using server within the network could, of course, be guaranteed for the advertising speed. And that's cheating.
Here's how CenturyLink, as one example, talks about their "internet speed" (which they don't actually say): "Private, Direct Connection and Speed Claims: Private, direct connection and/or speed claims are based on providing High-Speed Internet customers with a dedicated, virtual-circuit connection between their homes and the CenturyLink central office."
And that's exactly what I am against -- wrongly use and/or associate the word Internet. They don't do it directly but attempt to play with words. Humans mind will attempt to associate what
Re: (Score:2)
Who said I claim that?
Nobody, including me. I said that was the claim.
They don't do it directly but attempt to play with words.
So they don't say it, but you want them to have said it, so you will assume they did and go from there. They didn't say it directly or indirectly. Nobody advertises what speed you will be able to get data from arbitrary sources across the internet. They can't. THAT would be false advertising, and their lawyers are smarter than that. No, instead, they are pretty explicit in telling you that the speeds they quote are for your connection to their network. Nothing
Re: (Score:2)
look, if they insist on using specific speed test then it's likely they don't throttle that one AND that they got their transparent proxy tweaked for it.
really it's no use complaining with them, switch the provider if you can.
they only will guarantee the last link speed, which is pretty useless.
Compromises (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Idiots (Score:2)
In addition, the NAD also told T-Mobile to modify its claim that it covered 99.7 percent of Verizon customers to make clear that the coverage is by population and not geographic area.
Why would anyone think anything else? X percent of Y refers to Y, not Z.
Re: (Score:3)
Because people will easily conflate "hey it covers 99.7% of the people" with "hey, it works almost everywhere that verizon does", which as a t-mobile customer I am painfully aware that coverage is much more spotty as I go to rural areas with t-mobile than my family members that use verizon. For a large portion of the population, *where* it works as they travel is critically important. On the other hand it pretty much doesn't matter *who* it can work for apart for yourself, so 99.7% of other people isn't a
Re: (Score:2)
"For a large portion of the population, *where* it works as they travel is critically important."
Citation needed.
If you carefully read, the statement is more in general and not specific to T-mobile users. It is for anyone (population). It depends on demography of where mobile users live and their activities. Ask yourself, which choice do you prioritize -- their service strength outside of big cities (especially when you travel) or the price? Does it really need a citation?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Or pay extra for Verizon to have the coverage.
The problem is if you travel, *even* if you never do something like go camping in mountains, even if you don't have relatives in a rural area, you *still* are likely to be going down some road that is neither urban nore even a major interstate and not have coverage at some point.
It's not a big enough issue for me to pay extra, but the advertising should at least not mislead people to think in terms of geogrpahy rather than demographics.
Besides, what does 99.7% o
Re: (Score:2)
I gotta admit, this made me chuckle.
AT&T used to have ads which claimed to cover 99% of all Americans. Not America--Americans. Sprint has some similar ads, stating that they're within 1% of all of Verizon's customers.
At one point, I was thinking of a Verizon ad which played on AT&T's old slogan, "We're everywhere you want to be" by saying that, "We're also everywhere you want to be--as well as a lot of places you don't want to be!" with a picture of a car broken down by the side of the road out in
Re: (Score:2)
"We're everywhere you are." led to "We're everywhere you want to be.".
I don't recall seeing an ad that flipped it around again.
How do you cover 99.7 one way and not the other? (Score:2)
In addition, the NAD also told T-Mobile to modify its claim that it covered 99.7 percent of Verizon customers to make clear that the coverage is by population and not geographic area.
That sentence made me do a double-take. How can T-Mobile cover 99,7 percent of Verizon customers without also covering 99,7 percent (or something very close) of the same geographic area? I suppose if Verizon had a small number of customers spread over a very large area it would be possible to cover 99,7 percent of Verizon customers but only, for example, 75 percent of the geographic area covered by Verizon. Still, I just do not understand how it can be in practice anything beyond a rounding error differen
Re:How do you cover 99.7 one way and not the other (Score:4, Interesting)
Because people don't use their cell phones exclusively at their billing address, which is what TMo is looking at. When I travel out of an urban area, I'm still covered by VZW. Not so much for those I know with TMo.
Re: (Score:2)
The summary says T-Mobile is looking at crowdsourced data, not billing addresses.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: How do you cover 99.7 one way and not the othe (Score:1)
If a cell phone only had coverage in a metropolitan area where phone service is normally had by many means, a cell phone has little use.
However, if the cell phone has coverage out beyond the city limits, or areas where one is likely to be without access to a phone otherwise, then the cellular phone has significant value. So it is something
That's exactly what the carriers complain about (Score:4, Informative)
> If Verizon's customer base were so skewed in that way, they would be spending very large amounts of money to serve a very small customer population across a very large area.
Just the other day we had a couple stories about a carrier sending notices to something like 0.3% of their customers, who live out in the boonies and are roaming on towers owned by another carrier, but they are streaming TV shows.
Consider some Texas counties. Harris county (Houston) and Dallas county each have millions of people. Loving county has 100 people. They are roughly the same size in terms of geographic area.
Suppose Verizon covers Dallas county and Loving county. T-Mobile covers Dallas county, but not Loving. T-Mobile would then cover roughly HALF the geographic area that Verizon does, while covering 99.996% of the people.
Re: (Score:2)
Suppose Verizon covers Dallas county and Loving county. T-Mobile covers Dallas county, but not Loving. T-Mobile would then cover roughly HALF the geographic area that Verizon does, while covering 99.996% of the people.
I get this and I get how in certain localized examples it might be the case. However, I don't really see how this can be the case on a national scale.
Also, as I understand, they are not claiming to serve 99,7% of the areas served by Verizon, rather they are claiming to serve 99,7% of the people served by Verizon. The latter would be a true statement in the example you cited.
The reality is that numbers can be sliced and diced many ways to seem impressive. "He has a batting average of .397 when battin
63% of people on 3% of the land (Score:3)
> I get this and I get how in certain localized examples it might be the case. However, I don't really see how this can be the case on a national scale
Nationally, almost two-thirds of the population lives in only 3.5% of the land area, according to one government publication. Another set of census data has 80% of Americans living in "urban areas", which total 3% of the land.
So it's very easy for the percentage of people covered to be very different from the percentage of land area covered.
This fact make
Re: (Score:2)
This fact makes all kinds of infrastructure in the US very different than other countries. We have vast areas, millions of square miles, with very few people. France has 1,717 people per square mile, the US has 85.
Your numbers way off! The French population density is 300.4 [wikipedia.org] people per square mile while the US density is 90.6 [wikipedia.org] people per square mile. So instead of having density ratio of 20 it's only 3.3.
Re: (Score:2)
Your numbers way off! The French population density is 300.4 [wikipedia.org] people per square mile while the US density is 90.6 [wikipedia.org] people per square mile. So instead of having density ratio of 20 it's only 3.3.
I guess you should use this table [wikipedia.org] instead of separated page link... And it shows that your number is still off a bit (France is at 93rd place with 319/mi^2 and US is at 185th place with 86/mi^2).
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you should use this table [wikipedia.org] instead of separated page link... And it shows that your number is still off a bit (France is at 93rd place with 319/mi^2 and US is at 185th place with 86/mi^2).
It really does not matter. Either way your numbers were off by a factor > 5!
Re: (Score:2)
It really does not matter. Either way your numbers were off by a factor > 5!
Not my number! >:(
Re: (Score:2)
anecdotally, i have a great experience with t-mobile while in nyc (even better than my friends with verizon or at&t), but it absolutely degrades to shit when i'm in the middle of nowhere.
statistically, i can't offer a thorough analysis. however, it's worth noting that i can cover 99.77% of the population of the entire United States while covering only 84% of its area. it is quite simple: omit Alaska entirely. similarly, i can cover 90% of the population while covering 51% of area by picking the top 25 m
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
i try. believe me, i try.
Re: (Score:2)
Verizon's customer base were so skewed in that way, they would be spending very large amounts of money to serve a very small customer population across a very large area"
That is exactly what they are doing.
The result is a stupidly high price which is basically a subsidy from urban populations to the backwater.
They do that because the average American is easily manipulated into spending more for services and features they don't need.
Our Network is Yooge! Yooge, I tell you! (Score:4, Funny)
I mean, hey, if Our Fearless Leader can do it and get away with it, why not everyone else?
Re: (Score:2)
RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know. I need to answer for the things I say, so I'm even shy of simplifying claims about complex processes because they can imply odd things in simplified form.
Then again, I'm an odd sort for a politician.
Re: (Score:2)
101 Mbps. (Score:2)
I turned off WiFi on my phone and fired up speedtest. And it turns out T-Mobie is actually better than my home ISP: 101Mbps download and 24Mbps up. I'm not sure what Verizon would be here, but why would I care? 101Mbps is fast enough for everything I use the phone for, and TMO is a lot cheaper than Verizon, includes more features for my money, and unlike Verizon is not run and staffed exclusively by slimy assholes. I know people do like to go on about Verizon's supposedly superior coverage. But I've o
Re: (Score:2)
Uhhhhh, the plural of anecdote is data. Where do you think data comes from?
I call BS on the Verge (Score:2)
Headline:
"T-Mobile Won't Stop Claiming Its Network Is Faster Than Verizon's "
Article:
"T-Mobile says it will continue to claim it has the country’s fastest LTE network even after the National Advertising Division, a telecom industry watchdog group, “recommended” that it stop doing so in print, TV, and web advertisements."
Those are two *very different* assertions.
Saying your "the best" in some way means absolutely nothing.
Saying you're "better than some specific competitor" is comparative ad
Actually, they're all the same speed (Score:1)
Oh, you meant bandwidth?