Inside iPhone 4S US mobile data: AT&T vs Sprint vs Verizon - Page 3

Sure, sure, the 4G everyone advertises is really 3.5G... I know that. Forget about the labels. The speeds I get on the Verizon network on my MiFi is by far greater and faster than the one I get on my AT&T. I get ups of 7-9 mbps and down speed of around 5 mbps. The best I ever get with my AT&T is around 2 mbps download and 1.5 mbps upload and that's not in big cities. In SF, New York, Chicago: forget about it. The network dies. I haven't tried the Verizon in bigger cities yet, so I don't know.

Showing 4G won't make the phone faster. All, forget about labels. Forget about 3G vs. 4G. All I'm saying is that the Verizon data network is by far faster than the AT&T network for all the locations that I travel to. Yours may be different. It wasn't used to be the same. AT&T was much faster than Verizon.

I live in San Francisco. I owned an ATT iPad 1 since launch. I work in the downtown area (Embarcadero) and my commute (at the time) pretty much covered a straight line across the city. ATT's 3G speeds were quite simply abysmal in just about every case. With the exception of one time (outside in Justin Herman Plaza where the iPad was useless anyway due to direct sunlight) I never got anything even approaching 1 mbps. down. Generally the range was more in line to almost nothing to, at the very best, 0.5mbps. That 0.5 was rare, and just to be clear, this was signal strength that indicated five bars - full strength. Basically, ATT 3G was next to useless.

Switched to a Verizon iPad 2 at launch and the difference is night and day. I don't get 2mbps down, more on average its 0.9 to 1.0 or a little higher, but that's a huge, massive improvement over what I was seeing with iPad 1 which again would take forever to lad a basic web page although showing full strength signal.

Probably the ultimate example was eating lunch in the local McDonalds. ATT 3g basically didn't work - a trickle of data at best, completely unreliable and unusable. But McDonalds has free wifi so no problem. When I got the Verizon iPad 2, I compared it's 3g speed with McDonalds' free wifi, and more often than not, Verizon 3g beat it! And guess who provides McDonalds free wifi? ATT.

I've seen many reports that claim multiple mbps down in SF. I don't know what magic square foot of SF real estate they found to get that performance, but in the real world, going where real people go and live and work, I was getting, at the very best, 56k modem performance. On the other hand I've been quite pleased with Verizon here. It's not great, but in terms of coverage and performance, it's leaps and bounds over ATT. Bottom line: If you get ATT 3g data in this city, do so at your own risk.

But this article is about iPhone speeds.
You cannot use the 4g network(that we cannot talk about with you) on the iPhone.
And it's the same for all other phones.
If you want to ignore labels, my connection is far faster than both 3G and 4g for both Verizon and AT&T combined!
And the lable IS i portant. Unless you have a phone which will work on the 4g network, you cannot use the faster speed.

So you used the same version of the iPhone (4/4S) on both networks?

Wish you could have bought itether while it was in the app store for a couple hours before apple booted it. It works via USB like a charm.
I agree- no way I'm losing the unlimited data. Unlike voice and text, I only see that going up in price.

It is all about being able to make decisions based on facts. If there are people in this world that can't do that then let them join the Occupy movement or other groups that are grossly out of touch.

As a side note I was very happy to leave Verizon when I first got my iPhone. Not so much because of the service quality but rather the attitude of the personnel in the Verizon shoppes. Frankly used car salesman have more ethics than these guys. I have never had such issues when in an AT&T store.

The funny thing here is that with either provider I could find places right here in Upstate NY with no coverage. The thing is I don't care because I don't expect any cell phone company to provide 100% coverage. I'm not certain when or why this became a way to judge cell phone services in the first place. I don't expect coverage out in the wild and frankly don't understand why others would. Think about it, such coverage demands cell towers at regular intervals in places where we really don't need such towers.

Your conclusion may make sense in your very speciic situation but let's be honest one can loose coverage with any carrier. Anybody that travels should realize this.

However what is really bothersome is this idea of yours that not having coverage, missing a call, costs you money. Let's face it if a missed call causes a client to look else where your relationship with that client is on thin ice to begin with. It really comes off as looking for someone else to blame for your inability to make money.


A businessman would have gotten that for free.

Yes but there are many ways to define " IT BETTER WORK".

If it is a chronic problem this is certainly an issue. However you seem to be under the impression that a cell provider can and should be able to offer 24/7 coverage over every inch of the planet. My point is they can't nor do most people really want such coverage. More importantly I object to the idea that you business can't withstand an occasional missed call.

Another way to look at this is to step back a bit to the days of land lines. Even with two perfectly good lines running to a house you still had service failures. Sometimes in the field, sometimes at the local branch exchange.

Verizon will fail coverage wise to a significant extent so what you are saying below is just plain garbage. Just because Verizon's coverage for you, in your area, is better doesn't mean it is comparable else where.

As to data rates for many of us the rates are important. On average Verizon sucks in this regard, so yeah a vendor like AT&T can be very valuable as they do have the performance where you need it. Slow data rates are not a benefit if they are so slow you give up on the service.

In any event my experience with both Verizon and AT&T covers a good portion of the east coast and more than a few trips out west. In the end AT&T wins hands down as it provides the best performance where I've needed it.

Beyond that in ever instant when I've had contact with an AT&T rep it has been a very positive transaction. Verizon on the other hand seems to strive to hire a bunch of a$$es. In the end doing business with professionals is a big plus and another way to go with AT&T.

Seriously, you try to pass yourself off as a businessman yet you reference this material as something that supports your position. Talk about not having a clue. The more you post the less anybody on this forum is going to care.

I'm still waiting for his intelligent rebuttal to refute AT&T having 100% of Fortune 1000 companies after he touted 96% as being so great that you must choose Verizon and only Verizon. I really think he read that as meaning the other carriers make up the other 4%.

You have totally blown your credibility here. You seem to believe that first the 96% number is honest and second that fortune 500's only use Verizon to the exclusion of all others. This is not the case at all. As stated before I really don't think you have a clue and tend towards really questionable data to support your position.

However the fact that he referenced it more than once really brings into question his ability to look at things objectively. Even if the 96% number was true ( I suspect marketing speak) the statement was carefully written to encompass a very wide range of services not all of which are cell phone services. It is just mind boggling to see this passed off in the way that is was by somebody claiming to be a businessman.

As to all of these numbers we need to realize that companies always try to paint themselves in the best light. However communications companies have a huge advantage when referencing the Fortune 500 or 1000, that is that large companies have plants and offices all over the place so sooner or later your company ends up providing services to the Fortune companies. It is almost impossible not too.


As to what he read into that statement I'm not sure. What I do know is that it isn't they type of material that one should be using to support any point of view. It is like advertising for a strip joint, there is a big gulf between what is advertised and what is reality.

I forgot about that. It's for Verizon Communication, not Verizon Wireless, so his claims that everyone should just pick Verizon are even more odd.

I'd guessing he's stopped posting for awhile once he realized his rationale was flawed on every level.

I have no doubt in my mind that in some areas AT&T just sucks. Building networks is a continuous process and in some areas that is easier to do than others. However that being said I've had very good performance from my IPhone and more recent with my iPad while traveling. In this regard AT&T has consistently done well for me, so this idea that only Verizon provides wide coverage is bogus.

As to the people in certain parts of California it is about time they wake up and blame their local governments as most of the issues in that state are due to excessive and at times Ill informed regulation. Then there is out right corruption so maybe AT&Ts coverage isn't that great but they have to deal with a mine field of ethical problems in California.

I'll say there are many areas where AT&T sucks. It's not just rural areas but in some major cities. That's changing with the new spectrum use but as you say people need to look at their governments because not being able to get a new tower for 3 years is absolutely ridiculous when it takes a couple weeks in other big cities.

Then there is the more local issue where customers want better service but don't want to have an ugly tower in site. It's hard to build something called a tower and not have it be an eyesore for someone. Even the ones that look like trees would be ugly if stuck just outside your home.

Maybe one day we'll have low-earth cellular satellites that will allow us to get rid of the towers altogether. While we're at it let's through in wireless power, too.

You have taken just about everything you have said out of context.

For one, the iPhone was not even prototype when Jobs spoke to Verizon or for that matter when he first talked to Cingular. Jobs first laid out his plans to Cingular in Feb 2005, (seven months before he introduced the ROKR and nearly 20 months before AT&T acquired Cingular in December 2006).

To say Apple, i.e., Jobs picked Verizon first or for that matter at all, is ludicrous. In fact, part of the reasons it took the deal [with AT&T] nearly a year and a half to come together, was Jobs insistence that not only did the price of their data plans have to come down, but more importantly, they had to build up and improve their wireless service qualitatively and quantitatively.

Small nitpick. Cingular acquired AT&T and then changed their name.

Smaller nitpick: Cingular acquired an offshoot of the former Ma Bell who had happened to name themselves AT&T and then changed their name.

It's nitpicks all the way down...

Can't argue there.

These numbers are mostly meaningless except to AT&T marketing people. It's a phone first, and AT&T does not deliver the same level of performance for basic phone calls.

If I have to wait 3 seconds for my email to load, I just don't care. But dropped calls, poor quality calls do make a difference. I'll my iPad for browsing data intensive websites.

If anything is marketing it's the results of another recent test that shows Verizon being ever so slightly lower than AT&T in dropped calls by 0.7%, AT&T having slightly better call quality on the downlink, and Sprint having slightly better call quality on the uplink.

• http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...ar_victor.html

That that each of the big three had wins and losses. It's not meaningless when you use your smartphone for data access significantly more than you use it for phone calls. This goes for all devices and carriers.

LTE speeds are more than "mostly meaningless" marketing but it currently suffers from power usage issues that make it less than ideal for most customers in 2011.

Also, when it comes to coverage, the carrier stereotypes of rural vs urban don't always apply. I worked out in a rural area of Texas in 2010, and the only carrier offering service was AT&T. The organization I worked for happened to be in a valley that created a small dead spot, but AT&T had service everywhere else. The other three major carriers ended their coverage 5 miles up the road toward the nearest midsize city. Not only that, but AT&T actually bothered to bring T1 lines all the way out to the towers so we could have decent 3G data service. The organization is hoping to work with AT&T on placing a tower on the hill they own that overlooks the entire coverage gap.

Aesthetics of tower sites is an issue, but don't forget the tin-foil hat crowd who are deathly afraid of RF emissions of any sort. They hold more sway over local planning and city council meetings that might think.

Having done my share of cell site acquisition work, I can tell you all it takes is just one citizen to torpedo an application for cell site. It ain't easy.

Is there any evidence that RF emissions from a cell tower can cause any sort of cancer or anything else dangerous? I thought that even the extensive cellphone study came back with RF not being causing brain cancer.

here is some testing of my own. fastest wifi will ever go is 39mb even with a 100mb wifi because iphone only has a single channel. even though iphone 4s has a 14mb capabilitys it wont go past 8mb with all the overhead packets. I build towers here are some examples.

There was a comment suggesting US carriers have been slow to build out their systems. Although that is true, zoning laws which govern the installation of cell sites are local. Many communities make it difficult and in some cases, impossible when applications are denied, to get antennas and/or cell sites in service. Each community makes its own rules and sets its own procedures. It is often months to get community approvals for a single cell site.

Im from New York City.On AT&T I get speeds in brooklyn that are 5-7 MBPS.I recently switched back to AT&T after snagging a VZW iP4.Verizons phone data worked in Manhattan.Most noticeably Times Sq where I work.AT&T's data completely craps out in Midtown manhattan its a known fact.Verizon while slower and the reason I switched still was able to deliver data in midtown albeit much slowly

Uhhh, sometimes you use the phone for a PHONE CALL and that's where AT&T sucks ...

Verizon is not the clear winner...that is bogus. Despite its better overall coverage and fewer dropped calls, it still has holes depending on where you are. In the western suburbs and exurbs of Phila (where I live), there are a lot of gaps, especially in more rural areas (Chester County, Lancaster County, Berks County). I know this because I had Verizon for 7 years. I even had trouble getting ANY signal in the school where I work, which is right near the Main Line.

AT&T, by contrast, works very well at my school and at my home. Data speeds, call quality and dropped calls have definitely improved in dramatic fashion since I signed on with them in 2008 (iPhone 3G at the time). AT&T also enables simultaneous voice and data, which is something I use frequently. The downside is that 3G data seems to "hang" even in good signal areas at times, and there a lot of "mini dead spots" even in some populated areas (spots where it drops to Edge or no service for say, 1/4 of a mile while driving).

The point is that it depends where you are and what poison you choose. I've considered bailing on AT&T, but their improved network over the years coupled with simultaneous voice and data has prevented it.

One final note on AT&T: When I first got my iPhone 3G, dropped calls and data speeds drove me BONKERS. I was dropping at least several calls per day. Data was at a snail's pace most of the time. I thought it was the phone until I traveled to Boston...it was like I had a different phone...fantastic data speeds and coverage. Things have definitely improved since then.

This one has not been getting enough coverage. The fact is that Sprint 3G is practically unusable by many subscribers both iPhone and non-iPhone devices. The influx of users has crippled their ability to provide service and Sprint has responded by doing NOTHING for users to compensate for the fact that they are providing 3G service that can average 200kbps for 8 hours a day! The are still charging 100% while providing that crappy service. You can see here that a single forum on Sprints website has over 400,000 views on this issue with over 1800 posts. http://community.sprint.com/baw/thre...=1860&tstart=0. There are posts from all over the country describing issues. I'd love to see the authors or someone else press a little harder to get some movement/response on this issue from Sprint. If you are considering Sprint PLEASE make sure that you test your 3G data speeds and verify that they are acceptable before your 14 day return window is closed. At this point based on service and customer service I could NOT recommend Sprint.

Nah, it's perfectly fair because the iPhone 4S is only using 3G networks on both AT&T and Verizon. Sprint backed the wrong horse.

The 3G network AT&T has supports HSPDA, depending on configuration can be between 1.2 and 84.4Mbits. This is not AT&T's 4G network, which is LTE. Verizon 's 4G network is also LTE, but their 3G network maxes out at 5.5Mbits. That's it. Plus the disadvantage of not being able to use data or voice at the same time.

Sprint's 4G network is LTE and WiMax.

See the problem? The iPhone doesn't use the 4G LTE networks of any carrier.

tftfy

I'm sorry, what? Since when does Sprint have ANY LTE ANYWHERE? WiMAX is their 4G.

Edit: lol, Wikipedia.

Addendum: HOLY CRAP, Sprint has LTE now! Guess their hand was forced by the iPhone. Well, and common sense.

If anyone is still reading this thread, I would really appreciate a response to this question. Since I'm not a technical person, do any of you know whether the limitation on WiFi speed would throttle 4g from Verizon? In other words if I get a Verizon hotspot and connect it to my iPad via wifi, would the wifi speed be less than the 4g speed?

Out and about in Toronto this morning using Rogers
Down/Up/Ping
7.73/1.03/82
8.16/1.14/69
4.51/1.14/80

Best I've seen in 1 1/2 months of off and on (12 tests) checking
8.16/3.23/55

ANY cell phone provider in the city is horrible. You can literally walk 2" in a different direction and lose all your service. I've seen this with Metro, ATT, and Verizon. It's the topography and lack of cell phone towers (and also the substandard service provided to Americans compared to European and Asian markets) to blame. Although I'm not a huge fan of cell phones anyway.