Study: AT&T LTE Outperforms Verizon LTE

It outperformed verizon lte on a network that is practically empty. much like verizon beating sprint when no one was on verizon lte yet.

said by tiger72
They certainly can't make an assessment like that without asking Verizon directly about traffic in their area when running their tests.

The facts are pretty obvious that Verizon's LTE network has been around for over a year in most cities, while ATT's LTE has only been out for a couple months.
[/BQUOTE :

You say the facts are pretty obvious. I'm interested to hear what facts those are aside from the number of cities that you have available to lead you to believe your knowledge is greater than the company that performed this study. Sounds like to me you're just rationalizing it to your perception of AT&T versus actually taking what the study that was done by experts presents..

By the way, where are these "facts" (aside from number of cities) that you say you have that lead you to believe this study is totally bunk? I challenge you to present them here..(won't hold my breath).

As to your point about Verizon's network saturation... a simple google search will lead you to multiple sources that state their LTE subscriber base is appox 565,000.... that's right.. 565K.. you call that network saturation? Out of ~100mil subscribers.. ha, it's laughable... next time, take even 2 min to do some research and you may rethink your post.

Certainly not faster in NYC:

verizon's 3g's is slower than t-mobile or att 3g's. at&t 3g is notcably wider than verizon's 4g lte.

Too bad neither verizon nor sprint never upgraded their markets early to hspa+ Much like cmda carriers in Canada or Europe have done it. There would have been more smartphone competition.

verizon's 3g's is slower than t-mobile or att 3g's. at&t 3g is notcably wider than verizon's 4g lte.

No, it's not that I'm a VZW fanboy; it's more that I've watched AT&T's network down here turn from a solid network to complete shit, despite the fact that they were told about it and even their local corporate stores knew it.

Personally, I don't care what carrier I'm on, as long as it meets my needs. I don't really care which network is faster. If the slower one is fast enough and more stable, then that's the one I'll go with. Personally, I prefer GSM over CDMA, but, as I said, AT&T's service here went downhill in a hurry, and T-Mobile has issues in some big buildings, so that left VZW, Sprint, and Southern LINC. SoLINC is iDEN, so that won't work, since there's no fast data, and I used to have Sprint (and I know people who still do), and their coverage here isn't that good. So that left only VZW, which is where I am now. If their service deteriorates, I'll reevaluate and go somewhere else.

But if you think I'm a fanboy for saying what works best for me, then feel free. You'd be wrong, of course, but feel free.

Actually, AT&T didn't take over. It's just that BellSouth wouldn't allow Cingular to be renamed AT&T while they were a partner in it with AT&T (formerly SBC). Then, AT&T bought BellSouth and renamed everything.

In this area, I think what caused AT&T's problems is that they started directing phones to camp on 1900 instead of 850. While the 850 network has been solid, 1900 isn't so solid, and they were sending phones up to 1900 even in spots where the 1900 signal was weak enough to be unusable. The effect was that, even if you had a solid 850 signal, you could still have bad service because your phone was being directed to camp on 1900. From reading HoFo, this wasn't just affecting Tuscaloosa but was happening all over north and central Alabama. At one point, in early 2010, it reached the point that AT&T phones in Tuscaloosa were pretty much unusable. I happened to see a former coworker at lunch and asked her if she was having problems, and she actually said that was the first day in two weeks that she could make a call. I actually went on AT&T's FB page and told them that they had a serious network problem down here, and some other folks from the area also joined in. It ended up turning into a huge pile-on, where people were coming out of the woodwork to say how bad things here had gotten, but all the AT&T mod would say was that they were working to make the network "better than ever". No acknowledgment whatsoever that there was a problem or an ETA on when it would be fixed.

That was about the point when my wife said that she thought it was time to make a change, so we ported to VZW and paid the ETF. Money well spent, IMHO.

I call BS on VZ being slower than at&t on 3G. I put my VZ D2G next to a friends' at&t Captivate. His download was around 300k while mine was around 1.5-2mbps. As for upload, I laughed. His was 56k (yes, I'm serious) and mine was around 500k. This was in Billings and Sheridan.

verizon's 3g's is slower than t-mobile or att 3g's. at&t 3g is notcably wider than verizon's 4g lte.

I'll take slower speed on Sprint's unlimited data than get blazing fast speed and constantly have to watch my usage on AT&T. I'm voting for Sprint/iPhone 5 this year.

2) Actually getting service. Which is still why LTE which would fall back to CDMA on dual band and tri-band phones, since CDMA phones work better in downtown urban environments since the signal and travel farther and you need less cell sites than GMS phones.