Rogers LTE speed tests. 1/4 mile times go here!

[Steve Punter]

Okay, here are my most recent tests, performed using the http://speedtest.rogers.com web page at the cell site located on Buckhorn in Mississauga (that just to the southeast of Eastgate Parkway and Eglinton). The second one is a big surprise, because its slightly faster than the theoretical maximum of 75 Mbps.

[Mr.Droid]

The best i got is this and this

[nmayooran]

Does this one win any prizes? It was captured on my Samsung Galaxy S II LTE at the intersection of Cawthra and Burnhamthorpe in Mississauga on Saturday Jan 21st at approximately 5 PM. This was actually the second time I'd seen speeds in excess of 60 Mbps at this location.

Attachment 78006

Cool According to Loxcel - Cell tower map, there is a 10MHz ( LTE ???? ) map right on the corner !!!!!

[Steve Punter]

Yes, the tower is right behind the Shoppers Drug Mart.

Sent from my SGH-I727R using Tapatalk

[AllanVS]

Just got LTE, sppeds down between 40 and 50 megs.

[AllanVS]

[QUOTE=AllanVS;14822563]Just got LTE, sppeds down between 40 and 50 megs.[/QUOTE

[Zman2k2]

From sitting on my couch in Calgary.

[for_shaggy]

I'm wondering if it's really worth the hardware upgrade. I'm currently getting between 7 and 10 megs down and 1.2 to 2 megs up on HTC Sensation 4G rom'd and running at 1.7ghz x2 and the battery lasts 2 days with lots of use. I really like my setup so is it worth the speed? Are u guys REALLY noticing a difference?

Any insight greatly appreciated.
Cheers,

[Steve Punter]

It is worth the upgrade but NOT purely for raw transfer rate. While this is the issue that everyone seems to harp on (because it has a decidedly greater WOW factor) it isn't really the BIG DEAL with LTE.

Where LTE puts HSPA+ to shame is in latency (ping times). Not only can LTE provide overall better ping times when signals are strong, but latency is generally unaffected as the signal gets weak. HSPA starts out with poor latency and it just gets worse and worse as the signal drops.

Why is latency MORE IMPORTANT than raw speed? When transferring a large file, latency is largely unimportant, but it is rare that this is what we are doing. More often we are transferring many small files (usually without knowing it).

Take a typical web page with tons of little graphics elements on it for example. Each of those elements must be transferred individually and each time the browser begins one of these small transfers you get a hit from the latency. Poor latency can easily add 5 seconds or more to a typical page load time (and even more in complex pages). Many apps also rely on transferring countless small chunks of data, each of which are delayed by poor latency.

So even if you managed to get a raw transfer rate of 10,000 megabits per second (10 gigabits per second), but a latency of 200 milliseconds, page loads would still be mind-bogglingly sluggish, even compared to a connection with a speed of just 1 megabit per second, but a latency of 50 milliseconds.

[xtachx]

If you use Skype, latency >>>>> transfer rate

Sent from my Nexus One using HowardForums

[howard]

Rogers LTE Rocket Hub @ McD's in Oakville with Treatz

[howard]

[howard]

hold on those tests were run with a download in the background...

[howard]

Here it is with no significant legal or illegal downloads going on in the background.

So that's a Rogers LTE Rocket Hub on 2600Mhz ONLY connected to my laptop via RJ45 (a grey one) at McD's in Oakville with Treatz sitting next to me.

[howard]

At 95Mbps you can go through a 10GB Rogers LTE data plan in under 15 minutes.