T-Mobile smokes Verizon, AT&T in 5G Speedtest

[@TheRealDanny]

Color that map magenta. T-Mobile was the fastest mobile operator in 45 states and the District of Columbia during Q4 2022, according to Ookla’s Speedtest report. AT&T was deemed fastest in two states during the same period. Results were too close to call in three states.


https://www.fiercewireless.com/5g/t-...t-5g-speedtest





Sent from my iPhone using HoFo

[formercanuck]

Speed is good. Consistency is decent. The biggest problem with TMobile still is rural. TMobile wins over a lot of urban for price and performance... not so much on rural.

Sent from my SM-G991U using HoFo mobile app

[mwdewey]

Speed is good. Consistency is decent. The biggest problem with TMobile still is rural. TMobile wins over a lot of urban for price and performance... not so much on rural.

Sent from my SM-G991U using HoFo mobile app

In some parts of the country T-Mobile is doing quite well in rural coverage and service. Here in Oklahoma they have upgraded every site with at least Band 71 5G and have decent coverage, better 5G coverage than AT&T and FAR more 5G than Verizon. And they are upgrading some very small towns as little as 2-300 people with 5G UC. You can get T-Moble Home Internet everywhere even if you only have Band 71 5G in the area. Several friends here in town and in the country have it and they all say it works very well. This is just one state but T-Mobile has done a good job so far. Is it perfect? Definitely not, they need more sites and more sites on existing towers IN some communities instead of 5-10 miles outside them in order to provide better coverage. They are not done and have much more work to do.

[formercanuck]

I will agree that 'not all places are equal' and in general. At&t / VZW in many places have more .. rural LTE and in general service than T-Mobile has LTE/5G. Some of these places are great ... others not so.
Eg. San Simeon - pop 450 has 5G UC and covers the entire town (motel strip)
5 miles south is Cambria, population +4000, has 5GUC and covers ~25% of the town. Most of the rest of the town has little to no service, and are fed from sites north and south of town (10miles in some cases).

Similarly, Santa Paula to Fillmore, CA is 'covered' by a site in the hills near Santa Paula with 5G UC. Service shows 4bars, performance is ~0.1Mbps typically. AT&T/VWZ have sites in between the towns.

[PaulCrawhorne]

Well here in rural NW CT TMO has over the past few years done incredible upgrading!

And not just along main roads, but up in the wooded hills ATT is geographic coverage king. VZW stinks, only good in populated areas.

Very few TMO subscribers so for 3 years now it feels like I have my own personal tower up the hill near my house.

Never get less than 30Mbps, with a 5G device often over 150Mbps.

So we use it for our home internet, both faster and cheaper than the (ex ATT) wired DSL.

[formercanuck]

I do agree that where T-Mobile has deployed n41/n71 and even enabled n25, T-Mobile will outperform AT&T and VZW.

Where the issue lies - is that in general, T-Mobile's coverage is 'in many areas' insufficient.
Eg. Between Santa Paula, CA and Fillmore CA, T-Mobile has no towers. Signal still appears 'decent', but is unusable for much of that area (~0.1Mbps or less) - even under N41.
AT&T and Verizon have 2 towers each in between.
For 2G/3G text and voice, it's probably fine.

[brad15]

I do agree that where T-Mobile has deployed n41/n71 and even enabled n25, T-Mobile will outperform AT&T and VZW.

Where the issue lies - is that in general, T-Mobile's coverage is 'in many areas' insufficient.
Eg. Between Santa Paula, CA and Fillmore CA, T-Mobile has no towers. Signal still appears 'decent', but is unusable for much of that area (~0.1Mbps or less) - even under N41.
AT&T and Verizon have 2 towers each in between.
For 2G/3G text and voice, it's probably fine.

CA from personal experience is full of red tape - I used to hate dealing with permitting out there a decade ago.. and i'm betting it's even worse now. People can be their own worst enemy when you have people in the community consistently fighting things for "asthetic" value, or on things like "radiation" when not actually understanding what they're arguing.

I know around here, rurally it's 10x better than it was even two years ago, and I've got plenty of places where Verizon is weak/congested and T-Mobile is chugging along just fine.

[DRC72]

Well here in rural NW CT TMO has over the past few years done incredible upgrading!

And not just along main roads, but up in the wooded hills ATT is geographic coverage king. VZW stinks, only good in populated areas.

Very few TMO subscribers so for 3 years now it feels like I have my own personal tower up the hill near my house.

Never get less than 30Mbps, with a 5G device often over 150Mbps.

So we use it for our home internet, both faster and cheaper than the (ex ATT) wired DSL.

Never used Verizon in CT, but from my understanding their a close second to AT&T.

[formercanuck]

CA from personal experience is full of red tape - I used to hate dealing with permitting out there a decade ago.. and i'm betting it's even worse now. People can be their own worst enemy when you have people in the community consistently fighting things for "asthetic" value, or on things like "radiation" when not actually understanding what they're arguing.

I know around here, rurally it's 10x better than it was even two years ago, and I've got plenty of places where Verizon is weak/congested and T-Mobile is chugging along just fine.

While I do agree that permitting in CA and Nimby is a problem, we're also talking about rural areas where Amer Tower/Crown Castle do have sites, and AT&T has built out a lot in recent years in these areas, while TMobile has mostly added B71/B12 and n71 to 'cover'.
Oddly enough they have pretty much in rural CA what Pacbell wireless had 20 years ago.

Sent from my SM-G991U using HoFo mobile app

[brad15]

While I do agree that permitting in CA and Nimby is a problem, we're also talking about rural areas where Amer Tower/Crown Castle do have sites, and AT&T has built out a lot in recent years in these areas, while TMobile has mostly added B71/B12 and n71 to 'cover'.
Oddly enough they have pretty much in rural CA what Pacbell wireless had 20 years ago.

Sent from my SM-G991U using HoFo mobile app

And i'm betting they'll "get to it" when they're done dealing with fully getting sprint's billing system/backend 100% offline.

There's priority area for build and densification - and that's generally where the current T-Mobile/Sprint customers are to keep churn down and once they hit the percentage they want with that, they can move onto parts of CA (or other rural areas) that are not covered yet.

Sprint had a decent build here in the midwest, so it's been easy for T-mobile to just modernize those sites with n71/b12 and densify it.. as they're mostly legacy sites OG spaced for PCS.

One thing I can remember from the industry though: they WILL save the pain in the *** permitting areas for last. Even those pre-built sites will require permits, and they will go where the low hanging fruit is as far as planning/permitting first and save the pain in the *** areas for dead last if they can.

AT&T has been building due to government requirements for FirstNet and your tax dollars helping that along to grease the wheel - if it were not for that I doubt all that building would have been done

[formercanuck]

There's priority area for build and densification - and that's generally where the current T-Mobile/Sprint customers are to keep churn down and once they hit the percentage they want with that, they can move onto parts of CA (or other rural areas) that are not covered yet.

Some of this, T-Mobile will have a deadline to meet with the CPUC. Many parts of T-Mobile's 'urban' coverage are pretty good in CA. Suburban varies, and rural is hot or cold.


'https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M333/K367/333367934.PDF

The Decision orders the merged company to implement the following to benefit consumers:
 Provide 5G wireless service with speeds of at least 100 Mbps to 99 percent of California’s
population by the end of 2026, and 300 Mbps to 93 percent by the end of 2024.
 Provide 5G wireless service with speeds of at least 100 Mbps to 85 percent of California’s
rural population, and speeds of at least 50 Mbps available to 94 percent of California’s rural
population, by the end of 2026.
 Have fixed home Internet access available to at least 2.3 million California households, of
which at least 123,000 are rural households, within six years

I suspect that the rural part may be more challenging - as they will have to build in some areas. The real question comes more like counting votes. Who determines what is a rural customer, and what determination is used for the 50Mbps, 100Mbps or 300Mbps metrics ?

[mframe]

Never used Verizon in CT, but from my understanding their a close second to AT&T.

As I recall, in NW CT, the old AT&T had one of the cellular licenses and Cingular had the other (statewide). AT&T wanted to sell that corner licence, but preferably not to their major competitor, Verizon. They sold it to Alltel, who never did much with it, and when Alltel started selling off licenses, Verizon finally got it.

As Paul C notes, I think Cingular (now AT&T) put more effort into the rural coverage, there.

[brad15]

Some of this, T-Mobile will have a deadline to meet with the CPUC. Many parts of T-Mobile's 'urban' coverage are pretty good in CA. Suburban varies, and rural is hot or cold.


'https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M333/K367/333367934.PDF



I suspect that the rural part may be more challenging - as they will have to build in some areas. The real question comes more like counting votes. Who determines what is a rural customer, and what determination is used for the 50Mbps, 100Mbps or 300Mbps metrics ?

And then not to mention... how are they actually going to hold them accountable? They have zero jurisdiction to make them sell spectrum... and it'll be a lenghthy process to try and revoke them doing business in California.. especially with as many CA jobs they create.

They'll get the coverage done, but i'm betting it will not be 100% up to the agreement originally setteled upon.. it's not like they can "unmerge" T-Mobile and Sprint at that point.

[formercanuck]

And then not to mention... how are they actually going to hold them accountable? They have zero jurisdiction to make them sell spectrum... and it'll be a lenghthy process to try and revoke them doing business in California.. especially with as many CA jobs they create.

They'll get the coverage done, but i'm betting it will not be 100% up to the agreement originally setteled upon.. it's not like they can "unmerge" T-Mobile and Sprint at that point.

Not much they can do outside of financial punishment. I suspect that nothing will happen, or some palms will be greased under the table.
Consumers will have better leverage for rural service.

[DRC72]

As I recall, in NW CT, the old AT&T had one of the cellular licenses and Cingular had the other (statewide). AT&T wanted to sell that corner licence, but preferably not to their major competitor, Verizon. They sold it to Alltel, who never did much with it, and when Alltel started selling off licenses, Verizon finally got it.

As Paul C notes, I think Cingular (now AT&T) put more effort into the rural coverage, there.

Yeah, I do remember AT&T having a spare 850 license up in Litchfield County. It’s funny how Verizon got it anyways. How is Verizon’s network up in Litchfield County?