T-Mobile's LTE network, live in 2013

[Bateluer]

However, to actually get enough of the cable (keep in mind this is miles and miles of them) and then to actually lay it down - it is VERY expensive. Verizon FiOS is the only real service in America that gets fiber direct to the home - most other cable companies have fiber that is laid to a local box or center near neighborhoods, with the final stretch to homes being done by standard cables, which are much slower.

Hasn't Verizon basically stopped running new fiber for FiOS? If it isn't available in your area, you're not going to ever get it.

The nice thing is that it'll still hit 5-15mbps in sub-optimal conditions, so it makes certain things (like video calling and streaming) bearable.

Streaming Netflix should work just fine on a 1Mbps connection, which I've done pretty often with Verizon 3G. Not sure about video calling though, never done it.

 

[Headcase_Fargone]

Hasn't Verizon basically stopped running new fiber for FiOS? If it isn't available in your area, you're not going to ever get it.

Yeah I think it's available in five or six households across the country now. Glad to see they didn't squander those millions from the government.

 

[Fox5]

Yeah I think it's available in five or six households across the country now. Glad to see they didn't squander those millions from the government.

I'm pretty sure last mile fiber is a gimmick. We're not even closer to saturating bandwidth of copper on home connections, but the cost difference is minimal, and fiber gives room for expansion later (and has other nice properties versus copper). Verizon just has a newer and higher capacity network than Comcast, Comcast generally matches Verizon's speeds in any area Fios is offered, they just don't need to in 99% of the country because Fios has such a small roll out.

 

[kaerflog]

So it's not necessarily that wireless/4G can be faster than cable - a hard wire is still the fastest way to transfer data, with minimal latency and minimal interference - it's just that in practicality terms, it is much easier to have wireless implemented

^^ That is true right there.
I have RR light which limit me to 1mbps compared to my Tmobile HSPA+ which gets 7-10mbps in my house and I can tell you that my cable is faster.
I've tethered my phone to my laptop at home before to see how surfing the net would be and its unbearable. Its not consistent at all.

 

[lothar]

I'm pretty sure last mile fiber is a gimmick. We're not even closer to saturating bandwidth of copper on home connections, but the cost difference is minimal, and fiber gives room for expansion later (and has other nice properties versus copper). Verizon just has a newer and higher capacity network than Comcast, Comcast generally matches Verizon's speeds in any area Fios is offered, they just don't need to in 99% of the country because Fios has such a small roll out.

Complete nonsense rubbish.

 

[Headcase_Fargone]

I'm pretty sure last mile fiber is a gimmick. We're not even closer to saturating bandwidth of copper on home connections, but the cost difference is minimal, and fiber gives room for expansion later (and has other nice properties versus copper). Verizon just has a newer and higher capacity network than Comcast, Comcast generally matches Verizon's speeds in any area Fios is offered, they just don't need to in 99% of the country because Fios has such a small roll out.

Comcast may offer similar download speeds but their upstream caps are far, far lower than Verizon's. FIOS tends to be more reasonably priced as well. By quite a bit.

 

[lothar]

Comcast may offer similar download speeds but their upstream caps are far, far lower than Verizon's. FIOS tends to be more reasonably priced as well. By quite a bit.

Comcast doesn't even offer anywhere near similar download speeds to Verizon FiOS.
Lets also not even talk about their upload speed...It's a complete joke compared to FiOS.

 

[Headcase_Fargone]

Comcast doesn't even offer anywhere near similar download speeds to Verizon FiOS.
Lets also not even talk about their upload speed...It's a complete joke compared to FiOS.

Comcast offers 105mb down where I live. I thought that was competitive with what Verizon was offering (for download speeds only), but looking at Verizon's site I see they offer a 150mb and even a 300mb package. Color me surprised. (And even more livid that they don't offer service in my neighborhood)

 

[lothar]

Comcast offers 105mb down where I live. I thought that was competitive with what Verizon was offering (for download speeds only), but looking at Verizon's site I see they offer a 150mb and even a 300mb package. Color me surprised. (And even more livid that they don't offer service in my neighborhood)

Verizon FiOS:
Speeds up to 15 Mbps/5 Mbps = $74.99
Speeds up to 50 Mbps/25 Mbps = $84.99
Speeds up to 75 Mbps/35 Mbps = $94.99
Speeds up to 150 Mbps/65 Mbps = $104.99
Speeds up to 300 Mbps/65 Mbps = $214.99

Comcast:
-Get download speeds up to 20 Mbps and upload speeds up to 4 Mbps with PowerBoost® = $62.99
-Get download speeds up to 30 Mbps and upload speeds up to 6 Mbps with PowerBoost® = $72.95
-Downloads up to 105Mbps, uploads up to 10Mbps = $129.95

Also keep in mind that Comcast's PowerBoost is largely a fraud. They increase your speed for the first 10Mb of whatever file you're downloading, then drop down after that. When they claim that they offer "up to" 30Mb down(or any speed really) with PowerBoost*, it means that they don't actually offer 30Mb in "sustained" download speeds. Notice that they don't tell you what your speeds drop down to after you download the first 10Mb of a file.
It's only their 50Mb and 105Mb package that provides sustained speeds without the PowerBoost gimmick.

FCC report showing FiOS is #1 in providing sustained advertised download speeds.
http://www.fcc.gov/measuring-broadband-america

Comcast sure does a lot of false advertising about their services...
http://www.theconsumerchronicle.com...aims-xamined-found-to-be-not-xactly-accurate/
http://www.asrcreviews.org/2012/06/...he-nation-claims-following-verizon-challenge/
http://consumerist.com/2012/06/ad-w...ng-that-xfinity-is-fastest-in-the-nation.html

Oh, and BTW...FiOS doesn't have monthly data caps, unlike Comcast.
http://www.cedmagazine.com/news/2012/06/comcast-slapped-for-xfinity-ad-claim

 

[foghorn67]

Agreed, they can 'coast' on HSPA+ for a while longer. Sprint's CDMA 3G is a joke.



At least Verizon's 3G is actually usable, relative to Sprints. 😛

I could never get 3G indoors anywhere in OC with TMO Unless I was next to a window, it was always on EDGE.
Between the two, Sprint was better.
I only saw tmobile's fake 4g while on freeways.

 

[Headcase_Fargone]

Also keep in mind that Comcast's PowerBoost is largely a fraud. They increase your speed for the first 10Mb of whatever file you're downloading, then drop down after that. When they claim that they offer "up to" 30Mb down(or any speed really) with PowerBoost*, it means that they don't actually offer 30Mb in "sustained" download speeds. Notice that they don't tell you what your speeds drop down to after you download the first 10Mb of a file.
It's only their 50Mb and 105Mb package that provides sustained speeds without the PowerBoost gimmick.

Good information here. With FIOS unavailable in my new neighborhood I was having trouble deciding between AT&T Uverse (24/3) or Comcast (20/4). Glad I scheduled Uverse to be installed tomorrow after reading this.

 

[kaerflog]

I could never get 3G indoors anywhere in OC with TMO Unless I was next to a window, it was always on EDGE.
Between the two, Sprint was better.
I only saw tmobile's fake 4g while on freeways.

You must be like 1 of 2 people that thinks Sprint 3G is better.
Sprint 3G is like EDGE.

 

[glen]

Can I pay Comcast "up to" my normal monthly bill amount?

 

[lupi]

I get tmo 3g here fine anywhere except in my work building or some fairly large stores.

 

[sagrada]

Where is "here" exactly?

Anyways, for those thinking about carriers, the PC Mag Mobile Network speed review does a good job:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2405596,00.asp

Seems like VZW still wins in terms of overall speed, coverage and reliability, with AT&T LTE being faster but in far fewer markets, and T-Mobile HSPA+ being nearly as fast but in a lot more markets, but coverage suffers in rural areas. And Sprint 3G is just horrible.

It gives you a lot of carrier options for phones though, for sure. An unlocked version of the GS3 should theoretically give you both AT&T and T-Mobile's 3G and 4G bands once T-Mobile launches LTE and moves HSPA+ to 1900MHz. So if AT&T tanks again, in a year you can switch to a month to month plan w/ a different carrier and actually save money

 

[soccerballtux]

I find sprint 3g to be more than sufficient, perhaps I am just in a sparesely populated area.
Those "studies" by magazines are more or less advertisements IMO. They test a few cities and tell us things we already know-- Verizon is fast, AT&T is sorta fast, T-mobile is sorta fast but less good coverage, and Sprint is HORRIBLE OMG.
Except that Sprint isn't horrible, from what I've seen. 100KB/s download speed is plenty fast for me, which is what my friend got when I had him download an app from the market.

Full 3G on CDMA is 14.7mb/s per tower, so almost capable of 2MB/s. So it's not hard to see how Sprint could be capable of 100kB/s. They recently (9 months ago or so, when they raised their rates to $35/month lowest tier) improved their network substantially justifying the higher cost. So again, if I weren't already on AT&T straighttalk, I would be on Sprint or Virgin Mobile.

 

[Headcase_Fargone]

I find sprint 3g to be more than sufficient, perhaps I am just in a sparesely populated area.
Those "studies" by magazines are more or less advertisements IMO. They test a few cities and tell us things we already know-- Verizon is fast, AT&T is sorta fast, T-mobile is sorta fast but less good coverage, and Sprint is HORRIBLE OMG.
Except that Sprint isn't horrible, from what I've seen. 100KB/s download speed is plenty fast for me, which is what my friend got when I had him download an app from the market.

Unfortunately, a lot of people don't get anywhere near those speeds on Sprint. The guy above that compared Sprint 3G to Edge speeds was spot-on in my experience both in Houston, Baton Rouge and New Orleans. Toward the end of my contract I was getting literally 100Kb/sec (that's kiloBITS, not bytes), and that was when I was lucky. It was practically unusable.

 

[sagrada]

I find sprint 3g to be more than sufficient, perhaps I am just in a sparesely populated area.
Those "studies" by magazines are more or less advertisements IMO. They test a few cities and tell us things we already know-- Verizon is fast, AT&T is sorta fast, T-mobile is sorta fast but less good coverage, and Sprint is HORRIBLE OMG.
Except that Sprint isn't horrible, from what I've seen. 100KB/s download speed is plenty fast for me, which is what my friend got when I had him download an app from the market.

Full 3G on CDMA is 14.7mb/s per tower, so almost capable of 2MB/s. So it's not hard to see how Sprint could be capable of 100kB/s. They recently (9 months ago or so, when they raised their rates to $35/month lowest tier) improved their network substantially justifying the higher cost. So again, if I weren't already on AT&T straighttalk, I would be on Sprint or Virgin Mobile.

Likewise to the poster above, those numbers on Sprint are spot on - I'm getting 100-300 Kb/s down during the day *at best* which is simply unacceptable at this point.

I even did a dinner table test with my family who all have different carriers, and Sprint was easily 3-4x slower than the next slowest