On 10/6/2021 4:17 AM, Wade Garrett wrote:

<snip>

> Actually, it does. The point I made- and which you missed- is that
> people make a big deal over small differences among similarly well
> qualified/high performing entities and need a "winner".
>
> I used the Olympics (all the athletes are top notch).

IMVAIO, it's not a good analogy.

Olympic contests that are races have a winner based on a single
criteria, speed. Speed is all that matters, and a fraction of a second
difference in speed matters.

For mobile networks, there are multiple factors that determine the
"best" network. Speed, above a certain minimum threshold, is not a
factor that many people use in the selection of a carrier because they
would not be able to detect a difference in most cases.

What matters to most people is price and coverage. The subsidies on new
phones are also often a consideration. There are some other
considerations as well, like international roaming cost and
availability, freebies like Netflix, Spotify, Apple Music, Hulu, etc.,
and on T-Mobile free or discounted fast food items on Tuesdays, i.e.
this week you get $1 off a purchase at Dunkin', while in the past you
could get a free Taco Bell taco, or a free Burger King Whopper.

Read the report at
<https://assets.contentful.com/ob7bbcsqy5m2/5RH6DcqWKrNjbfGDPkfWkb/677aec385a91e8f1859703242aff739e/RootMetrics_US_State-of-Mobile-Union-1H_2021-FINAL.pdf>
which gives a comprehensive evaluation of the U.S. carriers.

Speed
-----
1. AT&T
2. Verizon
3. T-Mobile

Root Score Awards (Overall, Reliability, Accessibility, Speed, Data,
Call, Text)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Verizon: 264
AT&T: 217
T-Mobile: 16

A lot more detail in the report.

On 2021-10-05 13:29, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 05.10.21 um 19:16 schrieb Alan Browne:
>> On 2021-10-05 02:51, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>> Am 05.10.21 um 08:38 schrieb NewsKrawler:
>>>> Fastest Mobile Networks 2021
>>>> https://www.pcmag.com/news/fastest-mobile-networks-2021
>>>>
>>>> For our 12th annual test, we drove more than 10,000 miles, speed-testing
>>>> AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon 4G and 5G in cities, towns, and rural regions
>>>> all over the US. We found a radically new landscape−and a surprising winner.
>>>
>>> That is utter bullshit and at best a tiny little bit of anecdotal evidence.
>>
>> Given their test method and presented data it is certainly not anecdotal.
>
>
> It certainly is.

Look up what an "anecdote" is and get back to us.

--
"...there are many humorous things in this world; among them the white
man's notion that he is less savage than the other savages."
-Samuel Clemens

On 2021-10-05 13:31, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 05.10.21 um 17:41 schrieb badgolferman:
>> The fastest speeds I’ve gotten so far are 641 down and 19.7 up.
>
> This is extremely bad. Mobile networks are symmetric. 19.7 up is
> early-4G-style.

They may be bandwidth symmetric, but they are not power symmetric. The
base station (towers) can output "the right" amount of power to each
receiver (phones) at full bandwidth, but the phones cannot output
adequate power all of the time given their transmitter, antenna and non
ideal location when transmitting. Thus, with reduced power, the actual
bandwidth is reduced.

--
"...there are many humorous things in this world; among them the white
man's notion that he is less savage than the other savages."
-Samuel Clemens

Am 06.10.21 um 18:52 schrieb Alan Browne:
> On 2021-10-05 13:29, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> Am 05.10.21 um 19:16 schrieb Alan Browne:
>>> On 2021-10-05 02:51, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>>> Am 05.10.21 um 08:38 schrieb NewsKrawler:
>>>>> Fastest Mobile Networks 2021
>>>>> https://www.pcmag.com/news/fastest-mobile-networks-2021
>>>>>
>>>>> For our 12th annual test, we drove more than 10,000 miles, speed-testing
>>>>> AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon 4G and 5G in cities, towns, and rural regions
>>>>> all over the US. We found a radically new landscape−and a surprising winner.
>>>>
>>>> That is utter bullshit and at best a tiny little bit of anecdotal evidence.
>>>
>>> Given their test method and presented data it is certainly not anecdotal.
>>
>>
>> It certainly is.
>
> Look up what an "anecdote" is and get back to us.

"Andecdotal evidence" is a terminus technicus. Come back when you
figured out what that is. Being precise the PC-Mag-survey is not even that.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

On 2021-10-06 12:58, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 06.10.21 um 18:52 schrieb Alan Browne:
>> On 2021-10-05 13:29, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>> Am 05.10.21 um 19:16 schrieb Alan Browne:
>>>> On 2021-10-05 02:51, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>> Am 05.10.21 um 08:38 schrieb NewsKrawler:
>>>>>> Fastest Mobile Networks 2021
>>>>>> https://www.pcmag.com/news/fastest-mobile-networks-2021
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For our 12th annual test, we drove more than 10,000 miles, speed-testing
>>>>>> AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon 4G and 5G in cities, towns, and rural regions
>>>>>> all over the US. We found a radically new landscape−and a surprising winner.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is utter bullshit and at best a tiny little bit of anecdotal evidence.
>>>>
>>>> Given their test method and presented data it is certainly not anecdotal.
>>>
>>>
>>> It certainly is.
>>
>> Look up what an "anecdote" is and get back to us.
>
> "Andecdotal evidence" is a terminus technicus. Come back when you

1) You're casting it as anecdotal evidence.

Definition of anecdote.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/anecdote

> figured out what that is. Being precise the PC-Mag-survey is not even that.

The PC Mag survey sampled information in many places and published the
data and the reduction of same.
https://www.pcmag.com/news/fastest-mobile-networks-2021#our-testing-methodology

Not anecdotal.

--
"...there are many humorous things in this world; among them the white
man's notion that he is less savage than the other savages."
-Samuel Clemens

Alan Browne wrote:

>On 2021-10-05 13:31, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>Am 05.10.21 um 17:41 schrieb badgolferman:
>>>The fastest speeds I’ve gotten so far are 641 down and 19.7 up.
>>
>>This is extremely bad. Mobile networks are symmetric. 19.7 up is
>>early-4G-style.
>
>They may be bandwidth symmetric, but they are not power symmetric.
>The base station (towers) can output "the right" amount of power to
>each receiver (phones) at full bandwidth, but the phones cannot
>output adequate power all of the time given their transmitter,
>antenna and non ideal location when transmitting. Thus, with reduced
>power, the actual bandwidth is reduced.

I think the phone matters too. My iPhone 12 seems to have better
signals in places which had poorer signal strength in the past. Either
that or T-Mobile has expanded their cellular network around here.

Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> asked
> The PC Mag survey sampled information in many places and published the
> data and the reduction of same.
> https://www.pcmag.com/news/fastest-mobile-networks-2021#our-testing-methodology
>
> Not anecdotal.

Alan,
You are full correct, and Joerg Lorenz is not only wrong, but a moron.
Joerg Lorenz clearly doesn't understand what the scientific method entails.

What he's doing is calling all facts he simply doesn't like, "anecdotal."
It's no different than when Lewis calls all facts he doesn't like "lies."
Or when Jolly Roger claims any fact about Apple by Gorden Kelly is a "lie."

What apologists _hate_ are facts about Apple products.
(Apologists prefer to life in a fantasy make-believe world of Apple's ads.)
--
What's hilarious is that even Apple's ads aren't even tested for bugs!
*iOS 11 bugs are so common they now appear in Apple ads*
<https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/16/17131148/apple-ios-11-bug-face-id-ad>

badgolferman wrote:

>NewsKrawler <newskrawl@krawl.org> wrote:
>> Fastest Mobile Networks 2021
>> https://www.pcmag.com/news/fastest-mobile-networks-2021
>>
>> For our 12th annual test, we drove more than 10,000 miles,
>>speed-testing AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon 4G and 5G in cities,
>>towns, and rural regions all over the US. We found a radically new
>>landscape−and a surprising winner.
>
>This is no surprise to those of us who have T-Mobile 5G service. I
>have been reporting this for the past several months. sms will not
>like this however since it doesn’t agree with his narrative.
>
>The fastest speeds I’ve gotten so far are 641 down and 19.7 up.

Proof
https://ibb.co/jkDJLpw

badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> asked
>>They may be bandwidth symmetric, but they are not power symmetric.
>>The base station (towers) can output "the right" amount of power to
>>each receiver (phones) at full bandwidth, but the phones cannot
>>output adequate power all of the time given their transmitter,
>>antenna and non ideal location when transmitting. Thus, with reduced
>>power, the actual bandwidth is reduced.
>
> I think the phone matters too. My iPhone 12 seems to have better
> signals in places which had poorer signal strength in the past. Either
> that or T-Mobile has expanded their cellular network around here.

Hi badgolferman,

You're not an apologist so an actual adult conversation can be had with you,
where people discuss openly what they think and what they need to know.

While Joerg Lorenz is a moron not worth discussing further, I think Alan
Browne brought up an excellent point about asymmetries in speedtest results.

The high transmitting power of the cellular tower ties with the (presumed)
decent receiver sensitivity of the cellphone in the outbound direction.

But in the inbound direction, the puny transmitting power of the cellphone
has to tie in with the (presumed) excellent tower receiver sensitivity.

What would be interesting is to list those four typical values:
a. What is the typical transmit power of a typical cellphone tower?
b. What is the typical receiver sensitivity of that typical cellphone tower?
c. What is the typical transmit power of a typical cellphone?
d. What is the typical receiver sensitivity of that typical cellphone?
(Other things matter, like SNR, but those seem to be the most important.)

Without those four numbers, we really can't talk about what the speeds
should be in both directions.

I wonder if the moron Joerg Lorenz can supply us with those accurate values?

Wade Garrett <Wade@cooler.net> wrote:
> On 10/6/21 4:18 AM, Chris wrote:
>> Wade Garrett <Wade@cooler.net> wrote:
>>> On 10/5/21 12:19 PM, Chris wrote:
>>>> Wade Garrett <Wade@cooler.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 10/5/21 2:51 AM, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>>> Am 05.10.21 um 08:38 schrieb NewsKrawler:
>>>>>>> Fastest Mobile Networks 2021
>>>>>>> https://www.pcmag.com/news/fastest-mobile-networks-2021
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For our 12th annual test, we drove more than 10,000 miles, speed-testing
>>>>>>> AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon 4G and 5G in cities, towns, and rural regions
>>>>>>> all over the US. We found a radically new landscape−and a surprising winner.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is utter bullshit and at best a tiny little bit of anecdotal evidence.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah well it all doesn't matter anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> Everybody's network is plenty fast enough to easily handle any task you
>>>>> do on a little screen. It's all marketing BS and "We're Number One-itis."
>>>>>
>>>>> Like the Olympics- eight guys finish the race separated by only a couple
>>>>> of hundredths of a second. They're all fast as hell. What difference
>>>>> does it make...
>>>>
>>>> Only one of them is remembered.
>>>>
>>> That is a sporting event and if you participate, the idea is to win.
>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>>> Here, we're talking about effin' cell phone service fer cryin' out loud.
>>
>> Right. So why make an analogy to the olympics, then? Your analogy didn't
>> work.
>>
>>
> Actually, it does. The point I made- and which you missed- is that
> people make a big deal over small differences among similarly well
> qualified/high performing entities and need a "winner".

The differences are not small.

> I used the Olympics (all the athletes are top notch).

Athletes are supreme beings and the pinnacle of human performance.

Mobile broadband is for the masses where differences in average speed can
make big differences to individual use cases.

> But I could have just as easily used the Miss America Pageant or Dallas
> Cowboys Cheerleaders tryout finalists (all hottie babes) or maybe the
> best shotgun from a collection of fine 19th century English double
> barrels (they're all beautifully engraved works of mechanical art) or
> maybe the best Old Masters painting in the Metropolitan Museum or Louvre
> collections.

There's no such thing as best art. Art is intrinsically subjective.

badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> asked
>>The fastest speeds I�ve gotten so far are 641 down and 19.7 up.
>
> Proof
> https://ibb.co/jkDJLpw

Hi badgolferman,

You're not an apologists, so, as an adult, you provide real world data.

Like you, I'm pleasantly surprised at the high speeds I'm getting on 5G,
where yours are three times mine, yet I'm still happy with what I get.
<https://i.postimg.cc/C5vgmtRd/speedtest15.jpg> (~100Mbps to ~300Mbps)

You can't graph received 5G signal strength on an iPhone but here's mine:
<https://i.postimg.cc/xCbVQ2pj/signal02.jpg> (~-100 to ~-90 decibels)

Those are far lower than yours will be most likely, but still respectable.

It's interesting that we're proving what we get, which from prior
conversations we know had to be _after_ we got our free or low cost 5G
phones, while others are showing uncaptioned maps which don't even have
dates (so they can be from ten years ago for all we know).

Worse, they're so zoomed out as to be worthless, given the area shown has
about 1 person per square mile (the Santa Cruz Mountains) in the center
(it's almost all completely public lands reserved for recreational use).

What matters, and what has always mattered, is the coverage and signal
strength and cost in the places you are in a lot, such as:
a. Your home
b. Your work (and commute)
c. Your frequent travel (e.g., a summer rental)

While coverage maps are merely advertising ploys, that's all we have other
than yours and my individual reports of signal strength & data speeds.

That is highly individualistic, so I suggest others look at these maps:
1. AT&T: <https://www.att.com/maps/wireless-coverage.html>
2. T-Mobile: <https://www.t-mobile.com/coverage/coverage-map>
3. Verizon: <https://www.verizon.com/coverage-map/>

Since I'm retired, my home matters, which is covered by all three.
What do those current coverage maps show for your area?
--
Note I have no reason to shill for any one carrier over another.

On 2021-10-06 14:00, badgolferman wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> On 2021-10-05 13:31, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>> Am 05.10.21 um 17:41 schrieb badgolferman:
>>>> The fastest speeds I’ve gotten so far are 641 down and 19.7 up.
>>>
>>> This is extremely bad. Mobile networks are symmetric. 19.7 up is
>>> early-4G-style.
>>
>> They may be bandwidth symmetric, but they are not power symmetric.
>> The base station (towers) can output "the right" amount of power to
>> each receiver (phones) at full bandwidth, but the phones cannot
>> output adequate power all of the time given their transmitter,
>> antenna and non ideal location when transmitting. Thus, with reduced
>> power, the actual bandwidth is reduced.
>
>
> I think the phone matters too. My iPhone 12 seems to have better
> signals in places which had poorer signal strength in the past. Either
> that or T-Mobile has expanded their cellular network around here.

Could be. Or subjective. Providers are always improving over time (in
most places). IAC, the phone will never be able to adapt to all
situations very well, never mind output at the power levels that the
cell towers are capable of, and pretty directionally as well...

--
"...there are many humorous things in this world; among them the white
man's notion that he is less savage than the other savages."
-Samuel Clemens

Am 06.10.21 um 19:10 schrieb Alan Browne:
> On 2021-10-06 12:58, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> "Andecdotal evidence" is a terminus technicus. Come back when you
>
> 1) You're casting it as anecdotal evidence.
>
> Definition of anecdote.
> https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/anecdote
>
>> figured out what that is. Being precise the PC-Mag-survey is not even that.
>
> The PC Mag survey sampled information in many places and published the
> data and the reduction of same.
> https://www.pcmag.com/news/fastest-mobile-networks-2021#our-testing-methodology
>
> Not anecdotal.

Certainly. The results cannot be replicated. The results are of
anecdotal value at best and lack any scientific predication.

If you would understand which parameters influence the result of such an
undertaking you would undoubtedly agree.

EOD and temporary transfer to my killfile

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Am 06.10.21 um 18:55 schrieb Alan Browne:
> On 2021-10-05 13:31, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> Am 05.10.21 um 17:41 schrieb badgolferman:
>>> The fastest speeds I’ve gotten so far are 641 down and 19.7 up.
>>
>> This is extremely bad. Mobile networks are symmetric. 19.7 up is
>> early-4G-style.
>
> They may be bandwidth symmetric, but they are not power symmetric. The
> base station (towers) can output "the right" amount of power to each
> receiver (phones) at full bandwidth, but the phones cannot output
> adequate power all of the time given their transmitter, antenna and non
> ideal location when transmitting. Thus, with reduced power, the actual
> bandwidth is reduced.

Sure and it reinforces my arguments. Lousy base-station-planning bad
phone or both. All this is a marketing stunt.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
> Wade Garrett <Wade@cooler.net> wrote:
>> On 10/6/21 4:18 AM, Chris wrote:
>>> Wade Garrett <Wade@cooler.net> wrote:
>>>> On 10/5/21 12:19 PM, Chris wrote:
>>>>> Wade Garrett <Wade@cooler.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/5/21 2:51 AM, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>>>> Am 05.10.21 um 08:38 schrieb NewsKrawler:
>>>>>>>> Fastest Mobile Networks 2021
>>>>>>>> https://www.pcmag.com/news/fastest-mobile-networks-2021
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For our 12th annual test, we drove more than 10,000 miles,
>>>>>>>> speed-testing
>>>>>>>> AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon 4G and 5G in cities, towns, and rural
>>>>>>>> regions
>>>>>>>> all over the US. We found a radically new landscape−and a
>>>>>>>> surprising winner.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is utter bullshit and at best a tiny little bit of anecdotal
>>>>>>> evidence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah well it all doesn't matter anyway.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Everybody's network is plenty fast enough to easily handle any task
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> do on a little screen. It's all marketing BS and "We're Number
>>>>>> One-itis."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Like the Olympics- eight guys finish the race separated by only a
>>>>>> couple
>>>>>> of hundredths of a second. They're all fast as hell. What difference
>>>>>> does it make...
>>>>>
>>>>> Only one of them is remembered.
>>>>>
>>>> That is a sporting event and if you participate, the idea is to win.
>>>
>>> Exactly.
>>>
>>>> Here, we're talking about effin' cell phone service fer cryin' out
>>>> loud.
>>>
>>> Right. So why make an analogy to the olympics, then? Your analogy didn't
>>> work.
>>>
>>>
>> Actually, it does. The point I made- and which you missed- is that
>> people make a big deal over small differences among similarly well
>> qualified/high performing entities and need a "winner".
>
> The differences are not small.
>
>> I used the Olympics (all the athletes are top notch).

> Athletes are supreme beings

They are actually fools stupid enough to waste great slabs
of their pathetic excuses for lives doing nothing useful.

> and the pinnacle of human performance.

Only in doing something completely pointless.

> Mobile broadband is for the masses where differences in average
> speed can make big differences to individual use cases.
>
>> But I could have just as easily used the Miss America Pageant or Dallas
>> Cowboys Cheerleaders tryout finalists (all hottie babes) or maybe the
>> best shotgun from a collection of fine 19th century English double
>> barrels (they're all beautifully engraved works of mechanical art) or
>> maybe the best Old Masters painting in the Metropolitan Museum or Louvre
>> collections.

> There's no such thing as best art. Art is intrinsically subjective.

That’s bullshit too.

Am 06.10.21 um 20:07 schrieb badgolferman:
> badgolferman wrote:
>
>> NewsKrawler <newskrawl@krawl.org> wrote:
>>> Fastest Mobile Networks 2021
>>> https://www.pcmag.com/news/fastest-mobile-networks-2021
>>>
>>> For our 12th annual test, we drove more than 10,000 miles,
>>> speed-testing AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon 4G and 5G in cities,
>>> towns, and rural regions all over the US. We found a radically new
>>> landscape−and a surprising winner.
>>
>> This is no surprise to those of us who have T-Mobile 5G service. I
>> have been reporting this for the past several months. sms will not
>> like this however since it doesn’t agree with his narrative.
>>
>> The fastest speeds I’ve gotten so far are 641 down and 19.7 up.
>
>
> Proof
> https://ibb.co/jkDJLpw

Only the donwload-value is 5G-style. The rest is mediocre at best.
Sorry to say.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote
> Alan Browne wrote
>> Joerg Lorenz wrote

>>> "Andecdotal evidence" is a terminus technicus. Come back when you
>>
>> 1) You're casting it as anecdotal evidence.
>>
>> Definition of anecdote.
>> https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/anecdote
>>
>>> figured out what that is. Being precise the PC-Mag-survey is not even
>>> that.
>>
>> The PC Mag survey sampled information in many places and published the
>> data and the reduction of same.
>> https://www.pcmag.com/news/fastest-mobile-networks-2021#our-testing-methodology
>>
>> Not anecdotal.
>
> Certainly. The results cannot be replicated.

That’s not what anecdotal means. We realise
that english isn't your first language.

> The results are of anecdotal value at best
> and lack any scientific predication.

Separate issue entirely.

> If you would understand which parameters influence the result
> of such an undertaking you would undoubtedly agree.

Not that its anecdotal, because it isn't.

> EOD and temporary transfer to my killfile

That’s what little kids do, close their eyes, put their fingers
in their ears and chant "nyah nyah, can't hear ya"

Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote
> Am 06.10.21 um 18:55 schrieb Alan Browne:
>> On 2021-10-05 13:31, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>> Am 05.10.21 um 17:41 schrieb badgolferman:
>>>> The fastest speeds I’ve gotten so far are 641 down and 19.7 up.
>>>
>>> This is extremely bad. Mobile networks are symmetric. 19.7 up is
>>> early-4G-style.
>>
>> They may be bandwidth symmetric, but they are not power symmetric. The
>> base station (towers) can output "the right" amount of power to each
>> receiver (phones) at full bandwidth, but the phones cannot output
>> adequate power all of the time given their transmitter, antenna and non
>> ideal location when transmitting. Thus, with reduced power, the actual
>> bandwidth is reduced.
>
> Sure and it reinforces my arguments. Lousy base-station-planning bad
> phone or both.

> All this is a marketing stunt.

Nope, its competing with wired broadband.

On 2021-10-06 16:01, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 06.10.21 um 18:55 schrieb Alan Browne:
>> On 2021-10-05 13:31, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>> Am 05.10.21 um 17:41 schrieb badgolferman:
>>>> The fastest speeds I’ve gotten so far are 641 down and 19.7 up.
>>>
>>> This is extremely bad. Mobile networks are symmetric. 19.7 up is
>>> early-4G-style.
>>
>> They may be bandwidth symmetric, but they are not power symmetric. The
>> base station (towers) can output "the right" amount of power to each
>> receiver (phones) at full bandwidth, but the phones cannot output
>> adequate power all of the time given their transmitter, antenna and non
>> ideal location when transmitting. Thus, with reduced power, the actual
>> bandwidth is reduced.
>
> Sure and it reinforces my arguments. Lousy base-station-planning bad
> phone or both. All this is a marketing stunt.

Base stations are usually well optimized given the local constraints.

The only thing you could do to really improve the phones is to make them
bigger (larger transmission power) and have an external antenna array.
Not very practical.

How can it be a marketing stunt if it is comparing 3 companies? It's
clear you're just venting at PC Mag. But their tests were done in a
reasonable manner - controlled, data collected, reduced and presented.

--
"...there are many humorous things in this world; among them the white
man's notion that he is less savage than the other savages."
-Samuel Clemens

On 2021-10-06 15:58, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 06.10.21 um 19:10 schrieb Alan Browne:
>> On 2021-10-06 12:58, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>> "Andecdotal evidence" is a terminus technicus. Come back when you
>>
>> 1) You're casting it as anecdotal evidence.
>>
>> Definition of anecdote.
>> https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/anecdote
>>
>>> figured out what that is. Being precise the PC-Mag-survey is not even that.
>>
>> The PC Mag survey sampled information in many places and published the
>> data and the reduction of same.
>> https://www.pcmag.com/news/fastest-mobile-networks-2021#our-testing-methodology
>>
>> Not anecdotal.
>
> Certainly. The results cannot be replicated. The results are of
> anecdotal value at best and lack any scientific predication.

BS.

>
> If you would understand which parameters influence the result of such an
> undertaking you would undoubtedly agree.

Anyone doing the same experiment should get similar results - but of
course not identical. Like most experiments of this kind, actually.

> EOD and temporary transfer to my killfile

Sure.

--
"...there are many humorous things in this world; among them the white
man's notion that he is less savage than the other savages."
-Samuel Clemens

On 10/6/2021 2:32 PM, Alan Browne wrote:

<snip>

> How can it be a marketing stunt if it is comparing 3 companies?  It's
> clear you're just venting at PC Mag.  But their tests were done in a
> reasonable manner - controlled, data collected, reduced and presented.

Correct.

As long as people realize that they were _only_ conducting speed tests,
and only in places where all three carriers had coverage, the results
are fine.

The results also reflect what each carrier has been spending their Capex
funds on.

Verizon has been spending heavily on mmWave 5G so it's not surprising
that Verizon showed the highest maximum speed by around a 2 to 1 margin.
Verizon really wants to compete against Comcast and AT&T in home
broadband and acquiring the optimum sites for their 5G small cells,
before other carriers grab them, is very important. They also are
looking at the enterprise segment, which T-Mobile has never been
interested in
<https://www.fiercewireless.com/operators/head-start-5g-mec-gives-verizon-edge-enterprise>.
Whether or not Verizon can actually make any money from their mmWave 5G
investment is the real question.

T-Mobile has been adding low-band 5G to its existing 4G cells which
increased their average speed far above AT&T or Verizon, but has lagged
in mmWave deployment. T-Mobile had the poorest network availability and
the most latency, also not surprising.

Personally I would have weighted "% Above 25Mbps" higher since that's
the threshold below which users might begin to notice speed differences,
at least if they were streaming high-resolution video at 120 fps.

As others have pointed out, these small speed differences, that users
are unlikely to ever notice, are meaningless. In 2020, Verizon was the
fastest <https://www.pcmag.com/news/fastest-mobile-networks-2020> and it
was equally meangingless. 2020 was interesting because T-Mobile had more
than 13x the 5G than Verizon yet had much lower average download speeds.
5G capable phones now account for about 20% of phones in use, so LTE
speeds, where Verizon excels, are still important.

In article <sjl6ia$j61$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> The results also reflect what each carrier has been spending their Capex
> funds on.

another diversion.

> Verizon has been spending heavily on mmWave 5G so it's not surprising
> that Verizon showed the highest maximum speed by around a 2 to 1 margin.

verizon's mmw coverage is *extremely* limited.

> Verizon really wants to compete against Comcast and AT&T in home
> broadband and acquiring the optimum sites for their 5G small cells,
> before other carriers grab them, is very important.

home broadband is not relevant to cellular coverage.

On 10/6/2021 2:39 PM, Alan Browne wrote:

<snip>

> Anyone doing the same experiment should get similar results - but of
> course not identical.   Like most experiments of this kind, actually.

Joerg is wrong of course™. If you conducted an identical experiment the
results would be very close.

Of course the different entities conducting these tests rarely use the
exact same methodology when doing speed tests. Coverage tests are more
straightforward.

Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> asked
> Only the donwload-value is 5G-style. The rest is mediocre at best.
> Sorry to say.

Joerg,

Did you read what Alan Browne suggested about the asymetric cellphone
transmit power (used to send data back to the cellular tower)?

What do you think average cellular transmit power is compared to the average
transmit power of the cellular tower, Joerg?

Is it symmetric?