T-Mobile and Verizon Are Basically Tied in Network Speeds and So-Called 'Availability'

[christophermdia]

What this doesn't account for is the fact they are measuring signal in a great wide open space. I am on ATT now, but tried Verizon for a year ... the second I stepped into any store, whether it was a grocery store, or Target, whatever, signal either went from LTE to 3G and most times, 1 bar to no signal. I never knew how much I relied on my phone when I was in a store like a supermarket to call and find out whether or not we needed milk, or whatever ... for a while I said, well ill just connect to the areas wifi and use FaceTime, but was too inconvenient. The reason that ATT doesn't win out the speed in most of these cities is congestion, not because the speed doesn't match up.

Tmobile is getting better, although they have some of the same problems. I almost gave them a shot but there is a long stretch of road where I frequently travel that Tmobile is non-existent and ATT is still full signal LTE ... Verizon is good outdoors, but the lack of signal indoors (even my home) is amazing to me that anyone sticks with them ...

 

[Return Zero]

Shouldn't the title be 'Basically, T-Mobile and Verizon Are Tied in Network Speeds and Availability'?

The 2% is within the already existing coverage - so it's really a moot statistic for comparison purposes. In other words, within T-Mobile's already existing coverage, they have 86% LTE availability, and with Verizon's already existing coverage, they have 88% LTE availability...

My apologies. You are right. The headline should have said Availability as it now does.

I see... Perhaps then it should actually be LTE Availability, rather than mere Availability, since that's what the report actually looked at. Who knows, maybe the 3G availability is a whole different story!

 

[willmtaylor]

I came to argue the premise but it appears as if almost every other person before more has done the same. Hah.

I'd love to have the choice of TMO, but the coverage simply is no match for VZW.

Here's the rub:

"OpenSignal's 'Availability' measures the proportion of time users have network access. By continually measuring whether users have a connection or not we are able to extend our assessment of networks to account for what happens when users are indoors and when they are moving around. We build up a holistic, user-centric measurmement of networks that expresses how users experience them."
​

Makes the headline quite misleading.

 

[pat500000]

Lot better than att.

 

[tito2020]

As a T-Mobile customer that came over from Verizon, the advancement that T-Mobile has made in the last three years in our area has been incredible. I've never seen the network growth like that in the area of western NY. That being said, I have Verizon on my iPad and the USA nationally is still dominated by VZW. To be honest, in my opinion only, it really doesn't even compare.

It'll be interesting to see what the final results are from the 600 spectrum auction. I, for one, am glad to be a T-Mobile customer even though they still don't have the same coverage as VZW. I'm glad I'm not paying through the nose to have service where I live. It all comes back to value and I feel like I am getting the best value for what I'm paying through T-Mobile.

- Jay
[doublepost=1486566687][/doublepost]

I travel everywhere, including Southern Ontario. Again, it's not as good as VZW coverage, but I don't have to pay extra when I go to Canada to use my T-Mobile service.

there all the same no big deal

 

[cforster]

This article is so misleading its ridiculous. T-mobile's LTE speeds does you NO GOOD if you can't get signal!

The only real national carriers that exist today are AT&T and Verizon. Thats the truth. Sure, metro areas may have great service with Sprint or T-mobile, but over half the US population doesn't live in those areas.

When articles like this are written it really is silly they choose to leave out valuable and logical information.

 

[newyorkone]

"Basically tied" what a joke...

Come to the Northeast

TMobile coverage and speeds are great in NYC and on a road trip all along the East Coast to FL and back last year. Service is even better now. You can pay a lot more, but you won't get more.

 

[Guda.FL]

Just no! I left Tmobile because as soon as walked into my house - no service. Publix - no service. Mall - 3g, office elevators - no service. Soon as i leave the city on 95 north or alligator alley - dead zones 1h +.

However 40+ mbps in city core with no buildings around. Great trade off.

Att experience is opposite. In a positive way.

 

[newyorkone]

This article is so misleading its ridiculous. T-mobile's LTE speeds does you NO GOOD if you can't get signal!

The only real national carriers that exist today are AT&T and Verizon. Thats the truth. Sure, metro areas may have great service with Sprint or T-mobile, but over half the US population doesn't live in those areas.

When articles like this are written it really is silly they choose to leave out valuable and logical information.

Plenty of coverage in rural areas, and I even had FREE 4G coverage last year on a European vacation through 5 countries.

 

[OldSchoolMacGuy]

T-Mobile's coverage area is a joke.

Around the Twin Cities they have billboards proclaiming "Now with 4x more coverage in the Twin Cities". That wouldn't be possible with other carriers because they've had this area covered for years.

 

[RogueWarrior65]

So, basically, those Sprint commercials on TV are full of sh*t.

 

[ghostface147]

but but but sprint is less than 1% different than big red according to the commercials....lol

 

[OldSchoolMacGuy]

If it's only about connection..then maybe Verizon wins but all the other perks you get from
T-mobile more than make up for anything you get from verizon
Binge on, data stash, free wifi on planes, and all the other cool things Tmobile gives you.
Verizon just comes off as a greedy corporation.

You really believe that T-Mobile won't do the same once they get there?

The reason they offer so much right now is to get people to switch. They can't continue to do so for years to come. Once they get enough mass on their side, they'll switch to setups like the others. Look at their earnings and you'll see it has to happen.

It's a smart strategy. If you're the little guy and don't have the coverage the others do, you need to offer something unique to get people to switch. But once you've caught up, then you need to switch to more traditional ways in order to compete financially.

 

[R.T.]

My brother has T-Mobile and he's constantly complaining about bad connections and dropped calls. I'm more than happy with Verizon, also I get a 22% discount on my bill from my work so I'm not switching any time soon.

 

[I7guy]

No... just no.

Visit Northern Arizona and you will see why Verizon is better.

Exactly. Or drive down PCH.

 

[BeSweeet]

As much as I like T-Mobile and the ability to use over 70GB per billing cycle without spending $350+ per month, I just don't think that they can compare to Verizon when it comes to raw coverage area and in-building penetration. I'm fortunate that I have zero issues where I am most often, but still.

 

[opfreak]

open signal with their fake language.

Availability does NOT equal coverage.

 

[musicalrex]

I'm about a month into T-Mobile out of AT&T after 15+ years, motivated by a growing family and tighter budgeting. Hated to drop my grandfathered unlimited data and great coverage and speed. In comparison T-Mobile is lacking in coverage, but I'm hoping over the next few years the gap will be closed and I will have saved hundreds of dollars.

 

[aPple nErd]

This is completely trash. Verizon is way better. Not everyone in this country lives in chicago...

 

[jeyf]

it is all about what works best for YOU
if you change your provider
have an exit/fall-back plan.

 

[compete12]

Cricket, $35/month. Going on 1 completely satisfied year.

 

[avanpelt]

This data shows nothing except that T-Mobile's customer base doesn't frequently travel outside areas where T-Mobile has coverage. This does not equate to T-Mobile having anywhere near the same coverage as Verizon -- not even close. There are still *plenty* of areas in the continental U.S. that T-Mobile lacks coverage compared to Verizon and AT&T. Most people who can't get coverage with T-Mobile in areas they frequent know that and won't use T-Mobile for that reason.

I can't wait to see how Legere spins this one.

 

[macduke]

Every time I see a story like this, it makes me grateful that the merger between AT&T and T-Mobile was blocked. Under the current conditions, such a merger would probably be more likely to go through.

As for the difference between the two, you basically get Verizon if you can afford it and sometimes need better coverage in non-populous areas or want better tethering. You get T-Mobile if you mainly stay around medium to large sized cities and surrounding metropolitan areas and want to save some money. Although the reality is that the pricing isn't all that different nowadays. At my work I get discounts for Verizon and T-Mobile, but I'm not sure how T-Mobile's discounts work with their new plan.

For me it works out like this:

I have 12GB of data plus 12GB of bonus data per month, three lines, and full speed tethering for $138 after taxes and fees, or $154 if you take away my work discount.

T-Mobile has unlimited data (throttled after 28GB), throttled 3G tethering, 480p video and three lines for $140/mo after taxes and fees, without any work discount (they usually offer 15% off part but I'm not sure how it works with the new plans).

For my personal situation, there isn't enough incentive to switch to T-Mobile. Especially since we sometimes travel through rural areas to visit our family at different corners of the state. Tethering is also better, giving us full speed on our iPads and my MacBook Pro when needed. Verizon has continued to get cheaper for me over the years, they are proactive in calling me about how I can save money on my bill (to no downsides that I've been able to discern), and even comped me 12GB of bonus data per month for two years the one time I had a bad experience. The good customer service, reliable coverage, and reasonable price is what keeps me their customer. If any one of those were to falter, I would definitely consider T-Mobile.

 

[dlewis23]

Just no! I left Tmobile because as soon as walked into my house - no service. Publix - no service. Mall - 3g, office elevators - no service. Soon as i leave the city on 95 north or alligator alley - dead zones 1h +.

However 40+ mbps in city core with no buildings around. Great trade off.

Att experience is opposite. In a positive way.

I just left AT&T and went to T-Mobile and I have the opposite experience. Service in my house, service in Publix, Walmart etc etc.

In some places I get faster LTE in others its slower but overall its more consistent.

With the data I have from my app Verizon overall is still a bit faster but T-Mobile is catching up and getting very close. At the rate by the end of the year they will be the fastest by a decent amount. I think the bigger news is that AT&T and Sprint are pretty much staying the same when it comes to LTE speed.

 

[BeSweeet]

The reason they offer so much right now is to get people to switch. They can't continue to do so for years to come. Once they get enough mass on their side, they'll switch to setups like the others. Look at their earnings and you'll see it has to happen.

It's a smart strategy. If you're the little guy and don't have the coverage the others do, you need to offer something unique to get people to switch. But once you've caught up, then you need to switch to more traditional ways in order to compete financially.

But they've been offering perks for what, 3 years now? So not only are they adding even more perks, but they're adding new subs and, more importantly, earning profits where they previously had none of the above.

T-Mobile has unlimited data (throttled after 28GB), throttled 3G tethering, 480p video and three lines for $140/mo after taxes and fees, without any work discount (they usually offer 15% off part but I'm not sure how it works with the new plans).

I'm not sure why this continues to be a common misconception. You aren't throttled after 28GB. Instead, you're deprioritized. Assuming you aren't in an area that's already overly congested, chances are that your speeds won't be any slower than before you hit 28GB.