Pretty good video comparing the 2 iphones in SF.
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-19512_7-20030274-233.html
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-19512_7-20030274-233.html
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Verizon vs. AT&T- CNET
- Thread starter Jack105
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
>in SF
Biased video is biased. Try in New Orleans, Chicago, Miami, Houston, St. Louis, pretty much in at least 16 cities and then talk about both networks. One city is biased at best knowingly since SF has coverage issues.
PCWorld does a MUCH better job at testing.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/189592/atandt_roars_back_in_pcworlds_second_3g_wireless_performance_test.html
They are not, SF has draconian laws regarding new cell sites. Basically it takes more or less 2 years to do anything cell network related in SF.
I've been to the SoCal area, and AT&T's signal was great 4 bars and a steady 3Mb/s down. I was expecting 2-1 bar and barely 1Mb/s from what I've heard, but that proved it's just loud mouth Verizon fanboys.
AT&T fanboy is fanboi.
I'll take the OP's February 2, 2011 article test over your Feb 22, 2010 cited test.
Nice try, though.
If you read the Cnet review you'll see that he says what basically every other reviewer has said. If AT&T works in your area, might as well keep it. If not, or if VZ appeals to you in some way then that's a good way to go as well. Also outline the obvious trade-offs in speed, reliability, and simultaneous voice/data usage.
Of course large numbers of professional tech reviewers are based out of San Fran and NYC, so alot of them who have been complaining for years are thrilled to switch to VZ even if they acknowledge slower speeds.
Really the reviews today are interesting, but were completely predictable. What no one knows is how VZ network will hold up after release, and whether AT&T will see improvements in their network as a result of less users.
Last edited:
The PC World article is definately more unbiased however it's from a year ago. There are known issues in NYC as an example. I was told that the issues should have been fixed in NYC and NYC should be experiencing excellent 3G? I don't live in NYC so I don't know.
Try LIVING in L.A. maybe you'll whistle a different tune.
Let's end it all now- Which version do you think Mr. Jobs is using today?
Only conclusion that cane be drawn from these tests is ...CNET person who uses ATT iPhone eats a lot of bandwidth every month (actually he is in top 5% monthly data users in ATT list) that's why ATT had throttled the data speed for his iPhone!
Otherwise ATT is the fastest network in the UNIVERSE*!
*..T&C apply
Otherwise ATT is the fastest network in the UNIVERSE*!
*..T&C apply
AT&T fanboy is fanboi.
I'll take the OP's February 2, 2011 article test over your Feb 22, 2010 cited test.
Nice try, though.
I'd have to agree with him. I've never stepped foot in SF, but even I know that AT&T is crap there. So what's the point of comparing? Verizon will be win every time.
I posted this in another thread yesterday. A real test would have to be done in a city where there is equal coverage. I live in Houston, where both AT&T and Verizon are pretty equal in terms of service. It would be comparing apples to apples, instead of comparing apples to oranges.
And I'm not a AT&T fangirl...I've had both Verizon and AT&T here in Houston. I left Verizon for AT&T for the iPhone. But both offer good service here.
New what? St. who? Are those even real towns? All I heard is they are villages with some rednecks living in and about.
New what? St. who? Are those even real towns? All I heard is they are villages with some rednecks living in and about.
Those are all major U.S. Cities
Ummm, I live in LA. 2 Homes, one in Malibu, the other off Wilshire. Never once have I seen speeds drop below 1.8mbs down....
I work in Burbank too, great speeds there also.
Whats your point?
I think it's possible that there are many hills here in California compared to other areas, which makes us for crap service in many locations.
I gotta tell you guise, I'm losing faith in ATT right now. I see good enough reception in north orange county and awesome reception in san diego... but where I live, right off the 5 fwy, it just plain sucks.
I think that post implied it. He even mentions speeds not dropping below 1.8Mb/s, which is rare to have on Verizon. Guess what he has?
New what? St. who? Are those even real towns? All I heard is they are villages with some rednecks living in and about.
Apparently someone lives under a rock. As per calling the world's third busiest port, Florida's biggest city, and the 4th largest urban area of the Midwest redneck villages, I think someone needs to do some inner tourism or needs some patriotic sense knocked into them. As well as stop posting and hit the books kid.
AT&T fanboy is fanboi.
I'll take the OP's February 2, 2011 article test over your Feb 22, 2010 cited test.
Nice try, though.
Well, the next results are due in soon and they will compare similarly. Also, that still doesn't change the fact that the article's testing was done in only ONE city. That still leaves it biased. I would say the same thing if they would've done a test in Dallas and AT&T came out winning. I would say biased as there is no true metric or comparison of results among a number of other areas to give a true answer. Get it? It's not fanboyism, it's called being smart.
I did, for 1 month. Signal and/or speeds were still good and didn't degrade. I have visited that same area each year for 2 weeks and results don't change for me. Except when I was going to Vegas and dropped a call in the middle of the mountains on I-15.
Last edited:
Thank GOD CNET weighed in on what 500 other bloggers have already stated and what most people in this country already know. Too bad they couldn't tell me if they got a signal while they were lost out in the woods in Blairsville with a homicidal maniac chasing them. Those are the kinds of tests I rely on.
This. People bash AT&T so much, and I have bashed them myself, but in suburban areas AT&T is often really great. High-density urban environments such as the SF area or New York will sometimes overload the towers, and unfortunately for AT&T, those two cities are where just about all tech bloggers live.
At my location:
AT&T (5 bars of 3G): ping = 584 ms, up = 1.04 Mbps, down = 0.52 Mbps
Verizon (2 bars of 3G): ping = 149 ms, up = 0.88 Mbps, down = 0.65 Mbps
The speeds are fairly similar over multiple runs.
The Verizon device "feels" more responsive surfing websites, probably because of the lower ping times.
THIS is why i'm getting a viPhone - it's better for ME.
AT&T (5 bars of 3G): ping = 584 ms, up = 1.04 Mbps, down = 0.52 Mbps
Verizon (2 bars of 3G): ping = 149 ms, up = 0.88 Mbps, down = 0.65 Mbps
The speeds are fairly similar over multiple runs.
The Verizon device "feels" more responsive surfing websites, probably because of the lower ping times.
THIS is why i'm getting a viPhone - it's better for ME.
AT&T hater is hater.AT&T fanboy is fanboi.
I'll take the OP's February 2, 2011 article test over your Feb 22, 2010 cited test.
Nice try, though.
As has been mentioned, horrible test to compare Verizon to AT&T in the city that AT&T has mentioned it's been trying to cut through red tape for years to improve from it's "Worst spot on the network"
His signature combined with the data speed would indicate yes, he does.
New what? St. who? Are those even real towns? All I heard is they are villages with some rednecks living in and about.
Wow, are you from North America? Hell, are you from Earth? New Orleans has nearly 1.3 million in their metro and St. Louis has nearly 2.9 million people. Those are MAJOR cities, azz.
Interesting this article written in June of 2010, PC World tested iPhone 4 in SF and speed tests were great. Call quality was better than the Verizon Droid X. So it seems starting in June of 2010 and prior AT&T customers in SF experienced good 3G service as well as good voice.
When did inferior service start occurring in SF?
Last edited: