Mobile Providers are lying through their teeth about network speeds

[HotHotHeat]

This is both hilarious and frustrating at the same time.

Each of the 'big 3' network websites right now, the following information is provided:

Rogers:
-LTE 'Beyond 4G' Network rolled out in Ottawa, soon expanding.
-Speeds between 12 and 25 mbps. That's quite the range in speeds.

Telus and Bell, sharing the same towers (my personal favourite):
-4G network came in 2009, apparently. It still uses HPSA+ technology.
-Download speeds 'up to' 42mbps! In every major city!

First of all, Rogers - LTE tech IS 4G. 'Beyond' implies they've exceeded the maximum theoretical network speed of LTE, which is apparently somewhere around 150 mbps.

With that in mind, Telus and Bell are telling some massive lies. Anyone who has a Telus mobile internet speed stick, use it and do a internet speed test, you'll get around 7 mbps anywhere in Calgary under full bars. NO WHERE in this country are you accomplishing 42 mbps. I don't even think HSPA+ can get near those speeds.

Check out Huffpost's tech section for an article they put out today for more. This industry needs advertising regulations not to save costumers, but to save them from acting like little children lying about how much candy they have in their lunch bag. Such a joke.

[fredr123]

All they're talking about are theoretical limits under ideal circumstances. Yah, it's shady and misleading, but the irony of the situation is that we've all been conditioned to look out for this kind of language by all the puffery we've seen in the past.

The "Full Details" tab on Rogers' LTE about page says this:

Up to 75 Mbps refers to maximum theoretical download speed for LTE technology using 2x10MHz spectrum blocks. Typical download speeds of 12-25 Mbps. Up to 150 Mbps refers to maximum theoretical download speeds for LTE technology using 2x20MHz spectrum blocks. Compatible LTE device required. Actual experienced speeds depend on the network spectrum and technical specifications of the device used and may vary based on topography and environmental conditions, network congestion and other factors

On Telus' site, the fine print says:

Manufacturer's rated peak download speed. The average expected speed is 4-6Mbps. Compatible device required. Actual speed may vary by device being used, topography and environmental conditions, network congestion, signal strength, and other factors.

[Rathji]

This is both hilarious and frustrating at the same time.

Each of the 'big 3' network websites right now, the following information is provided:

Rogers:
-LTE 'Beyond 4G' Network rolled out in Ottawa, soon expanding.
-Speeds between 12 and 25 mbps. That's quite the range in speeds.

Telus and Bell, sharing the same towers (my personal favourite):
-4G network came in 2009, apparently. It still uses HPSA+ technology.
-Download speeds 'up to' 42mbps! In every major city!

First of all, Rogers - LTE tech IS 4G. 'Beyond' implies they've exceeded the maximum theoretical network speed of LTE, which is apparently somewhere around 150 mbps.

With that in mind, Telus and Bell are telling some massive lies. Anyone who has a Telus mobile internet speed stick, use it and do a internet speed test, you'll get around 7 mbps anywhere in Calgary under full bars. NO WHERE in this country are you accomplishing 42 mbps. I don't even think HSPA+ can get near those speeds.

Check out Huffpost's tech section for an article they put out today for more. This industry needs advertising regulations not to save costumers, but to save them from acting like little children lying about how much candy they have in their lunch bag. Such a joke.

A basic understanding of networking would tell you that pretty much all networking technologies have a theoretical maximum and a maximum that can be reached under normal and peak use operating conditions. These maximums almost always vary, but vary the most among wireless technologies.

Complaining about this but ignoring the entire history of networking where this is the standard practice, is a little absurd IMHO.

[calculoso]

Rogers:
-LTE 'Beyond 4G' Network rolled out in Ottawa, soon expanding.

Telus and Bell, sharing the same towers (my personal favourite):
-4G network came in 2009, apparently. It still uses HPSA+ technology.

First of all, Rogers - LTE tech IS 4G. 'Beyond' implies they've exceeded the maximum theoretical network speed of LTE, which is apparently somewhere around 150 mbps.


Rogers changed to calling HSPA+ 4G only in response to Telus and Bell. Rogers had been sticking to calling it 3G HSPA+, but was being beaten up by Customers who didn't know any better. As such, if HSPA+ is 4G, then LTE is rightfully Beyond 4G...

http://mobilesyrup.com/2011/05/07/rogers-to-officially-become-a-4g-hpsa-network-on-may-9th/

http://redboard.rogers.com/2011/our-take-on-4g-and-lte/

"For several weeks, our largest competitors have been using the term 4G to refer to HSPA+ technology that Rogers first introduced back in 2009.

We’ve been trying to stay out of the name game. Our belief all along has been that what matters to our customers isn’t what we call today’s technology but what comes next.
...
Meanwhile, our customers are telling us they’re confused because different carriers are using different names to refer to the same technologies. So while we initially thought we wouldn’t need to follow suit, we will begin referring to our HSPA+ network as 4G over the next few days."

HSPA+ definitely isn't 4G, but in this case, I can't blame Rogers for following along.

[Hack&Lube]

I consider all telecom companies scum basically in how they market themselves and package things to consumers.

[sclitheroe]

If you're gonna whine about theoretical vs real world performance, you're gonna have to whine about gigabit ethernet too - with a good hardware analyzer, you can literally watch the throughput change by bending and looping the ethernet cable, because its electrical properties change.

Also, does any of this really matter? Who chooses their mobile device based on the transmission technology? Most look for the features of the device itself. I could honestly care less what my iPhone or iPad use inside, as long as it's affordable, and works pretty much everywhere. I guess one out of two ain't bad :)

[Hack&Lube]

If you're gonna whine about theoretical vs real world performance, you're gonna have to whine about gigabit ethernet too - with a good hardware analyzer, you can literally watch the throughput change by bending and looping the ethernet cable, because its electrical properties change.

Also, does any of this really matter? Who chooses their mobile device based on the transmission technology? Most look for the features of the device itself. I could honestly care less what my iPhone or iPad use inside, as long as it's affordable, and works pretty much everywhere. I guess one out of two ain't bad :)

For us tech-savvy people, that's fine. We know what the deal really is and know to ignore the fluff and can figure out the important services and features that will serve us best to make an informed choice. The problem is that for the general public, inflated numbers from carrier to carrier and misleading statements are basically false advertising at best and manipulation at worst.

[Rathji]

For us tech-savvy people, that's fine. The problem is that for the general public, inflated numbers from carrier to carrier and misleading statements are basically false advertising at best and manipulation at worst.

How is it any different than any other networking technology, for example wireless routers? They all claim a maximum that isn't possible in almost any situation.

How are Rogers and Telus any worse than Cisco and Netgear?

[sclitheroe]

For us tech-savvy people, that's fine. We know what the deal really is and know to ignore the fluff and can figure out the important services and features that will serve us best to make an informed choice. The problem is that for the general public, inflated numbers from carrier to carrier and misleading statements are basically false advertising at best and manipulation at worst.

But who, in the general public, buys a phone based on cellular technology? Aren't most people buying based on app availability? Angry Birds surely trumps whether its 4G, LTE, or Mrs Butterworth under the hood, doesn't it?

[Locke]

But who, in the general public, buys a phone based on cellular technology? Aren't most people buying based on app availability? Angry Birds surely trumps whether its 4G, LTE, or Mrs Butterworth under the hood, doesn't it?

Whoa there. If it were Mrs Butterworth then thats a game changer.

[sclitheroe]

How is it any different than any other networking technology, for example wireless routers? They all claim a maximum that isn't possible in almost any situation.

How are Rogers and Telus any worse than Cisco and Netgear?

Or Ford... There's no way your Mustang purchased at Ranchland Ford makes as many HP as the manufacturer claims when you drive it off the lot, partially because of testing methodology, and partially because of the altitude out here

http://blog.americanmuscle.com/why-does-my-mustang-put-down-less-hp-than-ford-advertises/

[Hack&Lube]

Or Ford... There's no way your Mustang purchased at Ranchland Ford makes as many HP as the manufacturer claims when you drive it off the lot, partially because of testing methodology, and partially because of the altitude out here

http://blog.americanmuscle.com/why-does-my-mustang-put-down-less-hp-than-ford-advertises/

At least it's a reasonable number and reasonably comparable to the stats of other cars. The horsepower numbers are under the ideal dyno conditions with the ideal fuel, specific tuning, lowest weight, etc.

But at least they are reasonable and not theoretical maximums of the technology that the infrastructure itself could never hope to ever reach.

But who, in the general public, buys a phone based on cellular technology? Aren't most people buying based on app availability? Angry Birds surely trumps whether its 4G, LTE, or Mrs Butterworth under the hood, doesn't it?

Believe it or not, the general public buys into the hype for speed. Many people I know are unhappy with the speed of the internet on their mobile devices (which often has to do with the actual power of the device). They look at those numbers and go with whomever has the fanciest looking and "newest" technology and claims the best speeds because they assume it will let Facebook load faster or whatever.

[sclitheroe]

At least it's a reasonable number and reasonably comparable to the stats of other cars. The horsepower numbers are under the ideal dyno conditions with the ideal fuel, no drag, lowest weight, etc.


Just like the ideal conditions advertised for the wireless - no competing clients, ideal network conditions, etc...

There is a disparity in real-world vs theoretical performance, but the concept is the same - under ideal conditions that you cannot achieve in the real world, these are the numbers the platform can operate at.


Believe it or not, the general public buys into the hype for speed. Many people I know are unhappy with the speed of the internet on their mobile devices (which often has to do with the actual power of the device). They look at those numbers and go with whomever has the fanciest looking and "newest" technology and claims the best speeds because they assume it will let Facebook load faster or whatever.


And while I don't agree that the general public buys on speed, I will agree that it factors into their purchasing decision - they will generally buy the highest speed device available to them, all other features being equal. And in that case, invariably, buying the highest performing option available will result in, even factoring in real-world factors, the best performance available to them in the real-world. So again, I fail to see the issue here - if you buy a 4G or LTE device, you are buying the highest available speed that a carrier offers.

Edit: the other thing is that I doubt the general public really knows what a megabit of throughput is, in relation to how fast a page loads or an app operates, other than "bigger is better". So the numbers are still valid for use by consumers in establishing relative performance when evaluating their purchasing decision