4G Networks Tested: WiMAX vs. HSPA+
Dumb conclusions
Location F was in a well-populated area, well within what Sprint's coverage maps showed as 4G coverage. It wasn't at the edge of coverage or anything like that.
Every carrier is going to have strong and weak locations in their network. So naturally, excluding any one location will change the overall average. But excluding one location b...
(continues)
For the lazy people here are some examples.
Northeast they gave to tmobile but tmobiles speed was 1.42 avg 2.01 max, when sprints wimax was 3.09 avg and 3.09 max
Southeast they gave to ATT but there speed was 1.79 avg and 1.95 max, when sprints 4g was 2.27 avg 3.14 max.
Is today april 1st or are people blind?
ATT doesn't have 3.75G yet, so does LTE with VZW.
1. When making this comparison network technology and network penetration should be two separate and distinct values. Conflating them, as you did, certainly does skew the numbers.
2. Comparing an area where one network has advanced experimental coverage directly to an area where the other network has poor coverage without including an opposite representation simply because you would have had to travel outside the city limits to find it is just silly. And yes misleading.
Iknownothing said:
Begging your pardon but,
1. When making this comparison network technology and network penetration should be two separate and distinct values. Conflating them, as you did, certainly does skew the numbers.
I disagree. The goal wasn't to test what the technologies are capable of in some theoretical world. The goal was to test these technologies in the real world, in places people might actually need to use them.
2. Comparing an area where one network has advanced experimental coverage directly to an area where the other network has poor coverage without including an opposite representation simply because you would have had to travel outside the city limits to find it is ju...
(continues)
I agree with you that in order to perform your "tests" in a "fair" manner you must include all of your data. However, I believe that your "empirical" conclusions are still biased. Your outlier, in this case location F, significantly affects your data which arguably flaws your conclusion. In order to reduce the significance of these anomalies, your sample should be much larger. Because of your small sample producing skewed results the only conclusions people can draw will be either false, or that your data is misleading. It is unfortunate that a usually credible news source is, and will, wrongly influence readers with this misleading comparison. I hope that your testing techniques will improve going forward.
Sincerely,
...
(continues)
If you removed location F, WiMAX would come out a bit faster on the average, on download speed, but I would still reach the same conclusion that HSPA+ is roughly comparable in speed and T-Mobile's claim of "4G speeds" is valid. That was the main point of the article.
The upload and latency numbers were quite consistent. That wasn't an "outlier". I highly doubt that more testing in more locations would have changed the solid conclusion that HSPA+ is faster in those regards.
Did you even read the pcmag article, when they showed the test results it all showed sprint 4g being faster in every area... So i think pcmag doesnt know how to read there own data. They kept giving AT&T the award when the test results clearly show sprint 4g being faster LOL.... http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2364263, 00.asp
For the lazy people here are some examples.
Northeast they gave to tmobile but tmobiles speed was 1.42 avg 2.01 max, when sprints wimax was 3.09 avg and 3.09 max
Southeast they gave to ATT but there speed was 1.79 avg and 1.95 max, when sprints 4g was 2.27 avg 3.14 max.
table of data:
http://www.pcworld.com/zoom?id=198054&page=1&zoomIdx=1 »
full article:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/198054/sprints_evo_ph ... »
To say the author of the PhoneScoop article should have discarded the "F" data just because it lowers the average, is total BS. That suggestion is totally in conflict with the scientific method and is counter to the incredibly important matter of integrity of the data.
Read the real-world data and weep, or ignore it if you personally don't like it, but don't EVER discard data points just because they conflict with your...
(continues)
This forum is closed.