Con_Alma wrote: How can one 3G network be faster than another? Is it because of the difference in overhead bit usage for network management?

Con_Alma wrote:

Con_Alma wrote: How can one 3G network be faster than another? Is it because of the difference in overhead bit usage for network management?

Can anyone answer this???

sherm03 wrote:

Con_Alma wrote:

Con_Alma wrote: How can one 3G network be faster than another? Is it because of the difference in overhead bit usage for network management?

Can anyone answer this???

It's all determined by the number of users, the amount of data transferred among towers, and strength of the network.

For example, AT&T's network was extremely fast before the iPhone (hence the "fastest 3g network" claim). Once the iPhone was released, and users were draining network resources at a much higher rate than ever before, AT&T's data speeds became sluggishly slow. While it is still a 3g network, the amount of users cramming the network with all the data being transferred slows that speed down.

Verizon's network is able to handle the increased data transmissions because it covers a lot more area. The more towers, the less strain on the network from all the data being transmitted (hence the "most reliable 3g network" claim). Verizon's network is built to handle a lot of data...which is why the massive amount of users buying the Droid have not affected speed one bit.

Sprint on the other hand is in an interesting spot. Their 3g network is probably the fastest. The reason for it is due to the mass exodus of subscribers over the past few years. Because of all the room created by people leaving for other companies, Sprint's network is able to handle a great amount of data without problems (hence the "most dependable 3g network" claim).

This is also why there is a push for the LTE and WiMax networks. Carriers are in a tough spot...as they increase their subscriber base (which is the goal of every carrier) they put a higher strain on their 3g network and muck it up more. Eventually they'll be able to loosen things up with 4g, and be able to add more subscribers without fear of slowing their network down to a crawl.

Society wrote: Dependable and reliable are the same thing.

sherm03 wrote: It's all determined by the number of users, the amount of data transferred among towers, and strength of the network.

For example, AT&T's network was extremely fast before the iPhone (hence the "fastest 3g network" claim). Once the iPhone was released, and users were draining network resources at a much higher rate than ever before, AT&T's data speeds became sluggishly slow. While it is still a 3g network, the amount of users cramming the network with all the data being transferred slows that speed down.

Verizon's network is able to handle the increased data transmissions because it covers a lot more area. The more towers, the less strain on the network from all the data being transmitted (hence the "most reliable 3g network" claim). Verizon's network is built to handle a lot of data...which is why the massive amount of users buying the Droid have not affected speed one bit.

Sprint on the other hand is in an interesting spot. Their 3g network is probably the fastest. The reason for it is due to the mass exodus of subscribers over the past few years. Because of all the room created by people leaving for other companies, Sprint's network is able to handle a great amount of data without problems (hence the "most dependable 3g network" claim).

This is also why there is a push for the LTE and WiMax networks. Carriers are in a tough spot...as they increase their subscriber base (which is the goal of every carrier) they put a higher strain on their 3g network and muck it up more. Eventually they'll be able to loosen things up with 4g, and be able to add more subscribers without fear of slowing their network down to a crawl.

LTrain23 wrote: I have Sprint and have never had bad reception. I'm not always in/near a city either.

O-Trap wrote: I could be mistaken, but wasn't it Sprint that basically kicked a significant chunk of its customers to the curb a few years ago?

sherm03 wrote: I wouldn't say a "significant chunk." They dumped about 1000 customers because the customers called in to customer care an average of 15-25 times a day. That's a LOT of calls to care...and enough to cause significant delays in hold times. Clearly, if a customer needed to call into customer care that much, they were with the wrong cell phone provider. Sprint credited the affected customers' accounts to bring them to $0, and waived all their termination fees. It was actually Dan Hesse's first step in fixing Sprint's customer service...which has gotten exponentially better over the past year or so.

The mass exodus of customers I was referring to was when Sprint and Nextel merged. There were tons of system and billing issues, and tons of customers fled for other providers. Sprint really hasn't recovered completely from that merger.

O-Trap wrote: Gotcha.

I do remember thinking it was something like that. Just thought it was a bigger number for some reason. I had heard that it was a section that was accounting for a disproportionately high percentage of the customer service issues.

Either way, upon hearing that, I actually thought it was a good idea. I wanted to do that a few times as a CSR for VZW. Just terminate someone's contract so I didn't have to deal with them anymore.

sherm03 wrote: LOL! I had a lady throw her phone at me, too. I told her that her phone was water damaged. She didn't believe me. I took the back off the phone, and took out the battery, and showed her the water that was STILL INSIDE THE PHONE! She said I was lying. So I laughed and slid the phone back to her. Apparently I shouldn't have laughed, because she got pissed and whipped the phone right at my head. Thank God she missed...and I laughed again. She walked out without her phone.

Nothing is going to top someone pissing themselves though. That story is a keeper my friend!

I agree...if it wasn't for the customers...the wireless business wouldn't be bad at all. Which is exactly why I was so excited to get this position with Motorola. I get all the advantages of working in wireless...and don't have to talk to customers anymore!

sherm03 wrote: It's all determined by the number of users, the amount of data transferred among towers, and strength of the network.

For example, AT&T's network was extremely fast before the iPhone (hence the "fastest 3g network" claim). Once the iPhone was released, and users were draining network resources at a much higher rate than ever before, AT&T's data speeds became sluggishly slow. While it is still a 3g network, the amount of users cramming the network with all the data being transferred slows that speed down.

Verizon's network is able to handle the increased data transmissions because it covers a lot more area. The more towers, the less strain on the network from all the data being transmitted (hence the "most reliable 3g network" claim). Verizon's network is built to handle a lot of data...which is why the massive amount of users buying the Droid have not affected speed one bit.

Sprint on the other hand is in an interesting spot. Their 3g network is probably the fastest. The reason for it is due to the mass exodus of subscribers over the past few years. Because of all the room created by people leaving for other companies, Sprint's network is able to handle a great amount of data without problems (hence the "most dependable 3g network" claim).

This is also why there is a push for the LTE and WiMax networks. Carriers are in a tough spot...as they increase their subscriber base (which is the goal of every carrier) they put a higher strain on their 3g network and muck it up more. Eventually they'll be able to loosen things up with 4g, and be able to add more subscribers without fear of slowing their network down to a crawl.