Blog

Link Roundup – 1/25/20

Christian Leave a comment

This post is the first of hopefully many link roundup posts.

  • Masnick of TechDirt explains how Apple dropped plans to encrypt its customers’ backups after the FBI pushed back on the company’s plans. It seems like there’s a lot of misinformation going on in this situation.
  • Physicist Casey Handmer is extremely optimistic about SpaceX’s Starlink. If you’re not already familiar, Starlink is a satellite constellation SpaceX is working on to provide global internet connectivity. At the moment, the company plans to have over 10,000 satellites deployed in the constellation.
  • Tim Farrar is very critical of Handmer’s post. In my opinion, Farrar is way too negative on Starlink, but many of his criticisms seem correct.
  • The U.K. government may place some limitations on Huawei, but it looks like the company may have an easier time in the U.K. than in the U.S.
  • There seems to be ongoing confusion about how TracFone’s SmartSIM product will work.

MVNOs Hiding Their Host Operators

Christian Leave a comment

Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) often appear to be prohibited (or at least discouraged) from explicitly acknowledging which networks they run over. Still, it seems that most MVNOs don’t have to keep their host networks entirely secret. The effects of these policies can be kind of funny.

Red Pocket

The MVNO Red Pocket operates over all of the major U.S. networks, but it only mentions Sprint by name. The following screenshot comes from a part of Red Pocket’s website that lists the networks the company offers service over:

The unnamed networks are color-coded to match the colors used in the host networks’ branding: AT&T in blue, T-Mobile in pink, and Verizon in red.

Ting

The MVNO Ting currently operates over Sprint and T-Mobile’s networks. Verizon will be added to the list soon. Today, Ting published a blog post about the upcoming addition. Ting still isn’t naming the networks it works with, but the company is making easy-to-interpret statements like: “In 2020, Ting will be on every major coast-to-coast network except AT&T.” The blog post included a video where the names of each network the company works with were censored out:

Xfinity Mobile Growing Quickly

Christian Leave a comment

An SEC filing Comcast published today showed that Xfinity Mobile has been adding subscribers quickly. In the last quarter, Xfinity Mobile added 261,000 new lines.1 Overall, Xfinity Mobile had a net increase of 816,000 lines in 2019, bringing its total subscriber count at the end of the year to slightly over two million lines.2 It’s now fair to say that Xfinity Mobile is one of the largest MVNOs in the U.S.

By my math, Xfinity Mobile’s subscriber base grew by about 66% in 2019.3 It will be interesting to see whether Comcast can keep that kind of growth rate going forward.

By one method of accounting, Xfinity Mobile looks unprofitable. However, the brand seems to be moving in the right direction towards profitability:4

Cable Communications results include a loss of $116 million from our wireless business, compared to a loss of $191 million in the prior period.
One could argue that way of looking at the financials leaves out something important. Subscribing to Xfinity Mobile makes it harder for a Comcast customer to cancel their internet service. Looking exclusively at the balance sheet of Comcast’s wireless segment leaves out the benefits Comcast receives as Xfinity Mobile reduces churn in the company’s other product segments.

At the moment, Xfinity Mobile presents a pretty good value proposition for current Xfinity Internet customers. Going forward, I’m not sure whether Comcast will keep Xfinity Mobile’s prices competitive to encourage growth or increase prices to make each subscriber more profitable.

Opensignal’s 2020 U.S. Mobile Performance Report

Christian Leave a comment

Today, Opensignal released a new report on the performance of U.S. wireless networks. The report details results on seven different metrics.

Here are the networks that took the top spot for each metric at the national level:

  • Video Experience – Verizon
  • Voice App Experience – T-Mobile/AT&T (draw)
  • Download Speed Experience – AT&T
  • Upload Speed Experience – T-Mobile
  • Latency Experience – AT&T
  • 4G Availability – Verizon
  • 4G Coverage Experience – Verizon

It’s important to interpret these results cautiously due to limitations in Opensignal’s crowdsourcing approach. Since performance data is collected from actual subscribers’ devices, factors not directly related to underlying network quality may impact the organization’s results. For example, if subscribers on a network are unusually likely to use low-end devices or live in rural areas, that will affect the outcome of Opensignal’s analyses. Still, Opensignal’s results are interesting; they’re drawn from a huge data set involving primarily automated performance tests.

Download speed findings

The most notable result in the latest report might be AT&T’s first-place finish on the download speed metric. In the previous Opensignal report, T-Mobile won first place for download speeds, and AT&T took third place. I’ve recently been critical of the methodologies used in some other evaluations that suggested AT&T had the nation’s fastest network. While many of those methodological criticisms still stand, the fact that Opensignal’s arguably more reliable methodology also found AT&T to have the fastest network leads me to believe I was too harsh. I’ll be interested to see whether AT&T also takes the top spot for speeds in RootMetrics’ upcoming report.

New metrics

Two new metrics were introduced in this report: Voice App Experience and 4G Coverage Experience. The Voice App Experience metric assesses the quality of voice calls via apps like Skype and Facebook Messenger. I’m not exactly sure how the metric works, but it looks like all four networks received similar scores. Opensignal deemed all these scores as indicative of “acceptable” quality.

The 4G Coverage Experience metric adds a bit of complexity to the previously existing 4G Availability metric. The coverage metric assesses 4G availability across areas all Opensignal’s users find themselves in, regardless of their network.

SIM Cards

TracFone Teases SmartSIM

Christian Leave a comment

TracFone, the company behind several large MVNOs, appears to be working on a new product called SmartSIM. Apparently, some TracFone customers recently received a marketing email that mentioned SmartSIM.1 I was briefly able to access NoDeadZone.com, a website that shared some basic information about SmartSIM. Oddly, the website now automatically redirects to locations.totalwireless.com (Total Wireless is a brand owned by TracFone).

While NoDeadZone.com was accessible, it offered a short video explaining SmartSIM. Apparently, the technology will allow subscribers to switch rapidly between multiple networks based on which network offers the best signal. There’s been some speculation about how up-and-coming eSim technology may enable more people to take advantage of dynamic network switching of this sort. However, the video I gave me the impression that SmartSIM would involve a conventional, removable SIM card rather than an eSIM. At the moment, I’m unsure if TracFone is licensing switching technology Google Fi built, introducing new technology, or something else.

NoDeadZones.com allowed visitors to enter their zip codes to see if SmartSIM was available where they lived. I tried several zip codes, and all were ineligible. It seems that other people had the same experience. I’m not sure whether any zip codes were really eligible for the service.

So far, I haven’t heard of TracFone responding to any requests for more information about SmartSIM. I’m curious about the lack of communication along with the decision to redirect NoDeadZone.com to the main Total Wireless site. It’s enough to make me wonder whether a mistake was made that led SmartSIM to become public knowledge before TracFone intended.

I’ll be keeping close tabs on how the story develops. Dynamic network switching has the potential to improve wireless service and change how it’s priced. With switching technology, it may be possible to charge different rates to different subscribers based on factors like a subscriber’s location, the extent of network congestion, or the quality of service a subscriber receives. Dynamic pricing could potentially lead to far more efficient network usage than conventional pricing—which might ultimately lead to a decrease in how much consumers pay for wireless service.

Infinity symbol

Tello Launches “Unlimited Everything” Plan

Christian Leave a comment

Today, Tello launched its “unlimited everything” plan for $39 per month. I’m frustrated by how Tello named its new plan. I say that as a fan of the company; Tello has some of the best options on the market for budget-sensitive consumers who don’t use a lot of data.

If subscribers on Tello’s unlimited everything plan use 25GB of data in a billing period, they will be throttled to sluggish, 2G speeds. As I’ve previously argued, unlimited plans at 2G speeds are bogus. Once the throttle kicks in, subscribers will find that data is unusable or barely usable for many purposes. While I’ve argued that many so-called “unlimited” plans are misnamed, Tello seems to have doubled down on its misnomer. Both “unlimited” and “everything” do a poor job of describing Tello’s new plan.

When carriers throttle data to 2G speeds, that usually means speeds are capped at 128Kbps. Imposing a maximum speed of 128Kbps puts a theoretical limit on total data use of about 65GB per month.1 In practice, few subscribers will use more than 26GB per month because the internet will be sluggish and frustrating use after the 25GB threshold is reached.

To Tello’s credit, the company does an unusually good job of disclosing the throttle. Here’s an example from the banner on Tello’s homepage this morning:

Tello Homepage Banner

Virgin Mobile USA Is Shutting Down: Subscribers To Be Transferred To Boost Mobile

Christian 5 Comments

Virgin Mobile USA, a flanker brand owned by Sprint, is shutting down. Today, reports surfaced from many Virgin Mobile customers who received texts that started like this:

Virgin Mobile USA is discontinuing and your account will auto-transfer to Boost Mobile.

Boost Mobile is another flanker brand owned by Sprint, and it should offer almost all customers service that is quite similar to the service Virgin Mobile USA has been offering.

Interestingly, I can’t find a press release from Virgin Mobile about the shutdown. However, the company has published a web page with an FAQ about the upcoming changes. The page illuminates several details about how the automated transfer of subscribers from Virgin to Boost will be handled:

  • Subscribers will keep their existing phone numbers.
  • Subscribers should be able to keep their current phones.
  • The transfers will begin in February.
  • Boost Mobile will not accept Paypal. Subscribers that paid for Virgin service with PayPal will need to choose a new payment method.
  • Payment dates will usually be unaffected by the transfer from Virgin to Boost.
  • Subscribers automatically paying for Virgin service via credit card or debit card will have their payment methods transferred automatically.
  • Device insurance purchased from Virgin should carry over to Boost.
  • Devices using Virgin’s Mobile Broadband service will not automatically be transferred to Boost. Subscribers using these devices will need to find new carriers.1

Virgin Mobile USA suggests that most subscribers will receive pricing with Boost that is the same or better than existing pricing with Virgin:

In most instances, your existing account will be transferred to Boost Mobile with your device, and a comparable or better Boost Mobile service plan at no extra cost to you… In fact, since Boost Mobile accounts have taxes and fees included, customers will end up paying less than you do now on similar plans.

While Virgin Mobile USA is suggesting customers will not face increased prices, I suggest that subscribers pay attention to any changes in their bills and plans over time. While I expect most subscribers will not be affected adversely in the short-term, it doesn’t look like Boost has committed not to raising prices or forcing plan changes in the future. I’d be especially vigilant if you currently have a grandfathered plan that Virgin no longer offers to new customers.

In most cases, I think Virgin subscribers should anticipate a smooth transition to Boost. Still, the transition may present a good moment for subscribers to consider other options on the market. Mint Mobile, a relatively new, low-cost carrier, may offer many people better coverage and lower prices than Virgin or Boost.

Why is Virgin Mobile USA shutting down?

On the FAQ page about Virgin’s shut down, one of the questions listed is: “I have been a Virgin Mobile customer for a long time, why is my account being transferred to Boost Mobile?” Virgin responds to the question with a non-answer:

We appreciate your loyalty. To ensure that we offer the best service to our customers, we regularly examine our plans. At this time a decision to discontinue the Virgin Mobile USA service has been made. As we are committed to providing you with great service, we will transfer your account to our sister brand Boost Mobile.

While I’m unsure exactly what’s going on, I expect there’s an effort underway to consolidate Sprint’s flanker brands in advance of news about whether a merger between Sprint and T-Mobile will go through.

AT&T’s Claim To Being America’s Best Network

Christian Leave a comment

AT&T has been running an ad campaign with commercials where the company claims to offer the best network.

These commercials start with a funny skit that leads to the line, “just ok is not ok.” The commercials’ narrator then says something along the lines of: “AT&T is America’s best wireless network according to America’s biggest test.”

Here’s an example:



Alternate versions of the commercial involve ok babysitters, ok sushi, ok surgeons, and more.

AT&T bases its “best network” claim on the results of Global Wireless Solutions’s (GWS) 2018 tests. The claim is at odds with the results of many other companies’ evaluations and my own view.

The meaning of the word “best” is ambiguous, but I’d guess that a survey of professionals in the wireless industry would find that most people consider RootMetrics to be the best evaluation firm in the wireless industry. Verizon fared far better than AT&T in RootMetrics’s most recent evaluation.

It’s unclear to me what AT&T is claiming when it calls GWS’s test, “America’s biggest test.” Is it the biggest test in terms of miles driven, data points collected, area covered, or something else? GWS may have the biggest test according to one metric, but it’s not unambiguously the biggest test in the nation.

GWS’s OneScore Methodology & 2019 Results

Christian Leave a comment

Global Wireless Solutions (GWS) evaluates wireless networks according to the company’s OneScore methodology. At the moment, AT&T cites GWS’s results in commercials where AT&T claims to offer the best network.

In an article about performance tests of wireless networks, GWS’s founder, Dr. Paul Carter, writes:1

With so many conflicting research reports and with every network touting itself as number one, it’s critical that wireless carriers are transparent about how and what they actually test. If what was tested doesn’t match up with the average consumer experience, then was that test truly worthwhile?

Unfortunately, GWS itself is not especially transparent about its methodology. The public-facing information about the company’s methodology is sparse, and I did not receive a response to my email requesting additional information.

As I understand it, GWS’s methodology has two components:

  • Technical performance testing in about 500 markets
  • Consumer surveying that helps determine how much weight to give different metrics

Technical testing

In 2019, GWS conducted extensive drive testing; GWS employees drove close to 1,000,000 miles as phones in their vehicles performed automated tests of networks’ performance.2

The drive testing took place in about 500 of the markets, including all of the largest metropolitan areas. GWS says the testing represents about 94% of the U.S. population.3 I expect that GWS’s focus on these markets limits the weight placed on rural and remote areas. Accordingly, GWS’s results may be biased against Verizon (Verizon tends to have better coverage than other networks in sparsely populated areas).

Consumer surveying

In 2019, GWS surveyed about 5,000 consumers to figure out how much they value different aspects of wireless performance.4 GWS finds that consumers place a lot of importance on phone call voice quality, despite the fact the people are using their phones for more and more activities unrelated to phone calls.5 GWS also finds that, as I’ve suggested, consumers care a lot more about the reliability of their wireless service than its raw speed.6

Combining components

As I understand it, GWS draws on the results of its surveying to decide how much weight to place of different aspects parts of the technical performance tests:

The consumer survey includes questions asking respondents to rank the importance of different tasks they perform on their mobile device, as well as the importance of different aspects of network performance. Our network test results are then weighted according to how consumers prioritize what’s important to them, and evaluated in eleven different network performance areas related to voice, data, network reliability and network coverage.

The methodology’s name, OneScore, and the graphic below suggest that the company combines all of its data to arrive at final, numerical scores for each network:7

GWS OneScore Visual

Oddly enough, I can’t find GWS publishing anything that looks like final scores. That may be a good thing. I’ve previously gone into great detail about why scoring systems that use weighted rubrics to give companies or products a single, overall score tend to work poorly.

2019 Results

In GWS’s 2019 report, the company lists which networks had the best performance in several different areas:

AT&T:

  • Download speed
  • Data reliability
  • Network capacity
  • Video streaming experience
  • Voice accessibility
  • Voice retainability

T-Mobile:

  • Voice quality

Verizon:

  • Upload speed

Open questions

I have a bunch of open questions about GWS’s methodology. If you represent GWS and can shed light on any of these topics, please reach out.

  • Does the focus on 501 markets (94% of the U.S.) tend to leave out rural areas where Verizon has a strong network relative to other operators?
  • Do operators pay GWS? Does AT&T pay to advertise GWS’s results?
  • What does the consumer survey entail?
  • How directly are the results of the consumer survey used to determine weights used later in GWS’s analysis?
  • What does GWS make of the discrepancies between its results and those of RootMetrics?
  • How close were different networks’ scores in each category?
  • GWS shares the best-performing network in several categories. Is information available about the second, third, and fourth-place networks in each category?
  • Does GWS coerce its raw data into a single overall score for each network?
    • Are those results publicly available?
    • How are the raw performance data coerced into scores that can be aggregated?

Dawson On The Government’s Role In 5G

Christian Leave a comment

I recently stumbled across a fantastic post by Doug Dawson about the government’s role in 5G. Here’s a bit of it (emphasis mine):

It’s been really interesting to watch how much the federal government talks about 5G technology. I’ve not seen anything else like this in my adult lifetime…I’ve been hearing about the 5G war for a few years now and I still don’t know what it means. 5G is ultimately a broadband technology. I can’t figure out how the US is harmed if China gets better broadband. If there is now a 5G war, then why hasn’t there been a fiber-to-the-home war? I saw recently where China passed us in the number of last-mile fiber connections, and there wasn’t a peep about it out of Congress…Cellular carriers worldwide are crowing about 5G deployment, yet those deployments contain none of the key technology that defines 5G performance. There is no frequency slicing. There is no bonding together of multiple frequencies to create larger data pipes. There is no massive expansion of the number of connections that can be made at a website. Cellphones can’t yet connect to multiple cell sites. What we have instead, for now, are new frequencies layered on top of 4G LTE…The carriers admit that the 600 MHz and the 850 MHz spectrum being deployed won’t result in faster speeds than 4G LTE…It’s starting to look like the real reason for the talk about a 5G war is to drum up sympathy for the big cellular carriers as a justification for big government giveaways.

I mostly agree with Dawson, and I strongly recommend the full post.