Report on countries' average 5G speeds places the US last

[midian182]

Why it matters: Remember in the run-up to 5G when we were promised speeds well over one hundred megabits per second? That's been the case in many countries, but not the US. In a new report analyzing 5G downloads across 12 different nations, America came last with an average speed of 50.9Mbps.

OpenSignal's report is based on user results from its speed-test apps taken between May 16 and August 14. It also examined 4G data, and while the average 5G speed in the US is 1.8 times higher than the average 4G download (28.9Mbps), other countries enjoy much faster next-gen network speeds.

The only other country with a 5G speed lower than 100Mbps is the Netherlands (79.2Mbps). The fastest, meanwhile, is Saudi Arabia, which boasts a massive 414.2Mbps, though its average 4G speed is the same as the US.

The report also looked at speeds for those who use 5G at least some of the time. This takes into account both 4G and 5G average download speeds, as well as the time connected to each technology. In this instance, the US was second from last with an average speed of 33.4Mbps. Only the UK was lower (32.6Mbps).

Why does the US lag so far behind others when it comes to 5G? According to OpenSignal, it's "due to a combination of the limited amount of new mid-band 5G spectrum that is available and the popularity of low-band spectrum—T-Mobile's 600MHz and AT&T's 850MHz—which offer excellent availability and reach but lower average speeds than the 3.5GHz mid-band spectrum used as the main 5G band in every country outside of the US."

A previous OpenSignal report showed that Verizon's mmWave-based 5G service offers an average 5G download speeds of 494.7Mbps—faster than Saudi Arabia—but its small size meant it did not affect overall 5G average download speeds. The other big three providers paled in comparison, with AT&T at 60.8Mbps, Sprint offering 49.5Mbps, and T-Mobile last with 49.2Mbps.

It was also found that T-Mobile was the best provider when it came to availability; users of the speed-test app were able to connect to a 5G service 22.5 percent of the time. It was followed by Sprint (14.1 percent), AT&T (10.3 percent), and Verizon (0.4 percent).

Main image credit: Sashkin

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/86529-us-lags-behind-other-countries-when-comes-average.html

 

[VitalyT]

Those measurements seem extremely biased.

It seems the US speed was taken on average across the continent, while in Saudi Arabia it was taken around Abu-Dhabi - the richest city, one step away into the desert, and there's no reception.

And South Korea will beat Saudi Arabia on average Internet speeds at any time.

 

[neeyik]

Those measurements seem extremely biased.

It seems the US speed was taken on average across the continent, while in Saudi Arabia it was taken around Abu-Dhabi - the richest city, one step away into the desert, and there's no reception.

And South Korea will beat Saudi Arabia on average Internet speeds at any time.

The report does remark on the point you raise:

Smaller geographies like Kuwait or Hong Kong have an advantage over large countries like Australia or the U.S. in offering users high levels of 5G Availability which makes the achievements of operators in both Australia and the U.S. — powering their 5G users’ experience ahead of the U.K, and Switzerland — all the more impressive.

 

[NicktheWVAHick]

How about concentrating on fixing what we already have. 5G is of no use to me when I cant even drive from D.C. to Baltimore on 4G without losing signals at least 6 times along the way in the same spots on I-95. Seriously?

 

[opckieran]

Average speeds per country is such an old, debunked metric. A more comprehensive measure of a country's infrastructure as a whole would be average download speed per unit of land area. Mind you, such a metric would be not nearly as tangible to consumers, so, it will likely never be adopted as the standard.

 

[lipe123]

Average network speed by country is such a flawed, biased metric and has been debunked for at least a decade now. Unless these metrics start normalizing results like this by area of coverage achieved, comparing one country's infrastructure vs another is apples to oranges.

Honestly when I read the title I was like:
WTF?! I get over 100mbs on 4g/lte where I live, how can 5g only do 50!

But if you average in the results from a local cave or farmers field then it makes sense.

 

[TheBigT42]

America averages 50.9Mbps

This is actually the top end of 4G. Do we really need more on a phone? (Right now)
Like others have said. We can't we get 4G working consistently before moving on.
On too many towers I will have full LTE and only get 2 - 10Mbps down. While on others I get 30 - 50 Mbps. Why? because the backbone of a lot of towers is insufficient to handle the load. We can have 5G to the tower all day long but if the backbone can't handle it so what?

 

[candle_86]

I still understand why we need this speed for mobile devices. If I need high-speed internet I'm not using my cell phone. We tend to have very limited data and the faster the speed is the more quickly you use up your data cap. for the most part I try to keep my phone working in 3G mode so that it doesn't consume gallons of data.

 

[Evernessince]

Those measurements seem extremely biased.

It seems the US speed was taken on average across the continent, while in Saudi Arabia it was taken around Abu-Dhabi - the richest city, one step away into the desert, and there's no reception.

And South Korea will beat Saudi Arabia on average Internet speeds at any time.

The smaller geographical survey area of some was noted in the article.

Speaking of geographics, there are countries like Canada and Australlia on the list that still perform far better than the US.

On top of that, the US pays some of the highest rates: https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallm...et-around-the-world-infographic/#67db6c11226e

The US population density per square mile is 84 whereas Australia is 2 and Canada is 3. The US has no excuse for it's poor network speed other than capitalism run rampant.

https://www.infoplease.com/world/population/population-density-square-mile-countries

 

[TheBigT42]

The smaller geographical survey area of some was noted in the article.

Speaking of geographics, there are countries like Canada and Australlia on the list that still perform far better than the US.

On top of that, the US pays some of the highest rates: https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallm...et-around-the-world-infographic/#67db6c11226e

The US population density per square mile is 84 whereas Australia is 2 and Canada is 3. The US has no excuse for it's poor network speed other than capitalism run rampant.

https://www.infoplease.com/world/population/population-density-square-mile-countries

" The US population density per square mile is 84 whereas Australia is 2 and Canada is 3. The US has no excuse for it's poor network speed other than capitalism run rampant. "

Actully the problem is Internet Service Providers don't have enough competition. The Federal, State, and Local Governments allow territorial monopolies and squash true capitalism. So it is the lack of capitalism that is causing high prices.

 

[Evernessince]

" The US population density per square mile is 84 whereas Australia is 2 and Canada is 3. The US has no excuse for it's poor network speed other than capitalism run rampant. "

Actully the problem is Internet Service Providers don't have enough competition. The Federal, State, and Local Governments allow territorial monopolies and squash true capitalism. So it is the lack of capitalism that is causing high prices.

Completely off topic and has nothing to do with wireless networks.

 

[TheBigT42]

Completely off topic and has nothing to do with wireless networks.

Well Excuuuuuuse meeeeee

 

[Bamda]

Be sure to get your 5G phones! LOL

 

[Endymio]

The US population density per square mile is 84 whereas Australia is 2 and Canada is 3. The US has no excuse for it's poor network speed other than capitalism run rampant.

Sigh, here we go again. First, one small correction: Canada's population density is 36M/3.86M = 9.3, or triple what you claimed. Secondly, and far more importantly, Canada's population is almost entirely urban: 30.2M out those 36M people live in just a few cities -- small cities, by land area. The poor six million souls who live elsewhere in Canada don't have 5G by and large-- there are still huge swaths in the north of the country that don't have 4G or even 3G yet.

When measuring population density metrics with respect to cell coverage, the proper denominator is the size of the area you actually cover, not the entire nation as a whole.

 

[Burty117]

Still blows my mind how terrible the UK does in stuff like this, we're a tiny country with a lot of people living close together yet 5G coverage is basically a single train station in London and its speed is still shocking...