MTN Speed Test:
Vodafone Speed Test:
Glo Speed Test:
Now why did that happen?
1. Interference. "Interference" sounds evil, but in this case it is not the evil type. Instead, it just happens naturally. Licensed transmitters interfere with one another, which can really be a problem if there are many cell sites.
2. Sharing. Sharing is caring, and sharing 4G is no exception. It would not make sense to wait for everyone else to disconnect once they're done using 4G, so, everyone in the area shares.
3. Signal Strength - mostly for MTN.
There may be other reasons but there is not enough data to analyze at the moment.
620 01 is MTN. SINR: -9 = Significant interference, SINR: -3 = Interference, RSRQ: -18 = Interference, RSRP: -112 = weak signal.
620 02 is Vodafone. RSRQ: -15 = Sharing, SINR: -2 = Interference. The SINR remains similar in the IDLE state.
620 03/10762 is Tigo. The Glo SIM gets a cell site associated with Tigo. Also, the ISP is detected as Zain. So, similar results should be achievable with an AirtelTigo SIM. Ec/Io:-8 is ambiguous, so it is worth mentioning that it is caused by sharing. The Ec/Io was approximately between -5 and -12 before and after testing. Interference levels on 10762 were low, so, the Glo SIM was able to outperform the MTN and the Vodafone SIM.
Glo is sometimes simply perceived as slow, yet Glo can outperform other networks sometimes. So it is best to try a variety of networks until the one that's the best (at home or in the office) is determined.
It still does not mean that MTN and Vodafone are slow. For example, the image below is Vodafone at another location and another time. Interference levels are low, sharing's there but it's not like a traffic jam.
It achieved a download speed of 56.9/150 and an upload speed of 37.2/53. Good performance from Vodafone, but the location tested in is deliberately ideal, the speed will be slower just by walking away for a few minutes.
Other networks/BWAs are affected alike, high interference levels in certain buildings is not really a problem that can be corrected.
All trademarks are the property of their respective owners.
No comments:
Post a Comment