Meteor is by far the fastest Mobile Broadband on Speedtest.net

dublin geek · 28-11-2009 12:36PM

jay93 wrote: »

where did you get your statistics from ??

If you look at my original post at the start of the thread - I gave the sources for the Vodafone, O2 & 3 Speedtests on YouTube as follows,

Vodafone - http://www.youtube.c/watch?v=SzIJxbxBp_8
3 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQopVYwjjv8
O2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vX_JU_IFxE

I didn't do these tests - just found them on YouTube. I did the Meteor test myself. Comparing the average bars (rough measurement on screen), this gave the following ranking.

Meteor - 3.3Mbps
O2 - 2.2Mbps
Vodafone - 1.7Mbps
3 - 1.5Mbps

The Meteor averages on Speedtest.net are holding steady at 3.3Mbps since my first post, despite the predictions of some people on Boards that they would deteriorate.

If anyone has more recent data for average speeds for the other networks, please post. Meteor were so far in the lead, I would be very surprised if any of the other networks have overtaken them. I emphasised that the summary data refers to average speeds. As everyone agrees on Boards, all midband products vary widely depending on location and time of day. I simply wanted to have a method for identifying the network with the best average speed. Nobody should assume from these results that the average ranking automatically applies to their specific location. I also emphasised that mobile midband is no substitute for fixed line Broadband - I only use mobile when out and about, which is why the average matters most to me.

Flamed Diving · 28-11-2009 01:05PM

Dublin Geek - you are not providing the full picture. Without providing either the variance or the standard deviation of these results, then what you are asserting is baseless. I am going to assume that you have these figures, and are deliberately concealing them because they would spoil your conclusion that Meteor is the best provider.

Feel free to prove me wrong, kid.

*For those who don't get what I mean, consider two providers: Alpha and Beta. Five (Mon-Fri) random speed (mbps) samples were taken for each provider:

Alpha = {0.9, 1.2, 1, 1.2, 1.1}
Beta = {0.5, 1.5, 2, 0.3, 1.1}

Mean for Alpha = 1.08
Mean for Beta = 1.08

So, looking at the mean only one would assume that there is no difference between both providers, right? What about the variance?

Variance for Alpha: 0.017
Variance for Beta: 0.492

As you can see, the degree to which the service of Beta varies (from the average) from day-to-day is 29 times greater than Alpha.

So, which provider would you pick?

dublin geek · 28-11-2009 01:48PM

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Dublin Geek - you are not providing the full picture. Without providing either the variance or the standard deviation of these results, then what you are asserting is baseless.

Flamed Diving - I don't have Variance or SD stats for any of the mobile networks. I took my data from Speedtest.net, and they don't appear to publish anything other than averages. They only barely publish averages in the form of a graphical bar, which you have to measure on screen.

I agree that it would be very nice to have variances and standard deviation data also. However, the examples you give have been contrived to prove a point - you have no information to suggest that any of the networks follow these profiles.

Most people on Boards and elsewhere are forming their opinions of the different networks based on marketing nonsense, or anecdotal evidence from a small sample of experiences. Speedtest.net averages thousands of samples. Averages aren't perfect, but far more scientific that what most people are using to choose a network.

The examples you contrive show two groups of data with the same average. In this case, clearly the samples with the narrower variance would be the better network. However, Meteor are so far in the lead on average speed, that the variance profiles would have to be very significantly different in order to shift the ranking of networks based on variances rather than averages. It is statistically possible, but unlikely, given that they are all using similar technologies.

Flamed Diving · 28-11-2009 01:59PM

It is statistically possible, but unlikely, given that they are all using similar technologies.

Hmm, Dublingeek, you don't seem to know what you are talking about. In fact, you seem to be trying your best to squeeze the square into the round hole. Unless you have data to back this assertion up, I declare it void. Allow me to help you some more.

Sample one of wages (Euro) = {5, 2, 6, 1000, 4}
Sample two of wages (Euro) = {8, 9, 8, 10, 11}

Sample one average wage = €203.4
Sample two average wage = €9.2

Hey, on average, group one is better off!

You see, this is the biggest problem in the mind of the "average" person. All they look at is the mean, they probably don't even know what an SD/VAR is. But to anyone with even an undergraduate (hell, even LC!) understanding of descriptive statistics should know that any data which conceals the full statistics, conceals the full story and should be treated with caution. Now, back to my "contrived" dataset.

Median of sample one = €5
Median of sample two = €9

There, that is a much better representation. Tell me, Dublingeek. Do you even have the median? Or are you basing your entire dogmatic belief on what is a very shaky sum?

Your statistical analysis is no better than what you read in the Sun or Daily Mail. Stop wasting our time.

dublin geek · 28-11-2009 02:38PM

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Sample one of wages (Euro) = {5, 2, 6, 1000, 4}
Sample two of wages (Euro) = {8, 9, 8, 10, 11}

Sample one average wage = €203.4
Sample two average wage = €9.2

Flamed Diving - this is more severely contrived data to prove your point. While totally hypothetical wages can have a unlimited variance eg 2-1,000, the variance on 3G is limited by the upper limit of the technology. Meteor seem to be using generally 7Mpbs technology, although I did come across greater than 7bps recently in Galway - maybe they are using 14Mbps in some places. Either way, this puts a absolute limit on the extent to which a spurious high reading could be distorting the average in the way suggested in your contrived data sets. If you have data from Mobile Midband performance to prove your point, please publish it. Otherwise, there is no evidence to support your theory that widely diffierent variances are going to change the performance ranking of the 4 Irish mobile operators.

Flamed Diving · 28-11-2009 02:47PM

*GROAN*

Dublingeek, my "contrived" (this word makes you seem so silly) data was so to illustrate a simple point. Without measures of dispersion, or alternative measures of central tendency then your statistics say F-ALL. They are completely misleading, and the way you throw them around as if they are gospel leads me to be highly suspicious of your motives. I could very easily demonstrate what I did earlier within the limits of midband mbps range and come up with a similar result. In fact, any statistics textbook will tell you the dangers of using only one measure, but sure that doesn't suit your agenda now does it, Dublingeek? Too bad. I have very simply illustrated with my "contrived" (LOL) datasets that a ranking of averages is very likely to be deceptive and should be taken with a HUGE pillar of salt. This goes for ANY ranking of averages. ANY.

Here, go away and educate yourself instead of spreading nonsense.

http://www.dummies.com/store/product/Statistics-For-Dummies.productCd-0764554239.html

To anyone reading, do you think that:

widely diffierent variances are going to change the performance ranking of the 4 Irish mobile operators?

Would you sign up a "widely varying" service, even if its average speed was faster? Do you think that you would still only pay attention to the performance ranking set out by Dublingeek, where only average speed matters? Do you think that this "performance ranking" is somewhat missing the full picture of what defines good performance?

Flamed Diving · 28-11-2009 03:00PM

I should probably point out at this stage that I don't care which provider is the best. In fact, it may be the case that Meteor would be strengthened further by the inclusion of the dispersion data. However, this is not the point. Barstool statistics being presented as fact must be one of the most irritating things in modern society. Can you imagine Dublingeek presenting his findings at an academic seminar? No measures of dispersion you say? It wouldn't change the measure of performance?

GEEEEEEEEEEEET OUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!

dublin geek · 28-11-2009 06:44PM

Flamed Diving wrote: »

*GROAN*

Dublingeek, my "contrived" (this word makes you seem so silly) data was so to illustrate a simple point.

Flamed Diving - please cut out the emotional attacks on my intelligence, and give us some hard evidence that provides a better means of ranking mobile midband products.

As I have stated, Averages are not perfect, but the best we have...if you have better data, you are welcome to provide it. I disagree that Averages are of no use. Most people, including scientists use Averages to assess a wide variety of data. Variances and Standard deviations don't change the validity of averages, but they provide additional perspectives - nice if you can get them, but very often you have to make decisions without a full statistical analysis.

I could very easily demonstrate what I did earlier within the limits of midband mbps range and come up with a similar result.

Not possible - the contrived data set you used included one reading which is more than 200 times the average of the others! No data set that you obtain from any of the midband networks will show this level of variance from the mean. The average for Meteor is 3.3Mbps - the absolute technical max of the technology is only 14.4Mbps. Hence the maximum possible variance is only a little only 4 times the mean. In practice, most people are probably using slower speed modems, and I have rarely seen more than 5Mbps from Meteor, which suggests that the performance varies over a much narrower range, closer to the mean. We don't know how this compares with the variances on the other networks, but we know that the variances are all limited by similar upper boundaries of the technology.

Flamed Diving - perhaps you can tell us what superior scientific method you used to choose or recommend a mobile midband provider, based on existing evidence?

(1) Compare the marketing hype from each provider?
(2) Pick the provider that you think is the least "silly"
(3) Compare the anecdotal evidence on Boards?
(4) Compare the anecdotal evidence from friends?
(5) Choose the network your existing phone is from?
(6) Other method?

Flamed Diving · 28-11-2009 07:06PM

dublin geek wrote: »

Flamed Diving - please cut out the emotional attacks on my intelligence, and give us some hard evidence that provides a better means of ranking mobile midband products.

As I have stated, Averages are not perfect, but the best we have...if you have better data, you are welcome to provide it. I disagree that Averages are of no use. Most people, including scientists use Averages to assess a wide variety of data. Variances and Standard deviations don't change the validity of averages, but they provide additional perspectives - nice if you can get them, but very often you have to make decisions without a full statistical analysis.

What. Utter. Nonsense. Speaking on behalf of scientists while displaying a depth of ignorance about the very basics of statistics. You would be thrown out of a lab for the nonsense you have been spouting above. I can't believe that you would even have the cheek to attempt it. Good god, do I really have to say what I'm about to say. If you have the data to calculate an average (wait for it) you have the data to calculate the SD and VAR! And guess what, it does make a huge difference to results, and it does call into question the "ranking" that a simple mean result provides. Bloody hell! I have already explained why this is! Get a clue!

dublin geek wrote: »

Not possible - the contrived data set you used included one reading which is more than 200 times the average of the others! No data set that you obtain from any of the midband networks will show this level of variance from the mean. The average for Meteor is 3.3Mbps - the absolute technical max of the technology is only 14.4Mbps. Hence the maximum possible variance is only a little only 4 times the mean. In practice, most people are probably using slower speed modems, and I have rarely seen more than 5Mbps from Meteor, which suggests that the performance varies over a much narrower range, closer to the mean. We don't know how this compares with the variances on the other networks, but we know that the variances are all limited by similar upper boundaries of the technology.

IT WAS AN ILLUSTRATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do you even know what that is? good lord, you are insufferable! :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

dublin geek wrote: »

Flamed Diving - perhaps you can tell us what superior scientific method you used to choose or recommend a mobile midband provider, based on existing evidence?

If I was to perform a test, I would collect data. Actual data and perform a statistical analysis. A rudimentary version using Excel would suffice for such a banal topic. Standard deviation, max/min, IQR, median, that sort of stuff. Intermediate level statistics. I wouldn't post a Speedtest.net average and then tell everyone that Meteor is definitely the fastest and best, based on this result. However, since the data is unavailable (is it? i have my doubts about that also), I would just pick the best priced.

dublin geek wrote: »

(1) Compare the marketing hype from each provider?

What, like posting simple averages and concealing the important stats? That is certainly the kind of stunt I see marketing types pull all the time. But you wouldn't know anything about that.

dublin geek wrote: »

(2) Pick the provider that you think is the least "silly"

No, pick the least silly analysis.

dublin geek wrote: »

(3) Compare the anecdotal evidence on Boards?

Nope, anecdotal evidence is not terribly reliable, just like averages.

dublin geek wrote: »

(4) Compare the anecdotal evidence from friends?

Nope, anecdotal evidence is not terribly reliable, just like averages.

dublin geek wrote: »

(5) Choose the network your existing phone is from?

Nope, pick the best price.

dublin geek wrote: »

(6) Other method?

Generally pick the best price.

Flamed Diving · 28-11-2009 07:21PM

Has anyone else noticed the way that Dublingeek has never posted about anything but how great Meteor are?

Hmmmmmm...

dublin geek · 28-11-2009 07:25PM

Flamed Diving wrote: »

If you have the data to calculate an average (wait for it) you have the data to calculate the SD and VAR!

You are clearly not reading my earlier posts - I obtained the averages from Speedtest.net. I never claimed to have the raw data to calculate the averages - hence I don't have the raw data to calculate SD & VAR. Speedtest.net should have this data, but they don't appear to publish it.

However, since the data is unavailable (is it? i have my doubts about that also), I would just pick the best priced.

This is completely unscientific nonsense.

Price has nothing to do with performance, and if it did, a lower price would probably be more likely to suggest a lower performance.

In practice, price seems to have more to do with the power of the Brand, so big companies like Vodafone, 3 and O2 can probably command a higher price, even if their performance is poorer.

Average speed has to be a better proxy for performance than Price.

Flamed Diving · 28-11-2009 07:31PM

dublin geek wrote: »

You are clearly not reading my earlier posts - I obtained the averages from Speedtest.net. I never claimed to have the raw data to calculate the averages - hence I don't have the raw data to calculate SD & VAR. Speedtest.net should have this data, but they don't appear to publish it.

This is completely unscientific nonsense.

Price has nothing to do with performance, and if it did, a lower price would probably be more likely to suggest a lower performance.

In practice, price seems to have more to do with the power of the Brand, so big companies like Vodafone, 3 and O2 can probably command a higher price, even if their performance is poorer.

Average speed has to be a better proxy for performance than Price.

Ha. Unscientific nonsense. Do you know what is truely unscientific my Meteor-loving friend? It is when you see the end product of a 3rd parties results and then go around treating them as fact and publishing them in public. For all you know, those results were, ahem, "contrived" :pac:. This is getting boring, geeky. You are boring me because you cannot say anything useful or interesting. You cannot defend your position and all you can rely on is silly rhetoric or attempting to fumble away with the childrens illustrations I gave to help you understand. You obviously work for Meteor. Either that or your only interest in life is Midband services. :rolleyes:

My work here is done... for now.

Flamed Diving · 28-11-2009 07:43PM

Speedtest.net should have this data, but they don't appear to publish it.

http://www.speedtest.net/datainquiry.php

It took me about two seconds. Not free though.

dublin geek · 28-11-2009 07:47PM

Flamed Diving wrote: »

You cannot defend your position and all you can rely on is silly rhetoric ...

I have been well prepared to defend this attack on my analysis. Your attack has descended into personal abuse rather than any attempt to provide a better methodology. If someone has a better analysis, I will be quite happy to back down. Regarding me promoting Meteor midband only - nonsense - I have at all times pointed out the weakness of all midband products.

Midband should not be relied upon as a substitute for real Broadband. However, I still it find it extremely useful to have a midband solution when I am away from home/work, for both laptop and Smartphone purposes. I wanted to make sure that I bought the best product for this purpose, and I found the average speed methodology the best means of arriving at a decision. It worked for me, and 90% of the time I am happy with the outcome. There are times - typically weekday evenings in some locations, where Meteor midband lets me down - just like all Midband solutions.

Flamed Diving · 28-11-2009 07:50PM

dublin geek wrote: »

I have been well prepared to defend this attack on my analysis. Your attack has descended into personal abuse rather than any attempt to provide a better methodology. If someone has a better analysis, I will be quite happy to back down. Regarding me promoting Meteor midband only - nonsense - I have at all times pointed out the weakness of all midband products.

Midband should not be relied upon as a substitute for real Broadband. However, I still it find it extremely useful to have a midband solution when I am away from home/work, for both laptop and Smartphone purposes. I wanted to make sure that I bought the best product for this purpose, and I found the average speed methodology the best means of arriving at a decision. It worked for me, and 90% of the time I am happy with the outcome. There are times - typically weekday evenings in some locations, where Meteor midband lets me down - just like all Midband solutions.

If I made a personal attack, feel free to report the post because I did no such thing. Secondly, congrats on your first post not telling people how great Meteor is. There are dozens of other forums that may interest you.

Go explore.

jay93 · 06-12-2009 07:01PM

hmmm maybe he just wanted to point out that meteor are the fastest at the moment but will slow soon as more people sign up ..im with 3 since yesterday and have to admit they are the best i have used for so many people signed upto it (dont work for 3 as im only 16 haha so dont start ))

:D:D:D

Flamed Diving · 06-12-2009 07:51PM

jay93 wrote: »

hmmm maybe he just wanted to point out that meteor are the fastest at the moment but will slow soon as more people sign up ..im with 3 since yesterday and have to admit they are the best i have used for so many people signed upto it (dont work for 3 as im only 16 haha so dont start )) :D:D:D

I doubt it. All his posts have something to do with Meteor. Why on earth would you sign up to boards and only talk (positively) about one company?

Well, there really is only one reason.

pablomakaveli · 06-12-2009 07:59PM

I've had both 3 and now Meteor broadband. The speeds i got with 3 when i first got the modem (around 1Mbps)was good but it got progressively worse. I changed over to Meteor and i've gotten double the highest speeds i got with 3 (around 2.5Mbps). I know this will probably change over time with more people signing on but i reckon if you're in the coverage area Meteor is the better choice.

jay93 · 06-12-2009 09:07PM

yeah suppose so !!

:p:p you cant really say which brodband provider is the best speeds vary in alot of places so just depends where you are really where i am must not have alot of 3 customers i was with vodafone and the speeds where no good tryed o2 ther ok signal is ****ty so 3 is the best option for me where as other areas the other providers are better in differant places :rolleyes::rolleyes:

gar318 · 04-01-2010 07:28PM

hi just to let you know stay well clear of bill pay internet from meteor they are <snip> im currently signed up with them for 17 euro a month they rang today and told me i owe them 237e for last month haha what a joke i download nothing only browse online they can sing for there money there stick is already in the post on its way back to meteor oh and they also want another 152e for me cancelling my direct debit as they couldnt get access to the 237e they wanted f**kers:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

Flamed Diving · 04-01-2010 07:33PM

gar318 wrote: »

hi just to let you know stay well clear of bill pay internet from meteor they are scamming b**tards im currently signed up with them for 17 euro a month they rang today and told me i owe them 237e for last month haha what a joke i download nothing only browse online they can sing for there money there stick is already in the post on its way back to meteor oh and they also want another 152e for me cancelling my direct debit as they couldnt get access to the 237e they wanted f**kers:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

Contact ComReg and they will inform you on how to lodge an official complaint and take your case to a small claims court. I had a similar problem with O2 and they weren't long in changing their tune when I threatened court action.

gar318 · 04-01-2010 07:39PM

really appreciate the help cheers man will contact comreg in the morning theres no way meteor are geting paid i could get broadband for the year for the money there asking for 1 month

jor el · 04-01-2010 07:52PM

Before making a complaint, you should clean up your language, and tidy your writing style. It will not go well if you don't. You should also check what exactly Meteor are trying to charge you for. If you haven't followed proper procedures in canceling, including trying to find out why they billed you so much, you may find that your actions have hindered rather than helped you.

You signed a contract, and even though they may have made a mistake, if you didn't give them an opportunity to correct the mistake, it won't help your case. They can resort to legal action themselves, although it's unlikely it would ever go to court. Court would be preferable to some debt collectors though.

gar318 · 04-01-2010 08:11PM

unfortunately i just seen red when they rang and immediately cancelled the direct debit but i have been speaking to meteor since and they say there have been no mistakes i asked meteor why they didnt notify me that my balance had went 200 euro over its 18 euro limit and they had no answer for me

tara73 · 04-01-2010 08:45PM

hey gar,
I understand your anger and are happy to hear that somebody else is not accepting these inscrupilous methods from meteor.
I have meteor to go as well and my patience is long over the limit. I can't tell all the crap they do, it would take pages to write. As soon as I find an acceptable real broadband offer I cancel the contract with meteor.

As well I had a bill of 90 Euro the first month, as the usual customer is not aware how to check the balance and they don't notify you if you used the 5 gig. So it's a pure trick to speculate and not to inform properly how to check the balance. (You can check the balance, it's described in the manual you got when you bought the stick.) I would strongly recommend checking it regulary, as you can use the 5 gig easy enough if you download things.

And for the New Year they seem to try a new trick now and didn't renewed the account to the 5 gig. When I write the customer support it's pure luck if they write back or not. This whole thing is ridiculous.
As you said, people just stay away from meteor to go!!!
Tara

jay93 · 30-01-2010 05:41AM

ha might aswell as write a letter to your self the providers have comreg in there pockets and basically comreg do not respond very well to complaints anyone got meteor speed tests?? hasnt been alot on here really their download cap is no good tough:(:(

Narcissus · 30-01-2010 11:51AM

I had meteor broadband pay as you go and the speeds were so bad it was unusable. It would take ages for speedtest to load. However the speed seemed to pick up when I went upstairs and used it. I wasn't happy with it so brought it back to the shop. It's funny I decided to try it out because of this thread!

I have o2 broadband now and find it quite good.

tara73 · 31-01-2010 03:07PM

@jay93: thanks for that post, that's exactly my impression with comreg. They are not neutral to meteor and do nothing.

I mentioned this in a post earlier in this thread but people obviously don't get that situation or don't want to get it but maybe it's good that there are still some out there who stick to their illusions even these days about big companies/governments:rolleyes:

@apapaia: but why did you try it because of this thread? If you read all the posts carefully it's pretty obvious that meteor to go is not recommendable. To read just the headline from the first post of a thread is not the right way to judge I would say:(

Narcissus · 31-01-2010 03:53PM

tara73 wrote: »

@jay93: thanks for that post, that's exactly my impression with comreg. They are not neutral to meteor and do nothing.

I mentioned this in a post earlier in this thread but people obviously don't get that situation or don't want to get it but maybe it's good that there are still some out there who stick to their illusions even these days about big companies/governments:rolleyes:

@apapaia: but why did you try it because of this thread? If you read all the posts carefully it's pretty obvious that meteor to go is not recommendable. To read just the headline from the first post of a thread is not the right way to judge I would say:(

I guess I just glanced at some of the posts

I knew there was a 7 day return policy so I was just trying it out with the hope of it being good.

skywalker · 05-02-2010 04:21PM

Can any current users of this service tell me whether skype video calling is an option on it? & if so how stable?

Meteor is by far the fastest Mobile Broadband on Speedtest.net

Comments