Netztest-connect-2017-01-ENGLISH-final
1 like386 views
The document summarizes the results of a 2017 mobile network benchmark test conducted in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. The test evaluated the voice and data performance of major mobile operators in each country. For Germany: - Deutsche Telekom had the best voice and data performance, leading in most categories. Vodafone placed second. - For voice, Telekom performed best in terms of call success rates, setup times and quality. Vodafone was slightly ahead in some measures but Telekom won the overall voice category. - For data, Telekom also performed best in cities and on roads. Vodafone placed second while Telefónica lagged behind in both voice and data tests.
Netztest-connect-2017-01-ENGLISH-final
- 1. germany austria switzerland The great 2017 mobile network test he network operators in Germany, Aus- tria and Switzerland wait for the results of our annual mobile network benchmark with the highest tension imaginable. As in the years before, we have conducted this benchmark as part of our well-proven co operation with the Aachen-based network testing specialist P3 communications. However, we have never before experien ced such harsh disputes with some of the test candidates in the forefront of our test. They argued about questions like which smartphone models were to be used for the measure- ments, how the test routes should be put to- gether or how we should balance the indivi- dual voice and data results. Eventually, all their reasoning could be traced back to one purpose: Some of the candidates hoped to gain advantages in those areas where they believed to be particularly strong and having the edge over their competitors. We did show good sportsmanship inter preting the pressure built up by some of the candidates in the run-up of our test as proof for the high relevance and acceptance of our benchmarks within the whole industry. At the end of 2016, we conducted our annual mobile network benchmark for the 23rd time. Together with our renowned benchmarking partner P3 communications, once again we have investigated, which mobile operators in Germany, Austria and Switzerland are a cut above the rest – with utmost effort and our objective, customer-oriented testing methodology. 60% DATA Youtube Quality Success RaƟo Web Page Download File Up- and Download 40% VOICE Call Success RaƟo Call Setup Time Speech Quality Quality benchmark for many years Traditionally, fairness and transparency play a very big role in our network test (also see page 16). In any case, with all decisions con- cerning methodology and scoring, our high- est priority is always to ensure the signifi- cance of our benchmark for you, our readers. As a matter of principle, connect and P3 value objective and authoritative results about the actual quality and performance of the cellular networks second to none. Eve- rybody interested can find an exact descrip- tion of our methodology on pages 14 and 15. So, on the following pages you can read the answers to many thrilling questions: Has Deutsche Telekom been able to defend its top rank in Germany? How does O2 rank, after its owner Telefónica has started to com- bine this network‘s former radio cells with those of E-Plus, which they bought in 2014 (also see page 15). Which operators come out on top inAustria and Switzerland, where the contest is traditionally conducted on an especially high performance level? Not all contestants will like all of the answers and results. This again proves to us that we have done a good job. Because this is the only way for us to guarantee that truly everybody can fully rely on our test results. Hannes Rügheimer Practical relevance in mind In the scoring of our test results, we ac count for the steadily growing importance of data communica tions. the benchmark Köln Frankfurt am MainWiesbaden München Berlin Düsseldorf Wuppertal Bielefeld Oldenburg Duisburg Essen Kassel Halle Dresden Magdeburg StuƩgart Augsburg Hamburg Drivetest Walktest Roads Train Unna Ascheberg Greven Bramsche Vechta Seevetal Wedemark Bad Oeynhausen Schwerte Soest Brandenburg Dessau-Rosslau Wiedemar Grimma Plauen Hof Bayreuth Lauf an der Pegnitz Pfaffenhofen an der Ilm Dachau Guenzburg Kirchheim unter Teck Idstein Limburg Troisdorf Leonberg gs ruƩga BaB I WW e T Bludenz Imst Zirl Worgl Zell am See Sankt Johann im Pongau Bischofshofen Hallein Seewalchen am AƩersee Laarkirchen Kremsmunster Enns Melk Brunn am Gebirge Koƫngbrunn Gleisdorf Völkermarkt Velden am Wörthersee SpiƩal an der Drau Kufstein Linz Traun St. Pölten Baden Salzburg Feldkirch Villach Wien Graz Klagenfurt InnsbruckZürich Luzern Uster Schaĭausen Thun Lugano Lausanne Yverdon-les-Bains Winthertur Bern Geneve Basel Chur Cham Baden Dubendorf Volketswil EffreƟkon DieƟkon Sarnen Bellinzona Spiez Bulle Vevey Renens Morges Gland Meyrin Carouge Worb Solothurn PraƩeln MuƩenz T SINCE network test 3
- 2. 600 of 1000 Points400 of 1000 Points VOICE DATA of180 of270 of80 of120 of50 of75 of60 of90 92% 88% 49% Telekom Vodafone Telefónica 95% 91% 78% 95% 90% 76% 94% 92% 71% 89% 82% 62% of30 of45 57% 54% 33% 61% 46% 30% 87% 81% 65% 87% 84% 56% 87% 68% 90% CiƟes Drivetest CiƟes Walktest Towns Drivetest Roads Drivetest Train Walktest 600 of 1000 Points400 of 1000 Points VOICE DATA of180 of270 of80 of120 of50 of75 of60 of90 92% 88% 49% Telekom Vodafone Telefónica 95% 91% 78% 95% 90% 76% 94% 92% 71% 89% 82% 62% of30 of45 57% 54% 33% 61% 46% 30% 87% 81% 65% 87% 84% 56% 87% 68% 90% CiƟes Drivetest CiƟes Walktest Towns Drivetest Roads Drivetest Train Walktest The quality and reliability of voice connections represent 40 per cent of the final score. Which operator offers the best network in this respect? Data tests account for 60 per cent of the final score.Who delivers the best performance in this category?Voice Data In some users‘ communications habits, voice telephony only plays a minor role. But conven tional phone calls are far from being outdated. Otherwise, the three German network opera tors would probably not have gone to the lengths of imple menting VoLTE – telephony based on sending data packets over the LTE network. Therefore, quality and perfor mance of voice telephony still played an important part in the drive tests and walk tests con ducted by P3: For this purpose, both cars that were driving through 17 large and many smaller German cities carried six Samsung smartphones each.They permanently called their counterparts in the other vehicle. In order to simulate the everyday smartphone use, the phones would constantly trans fer data in the background during the telephony tests. An identical device configura tion was used in the backpacks Data communication is the most prestigious category in connect‘s network test. Firstly, the results of these tests repre sent 60 per cent of the final score.And secondly, the test parcours to be completed by our candidates incorporates a large number of practice-orien ted applications. For instance, the smartphones frequently access the most popular web sites according to the renowned Alexa ranking, as well as the static „ETSI reference web page“ also known as „Kepler page“. Measuring the speed and relia bilty of data transfers is the aim of our upload and download tests. We monitor uploads with test files sized 3 MB and downloads with 1 MB files.Additionally, we verify which amount of data travels over the network within ten seconds. Another scope of our testing are Youtube videos.The popular video platform does not distin guish between standard defini tion (SD) and high definition (HD) carried by the test staff who walked around in city centres and public buildings conducting the walk tests. The devices had been confi gured to make sure that part of the connections would be esta blished via VoLTE and another part would be transmitted via conventional circuit-switched telephony. Distinct ranking order The tests in the city centres already showed a clear picture: Both in the drive tests and in the walk tests, Deutsche Tele kom is ahead.Vodafone follows at a distance of a few points. O2 is clearly defeated what can be seen in the table below by means of lower success ratios, longer call setup times and also a lower average speech quality. As a result of their test drives through smaller cities and on connecting roads, the P3 tes ting team found basically the same ranking order: Deutsche Telekom leads,Vodafone fol lows at a comparatively small distance, and O2 comes in last with a considerably larger gap. While Telefónicas network keeps up quite well in smaller towns, its distance to the lea ding two contenders grows larger on the connecting roads. On the whole, compared to last year‘s test, O2 improved in the voice category. For the voice calls examined by the testing staff in trains, even Telekom and Vodafone showed some weak- nesses. But O2 scores again far behind them. Regarding some measurement values like call setup times and speech quality,Vodafone is narrowly ahead. But while the Düsseldorf-based operator could claim a stage win in the voice category last year, in the 2017 test this title goes to Telekom. resolutions any more. It rather dynamically adapts the video resolution to the bandwidth that is currently available. In order to respect this new strategy in our tests, we examined the success ratio of video playbacks, the start times, the percentage of playouts that took place with- out interruptions as well as the videos‘ average resolution or number of lines respectively. Both P3 test cars checked these indicators as part of their drivetest, and also the walk test teams had the same agenda. All data measurements in Ger many were executed with the LTE Cat.6 smartphone Samsung Galaxy Note 4. Strong Deutsche Telekom In big cities, the results were similar to the voice category: Again, a very strong Telekom takes the lead,Vodafone follows with good results, and O2 is clearly defeated. Separate ana lyses show that Vodafone >> OPERATOR Telekom Vodafone Telefónica DATA (CiƟes; Drivetest) Web-Page Download (Live/StaƟc) Success RaƟo (%/%) 99.4/99.7 98.8/99.2 94.9/96.3 Ø Session Time (s/s) 2.9/1.4 3.0/1.4 3.4/2.1 File Download (3 MB) Success RaƟo/Ø Session Time (%/s) 99.7/1.3 99.5/1.9 99.1/6.0 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 12884/50934 7219/52516 1784/27666 File Upload (1 MB) Success RaƟo/Ø Session Time (%/s) 99.7/1.3 99.2/1.4 96.7/2.7 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 5690/11586 3567/12864 1453/8719 File Download (10 Seconds) Success RaƟo (%) 99.8 99.2 98.3 Ø Throughput (kbit/s) 55738 39675 13591 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 16703/107234 7880/94372 1993/32908 File Upload (10 Seconds) Success RaƟo (%) 99.7 99.1 98.5 Ø Throughput (kbit/s) 27892 15841 8492 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 7885/42458 3735/29749 1382/17214 Youtube Videos Success RaƟo/Start Time (%/s) 99.8/1.7 99.8/1.8 98.1/2.1 Playouts without InterrupƟons (%) 100.0 99.9 99.3 Ø Video ResoluƟon (p) 578 614 457 DATA (CiƟes; Walktest) Web-Page Download (Live/StaƟc) Success RaƟo (%/%) 99.3/99.3 98.5/98.9 91.3/92.1 Ø Session Time (s/s) 2.9/1.4 3.1/1.6 3.4/2.2 File Download (3 MB) Success RaƟo/Ø Session Time (%/s) 99.6/1.4 99.1/1.9 95.5/6.3 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 13578/51513 6801/56497 1569/37915 File Upload (1 MB) Success RaƟo/Ø Session Time (%/s) 98.6/1.5 97.7/2.0 91.6/3.3 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 3127/11409 1951/13029 1026/9050 File Download (10 Seconds) Success RaƟo (%) 99.4 99.2 96.2 Ø Throughput (kbit/s) 57742 48961 17254 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 15848/111341 7252/108922 1471/47759 File Upload (10 Seconds) Success RaƟo (%) 99.2 98.9 96.5 Ø Throughput (kbit/s) 25097 16423 8773 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 3455/42305 2141/39359 654/28672 Youtube Videos Success RaƟo/Start Time (%/s) 99.4/1.7 99.0/1.9 98.2/2.3 Playouts without InterrupƟons (%) 100.0 100.0 99.0 Ø Video ResoluƟon (p) 572 609 465 DATA (Towns; Drivetest) Web-Page Download (Live/StaƟc) Success RaƟo (%/%) 99.0/99.6 98.2/98.5 94.3/95.5 Ø Session Time (s/s) 2.9/1.4 3.2/1.6 3.5/2.2 File Download (3 MB) Success RaƟo/Ø Session Time (%/s) 99.8/1.6 99.0/2.3 96.7/4.4 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 8710/48387 6378/36364 2908/29376 File Upload (1 MB) Success RaƟo/Ø Session Time (%/s) 99.2/1.7 97.7/1.8 94.4/3.6 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 3230/11227 2298/11594 1045/7779 File Download (10 Seconds) Success RaƟo (%) 99.8 99.4 96.2 Ø Throughput (kbit/s) 36873 20028 17021 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 10172/73053 6410/39497 3904/35924 File Upload (10 Seconds) Success RaƟo (%) 99.4 99.0 98.2 Ø Throughput (kbit/s) 20759 11329 6804 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 4144/41682 2670/19807 988/16864 Youtube Videos Success RaƟo/Start Time (%/s) 99.6/1.8 99.4/1.8 98.2/2.2 Playouts without InterrupƟons (%) 100.0 100.0 99.8 Ø Video ResoluƟon (p) 556 580 484 OPERATOR Telekom Vodafone Telefónica VOICE (CiƟes; Drivetest) Call Success RaƟo (%) 99.4 98.8 95.9 Call Setup Time (s) 4.0 3.9 5.5 Speech Quality (MOS-LQO) 3.8 3.9 3.7 VOICE (CiƟes; Walktest) Call Success RaƟo (%) 99.4 98.5 96.7 Call Setup Time (s) 4.0 4.0 5.3 Speech Quality (MOS-LQO) 3.9 3.9 3.7 VOICE (Towns; Drivetest) Call Success RaƟo (%) 99.5 98.7 97.2 Call Setup Time (s) 4.0 3.9 5.7 Speech Quality (MOS-LQO) 3.8 3.9 3.6 VOICE (Roads; Drivetest) Call Success RaƟo (%) 98.6 97.4 88.3 Call Setup Time (s) 4.3 4.2 6.4 Speech Quality (MOS-LQO) 3.8 3.8 3.3 VOICE (Train; Walktest) Call Success RaƟo (%) 84.2 83.1 76.5 Call Setup Time (s) 5.1 5.4 6.9 Speech Quality (MOS-LQO) 3.6 3.6 3.1 Germany 600 of 1000 Points400 of 1000 Points VOICE DATA of180 of270 of80 of120 of50 of75 of60 of90 92% 88% 49% Telekom Vodafone Telefónica 95% 91% 78% 95% 90% 76% 94% 92% 71% 89% 82% 62% of30 of45 57% 54% 33% 61% 46% 30% 87% 81% 65% 87% 84% 56% 87% 68% 90% CiƟes Drivetest CiƟes Walktest Towns Drivetest Roads Drivetest Train Walktest network test 54 1/2017
- 3. Modern cars rely heavily on connectivity. How does this actually work out on German roads? Railways used to be the blind spot of German mobile network operators. Is this still true this year? Connecting Roads It was approximately 6600 kilo metres that P3‘s two test vehic les covered this year on German connecting roads – on top of the 5500 kilometres that each car covered driving through large and smaller cities.The point of this exercise: Gaining closer insights about the quality and reliability of the mobile networks on this parti cular type of roads. Distinct ranking order on the roads While Telekom and Vodafone were almost at level in the voice tests conducted on connecting roads, their offset becomes more obvious in the data category. Especially regarding the success ratios of web page access as well The testing staff spent about 33 hours on 15 different ICE trains during their railway tests con ducted in 2016.Yet, the measu rements did not only take place in these flagship trains of Deut sche Bahn, but also considered regional railway connections. The test results from German trains should not surprise any body who has read the outcome of the other categories: In the trains, Deutsche Telekom once again leads the pack,Vodafone scores second with viable re sults, and O2 brings up the rear. Especially when comparing the partial results obtained on the railways, looking over the borders – specifically at the re sults of the respective tests in Austria and Switzerland – may make German railway custo mers quite envious. Both alpine countries are considerably ahead in this respect.And even Telekom, which scores best in the measurements taken in German railways, cannot mea sure up with the results of the Austrian and Swiss operators – by far. Deutsche Bahn has as downloads and uploads,Tele kom clearly ranks first and keeps its competitor from Düsseldorf at a distance. Still, this match takes place at a very high level when looking at the distance of O2. Similar to the large and small cities before,Telefónica also loses valuable points on the connecting roads and thus falls back further behind the leading two German operators. The test results in this category are quite obvious: Car drivers who need robust data connec tions on the road – whether for navigation, for communication or mobile entertainment purposes – currently cannot pass the mobile networks of Deutsche Telekom or Vodafone. recently started an initiative to enhance connectivity especially in its ICE trains in close coope ration with the German mobile network operators. But this does not seem to have much impact on this year‘s mobile network test. Much need for improvement When looking at the details, there are many similarities bet ween the railways and the con necting roads:While Telekom and Vodafone were almost at level regarding voice phone calls in trains, their offset grows in the data category. Here, Telekom offers the best results – but still shows a lot of room for improvement.Vodafone‘s results are mid-level, and O2 once again comes in last. Success ratios, like those for web surfing, of around 85 per cent at Telekom, about 77 per cent at Vodafone and approxi mately 63 per cent at O2 convey a clear message:When it comes to connectivity in Ger man railways, there remains a lot of work to be done. Telekom wins this year‘s network test at a distinct dis tance to runner-up Vodafone. Both in the voice and data categories, the Bonn-based operator turns out to be the strongest conveyor. Although we have raised our requirements, last year‘s win ner Telekom not only mana ged to defend its position, but actually continued to improve its score.Therefore Telekom absolutely deserves the first place in Germany – and this for the sixth time in a row. Compared to the results of last year, both the networks of O2 and E-Plus managed to improve. This is particularly underlined by the results of the voice measurements.A valid expla nation for O2 not scoring any better may be the problems caused by the ongoing inte gration of both networks. So we hope in the best interest of O2‘s customers that this integration will continue to foster noticeable improvements. Vodafone also improved both in the voice and data cate gories compared to last year‘s results. But still Telekom out performed their Düsseldorf- based competitor in this year‘s voice tests.Anyway, the 2017 network test em phasizes Vodafone‘s clear improvements in the data scores. In this context, Vodafone‘s excellent Youtube results are particularly eye- catching.All in all, these results entail a second rank with a good overall score. OPERATOR Telekom Vodafone Telefónica DATA (Roads; Drivetest) Web-Page Download (Live/StaƟc) Success RaƟo (%/%) 99.0/99.3 95.9/96.3 90.1/91.5 Ø Session Time (s/s) 3.0/1.5 3.2/1.6 3.5/2.3 File Download (3 MB) Success RaƟo/Ø Session Time (%/s) 99.3/2.0 97.0/2.5 93.8/4.8 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 6409/43956 5908/41958 2359/29851 File Upload (1 MB) Success RaƟo/Ø Session Time (%/s) 98.6/1.9 96.8/1.8 90.8/3.8 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 2475/10344 2632/12214 959/8032 File Download (10 Seconds) Success RaƟo (%) 99.5 96.9 95.4 Ø Throughput (kbit/s) 30575 26531 15444 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 7496/59980 6780/55954 2801/36096 File Upload (10 Seconds) Success RaƟo (%) 99.2 96.3 92.5 Ø Throughput (kbit/s) 15882 12376 6963 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 3060/33803 2635/20692 937/17988 Youtube Videos Success RaƟo/Start Time (%/s) 99.6/1.8 97.4/1.9 92.7/2.2 Playouts without InterrupƟons (%) 100.0 100.0 99.9 Ø Video ResoluƟon (p) 543 593 492 OPERATOR Telekom Vodafone Telefónica DATA (Train; Walktest) Web-Page Download (Live/StaƟc) Success RaƟo (%/%) 84.5/85.5 76.7/78.9 62.7/61.7 Ø Session Time (s/s) 3.4/1.9 3.7/2.1 4.5/3.7 File Download (3 MB) Success RaƟo/Ø Session Time (%/s) 88.2/5.4 81.2/4.9 72.6/11.8 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 2440/29183 2491/36934 726/12771 File Upload (1 MB) Success RaƟo/Ø Session Time (%/s) 87.0/2.9 78.8/3.2 62.4/7.3 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 1151/8555 1058/10974 526/5915 File Download (10 Seconds) Success RaƟo (%) 87.9 81.2 72.6 Ø Throughput (kbit/s) 21106 16802 7094 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 3825/40116 2488/37275 911/13041 File Upload (10 Seconds) Success RaƟo (%) 87.1 81.5 73.4 Ø Throughput (kbit/s) 13661 9099 2894 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 999/29577 767/20322 216/8658 Youtube Videos Success RaƟo/Start Time (%/s) 88.1/2.1 78.4/2.4 89.3/3.1 Playouts without InterrupƟons (%) 100.0 99.2 98.4 Ø Video ResoluƟon (p) 499 522 402 Data on Railways Single review 887 841 643TOTAL very good good sufficient-RaƟng Shown voice, data and total scores are rounded. VOICE max. 400 max. 1000 Points DATA max. 600 366 352 270 521 373 489 Telekom Vodafone Telefónica could definitely improve over last year‘s results in the data category. To some extent, this supports the Düsseldorf operator counterbalancing its shortfall in the data score.Also,Vodafone achieves especially good results at Youtube playback – in this category, the Düsseldorfers partly draw level with Telekom. Still, this is not sufficient to grant Vodafone a partial victory.The reason is that Vodafone scores a little worse than Telekom in the discipline of web page access and – slightly less distinctive – regarding file uploads and downloads. However, when we look at O2, their deficits are even more ob vious.While the inner city walk tests show a success ratio of 99.3 per cent for web page access in the Telekom network and 98.5 percent at Vodafone, this value drops to 91.3 per cent in Tele fónica‘s network. Statistically, this means that almost one out of ten web page views will fail when O2 customers are walking through city centres. When observing indicators like the success ratios or average speeds of file downloads in the big city drive and walk tests, the results show the same trend that looks increasingly familiar this year:Telekom leads,Vodafone follows at not too big a distance, and O2 clearly comes in last. For example, according to our walk tests, file downloads run at average data rates of more than 13578 kbps in 90 per cent of the cases in the Telekom network. In the Vodafone network, it is still more than 6801 kps, and O2 achieves only a minimum of 1568 kbps. So the latter candi date accomplishes not much more than a tenth of the speed offered by test winner Telekom. Drive tests in smaller towns The drive tests conducted in small towns gave equivalent re sults:Again,Telekom achieves the best measurement values, Vodafone follows at a distinct but not huge distance – and Telefónica once again comes in last. Similar to the inner city drive tests, the success ratios of web page access via the O2 network are worse than in the networks of the leading two providers, but still better than O2‘s walk test results. Our download and upload tests show comparable results. Once more,Vodafone turns out to be a Youtube star in smaller towns. Its top performance in this category is at the same level as test winner Telekom. Both opera tors seem to have a very perfor mant “peering“ to the content de livery network of Google‘s video platform. O2‘s weak overall scores can be explained to some extent with the ongoing integration of the former E-Plus network and the distortions coming along with it. While O2 at least improved in the voice category, the 2017 network test indicates a stagnation for this operator in the data category. network test 76 1/2017
- 4. In comparison to the previous year, all Austrian operators im- proved – on an already very high level.Who wins the race in the alpine republic this time? Since connect‘s network test has been including the alpine countries,Austrian network operators used to have a neck- and-neck contest on the high est level. Compared to the other countries in the DACH region, the Austrian contenders regu larly are among the top tiers. No network operator from the alpine republic ever scored worse than the grade “good“. Austrian customers have every reason to be happy, as they can choose from three very good providers.And this at considerably lower costs than for example in Germany.The Austrian network operators also look pretty good when it comes to the roll-out of LTE. In autumn 2016,A1,T-Mobile Austria and Drei (the Austrian subsidiary of Hutchison Three) already offered 4G to a large part of the Austrian population and could focus on filling the few remaining gaps. So, we highly anticipated the results of the measurements that P3 took in eleven larger Austrian cities, on approxi mately 2700 kilometres of connecting roads as well as in Austrian railways. Voice connections Assessing voice telephony,A1 scores first. Especially in the drive tests – the test calls made from car to car – that P3 took in larger cities, this operator per formed a tiny bit better than its competitors.At the time of tes ting,A1 was the only Austrian operator who already supported VoLTE.This may have helped particularly in the inner cities with their good LTE coverage. But the high score that A1 achieved in this category, would not have been possible had this operator not also performed exceptionally well in its conven tional telephony service. OPERATOR A1 Drei T-Mobile DATA (Roads; Drivetest) Web-Page Download (Live/StaƟc) Success RaƟo (%/%) 97.9/98.2 97.9/98.8 96.4/95.9 Ø Session Time (s/s) 2.5/1.3 2.4/1.3 2.8/1.5 File Download (3 MB) Success RaƟo/Ø Session Time (%/s) 98.6/1.5 97.7/1.3 97.9/2.5 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 11934/61856 11215/60914 5452/43059 File Upload (1 MB) Success RaƟo/Ø Session Time (%/s) 97.7/1.6 98.4/1.2 96.5/1.9 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 2863/14304 3294/15742 2131/17022 File Download (10 Seconds) Success RaƟo (%) 98.8 97.9 97.2 Ø Throughput (kbit/s) 49500 50032 28171 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 14417/87661 17012/93075 6238/58081 File Upload (10 Seconds) Success RaƟo (%) 98.8 98.6 98.4 Ø Throughput (kbit/s) 26980 31521 14835 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 2476/45416 5615/44914 2094/29461 Youtube Videos Success RaƟo/Start Time (%/s) 97.8/1.8 99.5/1.7 97.3/1.9 Playouts without InterrupƟons (%) 100.0 100.0 99.0 Ø Video ResoluƟon (p) 626 636 596 OPERATOR A1 Drei T-Mobile DATA (CiƟes; Drivetest) Web-Page Download (Live/StaƟc) Success RaƟo (%/%) 99.8/99.9 99.3/99.4 99.2/99.5 Ø Session Time (s/s) 2.3/1.1 2.4/1.2 2.6/1.3 File Download (3 MB) Success RaƟo/Ø Session Time (%/s) 99.7/0.9 99.7/1.0 99.7/1.4 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 20466/62647 17394/62016 11331/56738 File Upload (1 MB) Success RaƟo/Ø Session Time (%/s) 99.8/0.9 99.4/0.8 99.7/1.0 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 8583/16097 8667/16360 6552/20305 File Download (10 Seconds) Success RaƟo (%) 99.9 99.7 99.8 Ø Throughput (kbit/s) 62742 51652 45196 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 23730/115195 20937/89926 14096/84799 File Upload (10 Seconds) Success RaƟo (%) 99.9 99.8 99.3 Ø Throughput (kbit/s) 34237 36577 25496 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 14082/46060 20326/45098 7436/42033 Youtube Videos Success RaƟo/Start Time (%/s) 99.9/1.7 99.5/1.7 99.7/1.8 Playouts without InterrupƟons (%) 100.0 99.9 99.9 Ø Video ResoluƟon (p) 645 649 638 DATA (CiƟes; Walktest) Web-Page Download (Live/StaƟc) Success RaƟo (%/%) 99.4/100.0 99.5/100.0 98.6/99.2 Ø Session Time (s/s) 2.4/1.1 2.4/1.2 2.7/1.4 File Download (3 MB) Success RaƟo/Ø Session Time (%/s) 100.0/0.8 100.0/0.8 99.8/1.2 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 20430/58968 22067/58394 15464/53812 File Upload (1 MB) Success RaƟo/Ø Session Time (%/s) 100.0/0.9 100.0/0.9 98.4/1.2 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 9281/16247 8153/15696 5589/20752 File Download (10 Seconds) Success RaƟo (%) 100.0 100.0 99.2 Ø Throughput (kbit/s) 61643 55793 52971 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 25388/108707 23493/92364 20198/93411 File Upload (10 Seconds) Success RaƟo (%) 100.0 100.0 99.4 Ø Throughput (kbit/s) 35294 35516 27018 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 14731/46139 17435/45180 5546/43022 Youtube Videos Success RaƟo/Start Time (%/s) 99.6/1.7 100.0/1.7 99.1/1.7 Playouts without InterrupƟons (%) 100.0 100.0 100.0 Ø Video ResoluƟon (p) 652 666 652 DATA (Towns; Drivetest) Web-Page Download (Live/StaƟc) Success RaƟo (%/%) 99.7/99.3 99.1/99.7 99.2/99.7 Ø Session Time (s/s) 2.5/1.4 2.4/1.2 2.7/1.3 File Download (3 MB) Success RaƟo/Ø Session Time (%/s) 99.7/1.4 99.7/1.0 99.7/1.7 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 10838/53982 17583/61856 8366/46720 File Upload (1 MB) Success RaƟo/Ø Session Time (%/s) 98.4/1.7 100.0/0.9 99.7/1.2 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 2527/13865 7775/15311 5344/17676 File Download (10 Seconds) Success RaƟo (%) 99.5 99.7 99.7 Ø Throughput (kbit/s) 42224 52360 30313 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 14119/82550 20509/86300 9052/59538 File Upload (10 Seconds) Success RaƟo (%) 100.0 99.7 98.7 Ø Throughput (kbit/s) 24080 34217 20782 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 2902/44232 15027/45149 4504/30440 Youtube Videos Success RaƟo/Start Time (%/s) 100.0/1.8 99.1/1.7 99.4/1.8 Playouts without InterrupƟons (%) 100.0 100.0 99.7 Ø Video ResoluƟon (p) 613 657 618 Bludenz Imst Zirl Worgl Zell am See Sankt Johann im Pongau Bischofshofen Hallein Seewalchen am AƩersee Laarkirchen Kremsmunster Enns Melk Brunn am Gebirge Koƫngbrunn Gleisdorf Völkermarkt Velden am Wörthersee SpiƩal an der Drau Kufstein Linz Traun St. Pölten Baden Salzburg Feldkirch Villach Wien Graz Klagenfurt Innsbruck Drivetest Walktest Roads Train In the walk tests that our testing teams conducted in city centres and public buildings, all three candidates scored almost equally on a very high level. Last year‘s winner is slightly ahead in the discipline of voice connec tions in rural regions, namely in smaller towns and on connecting roads. But even there, the overall difference between the three networks is only minuscule. Data communication When we look at the tests of data connections, the results are very similar. Here again, A1 shows a slight advance in larger cities with Drei following closely. For web page access tests, T-Mobile Austria falls a fraction behind – but still offers top results that might be totally sufficient for a test win in some other countries.All in all, the success ratios, session times and data throughputs that can be seen in the adjacent tables are fantastic values. In the inner city walk tests, Drei becomes the frontrunner by a very thin margin. But here again, the two other providers follow at a distance of only a few points. As we could already observe in the voice tests, Drei scores slightly better than both of its competitors in small towns and on the connecting roads. But, as in the other disciplines before, the contest takes place at a very high level. >> Austria OPERATOR A1 Drei T-Mobile VOICE (CiƟes; Drivetest) Call Success RaƟo (%) 99.0 98.6 98.9 Call Setup Time (s) 3.5 4.6 5.7 Speech Quality (MOS-LQO) 3.9 3.8 3.8 VOICE (CiƟes; Walktest) Call Success RaƟo (%) 99.5 99.8 99.8 Call Setup Time (s) 3.4 4.5 5.6 Speech Quality (MOS-LQO) 4.0 3.9 3.8 VOICE (Towns; Drivetest) Call Success RaƟo (%) 97.9 99.1 98.8 Call Setup Time (s) 3.7 4.6 5.8 Speech Quality (MOS-LQO) 3.8 3.8 3.8 VOICE (Roads; Drivetest) Call Success RaƟo (%) 97.3 99.0 98.0 Call Setup Time (s) 3.9 4.6 6.8 Speech Quality (MOS-LQO) 3.7 3.8 3.7 VOICE (Train; Walktest) Call Success RaƟo (%) 93.8 92.1 91.5 Call Setup Time (s) 4.0 4.7 6.7 Speech Quality (MOS-LQO) 3.6 3.7 3.7 600 of1000 Points400 of 1000 Points VOICE DATA of180 of270 of80 of120 of50 of75 of60 of90 88% 93% 84% A1 Drei T-Mobile 87% 92% 87% 97% 96% 93% 94% 89% 88% 91% 92% 83% of30 of45 82% 77% 71% 79% 81% 77% 89% 93% 89% 95% 96% 90% 93% 91% 95% CiƟes Drivetest CiƟes Walktest Towns Drivetest Roads Drivetest Train Walktest 600 of1000 Points400 of 1000 Points VOICE DATA of180 of270 of80 of120 of50 of75 of60 of90 88% 93% 84% A1 Drei T-Mobile 87% 92% 87% 97% 96% 93% 94% 89% 88% 91% 92% 83% of30 of45 82% 77% 71% 79% 81% 77% 89% 93% 89% 95% 96% 90% 93% 91% 95% CiƟes Drivetest CiƟes Walktest Towns Drivetest Roads Drivetest Train Walktest 600 of1000 Points400 of 1000 Points VOICE DATA of180 of270 of80 of120 of50 of75 of60 of90 88% 93% 84% A1 Drei T-Mobile 87% 92% 87% 97% 96% 93% 94% 89% 88% 91% 92% 83% of30 of45 82% 77% 71% 79% 81% 77% 89% 93% 89% 95% 96% 90% 93% 91% 95% CiƟes Drivetest CiƟes Walktest Towns Drivetest Roads Drivetest Train Walktest network test 98 1/2017
- 5. Single review In spite of its strong competitors, Swisscom habitually ranked first in Switzerland. However, this year things are a little different. In the connect network test, the Swiss operators have had sur prises in store time and again. Traditionally, the bar is set extre mely high in Switzerland – quite often all three network providers achieved the grade “very good“. Of course we have raised our requirements once again this year – and still the present test winner succeeded in climbing just a little over the 950 point mark within our 1000 point scoring scheme. Thus, for the first time in the net work test for Germany,Austria and Switzerland, we have to award the grade “outstanding“. This is short of a sensation and it goes along with a surprising change at the top. But the other two Helvetian candidates still are gra ded “very good“ – and their achie vements are far from being close calls. But one thing after another. Voice connections Very much the same as in the other countries, the testing staff of P3 examined the quality and stability of voice connections in Switzerland by conducting drive tests and walk tests. During these tests, Sunrise quickly turned out to be ahead in most of the examined scenarios. This is quite clear for phone calls out of cars in larger cities. But in more rural areas (smaller towns as well as on the tested connec ting roads), the gap between Sunrise and Swisscom shrinks down to one or two points. In the results of our walk tests conducted in large Swiss cities, the competitors Sunrise and Swisscom are actually on par. Salt keeps some distance to the two leading contestants, but still achieves very good results. While Sunrise and Swisscom improved over last year‘s results, the third Swiss operator that was formerly known as “Orange“ more or less stays at the same level than last year. Up to now, Swisscom is the only operator in Switzerland who supports VoLTE.This modern voice standard that was applied for a part of the test calls, con tributes to Swisscom‘s excellent results in the voice category. However, in the final scoring Sunrise stays still close ahead. Data communications The standings and tendencies that we could observe in the voice category repeat themselves almost identically in the data discipline. Sunrise accounts for the biggest improvement over last year‘s results in this category.This is quite obvious in the larger cities where Sunrise‘s lead over the also very strong Swisscom is a little more pro nounced in the drive tests than in the walk tests. For example, Sunrise achieves impressive success rations of 100 per cent for file downloads or Youtube playbacks in the cars. In contrast, in the smaller towns and on connecting roads, >> Zürich Luzern Uster Schaĭausen Thun Lugano Lausanne Yverdon-les-Bains Winthertur Bern Geneve Basel Chur Cham Baden Dubendorf Volketswil EffreƟkon DieƟkon Sarnen Bellinzona Spiez Bulle Vevey Renens Morges Gland Meyrin Carouge Worb Solothurn PraƩeln MuƩenz Drivetest Walktest Roads Train OPERATOR A1 Drei T-Mobile DATA (Train; Walktest) Web-Page Download (Live/StaƟc) Success RaƟo (%/%) 92.2/94.0 91.9/93.0 92.1/94.1 Ø Session Time (s/s) 2.6/1.7 2.5/1.3 2.8/1.7 File Download (3 MB) Success RaƟo/Ø Session Time (%/s) 97.4/2.4 92.2/1.3 95.2/2.8 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 6536/51337 13429/57362 4678/43353 File Upload (1 MB) Success RaƟo/Ø Session Time (%/s) 91.7/3.2 93.3/1.6 88.8/1.9 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 862/13106 2782/13785 1903/17779 File Download (10 Seconds) Success RaƟo (%) 95.4 92.4 96.2 Ø Throughput (kbit/s) 34828 45022 25450 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 6889/73222 16495/78822 4906/52455 File Upload (10 Seconds) Success RaƟo (%) 92.5 90.4 94.3 Ø Throughput (kbit/s) 17759 25002 14753 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 735/39427 3200/42636 1401/29780 Youtube Videos Success RaƟo/Start Time (%/s) 94.3/2.0 92.0/1.9 89.7/2.0 Playouts without InterrupƟons (%) 100.0 100.0 100.0 Ø Video ResoluƟon (p) 576 630 593 It was well worth the effort: In this year‘s connect network test,A1 takes back the gold medal from last year‘s winner Drei. Particu larly good voice results make A1 the overall winner in the Alpine Republic. But equally in terms of data communica tions and connectivity in rail ways, the A1 network scores very strong. Moreover, with a total score of 918 out of a possible maximum of 1000 A1 is also a top tier when comparing the results from all three involved countries. Compared to last year, T-Mobile Austria took the biggest step forward. The actual reason that this contender still scores razor- thin behind its competitors for most of the indicators is the extreme strength of all Austrian providers. Still, T-Mobile Austria turns out to be in excellent shape. Its total result would have made this provider a strong number two in Germany and would actually come quite close to the performance of the parent company based there. Drei was also able to improve on last year‘s results on the whole. But it is by a very close margin of only three points, that the Hutchi son-owned provider makes second place. Drei scores better than its competitors particularly in smaller towns and on connecting roads. Examining mobile connectivity in trains, the overall winner A1 and Drei are basically on par.And bear in mind that a second place in Austria would be equivalent to a test win in many other countries. Mobile communications on Austrian railways When they talk on the phone or surf the web in trains,Austrian customers have once more good reason to be pleased. The measurement values that P3‘s teams gathered on hund reds of railway kilometres, certify very good results for the three Austrian operators – even if indicators like success ratios or data rates somewhat drop in this category when for instance com pared to those obtained on the connecting roads. A1 scores best for conveying voice calls in trains, while Drei turns out to be the data cham pion. Regarding voice telephony in trains,T-Mobile falls slightly behind, while this is not true for data communications – where this operator offers absolutely no cause for complaint. On the whole, in the railway category Austria scores some what behind Switzerland, but is clearly ahead of the results from Germany. 918 915 876TOTAL very good very good very good-RaƟng Shown voice, data and total scores are rounded. VOICE max. 400 max. 1000 Points DATA max. 600 365 360 346 553 530555 A1 Drei T-Mobile Switzerland OPERATOR Sunrise Swisscom Salt VOICE (CiƟes; Drivetest) Call Success RaƟo (%) 99.8 99.1 99.2 Call Setup Time (s) 3.4 3.3 5.0 Speech Quality (MOS-LQO) 3.9 3.9 3.5 VOICE (CiƟes; Walktest) Call Success RaƟo (%) 99.9 99.7 99.1 Call Setup Time (s) 3.3 3.3 4.9 Speech Quality (MOS-LQO) 3.9 4.0 3.5 VOICE (Towns; Drivetest) Call Success RaƟo (%) 99.9 99.3 99.5 Call Setup Time (s) 3.6 3.3 5.0 Speech Quality (MOS-LQO) 3.8 3.9 3.4 VOICE (Roads; Drivetest) Call Success RaƟo (%) 99.3 98.5 96.2 Call Setup Time (s) 3.7 3.4 5.3 Speech Quality (MOS-LQO) 3.8 3.9 3.4 VOICE (Train; Walktest) Call Success RaƟo (%) 98.3 97.1 96.2 Call Setup Time (s) 4.0 3.6 5.2 Speech Quality (MOS-LQO) 3.8 3.8 3.4 network test 1110 1/2017
- 6. OPERATOR Sunrise Swisscom Salt DATA (CiƟes; Drivetest) Web-Page Download (Live/StaƟc) Success RaƟo (%/%) 99.8/99.9 98.4/99.3 99.0/99.2 Ø Session Time (s/s) 2.5/1.3 2.4/1.2 2.9/1.6 File Download (3 MB) Success RaƟo/Ø Session Time (%/s) 100.0/1.2 99.8/1.0 99.7/2.0 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 13796/58451 16771/62827 6805/37891 File Upload (1 MB) Success RaƟo/Ø Session Time (%/s) 99.7/0.8 99.1/0.8 98.8/1.5 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 6819/26846 6375/27778 2821/13722 File Download (10 Seconds) Success RaƟo (%) 99.9 99.1 99.6 Ø Throughput (kbit/s) 56170 65199 38994 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 17097/98956 18817/123092 8781/77076 File Upload (10 Seconds) Success RaƟo (%) 99.7 99.1 99.7 Ø Throughput (kbit/s) 27109 26860 20218 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 8022/45763 7070/44770 4219/39494 Youtube Videos Success RaƟo/Start Time (%/s) 100.0/1.5 99.5/1.4 99.9/1.6 Playouts without InterrupƟons (%) 100.0 100.0 100.0 Ø Video ResoluƟon (p) 676 674 646 DATA (CiƟes; Walktest) Web-Page Download (Live/StaƟc) Success RaƟo (%/%) 99.5/99.7 97.9/99.1 98.8/98.8 Ø Session Time (s/s) 2.6/1.4 2.5/1.2 2.9/1.5 File Download (3 MB) Success RaƟo/Ø Session Time (%/s) 99.6/1.0 99.6/0.8 99.8/2.2 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 16891/60560 20599/70012 5593/38388 File Upload (1 MB) Success RaƟo/Ø Session Time (%/s) 99.6/1.0 99.2/0.7 99.0/1.3 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 4837/26144 7741/28070 3364/15009 File Download (10 Seconds) Success RaƟo (%) 99.8 98.8 99.8 Ø Throughput (kbit/s) 59246 72930 43371 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 17024/117345 23343/138987 8045/76761 File Upload (10 Seconds) Success RaƟo (%) 99.6 100.0 99.6 Ø Throughput (kbit/s) 27846 30210 24091 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 4983/46361 10290/45322 5097/45404 Youtube Videos Success RaƟo/Start Time (%/s) 100.0/1.6 99.6/1.4 99.4/1.6 Playouts without InterrupƟons (%) 100.0 100.0 100.0 Ø Video ResoluƟon (p) 677 681 648 DATA (Towns; Drivetest) Web-Page Download (Live/StaƟc) Success RaƟo (%/%) 99.5/99.3 98.9/99.5 99.3/99.4 Ø Session Time (s/s) 2.6/1.4 2.4/1.3 2.8/1.6 File Download (3 MB) Success RaƟo/Ø Session Time (%/s) 100.0/1.2 99.5/1.0 99.8/1.7 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 11404/56272 17905/63141 8696/38326 File Upload (1 MB) Success RaƟo/Ø Session Time (%/s) 99.5/1.1 99.8/0.9 99.0/1.6 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 4286/25438 5276/26499 2487/13647 File Download (10 Seconds) Success RaƟo (%) 100.0 99.8 99.5 Ø Throughput (kbit/s) 50685 57979 39136 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 13006/95800 16417/109851 8924/77090 File Upload (10 Seconds) Success RaƟo (%) 100.0 99.5 99.2 Ø Throughput (kbit/s) 22788 25217 19457 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 5822/44056 7049/42839 2704/39110 Youtube Videos Success RaƟo/Start Time (%/s) 100.0/1.6 99.7/1.4 99.5/1.6 Playouts without InterrupƟons (%) 100.0 100.0 100.0 Ø Video ResoluƟon (p) 675 670 646 OPERATOR Sunrise Swisscom Salt DATA (Roads; Drivetest) Web-Page Download (Live/StaƟc) Success RaƟo (%/%) 98.6/99.0 96.3/98.3 96.6/97.9 Ø Session Time (s/s) 2.6/1.4 2.5/1.3 2.8/1.7 File Download (3 MB) Success RaƟo/Ø Session Time (%/s) 99.2/1.7 99.0/1.1 98.4/2.1 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 8734/60333 13263/64971 8049/39177 File Upload (1 MB) Success RaƟo/Ø Session Time (%/s) 99.0/1.3 98.9/1.2 96.4/1.8 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 3119/21623 3439/26756 2109/13629 File Download (10 Seconds) Success RaƟo (%) 99.7 98.0 98.4 Ø Throughput (kbit/s) 46109 59593 47507 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 11612/100874 16575/112413 10961/88886 File Upload (10 Seconds) Success RaƟo (%) 98.7 99.0 96.2 Ø Throughput (kbit/s) 17638 23561 20622 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 4035/37289 4060/44437 2944/41313 Youtube Videos Success RaƟo/Start Time (%/s) 99.7/1.6 99.3/1.5 97.6/1.6 Playouts without InterrupƟons (%) 100.0 100.0 99.8 Ø Video ResoluƟon (p) 664 675 651 OPERATOR Sunrise Swisscom Salt DATA (Train; Walktest) Web-Page Download (Live/StaƟc) Success RaƟo (%/%) 97.2/97.5 96.7/98.4 96.4/98.6 Ø Session Time (s/s) 2.8/1.7 2.7/1.6 3.1/2.0 File Download (3 MB) Success RaƟo/Ø Session Time (%/s) 98.9/2.2 97.8/1.9 98.9/3.7 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 6959/44594 5299/53097 3173/31360 File Upload (1 MB) Success RaƟo/Ø Session Time (%/s) 97.1/1.5 97.8/1.0 98.2/1.6 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 2910/23022 5907/24406 2957/13769 File Download (10 Seconds) Success RaƟo (%) 97.1 97.8 99.6 Ø Throughput (kbit/s) 31914 40576 21238 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 7834/65680 11614/85242 3799/46908 File Upload (10 Seconds) Success RaƟo (%) 98.2 98.2 99.3 Ø Throughput (kbit/s) 20141 22821 19025 90%/10% faster than (kbit/s) 2518/39363 6755/36717 4275/35336 Youtube Videos Success RaƟo/Start Time (%/s) 98.8/1.8 100.0/1.8 97.2/1.9 Playouts without InterrupƟons (%) 100.0 100.0 99.2 Ø Video ResoluƟon (p) 645 662 604 Single review Both in the voice and data measure ments, Sunrise achieves ex cellent results. Compared to the previous year, the opera tor improved in both catego ries. Due to a distinct gain in points in data communica tions, Sunrise brings in the overall win. Interestingly, the gap to last year‘s winner is quite wide – although Swiss com achieved very good results this time as well. For the first time in the connect mobile net work test for Germany,Austria and Switzerland we have to award the grade “outstanding“. The smal lest Helve tic mobile network provider achieves stable – and very good – overall results, both in the voice and the data categories. As they basically remain at the same level than in the previous year, Salt comes in third in the overall Swiss ranking. But when we compare the results of all three countries, Salt is still a top tier. More over, Salt attacks both of its competitors quite successfully with its aggressive pricing. The test results clearly show that last year‘s winner Swisscom has impro ved as well during the last twelve months. However, in the final sco ring Swisscom was beaten by the second largest contender Sunrise. Nevertheless, Swisscom‘s customers can rest assured because with its excellent test results this Swiss ope rator would still immediately lead the field in Germany or Austria. 951 933 878TOTAL outstanding very good very good-RaƟng Shown voice, data and total scores are rounded. VOICE max. 400 max. 1000 Points DATA max. 600 390 380 352 561 526 553 Sunrise Swisscom Salt 600 of 1000 Points400 of 1000 Points VOICE DATA of180 of270 of80 of120 of50 of75 of60 of90 96% 94% 79% Sunrise Swisscom Salt 98% 96% 91% 99% 98% 90% 98% 95% 90% 94% 92% 87% of30 of45 94% 92% 84% 90% 93% 87% 93% 93% 88% 93% 93% 88% 92% 88% 94% CiƟes Drivetest CiƟes Walktest Towns Drivetest Roads Drivetest Train Walktest 600 of 1000 Points400 of 1000 Points VOICE DATA of180 of270 of80 of120 of50 of75 of60 of90 96% 94% 79% Sunrise Swisscom Salt 98% 96% 91% 99% 98% 90% 98% 95% 90% 94% 92% 87% of30 of45 94% 92% 84% 90% 93% 87% 93% 93% 88% 93% 93% 88% 92% 88% 94% CiƟes Drivetest CiƟes Walktest Towns Drivetest Roads Drivetest Train Walktest the leading duo is almost on par – once again on a very high level. In the data measurements, Salt has to settle for the third rank once more – but this again only means that Sunrise and Swisscom were able to improve over last year‘s results, while Salt kept its still strong performance stable. In this context, we should bear in mind that Salt attacks its two strong competitors with a particularly aggressive pricing. This makes Salt‘s offerings all the more interesting.Above all, Salt‘s results are definitely top notch when compared to those from other countries. Mobile connectivity in Swiss railways The tendencies observed in the voice and data measure ments conducted in larger cities and smaller towns as well as on the connecting roads, prevail for the tests of phone calls and data connectivity in Swiss railways too. Again, in this category Swiss customers have every reason to be happy.Their operators achieve the best results within the three countries at a distinct distance. Indeed all three Swiss opera tors achieve a remarkably high performance and reliability in the challenging task of providing connectivity to moving trains in the demanding Helvetic topology. When looking at the detailed results in railway tests, Sunrise is slightly ahead in the voice ca tegory, while Swisscom scores a tad higher in the data measure ments. Salt again comes in third regarding both voice and data communications while still show ing very good results. 600 of 1000 Points400 of 1000 Points VOICE DATA of180 of270 of80 of120 of50 of75 of60 of90 96% 94% 79% Sunrise Swisscom Salt 98% 96% 91% 99% 98% 90% 98% 95% 90% 94% 92% 87% of30 of45 94% 92% 84% 90% 93% 87% 93% 93% 88% 93% 93% 88% 92% 88% 94% CiƟes Drivetest CiƟes Walktest Towns Drivetest Roads Drivetest Train Walktest 600 of 1000 Points400 of 1000 Points VOICE DATA of180 of270 of80 of120 of50 of75 of60 of90 96% 94% 79% Sunrise Swisscom Salt 98% 96% 91% 99% 98% 90% 98% 95% 90% 94% 92% 87% of30 of45 94% 92% 84% 90% 93% 87% 93% 93% 88% 93% 93% 88% 92% 88% 94% CiƟes Drivetest CiƟes Walktest Towns Drivetest Roads Drivetest Train Walktest network test 1312 1/2017
- 7. As in previous years, connect’s partner for the network measure ments, P3 communications, used two vehicles to test drive the cho sen cities, towns and roads. In Germany and Austria each car carried six Samsung Galaxy S5 smartphones to measure voice services and three Samsung Ga laxy Note 4 performing the data service tests. In order to reflect the advanced roll-out of LTE with “3 Carrier Aggregation“ (the combination of three carrier fre quencies) in Switzerland, we used three Samsung Galaxy S7 for the data measurements there. The same setup of devices was utilized in the walk tests. For this effort, the smartphones were installed in trolleys and back packs with additional batteries. The devices’ firmware was each operator’s current firmware version. If such software was not available the most current firm ware from Samsung was used. Voice telephony Voice services were measured with the smartphones performing calls alternating between the two measurement cars (“mobile-to- mobile“).An additional car served as a mobile remote station for the calls of the walk test teams. Background data traffic was transmitted by one of the smart phones simultaneously to each call to reflect a realistic usage scenario.Audio quality was as sessed by using POLQA (Percep tual Objective Listening Quality Assessment) wide band scoring. All devices were configured in “LTE preferred” mode.Thus in the three German Networks as well as with A1 in Austria and Swisscom in Switzerland, the modern Voice-over-LTE (VoLTE) service could be used.Within networks not yet supporting VoLTE, the smartphones were forced to switch to 3G or 2G technology, the so-called circuit- switched-fall-back (CSFB). Data connectivity To assess cellular data perfor mance a sequence of tests were executed.As a dynamic web- browsing test, each country’s top web sites (according to the Alexa ranking) were downloaded in the so-called live web-browsing test. Additionally a static web site was tested, the industry standard ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute) “Kepler“ reference page. HTTP downloads and uploads were performed with 3 MB and 1 MB files, simulating small file transfers.The networks’ peak performance was tested with a ten second download and upload of a single, very large file. The Youtube measurements considered the new “adaptive resolution“ feature of this video platform. In order to offer a per sistent video experience,Youtube adapts the video streams‘ reso lution dynamically to the band width that is currently available. Our scoring therefore considers the success ratio, the time until the playback starts, the percen tage of video playouts that take place without interruptions as well as the videos‘ average resolution or line number count respectively. Indoor and train measurements The walk tests consisted of the same tasks as were performed in the cars. For this effort two teams measured in public transport and in public places, like coffee shops, museums, train stations and airport terminals.Travelling from city to city by public trans port allowed the assessment of cellular network quality within the long distance trains. Logistics The tests were performed in Austria, Germany and Switzer land around the same period of time (Germany: October 21 – November 12; Austria: October 7 – 27; Switzerland: October 14 – November 1).All measure ments were done between 8 AM and 10 PM. Both cars were always in the same cities, but on different routes to avoid any in terference of one car’s measure ment by the other car’s. Both vehicles followed a given route, including fixed location measure ments at “areas of interest” such as well-visited public places. Measurements there lasted one hour. Locations such as train stations, airports, much-frequen ted public parks or high-density urban areas typically demonstrate how networks respond when a high number of users compete for their share of bandwidth within the network’s available radio frequencies. The measurements included 17 larger cities and 26 smaller towns in Germany, while the walk tests frequented six cities. In Austria the drive tests covered 11 big cities and 20 smaller towns, the walk test team visited five cities. In Switzerland, the test route included 13 big cities and 20 smaller towns with the walk tests conducted in four cities. Travel between the cities mainly used highways, but smaller state and county roads were driven as well. For each connect test P3 communications follows a well- defined process to generate four independent and representative city and route plans.The connect editors choose randomly one of these four alternatives. Test efforts and results Overall 25,000 km were driven for the connect P3 mobile net work test in 2016. In Germany the approximately 12,100 km of driven routes alongside the cities and areas visited represent 13.4 million inhabitants, equaling METHODOLOGY Professional and critical: Bernd Theiss, head of test and technology at connect (on the left), and Hakan Ekmen, managing director of P3 communications (on the right). Four Samsung Galaxy Note 4 measured the data performance in German and Austrian networks. Here are the reasons why we tested and evaluated the merging networks of E-Plus and O2 as a single O2 network. After Telefónica/O2 bought out its former competitor E-Plus in October 2014, the merger of both networks goes at full speed. Previous E-Plus customers are being transferred to O2 tariffs, and Telefónica must sell off some base stations that have been occupied by both operators according to the German regulatory authority.The re maining base station sites are already designated “O2“. Cells formerly belonging to E-Plus are no longer visible as a discrete mobile network. Instead, at the moment there are “old“ O2/E-Plus cells along with “new“ ones. Given this situation, con nect and P3 decided to only examine O2 in their network test that we conducted in late 2016. As we know from our readers and from our own experiences, difficulties definitely occur in the course of the network merge. These problems that include failing handovers between two differently configured network cells, are clearly recognized in the results of this year‘s P3 connect mobile network test. o2 And E-plus A merger with some obstacles: Combining two separate mo bile networks into one is far from being routine work. Unavoidable problems that are resulting from this endeavour are clearly recognized by our test results. around 16.7 per cent of Germany’s population. Austria was measured by driving 5,900 km covering about 3 million inhabitants (approx. 36 per cent of the Austrian population). In Switzerland, the test teams drove approx. 7,000 km, covering 1.9 million people representing around 22.5% of the Swiss population. Certainly a huge effort, but necessary to gain the required statistical rele vance and confidence in the test results. Scoring The results of the voice test contribute 40 per cent of the total score, those of the data tests make up 60 per cent. For the overall result we apply a 1000 point scheme in order to represent sufficiently detailed results. Moreover this scheme allows us to better compare the results of network tests that we have conducted in different countries (find all results and additional information at www.connect- testmagazine.com). network test 14 1/2017
- 8. fairness AND transparency This year, some of the candidates massively tried to influence the conditions and parameters in the run-up of our test. The connect and P3 staff responsible for the testing project have of course fended off these attempts. As in previous years, connect and P3 met in early 2016 in order to define the conditions and parameters for this year‘s network test. In this preceding test design phase, we for example identify new test criteria, discard or confirm old ones and determine their influ ence on the overall score.We define the timeframe as well as a preselection of smartphone models that we intend to use for the measurements.We then communi cate these preliminary definitions in advance to the CTOs of the network operators. Feedback is appreciated In this process we appreciate feedback about aspects like suitable tariffs that facilitate un obstructed measurements of the best perfor mance possible.After all, our objective is to evaluate the network experience of the most demanding customers.We also agree on the firmware versions used in the measurement smartphones, as each mobile network operator makes adjustments to most popular devices to ensure a smooth interplay with their network. But this time, some contenders apparently took part in the discussions with the single intent to enforce measurement conditions that would favour their own network. For example, there have been attempts to im pose a smartphone model on us that all in all works less reliably than others – presumably because the involved provider expected an advantage for its own network from this. One operator insinuated flaws in the test design more than once – until extensive measurements conducted both by P3 com munications as well as by the connect test lab disproved all of them. Permanent chan ges in the reasonings of some operators led connect to the assumption that one or the other of them would not have minded blowing the rapidly approaching deadline of our test. The more danger, the more honour We cannot help but understand such attempts as a compliment for the high rele vance that the operators assign to our test. And of course we remain true to ourselves concerning these issues.After all, it is our standard to conduct a test that provides deep insights into the quality and perfor mance of the examined mobile networks. However, we will draw one conclusion from this year‘s experience: In the future, we will publish obvious attempts to abuse our trans parent approach to testing the very same way as we document our test procedures. Looking back at the results of the connect network tests since 2010 provides especially one insight: Despite of the constantly rising requirements, the level of the overall results has steadily improved. We reckon that our demanding and well renowned network test is not entirely blameless. Historical Development Customers‘ expectations are constantly growing – expan ding data volumes and rising transmission speeds are re garded to be absolutely normal. P3 and connect take account of this development by con stantly raising the requirements and thresholds of our tests. Network test as a driving force The adjoining glance at the development of results in Germany,Austria and Switzer land in recent years shows a clear overall tendency: Despite the growing require ments, all tested networks improved steadily. In all modesty, we believe that the high relevance and challenging demands of our annual network tests are an important driving force of this development. conclusion Hannes Rügheimer, connect author The operators enthusiastically fight for the top rank in the connect net- work test. The fact that almost all candidates managed to improve in spite of the rising requirements is clearly supporting our claim that our critical tests contribute to the overall enhancement of the mobile net- works’ quality. Against this background, the repeated test victory of Deutsche Telekom in Germany was by no means self-evident. It rather reflects the considerable efforts that Tele- kom takes in order to maintain and extend its network. Vodafone also worked flat out, but remains on the second rank. O2’s result shows some room for development but can be explained by the ongoing integra- tion with the former E-Plus network. In the alpine countries,there were rigorous fights as well. This led to a change at the top ranks in both countries. In Austria,A1 managed to gain back the crown from last year’s winner Drei. Particularly its very strong voice results secured the win to A1. Although, also Drei noticeably improved over last year, the Hutchi- son-owned company fell back be- hind A1 at a very narrow gap. Com- pared to the previous year, T-Mobile Austria made the biggest step for- ward,but still was not able to pass its two extremely strong competitors. In Switzerland we also see some movement at the top.Especially with its distinct rise in points in the data category, Sunrise manages to out- play last year’s winner Swisscom. Thus,for the first time a candidate of theconnectnetworktestinGermany, Austria and Switzerland is awarded the grade “outstanding“. And even though Swisscom only ranks second this time, the company has still im- proved considerably compared to the previous year.Salt takes the third rank of the Helvetic network providers but still achieved very good results. The top quality of mobile connecti- vity on Swiss and also on Austrian railways was especially noteworthy. This is something that German rail- way customers can only dream about. GERMANY AUSTRIA SWITZERLAND Overall Results Voice and Data Telekom Vodafone Telefónica A1 Drei T-Mobile Sunrise Swisscom Salt VOICE max. 400 Points 366 352 270 365 360 346 390 380 352 CiƟes Drivetest 180 94% 92% 71% 94% 89% 88% 98% 95% 90% CiƟes Walktest 60 95% 90% 76% 97% 96% 93% 99% 98% 90% Towns Drivetest 80 95% 91% 78% 87% 92% 87% 98% 96% 91% Roads Drivetest 50 92% 88% 49% 88% 93% 84% 96% 94% 79% Train Walktest 30 57% 54% 33% 82% 77% 71% 94% 92% 84% DATEN max. 600 Points 521 489 373 553 555 530 561 553 526 CiƟes Drivetest 270 90% 87% 68% 95% 93% 91% 94% 92% 88% CiƟes Walktest 90 87% 84% 56% 95% 96% 90% 93% 93% 88% Towns Drivetest 120 87% 81% 65% 89% 93% 89% 93% 93% 88% Roads Drivetest 75 89% 82% 62% 91% 92% 83% 94% 92% 87% Train Walktest 45 61% 46% 30% 79% 81% 77% 90% 93% 87% Total max. 1000 Points 887 841 643 918 915 876 951 933 878 -RATING very good good sufficient very good very good very good outstanding very good very good Sunrise Swisscom Salt 40% 60% 80% 100% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Vodafone Telefónica (O2) Telefónica (E-Plus) Telekom 40% 60% 80% 100% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Drei T-Mobile A1 40% 60% 80% 100% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 887 841 643TOTAL very good good sufficient-RaƟng Shown voice, data and total scores are rounded. VOICE max. 400 max. 1000 Points DATA max. 600 366 352 270 521 373 489 Telekom Vodafone Telefónica 918 915 876TOTAL very good very good very good-RaƟng Shown voice, data and total scores are rounded. VOICE max. 400 max. 1000 Points DATA max. 600 365 360 346 553 530555 A1 Drei T-Mobile 951 933 878TOTAL outstanding very good very good-RaƟng Shown voice, data and total scores are rounded. VOICE max. 400 max. 1000 Points DATA max. 600 390 380 352 561 526 553 Sunrise Swisscom Salt TESTSIEGER TESTSIEGER TESTSIEGERBEST IN TEST BEST IN TEST BEST IN TEST network test 1716 1/2017