Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

New Jersey Turnpike North (x11) to South (x3) 3G Performance

RetiredInFl

RetiredInFl

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Jul 7, 2008
2,457
250
FORMERLY NJ now FL
Living up in north Jersey I am getting great 3G download/upload speeds in most areas. Usually around 3 to 4Mbps down/1.5 up using Speedtest.Net app as a guide. I KNOW the accuracy of these apps aren't great but as a relative comparison they give a good idea.

I took a trip down the NJ Turnpike Monday from exit 11 down to exit 3. Since my wife was driving for a change I took the time to play with my iPhone (4) and see how well the data which I am paying $30/month for worked.

I was pretty disappointed. Once I hit just south of Exit 10 my download speeds dropped like a rock. I was getting constant results of 0.19, 0.23, 0.68, 0.55Mbps down with a VERY rare reading over 1.0Mbps. UPLOAD speeds were always ABOVE 1.0Mbps, just download was so poor.

These were all taken along a major North/South route through the state (Route 95 / NJ Turnpike) and not off the beaten path through small towns.

I had mostly "full bars" during all these tests and with exception of 1 stretch of a few miles there was always a 3G signal.

I found the whole "data speed" experience quite disappointing especially since these tests weren't taken in the boonies but on a major NJ highway.
 
I live in the area you describe (west of exit 8). The 3G performance is generally excellent. I almost always have full bars and good up/down speeds.
3G speeds can vary significantly by tower. It may just be that the towers serving that leg of the turnpike are not be the best. I'm not usually on the TP south of 10.
 
I like in south jersey, and I'm satisfied with my 3G. I actually went to DC and had a great stream of pandora the whole time. AT&T has always been great to me.
 
mpossoff said:
Hi I live in South Jersey and am satisfied with 3G.

Marc
Click to expand...
I think thats because your just 'used to it'. i travel all over the country and i live central east coast NJ... when i travel to places like Austin, and use 3G it blows the doors off my 3g speeds around home and most of this state and NYC... When i travel to some cities its so fast i'll actually looks my phone loading pages, and say 'wow'...
 
I'm in SJ, 3-5Mbps down 1.5-2Mbps up. Speeds also vary by tower load, so different times of the day will yield different results. Traffic along interstates is generally QoS geared for voice traffic (lots of voice users), with less lanes for data, so that's a poor way to check an areas 3G data speed.
 
dieselhorse said:
I'm in SJ, 3-5Mbps down 1.5-2Mbps up. Speeds also vary by tower load, so different times of the day will yield different results. Traffic along interstates is generally QoS geared for voice traffic (lots of voice users), with less lanes for data, so that's a poor way to check an areas 3G data speed.
Click to expand...

I understand the theory but it wasn't that "I was checking the areas 3G data speed" it's that I wanted to use 3G data and couldn't so I wanted to find out why. I simply wanted to login to NJ Turnpike traffic website (never could get site to load which was why I started the data test) then I wanted to login to some of the forums I use, virtually unusable. It's called "MOBILE DATA" because it's supposed to be usable while mobile. I don't care if it works sitting in my living room, I have no need for it there.

I would think that the major North/South artery through NJ would have decent data capability. I was able to take the NJ Transit train into NYC and watch an entire HD movie streaming off my PC at home using Air Video (great app by the way) without a single glitch but I couldn't access MacRumors or NJ traffic while driving south.

At $30/month that's really not acceptable especially since ATT coverage maps for 3G data show virtually full coverage across that area. It was over a 60 mile stretch of highway with this problem 90% of the trip. I could accept it if it was just for couple minutes.
 
Thedeathbear said:
I like in south jersey, and I'm satisfied with my 3G. I actually went to DC and had a great stream of pandora the whole time. AT&T has always been great to me.
Click to expand...
Well it may be good from "South Jersey to DC" and I'm happy to hear that but I didn't take that trip. It also might be good in Podunk, Iowa or West Virginia or Texas or Nebraska or even Idaho, but it's certainly not good from North Jersey to South Jersey which was the topic/subject of this original post. :cool:
 
mpossoff said:
All I can say is we travel all over south Jersey and have very little issues with 3G coverage.

Marc
Click to expand...
That's good news and I'm happy for you, but again it has nothing to do with the original post of this thread .... a trip down the NJ Turnpike from exit 11 to exit 3. When you make that trip feel free to add your feelings about THAT specific area.

Now we'll probably get 30 more "it's good in California, Virginia, Maine and New Hampshire" messages but that isn't what the original post is about (nor do I care). ;)
 
TB07-NJ said:
That's good news and I'm happy for you, but again it has nothing to do with the original post of this thread .... a trip down the NJ Turnpike from exit 11 to exit 3. When you make that trip feel free to add your feelings about THAT specific area.

Now we'll probably get 30 more "it's good in California, Virginia, Maine and New Hampshire" messages but that isn't what the original post is about (nor do I care). ;)
Click to expand...

Easy there... Before you edited it to clarify your meaning it looked like you were asking about 3G performance in NJ- as your title says... So getting a few "service is fine in south jersey" comments made perfect sense..No need to get rude..
 
jemeinc said:
Easy there... Before you edited it to clarify your meaning it looked like you were asking about 3G performance in NJ- as your title says... So getting a few "service is fine in south jersey" comments made perfect sense..No need to get rude..
Click to expand...
You are partially correct, but simply reading the first post would have clarified the discussion. Anyway I changed the title of the OP to make it easier for those with reading comprehension issues. :D :)
 
TB07-NJ said:
Well it may be good from "South Jersey to DC" and I'm happy to hear that but I didn't take that trip. It also might be good in Podunk, Iowa or West Virginia or Texas or Nebraska or even Idaho, but it's certainly not good from North Jersey to South Jersey which was the topic/subject of this original post. :cool:
Click to expand...

Being from Boise, that works for me ;)
 
TB07-NJ said:
I understand the theory but it wasn't that "I was checking the areas 3G data speed" it's that I wanted to use 3G data and couldn't so I wanted to find out why. I simply wanted to login to NJ Turnpike traffic website (never could get site to load which was why I started the data test) then I wanted to login to some of the forums I use, virtually unusable. It's called "MOBILE DATA" because it's supposed to be usable while mobile. I don't care if it works sitting in my living room, I have no need for it there.

I would think that the major North/South artery through NJ would have decent data capability. I was able to take the NJ Transit train into NYC and watch an entire HD movie streaming off my PC at home using Air Video (great app by the way) without a single glitch but I couldn't access MacRumors or NJ traffic while driving south.

At $30/month that's really not acceptable especially since ATT coverage maps for 3G data show virtually full coverage across that area. It was over a 60 mile stretch of highway with this problem 90% of the trip. I could accept it if it was just for couple minutes.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with everything said. I travel the I95 corridor frequently, and some areas are OK, others are exactly as you described: useless for data. That said I very rarely drop a call while on the NJ tpk, which is more important to most costomers than their data. My point was that if you had gotten off the highway, you would probably see a decent uptick in throughput when you hit the next cell. Data is still 2nd tier for most wireless carriers, giving voice traffic priority.

To your question; yes, data sucks on the highway. Most high speed highways have decent voice quality and reliability at the expense of data. Although you didn't mention it in your post (no reading comprehension issues here, BTW), you probably had terrible latency as well. .19-1.0 Mbps is poor, but still useable. If you had response times over 1000ms, that's not.
 
dieselhorse said:
I completely agree with everything said. I travel the I95 corridor frequently, and some areas are OK, others are exactly as you described: useless for data. That said I very rarely drop a call while on the NJ tpk, which is more important to most costomers than their data. My point was that if you had gotten off the highway, you would probably see a decent uptick in throughput when you hit the next cell. Data is still 2nd tier for most wireless carriers, giving voice traffic priority.

To your question; yes, data sucks on the highway. Most high speed highways have decent voice quality and reliability at the expense of data. Although you didn't mention it in your post (no reading comprehension issues here, BTW), you probably had terrible latency as well. .19-1.0 Mbps is poor, but still useable. If you had response times over 1000ms, that's not.
Click to expand...

Good point ..... latency was horrendous. from 507ms to 2869. What's really interesting was that at 1 point I had 5.92Mbps DOWN (best down speed for about 2 minutes) with a 2869ms ping! It seems the BETTER the download speed was the WORSE the PING was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back