The U.S. lags behind many countries in terms of data rates, but a rising tide has lifted worldwide access and speeds.
If you live in any sort of relatively populated area around the world, chances are you have access to a solid LTE or at least 3G connection. High-speed mobile networks are practically ubiquitous, but that doesn't mean the experience is anywhere near the same around the world. Data from OpenSignal's latest State of Mobile Networks report backs up this notion, showing how widespread mobile connectivity is today, as just how big of a disparity there is in terms of data speeds around the world.
It shouldn't come as any surprise that in most developed countries you're going to be on a 3G or higher speed network a vast majority of the time, with OpenSignal's crowd-sourced data showing that 23 countries around the world have 90% or higher 3G/4G network availability. Even though we all prefer to be on an LTE network, the truth is that combining 3G and 4G into one metric makes sense — you can get plenty done on a modern 3G network, and they're still extremely important to carriers' operations.
And while the networks are in place around the world, the situation in data speeds isn't nearly as rosy. Measurements of overall speed across 3G and 4G networks shows usual suspects South Korea and Singapore at the top of the charts, averaging 41 and 31 mbps downloads, respectively. Things trail off quickly, though, with the U.S. averaging download speeds of just 12 mbps — 38th place worldwide, according to the data. Most of South America averages under 10 mbps, while most European countries are in the mid teens or low 20's of mbps in download speeds.
Average network speeds in the U.S. are just 12 mbps — 38th in the world
Breaking down a level further for those of us in the U.S., there's obviously a large gap between carriers in this large country, with each generally offering either better speeds or coverage, dramatically changing depending on where you are geographically. Even when averaging things out across the country, you have decisions to make like getting the fastest measured LTE speeds from T-Mobile, or the most measured widespread LTE coverage from Verizon.
Because of this large gulf in data speeds, OpenSignal still finds Wi-Fi use to be extremely high and on the rise in most areas, even those with higher-than-average mobile network speeds. Users in small countries like the Netherlands spend 70% of their time on Wi-Fi networks, but even smartphone owners in the U.S. spend over 50% of their day connected to Wi-Fi.
So even in 2016, with some of the most amazing little computers in our pockets, we're still looking to make large improvements in our networks around the world to support them. We'll probably never be happy with the speeds being offered, and there are massive logistical hurdles to offering the fastest speeds in every corner of every country, but the near future should hold notable bumps in overall network quality.
Reader comments
High-speed wireless networks are everywhere, but the U.S. is way behind on data speeds
12mpbs is the AVERAGE which means there are places where it's lower. I have ATT in metro Baltimore and don't usually get near 12.
I would like to see a similiar article with maps about high speed internet, the US is probably even worse with that because so many people are stuck with Verizon and other DSLs that run on old wires that will never be upgraded.
43.90mbps up 22.53mbps down
78ms ping
O2 Network in germany (LTE)
Is that any good?
Posted via the Ferrari of Smartphones: LG Flex 2
I just did to speed tests - one on my T-Mobile powered tablet, and one on my AT&T phone. T-Mobile was fastest at 38Mbps down, with AT&T quite far behind on 26Mbps. I'm in Los Angeles, where we are pretty spoiled for choice. Network coverage is entirely ubiquitous here. The problem is that the prices are incredibly high and the speed isn't spectacular. At least it's much faster and more reliable than the Time Warner WiFi hotspots that seem to be everywhere.
I love this kinds of articles
If they exclude Sprint and a few other carriers that aren't up to snuff the average would be more along the lines of 25 Mbps for the US, Add to that the fact that you could fit most of these other countries combined inside the US and the caparison is bullshit. You could fit Korea inside the state of Florida. They probably have about 3,000 cell sites to cover the whole country. A very small infrastructure cost compared to the US where the average carrier has over 55,000 cell sites. And getting high speed Fiber back-haul to the sites that are in the boonies isn't easy or cheap.
Isn't it the same with regular Internet? Until Google fiber gets here we basically have AT&T and Comcast. Can't even get TDS even though someone else stays about 5 miles away and has the same zip code.
Posted via the Pokemon Central App
Both AT&T and T-Mobile served me well on the east and west coasts in major metropolitan areas like New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco or Phoenix with inconsistent but mostly high speeds in excess of 30mbps. But as you get further away from major cities unfortunately TMo just doesn't cut it for me. Deep in the Tahoe National Forest where I sometimes work I definitely don't get any service with TMo. Verizon and Sprint are both spotty at best with just getting voice/sms functional. Surprisingly enough AT&T is the only to offer a data signal and even LTE at that. Haven't clocked a speed test yet. However, I know many people across the US in various rural areas who can barely get 2G/ Edge let alone a signal at all. Less densely populated areas aren't lucrative enough to justify all the costs to build infrastructure.
Posted from my S7 edge
This. I've gotten over 40 mbps on at&t. Using netflix's speed test website.
And here in India my wired connection got an 'upgrade' from 512 kbps to 1 Mbps. Happy days ahead :')
Also, only 2G signals are kinda strong. 3G is almost unusable because of low signal strength and LTE is in trial by one provider. Hopefully it'll be available soon.
LTE has already started a while back now by all 3 existing major carriers.
Question: which geographic area leads in improving speeds? Where was LTE first available? Does the USA have a foot in that race?
The first commercial LTE network was in Sweden and Norway, back in 2009.
Mine averages about 16 so it's average. But at times it rockets up to 60+.
Project Fi, and those higher speeds are T-Mobile in Houston and Austin. Here in Florida it's a slower 16.
Depends on where you are. I am in FL and average around 40 on TMO. I am in the City though.
Didn't imagined this.... That US will be in 38th position.
Sprint is garbage.i have sprint but i think imma go to tmo when the next nexus come out
Posted via the Android Central App
And India is around 5 mbps hehe
Posted via the Android Central App
Good article Andrew. Very interesting.
Anything above 5 mbps is fine on the big two unless you have a grandfathered data plan or have DirecTV (AT&T). Sprint needs to up its game though.
Posted from my Moto X Pure via the Android Central App
I've never worried too much about speed tests. All pages load on my phone within 1or 2 seconds and the apps load even faster, which is what I mostly use. Depends both on the hardware and the speed you have on your carrier or internet service provider.
Posted via the Android Central App
Yes, 5mb -8mb download just fine for most tasks. If downloading huge files or games that is different.
Posted from Nexus 6
Agreed. When I had Cricket (LTE speeds between 6 and 8 Mbps), speed was never a problem. That allowed me to watch high-quality streaming video, which is the most bandwidth intensive thing I do. It was the high latency that drove me nuts. Unfortunately, that's unavoidable when everything is run through a proxy.
If u had great speed, you could not have had that bad of latency or the speed would be garbage
Posted via the Android Central App
I didn't have great speed. I had speed that was below the national average, but was acceptable for my purposes.
No, sorry that is just plain wrong.
Speed is how fast you go, latency is how long you sit at the line before reacting to the green light.
Does that analogy help? You can have +100mbps, but have a latency of 7 seconds (see high bandwidth satellite connections, not that Hughes crap, the commercial stuff) it takes that long for the signal to go from earth to LEO and back.
Ditto big ups to t mobile!!!!!!!
Posted via the Android Central App
I really don't need to have any faster Internet. I keep blowing up my data as it is. If only I was rich. Because Rich has a great data plan
Lol, Rich who?
I see what you did there!!
I'm happy with my 60-100 Mbps unlimited at&t at home. I wish everyone could experience such high data speeds.
I just want to say that Android Central has become fun again. The changes have improved things a lot around here. Good job.
Posted via the Android Central App
It's always been fun, we are just enjoying a great new flavor.
In Portugal, while its not one of the most developed countries in Europe we have great coverage and LTE speeds. I normally have 70mbs speed on the 3rd most populated city, Braga (200 thousand inhabitants)
T-Mo's been getting better and better here in NYC, and when I'm traveling upstate on the road/in the train. Happy customer.
Posted via the Android Central App on HTC 10
Yep. They've still got a way to go, but their progress since I became a customer two years ago has been really impressive.
That average is surprisingly low. I live in rural southern Illinois and routinely get triple that. I guess Verizon is worth the money.
Come to NJ, watch Verizon go from lte to evdo back to lte.. Verizon is definitely not worth the money speedwise.. But coverage, yes.
Posted via Techmology
Hey! Another rural Southern Illinoisian! Verizon put up a tower 3/4 of a mile from my house a couple years ago. Nobody else can match what they provide around us.
It's not about speed, that's a marketing term. It's about latency
Posted via the Android Central App
Latency is indeed a big part of the experience. That's why LTE is so nice — low pings, usually.
The best of which is Sprint.
Yep, when you can get coverage.
Andrew, you are really stepping up your game... I like it. Keep up the good work
I also like to see him standing behind his work in the comments
Inspires confidence from readers to editors
Andrew's salty replies to rude and ignorant commenters are fantastic.
Agree
Posted from Nexus 6
Where? Did I miss something? If you can't tell, I don't mind a little drama.
Only when they deserve it.
Interesting that when Phil or Russell would stand behind their comments you weren't always such a fan.
Yeah, it is nice getting replies from the staff.
Posted from Nexus 6
Especially from that hottie Ara.
And the coverage in those countries don't compare.
The UK is slightly better than the US for average speed, but way worse when it comes to coverage. Which when you consider the relative sizes of the 2 counties, is a pretty poor showing for the UK.
Coverage where I live is terrible, I can tell you that much.
Posted via the Android Central App
Come to Lancashire, it's brilliant here near the lamp post in St Annes!
Reading this makes me appreciate the speed T-Mobile is giving me in the Boston suburbs. I just got 56 Mbps download and routinely get mid 30s or higher. I've been spoiled enough that now 3g feels punishingly slow.
Posted via the Android Central App
Great article. Very interesting info
Posted via the Android Central App
In my area near okc, att is fastest and sprint is the slowest with only 2 Mbp downloading speed
Posted via the Android Central App
Not sure why anyone would down vote a fact for this person but.....
Now let's look at just how small these countries are compared to the US.
Looks like Canada and Australia are darker blue, both are large and more sparsely populated than the US.
In Canada, LTE networks covers 90% of the population because they(we) are concentrated in less than 10% of the territory..
Australia might even be worse, since most of the country is literally a desert.
Yeah sort of misleading though. Roughly 80% of Canada's population around 36 million. Lives within 100 miles of the US border. And with Québec and Ontario provinces having roughly 52% of the whole population of Canada.
In Australia is even worse 92% of Australia's population lives on the coast of Australia.
This isn't a coverage map. If they have 10 towers all along the coast, and they cover 90% of the population, and they are blazing fast, it will pull up the stats for the entire country. So depending on the population spread, their numbers could be a bit one sided.
Look at the coverage map comparing the US and Canada. Most of Canada isn't covered, while most of the US is.
You mean like Canada, China, and Australia?
LOL
Now look at how much coverage there is in the in the rural areas.
LOL
There are always exceptions anyway.
And you're right. Generally the countries with faster speeds are more densely populated.
and south korea
The US also ranks in the top 5 as having the most expensive mobile plans. maybe we're not ahead because it wouldn't yield greater profits to have the fastest?
No, it's because the government doesn't "subsidize" like Socialists countries
It would be interesting if you could provide a list of countries where the government subsidize mobile service?
I am also looking forward to an explanation of the US prices and also how it is possible that MVNOs operating off the same networks can be so much cheaper?
Or are you saying that there is some kind of 'subsidizing' involved when we compare AT&T postpaid with GoPhone and Cricket (i.e. are AT&T running those divisions at a loss through subsidizing)?
the US is one commie....right off the bat.....got my Obama phone....lol (actually it was a program that started under President Bush if memory serves correct)
People are only on wi-fi due to their data plans. If we didn't have limits we would have no reason to search for wi-fi on the phone.
I suppose coverage is somewhat of an issue but not to flatlanders
Posted via the Android Central App
Now let's just look at the gdp of these nations compared to the US.
Posted via the Android Central App