The Google Cache version of the iTweakiOS blog published June 4, 2013 alleging iOS has built in throttling of LTE and 3G traffic on Vz, Sprint and AT&T networks

1. Text-only version
This is Google's cache of http://www.itweakios.com/apps/blog/entries/show/27518711-the-ugly-truth-your-iphone-and-ipad-
are-limited-t-mobile-the-exception-. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Jun 6, 2013 04:07:28 GMT. The current
page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more
Tip: To quickly find your search term on this page, press Ctrl+F or ⌘-F (Mac) and use the find bar.
« Back to News « Older Entry | Newer Entry »News
Home
News
Live Chat
Forums
Members
Downloads
Guestbook
Join the Team
Contact Us
The Ugly Truth: Your iPhone and iPad May Be LIMITED (T-
Mobile the possible Exception)
Posted by Joe on June 4, 2013 at 11:35 PM
For a long time now, possibly years, Apple iPhone and iPad users have always wondered why their devices seemed to be
"out-performed" by Android devices, mainly Samsung Galaxy phones, when it came to cellular networking speeds and
performance. Its a well known fact that iPhones tend to share the same hardware as some Android phones, at least when it
comes to the cellular modem or chip. A specific example of this is the iPhone 5 and Samsung Galaxy SIII. Both are equipped
with QualComm's superfast 1x Advanced, EVDO Rev. b, DC-HSPA+, and Rel. 9 LTE MDM9615m Gobi chip. The
mystery has still remained, though, that if 2 completey different devices have the same cellular hardware and
networking capabilities, why is it that they have such drastic differences with network performance? Could it be the OS
difference? Possible, but even in that scenario, it wouldn't be on the scale we've seen. Could it be physical hardware
differences, excluding the cellular chip? Manufacturers, regardless of who they are, will always put performance at the top of
the list when it comes to making the device the best user experience it can be for their customers. To say that a company's
specific hardware may be causing the issue or "confliction" in cellular performance, although somewhat possible, is very
unlikely. Well, what is causing this then? In this article, I'm going to uncover the possible answer behind this topic as well
as explain to everyone my findings on some troubling codes in the carrier files that may be the reason as to why we see this
dramatic difference in performance on our iPhones and iPads.

2. Us iPhone and iPad customers pay some hefty prices for our devices and expect the best performance for the price we pay,
corrcet? Well, as many of you reading this are aware, iTweakiOS is the group responsible for the many "Hacked Carrier
Updates" that brought many users on all 4 major U.S. carriers, even carriers in Canada, up to the levels the Galaxy users were
running at. It has been in our research, even my own personal research, that we have possibly found the exact reason as to why
this problem has persisted for so long and why our carrier updates have seemed to be so successful. My theory is, Apple and
the carriers have seemed to implent coding to very well slow down or limit the data speeds the device can achieve. "But, why
would they do this?" you may ask. Well, every single reason as to why is simply something we can't answer. However, from
previous statements released by AT&T and many tech orginizations, iPhones are very complex devices with a very complex
OS. The OS eats much more data, even when in idle mode, than most phones on the market. So by carrier request, Apple
may limit the devices to "even out" the network, even if it means Galaxy users out perform Apple devices by such large scales.
But, if this is true, does that make it fair? Absolutely not. If the carrier can't supply the amount of bandwidth needed on their
network to cater to the customer, then they simply have no business even being a carrier to begin with, let alone offering such a
device on their network if they claim it has to be limited for it to be fair to everyone. The fact is, its both Apple's and the
carrier's responsibility to work these kind of issues out, if present.
Now, onto the physical evidence. Below are several snapshots of the strings of coding we've had to deal with for the past
month now. These are the direct results in question of the limited performance a lot of us have been dealing with and I will go
into detail explaining what exactly it is that you're looking at and what exactly it means, to the best of my knowledge.
Each snapshot is from each major U.S. carrier's network settings file inside of the iPhone and iPad.
AT&T:
.

3. .
Here in this snapshot of AT&T's network settings, you can see they have set the iPhone 5 to Category 10 (14.4Mbps)
HSDPA, even though their network is actually capable of up to Category 14 (21.1Mbps) HSDPA+ and the iPhone 5
"officially" supports up to category 24 (42.2Mbps) DC-HSDPA+. For those of you wondering, HSDPA is the downlink
channel or "download side" of the 3G/4G HSPA(+) network.
.
.
Here we can see what is quite obvious to, really, anyone as this is something carriers have advertised so much. Yes folks, this
seems to be throttling coding. When we made the AT&T Hacked Carrier Update, this was the first line of coding to be
scrapped when the project started. Immediately, through my testing on an AT&T iPhone 5 and iPad 4th generation, there were
significant and noticeable results. There is no argueing or disputing that this is too much of coincidence that speeds increased
significantly when this was removed. Maybe it was coincidence, or maybe it wasn't. If such a thing is true, AT&T users, do you
think this is fair?
.
NOTE: This is on both the iPhone and iPad and is only present in AT&T's network files. T-Mobile does not have ANY of
these data settings included in their files.
Verizon LTE:
.
.
I think this is self explanatory. Verizon states that they're "The Nation's Fastest 4G Network" which insinuates they have the
most bandwidth on their 4G out of all the other carriers. Well, if thats the case, then what is this throttling code doing in here?
What would they have to throttle iPhones and iPads down for? After all, if they're the fastest 4G network, surely their network
could handle unthrottled Apple devices, right? How about you, Verizon users? Is this what you would consider fair, if true?
.
NOTE: The LTE throttling coding is present in both the iPhone and iPad but was NOT present in the Sprint network files.
Only Verizon.

4. Verizon & Sprint 3G
This line of coding may look familiar to some of you cellular tech savvy people. This, in addition to the other snapshots above,
is thottling coding as well, which is meant for the EVDO 3G network both Sprint and Verizon offer.
DATA_TRTL_ENABLED (data throttle enabled) is a universal data parameter used in all CDMA devices to ensure users
don't max out to the full potential of EVDO 3G, which only offers a whopping 3Mbps down and 1.7Mbps up, on a good day.
CDMA carriers knew that as the smartphone age came along, their 3G would be susceptible to lags and crashes because of
how limited their 3G networks are on bandwidth, so they went with the whole "throttle everyone down to equal amounts of
bandwidth" thing to avoid those types of problems. Its for this very reason that GSM based networks seem to offer consumers
a much better mobile broadband experience rather than CDMA based networks and also the very reason CDMA carriers
have transitioned to GSM based LTE because they knew their 3G+ and 4G wasn't going to be able to compete with GSM
carriers' LTE.
.
NOTE: This can be found in both the iPhone and iPad network files as well as any other CDMA device.
AT&T and T-Mobile
Those of you with the iPhone 5 or iPad 3, 4, and mini should remember from the Carrier Update Hacks that there was
reported signal issues with both HSPA+ and LTE, coincidentally, earlier this year out of the blue. This snapshot is a string of
coding in the WCDMA section of the network settings file present in both the AT&T and T-Mobile carrier files. This string of
coding NEVER existed before the new circulation of the A1428 iPhone 5 variants were released. In fact, this string of coding
was something I noticed had popped up after updating to iOS 6.1, which I now know means that during the transition from
6.0.2 to 6.1.2 was the time frame in which Apple had been possibly testing the revised iPhone 5 to support AWS 1700MHz
on T-Mobile's DC-HSPA+ network. This exact snapshot came from the AT&T files and the bit mask, 48639, seemed to have
set the preferred band for HSPA+ to the CLR 850MHz band, even though AT&T also uses the PCS 1900MHz band for
HSPA+ as well. The fact is, this string of coding, from our research and own personal experience, seems to be completely
unnecessary and has been claimed to degrade user's signal in many situations and cause possible adverse affects as well. I had
heard this this from the countless comments/feeback I recieved on twitter and the comments left in the tech blog websites
that covered the AT&T and T-Mobile Hacked Carrier Updates. Keep in mind, this is something that Apple most likely has set
and may not even be the carrier's fault. My suggestion to Apple would be to remove this line of coding to benefit users if it
does indeed cause such problems.
Again, those of you with the iPhone 5 or iPad 3, 4, and mini know of the reported signal issues with both HSPA+ and LTE. In

5. this specific snapshot, you can clearly see that, again, a band preference seems to have been set for the LTE network. This
snapshot, too, was taken in the AT&T files, however, T-Mobile's version does differ in the bit mask type since both companies
operate on different frequencies for HSPA+ and LTE, to a certain extent. In this case, the band seems to have been set to
prefer the APT 700MHz band for LTE over AT&T's other band, which is AWS 1700MHz. Beings that T-Mobile is only
going to operate on one specific band, for now, on LTE (AWS 1700MHz), the band preference in their network settings was
left alone as I decided it should remain intact as the other band, APT 700MHz, isn't a band that T-Mobile is in ownership of at
this time nor does T-Mobile have roaming agreements for any LTE service with AT&T from the failed merger last year. Again,
Keep in mind, this is something that Apple has most likely set and may not be the carrier's fault if this, in fact, is the source of
the signal issues.
RECAP:
-AT&T seems to set limits on HSPA+ and applied a soft throttle for LTE
-Verizon seems to have set limits by a soft throttle on LTE
-Verizon and Sprint seem to have a soft throttle on 3G
-Apple seems to have band preferences set for T-Mobile and AT&T, possibly causing signal issues (very much fixable by
Apple and the carrier and is currently being looked into, from I've been told)
NOTE: The soft throttle does in fact depend on your location. Some areas simply have enough LTE spectrum where it's not
noticeable. Also, the soft throttle is simply a data cap on bandwidth which means you are limited to a certain amount of speed
or bandwidth on the network. This isn't to be confused with a typical throttle where you receive 2G speeds.
In Conclusion:
After all of this possible evidence being revealed, its very likely a possible clue as to who wants to limit their customers and
who doesn't, regardless of what you may say or think about each carrier as this is only part of the story. T-Mobile has made it
very clear what they think about their network and, although its hard to believe everything a company says these days, they
may very well now have the evidence to support and show that they are not out to limit their customers at all and truly do strive
to deliver a better experience. Though Sprint still offers unlimited data plans, the truth is they have not seemed put forth enough
effort to get the ball rolling on LTE expansions so their users aren't stuck with it's slow EVDO 3G network. You can say all
you want about T-Mobile's coverage, but, me personally, I'd rather be with a company that can deliver fast speeds with
truely 0% limits, tell me the straight forward honest to God truth, show motivation and drive about catering to the customer,
and a team of people who actually act like human beings with a heart unlike the others, frankly, as this is from personal
experience. Most importantly, I'd rather be with a carrier where I know I can keep my dignity and where I know the device I
value so much and spend a lot of time and money on, Android and Apple alike, can be used to it's full potential. This is coming
from someone who travels a lot and is a proud ex-customer of Verizon and AT&T. I'm not telling or asking you to jump ship
and hop on the T-Mobile network, though I do recommend it because I've been through carrier after carrier and even prepaid
with no dice and have never been happier, however, I am giving you, the customer, the possible truth behind how carriers
and/or Apple is/are really handling your device and exposing what you may really be paying for. After all, its your device. You
paid for it, therefor, you deserve to know what's being done to it, don't you? You deserve to get the most out of it don't you?
The choice is easy. The choice is simple.
#SimpleChoice

6. Categories: None
Post a Comment
Oops!
Oops, you forgot something.
Oops!
The words you entered did not match the given text. Please try again.
Name
Already a member? Sign In
Email
Message
Post Comment
24 Comments
Reply alexdoom
11:10 PM on June 05, 2013
It's probably because the NSA needs extra bandwidth to record you phone calls
Reply dj
10:56 PM on June 05, 2013
Could this be used to get out of a contract with Verizon?
Reply nme
10:28 PM on June 05, 2013
What a stupid argument, with no actual point.
All data connections are throttled at somewhere at some point.
The issue here is simple (and yet woodshed right over the author's head).
Take a comparable Android device and iOS device: set them side by side; run the same various data speed tests on both.
May the fastest device win (cuz it's the fastest) whichever device that is.
THATS ALL THAT MATTERS.

7. Reply caleuche
10:24 PM on June 05, 2013
Thinking about it a bit more, it seems completely irrational to limit a whole class of devices by limiting their device category.
First of all, there are plenty of systems in place to throttle high bandwidth users. Second, if this were intentional, it's only
effective where radio conditions would allow use of the higher order modulation anyway, typically about 1/3rd cell radius - the
vast majority of users would not be impacted by this kind of throttling because the largest area around a cell is at 16QAM or
QPSK anyway. Third, by limiting the number of bits per Hz, you're also potentially limiting process gain, and it doesn't make
sense to do that. Finally, if one carrier limited performance at all times intentionally, they are putting a marketing bullseye on
themselves that would allow any other carrier to point it out and say "want *THE FASTEST* HSPA network? Come to x!"
Reply Joe
10:14 PM on June 05, 2013
Mike says...
I am not sure what "Below are several snapshots of the strings of coding we've had to deal with for the past
month now" means. Are these strings embedded in configuration files on the devices? If so, what are the file
paths?
I am curious whether you've performed some benchmarks that compare typical Android and iOS devices, and
could publish the results of your findings? It could be as straightforward as showing device performance with and
without the above described configuration parameters against a speedtest site.
Yes, they are located in the network configuration files, also known as the PRI file. It's located in carrier bundles within the
device or in the IPCC update files.
Reply Mike
09:43 PM on June 05, 2013
I am not sure what "Below are several snapshots of the strings of coding we've had to deal with for the past month now"
means. Are these strings embedded in configuration files on the devices? If so, what are the file paths?
I am curious whether you've performed some benchmarks that compare typical Android and iOS devices, and could publish
the results of your findings? It could be as straightforward as showing device performance with and without the above
described configuration parameters against a speedtest site.
Reply Joe
08:55 PM on June 05, 2013
Paul says...
This all sounds a little odd considering I routinely get higher than 14.4 on my AT&T iPone 5. It's often in the 20-
30 range, according to Speed Test. The best I've had is 49.1, in April, 2013.
That's because those are LTE speeds you're talking about. I was referring to HSPA+ speeds. Totally different networks.

8. Reply Robert Hancock
08:26 PM on June 05, 2013
Anyone have an idea what carrier file from a jailbroken SoftBank iPhone 4 or an non-jb iPhone 5 would we need to look at to
check whether SB is doing the same thing?
I know how to get into the root file system of jb phones but what about non-jb?
Adachi says...
Am sure Softbank doing same - Android users in same office get 50Mbps whereas iphone user gets 12Mbps.
Would be great if author of this fine article can expose the global carrier scandal here.
Reply Mr D
08:23 PM on June 05, 2013
Alexandre Testu says...
I wouldn't say the carriers are device agnostic. They can modify and price Android phones the way they want,
but Apple dictates the prices and software on the iPhone. Carriers hate Apple; it's a force relationship. Go to
AT&T or Verizon tomorrow and see what phone they'll encourage you to buy?
From my experience, VZW encourages the plan with the highest monthly rate regardless of device. In the US, the price of our
phones are usually subsidized by our plans (i.e., the expense of top-of-the-line phones are paid up front and over the life of the
contract). Wireless carriers make the lion's share of profit, not from selling devices, but from network access, usage, and fees.
Considering the $$$ concessions Apple has previously extracted from carriers, should we really believe they would agree to,
by design, having their products underperform their competition on any particular network?
All I'm saying is that something is fishy with this throttling speculation. My 2 cents anyway...
Reply Paul
08:15 PM on June 05, 2013
This all sounds a little odd considering I routinely get higher than 14.4 on my AT&T iPone 5. It's often in the 20-30 range,
according to Speed Test. The best I've had is 49.1, in April, 2013.
Reply caleuche
08:02 PM on June 05, 2013
Also I think the "throttling parameters" might not be bandwidth throttling but reconnect and attach throttling.
Reply caleuche
08:01 PM on June 05, 2013
Adam says...

9. This could be a naive question, but can any part of this be in place to effect the functional battery life of the device
vs its Android counterparts?
It would probably harm battery life, slightly (in that the radios/amplifiers would have to be powered longer to work with the
same amount of payload). It might be either an oversight, or that they don't have FCC approval to operate the device on that
band with those modulation settings in all markets, or something else. Somewhat restating what I said already, this is a horribly
way of throttling. If they wanted to throttle they could do it without having to limit the device category which does nothing more
than make the utilization of the spectrum more inefficient (in terms of bits/Hz). I'm tempted to think it's actually an oversight or
an FCC rule.
Reply Adachi
07:55 PM on June 05, 2013
Am sure Softbank doing same - Android users in same office get 50Mbps whereas iphone user gets 12Mbps. Would be great
if author of this fine article can expose the global carrier scandal here.
Reply Nate Day
07:53 PM on June 05, 2013
Very insightful piece that will influence me moving to T-Mobile. Shoutout to John Gruber for sending me here.
Reply Adam
07:52 PM on June 05, 2013
This could be a naive question, but can any part of this be in place to effect the functional battery life of the device vs its
Android counterparts?
Reply caleuche
07:48 PM on June 05, 2013
This is a particularly strange way of throttling as it enforces that an artificially higher amount of spectrum time is needed for a
given amount of download. Category 10 devices are limited to a lower order modulation (16QAM) than Category 14
(64QAM) and in good radio conditions all you would be doing is taking up more of the spectrum (that they've paid many
billions of dollars for) to transmit the same amount of payload. It makes absolutely no sense at all.
Reply Chris
07:44 PM on June 05, 2013
I think what the author is trying to say is that the carriers not Apple are limiting it. And yes they sell both devices but they would
much rather sell non apple devices because they get a much greater cut in the costs and can install all their bloatware. I don't
think its a reason to use T-Mobile however as they are not any more virtuous than any other carriers they simply are at the
bottom of the food chain so are offering anything they can to entice users just like why Sprint still offers unlimited (because no
one uses them), if everyone started using Sprint or T-Mobile they would do the exact same practices at Verizon and ATT.
MR D says...
"who wants to limit their customers and who doesn't"

10. Specious at best.
Clearly, slower performance on iOS devices compared to Android would not benefit Apple in any way. Nor
would it help Verizon and Sprint who are device agnostic when it comes down to it.
How do you parse this?
Reply Ted T.
07:36 PM on June 05, 2013
The fastest Speedtest result have ever gotten (Verizon FIOS & TWC Docsis 3.0 included) was AT&T LTE on the iPad 3 --
56.97 Mbps down, 20.69 up. Sept 2, 2012, near West Orange, NJ
So if there is AT&T throttling it is not on the iPad end -- they must be doing it on their own network.
Reply Alexandre Testu
06:45 PM on June 05, 2013
MR D says...
"who wants to limit their customers and who doesn't"
Specious at best.
Clearly, slower performance on iOS devices compared to Android would not benefit Apple in any way. Nor
would it help Verizon and Sprint who are device agnostic when it comes down to it.
How do you parse this?
I wouldn't say the carriers are device agnostic. They can modify and price Android phones the way they want, but Apple
dictates the prices and software on the iPhone. Carriers hate Apple; it's a force relationship. Go to AT&T or Verizon
tomorrow and see what phone they'll encourage you to buy?
Reply JailBird
06:30 PM on June 05, 2013
While LTE uses a GSM-based backend, the air interface is much closer to CDMA than it is 2G GSM (which was based on
TDMA). 3G GSM (UMTS) was called W-CDMA for a reason!
12Next »