HOME CONNECT his is the ninth time connect has con- methodology. One of our main concerns was to ducted its wide-ranging broadband and separate the technical performance of the tested fixed- network test together with Ismaning- connections from the market promises that were, based network test specialist zafaco. in some cases, exaggerated or misleading – for T One might therefore be led to think that so- more about this, go to page 86. In line with techno- FIXED NETWORKS mething akin to routine had set in, but this would logy and market developments, we again raised a be wide off the mark. number of threshold values and thus set higher In March 2018 – well before the test period sche- technical standards. And we have a new candidate duled to take place from mid-May to mid-June – this year in the shape of Pÿur (Tele Columbus). the previous year’s winner 1&1 announced in a UNDER THE press release that it did not want to take part in our Nervous tension among the test candidates 2018 fixed-network test. It gave its reason as on- During the test and in the period thereafter, there going renovation and integration work in its net- were some intense exchanges of opinion with the work. However, participation in the test is not at candidates – for instance due to irregularities the discretion of the candidates. With a view to reported by the zafaco monitoring system during editorial impartiality and comparability of results, the tests (see page 89). But we take it in good sport MICROSCOPE connect declined immediately – and included 1&1 – the nervous reactions of some network operators On behalf of connect, the zafaco network experts really put in the test. The results are on page 87. simply demonstrate how relevant our fact-based and critical test results are in the industry. And in Germany’s broadband and telephony providers to the test Improved networks, higher test standards 2018, the details of these results once again throw over a four-week period. The systems collected around 4.4 million As in previous years, zafaco and connect took ad- up a few surprises and interesting insights. The vantage of the available time between the last net- next few pages reveal how the individual providers values measured over 48 locations distributed across Germany. work test a year ago and now to enhance the test performed. HANNES RÜGHEIMER >> The purpose of this task: to provide you with facts about which providers offer the best services. PROVIDERS IN THE TEST 1&1 .....................................................................................................................P. 87 EWE ..................................................................................................................P. 90 M-NET ..........................................................................................................P. 90 NET COLOGNE ...............................................................................P. 90 O2 / TELEFONICA ......................................................................P. 88 PŸUR/TELE COLUMBUS ...............................................P. 91 TELEKOM ...............................................................................................P. 87 UNITYMEDIA......................................................................................P. 88 VODAFONE ..........................................................................................P. 89 84 8/2018 85 HOME CONNECT Kiel Rostock Oldenburg Hamburg Telekom 91,9% Bremen TEST SCOPE Meppen Hennigsdorf 1&1 86,3% The selection of tested connections reflects the distribution in the market. Lohne TELEPHONY Münster Hannover Berlin Unitymedia 75,0% We measure the providers against their own promises. Magdeburg Dorsten Bielefeld Candidates can achieve a maximum of 160 of the 500 points total Teltow O2/Telefonica 77,5% Krefeld Bochum Halle For this test, the zafaco measure­ most expensive lines. The distri­ services and when taking measu­ Düsseldorf Leipzig Dresden in the Telephony category. Hilden Vodafone 80,6% Neuss ment systems used a total of bution of connections described rements for web TV. Kassel Köln Bonn Erfurt We calculated the results in the Telephony connection to the older narrowband codec M-net 88,8% 96 test connections at 48 loca­ below therefore takes account of To do this, however, we had to Aachen Gießen category based on 347,971 evalua ted G.711. We also tested another scenario Net Cologne 76,3% tions in Germany. Network opera­ the range of offers from providers check what level of performance Frankfurt a. M. Mainz Neu-Isenburg measurements. The end­to­end call quality by making phone calls using two channels tors active across the whole of in all bandwidth classes. a provider actually promises to its Bayreuth EWE 75,0% Mannheim of telephone connections to the provider’s while transferring data simultaneously, customers. For reasons of fair­ Saarbrücken Germany having a correspon­ Nürnberg PYUR 55,6% Heilbronn own network (maximum of 40 points), to including both uploads and downloads. dingly high reach (market share The basis: product info sheets ness, we additionally looked at Stuttgart of more than two percent) were Most of the recorded values were whether the tested connection Pfullingen Essenbach other IP networks (maximum of 80 points) Load simulations of this kind reflect how Offenburg Ulm The chart at the top shows the distribution of the Ismaning and to the German mobile networks families would typically use a landline included with 16 connections, not measured against the absolu­ types really are marketed as Eningen u. A. Augsburg points achieved in the call quality test in percen- (maximum of 40 points) was evaluated. connection, for example. tage, and the chart below shows the total points regional and specialised pro­ te maximum data rates of the such. We investigated both of Freiburg Sigmaringen München viders with four. connections but against threshold these factors based on the pro­ The test systems first attempted to As the two bar charts above show, that can be achieved in the individual categories. make calls in the HD­Voice mode (Codec Telekom, M­net and 1&1 (in that order) When selecting the access values such as “90 percent of the duction information sheets stipu­ DISTRIBUTED ACROSS OnNet products for each provider, con­ promised bandwidth”. We only lated by the Federal Network G.722), which is far superior in quality. If performed best in our test in the Tele­ Offnet GERMANY the connection could not be established, phony category. But even they had nect and zafaco aimed to closely adjusted the thresholds to match Agency. Each provider must pro­ zafaco’s 48 test locations are distri- Mobile reflect the actual distribution in the full capacity in the respective vide these data sheets to the buted throughout Germany. A total of the systems then attempted to establish some room for improvement. 0 20 40 60 80 100 the market, because not every bandwidth classes when mea­ public, which can be found 96 telephone and broadband connec- tions included in the test established customer uses the fastest and suring uploads for photo book quickly with a Google search. con nections to each other and per- formed data and video tests. PROVIDERS AND PRODUCTS Number of lines/ PROVIDER PRODUCT Downstream max. Upstream max. Technology locations in the test TELEKOM BANDWIDTH CLASS 1 (UP TO 20 MBPS) in terms of total points. Telekom also 1&1 DSL16 16 Mbps 1 Mbps VDSL 4 of 16 Top marks for Telephony and Telekom 100% EWE DSL16 premium 16 Mbps 1,024 Mbps VDSL 1 of 4 Internet make Telekom the winner provides a very good service for photo M-net Surf&Fon Flat 18 18 Mbps 1 Mbps FTTX 1 of 4 of this test, despite a few small book users and gamers. However, a few 1&1 97.5% Net Cologne Doppel-Flat 18 M 18 Mbps 1 Mbps VDSL 1 of 4 shortcomings. measurements indicate that there is still Unitymedia 87.5% O2/Telefónica O2 DSL XS 10 Mbps 2,4 Mbps VDSL 4 of 16 1&1 was crowned the winner in the fixed­ potential for improvement: Telekom came Telekom Magenta Zuhause S 16 Mbps 2,4 Mbps VDSL 2 of 16 O2/Telefónica 97.5% Vodafone Red Internet&Phone 16 DSL 16 Mbps 1 Mbps 1x ADSL, 1x VDSL 2 of 16 network tests in 2015 and 2017, but, as second to last for download times for the BANDWIDTH CLASS 2 (OVER 20 AND UP TO 100 MBPS) in 2016, Telekom did its utmost to win standardised ETSI Kepler reference pages Vodafone 95.0% 1&1 DSL50 50 Mbps 10 Mbps VDSL 4 of 16 back first place. The Bonn­based provider and in the Web TV category as a whole. M-net 80.0% EWE GIGAglas 75 75 Mbps 25 Mbps FTTX 1 of 4 gained top marks in nearly all the individual Overall, though, our congratulations go to M-net Surf&Fon Flat 50 50 Mbps 10 Mbps VDSL 1 of 4 Net Cologne 87.5% Net Cologne Doppel-Flat 50 M 50 Mbps 10 Mbps VDSL 1 of 4 tests in the categories Telephony, Broadband Bonn for a commanding victory among the O2/Telefónica O2 DSL S 25 Mbps 5 Mbps VDSL 4 of 16 Internet (along with Unitymedia and M­net) Germany­wide providers. EWE 85.0% O2/Telefónica O2 DSL M 50 Mbps 10 Mbps VDSL 4 of 16 and Web Services (along with 1&1). As a Pÿur/Tele Columbus Surf & Phone 60 + TV 60 Mbps 3 Mbps Cable 1 of 4 Pÿur 57.5% result, Telekom was the overall Germany­ Telekom Magenta Zuhause M 50 Mbps 10 Mbps VDSL 3 of 16 Unitymedia 2play Start 30 30 Mbps 3 Mbps Cable 5 of 16 wide winner and only slightly behind M­net Verdict Telekom performs particularly well in the upload Vodafone Red Internet&Phone 32 Cable 32 Mbps 2 Mbps Cable 1 of 16 very good (447 points) to photo book providers, among other things. Vodafone