{"id":20971,"date":"2025-07-18T16:35:05","date_gmt":"2025-07-18T14:35:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/rfbenchmark.com\/?p=20971"},"modified":"2025-08-18T01:04:51","modified_gmt":"2025-08-17T23:04:51","slug":"mobile-network-quality-in-the-swietokrzyskie-voivodeship-rfbenchmark-drive-test-measurements-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/rfbenchmark.com\/en\/mobile-network-quality-in-the-swietokrzyskie-voivodeship-rfbenchmark-drive-test-measurements-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Mobile Network Quality in the Swietokrzyskie Voivodeship \u2013 RFBENCHMARK Drive Test Measurements 2025"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Although the Swietokrzyskie Voivodeship is not among the largest in Poland, its residents \u2013 like the rest of the country \u2013 increasingly rely on fast and stable access to mobile services. A reliable internet connection today is more than just a convenience; it\u2019s a necessity \u2013 whether for remote work, online learning, or streaming your favorite series. That\u2019s why we examined how mobile operators are performing in this part of the country.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The data was collected using the Drive Test<\/strong> method, which allows for an objective comparison of call quality and data transmission in diverse terrain conditions \u2013 from city centers to smaller towns and the roads in between. These are not marketing figures \u2013 they are real, field-tested metrics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, which provider delivers the fastest mobile internet? Where can users expect the lowest latency and the best voice quality? Here are the latest results from RFBENCHMARK<\/strong> measurements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

14 professional devices<\/strong> were used during the testing, including the latest Samsung S24 Ultra smartphones and advanced signal analyzers like PCTEL GFlex<\/strong> and IBFlex<\/strong>. This setup enabled a precise assessment of services offered by Poland\u2019s four largest mobile network operators. The tests covered both voice calls<\/strong> (VoLTE and WhatsApp) and 5G data transmission<\/strong> \u2013 measuring download and upload speeds, latency (ping), and video streaming quality. These results reflect real user experiences in a variety of everyday scenarios.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mobile Internet Speed in Swietokrzyskie (2025)<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

File Transfer Efficiency \u2013 Download and Upload<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

In the file download success test, Play<\/strong> took the lead with a 99.43%<\/strong> success rate for 10-second transfers. Plus<\/strong> followed closely with 99.29%<\/strong>, while Orange<\/strong> achieved 98.76%<\/strong>. T-Mobile<\/strong>, though slightly lower at 97.40%<\/strong>, still maintained a solid performance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As for uploads, Play<\/strong> remained in first place with 99.28%<\/strong>, demonstrating high reliability. Orange<\/strong> ranked second (98.89%<\/strong>), with Plus<\/strong> just behind at 98.71%<\/strong>. T-Mobile<\/strong> came in last with 96.67%<\/strong>, still a respectable result but lower than its competitors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Download and Upload Speed<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

T-Mobile<\/strong> was the clear leader in download speed, reaching 505.18 Mbps<\/strong>. This was the highest result across the board, indicating the operator\u2019s network in Swietokrzyskie has significant capacity. Orange<\/strong> followed with 423.33 Mbps<\/strong>, while Play<\/strong> delivered a notably lower 310.80 Mbps<\/strong>. Plus<\/strong> performed weakest, with only 199.49 Mbps<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When it came to upload speeds, the differences were smaller yet still notable. T-Mobile<\/strong> again led the field with 71.27 Mbps<\/strong>, followed by Orange<\/strong> (69.76 Mbps<\/strong>) and Play<\/strong> (68.94 Mbps<\/strong>). Plus<\/strong> came last with 55.06 Mbps<\/strong>. All results offer decent support for cloud services and large file uploads, though more demanding users may feel the impact.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Latency<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The RTT (Round Trip Time)<\/strong> indicator reflects the time needed to send a small data packet from a device to a server and back. It is a crucial parameter for users of applications that require rapid responsiveness \u2013 such as video conferencing, online gaming, or VoIP services. The lower the RTT, the more responsive the network.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the Swietokrzyskie Voivodeship, Play<\/strong> achieved the best result, with an average latency of 29 ms<\/strong>, confirming the smooth performance of its services. Plus<\/strong> came next with 40 ms<\/strong>, followed by Orange<\/strong> at 45 ms<\/strong>. T-Mobile<\/strong> recorded the highest response time of 49 ms<\/strong>, which is still within acceptable limits but may be noticeable in more demanding use cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While the differences in latency may seem small, they can significantly impact the overall user experience, especially in situations where every millisecond counts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n

\r\n
\r\n
\r\n <\/i><\/span>\r\n Download\r\n
<\/div>\r\n <\/div>
\r\n <\/i><\/span>\r\n Upload\r\n
<\/div>\r\n <\/div>
\r\n <\/i><\/span>\r\n PING\r\n
<\/div>\r\n <\/div> <\/div>
\r\n
\r\n <\/i> Download\r\n\r\n <\/div>\r\n
\r\n
<\/div>\r\n \r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>
\r\n
\r\n <\/i> Upload\r\n\r\n <\/div>\r\n
\r\n
<\/div>\r\n \r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>
\r\n
\r\n <\/i> PING\r\n\r\n <\/div>\r\n
\r\n
<\/div>\r\n \r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div> <\/div> <\/div>\r\n <\/div>\n\n\n\n

Voice Call Quality in Swietokrzyskie (2025)<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

VoLTE<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

VoLTE (Voice over LTE)<\/strong> enables high-quality voice calls using the 4G network, which results in faster call setup and better sound without switching to older technologies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Call Setup Success Rate<\/strong>, Orange<\/strong> topped the chart at 99.69%<\/strong>, followed by T-Mobile<\/strong> (99.49%<\/strong>) and Play<\/strong> (99.22%<\/strong>). Plus<\/strong> trailed slightly at 98.58%<\/strong>, but still within a very good range.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Greater variation was seen in Call Drop Rate<\/strong>. T-Mobile<\/strong> performed best with just 0.20%<\/strong> dropped calls. Orange<\/strong> followed with 0.31%<\/strong>, while Play<\/strong> (1.34%<\/strong>) and Plus<\/strong> (1.66%<\/strong>) showed weaker performance in this category.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For audio quality<\/strong> (measured by MOS), Play<\/strong> scored highest with 4.48<\/strong>, just ahead of Orange<\/strong> (4.46<\/strong>) and T-Mobile<\/strong> (4.45<\/strong>). Plus<\/strong> came in lower with 4.12<\/strong>, which may indicate less clarity in voice calls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Audio Quality MOS < 1.6<\/strong> indicator, showing the share of very poor-quality calls, was lowest (best) for Play<\/strong> at 0.95%<\/strong>. Plus<\/strong> had the highest percentage of low-quality calls at 2.57%<\/strong>, in line with its overall lower audio rating.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t
<\/td>KPI Free Mode Voice – VoLTE<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Mierzony parametr<\/strong><\/td>Orange<\/strong><\/td>T-Mobile<\/strong><\/td>Play<\/strong><\/td>Plus<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Call Setup Success Rate (%)<\/td>99,69 %<\/td>99,49 %<\/td>99,22 %<\/td>98,58 %<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Call Drop Rate (%)<\/td>0,31 %<\/td>0,20 %<\/td>1,34 %<\/td>1,66 %<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Audio Quality MOS Average<\/td>4,46<\/td>4,45<\/td>4,48<\/td>4,12<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Audio quality MOS < 1.6 (%)<\/td>1,72 %<\/td>1,80 %<\/td>0,95 %<\/td>2,57 %<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n

gOTT WhatsApp Voice Calls<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The following data covers the quality and reliability of voice calls made via WhatsApp<\/strong>, assessed using gOTT Free Mode<\/strong> indicators. Four key parameters were evaluated: call setup success, call drop rate, average audio quality (MOS), and the share of very poor-quality calls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In terms of Call Setup Success Rate<\/strong>, T-Mobile<\/strong> led with 99.45%<\/strong>, just ahead of Play<\/strong> (99.29%<\/strong>). Orange<\/strong> (98.96%<\/strong>) and Plus<\/strong> (98.68%<\/strong>) were close behind, all showing strong performance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Call Drop Rate<\/strong> revealed bigger differences. Orange<\/strong> (0.53%<\/strong>) and T-Mobile<\/strong> (0.55%<\/strong>) demonstrated the highest stability. Play<\/strong> showed a higher rate at 1.19%<\/strong>, while Plus<\/strong> recorded the weakest result with 2.18%<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Regarding audio quality<\/strong>, Play<\/strong> again ranked first with a MOS of 4.09<\/strong>. T-Mobile<\/strong> followed with 4.00<\/strong>, Orange<\/strong> with 3.99<\/strong>, and Plus<\/strong> with 3.93<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For MOS < 1.6<\/strong>, Play<\/strong> had the lowest share of poor-quality calls (0.73%<\/strong>), while Plus<\/strong> again had the highest (2.77%<\/strong>). T-Mobile<\/strong> and Orange<\/strong> were in the 1.6\u20131.7% range.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t
<\/td>KPI Free Mode Voice – gOTT Whatsapp<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Mierzony parametr<\/strong><\/td>Orange<\/strong><\/td>T-Mobile<\/strong><\/td>Play<\/strong><\/td>Plus<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Call Setup Success Rate (%)<\/td>98,96 %<\/td>99,45 %<\/td>99,29 %<\/td>98,68 %<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Call Drop Rate (%)<\/td>0,53 %<\/td>0,55 %<\/td>1,19 %<\/td>2,18 %<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Audio Quality MOS Average<\/td>3,99<\/td>4,00<\/td>4,09<\/td>3,93<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Audio quality MOS < 1.6 (%)<\/td>1,62 %<\/td>1,75 %<\/td>0,73 %<\/td>2,77 %<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n

KPI NR\/FreeMode Data \u2013 TWAMP<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

TWAMP (Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol)<\/strong> is used to evaluate the quality of interactive data transmission \u2013 crucial for video conferencing, VoIP calls, and online gaming. These indicators help assess the stability and responsiveness of real-time network performance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the TWAMP Success Rate<\/strong>, Play<\/strong> delivered a near-perfect 99.86%<\/strong>, followed by Plus<\/strong> (98.54%<\/strong>), and Orange<\/strong> (92.92%<\/strong>). T-Mobile<\/strong> came last with 87.10%<\/strong>, indicating possible issues under demanding conditions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The TWAMP Interactivity Score<\/strong> also favored Play<\/strong>, which received the highest score of 71<\/strong>. Orange<\/strong> and Plus<\/strong> scored similarly at 61<\/strong> and 60<\/strong>, respectively. T-Mobile<\/strong>, with a score of 57<\/strong>, again lagged behind.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\n\t\n\t\n\t
<\/td>KPI NR\/FreeMode Data – TWAMP<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Mierzony parametr<\/strong><\/td>Orange<\/strong><\/td>T-Mobile<\/strong><\/td>Play<\/strong><\/td>Plus<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
TWAMP Success Rate (%)<\/td>92,92%<\/td>87,10%<\/td>99,86%<\/td>98,54%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
TWAMP Interactivity Score<\/td>61<\/td>57<\/td>71<\/td>60<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n

KPI NR\/FreeMode Data \u2013 4K Streaming<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

These tests assess how well networks handle high-volume real-time data transmission \u2013 crucial for smooth, buffer-free 4K video playback.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Streaming Success Rate<\/strong>, Orange<\/strong> ranked first with 98.59%<\/strong>, followed by Play<\/strong> (97.60%<\/strong>) and Plus<\/strong> (94.67%<\/strong>). T-Mobile<\/strong> ended the list with 93.55%<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When it comes to video quality<\/strong>, measured by VSQI Session MOS<\/strong>, Orange<\/strong> again led with 4.32<\/strong>, ahead of T-Mobile<\/strong> (4.22<\/strong>) and Play<\/strong> (4.20<\/strong>). Plus<\/strong> scored 3.96<\/strong>, the only operator below the 4.0 threshold.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The VSQI Session MOS < 3.8<\/strong> metric confirmed these differences: Orange<\/strong> had the fewest low-quality sessions (9.86%<\/strong>), while Plus<\/strong> had the most (20.83%<\/strong>). Play<\/strong> and T-Mobile<\/strong> fell in the middle at 13.63%<\/strong> and 12.56%<\/strong>, respectively.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t
<\/td>KPI NR\/FreeMode Data – Streaming<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Measured parameter<\/strong><\/td>Orange<\/strong><\/td>T-Mobile<\/strong><\/td>Play<\/strong><\/td>Plus<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Streaming Success Rate (%)<\/td>98,59 %<\/td>93,55 %<\/td>97,60 %<\/td>94,67 %<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
VSQI Session MOS<\/td>4,32<\/td>4,22<\/td>4,20<\/td>3,96<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
VSQI Session MOS < 3.8 (%)<\/td>9,86 %<\/td>12,56 %<\/td>13,63 %<\/td>20,83 %<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Although the Swietokrzyskie Voivodeship is not among the largest in Poland, its residents \u2013 like the rest of the country \u2013 increasingly rely on fast and stable access to mobile services. A reliable internet connection today is more than just a convenience; it\u2019s a necessity \u2013 whether for remote work, online learning, or streaming your<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":20984,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[46,47],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-20971","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-articles","category-news"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/rfbenchmark.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/woj-swietokrzyskie.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/rfbenchmark.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20971","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/rfbenchmark.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/rfbenchmark.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rfbenchmark.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rfbenchmark.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=20971"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/rfbenchmark.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20971\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":20983,"href":"https:\/\/rfbenchmark.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20971\/revisions\/20983"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rfbenchmark.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/20984"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/rfbenchmark.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20971"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rfbenchmark.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20971"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rfbenchmark.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20971"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}