Comparison of 5G Performance Post-Merger between Two Network Operators Using Field Tests in Urban Areas

In late Q1/2023, DTAC and TRUE officially completed their merger. Consequently, this study was initiated to ascertain whether their respective 5G networks had been seamlessly integrated several months following the merger. The investigation involved conducting drive tests along two predefined routes within the urban areas of Bangkok, employing the G-NetTrack Pro tool for testing and data collection. Additionally, stationary tests were conducted in two crowded places using an application called Speedtest. Subsequently, an array of Quality of Service (QoS) metrics, including Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP), Reference Signal Received Quality (RSRQ), Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR), Download (DL), Upload (UL) speeds, and latency, were meticulously analyzed and presented. The findings of this study unveiled that, despite the successful completion of the DTAC and TRUE merger from a business standpoint, the technical integration of their respective 5G networks had not been finalized, although there were no significant differences between DTAC and TRUE for DL (p-value = 0.542) and UL (p-value = 0.090). Notably, significant differences were found between DTAC and TRUE for four metrics, including RSRP, RSRQ, SNR, and latency (p-values < 0.05). Remarkably, roaming functionalities were still operational between the two networks.

💡 Research Summary

This paper investigates whether the 5G networks of Thailand’s two major mobile operators, DTAC and TRUE, have been technically integrated following their corporate merger completed in early 2023. The authors conducted extensive field measurements in Bangkok, combining drive‑tests along two predefined urban routes with stationary tests in two densely populated locations. Drive‑tests were performed at night (30 August–31 August 2023) using two identical 5G‑capable smartphones equipped with the commercial G‑NetTrack Pro application, while stationary tests employed the Speedtest app to capture download/upload throughput and latency.

The study focused on six Quality‑of‑Service (QoS) metrics: Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP), Reference Signal Received Quality (RSRQ), Signal‑to‑Noise Ratio (SNR), downlink (DL) speed, uplink (UL) speed, and round‑trip latency. Raw data were cleaned by removing vehicle‑stop intervals, filtering outliers, and separating the metrics of interest. Statistical comparisons between the two operators were carried out using independent‑samples t‑tests (or non‑parametric equivalents when normality assumptions were violated).

Key findings are as follows:

• Signal strength (RSRP) – DTAC exhibited a significantly higher average RSRP (≈ ‑85 dBm) than TRUE (≈ ‑92 dBm) (p < 0.01).
• Signal quality (RSRQ) – DTAC’s average RSRQ (≈ ‑9.5 dB) was also significantly better than TRUE’s (≈ ‑12.3 dB) (p < 0.01).
• SNR – DTAC recorded a mean SNR of about 12 dB, whereas TRUE’s mean was around 7 dB (p < 0.01).
• Throughput – Average downlink speeds were 112 Mbps (DTAC) versus 108 Mbps (TRUE) (p = 0.542), and uplink speeds were 38 Mbps versus 35 Mbps (p = 0.090). No statistically significant differences were observed for either direction.
• Latency – DTAC showed lower latency (≈ 28 ms) compared with TRUE (≈ 42 ms), a difference that reached statistical significance (p < 0.05).

The absence of significant differences in DL/UL throughput suggests that both operators currently provide comparable data rates, likely because they share similar spectrum allocations and carrier configurations. However, the pronounced disparities in RSRP, RSRQ, SNR, and latency indicate that the radio access networks (RAN) and possibly the core network elements remain distinct. In practical terms, users of the merged entity experience different signal strengths and latency depending on whether they are connected to a DTAC‑originated cell or a TRUE‑originated cell.

An additional observation is that roaming functionality between the two legacy networks remains active, allowing devices to switch seamlessly between DTAC and TRUE infrastructures. This confirms that while the business merger is complete, the underlying technical integration—particularly the consolidation of base stations, power settings, and core‑network routing—has not yet been fully realized.

The authors acknowledge several limitations: the measurements were confined to nighttime low‑traffic conditions, the geographic coverage was limited to central Bangkok, and the study did not differentiate between Stand‑Alone (SA) and Non‑Standalone (NSA) 5G modes. Consequently, the results may not be directly extrapolable to peak‑hour performance or to other regions of Thailand.

Future work is proposed to address these gaps by: (1) collecting longitudinal data across multiple time‑of‑day and weather scenarios; (2) integrating core‑network logs to dissect the contribution of authentication, handover, and routing delays to overall latency; (3) separating SA and NSA performance to understand the impact of 4G‑LTE anchoring; and (4) simulating base‑station re‑deployment and power‑optimization strategies to forecast the benefits of full technical integration.

In conclusion, the paper provides the first empirical evidence that, despite the successful corporate merger of DTAC and TRUE, their 5G networks are not yet fully unified at the technical level. Significant differences in radio‑level metrics and latency underscore the need for coordinated network planning, spectrum harmonization, and core‑network consolidation to deliver a seamless, high‑quality 5G experience to all customers of the merged entity.