lousy mobile phone networks

[jon0844]

if I were Mr Corbyn, I'd have these lousy mobile phone networks in my sights first. Expecting us to be grateful for charging stupid money for lousy coverage.

Damned O2 would be first for the high jump if I had my way.

If you left O2 to go to ANY other network you'd see a huge improvement, especially EE.

O2 has an obligation to provide 4G to more of the UK than any other network, in return for a cheaper license, and it's actually doing quite well but it won't happen overnight. However, EE is way out in front and has seen the commercial benefit of having the fastest 4G network.

Now Vodafone has started to roll out ultra fast 4G (nearly 200Mbps, which isn't bad for a mobile) and Three switched on its 800MHz 4G network in mid-September, which (subject to having a compatible device) nearly doubles its 4G coverage and now means indoor coverage that Three has never had in any of its 12 years of existence.

Suffice to say, the mobile industry is doing pretty well without any need for Government intervention/meddling.

 

[yorksrob]

If you left O2 to go to ANY other network you'd see a huge improvement, especially EE.

O2 has an obligation to provide 4G to more of the UK than any other network, in return for a cheaper license, and it's actually doing quite well but it won't happen overnight. However, EE is way out in front and has seen the commercial benefit of having the fastest 4G network.

Now Vodafone has started to roll out ultra fast 4G (nearly 200Mbps, which isn't bad for a mobile) and Three switched on its 800MHz 4G network in mid-September, which (subject to having a compatible device) nearly doubles its 4G coverage and now means indoor coverage that Three has never had in any of its 12 years of existence.

Suffice to say, the mobile industry is doing pretty well without any need for Government intervention/meddling.

There speaks an optimist.

Frankly I seem to have lousy Internet reception over most of the country. If I manage to post this in the leafy countryside of Southern England. Yet on the TV I see tribes in sub-Saharan Africa who seem to be able to get mobile reception. I guess that's third world Britain for you.

The truth is that with the exception of railways and canals, all major infrastructure improvements have been introduced by the state, either national or municipal. Roads, gas mains, national electricity grid, universal education etc.

I'm glad that the mobile networks are beginning to do something - now that the state has forced them to get their fingers out of their backsides.

Apologies for the delay in posting this response - it's a long way to Salisbury.

 

[thenorthern]

If you left O2 to go to ANY other network you'd see a huge improvement, especially EE.

With the exception of 3.

 

[yorksrob]

...if I were Mr Corbyn, I'd have these lousy mobile phone networks in my sights first. Expecting us to be grateful for charging stupid money for lousy coverage.

Damned O2 would be first for the high jump if I had my way.

Mods' note: split from Jeremy Corbyn pledges rail renationalisation

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Lilian Greenwood the Shadow Transport Secretary I think is a supporter of re-nationalisation

Lilian understands railways and is involved with MML and Rail North developments, and has done a term on the Transport Select Committee.
I think she does understand railway finances and the franchise system.
Supposedly she is going to lead railway policy planning for Labour.
I've never though of her as a nationalisation disciple, more of a pragmatist really.
Hopefully she will avoid the more zany ideas coming from the left wing.
She is a supporter of HS2 from her base in Nottingham (and was born in Bolton).

 

[northwichcat]

If you left O2 to go to ANY other network you'd see a huge improvement, especially EE.

I decided to trial a GiffGaff Sim for a month (using O2 network) having used both EE and Three previously. After 1 month I decided to not continue using the GiffGaff Sim, the Internet was so slow compared to both EE and Three, at times it couldn't even complete the download of a pdf a few hundred KBs in size.

 

[Haydn1971]

The solution is to force upon the providers data and call roaming to a network that can provide a signal as a matter of urgency, so that is doesn't matter which network you are on, you always have access - although I'd then expect the mobile providers to start selling users into minimum service levels, so without the top plan you still get rubbish service over vast parts of the country.

What also frustrates me, is the ghost signals, that tell your phone you have 4G/3G with lots of bars on the signal strength but then at best, run like treacle or at worst, leave you with a blank page.

 

[NSEFAN]

What also frustrates me, is the ghost signals, that tell your phone you have 4G/3G with lots of bars on the signal strength but then at best, run like treacle or at worst, leave you with a blank page.

This is particularly annoying, and I don't know enough about the protocols to know why it happens. My guess would be the phone-base station connection can support a 3G speed but the backhaul is in fact not so fast, perhaps from congestion.

 

[SS4]

With the exception of 3.

Indeed. Although if you live and work in an area which has a good signal they provide excellent deals. I get excellent 4g and it's karma for not living in a virgin media area

 

[GaryMcEwan]

I'm with Three and frequently get 45-50mb download, and constant 4G signal in Glasgow.

O2 will be going soon any way as Three are currently at the consultation stage of wanting to take them over. There is already a new CEO of the proposed O2/Three merger, and the outsourced staff based in Glasgow have already been given redundancy notice.

 

[jon0844]

With the exception of 3.

Hardly. Three and EE share networks. Most of EE's improvement came from using Three's sites.

Most operators weren't that keen in spending loads of money upgrading 2G to 3G. Three launched with 3G and had no fallback, so invested most.

That's why Three now carries over 40% of ALL data traffic on mobile in the UK. And it's the smallest network.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This is particularly annoying, and I don't know enough about the protocols to know why it happens. My guess would be the phone-base station connection can support a 3G speed but the backhaul is in fact not so fast, perhaps from congestion.

Yes, it's congestion as well as using old sites that haven't been upgraded for modern standards (3G has many different 'levels'). Three upgraded virtually all of its network for DC-HSPA, offering speeds of up to 40Mbps (on 3G!) while many old sites, especially on O2, will be the slowest UMTS (384Kbps) standard and with a pathetic backhaul.

EE will now have superfast fibre backhauls (and soon likely even faster) shared with EE (I think it's about 60/40 for EE/Three). Some old sites are using dog slow microwave links and were never designed for mobile data.

O2 and Vodafone sat back and went for higher profits, and now they're way behind - but both are now, finally, spending the money. They HAVE to because of competition.

Vodafone recently invested big in fibre, as like EE it has a lot of 4G spectrum and intends to offer very high speeds (300Mbps plus). O2 has the least spectrum so could never offer particularly fast 4G speed (but if HWL buys O2 then everything changes).

 

[GaryMcEwan]

Hardly. Three and EE share networks. Most of EE's improvement came from using Three's sites.

Most operators weren't that keen in spending loads of money upgrading 2G to 3G. Three launched with 3G and had no fallback, so invested most.

That's why Three now carries over 40% of ALL data traffic on mobile in the UK. And it's the smallest network.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Yes, it's congestion as well as using old sites that haven't been upgraded for modern standards (3G has many different 'levels'). Three upgraded virtually all of its network for DC-HSPA, offering speeds of up to 40Mbps (on 3G!) while many old sites, especially on O2, will be the slowest UMTS (384Kbps) standard and with a pathetic backhaul.

EE will now have superfast fibre backhauls (and soon likely even faster) shared with EE (I think it's about 60/40 for EE/Three). Some old sites are using dog slow microwave links and were never designed for mobile data.

O2 and Vodafone sat back and went for higher profits, and now they're way behind - but both are now, finally, spending the money. They HAVE to because of competition.

Vodafone recently invested big in fibre, as like EE it has a lot of 4G spectrum and intends to offer very high speeds (300Mbps plus). O2 has the least spectrum so could never offer particularly fast 4G speed (but if HWL buys O2 then everything changes).

Believe it or not, Three did have a 2G fallback that was provided by Orange on order to maintain network coverage equality. It started in 2006 and as of 2013, it stopped all 2G fallback.

 

[infobleep]

If you left O2 to go to ANY other network you'd see a huge improvement, especially EE.

O2 has an obligation to provide 4G to more of the UK than any other network, in return for a cheaper license, and it's actually doing quite well but it won't happen overnight. However, EE is way out in front and has seen the commercial benefit of having the fastest 4G network.

Now Vodafone has started to roll out ultra fast 4G (nearly 200Mbps, which isn't bad for a mobile) and Three switched on its 800MHz 4G network in mid-September, which (subject to having a compatible device) nearly doubles its 4G coverage and now means indoor coverage that Three has never had in any of its 12 years of existence.

Suffice to say, the mobile industry is doing pretty well without any need for Government intervention/meddling.

I wonder how they judge whether O2 are fulfilling their obligations.

For example Guildford has 4G and O2s map shows Surbiton as having 4G. Yet both are patchy at times. Yes I can get 4G but it's not guaranteed. I'm not talking about occasional outages or faults but regular problems. Surbiton is the worst of the two. Parts of Surbiton don't even offer voice calls and I've raised this with O2. It improved around the station but is still patchy. However other areas in Surbiton are just as bad as ever. However the map says otherwise.

Thus I'd hate to think O2 would be judged on their map.

As staying with O2. I stayed with them because they had good customer service. I really hope this doesn't get lost if and when Three take over.

I wonder if the new combined service will allow O2 customers to continue to be more dog or will they have to become cats. Reference to O2 ads and offers.

 

[Spamcan81]

I'm with O2 and even the slightest hint of countryside usually means poor coverage. If it's not poor coverage it's crap bandwidth. I live in a town of almost 9000 but O2 can barely give us 3G let alone 4G. I've had poor experiences with Vodafone in the past so that's one I won't be switching to.

 

[jon0844]

Believe it or not, Three did have a 2G fallback that was provided by Orange on order to maintain network coverage equality. It started in 2006 and as of 2013, it stopped all 2G fallback.

Yes, it did very early on with O2 and then Orange came later, but it was voice only. Certainly on Orange anyway.

Voice over LTE will massively boost 4G. It will mean the power can be turned up to the max, going beyond 2G or 3G and that's when we will see a major change - with big indoor and rural coverage for voice and data.

I'd say the majority of legacy 2G sites don't have the relevant software to manage voice fall back, so in those cases the 4G coverage will have to fit within 3G. And as O2 3G coverage is so poor, that heavily restricts 4G. Cell breathing plus 4G at 800 and 3G at 2100 (which is vastly different in radio characteristics) must make 4G far inferior than it could be in rural areas.

If anyone wants me to explain that a bit clearer please let me know, as I'm typing this on a phone at the moment.

 

[CC 72100]

I'm with O2 and even the slightest hint of countryside usually means poor coverage. If it's not poor coverage it's crap bandwidth. I live in a town of almost 9000 but O2 can barely give us 3G let alone 4G. I've had poor experiences with Vodafone in the past so that's one I won't be switching to.

When I was on 02 in a town of 11,000 we could only dream of 3G, or even Edge - had the lowest of the lows mobile data, couldn't actually use it. Couldn't wait to jump ships, anything but 02.

 

[Flying Snail]

I wonder how they judge whether O2 are fulfilling their obligations.

For example Guildford has 4G and O2s map shows Surbiton as having 4G. Yet both are patchy at times. Yes I can get 4G but it's not guaranteed. I'm not talking about occasional outages or faults but regular problems. Surbiton is the worst of the two. Parts of Surbiton don't even offer voice calls and I've raised this with O2. It improved around the station but is still patchy. However other areas in Surbiton are just as bad as ever. However the map says otherwise.

Thus I'd hate to think O2 would be judged on their map.

As staying with O2. I stayed with them because they had good customer service. I really hope this doesn't get lost if and when Three take over.

I wonder if the new combined service will allow O2 customers to continue to be more dog or will they have to become cats. Reference to O2 ads and offers.

I wouldn't get too hopeful, Hutchinson have already taken over and merged o2 into 3 in Ireland and plenty of customers, mainly former o2 customers are not exactly thrilled with it.

I was with 3 from before the merger and it has ruined my UK roaming. I went with 3 mainly because they allowed roaming on other 3 networks at the same rates as home network, to aid this I would only ever get a connection to 3 UK, sonce the o2 takeover my phone now picks up 3 UK where I don't get charged roaming rates or o2 UK where I do, end up spending far too much time manually changing the network. Of course 3 customer service are useless and even getting somebody to understand the basic problem was a trial, not that they did anything about it anyway.

 

[jon0844]

When O2 upgrades a site with 4G, it also brings both 2G and 3G up to spec (and speed).

 

[Tom B]

EE have a defective mast somewhere near my workplace in Central London, with the result that you only have signal if you go up to the third floor! In response to this they shrug their shoulders and say they aren't sure when they'll get around to fixing it...

 

[GaryMcEwan]

I don't know what the situation is now, but EE were decommissioning masts left right and centre with nothing apparently replacing them.

I would say Virgin Mobile is the worst out of all the networks. It might be the longest running MVNO and obviously using EE's infrastructure, but by god their 3G is woeful, and they have no plans to launch 4G either...I dunno if this is because it will cost them a bucket load to use EE's 4G spectrum.

 

[jon0844]

EE was decommissioning some duplicated sites when Orange, T-Mobile and Three were effectively merged (Orange being last). There were some people who had enjoyed good coverage for years and saw a loss of signal, although data wise they were probably pretty awful. Orange let its network go like O2 and Vodafone. Only T-Mobile and Three invested heavily, so EE was great for Orange.

EE, Three and Virgin all use the exact same 3G network, but there will be different capacities and Virgin is very likely a lower priority (just as Giffgaff is the lowest on O2, so when things are congested, Giffgaff users get slowed down first, then Tesco, then O2).

On 4G, EE and Three share sites, but are installing equipment separately. As such, with EE aware of the possibly buyout of O2, some legacy Orange sites are getting just 2G and 4G - meaning that Three won't get to use 3G on them. Cheeky or what?!

 

[radamfi]

I've just spent a few days travelling in Greece, Bulgaria and Macedonia and I was impressed at how robust the 3G reception was, even in mountainous areas with little population. This was using the famous Orange Spain SIM card in Greece and Bulgaria. I bought a Tourist SIM card from VIP in Skopje city centre, and again no problems at all. We are talking about countries that are considerably less rich than the UK.

 

[jon0844]

Covering the land isn't hard or even that expensive. It's capacity.

If you want capacity, you need very small sites and that gets expensive.

When the average Three user is consuming 4GB per month, networks can't really cope when a lot of people are wanting to use data in a small area.

And if you look up 'cell breathing' then you see how 3G can suddenly become terrible if there are a lot of users, which there are.

4G solves a lot of these issues (certainly sites don't shrink in coverage), so I hope that in the future we'll see 3G spectrum 'refarmed' for 4G.

 

[telstarbox]

I've just spent a few days travelling in Greece, Bulgaria and Macedonia and I was impressed at how robust the 3G reception was, even in mountainous areas with little population. This was using the famous Orange Spain SIM card in Greece and Bulgaria. I bought a Tourist SIM card from VIP in Skopje city centre, and again no problems at all. We are talking about countries that are considerably less rich than the UK.

Another of those 'what has the EU ever done for us?' things.

 

[cb a1]

...if I were Mr Corbyn, I'd have these lousy mobile phone networks in my sights first. Expecting us to be grateful for charging stupid money for lousy coverage.

I'm no expert on this, but I recall reading (was it in a Tim Harford book?) that a great deal of the cost of mobile services in the UK was down to what was perceived by many as a very astute auction process by the government when Gordon Brown was chancellor.

In essence, the auction winners had to pay billions for the network access and that is now reflected in the cost of using the system.

An interesting question is how much such government 'interfere'? Is mobile connectivity now an essential service which merits central government scrutiny?

 

[Glenmutchkin]

If the BBC is to be believed the O2/Three merger referred to above is not a forgone conclusion.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34471742

The UK telecoms watchdog has cast doubt on the merger of O2 and Three winning regulatory approval. Ofcom chief executive Sharon White said in a speech in London on Wednesday night that "four operators is a competitive number".
The proposed £10.2bn ($15.6bn) deal would reduce the number of UK mobile networks from four to three.

 

[infobleep]

Yesterday when caught up in disruption outside Woking and at Woking itself I had no mobile data reception. When I eventually left Woking station I got 4G just south of it but quickly lost it on the route to Guildford.

I cannot see how O2 are going to meet their government target. I doubt every other provider had the same issue. There were more people than usual yes but I suspect the issue was O2 not being able to cope.

Perhaps O2 could enter into a deal with train companies is to install wifi at all their stations or the ones with over a set number of passengers a year, similar to what Virgin Media did on the underground. O2 users benefit from that as they have an agreement with Virgin Media.

Interestingly there was South West Trains WiFi at Woking as it appeared in the lost of WiFi locations. However it was locked so I can only assume it's WiFi for staff use.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Is mobile connectivity now an essential service which merits central government scrutiny?

In short, yes. Mobile data is used for a lot more than just browsing Facebook on the train to work.

 

[yorksrob]

An interesting question is how much such government 'interfere'? Is mobile connectivity now an essential service which merits central government scrutiny?

I'd say if not, it soon will be !

 

[GaryMcEwan]

If the BBC is to be believed the O2/Three merger referred to above is not a forgone conclusion.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34471742

My sources at Three (my partner in particular) said to me earlier tonight that OFCOM are waiting for any opportunity to object to it.

But Three is in the process of getting some of the 1400MHz spectrum from Qualcomm, so if it was to go through then Three would have 800, 900, 1400, 1800 and 2100...

So that would give Three the biggest spectrum share out of all the networks...

But what Mr Li wants, Mr Li usually gets.