Quote:
Originally Posted by m419
YAY! I'm so glad! That means I will get much better reception on 3 if it goes ahead.
---------- Post added at 19:23 ---------- Previous post was at 18:13 ----------
3 well Hutchison is actually a good company and network,however,it is still relatively new and the other networks experienced this in the 90's.
|
Actually, it's not that much newer than the other companies. Apart from Vodafone and Cellnet/O2 they were all formed in the early 90s. 3 initially started in the late 90s/early 2000s.
And remember, when dealing with 3G, *all* the companies have relatively new networks. It just that (amongst my friends anyway), 3s is considerably more unreliable than any others.
Quote:
3 has encountered problems:
Not being able to install masts due to petitions from local communities,there is still insufficient evidence that masts are a health hazzard.
Goverment intereference forcing the company to expand and to run before it walks.
|
Again, all the networks have experienced both of those.
Quote:
|
In the other countries it operates in including its Orange operations in some countries, it has not encountered these problems and has good coverage and a good track record, Britain has always been like that,just look at the Cable and pay-tv market and Music industry!
|
What on earth has the music industry go to do with it?
Quote:
If 3 takes over T-Mobile UK, 3 will be taking on:
a 2.5G network which covers 98% of the UK
A 3G network that already covers 70% of the UK.
UK Call centres! Can you really see 3 giving everyone the sack? Of course there will be many job losses,but they will keep some call centres.
|
Yes, I can, if they feel it will save money. Remember, they had the option to use UK call centres initially. They didn't.
---------- Post added at 00:10 ---------- Previous post was at 00:06 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by brundles
Firstly, sorry to snip the quote!
In terms of your coverage on 3 if they merged/bought T-Mobile, sorry it's not that simple, Networks are engineered to a certain level and dumping 3 subscribers onto the T-Mobile infrastructure would probably cause enough problems to annoy both sets of customers so that's not likely to happen. I suspect the best you could hope from (eventually) would be that new subscribers get placed against the infrastructure that has the most spare capacity.
For T-Mobile subscribers on more expensive tarrifs that 3 offers - reductions won't happen. Why would 3 reduce the contract price when they can reap the profits from it?
Also, Virgin Mobile customers won't benefit from anything that's not in the contract between T-Mobile and Virgin Mobile. 3 aren't going to offer something for free that would benefit a competitor brand.
The instant improvement sounds nice from a subscriber perspective, but given most of the phones are locked down to the network they were bought on to try and protect revenue streams that's not likely to happen.
|
Also bear in that while one network may well have more 3G coverage than the other, a *lot* of the areas will be duplicated between the two networks, especially in towns and cities.
Yes, the merger will be nice for some people. It's doubtful it'll be nice for the subscribers though.