Quote:
Originally Posted by Kushan
I suppose it comes down to what that coverage report is actually measuring - KM covered or population or what? Either way, I'm not disagreeing, the problem with all of the providers is not a single one of them has universal coverage so there will always be someone who's unhappy with any of the providers.
|
Everyone measures (or publicies) coverage by population. Because by KM covered even the 99% coverage of 2G is is something pathetic like 40% of area. Regardless, O2 has a legal obligation to provide the most coverage, the other networks except 3 all want to voluntarily match it. Yes, there will always be somebody unhappy with something but statistically more people are unhappy with some networks than others.
At the end of the day, three networks (everyone except 3) will have a nationwide 4G network exceeding the coverage of any current 3G network within the next two years. 3 are the only network without a serious 4G rollout strategy (not to mention, two thirds of the places they said they planned to have 4G coverage within 2014 still don't have it, and it's the second week of December...). 3 are planning to spend less than 1/3rd the money on 4G as the other networks - around 0.5 billion - whereas everyone else is spending £1.2-1.8 billion each. A wise decision to not waste money on building a network if you're planning on buying someone else's bigger, better network anyway.
---------- Post added at 03:39 ---------- Previous post was at 03:37 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
Bollocks to all of it, I took a 6hr train ride the other day up the east coast of England and Scotland and had 3G for a about a cumulative total of 20 mins.
|
Seeing as you can go up the entire east coast main line of Scotland in about 3-4 hours and maintain 3G coverage all the way, I suggest your phone is bollocks.
Plus anyone who compares 4G rollout based on 3G has no clue what they're on about.