Will VM be short for Vodafone Media?

[jb66]

Threes 3g can outperform 4g on other networks

[Kushan]

It's true that Three's 4G coverage doesn't come close to EE's but at least from my anecdotal evidence, it's about on par with O2's as we were all comparing 4G signals last night. Nobody was on Vodafone so I have no idea where they stand.

Three's 4G annoyingly covers the entire area around my house and where I work. Around it. As in there's a near-perfect circle "gap" covering the two. Still, I can't usually complain about the 3G speeds I get and not having to worry about the data being used is amazing.

[qasdfdsaq]

Originally Posted by Kushan

It's true that Three's 4G coverage doesn't come close to EE's but at least from my anecdotal evidence, it's about on par with O2's as we were all comparing 4G signals last night. Nobody was on Vodafone so I have no idea where they stand.

Three's 4G coverage is considerably poorer than O2 or Vodafone. This is according to Ofcom, and their own coverage maps.

O2 and Vodafone are practically identical, they share all their 4G masts. EE are nearing 80% population coverage, O2/VF are nearing 50%, even so they are better than EE across pretty much the whole of Scotland. Three are still hovering around 20-30%.

---------- Post added at 20:59 ---------- Previous post was at 20:58 ----------

Originally Posted by jb66

Threes 3g can outperform 4g on other networks

O2's 3G can outperform Three's 4G too. I can also jump from a plane and survive without a parachute.

It just doesn't happen all that often. None of the above things do.

On average, Three's 3G is four times slower than 4G on other networks.

[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.

[Kushan]

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.

With which provider?

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

Three's 4G coverage is considerably poorer than O2 or Vodafone. This is according to Ofcom, and their own coverage maps.

O2 and Vodafone are practically identical, they share all their 4G masts. EE are nearing 80% population coverage, O2/VF are nearing 50%, even so they are better than EE across pretty much the whole of Scotland. Three are still hovering around 20-30%

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.

[qasdfdsaq]

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 ----------

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.

[Kushan]

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

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.

In an amusing twist to this story: http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php...8-percent.html

Three UK Expands 4G Mobile Broadband Coverage to 48 Percent

That would put it in line with the other providers.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Kushan

With which provider?

Vodafone

---------- Post added at 11:47 ---------- Previous post was at 11:45 ----------

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

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.

Well not with Vodafone you can't.

Plus anyone who compares 4G rollout based on 3G has no clue what they're on about.

I wasn't comparing, just making a statement.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Kushan

In an amusing twist to this story: http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php...8-percent.html

That would put it in line with the other providers.

It might put it in line with VF/O2 but surely not in line with EE with 80% coverage?

[qasdfdsaq]

Originally Posted by Kushan

In an amusing twist to this story: http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php...8-percent.html

48% according to their own, skewed figures perhaps, the same figures Ofcom refused to include in the latest national study because they were so inaccurate (i.e. unrealistic). 3 have just been on a giant misleading PR rampage all year wrt. 4G. "No extra cost for 4G" - then increase everyone's bills and increase new customer prices by up to 60%. "4G launching December 2013" - but not actually available to customers until the end of February 2014. "Only network to offer unlimited data on 4G" - and then apply new data limits to everyone, including 3G customers...

Compare their 48% coverage with two 4G transmitters in Aberdeen vs. O2/VF's 48% coverage with 20 4G transmitters in Aberdeen... (Correction: O2/VF are probably closer to 60% now)



Their strategy isn't much different across the whole UK - stick one or two transmitters up in a big city where there's lots of people and call it "covered"... Things don't get much better in central Scotland; O2 have more 4G transmitters in Edinburgh alone than 3 have in the entirety of Scotland combined.:



And it's pretty much the same even at the opposite end of the UK. I'm willing to bet O2 have more 4G transmitters in Scotland (pop: 5 million) than 3 have in the whole of England, Wales, and Northern Ireland (pop: 50 million):


---------- Post added at 14:55 ---------- Previous post was at 14:49 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

Well not with Vodafone you can't.

That's true, Vodafone do have the worst 3G coverage in the UK. But regardless, they are expanding fast, and 4G will result in much improved 3G coverage even on VF.

I wasn't comparing, just making a statement.

My apologies. Still, it's a bit counterproductive as there are already so many people mislead into thinking along the lines "why don't they fix 3G first"/"I can't get 3G, 4G is totally irrelevant"/"I can't get 3G so I'll never get 4G" etc.

Most people don't realise that 4G not only covers more area than 3G and is easier/faster to roll out, the combined multi-mode 2G+3G+4G equipment mans all masts are being upgraded to support both 3G and 4G at the same time, even when they have previously been 2G only.

---------- Post added at 14:57 ---------- Previous post was at 14:55 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

It might put it in line with VF/O2 but surely not in line with EE with 80% coverage?

Not even then - my figures for VF/O2 were a bit outdated, they had already reached 51% in October and are closer to 60% now, a good dozen or so new cities went live in early November.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jb66

virgin mobile dumped EE and went with a supplier who allowed 4g

Virgin mobile will be providing 4G. They currently in a project to move to a "thick MVNO" model, where they'll have more control over the services they can provide, and will effectively only be using EE's RAN, and nothing else.

Won't be for another year though as I understand it, but they working to reduce that.

[Kushan]

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

48% according to their own, skewed figures perhaps, the same figures Ofcom refused to include in the latest national study because they were so inaccurate (i.e. unrealistic).

No doubt this is marketing PR fluff with massaged figures.

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

3 have just been on a giant misleading PR rampage all year wrt. 4G. "No extra cost for 4G" - then increase everyone's bills and increase new customer prices by up to 60%.

Three aren't the only ones guilty of this, I think they've all raised prices?

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

"4G launching December 2013" - but not actually available to customers until the end of February 2014..

This one I know isn't true, as I happened to be in Liverpool quite a lot in December last year (I did used to live there) and got 4G coverage quite a bit. I think there was only 2 or 3 cities that got it though.

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

"Only network to offer unlimited data on 4G" - and then apply new data limits to everyone, including 3G customers...

I'm on unlimited data? What limits have they imposed, aside from Tethering (which on my contract wasn't allowed anyway).

<snip>

I can't really comment on this as I don't know enough about it. I'll say that Three's coverage map is bang on, at least in my area.

[qasdfdsaq]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Virgin mobile will be providing 4G. They currently in a project to move to a "thick MVNO" model, where they'll have more control over the services they can provide, and will effectively only be using EE's RAN, and nothing else.

Won't be for another year though as I understand it, but they working to reduce that.

Gee, another year? I recall you telling me this was in the works over a year ago.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

Gee, another year? I recall you telling me this was in the works over a year ago.

well when i first told you about the Thick MVNO project it hadn't started yet.

It's now well underway.

I'm not close to the project so don't have any specific details, only what I hear in passing.

[jb66]

What's so hard about flicking the 4g switch on while the other work is carried out?