Will VM be short for Vodafone Media?

[Superblade7]

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

Funny the number of people who do not understand how things work and jump immediately to this false and illogical conclusion that is completely unsupported by facts.

Hundreds of thousands of tests by multiple independent investigators have found data speeds to have increased by 2x-3x on average across all users, including all existing 3G customers.[COLOR=Silver]

Thanks for that qas, your right, I don't know the technicalities of how the mobile signals work. If the 4G has nothing to do with it then O2 must just be crap in my area. As mentioned above had no issues with EE or Three but since joining O2 I've lost count of the number of dropped calls and instances of the data signal dropping down to Edge or GPRS.

I chalk it up to experience and will now always test a PAYG sim if considering changing network and getting new contracts.

[Kushan]

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

Funny the number of people who do not understand how things work and jump immediately to this false and illogical conclusion that is completely unsupported by facts.

Hundreds of thousands of tests by multiple independent investigators have found data speeds to have increased by 2x-3x on average across all users, including all existing 3G customers.

---------- Post added at 11:22 ---------- Previous post was at 11:19 ----------


4G will provide much better coverage - yes. However, not all providers got a "nice chunk" of 800Mhz. Only two providers did - and those two providers already hold all the 900Mhz as well, giving them a massive advantage they've so far made little of.

The other two operators (3 and EE) actually have too little 800Mhz to run an effective network on, hence why neither of them have actually used their 800 yet. It will mostly be restricted to VoLTE purposes as it lacks the bandwidth for anything else, at least until the 700Mhz auction ends. The average speeds on 800Mhz alone will be lower than 3G for both those networks, but will carry a big range advantage over 2100Mhz 3G.

That's the thing, often these days I usually get some signal and decent speed or absolutely nothing. If it's a choice between getting zero signal and getting a partial but very slow signal, I'll take what I can get.

My experiences are worst on trains, whereby I'll usually have a signal then pass through a not-spot. It's only for a few seconds, maybe a couple of minutes but everything just stops dead and all signal is lost - it's quite frustrating.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

Funny the number of people who do not understand how things work and jump immediately to this false and illogical conclusion that is completely unsupported by facts.

Hundreds of thousands of tests by multiple independent investigators have found data speeds to have increased by 2x-3x on average across all users, including all existing 3G customers.[COLOR=Silver]

In fairness, he is posting from his own experience. It may well be true that his connection got worse at the time O2 launched 4G.

It's also worth pointing out that at least one investigation (conducted on behalf of the BBC's Watchdog programme) concluded that several mobile networks had re-allocated a lot of their 3G bandwidth to the 4G network, so 3G users were noticing slower speeds. This seems logical. The backend network linking the sites has a limited bandwidth. Previously, the 3G users on that site would have had nearly 100% of the bandwidth available to them, as GPRS and voice signals use almost no bandwidth. Now, 4G has come along and can use many times more bandwidth than 3G. Even if the providers aren't specifically reserving bandwidth for 4G (which they may be), 3G phones in busier cells are going to be competing with 4G phones for the limited bandwidth on the cell's data link.

I've personally noticed my own connection (via EE) getting slower since they rolled out 4G, and that is one possible cause. The other is that when I joined T Mobile, it was just before they merged with Orange. When they merged, I had access to T Mobile and Orange cell sites in every cell. So, in most areas, my phone could connect to several cells. EE have spent years closing sites to consolidate the networks. Put simply, they cut the number of sites, but increased the number of customers. So, less bandwidth on each site to each customer.

[qasdfdsaq]

Originally Posted by Superblade7

As mentioned above had no issues with EE or Three but since joining O2 I've lost count of the number of dropped calls and instances of the data signal dropping down to Edge or GPRS.

And you'll hear just as many people saying the exact same thing about EE.

---------- Post added at 13:28 ---------- Previous post was at 13:09 ----------

Originally Posted by Stuart

In fairness, he is posting from his own experience. It may well be true that his connection got worse at the time O2 launched 4G.

It's possible, though most unlikely. When O2 launches 4G they also massively upgrade the 3G on the same mast. The same applies to Vodafone, but not EE or 3.

It's also worth pointing out that at least one investigation (conducted on behalf of the BBC's Watchdog programme) concluded that several mobile networks had re-allocated a lot of their 3G bandwidth to the 4G network, so 3G users were noticing slower speeds.

That is untrue. Absolutely zero networks reallocated 3G bandwidth to the 4G network. 3G and 4G operate on separate bands that do not overlap and cannot be shared or reallocated.

The backend network linking the sites has a limited bandwidth. Previously, the 3G users on that site would have had nearly 100% of the bandwidth available to them, as GPRS and voice signals use almost no bandwidth. Now, 4G has come along and can use many times more bandwidth than 3G.

That's kinda clutching at straws. If there's too many people on a mast then your performance will be slow nomatter what technology they are using. "Signal" uses no bandwidth, traffic does. The only thing 4G does to the backend network is improve it.

4G does not use more backend bandwidth than 3G, actually it uses less. You are dividing the same amount of bandwidth between the same number of people. If those people weren't on 4G, they'd be on 3G and your 3G connection would be even slower.

Even if the providers aren't specifically reserving bandwidth for 4G (which they may be), 3G phones in busier cells are going to be competing with 4G phones for the limited bandwidth on the cell's data link.

4G is never introduced to a cell without the cell's data link being improved first. Even if it was, it would not make the difference you're suggesting.

Think about it a bit more, perhaps in "consumer" terms that might be more familiar to you:

You have ten users sharing the Wifi on your broadband connection. When ten users are downloading at the same time via 2.4Ghz, your connection is slow. When ten users are shared across 2.4Ghz and 5Ghz, how is it going to be any slower?

Adding 4G is usually combined with the masts' backhaul being improved by far more than 4G can take on it's own, more than doubling the capacity available to 3G even after 4G is all used up.

I've personally noticed my own connection (via EE) getting slower since they rolled out 4G, and that is one possible cause.

This is exactly the sort of misguided thinking I'm talking about. You'd rather jump to blaming 4G, than consider the far more likely fact that 3G users simply use more data (and there are more of them). 3G data usage roughly doubles every year or so, and that has nothing to do with 4G. Smartphone usage has gone up, smartphone ownership has gone up. Less than 15% of people are on 4G. 85% of the usage increase is on 3G.

Put simply, they cut the number of sites, but increased the number of customers. So, less bandwidth on each site to each customer.

They cut the number of sites, but massively improved the sites that remain. Thousands of the sites that were removed had 2Mbps or less. The remaining sites were upgraded to 100Mbps or 1000Mbps. In short, they may have removed 33% of sites, but the other 66% were given 5000% more capacity than they removed. So more backend bandwidth on each site to each customer. Backend capacity is largely irrelevant these days, being far more than required. The real problem is spectrum.

But that's just EE. None of the other networks have been removing masts at the same scale, so even if true, the same reasoning does not hold for 75% of networks.

This brings me back to a comment EE's CEO made quite early on - which is completely true, yet the vast majority of people misinterpreted: 4G does not use more data than 3G.

More people with more smartphones doing more things use more data. If it weren't for 4G, those same people would be on 3G and 3G would be even slower. 4G speeds have in fact almost halved over the past year. I suppose you don't have the convenience of 5G to blame for that huh?

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

"Vodafone Group Plc (VOD) is exploring a combination with John Malone’s Liberty Global Plc (LBTYA) that would create Europe’s largest phone, Internet and TV company, worth more than $130 billion, people with knowledge of the matter said."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...ty-global.html

A combination between LG and Vodafone has logic:
- Complementary cable presence in Germany
- Complementary fixed line positions in the rest of Europe
- Both use Tivo (Spain and UK)

A Vodafone purchase of Sky Plc ?

Story

Originally Posted by muppetman11

A Vodafone purchase of Sky Plc ?

Story

That would be interesting but can't see any other reports on this other than in the Express.

Not sure Sky gives them what they need, all the convergence seems to be with Mobile Operators and companies that have a network infrastructure or vice versa

[Horizon]

Very interesting....

I don't see why Murdoch would want to sell Sky when he spent years building it up towards his dream was of a global satellite empire. But of course that's before the internet came along and a fast broadband line is far more valuable today than a dish.

If we're going into a "who's going to buy who" talk again, if Murdoch does offload Sky (I still cannot believe it will happen) but if it does, could Murdoch turn his attention to VM and do a deal with arch rival Malone?

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Horizon

Very interesting....

I don't see why Murdoch would want to sell Sky when he spent years building it up towards his dream was of a global satellite empire. But of course that's before the internet came along and a fast broadband line is far more valuable today than a dish.

If we're going into a "who's going to buy who" talk again, if Murdoch does offload Sky (I still cannot believe it will happen) but if it does, could Murdoch turn his attention to VM and do a deal with arch rival Malone?

It's not up to him though. Fox only owns 39% of Sky.

[Horizon]

....but its the largest stake which gives him de facto control. So, yes, it is up to him.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Horizon

....but its the largest stake which gives him de facto control. So, yes, it is up to him.

No, it isn't. I may be wrong but based on a vote per share his stake isn't a controlling one. That would require 50% of the voting stock outstanding + 1 share.

[Horizon]

People always think you have to have over the 50% to control, but it's all down to whether you can be outvoted or not. In the case of Murdoch, its not. He can't be outvoted because no one entity can get enough shares to outvote him, thus he has control.

The situation with John Malone is similar, actually its more complicated! Most people don't realise that John Malone controls Discovery. He used to own the largest share holding, which was something like 40%, but now he is the second largest shareholder. But they have different classes of shares over there and the shares he holds gives him more votes, which gives him de facto control of the company.

I haven't checked for the new Sky company, but its either the same set up as BskyB, or Murdoch owns a different class of shares like Malone which gives him more voting rights and control. Whatever it it is, he controls Sky.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

No, it isn't. I may be wrong but based on a vote per share his stake isn't a controlling one. That would require 50% of the voting stock outstanding + 1 share.

I read the other day, he'd sold a load.

[Kushan]

Originally Posted by Horizon

People always think you have to have over the 50% to control, but it's all down to whether you can be outvoted or not. In the case of Murdoch, its not. He can't be outvoted because no one entity can get enough shares to outvote him, thus he has control.

Sure, no single entity can outvote him but decisions like this are decided by the majority. If the other shareholders want to go through with something, their votes tally up together and so yes, he could be outvoted.

[qasdfdsaq]

Originally Posted by Kushan

Sure, no single entity can outvote him but decisions like this are decided by the majority. If the other shareholders want to go through with something, their votes tally up together and so yes, he could be outvoted.

This is not a democracy!

[Horizon]

Originally Posted by Kushan

Sure, no single entity can outvote him but decisions like this are decided by the majority. If the other shareholders want to go through with something, their votes tally up together and so yes, he could be outvoted.

But that would be all the other major shareholders as well as the 20% of votes on free float on the stock market. The likely hood that would happen is zero, especially if Murdoch made it clear it was against his wishes. I am not sure on this, but I think Murdoch still holds the majority of seats (4??)on the Sky board, so no motion can be put to the Sky board without his explicit consent. No consent, no vote.

A bit of history here....Murdoch of course was the person who set up the original Sky company which he fully controlled. When he then merged it with BSB, Murdoch owned half of the company BSkyB and the former BSB shareholders the other half. But when the merger happened, it was still Murdoch's company by mutual agreement. He was the driving force behind the merged company which gave him control and why most of the BSB people resigned or were sacked at the time.

Technically, the BSB shareholders could have at least blocked Murdoch if they disagreed with him. They owned half of the merged company, but he had de facto control. When one of the large BSB shareholders then sold up and I think those shares were floated on the stock market, this cemented Murdoch's position.

The remaining old BSB shareholder's position has now been weakened further with the purchase of Murdoch fully controlled and owned Sky Italy and Sky Germany. I would expect Murdoch to now bid for the rest of the new Sky and take the company private.

---------- Post added at 00:56 ---------- Previous post was at 00:54 ----------

For those interested in how the shareholdings in media companies can actually work in the real world, should look up about the Murdoch/Malone tussle over News Corp. If you don't know about it, its very interesting and almost ended Murdoch's empire!