Options
Network Spectrum Holdings?
Aye Up
Posts: 7,053
Forum Member
✭
Does anyone have an accurate figure of the amount of spectrum each operator holds in each range?
For example O2 has 2x10 mhz in the 800 range what else do they and the other networks have in total (broken down if possible?).
For example O2 has 2x10 mhz in the 800 range what else do they and the other networks have in total (broken down if possible?).
0
Comments
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1819245&highlight=ofcom+auction
http://www.prattfamily.demon.co.uk/mikep/frequency.htm
Its why O2 can use it to advertise the benefits of range but Voda has stayed relatively quiet.
Saying that, O2 are still fairly restricted in how much of it they can use and which sites they can use it at.
Also if you look at the spectrum per user, this tells you quite a lot about how the near future will roughly work out capacity wise.
You thought correctly. The link posted isn't accurate. Both of them have 2 x 17.4 at 900. In fact the totals are also nonsense as it counts the up and down for FDD spectrum in the total MHz for some frequencies but not others.
Depends on how you value low v high frequency spectrum. In fact most analyses seem to suggest that Vodafone has the most valuable spectrum portfolio. A typical example of one is here http://www.analysysmason.com/About-Us/News/Insight/UK-4G-auction-Mar2013/#.UmQl5xbvxz8
Not sure I agree. I think given their history and existing network topology both EE and Vodafone have the spectrum that suits each of them best. Whichever way you look at it though, Voda / EE are ahead of the others.
Agreed I think Vodafone have a good strategy using 800MHz for the coverage will work out better indoor coverage but lower speeds to match there 3G900. Than in Urban areas using 2600MHz for speeds. EE instead have slightly lower indoor coverage but better speeds across the board amazing fast speeds in urban areas. Next is likely going be Three when they get there final 10MHz of 1800MHz in 2 years time slightly faster speeds across the board than O2 but less indoor coverage..
Obviously in all comes down to how good the rollouts of all 4 networks are and if they live up to what they saying at the moment.
http://licensing.ofcom.org.uk/radiocommunication-licences/mobile-wireless-broadband/cellular-wireless-broadband/policy-and-background/licensee-freq-tech-information/uk-cellular-operators/
Spectrum is interesting, but it is only 1 aspect.
I know who you hinting at [Vodafone] not completely fair but not completely untrue either O2 is much worse. But agreed there is no reason they couldn't of been in same situation as Pre-MBNL Three or Orange were.
There wasn't much between O2 and Vodafone at one point, they were both low in terms of speeds and coverage for 3G, they didn't upgrade to HSPA+ as soon, or DC-HSPA, yet they held a lot of spectrum, particularly Vodafone.
Can't see there national rollout of 3G900 being that fast either 2x5MHz on 3G isn't going deliver very fast speeds.
EE are pushing things even further by using their vast holding to double up again to 300 using 40MHz which if they hurry up could allow them a claim (for a short while at least) to be the fastest mobile network in the world. Of course, there's little sign yet that anyone wants to pay for these faster speeds.
I would agree with this, although I can't see what you need more than 25Mbps for on a mobile connection full stop. Having a generous allowance and the cost is more important to me than speeds which stop making a difference once they get to a certain point.
I can't find a reason why you need over a 100mbs on fixed line never mind 300mbs [Probably only going get 140-180Mbs but still] on a phone like EE think you do. If they going be offering speeds like there lowest plan has got to be around 15GB for it to be reasonable to anyone.
I do agree with you though after you get a steady 20-30mbs you want either a massive data package 50-100GB or unlimited.
I applaud EE for pushing things technically but their marketing of faster speeds is awful. They seem to have no idea about explaining the benefit of this people. Their website talks about 2x20 MHz of 1800 spectrum which is great for geeks but meaningless to the vast majority of people. As for real practical benefits there is very little. A bit about downloading films and files in half the time. Great! I wonder how they will advertise a 300Mb/s service? Maybe Bacon telling us we can download a 4K version of Footloose. That won't quite do it for me.
Don't think for even 4K you need a 100mb connection would have to check that one. But 4K is still 3-5 years away before it becomes main stream so it doesn't really matter. I think there entire Marketing and Customer Service teams need shooting.
I understand wanting to push technology but they not going gain customers by that enough to off balance the ones who are leaving on 3G because of signal problems.
Also you have to consider might not even be that many places where you can download that fast anyway.