Three - LTE - 4G Signal Rollout

135

Comments

  • wavejockglwwavejockglw Posts: 10,596
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Company haters really are in every pocket of industry aren't they! Why do people hate three? :confused:

    I certainly don't hate 3 as I bought their mobile dongle product after years of poor service. I think it's quite a good product and would even consider them now for a smartphone if they did not charge to unlock contract handsets.

    What riles folks is the constant promotion of some brands and the unjustified and repetitive attacks on others. For some time a small band of O2 haters have made a habit of attempting to discredit O2 and GiffGaff. Can't figure out what they hope to achieve by doing so but it seems be a bit of an obsession when some keep track of when others visit the forum and note what they respond to etc!

    Make of 3 what you like. Each has their own experience and I now feel pretty neutral about them as a network. It's just a pity their poor standard of customer care still blights them. Priority seems to be hiring new staff to sell and promote the network rather than servicing those who commit to it and that is a shame.
  • mooxmoox Posts: 18,880
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I certainly don't hate 3 as I bought their mobile dongle product after years of poor service. I think it's quite a good product and would even consider them now for a smartphone if they did not charge to unlock contract handsets.

    What riles folks is the constant promotion of some brands and the unjustified and repetitive attacks on others. For some time a small band of O2 haters have made a habit of attempting to discredit O2 and GiffGaff. Can't figure out what they hope to achieve by doing so but it seems be a bit of an obsession when some keep track of when others visit the forum and note what they respond to etc!

    Make of 3 what you like. Each has their own experience and now feel pretty neutral about them as a network. It's just a pity their poor standard of customer care still blights them. Priority seems to be hiring new staff to sell and promote the network rather than servicing those who commit to it and that is a shame.

    100% hypocrisy according to my hypocrisy meter, which just blew up again through overloading.
  • wavejockglwwavejockglw Posts: 10,596
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    moox wrote: »
    "the lowest quality network in the UK."

    Where is the proof of this?

    What is the definition of 'quality'?

    More labelling without any factual metrics to substantiate such a disparaging remark.
  • wavejockglwwavejockglw Posts: 10,596
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    moox wrote: »
    100% hypocrisy according to my hypocrisy meter, which just blew up again through overloading.

    Yep.... the above response was easier than addressing the issues for sure!

    One-liners have the best comedy value usually!
  • mooxmoox Posts: 18,880
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Where is the proof of this?

    What is the definition of 'quality'?

    More labelling without any factual metrics to substantiate such a disparaging remark.

    Facts: low 3G coverage as a percentage of population, constant outages including two major national outages. Giffgaff itself has been plagued with smaller outages like porting issues and payments/goodybags not appearing on accounts.

    A unreliable network that is not prepared to invest in adequate redundancy or new technologies is exactly what "low quality" means. Other networks (and I don't mean only 3) are the complete opposite.
  • mooxmoox Posts: 18,880
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Yep.... the above response was easier than addressing the issues for sure!

    One-liners have the best comedy value usually!

    The issue was that some people like to wax on about how wonderful O2 is, but don't like it when pulled up on said waxing with facts that are at odds with their statements. These people also like to stay silent when there are very real issues affecting O2 - such as the threads about their major national outages.

    My post addressed that issue.

    Speaking of "addressing the issues" I invite you to tackle my post more fully - rather than simply latching on to one remark that you feel you can easily argue about.
  • mogzyboymogzyboy Posts: 6,390
    Forum Member
    Maybe the reason O2's customers are so 'happy' is because they don't know any better. Maybe they think that all 3G is as patchy as theirs. I mean, how would they know if they have never switched? I'd probably think the same if I wasn't quite so clued up on how much contempt O2 hold for their customers.

    As for 3 hitting 90% five years prior to O2, then that's just funny.

    Personally, I'd rather a network that is willing to invest in infrastructure and excellent 3G coverage than a network that is more concerned with having less complaints to Ofcom.

    At least I can travel around vast swathes of the country with minimal interruption to my 3G connection. :)
  • mooxmoox Posts: 18,880
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    mogzyboy wrote: »
    Maybe the reason O2's customers are so 'happy' is because they don't know any better. Maybe they think that all 3G is as patchy as theirs. I mean, how would they know if they have never switched? I'd probably think the same if I wasn't quite so clued up on how much contempt O2 hold for their customers.

    As for 3 hitting 90% five years prior to O2, then that's just funny.

    I completely agree, from my own experience people don't necessarily realise how much better other networks are. The number of people I know with O2 iPhones is amazing despite this county having minimal O2 3G coverage - the years that they had exclusivity obviously paid off for O2 - maybe they should have invested in their network instead of throwing money at Apple?

    As for the coverage figure, this is the article I am referring to - http://www.3g.co.uk/PR/Feb2007/4214.htm
  • wavejockglwwavejockglw Posts: 10,596
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    moox wrote: »
    A unreliable network that is not prepared to invest in adequate redundancy or new technologies is exactly what "low quality" means. Other networks (and I don't mean only 3) are the complete opposite.

    Can we have some statistics about the investments made to confirm O2's deficiency? I expect they have invested to provide coverage where they think it matters most and the proof of the pudding is in the level of satisfaction their customers have as reported by Ofcom (not complaints related).

    First network to trial LTE in the UK was?

    First network to deploy DC-HSPA was?

    The facts do not actually correspond to the statement above and more importantly investment in customer care has to be considered as that plays a major role in the perception of quality customers experience.
  • wavejockglwwavejockglw Posts: 10,596
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    moox wrote: »
    I completely agree, from my own experience people don't necessarily realise how much better other networks are. The number of people I know with O2 iPhones is amazing despite this county having minimal O2 3G coverage - the years that they had exclusivity obviously paid off for O2 - maybe they should have invested in their network instead of throwing money at Apple?

    As for the coverage figure, this is the article I am referring to - http://www.3g.co.uk/PR/Feb2007/4214.htm

    That article is more than 5 years old and predates the consolidation of 1000s of 3 and T-Mobile sites with the introduction of MBNL. It is also just a press release on a site that featured an on-line store selling ...... the 3 network!

    As for the iPhone exclusive? It was a roaring success and with levels of smartphone penetration and customers using the O2 network at record levels the 90% 3G coverage does not look like an issue that has affected their business. Ask the folks who have O2 why they use them..... maybe they can provide some sound reasons!
  • mooxmoox Posts: 18,880
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Can we have some statistics about the investments made to confirm O2's deficiency? I expect they have invested to provide coverage where they think it matters most and the proof of the pudding is in the level of satisfaction their customers have as reported by Ofcom (not complaints related).

    The deficiency is clear - O2 themselves state 90% 3G coverage in 2012, MBNL state 98%. Number of times OFCOM has warned O2 about coverage - 1. Number of times for 3/EE/MBNL - 0.

    O2 has had several outages including two very major outages in the past few months, EE and 3 haven't (although 3 did have a small data outage recently).

    If O2 think they've invested in coverage where they want it, that's fine, it's a shame it's not what the country wants. 3/EE are the only operation to deliver proper coverage (and even then it's not 2G-style perfect).
    First network to trial LTE in the UK was?

    First network to deploy DC-HSPA was?

    Doesn't matter at all. Anyone can put up a couple of masts on a trial licence, what matters is significant investment in bringing forward a commercial rollout. EE have done this with LTE (you might say it's unfair, I don't) yet O2 can't even roll out a 12 year old technology.
    DC-HSPA is a software upgrade if the equipment is capable, presumably O2 have only done it where the backhaul and equipment are already in a state to allow it - so minimum investment.

    I don't care if O2's customer service is perceived to be the best. You should be striving to get to the point where customer service is not necessary - by having a fit and capable network that doesn't suffer constant outages or effectively keeps your 2012 smartphone on a 1990's technology.

    The facts do not actually correspond to the statement above and more importantly investment in customer care has to be considered as that plays a major role in the perception of quality customers experience.
  • mooxmoox Posts: 18,880
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    That article is more than 5 years old and predates the consolidation of 1000s of 3 and T-Mobile sites with the introduction of MBNL. It also was prior to the removal of 2G roaming from many areas by 3.

    Are you being deliberately dense? Of course it's 5 years old, that's why we're all saying 3 hit 90% in 2007! The consolidation with T-Mobile and continued investment has only boosted the coverage since then, and I'm not sure why you're banging on about 2G because the article is explicitly referring to 3G coverage.

    In short: your points make no sense at all.
    As for the iPhone exclusive? It was a roaring success and with levels of smartphone penetration and customers using the O2 network at record levels the 90% 3G coverage does not look like an issue that has affected their business. Ask the folks who have O2 why they use them..... maybe they can provide some sound reasons!

    I don't doubt that from a business perspective it made Apple and O2 a lot of money. It's a shame O2 didn't spend any of it on their network, which is why it's rivalling a tin-can and string in quality (although at least a tin-can works anywhere)

    I don't think anyone is disputing that the lack of 3G coverage is affecting their business (although Telefonica is not in the best financial position), we're all trying to figure out why you insist on defending this low-quality network by trying to state it is the best when you and others can do so much better.
  • wavejockglwwavejockglw Posts: 10,596
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    moox wrote: »
    Doesn't matter at all. Anyone can put up a couple of masts on a trial licence, what matters is significant investment in bringing forward a commercial rollout. EE have done this with LTE (you might say it's unfair, I don't) yet O2 can't even roll out a 12 year old technology.

    3G coverage on O2 is 90% now so hardly insignificant! O2 have invested in upgrades to deliver UMTS on 900MHz and were first to do so making coverage much better in urban areas. They also were first to rollout DC-HSPA, not to just a few masts but across the UKs biggest cities. The sharing arrangement with Vodafone will deliver faster rollout of both 3G and 4G services, meanwhile what exists satisfies 25.5 million users and continues to attract significant numbers. Hard to comprehend how such an under funded network with such poor coverage could be doing so well!
  • StigglesStiggles Posts: 9,618
    Forum Member
    Can we have some statistics about the investments made to confirm O2's deficiency? I expect they have invested to provide coverage where they think it matters most and the proof of the pudding is in the level of satisfaction their customers have as reported by Ofcom (not complaints related).

    First network to trial LTE in the UK was?

    First network to deploy DC-HSPA was?

    The facts do not actually correspond to the statement above and more importantly investment in customer care has to be considered as that plays a major role in the perception of quality customers experience.

    Yet they STILL have the worst 3g coverage in the UK lol

    Dress it up which ever way you will but the fact is, its the worst network in the UK.

    Care to explain still the lack of 3g in the UK from O2 a decade after being rolled out first....I bet you don't answer this because you cant.
  • StigglesStiggles Posts: 9,618
    Forum Member
    3G coverage on O2 is 90% now so hardly insignificant! O2 have invested in upgrades to deliver UMTS on 900MHz and were first to do so making coverage much better in urban areas. They also were first to rollout DC-HSPA, not to just a few masts but across the UKs biggest cities. The sharing arrangement with Vodafone will deliver faster rollout of both 3G and 4G services, meanwhile what exists satisfies 25.5 million users and continues to attract significant numbers. Hard to comprehend how such an under funded network with such poor coverage could be doing so well!

    Whoop! There it goes again! :D
  • StigglesStiggles Posts: 9,618
    Forum Member
    moox wrote: »
    we're all trying to figure out why you insist on defending this low-quality network by trying to state it is the best when you and others can do so much better.

    Its becoming hysterically funny if im honest :D
  • mogzyboymogzyboy Posts: 6,390
    Forum Member
    Of course the iPhone exclusivity was a stroke of genius. I don't think anybody is disputing that. I remember thinking at the time that it was a real coup for O2. However, still having only 90% 3G coverage would suggest that they haven't capitalised on it infrastructure-wise.

    I know four people on O2 who are simply too lazy to move, despite the fact I've told them that it's simple to port your number to another network. Apparently, it's 'too much hassle'. I wonder how many others there are like that. Mobile phones are like most other utilities - people can't be ar*ed to switch. It's the same with energy, digital TV, car/home insurance. People just can't be bothered to look for the best deal, because it involves a fair bit of research.

    When my contract is up, I'll happily look for the best network/deal for me. As it stands, the only network that might make me consider moving is 3, for the single reason that their 3G coverage matches that of EE. Customer service experience isn't really a factor for me.
  • Thine WonkThine Wonk Posts: 17,190
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The funny thing he doesn't even use it himself, if it was the best thing since sliced bread Wavejock would be on it, but he's on 3 for data - because it's a better data network, like everybody that wants more than very basic data services they go to 3 or EE, and he's on Vodafone for his main phone.

    Is the majority of the UK tech savvy and up to date on mobile tech? no that's why most of the country see O2's big marketing, arenas and big adverts and sign up on the basis of that, and that their friends are on it. A very big percentage of their total customer base are business customers, who's main use is voice calls and blackberry or iPhone email services, but not high data use video or streaming services etc.

    They've only got 50% of their users on smartphones, that's probably the lowest of the other networks, although I don't have any figures to support that. They certainly deal with the least data of all networks despite being the largest customer base so that is a sensible conclusion.

    However the younger, more technically minded smartphone and tablet users, and those that want mobile broadband and high capacity data, those that understand the difference generally choose 3 or T-mobile. Yes it's a smaller (*but massively growing) market, the reason why 3 is the fastest growing network in the UK, who added 9 times more customers than O2 in the last year or so.
  • The Lord LucanThe Lord Lucan Posts: 5,054
    Forum Member
    mogzyboy wrote: »
    I know four people on O2 who are simply too lazy to move, despite the fact I've told them that it's simple to port your number to another network. Apparently, it's 'too much hassle'./QUOTE]

    I know half a dozen folk like that.. luckily they saw the light and joined EE/3.

    Having the iPhone exclusive cost them as Apple take a cut of the profits, plus the city centre 3G infrastructure wasn't up to the task when the iPhone 3 & 3Gs launched i remember the network falling over several times locally in the few weeks after deliveries.
  • wavejockglwwavejockglw Posts: 10,596
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    It's very simple. O2 provide 3G where they consider it matter most. That may not suit some here but it seems to suit their customers as their retention and recent acquisition figures prove. They also must be delivering where it matters most as they don't get the levels of escalated complaints that others do, especially 3!

    Low Quality network? Not according to those paying for it with their cash every month! A good measure of quality in such a competitive market sector is whether folks keep buying the product. Folks do not buy poor quality when better offerings exist and especially when they are cheaper! O2 is a premium brand that continues to grow despite all the stuff here about 'poor quality', parent company going bust, no 3G coverage, etc, etc.....

    So the reason O2 customers remain with them is because they are too lazy to change........ highly unlikely in these days of utility switching.
  • Thine WonkThine Wonk Posts: 17,190
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    It's very simple. O2 provide 3G where they consider it matter most. That may not suit some here but it seems to suit their customers as their retention and recent acquisition figures prove. They also must be delivering where it matters most as they don't get the levels of escalated complaints that others do, especially 3!

    Low Quality network? Not according to those paying for it with their cash every month! A good measure of quality in such a competitive market sector is whether folks keep buying the product. Folks do not buy poor quality when better offerings exist and especially when they are cheaper! O2 is a premium brand that continues to grow despite all the stuff here about 'poor quality', parent company going bust, no 3G coverage, etc, etc.....

    BUT, it's growing slowly, they lost customers last time and added 2% this time.

    Revenues dropped by more than £200M and profits down 10%, the hardest hit network in terms of revenue drop.

    The 3G coverage stands at the lowest of any of the 5 networks, with the least data throughput of all.

    The future's not bright.
  • StigglesStiggles Posts: 9,618
    Forum Member
    It's very simple. O2 provide 3G where they consider it matter most. That may not suit some here but it seems to suit their customers as their retention and recent acquisition figures prove. They also must be delivering where it matters most as they don't get the levels of escalated complaints that others do, especially 3!

    Low Quality network? Not according to those paying for it with their cash every month! A good measure of quality in such a competitive market sector is whether folks keep buying the product. Folks do not buy poor quality when better offerings exist and especially when they are cheaper! O2 is a premium brand that continues to grow despite all the stuff here about 'poor quality', parent company going bust, no 3G coverage, etc, etc.....

    Jesus christ! We aren't talking about 3. We are talking about o2s pitiful coverage. I wish you would drop adding bits on. You have been told why that is and its because o2 deal with their masses of complaints inhouse by the way of free credit. 3 dont do that so people have no choice but to go elsewhere for help. You have little understanding how this works don't you?

    O2 do not provide 3g where they think it matters, What ill informed garbage. In most of the major cities, Glasgow, Edinburgh etc etc the coverage is still crap. Right in the center it may be fine, walk 10 yards away from the centre and your humped. Newcastle for me last week was awful. On the way there and on the way back, all the way up the east coast was GPRS. You think thats premium?

    I mean you only have to see their forums, facebook page, twitter to see the people every post moaning about lack of 3g. I just checked their facebook page and every single post they have made including the latest one about the launch of the new nexus has someone on about it!

    There is nothing premium about o2 at all. Where do you get this rubbish from?!
  • StigglesStiggles Posts: 9,618
    Forum Member
    Thine Wonk wrote: »
    BUT, it's growing slowly, they lost customers last time and added 2% this time.

    Revenues dropped by more than £200M and profits down 10%, the hardest hit network in terms of revenue drop.

    The 3G coverage stands at the lowest of any of the 5 networks, with the least data throughput of all.

    The future's not bright.

    Indeed. How anyone could see this as a good thing from an apparent 'premium brand' is anyone's guess lol :D
  • dephanix02dephanix02 Posts: 373
    Forum Member
    Please stop feeding the lonesome sheep & ignore.
  • The Lord LucanThe Lord Lucan Posts: 5,054
    Forum Member
    Thine Wonk wrote: »
    The funny thing he doesn't even use it himself, if it was the best thing since sliced bread Wavejock would be on it, but he's on 3 for data

    Because the Glasgow area is dire for data on O2.

    Also they have kept it seems all their non smart phone users it seems. Every person i know on O2 has either a dumb phone, old iPhone from the exclusivity era or has their phone and phone network paid/chosen by who they are employed with.
Sign In or Register to comment.