Three inTouch is finally here

12022242526

Comments

  • Thine WonkThine Wonk Posts: 17,190
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    As above, you do realise how much it is to put up masts, link backhaul, have engineers visit and maintain. They spend 1 billion pounds a year on the network, it isn't possible with radio technology to cover every house, especially not to provide it to people at £15 packages.

    Often they can't put up as many masts as they would like because of planning issues, so they have to be selective about where they are allowed to put them. It is quite simple, you're never going to have all buildings covered, but the vast majority are, the app is for the small number of places not covered.
  • jonmorrisjonmorris Posts: 21,680
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I have to say that I gave the app the benefit of the doubt early on, especially during the trial phase, but I am pretty close to uninstalling it completely. Even the latest update still appears to be beta going by the version number.

    The call quality is awful, it warns of poor signal even on a good connection (low latency and high speed down and up) and an above post might explain why it cuts out so quickly on the tube so as to be impossible to use for making or receiving a call, even though texting seems to work.

    I can just about use it at home, but it's usually less hassle to just make sure my phone is left somewhere that I get a good signal. With my Pebble, I can still see when I get a message or the phone rings elsewhere.

    I naively expected that on a good Wi-Fi connection, it would raise the call quality to HD Voice quality - and that I was simply suffering a poor connection, but the voice quality is terrible everywhere and on any connection.

    It's all very good saying that it's better than nothing (for some situations it is, but in others it doesn't work) but when EE launches its 'proper' service then both this and O2's service will suddenly seem awful.
  • Thine WonkThine Wonk Posts: 17,190
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    That's a fair point Jon, some good comments I wouldn't disagree with. I have found it to be handy, I just don't run it unless I need to.
  • omnidirectionalomnidirectional Posts: 18,796
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Stick up more masts then as they are clearly needed as 99.9% of people have mobile phones and expect to be able to make phone calls with them.

    It often isn't that easy as people with too much time on their hands complain whenever new masts are proposed, usually claiming that they're a health risk or eyesore. Everyone wants a great signal and fast speeds, but few want the masts that make it possible near their home.
  • natbikenatbike Posts: 517
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    It would appear that the reasonable people understand the limitations of technology whereas a few of you seem to think that technology can solve all issues without any effect on price.

    To blanket cover the UK for voice and fast data would cost more than any of you are willing to pay. It's not a lack of desire with the networks, just commercial sense.

    Visit a few countries and then complain that Britain is behind. We're not frontrunners, but we have decent service and reasonable choice.

    I think I understand what people mean about the voice quality, but it's proven to be clear enough for me to appreciate and use the service. Cell hand over was never expected with this app, that will come next.

    Some of the comments are akin to saying "I get really annoyed that I still have to keep breathing to stay alive, why hasn't nature fixed that?"
  • YourLocalGPYourLocalGP Posts: 7
    Forum Member
    I struggle to understand the propensity of some posters to be apologists for the mobile phone operators. For one thing, that's not the topic of the thread, and for another, it assumes that the current situation is good value and the market is perfect; to solve the problems we are seeing would involve pricing going up; there is nothing else that comes into it.

    Why would anyone bother doing an MBA when everything can be simplified down to that logic - come to think of it, why bother complaining about anything, when the answer can always be that the problem is inherent to the status quo?

    Thanks, but no thanks. It is a free (very free, if you look at the money paid for spectrum licenses) market, and amply competitive. That means profits are healthy. Providers are going to make business decisions differently from each other, and it seems that on this point, Three, 02 and some others have taken a business decision to spend money on using Wifi links into the network in lieu of mast investment. Given that the owner of three made £4.5 billion in net profit last year, I don't think they're fretting about the cost of sticking a few more masts up. I expect there's plenty more to it than you or I know, but suffice to say, dreaming up excuses out of thin air about cost of base stations, as an explanation of shoddy service, is not going to cut the mustard with the people paying for the service.

    To the contributor who said:

    "They don't have an app people moan
    They bring out an app people moan"

    People moaned because the app was a load of toss, but it gave Three's robotic customer services an excuse to divert all coverage questions to the app. What the chuff has the app got to do with my original complaint, which was about network coverage?

    WILL SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE POOR COMPANIES?
  • omnidirectionalomnidirectional Posts: 18,796
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Providers are going to make business decisions differently from each other, and it seems that on this point, Three, 02 and some others have taken a business decision to spend money on using Wifi links into the network in lieu of mast investment. Given that the owner of three made £4.5 billion in net profit last year, I don't think they're fretting about the cost of sticking a few more masts up. I expect there's plenty more to it than you or I know, but suffice to say, dreaming up excuses out of thin air about cost of base stations, as an explanation of shoddy service, is not going to cut the mustard with the people paying for the service.

    I'm sure each network would like to install new masts to improve coverage and they do try, but this involves planning permission and often faces opposition from the local public. If councils cave in to public objection and won't allow new masts, there's not much the networks can do.

    A few recent examples from a quick search:

    http://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/Families-fight-pull-Hartshill-phone-mast/story-22970147-detail/story.html

    http://www.harringayonline.com/forum/topics/vodaphone-appeal-phone-mast-stanhope-warwick-gardens

    http://www.hbtag.org/concerned-local-residents-call-public-meeting-over-mobile-phone-mast-planning-application-20140088ful/

    http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/delight-as-portsmouth-phone-mast-application-is-turned-down-1-6066669

    http://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/New-mast-plan-upset/story-22969805-detail/story.html
  • YourLocalGPYourLocalGP Posts: 7
    Forum Member
    I apologise if you feel that my broader point is not taking into account some parochial evidence from local newspapers, but I am fairly confident that it is not a case of "if" a mast can be installed to give coverage, but rather "how can we do it the cheapest?"

    When masts are not covering an area, the provider can either pay an existing provider to use their mast, or they can pay a private landowner to install it on their building or land. The cheapest option is probably council land, and I expect it also has the most opportunities for people to object. Regardless, there is no reason other than a financial one why my wife's phone on Vodafone has coverage somewhere, while mine, on three, doesn't.
  • mooxmoox Posts: 18,880
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    When masts are not covering an area, the provider can either pay an existing provider to use their mast, or they can pay a private landowner to install it on their building or land. The cheapest option is probably council land, and I expect it also has the most opportunities for people to object. Regardless, there is no reason other than a financial one why my wife's phone on Vodafone has coverage somewhere, while mine, on three, doesn't.

    I understand that mast sharing still requires planning permission which could still be denied - and that mast sharing / network sharing is already the order of the day - see MBNL (EE/3 joint venture) and Cornerstone between VF and O2.

    Coverage is arguably swings and roundabouts. You might know somewhere where VF works and 3 doesn't, I know plenty of places where 3 works and VF doesn't. You can say the same for every combination of networks.
  • omnidirectionalomnidirectional Posts: 18,796
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    moox wrote: »
    I understand that mast sharing still requires planning permission which could still be denied

    That's correct. O2 recently applied for permission to make some modifications to a local mast in my area and start sharing it with Vodafone. It had to go to public consultation but, in this case, it was allowed despite some objection.
  • Old EndeavourOld Endeavour Posts: 9,852
    Forum Member
    I struggle to understand the propensity of some posters to be apologists for the mobile phone operators. For one thing, that's not the topic of the thread, and for another, it assumes that the current situation is good value and the market is perfect; to solve the problems we are seeing would involve pricing going up; there is nothing else that comes into it.

    Why would anyone bother doing an MBA when everything can be simplified down to that logic - come to think of it, why bother complaining about anything, when the answer can always be that the problem is inherent to the status quo?

    Thanks, but no thanks. It is a free (very free, if you look at the money paid for spectrum licenses) market, and amply competitive. That means profits are healthy. Providers are going to make business decisions differently from each other, and it seems that on this point, Three, 02 and some others have taken a business decision to spend money on using Wifi links into the network in lieu of mast investment. Given that the owner of three made £4.5 billion in net profit last year, I don't think they're fretting about the cost of sticking a few more masts up. I expect there's plenty more to it than you or I know, but suffice to say, dreaming up excuses out of thin air about cost of base stations, as an explanation of shoddy service, is not going to cut the mustard with the people paying for the service.

    To the contributor who said:

    "They don't have an app people moan
    They bring out an app people moan"

    People moaned because the app was a load of toss, but it gave Three's robotic customer services an excuse to divert all coverage questions to the app. What the chuff has the app got to do with my original complaint, which was about network coverage?

    WILL SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE POOR COMPANIES?

    Excellent post! Sadly you get a lot of company apologists on DS where anyone daring to except the bloody service they pay for (Making mobile phone calls) is made out to be the loony, whilst the poor billion pound profit making companies are doing a great job. (Try the Sky forum where Sky apologists outnumber sensible people)

    Three have basically said 'Yes we know our coverage is crap, but instead of us losing our massive bonuses we will rush out a cheap load of crap app that is dreadful.

    It's just all about companies getting fatter by screwing the customer and some on here thinking that it's wonderful.

    Someone even moaned that I dared to highlight the problem by posting about the service others around the world provide. 'We might not be world leaders' - Well there you are then! Fix that! Then we won't need a crappy app that doesn't fix the issue.
  • Everything GoesEverything Goes Posts: 12,972
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    To the Trolls (you know who you are)

    1. No company has 100% coverage and no company ever will. If you are unhappy with the coverage your company provides then ask for your PAC and leave. Or buy a satellite phone (they don't work indoors).

    2. Some companies have Femtocells or Apps to get round coverage issues indoors. None of them are perfect.
  • exterraexterra Posts: 159
    Forum Member
    "Given that the owner of three made £4.5 billion in net profit last year, I don't think they're fretting about the cost of sticking a few more masts up."

    Three's turnover in 2013 was just over £2Billion and EBIT was £207m.

    You'd struggle to find most investors willing to invest the way that Three's owners have done - their capital investment started in c2001 and has required ongoing investments that total several £billion pounds. Their first return / profit was in 2012 and barely covers the cost of working capital to date.
  • Old EndeavourOld Endeavour Posts: 9,852
    Forum Member
    To the Trolls (you know who you are)

    1. No company has 100% coverage and no company ever will. If you are unhappy with the coverage your company provides then ask for your PAC and leave. Or buy a satellite phone (they don't work indoors).

    2. Some companies have Femtocells or Apps to get round coverage issues indoors. None of them are perfect.

    To the company apologists (you know who you are)

    Other countries can manage a far far far better service coverage than we can here in the UK as over here we have a "put up with being second rate and apologise for it" attitude.

    Maybe you would care to debate this valid point instead of speaking for companies and shouting down anyone daring to question them and calling them trolls.

    This is what is wrong with this country (yes I was born here!) we do mediocre and second best so well whilst companies get rich on us and don't provide the service, that we have gotten used to it. To the point where some see it as all OK and anyone who questions it as wrong.
  • Old EndeavourOld Endeavour Posts: 9,852
    Forum Member
    Want to make mobile phone calls? You do? Then you need to give us 100s of phones for a lovely new mobile phone.

    Want to use your mobile phone instead of using it as a paperweight? Then you need to give us more money to use other lovely network.

    Expect to now make phone calls when and where you want? Get lost! We are only in this to take your money not provide you with what you expected and wanted to do with the phone and service we sold you.

    Don't like it? Then move to a country that doesn't see second rate as the acceptable norm.
  • Everything GoesEverything Goes Posts: 12,972
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    To the company apologists (you know who you are)

    Other countries can manage a far far far better service coverage than we can here in the UK as over here we have a "put up with being second rate and apologise for it" attitude.

    Maybe you would care to debate this valid point instead of speaking for companies and shouting down anyone daring to question them and calling them trolls.

    This is what is wrong with this country (yes I was born here!) we do mediocre and second best so well whilst companies get rich on us and don't provide the service, that we have gotten used to it. To the point where some see it as all OK and anyone who questions it as wrong.

    So what countries do it better? You may be surprised at how many Networks are not based in the UK.


    Three are owned by Hutchison Whampoa (Hong Kong)

    EE are owned by Deutsche Telekom (German) & Orange S.A (French)

    O2 are owned by Telefónica (Spanish)

    Vodafone is the only main network that is UK based.
  • omnidirectionalomnidirectional Posts: 18,796
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Other countries can manage a far far far better service coverage than we can here in the UK as over here we have a "put up with being second rate and apologise for it" attitude.

    Maybe you would care to debate this valid point instead of speaking for companies and shouting down anyone daring to question them and calling them trolls.

    This is what is wrong with this country (yes I was born here!) we do mediocre and second best so well whilst companies get rich on us and don't provide the service, that we have gotten used to it. To the point where some see it as all OK and anyone who questions it as wrong.

    Which countries have 100% national mobile coverage with no signal blackspots? Then perhaps a study can be done of how their networks achieve such blanket coverage, and why with only 98% population coverage the UK networks are letting us all down.
  • Old EndeavourOld Endeavour Posts: 9,852
    Forum Member
    ...and as if by magic: Right now Watchdog are covering bad coverage in people's home and the bad attitude of the phone companies.

    Still think that it's just me who is wrong and trolling? If so now the BBC are saying exactly the same as me. Can't be you could it?

    Top consumer lawyer says that the phone company's contracts are not fair. Some on DS disagree.
  • GigabitGigabit Posts: 8,768
    Forum Member
    The only country with really good coverage is South Korea and even that isn't at 100%.
  • omnidirectionalomnidirectional Posts: 18,796
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Gigabit wrote: »
    The only country with really good coverage is South Korea and even that isn't at 100%.

    How awful, those greedy mobile networks should stick up more masts and bring it to 100% ASAP. Show the UK how it's done! ;-)
  • jabbamk1jabbamk1 Posts: 8,942
    Forum Member
    Gigabit wrote: »
    The only country with really good coverage is South Korea and even that isn't at 100%.

    I hear coverage in the north is terrible.
  • Thine WonkThine Wonk Posts: 17,190
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    ...and as if by magic: Right now Watchdog are covering bad coverage in people's home and the bad attitude of the phone companies.

    Still think that it's just me who is wrong and trolling? If so now the BBC are saying exactly the same as me. Can't be you could it?

    Top consumer lawyer says that the phone company's contracts are not fair. Some on DS disagree.

    No watchdog mostly covered customers who lost service during contracts due to mast decommissioning or long term faults and not being allowed out of their contracts.

    In fact all of the operators in the Watchdog film who let the featured were later let out of their contract except the Vodafone customer, who was disabled. Wow Vodafone you are brave to be the only network even after featured on Watchdog, and a disabled customer too. I'm stunned that they had the balls to say no, knowing the customers couldn't easily go outside to make calls.

    People should check the coverage map, if the coverage map showed no indoor coverage and she kept the phone after the 14 days when she had the chance to return it then sorry you don't get to get out of your contract, especially if you want to keep your shiny new £500 iPhone and you've only paid £40. In her case there was never coverage, it didn't disappear like the other cases.

    There's 2 sides to every story and consumers could do more to test the service or check the coverage before committing. If long term faults happen or service is lost due to mast decommissioning, the operators should offer free signal boxes, or let the customer out of their contract.
  • Synthetic42Synthetic42 Posts: 1,690
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Back on topic-ish, not allowing it on rooted phones is a pain in the ass, I assume there's a good reason for it though.

    And yes I use root cloak, but that means I need xposed which means I can't use ART etc etc
  • Everything GoesEverything Goes Posts: 12,972
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    To the company apologists (you know who you are)

    Other countries can manage a far far far better service coverage than we can here in the UK as over here we have a "put up with being second rate and apologise for it" attitude.

    Maybe you would care to debate this valid point instead of speaking for companies and shouting down anyone daring to question them and calling them trolls.

    This is what is wrong with this country (yes I was born here!) we do mediocre and second best so well whilst companies get rich on us and don't provide the service, that we have gotten used to it. To the point where some see it as all OK and anyone who questions it as wrong.


    Japan have one of the most advanced mobile networks. They are so advanced they abandoned 2G a few years ago. So you will then be surprised to know even they don't have 100% coverage. Yes there's still plenty of areas with no coverage whatsoever! So really you are just trolling :p

    Go have a look at Softbanks coverage maps:

    http://www.softbank.jp/en/mobile/network/area/

    http://www.softbank.jp/mobile/network/area/map/?pref=01&service=pb
  • natbikenatbike Posts: 517
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Just to respond to the apologist accusation...

    I was directing part of my post at the person in an area of good reception that couldn't get signal inside their house.

    That is not a fair criticism of any network. If the area is adequately covered all around but the house construction or very localised factors are causing a small area to be an issue, it doesn't seem fair to accuse that a lack of effort is to blame.

    Any radio network will have dull spots and black spots, even if you put a cell on every lamppost and telegraph pole; which I would imagine would be a nightmare to time out the interference. £200m is not a lot to run and expand a radio network, most cite their spend at more than £1m per day already.

    I've known construction issues in offices where they are using advanced insulators in the walls and films on windows. No signals seem to get through. We use EE and simply buy some signal boxes. Vodafone provide them just as easily. It would be nice if everyone did or for WiFi calling to work well (fingers crossed for IMS) but cell hand off will never be possible in a standalone app as it would require modifications to the radio ROM (integration etc.) and various other bits which apps are not capable of modifying yet.

    But by all means bash the team that made the app because they shouldn't have started if they couldn't do the impossible.

    Demand more, but keep to the possible.
Sign In or Register to comment.