I still maintain that even if 4G had had voice from the start (and you are right, it could have just been rolled out at high power), they would have got rid of 3G first (to get that spectrum over to 4G). There would have still been some 2G left for legacy devices and M2M for the foreseeable future.
3G is an abomination and should never have happened.
Find me a network that disagrees.
At least 3G does high quality voice and a half decent data rate - which is what I am interested in
No good having a smartphone when you can't use data on it!
Also there are more devices supporting 4G1800 than 4G2100 - so another good reason to knock 2G out first. M2M would gradually go 4G anyway, and legacy devices would work fine on 3G.
My £400 burglar alarm GSM dialer works perfectly well on 2G (and doesn't support or need 3G). Why does it need data? Or do you mean phones, rather than devices?
I mean phones, why would smartphones be available if we didn't need mobile data?
Eventually most devices that rely on GSM will eventually go 4G - or possibly leave on a tiny amount of 2G (say 5MHz) that will be for legacy GSM devices (like your burglar alarm system), and invisible to phones - with phones using 3G and 4G. Or even just purely 4G.
Well, today was rather productive, in regards to network testing!
On various points along my travels to the Norfolk Coast, I tested the network speed and capabilities (using an EE 100GB Promo Sim). The results were as follows:
1) Eye/Eye Green - EE really need to get a new mast up there. 4G1800 tested out to be about -120dBm, which is very weak (about 30%). The data rate would probably be quite low on that sort of strength, though I didn't test it. 3G2100 is usually weak there as well, ranging from -113dBm to -109dBm. Based on the distance from the nearest mast, I doubt 4G800 will make a massive difference. We need a new mast there.
2) Various points along the journey, I tested EE's 4G speed. I tried doing the speedtests as close to the mast as possible, so that I could get the maximum speed possible out of the mast (to see what the mast is capable of). The tests were pretty consistent - all being above 65Mbps, most above 70Mbps. One of them, a mast close to Kings Lynn, got 91.49Mbps down and 44.61Mbps up - which is amazingly fast. My Samsung Galaxy S4 is only capable of 100Mbps down and 50Mbps up, so we're getting close to theoretical maximum speeds for my phone!
3) Various masts have been upgraded since the last time I visited the area - including an MBNL mast that was cheerfully doing 10-20Mbps on 3G. I didn't retest 3G (I was more interested in testing 4G), but that is one capable mast.
4) The EE mast at Hunstanton still hasn't been upgraded - it is doing a nice, fast 3G signal though. The problem with the mast is that none of the 3 panels on the mast are pointing towards the town/village! Hence, the signal rapidly drops off and at the seafront area, and the flats closest to the seafront, there is no 3G. EE really need to adjust the panel positions, or add a 4th panel - are you able to comment on this, Bookey?
5) I may not rate 2G that much for actual usage (poor quality voice and no data throughput), but there is one area where 2G is useful for - and that is for checking whether any old Orange masts are still running, or have been decommissioned. I have always seen an old Orange mast near Thorney Village (Cambs), but didn't know whether it was still switched on or not (never showed up on my S4). Switching the S4 to 2G only mode revealed that the Orange mast (confirmed via *#0011#) was still broadcasting, and on EDGE as supposed to GPRS. Seeing as the mast is still active, that suggests that the Orange mast may well go EDGE/3G/4G in the future. However, I also found out that one of the Orange telegraph poles (near Peterborough) has been decommissioned, as there was no Orange 2G, and 2G would be coming from a nearby MBNL site.
At least 3G does high quality voice and a half decent data rate - which is what I am interested in
No good having a smartphone when you can't use data on it!
Also there are more devices supporting 4G1800 than 4G2100 - so another good reason to knock 2G out first. M2M would gradually go 4G anyway, and legacy devices would work fine on 3G.
No, just no.
Where's DevonBloke when you need him to really castigate another post like this?
Awesome - not bad at all for 4G1800 Double Speed! I got some speed results in the 70's and 80's earlier today on my S4, so that just proves that the EE network will be one awesome network once the 4G rollout has been completed
I was feeling a bit smug until I saw all your speedtest results...
I had a bit of a break-through at home today. After coming to the conclusion that my local mast isn't likely to be upgraded or repaired for at least another 12 months, I decided to have a last-ditch attempt at connecting to a more distant one that I've failed with before.
One rather impulse purchase later and I have a better quality external Poynting antenna than the cheap one I had previously. After a morning of hanging out of windows, this suddenly appeared...
OK, so it pales into insignificance compared to a lot of 4G speedtest results, and the upload is a bit grim. But.... I am a long way from the mast I suspect I'm connected to, it's a standard 1800 mast I think, and there's an awful lot of weird terrain between us. On that basis, I'm pretty happy. Especially as my landline BB speeds are less than 2Mbps and local EE masts are unusable or provide downloads of 0.1Mbps.
I'm not getting too cocky: the leaves will be out soon, the wind might change, or they might change the orientation of the mast (I think) I'm connected to. But for the moment, I have a perfectly fast internet connection!
I was feeling a bit smug until I saw all your speedtest results...
I had a bit of a break-through at home today. After coming to the conclusion that my local mast isn't likely to be upgraded or repaired for at least another 12 months, I decided to have a last-ditch attempt at connecting to a more distant one that I've failed with before.
One rather impulse purchase later and I have a better quality external Poynting antenna than the cheap one I had previously. After a morning of hanging out of windows, this suddenly appeared...
OK, so it pales into insignificance compared to a lot of 4G speedtest results, and the upload is a bit grim. But.... I am a long way from the mast I suspect I'm connected to, it's a standard 1800 mast I think, and there's an awful lot of weird terrain between us. On that basis, I'm pretty happy. Especially as my landline BB speeds are less than 2Mbps and local EE masts are unusable or provide downloads of 0.1Mbps.
I'm not getting too cocky: the leaves will be out soon, the wind might change, or they might change the orientation of the mast (I think) I'm connected to. But for the moment, I have a perfectly fast internet connection!
A first!
Looks good to me! Don't we get to see where the antenna is hanging from??
Where's DevonBloke when you need him to really castigate another post like this?
I'm tiring of it now to be honest.
I'm going to try and sum up instead using A: Common sense and B: a quote from ja
1. The designers of 2G were visionaries.
2. The designers of 3G were idiots (that's my quote, feel free to use : )
3. The designers of LTE could have been visionaries if only they hadn't stumbled at the last hurdle and through sheer incompetence for some reason didn't consider the consequences of releasing LTE with no mandatory voice.
To Sum up.
2G is the only complete fit for purpose cellular system we have.
4G will be, but only nearly 5 years after launch.
3G must die, die, die......
5G might, just might, work properly out of the box.
Have you ever considered swapping your paddle antenna for an outdoor one, albeit not as cheap a one as my old one was?
I'm astonished by how effective it is and wonder what effect it might have on your 4G signal. Having said that, I think yours is pretty impressive as it is now, so it may be a case of diminishing returns...
3G's biggest failing is it's variable coverage.
It uses dynamic load balancing between cells by varying power levels. (it's a bit more complicated than that but that's basically it).
This results in the signal from a given cell never being as powerful as it could be in a fixed coverage system like 2G/4G.
Is 3G considerably worse than 2G coverage wise because of the extra 300Mhz? No.
We know that 4G800Mhz is about 30% better than 4G1800 and that's more than twice the frequency.
I would suggest that 2G1800 is at least 30% better than 3G2100 so that ain't down to frequency. It's that crappy cell breathing and dynamic power balancing.
ja explained a while ago that 2G is actually a very forward thinking technology.
By all accounts getting 2G and 4G to integrate and talk to each other works quite well.
By comparison (and we all know this one) getting 2G and 3G to integrate is nothing short of rubbish.
Active call handover works quite well (most of the time) but idle re-selection basically doesn't work at all. Rather like Three's 4G800, you have to lose the 3G signal completely in order for the handset to switch to 2G.
I have lost count of the number of times I have missed an incoming call because the phone refused to switch to a perfectly good 2G signal and instead stuck to an unusable 3G signal.
This is one area where 4G fixes this problem I guess because it is aware of 3G (being newer) and so idle re-selection does work quite well between 3G and 4G.
It will be a relief when 3G is no more (for VoLTE users) and we rarely need 2G.
4G is the first proper multi frequency technology and as such, switching between frequencies within 4G obviously works pretty much flawlessly to the point where it becomes transparent rather than a pain in the arse!
Have you ever considered swapping your paddle antenna for an outdoor one, albeit not as cheap a one as my old one was?
I'm astonished by how effective it is and wonder what effect it might have on your 4G signal. Having said that, I think yours is pretty impressive as it is now, so it may be a case of diminishing returns...
Yes, indeed. Basically, as with most digital technologies, once you get past a certain threshold you don't gain anything and are wasting money.
My b593 without the "rabbit ears" was doing about -112 to -115.
For 4G this is actually not bad and pretty much near good enough for full data download throughput.
However it is getting close to being too weak and more importantly the upload was crap (obviously you have what, I dunno, something like 40 Watts coming from the cell panel that's nearly 2 Metres long (they look small right up there but aren't : )), but the poor router is (I think) is putting out the same as a phone, up to 1 Watt (someone correct me, routers may be allowed more since they aren't bolted to your head).
This is where the external antennas made a difference.
The signal is now -105dBm but the data download is the same. Maximum 30Mbps (capped).
The upload though is now nudging 10Mbps on a good day, bearing in mind it's traveling 2.6 miles and the mast is not in direct line of sight.
So those paddles are doing something but I don't think the extra expense of a proper outdoor antenna would gain me enough to justify the cost.
Where's DevonBloke when you need him to really castigate another post like this?
The thing being though, I am so used to 3G calling that I can instantly notice if the audio quality is worse - i.e. on 2G. That annoys me if the audio quality is worse - the difference is noticeable.
As for data rates, I'll support 2G if you can mysteriously get me a working type of 2G that can give me a couple of Mbps all day long.
Oh, wait? It's never going to be possible to get 2Mbps on 2G? Uh-oh...
The upload though is now nudging 10Mbps on a good day, bearing in mind it's traveling 2.6 miles and the mast is not in direct line of sight.
So those paddles are doing something but I don't think the extra expense of a proper outdoor antenna would gain me enough to justify the cost.
That's impressive, and probably explains why my upload is fairly poor - I really am grasping at the last shreds of signal capability, even with the external antenna in place. If only I could turn my own TX power up!
I can understand why in your case it's unlikely to provide a big enough ROI...
I'm tiring of it now to be honest.
I'm going to try and sum up instead using A: Common sense and B: a quote from ja
1. The designers of 2G were visionaries.
2. The designers of 3G were idiots (that's my quote, feel free to use : )
3. The designers of LTE could have been visionaries if only they hadn't stumbled at the last hurdle and through sheer incompetence for some reason didn't consider the consequences of releasing LTE with no mandatory voice.
To Sum up.
2G is the only complete fit for purpose cellular system we have.
4G will be, but only nearly 5 years after launch.
3G must die, die, die......
5G might, just might, work properly out of the box.
How was that?
The designers of 2G were visionaries for people who didn't need data throughput though! 200kbps is nothing short of a disaster - webpages are slow, tunein radio doesn't work well, youtube will fail and downloading app updates from the Google Play Store will take about a day and a half...
The designers of 3G put speed before coverage, hence we have something with cell breathing and other things that will not allow us to get full power/coverage out of the frequency bands.
The designers of 4G forgot that voice was required... Though data throughput is awesome!
Hopefully the designers of 5G can sort everything out, for voice, texts, data and anything else, without having coverage issues such as cell breathing!
And if anyone mentions TuneIn radio, or parrots someone else's previous post I'll cry... ;-)
See my above post! (Just joking!)
Seriously, if 2G could do a couple of Mbps, I wouldn't need to worry, For Tunein radio, I don't need 80+Mbps - I need at least 0.5Mbps (constantly) - something that 3G and 4G both provide.
Everyone's mobile phone needs are different. I'm just happy to be able to place a simple call, and 2G works just fine for that. Yes, 3G offers HD voice to those calling the same network, but the coverage is far too variable (it's that pesky cell breathing again). So, for me and my aged S4, a 2G/4G service would work fine - 2G for calls (i find the call quality acceptable and clear enough), and 4G for data. Horses for courses...
The designers of 2G were visionaries for people who didn't need data throughput though! 200kbps is nothing short of a disaster - webpages are slow, tunein radio doesn't work well, youtube will fail and downloading app updates from the Google Play Store will take about a day and a half...
The designers of 3G put speed before coverage, hence we have something with cell breathing and other things that will not allow us to get full power/coverage out of the frequency bands.
The designers of 4G forgot that voice was required... Though data throughput is awesome!
Hopefully the designers of 5G can sort everything out, for voice, texts, data and anything else, without having coverage issues such as cell breathing!
And abandon all pre-2012 smartphones, as well as dropping the voice quality for non VoLTE phones... Ouch!
See my above post! (Just joking!)
Seriously, if 2G could do a couple of Mbps, I wouldn't need to worry, For Tunein radio, I don't need 80+Mbps - I need at least 0.5Mbps (constantly) - something that 3G and 4G both provide.
2G was OK for the time it was launched in. I used to park up my van in a lay by on the edge of dartmoor just west of South Brent and hook up my Vaio (still got it somewhere) to my 6310i (still go that too) and it actually worked and allowed me to close trades as the stock market opened. I made some good money in that time, all over 2G. That was a streaming app from CMC markets and it worked over GPRS.
I sometimes wonder how far we have moved forward from that time. Your phone doesn't ring on EE/3 and you can't get data on VO2. What? 15 years later? I don't know what year it was but a long time ago.
Hopefully 2016 is the start of these compromises being removed as at least EE and VOD should be able to sort their rural shortcomings. I hope the 3O2 buyout goes ahead so that we get a third decent network to choose from and not 2 cripples as we have now.
There is one thing I am very very confident of.
By mid to the end of 2017 (and remember that's only 15-21 months away), EE 4G coverage will be so immense that nothing, nothing will come remotely close.
Low power 1800 and no 800 make this prediction look ridiculous right now but when both these things are fixed (which is not far away now), you will simply not believe how good it will be.
By all means bookmark this post and tell me I'm wrong when we get there.
HD Voice could always be added onto 2G even if 3G was turned off. If you have a VoLTE capable phone you are never going to see 3G again in a years time. If you don't have a VoLTE phone, 3G (over time) is going to be carrying less calls and have less overall users meaning that it should be able to run without congestion on less spectrum.
4G+VoLTE seems to solve the issues of 2G/3G, but don't discount how much better a 3G data connection is over a 2G data connection on a phone that doesn't do 4G. In the short term 3G has to stay, but in the long term there should be enough users with VoLTE phones to completely get rid of 3G (to refarm all the spectrum), and the people with phones so old they don't do VoLTE will probably be the same people who only care about calls and texts which 2G handles just fine.
By killing off 2G rather than 3G, you'd completely retire all 2G only devices. By killing off 3G, all devices would still work on 2G. I think this is a major reason as to why 3G would go before 2G.
Comments
Depends what you want to know. All networks are pretty good in london.
The best option i'd recommend to anyone is getting a payg sim and trying it.
No good having a smartphone when you can't use data on it!
Also there are more devices supporting 4G1800 than 4G2100 - so another good reason to knock 2G out first. M2M would gradually go 4G anyway, and legacy devices would work fine on 3G.
I mean phones, why would smartphones be available if we didn't need mobile data?
Eventually most devices that rely on GSM will eventually go 4G - or possibly leave on a tiny amount of 2G (say 5MHz) that will be for legacy GSM devices (like your burglar alarm system), and invisible to phones - with phones using 3G and 4G. Or even just purely 4G.
On various points along my travels to the Norfolk Coast, I tested the network speed and capabilities (using an EE 100GB Promo Sim). The results were as follows:
1) Eye/Eye Green - EE really need to get a new mast up there. 4G1800 tested out to be about -120dBm, which is very weak (about 30%). The data rate would probably be quite low on that sort of strength, though I didn't test it. 3G2100 is usually weak there as well, ranging from -113dBm to -109dBm. Based on the distance from the nearest mast, I doubt 4G800 will make a massive difference. We need a new mast there.
2) Various points along the journey, I tested EE's 4G speed. I tried doing the speedtests as close to the mast as possible, so that I could get the maximum speed possible out of the mast (to see what the mast is capable of). The tests were pretty consistent - all being above 65Mbps, most above 70Mbps. One of them, a mast close to Kings Lynn, got 91.49Mbps down and 44.61Mbps up - which is amazingly fast. My Samsung Galaxy S4 is only capable of 100Mbps down and 50Mbps up, so we're getting close to theoretical maximum speeds for my phone!
3) Various masts have been upgraded since the last time I visited the area - including an MBNL mast that was cheerfully doing 10-20Mbps on 3G. I didn't retest 3G (I was more interested in testing 4G), but that is one capable mast.
4) The EE mast at Hunstanton still hasn't been upgraded - it is doing a nice, fast 3G signal though. The problem with the mast is that none of the 3 panels on the mast are pointing towards the town/village! Hence, the signal rapidly drops off and at the seafront area, and the flats closest to the seafront, there is no 3G. EE really need to adjust the panel positions, or add a 4th panel - are you able to comment on this, Bookey?
5) I may not rate 2G that much for actual usage (poor quality voice and no data throughput), but there is one area where 2G is useful for - and that is for checking whether any old Orange masts are still running, or have been decommissioned. I have always seen an old Orange mast near Thorney Village (Cambs), but didn't know whether it was still switched on or not (never showed up on my S4). Switching the S4 to 2G only mode revealed that the Orange mast (confirmed via *#0011#) was still broadcasting, and on EDGE as supposed to GPRS. Seeing as the mast is still active, that suggests that the Orange mast may well go EDGE/3G/4G in the future. However, I also found out that one of the Orange telegraph poles (near Peterborough) has been decommissioned, as there was no Orange 2G, and 2G would be coming from a nearby MBNL site.
So far so good!
https://www.dropbox.com/s/mm3asu8lbvmttz5/2016-03-12%2016.58.36.png?dl=0
No, just no.
Where's DevonBloke when you need him to really castigate another post like this?
Nice!
Should try some "4G+"
Awesome - not bad at all for 4G1800 Double Speed! I got some speed results in the 70's and 80's earlier today on my S4, so that just proves that the EE network will be one awesome network once the 4G rollout has been completed
I had a bit of a break-through at home today. After coming to the conclusion that my local mast isn't likely to be upgraded or repaired for at least another 12 months, I decided to have a last-ditch attempt at connecting to a more distant one that I've failed with before.
One rather impulse purchase later and I have a better quality external Poynting antenna than the cheap one I had previously. After a morning of hanging out of windows, this suddenly appeared...
https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=66AE8C0254EBE318!105989&authkey=!ACfr41ranrGp8Pc&v=3&ithint=photo%2cjpg
And this has been the pretty stable result...
http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/5162748936
OK, so it pales into insignificance compared to a lot of 4G speedtest results, and the upload is a bit grim. But.... I am a long way from the mast I suspect I'm connected to, it's a standard 1800 mast I think, and there's an awful lot of weird terrain between us. On that basis, I'm pretty happy. Especially as my landline BB speeds are less than 2Mbps and local EE masts are unusable or provide downloads of 0.1Mbps.
I'm not getting too cocky: the leaves will be out soon, the wind might change, or they might change the orientation of the mast (I think) I'm connected to. But for the moment, I have a perfectly fast internet connection!
A first!
Looks good to me! Don't we get to see where the antenna is hanging from??
It's a bit dark at the moment and I'm very likely to stand in a dog poop in the process, so maybe tomorrow...
I'm tiring of it now to be honest.
I'm going to try and sum up instead using A: Common sense and B: a quote from ja
1. The designers of 2G were visionaries.
2. The designers of 3G were idiots (that's my quote, feel free to use : )
3. The designers of LTE could have been visionaries if only they hadn't stumbled at the last hurdle and through sheer incompetence for some reason didn't consider the consequences of releasing LTE with no mandatory voice.
To Sum up.
2G is the only complete fit for purpose cellular system we have.
4G will be, but only nearly 5 years after launch.
3G must die, die, die......
5G might, just might, work properly out of the box.
How was that?
Let's go 2G/4G and forget 3G...
+1
And if anyone mentions TuneIn radio, or parrots someone else's previous post I'll cry... ;-)
Have you ever considered swapping your paddle antenna for an outdoor one, albeit not as cheap a one as my old one was?
I'm astonished by how effective it is and wonder what effect it might have on your 4G signal. Having said that, I think yours is pretty impressive as it is now, so it may be a case of diminishing returns...
3G's biggest failing is it's variable coverage.
It uses dynamic load balancing between cells by varying power levels. (it's a bit more complicated than that but that's basically it).
This results in the signal from a given cell never being as powerful as it could be in a fixed coverage system like 2G/4G.
Is 3G considerably worse than 2G coverage wise because of the extra 300Mhz? No.
We know that 4G800Mhz is about 30% better than 4G1800 and that's more than twice the frequency.
I would suggest that 2G1800 is at least 30% better than 3G2100 so that ain't down to frequency. It's that crappy cell breathing and dynamic power balancing.
ja explained a while ago that 2G is actually a very forward thinking technology.
By all accounts getting 2G and 4G to integrate and talk to each other works quite well.
By comparison (and we all know this one) getting 2G and 3G to integrate is nothing short of rubbish.
Active call handover works quite well (most of the time) but idle re-selection basically doesn't work at all. Rather like Three's 4G800, you have to lose the 3G signal completely in order for the handset to switch to 2G.
I have lost count of the number of times I have missed an incoming call because the phone refused to switch to a perfectly good 2G signal and instead stuck to an unusable 3G signal.
This is one area where 4G fixes this problem I guess because it is aware of 3G (being newer) and so idle re-selection does work quite well between 3G and 4G.
It will be a relief when 3G is no more (for VoLTE users) and we rarely need 2G.
4G is the first proper multi frequency technology and as such, switching between frequencies within 4G obviously works pretty much flawlessly to the point where it becomes transparent rather than a pain in the arse!
Yes, indeed. Basically, as with most digital technologies, once you get past a certain threshold you don't gain anything and are wasting money.
My b593 without the "rabbit ears" was doing about -112 to -115.
For 4G this is actually not bad and pretty much near good enough for full data download throughput.
However it is getting close to being too weak and more importantly the upload was crap (obviously you have what, I dunno, something like 40 Watts coming from the cell panel that's nearly 2 Metres long (they look small right up there but aren't : )), but the poor router is (I think) is putting out the same as a phone, up to 1 Watt (someone correct me, routers may be allowed more since they aren't bolted to your head).
This is where the external antennas made a difference.
The signal is now -105dBm but the data download is the same. Maximum 30Mbps (capped).
The upload though is now nudging 10Mbps on a good day, bearing in mind it's traveling 2.6 miles and the mast is not in direct line of sight.
So those paddles are doing something but I don't think the extra expense of a proper outdoor antenna would gain me enough to justify the cost.
The thing being though, I am so used to 3G calling that I can instantly notice if the audio quality is worse - i.e. on 2G. That annoys me if the audio quality is worse - the difference is noticeable.
As for data rates, I'll support 2G if you can mysteriously get me a working type of 2G that can give me a couple of Mbps all day long.
Oh, wait? It's never going to be possible to get 2Mbps on 2G? Uh-oh...
That's impressive, and probably explains why my upload is fairly poor - I really am grasping at the last shreds of signal capability, even with the external antenna in place. If only I could turn my own TX power up!
I can understand why in your case it's unlikely to provide a big enough ROI...
The designers of 2G were visionaries for people who didn't need data throughput though!
The designers of 3G put speed before coverage, hence we have something with cell breathing and other things that will not allow us to get full power/coverage out of the frequency bands.
The designers of 4G forgot that voice was required... Though data throughput is awesome!
Hopefully the designers of 5G can sort everything out, for voice, texts, data and anything else, without having coverage issues such as cell breathing!
And abandon all pre-2012 smartphones, as well as dropping the voice quality for non VoLTE phones... Ouch!
See my above post!
Seriously, if 2G could do a couple of Mbps, I wouldn't need to worry, For Tunein radio, I don't need 80+Mbps - I need at least 0.5Mbps (constantly) - something that 3G and 4G both provide.
2G was OK for the time it was launched in. I used to park up my van in a lay by on the edge of dartmoor just west of South Brent and hook up my Vaio (still got it somewhere) to my 6310i (still go that too) and it actually worked and allowed me to close trades as the stock market opened. I made some good money in that time, all over 2G. That was a streaming app from CMC markets and it worked over GPRS.
I sometimes wonder how far we have moved forward from that time. Your phone doesn't ring on EE/3 and you can't get data on VO2. What? 15 years later? I don't know what year it was but a long time ago.
Hopefully 2016 is the start of these compromises being removed as at least EE and VOD should be able to sort their rural shortcomings. I hope the 3O2 buyout goes ahead so that we get a third decent network to choose from and not 2 cripples as we have now.
By mid to the end of 2017 (and remember that's only 15-21 months away), EE 4G coverage will be so immense that nothing, nothing will come remotely close.
Low power 1800 and no 800 make this prediction look ridiculous right now but when both these things are fixed (which is not far away now), you will simply not believe how good it will be.
By all means bookmark this post and tell me I'm wrong when we get there.
4G+VoLTE seems to solve the issues of 2G/3G, but don't discount how much better a 3G data connection is over a 2G data connection on a phone that doesn't do 4G. In the short term 3G has to stay, but in the long term there should be enough users with VoLTE phones to completely get rid of 3G (to refarm all the spectrum), and the people with phones so old they don't do VoLTE will probably be the same people who only care about calls and texts which 2G handles just fine.
By killing off 2G rather than 3G, you'd completely retire all 2G only devices. By killing off 3G, all devices would still work on 2G. I think this is a major reason as to why 3G would go before 2G.