People on other forums seem to be convinced that Three have 800MHz LTE when they don't, yet.
Well they have it, technically speaking, but just aren't using it!
800MHz would allow for coverage beyond the current 3G coverage, and also make a big difference for indoor coverage. In some places, 800MHz 4G might be slower than a good DC-HSPA connection, but in rural areas or indoors, 3G data can be hit very hard. I'd expect LTE to still be preferable, and far more consistent.
Not that 800MHz is some magic frequency that solves everything and will mean coverage everywhere, even in basements and the middle of a very thick office building or hotel.. even if some people seem to think that's the case.
Back in the GSM days when one2one launched and Orange come online soon after, there were plenty of comparisons of 900 vs 1800 and some people got rather carried away with saying how much better 900 was. Of course, the 1800 networks had to have more sites, but this also meant more capacity.
Many years on, when it came to rolling out 3G, the 1800 networks with more sites had a clear advantage. And we all know how well Vodafone and O2 invested in expanding 3G don't we? Hence where they are today sitting last in most surveys.
I know 800MHz LTE won't be the be all and end all however, where I live, 900MHz 2G performs excellently whereas 2100MHz doesn't give any reception at all. Hopefully when 800MHz LTE or 900MHz 3G is launched, the coverage will improve substantially.
It will if it doesn't have to fit around an existing network, whether 2G or 3G as applicable. I really do wish the networks weren't currently configured so 4G didn't go beyond the boundaries of existing coverage.
Lower speeds will be an issue on 800, but I think it will be consistent and more than adequate for most people (and will improve with future LTE upgrades). As time goes on, I would be expecting more 1800 to come and fill in, as well as any more spectrum purchased as and when available.
If 2100 can be re-used for 4G five or ten years from now, that will be another huge boost.
Quick question about my Three contract/networks in general...
I transferred my number from EE to my Three SIM Only contract in January.
I've got an O2 Pay & Go sim that I used to test out 4G on, and it's got a much better more rememberable number. If I got a PAC code from O2, could I transfer that number to my same Three SIM Card? (to replace my old EE number) Or can you only use a PAC code to the same SIM card once?
Quick question about my Three contract/networks in general...
I transferred my number from EE to my Three SIM Only contract in January.
I've got an O2 Pay & Go sim that I used to test out 4G on, and it's got a much better more rememberable number. If I got a PAC code from O2, could I transfer that number to my same Three SIM Card? (to replace my old EE number) Or can you only use a PAC code to the same SIM card once?
You can do what you want to do. Your o2 number will replace the current number on your Three SIM.
The award in itself is nice but realistically 3 have nothing like the best 4G network in the UK and recent Ofcom publications have stated EE have the best 3/4G coverage and reliability so one has to wonder how MacWorld's iPhones perform so differently?
The best 3G network coverage claim is at best questionable but the best coverage with 4G has to make this award the least credible of 2014 so far.
(Nothing about any other networks in this post other than EE and 3 but that won't prevent some with an agenda attempting to relate it to another completely different operator! - Par for the course!)
The award in itself is nice but realistically 3 have nothing like the best 4G network in the UK and recent Ofcom publications have stated EE have the best 3/4G coverage and reliability so one has to wonder how MacWorld's iPhones perform so differently?
The best 3G network coverage claim is at best questionable but the best coverage with 4G has to make this award the least credible of 2014 so far.
Out of interest, what does the latest H1 2014 Root Metrics report say are the best 2 networks for performance and reliability? Do you know? presumably O2 features as one of the best naturally.
The award in itself is nice but realistically 3 have nothing like the best 4G network in the UK and recent Ofcom publications have stated EE have the best 3/4G coverage and reliability so one has to wonder how MacWorld's iPhones perform so differently?
The best 3G network coverage claim is at best questionable but the best coverage with 4G has to make this award the least credible of 2014 so far.
To be honest, I've been on all of the networks. Out of O2 3G, Vodafone 3G, EE 3G & 4G, Three 3G & 4G, I'd put the chart like this for Bristol
1st place - Three
2nd place - EE
3rd place - O2
Last - Vodafone.
O2 & Vodafone are not reliable at all in Bristol. The signal will easily drop down to EDGE. EE has fantastic 4G coverage in Bristol, but in 90% of areas, Three 4G is faster, and so is their 3G. At home, 1 bar of Three 3G signal is more reliable than 1 bar of EE 3G signal - EE's is slower than Three's.
In a village close to me, you can really see how much 900MHz 3G helps.
Previously, you could pick up a really good signal but it was only 2G. Now O2 have launched 900MHz 3G in this area, the 3G signal is now really good there. No new masts have been installed; the nearest mast is in a town not particularly close. It really does show how good low frequency spectrum can be.
If Three can launch 800MHz LTE soon, I suspect in a lot of rural areas coverage will increase a great deal and very few new masts will be needed.
To be honest, I've been on all of the networks. Out of O2 3G, Vodafone 3G, EE 3G & 4G, Three 3G & 4G, I'd put the chart like this for Bristol
1st place - Three
2nd place - EE
3rd place - O2
Last - Vodafone.
O2 & Vodafone are not reliable at all in Bristol. The signal will easily drop down to EDGE. EE has fantastic 4G coverage in Bristol, but in 90% of areas, Three 4G is faster, and so is their 3G. At home, 1 bar of Three 3G signal is more reliable than 1 bar of EE 3G signal - EE's is slower than Three's.
Fine but that only applies to one place at this particular time. Other places have very different coverage and performance from the networks and some who have chosen to concentrate on big cities have very many satisfied customers who would rank the mobile networks very differently. Big cities have different issues with large concentrations of data hungry customers who may be blighted by congestion on some networks who allow some to tether unlimited where others on an alternative may enjoy fast browsing and streaming because bandwidth is controlled by pricing.
As has been stated many times by many on here there is no 'one size fits all' and what might be brilliant in Bristol may be woeful in Brighton. One has to make enquiries', do some testing and make a choice of network biased on where it performs best for your local or travelling needs.
In a village close to me, you can really see how much 900MHz 3G helps.
Previously, you could pick up a really good signal but it was only 2G. Now O2 have launched 900MHz 3G in this area, the 3G signal is now really good there. No new masts have been installed; the nearest mast is in a town not particularly close. It really does show how good low frequency spectrum can be.
If Three can launch 800MHz LTE soon, I suspect in a lot of rural areas coverage will increase a great deal and very few new masts will be needed.
...until someone builds a house in the way.
People say O2's 3G signal is stronger than Three's... it isn't. The local O2 mast is closer, yet in the local shop, O2 will drop down to EDGE, yet Three's signal will remain on 3G (I know Three doesn't have anything lower, but what I'm saying... Three's signal will not drop out).
People say O2's 3G signal is stronger than Three's... it isn't. The local O2 mast is closer, yet in the local shop, O2 will drop down to EDGE, yet Three's signal will remain on 3G (I know Three doesn't have anything lower, but what I'm saying... Three's signal will not drop out).
Three's 3G signal in this area is very, very weak indeed. The 3 mast is in the same place as the O2 mast so it's 900MHz doing the work here.
Fine but that only applies to one place at this particular time. Other places have very different coverage and performance from the networks and some who have chosen to concentrate on big cities have very many satisfied customers who would rank the mobile networks very differently. Big cities have different issues with large concentrations of data hungry customers who may be blighted by congestion on some networks who allow some to tether unlimited where others on an alternative may enjoy fast browsing and streaming because bandwidth is controlled by pricing.
As has been stated many times by many on here there is no 'one size fits all' and what might be brilliant in Bristol may be woeful in Brighton. One has to make enquiries', do some testing and make a choice of network biased on where it performs best for your local or travelling needs.
True, but some people are making the assumption that if O2 is the best in their area, it's "all hail O2 in the UK!"
Nope. I was just saying that's how I'd place the networks (from excellent to worst) in Bristol.
By looking at coverage checkers, it tends to be that Vodafone is the worst in most areas though.
Three's 3G signal in this area is very, very weak indeed. The 3 mast is in the same place as the O2 mast so it's 900MHz doing the work here.
Why couldn't all networks just use a stronger frequency to start with? (When all the networks first launched?) Then there'd be less people moaning about having no signal, and less moaning about having masts ruining countryside...
Why couldn't all networks just use a stronger frequency to start with? (When all the networks first launched?) Then there'd be less people moaning about having no signal, and less moaning about having masts ruining countryside...
By stronger, what do you mean?
The best thing would be if all networks had both low and high frequency spectrum. It seems that that is finally happening with LTE but only on Three by the looks of it.
The best thing would be if all networks had both low and high frequency spectrum. It seems that that is finally happening with LTE but only on Three by the looks of it.
And EE who have 800,1800 and 2600 as well as Vodafone who have 800 and 2600.
If Three can launch 800MHz LTE soon, I suspect in a lot of rural areas coverage will increase a great deal and very few new masts will be needed.
Don't hold your breath......
Most of the city of Glasgow has no 3 4G coverage so rural areas are probably not a priority. 3 stated long ago that their 4G roll-out was being designed primarily to increase bandwidth where they needed it. That differs from others who are going for a geographic or population coverage. Three's strategy is linked to their marketing and 4G has a big role to play to deal with the demands of 'all you can eat' data that has been sold for some years now. Perhaps when that was introduced the consumption was light but it has vastly increased especially on the 'One Plan' and 4G provision for 3 is being rolled out in two different ways. The first is to cover vital commercial areas like central London and have a presence in each major city by a set date and the second and sometimes equally important aspect is to provide extra capacity to cope with demand wherever it exists. So apart from some commercially strategic city coverage the primary consideration for 4G coverage by 3 is where additional data capacity is required. 3 have went to great lengths to reduce expectations from 4G compared with their expansive 3G HSPA+ coverage. The 3 line has been that the difference is only a couple of Mbps so the technology is less important than the user experience and for most customers that is a jargon free fair enough explanation that if they can stream and get what they want they won't care what delivers it. No doubt there are some who run around poking phones and speed testing to pass the time (some even make videos doing that!) but for the average user the stats are not important it's what their device can do and if the network they choose can deliver what they want they will remain happy and loyal customers of whatever network provides their service.
Most of the city of Glasgow has no 3 4G coverage so rural areas are probably not a priority. 3 stated long ago that their 4G roll-out was being designed primarily to increase bandwidth where they needed it. That differs from others who are going for a geographic or population coverage. Three's strategy is linked to their marketing and 4G has a big role to play to deal with the demands of 'all you can eat' data that has been sold for some years now. Perhaps when that was introduced the consumption was light but it has vastly increased especially on the 'One Plan' and 4G provision for 3 is being rolled out in two different ways. The first is to cover vital commercial areas like central London and have a presence in each major city by a set date and the second and sometimes equally important aspect is to provide extra capacity to cope with demand wherever it exists. So apart from some commercially strategic city coverage the primary consideration for 4G coverage by 3 is where additional data capacity is required. 3 have went to great lengths to reduce expectations from 4G compared with their expansive 3G HSPA+ coverage. The 3 line has been that the difference is only a couple of Mbps so the technology is less important than the user experience and for most customers that is a jargon free fair enough explanation that if they can stream and get what they want they won't care what delivers it. No doubt there are some who run around poking phones and speed testing to pass the time (some even make videos doing that!) but for the average user the stats are not important it's what their device can do and if the network they choose can deliver what they want they will remain happy and loyal customers of whatever network provides their service.
He did, and if you look he's been slating Three since launch, when, to be fair it was probably justified as a network which provided O2 2G and only had limited 3G and walled internet. However times have changed, and these days Three and EE seem to measure as the most reliable and best performing data networks in the UK.
For a long time he went really heavy on the Ofcom customer complaints data, posting it 14 times in the space of a month. These days Three is actually the least complained about network to the regulator, so he can't use that one anymore. He used to go very heavy on the 2100Mhz, but Three is right up there with the most reliable and best performing data networks, so he can't run that either.
Comments
Well they have it, technically speaking, but just aren't using it!
800MHz would allow for coverage beyond the current 3G coverage, and also make a big difference for indoor coverage. In some places, 800MHz 4G might be slower than a good DC-HSPA connection, but in rural areas or indoors, 3G data can be hit very hard. I'd expect LTE to still be preferable, and far more consistent.
Not that 800MHz is some magic frequency that solves everything and will mean coverage everywhere, even in basements and the middle of a very thick office building or hotel.. even if some people seem to think that's the case.
Back in the GSM days when one2one launched and Orange come online soon after, there were plenty of comparisons of 900 vs 1800 and some people got rather carried away with saying how much better 900 was. Of course, the 1800 networks had to have more sites, but this also meant more capacity.
Many years on, when it came to rolling out 3G, the 1800 networks with more sites had a clear advantage. And we all know how well Vodafone and O2 invested in expanding 3G don't we? Hence where they are today sitting last in most surveys.
I know 800MHz LTE won't be the be all and end all however, where I live, 900MHz 2G performs excellently whereas 2100MHz doesn't give any reception at all. Hopefully when 800MHz LTE or 900MHz 3G is launched, the coverage will improve substantially.
Lower speeds will be an issue on 800, but I think it will be consistent and more than adequate for most people (and will improve with future LTE upgrades). As time goes on, I would be expecting more 1800 to come and fill in, as well as any more spectrum purchased as and when available.
If 2100 can be re-used for 4G five or ten years from now, that will be another huge boost.
Link to other forums?
http://blog.three.co.uk/2014/08/19/awards-stuff/
I transferred my number from EE to my Three SIM Only contract in January.
I've got an O2 Pay & Go sim that I used to test out 4G on, and it's got a much better more rememberable number. If I got a PAC code from O2, could I transfer that number to my same Three SIM Card? (to replace my old EE number) Or can you only use a PAC code to the same SIM card once?
You can do what you want to do. Your o2 number will replace the current number on your Three SIM.
The award in itself is nice but realistically 3 have nothing like the best 4G network in the UK and recent Ofcom publications have stated EE have the best 3/4G coverage and reliability so one has to wonder how MacWorld's iPhones perform so differently?
The best 3G network coverage claim is at best questionable but the best coverage with 4G has to make this award the least credible of 2014 so far.
(Nothing about any other networks in this post other than EE and 3 but that won't prevent some with an agenda attempting to relate it to another completely different operator! - Par for the course!)
Out of interest, what does the latest H1 2014 Root Metrics report say are the best 2 networks for performance and reliability? Do you know? presumably O2 features as one of the best naturally.
To be honest, I've been on all of the networks. Out of O2 3G, Vodafone 3G, EE 3G & 4G, Three 3G & 4G, I'd put the chart like this for Bristol
1st place - Three
2nd place - EE
3rd place - O2
Last - Vodafone.
O2 & Vodafone are not reliable at all in Bristol. The signal will easily drop down to EDGE. EE has fantastic 4G coverage in Bristol, but in 90% of areas, Three 4G is faster, and so is their 3G. At home, 1 bar of Three 3G signal is more reliable than 1 bar of EE 3G signal - EE's is slower than Three's.
Previously, you could pick up a really good signal but it was only 2G. Now O2 have launched 900MHz 3G in this area, the 3G signal is now really good there. No new masts have been installed; the nearest mast is in a town not particularly close. It really does show how good low frequency spectrum can be.
If Three can launch 800MHz LTE soon, I suspect in a lot of rural areas coverage will increase a great deal and very few new masts will be needed.
Fine but that only applies to one place at this particular time. Other places have very different coverage and performance from the networks and some who have chosen to concentrate on big cities have very many satisfied customers who would rank the mobile networks very differently. Big cities have different issues with large concentrations of data hungry customers who may be blighted by congestion on some networks who allow some to tether unlimited where others on an alternative may enjoy fast browsing and streaming because bandwidth is controlled by pricing.
As has been stated many times by many on here there is no 'one size fits all' and what might be brilliant in Bristol may be woeful in Brighton. One has to make enquiries', do some testing and make a choice of network biased on where it performs best for your local or travelling needs.
...until someone builds a house in the way.
People say O2's 3G signal is stronger than Three's... it isn't. The local O2 mast is closer, yet in the local shop, O2 will drop down to EDGE, yet Three's signal will remain on 3G (I know Three doesn't have anything lower, but what I'm saying... Three's signal will not drop out).
Three's 3G signal in this area is very, very weak indeed. The 3 mast is in the same place as the O2 mast so it's 900MHz doing the work here.
True, but some people are making the assumption that if O2 is the best in their area, it's "all hail O2 in the UK!"
Nope. I was just saying that's how I'd place the networks (from excellent to worst) in Bristol.
By looking at coverage checkers, it tends to be that Vodafone is the worst in most areas though.
Although last time he used root metrics to prove o2 is better than Three.
Why couldn't all networks just use a stronger frequency to start with? (When all the networks first launched?) Then there'd be less people moaning about having no signal, and less moaning about having masts ruining countryside...
By stronger, what do you mean?
The best thing would be if all networks had both low and high frequency spectrum. It seems that that is finally happening with LTE but only on Three by the looks of it.
And EE who have 800,1800 and 2600 as well as Vodafone who have 800 and 2600.
I think bristollian just means lower frequency.
Ahh fair enough.
It seems O2 is lagging behind once again.
Don't hold your breath......
Most of the city of Glasgow has no 3 4G coverage so rural areas are probably not a priority. 3 stated long ago that their 4G roll-out was being designed primarily to increase bandwidth where they needed it. That differs from others who are going for a geographic or population coverage. Three's strategy is linked to their marketing and 4G has a big role to play to deal with the demands of 'all you can eat' data that has been sold for some years now. Perhaps when that was introduced the consumption was light but it has vastly increased especially on the 'One Plan' and 4G provision for 3 is being rolled out in two different ways. The first is to cover vital commercial areas like central London and have a presence in each major city by a set date and the second and sometimes equally important aspect is to provide extra capacity to cope with demand wherever it exists. So apart from some commercially strategic city coverage the primary consideration for 4G coverage by 3 is where additional data capacity is required. 3 have went to great lengths to reduce expectations from 4G compared with their expansive 3G HSPA+ coverage. The 3 line has been that the difference is only a couple of Mbps so the technology is less important than the user experience and for most customers that is a jargon free fair enough explanation that if they can stream and get what they want they won't care what delivers it. No doubt there are some who run around poking phones and speed testing to pass the time (some even make videos doing that!) but for the average user the stats are not important it's what their device can do and if the network they choose can deliver what they want they will remain happy and loyal customers of whatever network provides their service.
Did you seriously join these forums in 2002?
He's been posting the same anti three crap for 12 years.
But Three have only been out since 2003?
What was he posting for a year then? Does he hate Vodafone?
He did, and if you look he's been slating Three since launch, when, to be fair it was probably justified as a network which provided O2 2G and only had limited 3G and walled internet. However times have changed, and these days Three and EE seem to measure as the most reliable and best performing data networks in the UK.
For a long time he went really heavy on the Ofcom customer complaints data, posting it 14 times in the space of a month. These days Three is actually the least complained about network to the regulator, so he can't use that one anymore. He used to go very heavy on the 2100Mhz, but Three is right up there with the most reliable and best performing data networks, so he can't run that either.
I think he's clutching at straws these days TBH