Funny thing is Apple this company that so likes O2 so much obviously doesn't care at all about it as they knew there IPhone 5 wasn't going to work on that network but they didn't care. You are completely right O2 just gave bucket loads of money to apple for an exclusive deal and managed to get a lot of it's customers back than and most have just kept on the network.
And soon within next 5 years O2 are likely going have make a decision to either cut of 2G to save costs or keep it running in case they lose most of there customers.
AT&T will be closing their 2G network on 1st Jan 2017 and their customers are well aware of this.
None of the UK networks (Three don't need to as they have no 2G network) have started this transition yet nor have made any announcements to this effect.
This is a growing problem that they will need to tackle. They can effectively free up bandwidth by getting rid of 2G. They should really be thinking ahead and taking action now.
Real evidence required.... not heresay or "it looks like Spain’s O2 wireless carrier has inked a deal with Apple".
from the original 2007 Guardian article.....
"O2 is understood to have agreed a margin on the retail price - to be confirmed tomorrow - but will return to Apple as much as 40% of any revenues it makes from customers' use of the device."
As much as = what? 39%, 20%, 10%?
Lets have some proper evidence about the deal if those who state the figures are confident they know for sure.
Bottom line is that o2 will have LTE in most major markets pretty soon and will rollout faster than others who some on here promote all too often. That seems to be uncomfortable for some but it's good for customers who will have more options than the current ripoff EE 4G nonsense.
Real evidence required.... not heresay or "it looks like Spain’s O2 wireless carrier has inked a deal with Apple".
from the original 2007 Guardian article.....
"O2 is understood to have agreed a margin on the retail price - to be confirmed tomorrow - but will return to Apple as much as 40% of any revenues it makes from customers' use of the device."
As much as = what? 39%, 20%, 10%?
Lets have some proper evidence about the deal if those who state the figures are confident they know for sure.
Bottom line is that o2 will have LTE in most major markets pretty soon and will rollout faster than others who some on here promote all too often. That seems to be uncomfortable for some but it's good for customers who will have more options than the current ripoff EE 4G nonsense.
Just found this
"Orange and T-Mobile are understood to have signed contracts and at least one had Apple employees helping to implement the device on their networks. But at the 11th hour O2 snatched the UK deal with an offer that gave such a high proportion of revenues to Apple that none of its competitors could see any way of making any return on the phone, even over three years. They believed that even if it was treated as purely a loss-leading marketing product, a better return could be had by spending the money elsewhere."
and to prove that isn't false here is a link to the Guardian.
That clearly says it all Apple didn't go with O2 because they were a good network they went with them for the money so next time you start an argument about something like this get your facts right. I don't think it actually mattered how much they paid for each headset can't find details of that the fact. The fact matters they only got because they were willing pay a fortune.
"Orange and T-Mobile are understood to have signed contracts and at least one had Apple employees helping to implement the device on their networks. But at the 11th hour O2 snatched the UK deal with an offer that gave such a high proportion of revenues to Apple that none of its competitors could see any way of making any return on the phone, even over three years. They believed that even if it was treated as purely a loss-leading marketing product, a better return could be had by spending the money elsewhere."
and to prove that isn't false here is a link to the Guardian.
The Guardian does not state a definate revenue sharing figure. They state 'as much as' which means what exactly? The article was based on speculation about the financial deal at the time and had no focus on any other aspect of it.
It was and remains a commercial secret but one can always guess about it.....
And no doubt the same O2 haters will post about outages years ago, time and again to satisfy their long standing desire to tarnish the reputation of a company that continues to perform far better than they hope.
That clearly says it all Apple didn't go with O2 because they were a good network they went with them for the money
Well that's clear from the fact that they had 6 outages in 6 months and have always had the least 3G coverage of any network in the UK and the most outages of any network in the UK, and they still do have the least 3G coverage and slower average speeds than the competition.
The Guardian does not state a definate revenue sharing figure. They state 'as much as' which means what exactly?
It was and remains a commercial secret but one can guess about it.....
OMG why the hell does it matter that we don't know how much they got it clearly is shown there that they only got exclusive deal because they paid through the teeth for it. If what the guardian said was wrong they would of had to remove that but as it still there nearly 6 years later it obviously true. Plus it really makes apple look worse if they cancelled two deals just for the money. So your entire argument is flawed.
Well that's clear from the fact that they had 6 outages in 6 months and have always had the least 3G coverage of any network in the UK and the most outages of any network in the UK, and they still do have the least 3G coverage and slower average speeds than the competition.
Completely agree on that as well just wanted to prove to him with cold facts that apple didn't let them have exclusivity because they were a good network. O2 is the network for people who either don't have a smart phone or only use them for calls/texting simply as that.
The Guardian does not state a definate revenue sharing figure. They state 'as much as' which means what exactly? The article was based on speculation about the financial deal at the time and had no focus on any other aspect of it.
It was and remains a commercial secret but one can always guess about it.....
The fact that the iPhone needed its own plans with reduced value / higher costs suggests everything you need to know about how much money Apple was extracting. The iPhone wasn't and isn't anything technically special. It was an EDGE phone with a web browser. Like the Nokias of the time, although they had HSDPA.
No other smartphone required such a complex agreement, and no smartphone today does. Apart from the purchase price, HTC, Sony, Samsung etc don't get kickbacks from making their devices available.
As for the EE 4G jibe (btw: this is off topic, we are talking about O2 here, no other networks. Please do not take it off topic. This is off topic ad infinitum), you are aware that O2 themselves have announced that they will be charging a "premium" price for it?
Had enough of this nonsense..... this just goes round in circles with the same outage tripe being repeated and the same O2 haters pouring doubt on what is being stated by the company because they don't use them due to 3g coverage issues.
Total waste of time trying to explain why O2 has made such a sucess with their strategy where others have had to merge to survive. Like Devon did ... time to bow out and leave the thread to those who want to argue for the sake of it.
AT&T will be closing their 2G network on 1st Jan 2017 and their customers are well aware of this.
None of the UK networks (Three don't need to as they have no 2G network) have started this transition yet nor have made any announcements to this effect.
This is a growing problem that they will need to tackle. They can effectively free up bandwidth by getting rid of 2G. They should really be thinking ahead and taking action now.
Japan has no 2G networks.
Yeah it's quite obvious why as well not only is a lot of 2G spectrum capable of being re farmed for 4G but it cuts overheads for the company as well. I believe Verizon are either cutting back of 2G or thinking about removing it as they are currently looking at data only plans when voLTE kicks in read an article about that recently. I expect what verizon is doing we will likely hear about from EE soon as well because with there 2G gone they can boost 4G spectrum. By 2020 I doubt there will hardly any first world countries with 2G networks they will become irrelevant.
Had enough of this nonsense..... this just goes round in circles with the same outage tripe being repeated and the same O2 haters pouring doubt on what is being stated by the company because they don't use them due to 3g coverage issues.
Total waste of time trying to explain why O2 has made such a sucess with their strategy where others have had to merge to survive. Like Devon did ... time to bow out and leave the thread to those who want to argue for the sake of it.
O2 made a lot of success with IPhone and won't deny that at all but they paid through the nose for it and in return for that they have the worst 3G network in the uk even ofcom would agree on that one. If you really want make out that 3G isn't important why has Three a company that everyone doubted has become a massive contender in the Mobile Network market. I don't hate O2 at all I just think they are the network for the older generation and unless they succeed massively with 4G they will eventually fall behind. It's kind of funny in a way that O2 went with the coverage obligation as if they have low smart phone customers who is actually going to use the 4G.
Yeah it's quite obvious why as well not only is a lot of 2G spectrum capable of being re farmed for 4G but it cuts overheads for the company as well. I believe Verizon are either cutting back of 2G or thinking about removing it as they are currently looking at data only plans when voLTE kicks in read an article about that recently. I expect what verizon is doing we will likely hear about from EE soon as well because with there 2G gone they can boost 4G spectrum. By 2020 I doubt there will hardly any first world countries with 2G networks they will become irrelevant.
Verizon have a rough date of 2021 for closing both 2G & 3G.
I see thanks for that haven't seen that before it seems than that 2G would be shut down first then as there would be less major things using that [doubt there a lot even now] and 3G later. Hadn't heard of any network considering shutting down 3G though so thanks for that. But when battery problem with voLTE when using it compared to normal 2G/3G is solved both 2G and 3G would become irrelevant if 4G coverage is strong.
LTE networks dont breathe unlike 3G so there is a danger of capacity issues.
If O2 wish to do a 2 year deployment to reach 98% of the population I can only assume they will do wide area coverage for most part and sacrifice speeds at first. This may not be an initial problem especially if take up is slow and O2 overprice 4G like EE have.
LTE networks dont breathe unlike 3G so there is a danger of capacity issues.
If O2 wish to do a 2 year deployment to reach 98% of the population I can only assume they will do wide area coverage for most part and sacrifice speeds at first. This may not be an initial problem especially if take up is slow and O2 overprice 4G like EE have.
They will always have to sacrifice speeds as the most they ever have is 10 Download and 10 Upload unless they can get some spectrum from another company. Three will start of with that but will be eventually be on 15 Download and 15 Upload come 2015. Perhaps more if they can get some 1800MHz for there 800MHz.
Update
Looks like I might of spoken to quickly if they secure the BT deal. Though Three could as well it will be interesting out of the two who will get that.
Three will have just a rapid roll out as the other networks. All they need is cabinet replacements. The masts, fibre and the planning that takes up a chunk of time has already been done by EE (&MBNL)
O2 will find themselves limited in the higher speed product unless they are allowed to refarm or get tie ups with BT's 2600.
"Orange and T-Mobile are understood to have signed contracts and at least one had Apple employees helping to implement the device on their networks. But at the 11th hour O2 snatched the UK deal with an offer that gave such a high proportion of revenues to Apple that none of its competitors could see any way of making any return on the phone
From what i heard from people at Orange.. they had offered just under 20% and O2 offered nearly double that, but in return Apple had to extend the exclusivity period.. which in the end Apple ended up breaking & bringing forward as O2 just wasn't shifting the numbers required in the last year. i'm not bothered if Mr O2 here blows a gasket..
From what i heard from people at Orange.. they had offered just under 20% and O2 offered nearly double that, but in return Apple had to extend the exclusivity period.. which in the end Apple ended up breaking & bringing forward as O2 just wasn't shifting the numbers required in the last year. i'm not bothered if Mr O2 here blows a gasket..
Ah thanks for the info I appreciate it certainly seems that O2 got a bad deal after all.
AT&T will be closing their 2G network on 1st Jan 2017 and their customers are well aware of this.
None of the UK networks (Three don't need to as they have no 2G network) have started this transition yet nor have made any announcements to this effect.
This is a growing problem that they will need to tackle. They can effectively free up bandwidth by getting rid of 2G. They should really be thinking ahead and taking action now.
Japan has no 2G networks.
If all goes to plan EE will have roughly the same LTE coverage as their 2G coverage by the end of next year. By that time VoLTE will have been properly tested I would have thought and be ready to rollout (or will already be working). Quite a few users will by then probably have VoLTE handsets so I'm sure they are already thinking of timescales to reduce 2G spectrum to free up for LTE. Some 800Mhz here and there to fill in the gaps and the LTE network will have better coverage than 2G does now.
Had enough of this nonsense..... this just goes round in circles with the same outage tripe being repeated and the same O2 haters pouring doubt on what is being stated by the company because they don't use them due to 3g coverage issues.
Total waste of time trying to explain why O2 has made such a sucess with their strategy where others have had to merge to survive. Like Devon did ... time to bow out and leave the thread to those who want to argue for the sake of it.
I didn't exactly bow out, I had a load of PCs to fix and being on here wasn't getting it done! Then I had a nice JD and coke and the telly seemed a good idea.
As you say though, O2 MUST have had the correct strategy which is evident in their massive subscriber numbers.
Three will have just a rapid roll out as the other networks. All they need is cabinet replacements. The masts, fibre and the planning that takes up a chunk of time has already been done by EE (&MBNL)
O2 will find themselves limited in the higher speed product unless they are allowed to refarm or get tie ups with BT's 2600.
Doubtful the UK will get VoLTE before 2014..
You are probably correct but how are they going to deal with that specific problem that is bound to occur?
At the bottom of our yard my Brother's Three iPhone has no service (it used to have 2G), my EE iPhone has a usable 1-2 bars 2G.
It follows that when Three and EE add 1800 LTE to our mast, I will have LTE with 2G fall-back. He will have LTE but then won't be able to connect a call.
There are many many places around here where that will be the case.
How are they going to explain that in a non-technical way to customers?
You are probably correct but how are they going to deal with that specific problem that is bound to occur?
At the bottom of our yard my Brother's Three iPhone has no service (it used to have 2G), my EE iPhone has a usable 1-2 bars 2G.
It follows that when Three and EE add 1800 LTE to our mast, I will have LTE with 2G fall-back. He will have LTE but then won't be able to connect a call.
There are many many places around here where that will be the case.
How are they going to explain that in a non-technical way to customers?
Yes, I've wondered about that as most customers will interpret it as a fault. It would also be a reason for 3 not to go early with any 800 deployment. It maybe even harder to explain why even though my phone shows good signal all over the house and I can use data, calls only work outside!
Just an idea to add...
As 3 are selling their service as 'ultrafast' and not distinguishing between 3G and 4g, does anyone think they will launch LTE for dongles and mifi (ie data only) initally and keep smartphone users on 3G DC which is fast enough for browsing, email, apps etc. That way there will be no issue of having an LTE signal on phone and not able to make a voice call.
Yes, I've wondered about that as most customers will interpret it as a fault. It would also be a reason for 3 not to go early with any 800 deployment. It maybe even harder to explain why even though my phone shows good signal all over the house and I can use data, calls only work outside!
True and I agree that this is a fault/problem but it's not something that will cripple Three and it already has a perfectly good alternative in hand. It's extremely unlikely anyone who can't get a 3G signal on there phones from Three are likely to get a 4G signal as all the 4G masts are also the 3G ones they may get a better 4G signal but the 3G should still be good enough for calls/texting. Plus in any areas where this is going to occur isn't going to get 4G till at least mid/late next year and voLTE is quite possibly being rolled out by then.
Just an idea to add...
As 3 are selling their service as 'ultrafast' and not distinguishing between 3G and 4g, does anyone think they will launch LTE for dongles and mifi (ie data only) initally and keep smartphone users on 3G DC which is fast enough for browsing, email, apps etc. That way there will be no issue of having an LTE signal on phone and not able to make a voice call.
I extremely doubt that at all because the main areas they will starting rolling the LTE out to customers will be areas where DC exists.
The fact that EE is accelerating VoLTE testing this year does show that it will be used by at least one competitor soon.. EE will roughly know what Three is planning, Dyson and Olaf are regularly in talks.
Roll out this year for Three is likely to be areas that have 3G fallback, cities. Next year when the LTE coverage expands into rural locations and when 800 may come in to things then 4G with no fallback it will be a huge issue. MBNL generally have great 3G coverage in the locations that Three will use as launch cities.
The fact that EE is accelerating VoLTE testing this year does show that it will be used by at least one competitor soon.. EE will roughly know what Three is planning, Dyson and Olaf are regularly in talks.
Roll out this year for Three is likely to be areas that have 3G fallback, cities. Next year when the LTE coverage expands into rural locations and when 800 may come in to things then 4G with no fallback it will be a huge issue. MBNL generally have great 3G coverage in the locations that Three will use as launch cities.
I agree it certainly will be a problem then until voLTE. I think and let's be honest if you live in a rural [Extremely rural even then] then you probably best going with Vodafone/EE/O2. Until voLTE becomes the norm which it is going to be so you have the 2G as back up. But if you live anywhere where you can make calls on 3G then you are going to be fine.
Taking a step back and I know this will be sorted but if you look at the industry in general perhaps trying to put yourself in the place of someone without the specific knowledge that a lot of posters here have, does anyone find it a bit bizarre? Here we are with the latest and greatest in mobile technology which has been developed over years, capable of all manner of wonderful things and it's biggest problem is making a simple voice call, something which long since defunct systems managed with ease.
Taking a step back and I know this will be sorted but if you look at the industry in general perhaps trying to put yourself in the place of someone without the specific knowledge that a lot of posters here have, does anyone find it a bit bizarre? Here we are with the latest and greatest in mobile technology which has been developed over years, capable of all manner of wonderful things and it's biggest problem is making a simple voice call, something which long since defunct systems managed with ease.
Hmm you do have a good point there it is slightly bizarre/weird. It really is going come down to when Three roll out voLTE if they can get it done before going into bad signal rural areas than they will be fine if not then it is going to be a problem.
Comments
AT&T will be closing their 2G network on 1st Jan 2017 and their customers are well aware of this.
None of the UK networks (Three don't need to as they have no 2G network) have started this transition yet nor have made any announcements to this effect.
This is a growing problem that they will need to tackle. They can effectively free up bandwidth by getting rid of 2G. They should really be thinking ahead and taking action now.
Japan has no 2G networks.
from the original 2007 Guardian article.....
"O2 is understood to have agreed a margin on the retail price - to be confirmed tomorrow - but will return to Apple as much as 40% of any revenues it makes from customers' use of the device."
As much as = what? 39%, 20%, 10%?
Lets have some proper evidence about the deal if those who state the figures are confident they know for sure.
Bottom line is that o2 will have LTE in most major markets pretty soon and will rollout faster than others who some on here promote all too often. That seems to be uncomfortable for some but it's good for customers who will have more options than the current ripoff EE 4G nonsense.
Just found this
"Orange and T-Mobile are understood to have signed contracts and at least one had Apple employees helping to implement the device on their networks. But at the 11th hour O2 snatched the UK deal with an offer that gave such a high proportion of revenues to Apple that none of its competitors could see any way of making any return on the phone, even over three years. They believed that even if it was treated as purely a loss-leading marketing product, a better return could be had by spending the money elsewhere."
and to prove that isn't false here is a link to the Guardian.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/sep/17/mobilephones.apple
That clearly says it all Apple didn't go with O2 because they were a good network they went with them for the money so next time you start an argument about something like this get your facts right. I don't think it actually mattered how much they paid for each headset can't find details of that the fact. The fact matters they only got because they were willing pay a fortune.
The Guardian does not state a definate revenue sharing figure. They state 'as much as' which means what exactly? The article was based on speculation about the financial deal at the time and had no focus on any other aspect of it.
It was and remains a commercial secret but one can always guess about it.....
And no doubt the same O2 haters will post about outages years ago, time and again to satisfy their long standing desire to tarnish the reputation of a company that continues to perform far better than they hope.
Well that's clear from the fact that they had 6 outages in 6 months and have always had the least 3G coverage of any network in the UK and the most outages of any network in the UK, and they still do have the least 3G coverage and slower average speeds than the competition.
OMG why the hell does it matter that we don't know how much they got it clearly is shown there that they only got exclusive deal because they paid through the teeth for it. If what the guardian said was wrong they would of had to remove that but as it still there nearly 6 years later it obviously true. Plus it really makes apple look worse if they cancelled two deals just for the money. So your entire argument is flawed.
Completely agree on that as well just wanted to prove to him with cold facts that apple didn't let them have exclusivity because they were a good network. O2 is the network for people who either don't have a smart phone or only use them for calls/texting simply as that.
The fact that the iPhone needed its own plans with reduced value / higher costs suggests everything you need to know about how much money Apple was extracting. The iPhone wasn't and isn't anything technically special. It was an EDGE phone with a web browser. Like the Nokias of the time, although they had HSDPA.
No other smartphone required such a complex agreement, and no smartphone today does. Apart from the purchase price, HTC, Sony, Samsung etc don't get kickbacks from making their devices available.
As for the EE 4G jibe (btw: this is off topic, we are talking about O2 here, no other networks. Please do not take it off topic. This is off topic ad infinitum), you are aware that O2 themselves have announced that they will be charging a "premium" price for it?
Total waste of time trying to explain why O2 has made such a sucess with their strategy where others have had to merge to survive. Like Devon did ... time to bow out and leave the thread to those who want to argue for the sake of it.
Yeah it's quite obvious why as well not only is a lot of 2G spectrum capable of being re farmed for 4G but it cuts overheads for the company as well. I believe Verizon are either cutting back of 2G or thinking about removing it as they are currently looking at data only plans when voLTE kicks in read an article about that recently. I expect what verizon is doing we will likely hear about from EE soon as well because with there 2G gone they can boost 4G spectrum. By 2020 I doubt there will hardly any first world countries with 2G networks they will become irrelevant.
O2 made a lot of success with IPhone and won't deny that at all but they paid through the nose for it and in return for that they have the worst 3G network in the uk even ofcom would agree on that one. If you really want make out that 3G isn't important why has Three a company that everyone doubted has become a massive contender in the Mobile Network market. I don't hate O2 at all I just think they are the network for the older generation and unless they succeed massively with 4G they will eventually fall behind. It's kind of funny in a way that O2 went with the coverage obligation as if they have low smart phone customers who is actually going to use the 4G.
Verizon have a rough date of 2021 for closing both 2G & 3G.
http://www.slashgear.com/verizon-to-shut-down-2g-and-3g-networks-by-2021-11251448/
I see thanks for that haven't seen that before it seems than that 2G would be shut down first then as there would be less major things using that [doubt there a lot even now] and 3G later. Hadn't heard of any network considering shutting down 3G though so thanks for that. But when battery problem with voLTE when using it compared to normal 2G/3G is solved both 2G and 3G would become irrelevant if 4G coverage is strong.
If O2 wish to do a 2 year deployment to reach 98% of the population I can only assume they will do wide area coverage for most part and sacrifice speeds at first. This may not be an initial problem especially if take up is slow and O2 overprice 4G like EE have.
They will always have to sacrifice speeds as the most they ever have is 10 Download and 10 Upload unless they can get some spectrum from another company. Three will start of with that but will be eventually be on 15 Download and 15 Upload come 2015. Perhaps more if they can get some 1800MHz for there 800MHz.
Update
Looks like I might of spoken to quickly if they secure the BT deal. Though Three could as well it will be interesting out of the two who will get that.
O2 will find themselves limited in the higher speed product unless they are allowed to refarm or get tie ups with BT's 2600.
Doubtful the UK will get VoLTE before 2014..
From what i heard from people at Orange.. they had offered just under 20% and O2 offered nearly double that, but in return Apple had to extend the exclusivity period.. which in the end Apple ended up breaking & bringing forward as O2 just wasn't shifting the numbers required in the last year. i'm not bothered if Mr O2 here blows a gasket..
Ah thanks for the info I appreciate it certainly seems that O2 got a bad deal after all.
If all goes to plan EE will have roughly the same LTE coverage as their 2G coverage by the end of next year. By that time VoLTE will have been properly tested I would have thought and be ready to rollout (or will already be working). Quite a few users will by then probably have VoLTE handsets so I'm sure they are already thinking of timescales to reduce 2G spectrum to free up for LTE. Some 800Mhz here and there to fill in the gaps and the LTE network will have better coverage than 2G does now.
I didn't exactly bow out, I had a load of PCs to fix and being on here wasn't getting it done! Then I had a nice JD and coke and the telly seemed a good idea.
As you say though, O2 MUST have had the correct strategy which is evident in their massive subscriber numbers.
You are probably correct but how are they going to deal with that specific problem that is bound to occur?
At the bottom of our yard my Brother's Three iPhone has no service (it used to have 2G), my EE iPhone has a usable 1-2 bars 2G.
It follows that when Three and EE add 1800 LTE to our mast, I will have LTE with 2G fall-back. He will have LTE but then won't be able to connect a call.
There are many many places around here where that will be the case.
How are they going to explain that in a non-technical way to customers?
As 3 are selling their service as 'ultrafast' and not distinguishing between 3G and 4g, does anyone think they will launch LTE for dongles and mifi (ie data only) initally and keep smartphone users on 3G DC which is fast enough for browsing, email, apps etc. That way there will be no issue of having an LTE signal on phone and not able to make a voice call.
True and I agree that this is a fault/problem but it's not something that will cripple Three and it already has a perfectly good alternative in hand. It's extremely unlikely anyone who can't get a 3G signal on there phones from Three are likely to get a 4G signal as all the 4G masts are also the 3G ones they may get a better 4G signal but the 3G should still be good enough for calls/texting. Plus in any areas where this is going to occur isn't going to get 4G till at least mid/late next year and voLTE is quite possibly being rolled out by then.
I extremely doubt that at all because the main areas they will starting rolling the LTE out to customers will be areas where DC exists.
Roll out this year for Three is likely to be areas that have 3G fallback, cities. Next year when the LTE coverage expands into rural locations and when 800 may come in to things then 4G with no fallback it will be a huge issue. MBNL generally have great 3G coverage in the locations that Three will use as launch cities.
I agree it certainly will be a problem then until voLTE. I think and let's be honest if you live in a rural [Extremely rural even then] then you probably best going with Vodafone/EE/O2. Until voLTE becomes the norm which it is going to be so you have the 2G as back up. But if you live anywhere where you can make calls on 3G then you are going to be fine.
Hmm you do have a good point there it is slightly bizarre/weird. It really is going come down to when Three roll out voLTE if they can get it done before going into bad signal rural areas than they will be fine if not then it is going to be a problem.