Aren't the houses in Aberdeen all built from granite which is hard for 2100MHz 3G to penetrate?
This makes me so cross, we've let Wavejock propagate this thing about 900Mhz, 1800 and 2100 over and over that people now actually believe it's a massive factor when it's not.
It is true (and he's right) that 900Mhz vs 2100Mhz has a better in building penetration, but we're only talking about 3-4 dB's difference between 900 and 2100, and usually it's commercial premises that are most affected due to the steel frames etc.
One consideration which is often forgotten about is that EE / 3 take this into account when cell planning, meaning you are more likely to be closer to a cell, which improves / negates the effect.
This will influence the radio design by increasing the required site count.
Certain people on this forum and elsewhere repeat this stuff without really looking at the amount of dB loss, or considering that operators plan and make provisions for this loss when they plan do cell planning. Whist there is some truth, it's misunderstanding and even deliberate misinformation by some that cause this mostly over-exaggerated believe to become widespread.
New houses are worse for indoor reception than the granite buildings in Aberdeen. Due to the metal lined insulation that is used. However Aberdeen does suffer from scatter a little due to the metal particles in Granite, it's not a major issue as very little residential properties away from the main streets are made from it.
As Thine says very little difference between 900 & 1800/2100 so little in fact that you'd not see a difference in 'bars' on your phone. The fact EE/Three have more inner city sites more than makes up for it.
New houses are worse for indoor reception than the granite buildings in Aberdeen. Due to the metal lined insulation that is used. However Aberdeen does suffer from scatter a little due to the metal particles in Granite, it's not a major issue as very little residential properties away from the main streets are made from it.
As Thine says very little difference between 900 & 1800/2100 so little in fact that you'd not see a difference in 'bars' on your phone. The fact EE/Three have more inner city sites more than makes up for it.
Yeah it's true that I live in a brand new house and I'm not far from a Three transmitter, I get full bars outside. Inside I get one bar or no signal.
New houses are worse for indoor reception than the granite buildings in Aberdeen. Due to the metal lined insulation that is used. However Aberdeen does suffer from scatter a little due to the metal particles in Granite, it's not a major issue as very little residential properties away from the main streets are made from it.
As Thine says very little difference between 900 & 1800/2100 so little in fact that you'd not see a difference in 'bars' on your phone. The fact EE/Three have more inner city sites more than makes up for it.
Exactly, when they planned the cell pattern / deployment they planned for a certain level out outdoor and indoor reception in dB for the cell area covered. The argument about in building penetration at 2100Mhz is all based upon the assumption that the cell planners planned the cells as if they were UMTS900, which they didn't.
Whist there is truth to the fact about the two when compared head to head, that only stands if the cell deployment by the operator didn't account for it (which they did) and even then it's not as greater difference as some would try and make out.
This makes me so cross, we've let Wavejock propagate this thing about 900Mhz, 1800 and 2100 over and over that people now actually believe it's a massive factor when it's not.
It is true (and he's right) that 900Mhz vs 2100Mhz has a better in building penetration, but we're only talking about 3-4 dB's difference between 900 and 2100, and usually it's commercial premises that are most affected due to the steel frames etc.
Sorry to upset you. I am not one of Wavejock's acolytes (does he have any?) & find his apologies for O2's dismal performance laughable. However if I remember my physics correctly 3dB is quite significant as it is actually a change in signal strength by a factor of two as dBs are measured on a logarithmic scale. So to make up for that signal drop the 2100MHz transmitter has to be sited half the distance away of the 900MHz transmitter.
900MHz is far more robust than either 1800 or 2100MHz - FACT!
Networks using 900MHz don't need as many transmission sites because lower frequencies cover distance more effectively.
In towns 900MHz penetrates buildings far more effectively than either 1800 or 2100MHz - Another FACT!
It makes no difference what the frequency range is used for, GSM, UMTS, LTE - the core characteristics of the radio propagation determines the performance a cell site can deliver.
That is why 850Mhz is the most desirable frequency range for LTE and why 3 wanted some ring fenced in the forthcoming auction. 850MHz will be cheaper to deploy as it covers more area with less infrastructure and performs better in built-up areas.
Supporters of networks with only high frequency spectrum may like to belittle the superior performance characteristics of the lower frequencies for mobile use but in doing so they expose their well known agenda to promote a single mobile operator on these boards.
Meanwhile in an Ultrafast 3 area I still can only achieve 3-4Mbps using an HSPA+ dongle. I have seen lots of speed tests showing more but can't seem to replicate anything like the same performance despite the signal strength being pretty good.
Sorry to upset you. I am not one of Wavejock's acolytes (does he have any?) & find his apologies for O2's dismal performance laughable. However if I remember my physics correctly 3dB is quite significant as it is actually a change in signal strength by a factor of two as dBs are measured on a logarithmic scale. So to make up for that signal drop the 2100MHz transmitter has to be sited half the distance away of the 900MHz transmitter.
That would have been factored into the coverage plan though. The argument about in building penetration at 2100Mhz is all based upon the assumption that the cell planners planned the cells as if they were UMTS900, which they didn't.
As you say, laughable I took the advice in one of the previous threads along with (I think) a bunch of others and don't rise to the bait and just ignore.
The fact EE/Three have more inner city sites more than makes up for it.
Is that true?
Can we have some reference to substantiate the above statement?
As far as I can see Vodafone have the most cell sites in the UK of any operator, 13,500+. MBNL reported 12,000 when they consolidated 3 and T-Mobile's networks and added 6000 extra sites with Orange but they are in the process of being consolidated also. The MBNL target is 18,000 merged cell sites across the UK according to their press releases. The joint O2/Vodafone site count will be 18,500 sites when completed. Neither will finish consolidation until at least 2016.
What is Vodafone's deployment of 900 3G right now? Its far far away from being a full roll out so the coverage is still better.
3db outdoor coverage but the indoor results are very different. again most users will not see much of an improvement LIKE FOR LIKE. However seeing that they took this into consideration when building a 2100 network still better to be with EE or Three.
EE & Three has 18,000 shared sites. (MBNL 12K + 6K Orange)
With another 4K sites being built for Three in the next few years........
So when O2/Voda finish consolidating with the 18.5K sites. Three will have 22.5K. Two years earlier.
Lets not even get into the separate issue of EE's 2G refresh which will allow most sites to be easily and quickly 3G AND 4G upgradable.
Meanwhile in an Ultrafast 3 area I still can only achieve 3-4Mbps using an HSPA+ dongle. I have seen lots of speed tests showing more but can't seem to replicate anything like the same performance despite the signal strength being pretty good.
Can you tell me what speed you get on your beloved O2 in the same area please..
What is Vodafone's deployment of 900 3G right now? Its far far away from being a full roll out so the coverage is still better.
3db outdoor coverage but the indoor results are very different. again most users will not see much of an improvement LIKE FOR LIKE. However seeing that they took this into consideration when building a 2100 network still better to be with EE or Three.
EE & Three has 18,000 shared sites. (MBNL 12K + 6K Orange)
With another 4K sites being built for Three in the next few years........
So when O2/Voda finish consolidating with the 18.5K sites. Three will have 22.5K. Two years earlier.
Lets not even get into the separate issue of EE's 2G refresh which will allow most sites to be easily and quickly 3G AND 4G upgradable.
The above is not correct. The 6000 Orange sites are now being consolidated and will not be additional otherwise what was the point of the merger! As for the extra 4000 3 UK sites, those are being installed at new or existing consolidated sites and many will replace existing stand-alone 3 sites. MBNL are decommissioning 9000 sites and consolidating 6000 Orange sites, that makes 15,000 fewer sites which is good news as it will make the network far more efficient and environmentally friendly.
As for users not seeing much difference? How is that possible when the 900MHz technology is proven to be more robust in built up areas. It's not clear by any means how many sites each operator has in each town/city but as responses from contributors vary it follows that every area is different although where its deployed I'm sure 900MHz is a big advantage for indoor use.
Speed tests using the same HSPA+ dongle in my area last month produced results (Maximum download rates) of: 3 - 3.5Mbps, O2 (GiffGaff SIM) - 5Mbps, Vodafone - 7.5Mbps, not tried EE although I have a T-Mobile SIM but it would need activated to test the local speed.
So your saying that EE do not have 18000 sites available to them at this present time? THAT IS NOT TRUE, as they DO. Soon to be part of MBNL.. pretty sure it was years end so many will already be available to Three. As EE is yet to decommission many of the Orange sites the 18K might actually be conservative at the current time.
Untrue that many of the new 4000 SITES are in the same location. So they as a combined force have more masts than Vodafonica.
Can we see screen caps or links to these speed tests as it always seems you bend the facts to try and prove an argument.
Can we have some facts on O2's and Voda's 900mhz roll out. Not going to provide much benefit if it's only say 20 % of 3G sites currently. From what i've been told it's currently heavily focused on London (although lots of cities have a few masts with it.) From my experience from last week (so recent and valid) London on O2 has slow speeds and the coverage isn't much to write home about either. Three was the network to be on...My experience is backed up by one of the leading test websites http://www.rootmetrics.com/uk/compare-operators/united-kingdom/london/london-october-2012 (EE can be excluded from this as they were not tested combined) EE wasn't too bad in my experience,Vodafone similar although pretty dire as you head out of the city.
Root Metrics are currently doing Glasgow & Edinburgh so we'll see what they have to say about Voda and O2 soon enough Wave!
EE have 18000 sites now but that number includes 6000 Orange sites that are being consolidated into the MBNL share. Network sharing affords EE customers access to all of those but not for long as there will be a huge cull of sites over the next three years.
The links I provided clearly state how many sites each of the combined operators will have once their consolidation has been completed. sorry if the facts don't match the presumptions but they are quotes from very reliable sources. If some evidence exists to disprove the statistics referenced I would be happy to view it.
MBNL have no plans to have more transmission sites than the combined O2/Vodafone share according to any of the statistics provided to date. It's 18000 (MBNL) Vs 18,500 (Voda/O2).
I have no time to upload speed test screen caps at the moment but I may try another test soon and will link that info when I have done so.
So your saying that EE do not have 18000 sites available to them at this present time? THAT IS NOT TRUE, as they DO. Soon to be part of MBNL.. pretty sure it was years end so many will already be available to Three. As EE is yet to decommission many of the Orange sites the 18K might actually be conservative at the current time.
Untrue that many of the new 4000 SITES are in the same location. So they as a combined force have more masts than Vodafonica.
Can we see screen caps or links to these speed tests as it always seems you bend the facts to try and prove an argument.
Can we have some facts on O2's and Voda's 900mhz roll out. Not going to provide much benefit if it's only say 20 % of 3G sites currently. From what i've been told it's currently heavily focused on London (although lots of cities have a few masts with it.) From my experience from last week (so recent and valid) London on O2 has slow speeds and the coverage isn't much to write home about either. Three was the network to be on...My experience is backed up by one of the leading test websites http://www.rootmetrics.com/uk/compare-operators/united-kingdom/london/london-october-2012 (EE can be excluded from this as they were not tested combined) EE wasn't too bad in my experience,Vodafone similar although pretty dire as you head out of the city.
Root Metrics are currently doing Glasgow & Edinburgh so we'll see what they have to say about Voda and O2 soon enough Wave!
Wow that root metrics stuff is interesting, we're really starting to see proper measurement now to help consumers make choices. It'll be interesting as more areas get surveyed.
Wave: Three will have 4000 more than MBNL. So once all of the 18000 sites are in MBNL they will will have more than anybody having 22000...
Your link about MBNL is donkeys old.
The 'cull' will see EE still having 18K which currently it is operating with more.
I doubt EE/MBNL do not have plans for more masts... that you cannot know so don't say you do.
The fact that EE are upgrading nearly all 2G sites to have 3G & 4G capability means that this is not the case. MBNL and EE are currently very far ahead in regards to network investment. As single networks they were further ahead of Voda & O2 in regards to 3G to start with. Vodafonica are only now getting that wake up call and trying to catch up so please remove yourself from that high horse.
Little fact you have not actually stated is that MBNL is 18000 3G sites.
The Vodafonica deal is 2G and 3G (added together) infrastructure... totalling 18500 sites.
Wave: Three will have 4000 more than MBNL. So once all of the 18000 sites are in MBNL they will will have more than anybody having 22000.
No they won't..... MBNL operate a RAN. A Radio Access Network that all the carriers will have access to on every site. Not much point otherwise!
The data from MBNL is current and about their Diamond Programme. It does NOT state 3 will have 4000 independent sites or that their 4000 will be additional. It simply states 3 will have 4000 Base Stations installed. Not sites.... 'Base Stations' - meaning equipment installed at new or existing shared sites. As part of the same programme 9000 Sites are being decommissioned and 6000 consolodated, so it's obvious that a lot of base stations will have to be re-sited!
MBNL have been clever to list lots of figures but have been a little vague on the total numbers (as you would expect), but there is no doubt that 18,000 is the total number of sites MBNL have ambition to operate for their owners EE/3UK. That has been confirmed by their property director and confirmed elsewhere.
Little fact you have not actually stated is that MBNL is 18000 3G sites.
The Vodafonica deal is 2G and 3G (added together) infrastructure... totalling 18500 sites.
A lot of the sites for O2 and VF for 2G and 3G are separate, they still have a lot of 2G only sites.
To give you an example this is my local O2 2G only mast look into the trees and you'll see it.
According to sitefinder all of the masts in my local area carry both GSM and UMTS and have done for years. What a waste of site rental money duplicating GSM and UMTS within an area. Clicked on about 20 masts to see and all the Vodafone and O2 ones have 900GSM and 2100UMTS on them at minimum, many also have 900UMTS. Just as one would expect. There are still some 3 masts with no sharing but I suspect these will be re-sited to Orange or T-Mobile sites in the future or vice versa. Same will happen with Voda/O2 cell sites.
Number of sites is a bit of a red herring as it's well documented what will happen and that is there will in a couple of years be two very similar mast networks covering much the same number of people. Right now with all the consolidation it's difficult to quantify what network has the best coverage in each area but it certainly is not the same across the UK so as ever local advice is best to determine what works best in any given area.
Right now with all the consolidation it's difficult to quantify what network has the best coverage in each area.
Root metrics have put a lot of work into doing just that, and are doing it area by area, here's London which shows 3 as the best performing network in O2's head office / home town of Slough !!!!
The number of masts isn't a red herring, it's a key part of network investment and affects the coverage and performance of the network. Three will keep their 4,000 extra masts MBNL have built them especially for Three, if they were going to be integrated into MBNL then they would have done it from day one.
The root metrics London area tests were both indoors (at 102 locations), outdoors (conducted in the scouter’s parked vehicle during indoor testing), and during drive tests (covering 2,292 miles).
Lets see some proof that MBNL operate separate sites for a single operator....... This has been asked time and again and has yet to produce any credible evidence.
The only reason some 3 sites still appear on the sitefinder list as single operator sites is because Site Finder has not been updated by some networks for some time. According to MBNL they completely integrated the RAN for T-Mobile and 3 a couple of years ago with 12,000 UMTS sites.
You'll probably find that the 4000 extra 'base stations' are small street based mircocell sites similar to this one. http://goo.gl/maps/1aO3m
They would count as sites..... not base stations. Base stations are hardware that are installed at transmission sites. A site can be any power or height, its still a transmission site.
Still waiting to see some hard evidence rather than the guesswork relating to any single company's 'EXCLUSIVE' provision within the MBNL arrangement.
Lets see some proof that MBNL operate separate sites for a single operator....... This has been asked time and again and has yet to produce any credible evidence.
The only reason some 3 sites still appear on the sitefinder list as single operator sites is because Site Finder has not been updated by some networks for some time. According to MBNL they completely integrated the RAN for T-Mobile and 3 a couple of years ago with 12,000 UMTS sites.
3/4 of the way down that under it shows number of sites in 2010 and it shows more 3 sites than T-mobile. Also MBNL http://www.mbnl.co.uk/diamond.php say 4,000 sites to be installed for H3G.
Same as the integration manager for MBNL's linked in profile says 4,000 H3G sites under the April 2012 - present section http://uk.linkedin.com/in/cfoley1
Modernised 18,000 base stations
•Decommissioned 9,000 sites (making savings to enable the investment)
•Integrated 6,000 ex-Orange sites with the MBNL shared network
•Installed 4,000 3G base stations for H3G
Comments
This makes me so cross, we've let Wavejock propagate this thing about 900Mhz, 1800 and 2100 over and over that people now actually believe it's a massive factor when it's not.
It is true (and he's right) that 900Mhz vs 2100Mhz has a better in building penetration, but we're only talking about 3-4 dB's difference between 900 and 2100, and usually it's commercial premises that are most affected due to the steel frames etc.
One consideration which is often forgotten about is that EE / 3 take this into account when cell planning, meaning you are more likely to be closer to a cell, which improves / negates the effect.
http://www.vilicom.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Penetration-Loss.pdf
Certain people on this forum and elsewhere repeat this stuff without really looking at the amount of dB loss, or considering that operators plan and make provisions for this loss when they plan do cell planning. Whist there is some truth, it's misunderstanding and even deliberate misinformation by some that cause this mostly over-exaggerated believe to become widespread.
As Thine says very little difference between 900 & 1800/2100 so little in fact that you'd not see a difference in 'bars' on your phone. The fact EE/Three have more inner city sites more than makes up for it.
Yeah it's true that I live in a brand new house and I'm not far from a Three transmitter, I get full bars outside. Inside I get one bar or no signal.
Exactly, when they planned the cell pattern / deployment they planned for a certain level out outdoor and indoor reception in dB for the cell area covered. The argument about in building penetration at 2100Mhz is all based upon the assumption that the cell planners planned the cells as if they were UMTS900, which they didn't.
Whist there is truth to the fact about the two when compared head to head, that only stands if the cell deployment by the operator didn't account for it (which they did) and even then it's not as greater difference as some would try and make out.
Networks using 900MHz don't need as many transmission sites because lower frequencies cover distance more effectively.
In towns 900MHz penetrates buildings far more effectively than either 1800 or 2100MHz - Another FACT!
It makes no difference what the frequency range is used for, GSM, UMTS, LTE - the core characteristics of the radio propagation determines the performance a cell site can deliver.
That is why 850Mhz is the most desirable frequency range for LTE and why 3 wanted some ring fenced in the forthcoming auction. 850MHz will be cheaper to deploy as it covers more area with less infrastructure and performs better in built-up areas.
Supporters of networks with only high frequency spectrum may like to belittle the superior performance characteristics of the lower frequencies for mobile use but in doing so they expose their well known agenda to promote a single mobile operator on these boards.
Meanwhile in an Ultrafast 3 area I still can only achieve 3-4Mbps using an HSPA+ dongle. I have seen lots of speed tests showing more but can't seem to replicate anything like the same performance despite the signal strength being pretty good.
That would have been factored into the coverage plan though. The argument about in building penetration at 2100Mhz is all based upon the assumption that the cell planners planned the cells as if they were UMTS900, which they didn't.
As you say, laughable I took the advice in one of the previous threads along with (I think) a bunch of others and don't rise to the bait and just ignore.
Is that true?
Can we have some reference to substantiate the above statement?
As far as I can see Vodafone have the most cell sites in the UK of any operator, 13,500+. MBNL reported 12,000 when they consolidated 3 and T-Mobile's networks and added 6000 extra sites with Orange but they are in the process of being consolidated also. The MBNL target is 18,000 merged cell sites across the UK according to their press releases. The joint O2/Vodafone site count will be 18,500 sites when completed. Neither will finish consolidation until at least 2016.
3db outdoor coverage but the indoor results are very different. again most users will not see much of an improvement LIKE FOR LIKE. However seeing that they took this into consideration when building a 2100 network still better to be with EE or Three.
EE & Three has 18,000 shared sites. (MBNL 12K + 6K Orange)
With another 4K sites being built for Three in the next few years........
So when O2/Voda finish consolidating with the 18.5K sites. Three will have 22.5K. Two years earlier.
Lets not even get into the separate issue of EE's 2G refresh which will allow most sites to be easily and quickly 3G AND 4G upgradable.
Can you tell me what speed you get on your beloved O2 in the same area please..
The above is not correct. The 6000 Orange sites are now being consolidated and will not be additional otherwise what was the point of the merger! As for the extra 4000 3 UK sites, those are being installed at new or existing consolidated sites and many will replace existing stand-alone 3 sites. MBNL are decommissioning 9000 sites and consolidating 6000 Orange sites, that makes 15,000 fewer sites which is good news as it will make the network far more efficient and environmentally friendly.
MBNL state clearly they will have 18,000 sites (the MBNL contract manager confirms this figure) http://www.yatedo.com/p/Paddy+Jackson/normal/5366685abf88647bac6c38fc77626df1, after all consolidation is completed, Vodafone/O2 will have 18,500 (confirmed here:http://www.mobiletoday.co.uk/News/22724/oft_clears_vodafone_o2_network_share.aspx . Not a huge difference as one would expect as both will use broadly similar technology and equipment.
As for users not seeing much difference? How is that possible when the 900MHz technology is proven to be more robust in built up areas. It's not clear by any means how many sites each operator has in each town/city but as responses from contributors vary it follows that every area is different although where its deployed I'm sure 900MHz is a big advantage for indoor use.
Speed tests using the same HSPA+ dongle in my area last month produced results (Maximum download rates) of: 3 - 3.5Mbps, O2 (GiffGaff SIM) - 5Mbps, Vodafone - 7.5Mbps, not tried EE although I have a T-Mobile SIM but it would need activated to test the local speed.
Untrue that many of the new 4000 SITES are in the same location. So they as a combined force have more masts than Vodafonica.
Can we see screen caps or links to these speed tests as it always seems you bend the facts to try and prove an argument.
Can we have some facts on O2's and Voda's 900mhz roll out. Not going to provide much benefit if it's only say 20 % of 3G sites currently. From what i've been told it's currently heavily focused on London (although lots of cities have a few masts with it.) From my experience from last week (so recent and valid) London on O2 has slow speeds and the coverage isn't much to write home about either. Three was the network to be on...My experience is backed up by one of the leading test websites http://www.rootmetrics.com/uk/compare-operators/united-kingdom/london/london-october-2012 (EE can be excluded from this as they were not tested combined) EE wasn't too bad in my experience,Vodafone similar although pretty dire as you head out of the city.
Root Metrics are currently doing Glasgow & Edinburgh so we'll see what they have to say about Voda and O2 soon enough Wave!
The links I provided clearly state how many sites each of the combined operators will have once their consolidation has been completed. sorry if the facts don't match the presumptions but they are quotes from very reliable sources. If some evidence exists to disprove the statistics referenced I would be happy to view it.
MBNL have no plans to have more transmission sites than the combined O2/Vodafone share according to any of the statistics provided to date. It's 18000 (MBNL) Vs 18,500 (Voda/O2).
I have no time to upload speed test screen caps at the moment but I may try another test soon and will link that info when I have done so.
Wow that root metrics stuff is interesting, we're really starting to see proper measurement now to help consumers make choices. It'll be interesting as more areas get surveyed.
Your link about MBNL is donkeys old.
The 'cull' will see EE still having 18K which currently it is operating with more.
I doubt EE/MBNL do not have plans for more masts... that you cannot know so don't say you do.
The fact that EE are upgrading nearly all 2G sites to have 3G & 4G capability means that this is not the case. MBNL and EE are currently very far ahead in regards to network investment. As single networks they were further ahead of Voda & O2 in regards to 3G to start with. Vodafonica are only now getting that wake up call and trying to catch up so please remove yourself from that high horse.
Little fact you have not actually stated is that MBNL is 18000 3G sites.
The Vodafonica deal is 2G and 3G (added together) infrastructure... totalling 18500 sites.
No they won't..... MBNL operate a RAN. A Radio Access Network that all the carriers will have access to on every site. Not much point otherwise!
The data from MBNL is current and about their Diamond Programme. It does NOT state 3 will have 4000 independent sites or that their 4000 will be additional. It simply states 3 will have 4000 Base Stations installed. Not sites.... 'Base Stations' - meaning equipment installed at new or existing shared sites. As part of the same programme 9000 Sites are being decommissioned and 6000 consolodated, so it's obvious that a lot of base stations will have to be re-sited!
MBNL have been clever to list lots of figures but have been a little vague on the total numbers (as you would expect), but there is no doubt that 18,000 is the total number of sites MBNL have ambition to operate for their owners EE/3UK. That has been confirmed by their property director and confirmed elsewhere.
A lot of the sites for O2 and VF for 2G and 3G are separate, they still have a lot of 2G only sites.
To give you an example this is my local O2 2G only mast look into the trees and you'll see it.
The 3G one is just down the road here.
MBNL's figures are 3G only, where as O2 still operate a huge number of separate 2G and 3G sites.
Number of sites is a bit of a red herring as it's well documented what will happen and that is there will in a couple of years be two very similar mast networks covering much the same number of people. Right now with all the consolidation it's difficult to quantify what network has the best coverage in each area but it certainly is not the same across the UK so as ever local advice is best to determine what works best in any given area.
Root metrics have put a lot of work into doing just that, and are doing it area by area, here's London which shows 3 as the best performing network in O2's head office / home town of Slough !!!!
http://www.rootmetrics.com/uk/compare-operators/united-kingdom/london/london-october-2012/
The number of masts isn't a red herring, it's a key part of network investment and affects the coverage and performance of the network. Three will keep their 4,000 extra masts MBNL have built them especially for Three, if they were going to be integrated into MBNL then they would have done it from day one.
The root metrics London area tests were both indoors (at 102 locations), outdoors (conducted in the scouter’s parked vehicle during indoor testing), and during drive tests (covering 2,292 miles).
The only reason some 3 sites still appear on the sitefinder list as single operator sites is because Site Finder has not been updated by some networks for some time. According to MBNL they completely integrated the RAN for T-Mobile and 3 a couple of years ago with 12,000 UMTS sites.
They would count as sites..... not base stations. Base stations are hardware that are installed at transmission sites. A site can be any power or height, its still a transmission site.
Still waiting to see some hard evidence rather than the guesswork relating to any single company's 'EXCLUSIVE' provision within the MBNL arrangement.
http://efficiency2010.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/uploads/documents/03-Efficiency%20Forum%20Paris_MBNL.pdf
3/4 of the way down that under it shows number of sites in 2010 and it shows more 3 sites than T-mobile. Also MBNL http://www.mbnl.co.uk/diamond.php say 4,000 sites to be installed for H3G.
Same as the integration manager for MBNL's linked in profile says 4,000 H3G sites under the April 2012 - present section http://uk.linkedin.com/in/cfoley1