[Daveoc64]

Quote:

Originally Posted by moox

They only met it because of Ofcom's kick up the backside, they continue to lag behind 3 other networks today.

Are you an o2 employee or paid shill? You do seem to defend them to the hilt.

Neither.

I have phones on all 5 of the networks.

I'm speaking from experience here, and I would not use a network other than O2 for my main phone.

IMO T-Mobile covering large portions of the ocean is pointless to me when they don't cover my home.

[Thine Wonk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daveoc64

Ofcom doesn't.

This is a serious misconception.

Ofcom clearly stated that the maps they released were:

1) Out of date (and that was nearly a year ago)

2) Not suitable for establishing the level of coverage each network has.

Ofcom used much better criteria for determining if the licence terms had been kept to (O2 as with all of the networks had done - so I have no idea why you think they were dragged over coals).

http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/1309...-3g-ofcom-fine

http://www.brandrepublic.com/news/78...CMP=ILC-SEARCH

Quote:

Ofcom announced today that, while four of the five licensees have complied with rules requiring their 3G networks to cover 80 per cent of the population by 31 December 2007, O2's network only covers 75.7 per cent of the population.

Quote:

Ofcom warned O2 that if it does not meet the roll-out obligation by the end of June, then it will shorten the term of its 3G licence by four months.

Should that happen, then the mobile phone operator will face a potential £40m fine from the regulator.

Whilst we're at it here's O2's apology to the city for network performance:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/29/o2_apology/

Quote:

O2 has apologised for the repeated network failures in the capital before Christmas, claiming it was caught unawares by excessive data use.

[Daveoc64]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thine Wonk

http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/1309...-3g-ofcom-fine

Whilst we're at it here's O2's apology to the city for network performance:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/29/o2_apology/

As above, they complied within the time limit, so there was no fine.

[moox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daveoc64

As above, they complied within the time limit, so there was no fine.

But what if Ofcom hadn't done anything? o2 would continue to contravene their licence conditions. They only mysteriously met the conditions after this because they don't want to be punished, or risk having their multi-billion pound licence shortened.

Even now they only seem to want to meet the bare minimum - I suppose that's for the best when the rest of your network seems to be dysfunctional (speed and reliability wise).

[Daveoc64]

Quote:

Originally Posted by moox

But what if Ofcom hadn't done anything? o2 would continue to contravene their licence conditions. They only mysteriously met the conditions after this because they don't want to be punished, or risk having their multi-billion pound licence shortened.

I doubt it.

In order to increase coverage by that much, O2 would have needed to apply for planning application at many, many sites.

Four months would not have been enough to do that.

[Thine Wonk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daveoc64

I doubt it.

In order to increase coverage by that much, O2 would have needed to apply for planning application at many, many sites.

Four months would not have been enough to do that.

Well they must have managed it or been let off by Ofcom, either way it was a poor show from O2 being the only network in the UK not to meet the minimum 80% coverage requirements of the licence.

[Daveoc64]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thine Wonk

Well they must have managed it or been let off by Ofcom, either way it was a poor show from O2 being the only network in the UK not to meet the minimum 80% coverage requirements of the licence.

Two things happened:

O2 demanded (with backing of the other networks) that Ofcom's measurement of coverage was changed slightly to make it more technically robust.

Secondly, O2 continued with the rollout they already had planned.

[moox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daveoc64

I doubt it.

In order to increase coverage by that much, O2 would have needed to apply for planning application at many, many sites.

Four months would not have been enough to do that.

Would o2 be publicly chastised by the regulator in that case, if there is clear intent that they were doing something to improve things? It also seems rather odd that the other networks could get away with it. Why did o2 suddenly have a "bulge" of new cell builds after it came out?

If things really were in the works, it shows a lot for their attitude that they were struggling to reach the required level just in time for the deadline, when other networks seem to manage well before time.

What I do find interesting is that you appear to be in the minority when it comes to o2. I guess this backs up the various news stories about o2's coverage, speeds, and reliability (all of which, not good)

[Carmen Queasy]

I am with O2 for mobile broadband and my phone. Both internet services are extremely slow despite having a good connection in areas. It's not my area, either, because I have tried it in several cities.

Using it "on the go" (train, in a car etc) is absolutely worthless.

It's these "unlimited" data plan users who are stealing all the bandwidth. Apparently a third of their data usage goes to just 0.1% of their customers who hog the networks, hence the decision to do away with unlimited plans.

The pressure from Ofcom is a good thing, though. Companies need to be 100% transparent about their coverage. I can get "up to 7.2Mbps", but I get more like 100kbps... often it's so slow I can't use it. I#m actually cancelling my mobile broadband contract as soon as it's up because it's worthless and I am payinf £30 for a lousy 3GB (which is actually decent in comparison to PAYG charges!)

Look at fixed line broadband. You could be sync'd at 20Mbps but because people connected to the same exchange are constantly downloading then it affects the network for everyone else.

[Thine Wonk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daveoc64

Two things happened:

O2 demanded (with backing of the other networks) that Ofcom's measurement of coverage was changed slightly to make it more technically robust.

Secondly, O2 continued with the rollout they already had planned.

And poor O2 were just unlucky in every one of the cases you defend... pull the other one!

O2 were unlucky enough to be picked on by Ofcom

O2 were unlucky enough to show as the least coverage on the maps Ofcom produced

O2 just happen to be unlucky on their coverage checker vs that of other networks

and O2 just happen to be unlucky in coming out very bad in independent tests like those done by The Register:





1) Three - http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2010/05...oadband_three/ 80% score overall

2) Orange - http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2010/05...adband_orange/ 75% score overall

3) Vodafone - http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2010/05...band_vodafone/ 70% score overall

4) O2 - http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2010/05..._broadband_o2/ 60% score overall

5) Virgin - http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2010/05...adband_virgin/ 55% score overall

6) T-mobile - http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2010/05...dband_tmobile/ - poorest performing overall, scoring only 50%, described as 'lacklustre' and 'little to recommend'

What The Register say about O2 following tests in 3 random cities:

Quote:

O2's performance was lacklustre to say the least with not a sniff of true HSDPA speeds

Poor speeds let O2's service down and it was the only dongle that failed to find even a basic 3G signal at one test location.

and what they say about 3:

Quote:

The clear winner is 3. Not only did it average pretty decent download speeds across all three test sites, but the dongle fired up without any glitches or hiccups. Is short, it just worked. It gets the Reg Hardware Editor's Choice award.

The best download speeds and decent value tariffs make 3 the clear winner and a viable home broadband replacement.

and finally the speed graphs:
http://www.reghardware.com/2010/05/1...and_best_buys/



3 averaged 2-3 Mbps download

O2 averaged 0.15 Mbps download




The slowest download speed on 3 was 1.95 Mbps

The FASTEST download speed at all 3 locations on O2 was 0.28Mbps

[Daveoc64]

I personally don't trust any of those tests, as just about every single one of them proves my ultimate point:

- Choose a network based on what works best for you.

[Lummo]

As somebody else said, its the result of O2 trying to get as many customers as possible and the newest phones without maintaining their network, now it's coming back to bite them on the arse!

I use to have iPhone 3G on O2 and 3G signal was awful and when i did have it, it left alot to be desired. I have iPhone 3GS on Orange now and signal is much better and the speed aswell.

But everywhere is different.