4G (LTE) should be available in the UK at the end of this year thanks to the EU. Whilst Ofcom the laggards that they are had been "bearing it in mind" for some time 2013 on 800Mhz after Digital Switch Over of Analogue TV.

The EC decision states that the 900 and 1800 MHz spectrum must allow use of these frequencies for LTE devices by the end of 2011. This comes as part of their harmonisation plans to allow EU wide roaming for these kinds of devices.

Ofcom must be hating all this progress and harmonisation that is being forced on it

4G services have been available in the USA for a while now.

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/4...d-of-2011.html

Which network will bite first then?

4G not coming this year. You forget that although legislation might allow for 4G, it won't be here until the networks physically spend the investment money and roll out LTE networks. As they've only started getting a return on their 3G build-outs in the last couple of years, I'm sure they're in no particular rush again over LTE.

Customers aren't either

should spent the money on the 3g network to make it as good as possible first and then look into going to 4g later in time as the costs will be huge.

does 4g allow the signal to travel over the wider distance or is it just for fast data speeds ?

i dont have any issues with 3g as its fast enough for me on 3.

The data rate of 3G is up to 2 Mbps, whereas that of 4G is 100 Mbps to 1 Gbps stationary.

They have already started. when the licences are awarded they will be able to roll it out very quickly. Rolling out LTE is also much less expensive and complicated than 3G.

4G won't take off as long as networks are only bundling 500MB of data with contracts. You could go through that in minutes. Need a massive rethink of data usage caps to promote it. Also a more varied choice of capable phones and a few killer apps to take proper advantage of it. It's not just handsets and masts but the backend stuff needs to be able to handle that sort of data throughput, if it becomes popular and there are lots of heavy users.

That article seems rather US-centric. The single network operator (Verizon) who has rolled out a true 4G network, has a 3G network that can only do about 2Mbit downstream.

The rest of the world is rather different. I am not sure if upgrades have happened or are planned, but the UK networks all operate at at least 7.2Mbps down with the potential to upgrade to up to 42Mbit. There may not be quite the same rush to blanket the country in 4G when 3G has plenty of life in it yet.

Saw LTE in use by one of the networks recently at a demo day

4G = 1gbit/1gbit, 100mbit/s when moving @ high speed (like a car or train). i doubt this is coming yet..

No real 4G nets running in the world yet (absolutely not in USA or Sweden where they allready use a fake branding of LTE which doesnt meet the 4G spec).

I think it would be worth getting if they say give you up to 20GB a month or more.

That is a rather unfair thing to say, considering that LTE Advanced seems to be rather "up in the air" (pun not intended) at the moment, which IIRC is the only true 4G standard according to the older definition by the ITU. It isn't really a "fake branding of LTE". They are running LTE networks.

None of the telcos are going to buy obsolete equipment, it is all likely to be easily upgradeable to LTE Advanced once things settle down.

(the exceptions in the US are of course AT&T and T-Mobile, who are trying to claim they have 4G networks. Verizon really does as it has an LTE network)

I would agree the HSPA+ networks are not 4G, maybe 3.75G

But what would you call the WiMAX networks?

I believe LTE is often branded as 3.9G, so maybe the same for WiMax? I am not really sure.

Still, it's a lot closer to "4G" than the HSPA networks of T-Mobile and AT&T.

i swear i read somewhere that 02 was going to release this at the end of 2011

cant remember where now

They are in the process of upgrading their 3G cells so that all that would be needed is a software update to support LTE which is what they are saying is 4G like in the USA.

Other networks will also be doing it.

4G (LTE) will be launched on 850Mhz once analogue tv has been removed from that bandwidth. All of the mobile operators will have to bid for that resource.

Meanwhile only Vodafone and Telefonica 02 have 900Mhz bandwidth which can now be used for UMTS 3G HSDPA and that spectrum whilst not 4G is vastly more robust than the 2100Mhz 3G that all 5 UK mobile networks already have.

Many smartphones now have 900Mhz UMTS reception on-board, so if users want the best access to mobile 3G/HSDPA on both 900Mhz and 2100Mhz, there are only two networks in the UK with those - Vodafone and Telefonica 02.

4G proper will arrive after a bidding process in 2-3 years.

Yeah, considering the amounts all networks paid to get 3G licenses and the additional expense the likes of 3 have in needing more masts etc due to lower range and penetration of 2100 vs 900 I think that decision by OfCOM was very unfair and amounts to a state subsidy.

Not really. Perhaps if 3 and others had recognised what was important to mobile customers they could have done much better. 3 was (and still is) a high speed mobile network with the most bandwidth that thought video calling was a big draw and that the mobile Internet should be avoided and replaced by their own 'walled garden' of selected information.

Hell mend those companies that simply did not recognise what the benefits of high speed mobile networks were. Why reward failures with no foresight?

Their 3G coverage is sorely lacking - I live in a rural area and the other three networks do a much better job of it. Hopefully the use of 900MHz will help.

Not quite, 3 were a new network and needed to build out a data network, so they started with limited capacity and a walled garden. It was always the intention to build out a data network and un-wall, which they did. They now have the best data network throughout the UK and the most 3G masts, if they ever launch 4G then they already have the structures and I'm sure they will do well.

They are the market leader in mobile broadband, the lowest costs mobile broadband, have the most 3G masts and capacity and offer bigger data allowances than the majority of competitors. They have also doubled the amount of pre-pay customers in the last year and have recently started making profit.

The future is bright for Three.

What you're talking about is completely irrelevant here.

Are we talking about the same thing here? I'm talking about OfCOM's decision to allow 3G on 900MHz for free to O2 and Vodafone. It's nothing to do with 3's size, it would be unfair even if 3 was larger.

The original 2100MHz licenses were bought on the basis that that would be the only way to serve 3G mobile in this country. It also forced networks to build out data networks with completely new infrastructure. It requires them to have a lower return on capital employed as they need more masts per area due to lower range and penetration of 2100MHz etc etc.

They could have at least asked O2 and Vodafone to make a payment to get 3G900 but they got it for free! The fairest thing to do would have been to re-tender 900MHz for 3G use. If Vodafone and O2 didn't like that as their licenses on 900 had yet to expire the next fairest thing to do would have been to leave it as 3G only on 2100MHz and 2G only on 900MHz.

Going back to your point - all the networks had the same ideas about 3G as Three did. It's not like they had some poorer vision compared to the rest. In terms of servicing the customer - who is best now? All the networks have been reducing their data allowances as far as they can down to a base minimum of 500MB, Three has gone in the opposite direction with all-you-can-eat; they've done tons of innovative stuff over the years like free skype and WLM on ordinary phones, lots of different kinds of tarriffs etc.

In return for having given O2 and Vodafone 3G900, I think they should face some sort of disadvantage in the auction for 4G on 850MHz. Give Three a protected amount (and some for Everything Everywhere too but less because they are now a dominant player).

Not if the get crowded out of the 4G auction.

Well they weren't crowded out of the 3G license, and they are owned by a massive parent company, bigger than some of the other networks, and the parent company has a history of investing in new telecoms technologies.