Three use their own network for voice.

I think the samsung galaxy s2 is HSPA+, I don't know but I guess you can tether it on the £25 all you can eat data and get the fast data speeds.

There are more HSPA+ phones coming out over the coming months. Maybe the iphone 5 next week will be HSPA+ we don't know yet.

Dongles wise you get the premium dongle HSPA+ and 15 gigs of data a month for £17, or the mifi device + 15 gigs a month for £19 on a 24 month contract.

Orange (strongest signal but worst customer service ever)
T-Mobile (current network)
Vodafone
O2/Giffgaff (O2 had best customer service I've used)

I've been with Vodafone for 2 years now and I've only ever had "Emergency Calls Only" in a few places - places in which many other networks get no signal either.

Vodafone's 3G service is pretty dire, but their 2G isn't too shabby. O2 never used to be very good when I was with them.

Which network has given you the best/worst coverage?

The answer to this question will also depend upon geographical location. I've had quite good coverage from the joint Orange/T-mobile network but there are some areas of the Cotswolds where reception is still poor on any of the main networks though that could also be said of any other upland area too.

Oh not this rubbish again! We all appreciate what you are saying about how 2100Mhz networks need to put cells closer together. Good for you that they do where you live but that is NOT my experience in the north west of England so please stop generalising!

Best - O2 seemed to have given me the best out of all Networks I have been with, great signal/3G in all places I go

Worst - I would have said Orange to be the best, but since their merge with T-Mobile, I've found my signal and 3G service a lot weaker

Best; for 2G it's T-Mobile as while Vodafone has the same breadth of coverage T-Mobile's signal is much stronger. For 3G it's Three as they trample over all the others for quality of service, capacity and coverage.

Worst; for 2G it's O2 as their quality of service is dire. For 3G it's O2 once again, as it's clear they can't be bothered to provide it properly unless you live in an area with over 100,000 people.

Anyone on here know if there is a particular network whos signal penetrates through buildings the best... or will they all be the same?

best vodafone
worst t -mobile

Theoretically a 2G signal from O2 or Vodafone on the 900MHz band would be best.

Then a 900MHz 3G signal from either of those networks.

An 1800MHz 2G signal from T-Mobile, Orange, Vodafone or O2 would be next

Then finally a 2100MHz 3G signal from Three, T-Mobile, Orange, Vodafone or O2 would be last.

This of course assumes that the signal is going to/from the exact same place.

If you're right next to a 2100MHz 3G base station then that's going to provide you with better signal than a 900MHz base station much further away.

http://www.qualcomm.com/common/docum...Guidelines.pdf


If you read that docuement it's gives details of Hata Model and the COST 231 Walfisch-Ikegami Model for calculating loss and shows you the tables and graphs showing loss in dB. It refers to the loss as "slight", but needing further study and highly dependent on the type of building.

The loss / difference is exaggerated by some here, particularly if they don't take into account the fact that operators accommodate for it by spacing cells appropriately. 2100 is the standard 3G frequency throughout the world, and is perfectly suitable for in building use if the network is built correctly and cell spacing is done properly.

By the way the document was written by Qualcomm, a $10Bn company who are the inventors of CDMA / EVDO.

They also hold many key fundamental patents for the current UMTS air interfaces.

In summary, they say that some propagation studies on building penetration loss suggest that penetration loss decreases with increasing frequency. What seems clear is that penetration loss will be specific to a particular building or site and it should be acknowledged that building penetration may in some specific cases increase with increasing frequency.

I hope that helps you decide how much weight to put on these claims about in building penetration by Wavejock and the exaggeration, as Qualcomm say it's "slight". They invented EVDO and many of the technologies used in UTMS, plus they make the modem chipsets and baseband radio processors that go in phones made by HTC, Motorola, Sharp, Sanyo, LG and Samsung for both CDMA and UMTS phones. I think what they say can be trusted.

over the years been on all the networks

best; 3 the mast is approx 80m away so it should be!
2nd ; O2 best overall out and about
3rd: vodafone
4th : T mobile
worst: orange

I feel that you spend far too long worrying about the theoretical and not enough time on reality.

If people find poorer signal indoors with 2100MHz, then that's a problem.

Whether or not research suggests in some cases that there might actually be a negligible increase in reception indoors is wholly irrelevant to those people.

As far as the wider picture, companies are willing to pay more for lower frequencies. The government has moved heaven and earth to get the ~800MHz bands free for (likely) sale to mobile companies.

Where I stay 02/Vodafone is the best signal wise with T-Moblie/Virgin the worst.
Cant say about 3 as dont know much about them.
At times I text more than I phone so im happy at times just to get 1 or 2 bars for signal.

Darren

I think it was in response to your previous post Dave.

I think that we are all intelligent enough to know that signal levels vary from area to area, but the research isnt arguing against that, its saying that the frequency 2100 has better building penetration than 900mhz under controlled conditions.

O2 and Vodafone are the best for 2G coverage pretty much have coverage everywhere I go. Their 3G is very much a hit and miss affair, and my home is on the edge of a 3G/2G coverage area which means that I get 1 pitiful bar of Vodafone 3G, which drains the battery, and when it kicks down to 2G, the internet is next to useless, and calls sound a bit crusty. When not at home 2G/3G coverage is generally fine on Vodafone.

Three - for ages the only one I could get 3G with, and no problems with 2G, CS ok when I can understand them or hear them over the background noise.
T-Mobile - good 2G, only recently started getting 3G, CS were ok
Orange - as T-Mobile, but worse CS
O2 - good 2G, lousy 3G, no real experience of CS
Vodaphone - poor 2G, what 3G?, CS were ok.

For mobile broadband Three are the best choice here, followed by T-Mobile, the rest aren't worth bothering with unless things have improved in the last 18 months since I last tried them.

Yup that's great, except we don't use that here. So a moot point really.

Your generalising is whats getting peoples goat here. There are so many factors which cause people to have issues. Just because you get great reception from 3 and rubbish from apparently everyone else does not mean everyone does. Please accept and understand this.

Where i lived before i got great Tmobile, great o2 and rubbish Three. Now i get no voda at all, crap o2 and rubbish Tmobile. The only one i can get is Three.

You say stop generalising yet do it yourself, anybody reading your post would assume coverage is terrible throughout the entirety of the north west. This is not my experience.

If I understand correctly he posted the article *in response to* - its not meant to represent real world experiences. 2100 is the best technically as proven by the article, but the article is not a real world servey, its a lab controlled survey of frequency penetration.

But then the whole thread is a pointless exercise; I've got a great signal on X Network, oh I havent I've got a great signal on X network, Z network is better. Oh Z network is crap it doesnt work where I live so I use Y network. Great, so what point being??!

If you bothered to read it, it also says about the chipsets that are the baseband part of nearly every major phone manufacturer for UTMS (3G) being made by Qualcomm, and most of the 3G patents belonging to them too.

Inventing another mobile technology was just further evidence of the credentials of Qualcomm when then talk about 900Mhz vs 2100Mhz and refer to the building penetration difference being 'slight' between the two.

Daveoc64 and southlad were the first two to mention building penetration in this thread, not me and I also not once mentioned the Three Network with regard to building penetration in this thread either.

Also I do a lot of real world testing, some people may be stuck on the North East of the country and not travel much. I've compared and tested multiple network's performance in many places in the UK, cities, towns, rual areas.

How many people do you think have active sims on several the main networks and put them in startphones and then drive around places listening to streaming audio, test out performance in cities, and rural areas.

Sad = yes!! but I find it interesting, whenever I travel anywhere I generally plug the phone into the 3.5mm jack in the car, dock it and then stream something. I've done this from Plymouth, to Birmingham, London, Manchester, Cardiff, Swansea, Herefordshire countryside, the cotswolds, Coventry, Leicester, Norfolk coast recently, and all over. I do travel around a lot and go into buildings a lot too! Plus I'm a complete anorak with it and I make no bones about that.

What I do find is patterns with the networks, O2 for example has rock solid 2G everywhere, but when it comes to 3G it's largely in main centres of population and pretty non existent in smaller population areas or rural countryside. MBNL however is great on the whole everywhere, but sometimes congested in cities. There are small gaps on Three, which means there would be no 2G backup, that's a downside, although on the whole their coverage is usually great.

It's difficult not to generalise in a subjective thread on what network has the best coverage, but posting a few facts now and again against other posters unsubstantiated and exaggerated claims can't do too much harm.

I agree with most of what you've put in your post for a change. I live in the north west, by the way, not the north east. I also travel a lot.

Your point about small gaps in Three's coverage, with no 2G backup- can you see how that would be a big problem for some? For a lot of people texting and calling is very important. Probably much more important than getting online. This is the bit you never acknowledge.

Feel free to have a look at where I live, the Wirral peninsula. Look it up on sitefinder. You'll see Three just don't have enough transmitters which does indeed create gaps in their coverage resulting in dropped calls etc. It's half and half farmland and towns. I never had no signal on O2 or Voda here. Never.

Sitefinder is often wrong. As many have said here, T-mobile and Orange don't update it due to a row with Ofcom. As Three and T-mobile 3G are now shared and also it's voluntarily updated by the operators themselves it's often not accurate.

Mobile internet is what a lot of smartphone users use a lot of, but I do take your point. Those gaps are being slowly closed by the way, as Orange is going to also add 3G coverage to MBNL.

3G is as important to me as voice calls, it's no good being on a network with no 3G data, it would be like being back in the dark ages.

Just checked the Wirrel peninsula

Three
O2

I'm amazed by the coverage of O2 3G in that area. You are very lucky, go down south east of Chester it's gone.