Hi all,

As we know mobile networks offer 3G coverage in most placea so when in range of a UMTS cell site you will benefit from 3G data services, and when you don't have a 3G signal you have GPRS more often than not...

I have always found that when outside a 3G coverage area (which is very rarely on Orange nowadays) the phone would switch to GPRS and sometimes (but again rarely) EDGE. O2 also have mostly GPRS but some EDGE.. 3 and T-Mobile don't have any EDGE on their own networks.

What I wanna know is, someone I know who is on Vodafone told me that when they don't have 3G its always normally EDGE rather than GPRS... Which surely would suggest Vodafone have masses of EDGE for some reason.

Has anyone seen this with Vodafone UK? Do they have loads of EDGE and if so why? Why not upgrade the site to 3G?

Cheers!!

Aren't EDGE and GPRS both 2G technologies? Wouldn't it just depend how many people are connected to the 2G mast/how far away you are from the mast as well as if the 2G mast has been upgraded to support EDGE as to whether you get GPRS speeds or EDGE speeds.

The reason they haven't upgraded them all to 3G is because a lot of people are still using 2G only handsets. Operators like vodafone still have a high number of 2G handsets on sale with 24 month contracts so they can't just start shutting down/converting 2G sites

Two reasons in rural areas '2G' works better. With 3G the coverage reduces when there is a lot of people connected to the mast. 2G does not.

For example if say a village was a few miles away from a 2G mast and at all times including peak they would be connected, with good reception, able to make calls even inside and have some data capability enough for emails etc speed wise. However if that same mast was 3G it could happen that the whole village loses reception due to the coverage footprint reducing at peak times as the mast tries to deal with the extra usage. To provide reliable 3G they would have to install extra masts to cover the village.

EDGE has all the benefits of GPRS i.e. '2G' but is a little faster.. allows basic browsing amongst other things i.e. ability to triple the amount of customers using the 'mast' at any one time etc etc.

Even in cities you see this happening where the mast or a cluster of masts are having traffic issues on 3G and kicks loads of customers off to 2G. This explains most problems of coverage where the customer used to have decent coverage then doesn't or it's variable during the day. When the network says there is no fault.

I see this a lot with 3 (this is not a 3 bash wave/thine) as they handle so much data compared to the other networks. Luckily 3 have a lot of capacity, hence why they are so fast off peak. The lack of fall back is an issue for many.

Govt mobile contracts with Voda/O2 also dictate that they cannot get rid of 2G fall back for some time. They may also be the case with EE.

According to Wikipedia "EDGE can carry a bandwidth up to 236.8 kbit/s (with end-to-end latency of less than 150 ms) for 4 timeslots (theoretical maximum is 473.6 kbit/s for 8 timeslots) in packet mode. This means it can handle four times as much traffic as standard GPRS." So it's a lot faster than GPRS on GSM networks. EDGE is good enough for browsing and can cover rural areas far more effectively and efficiently than UMTS 3G at 2100MHz.

O2 used EDGE technology to launch the iPhone across the UK (the first iPhone did not have 3G) and I have noticed Vodafone have increased their EDGE availability to offer basic data services in areas where there was proeviously only very slow GPRS which is only really suitable for WAP.

O2 have had wide coverage with EDGE across the UK for some years and are now rolling out 900MHz UMTS 3G which offers similar benefits to EDGE (coverage and building penetration) but with much higher data rates (14.4-21Mbs presently).

Whilst EDGE may be older technology its still useful as any data connection is better than none and in many rural areas there is still only GSM coverage. For the widest availability of data it stands to reason that network operators offering 900/1800/2100Mhz, GSM/UMTS/EDGE/HSDPA/HSPA+ provide the best chance for those who travel outwith major centres of population and who need voice, text and data services.

if you have 2G coverage that bit of edge is a god send.

for general browsing, especially on mobile friendly sites it is absolutely fine.

Yeah I know all about EDGE, what it does and why its there and I know in O2s case its from when they had the first iPhone.. What I was asking is has anyone noticed Vodafone has loads of it (more than GPRS) like my friend is claiming?

Yes, Vodafone have been upgrading most of their 2G sites to EDGE over the last few years.

Ahh right, that explains it then

True, I have noticed it being available on Vodafone in some areas locally which are quite rural. It is not too bad for browsing but nowhere close to 3G speeds nowadays using HSPA technology. At 236 Kbs though it's not too far off the original UMTS 3G Spec of 384 Kbs, so one can understand why O2 chose to focus on that rather than spend heavily building a 3G network. EDGE I believe is a software upgrade so its relatively cheap to implement and with the rules on 900MHz relaxed for 3G use it has become much less expensive to roll out 3G for those with existing 900MHz infrastructure.

I noticed a lot of EDGE coverage abroad on Vodafone in out of town areas so they must have upgraded in most of their territories to provide improved GSM based data coverage.

Yes that's correct, EDGE is very easy to deploy - just a software update, just like HSPA+ is a software update on a HSDPA site

Not quite. You need EDGE-capable equipment installed at the site (although it may be that Voda already had this - don't know).. and extra transmission capacity to support it.

That appears to have been installed and deployed as there is lots of EDGE coverage now.

When I was in the Pitlochry area on Good Friday. Me and my sister could not get 3g on both our phones using 02 and at times I was lucky to even get 1 bar out of 4 for signal on my HTC Desire S using 2g. As I did lose my signal for a min or two between Dunkeld and Pitlochry. Yet my sisters IPhone 3gs got 2 bars out of 5 for signal most of the time on 02 using 2g.
Seemed strange that my sisters Iphone could hold a better signal using 2g than my HTC Desire S in that area as we are both on 02.

Darren

Different phone, Different radio chip, Different antenna design.

Also remember the bars don't mean much. Each handset maker changes what signal in DB needs to be what bars.

Thanks for the info.

Darren

Your unwavering support and spin for lesser networks like Vodafone and O2 is truly admirable. Do you work in PR?

I live in a rural county, and T-Mobile/3 and to a lesser extent Orange have bathed the country in 3G coverage. Why would I waste my time with networks that don't want to invest and take the cheap route out (Vodafone/O2), when I can get several megabits with networks that did bother to invest in the future?

I don't even bother with 2G on my laptop's WWAN card. I lock it to 3G and 99% of the time (anywhere in my county) there's a 3G signal from 3/T-Mobile.

EDGE is old hat. It's great if it's a cheap and simple upgrade, but it shouldn't be considered a rural alternative to 3G.

Despite your constant praise for 900MHz UMTS there's still a shocking lack of investment on O2's part here.

A quick check of 3's coverage map and comparison with Vodafone or O2's provides all the evidence needed to confirm that GSM has vastly greater geographical coverage of the UK than UMTS. That is unlikely to change so for many in rural areas the upgrade to EDGE is a major benefit.

If one is lucky enough to live in a city and only travel to urban areas then UMTS coverage may be sufficient but there can be no doubt that for the most comprehensive coverage of the UK 900/1800 GSM offers the best possibility of a signal.

The UK coverage maps prove the point but for example check out the 3 (or T-Mobile or Orange's) coverage on the Scottish Isle of Skye and compare it with Vodafone's or O2's.

3 has 98% population coverage. I'm never without signal even in really rural areas. The map may show forests, farmland etc not being covered, but all the main roads, villages and main areas are.

I can't talk for Scotland where it may be different, but I've travelled all around the UK and it's so rare to not have signal on 3 when out and about.

Compared to O2's 3G map it's vastly more covered.

Shame they don't cover the fairly large (6,000 people) commuter village where my folks live- barely 25 miles out of Birmingham, then.....

When did you last try this? since MBNL which means all T-mobile 3G masts also serve 3 there's virtually nowhere that size without coverage.

If you want to say the village I live nearby, maybe I can drive through and video the drive whilst streaming audio! A slot of people are basing 3's 3G coverage on past experience, rather than the new MBNL network which has been built out over the last year or so.

No one was disputing that UMTS coverage isn't on par with GSM coverage. This is more evident when you look at Vodafone or O2's maps vs. 3/T-Mobile/Orange. A clear difference.

What matters is that EDGE is not an alternative to HSPA. It's nicer than GPRS but it is not in the same universe to anything better.


As I said, I live in a very rural county (the one that makes up the pointy bit of England). There is very little urban area to speak of, so I live in and travel to/around rural areas.

I do not even have to have 2G enabled on my datacard since 3G coverage is so good with 3 and T-Mobile. Who gives a toot about EDGE in this instance?


How many years did it take for Vodafone or O2 to build out their GSM coverage there? I'm honestly not surprised that the mobile networks are not going to be tripping over themselves to get coverage to an island of less than 10,000 people and where backhaul and other overheads are going to be much higher than on the mainland.

You are trying to twist things to suit your argument - no one, quite frankly, cares about the coverage on remote Scottish islands. What matters is mainland coverage where people actually live and where the costs are lower for deployment.

I think its being arrogant to suggest that 10,000 people on a Scottish Island, which is not remote, nobody cares about in terms of mobile communications services. 10,000 is a reasonable population to cover and thankfully there are companies that deliver services to places with 10,000 residents and where many 1000s visit every year as tourists.

People do actually live there and the above is exteremely disrespectful to them and exhibits a could not care less attitude about their locality or quality of services as long as 'the mainland' is well served. Oh well.......no point in attempting to have a reasoned discussion considering the last sentance of the quoted text above.

PS: The British Government spent millions sending a task force to recover islands in the South Atlantic in the 1980s and those have less than 1/3rd of the population of the one situated just a few miles off the coast of Scotland, so thankfully some do care about communities that are not attached to the UK mainland.

I am glad that you failed to respond to most of my post and instead chose to fixate on this.

10,000 people spread over a large island is hardly profitable and desirable vs. 10,000 people in an area the size of a town. Not to mention the sheer cost involved in getting backhaul in place vs. on the mainland where it is likely much simpler and cheaper.

You seem very concerned about the plight of this remote island (yes, it is remote) - oh, wait, it's because O2 must have coverage there, If they did not you wouldn't be concerned at all.

I said "no one cares" because tens of millions of people don't live anywhere near there or will ever visit. They live on the mainland and want 3G coverage where they go - and only a few networks are delivering on this instead of obsolete technology like EDGE.

What matters is that there are networks that are delivering 21st century technology to great swathes of the population in inhabited parts of the country. It's a shame that some cannot see that this is better than wringing the last penny out of aging technology while lagging further behind.

It's not like Vodafone or O2 are likely putting serious investment into these rollouts, either - these are just software upgrades to existing hardware. It's the sort of thing I'd be expecting alongside a superior 3G rollout, not instead of.

O2 doesn't have a single 3G mast on the Isle of Sky. In fact the nearest place with 3G on O2 is Inverness, which is 100 miles away.

In contrast to that 3 does have 3G coverage, around some of the major roads and presumable where some of the population are. That will vary as to where you are, they probably have Orange 2G backup as well remember.

No one has ever denied O2 has a bloody good and strong 2G network. I haven't seen a person argue this yet.