The Register has done an updated article about mobile broadband speeds.

http://www.reghardware.com/2012/05/2...rk_vs_network/

The article covers a lot more than speeds which for handset browsing an app use are largely academic, more to do with network capacity than user experience if customer satisfaction ratings are anything to go by. (Some providers need faster delivery to cope with higher demand from the penetration of their mobile broadband use, competing with fixed line services etc).

The coverage maps are interesting. Vodafone have significantly more geographical coverage than any other UK network and O2 appear to have just as much coverage geographically than the 3G only operator, if the maps published are accurate.

Surprised Everything Everywhere and GiffGaff scored higher than 3 in the ratings. That won't go down well with some regulars here!

There is no doubt mobile data is getting better especially in urban areas but one has to consider not just raw speed but coverage, reliability and for most call and SMS coverage as data is normally bought as part of a package and the seamless switching from UMTS (3G) to GSM still delivers the most reliable communications package for those buying a smartphone deal.

Sorry but where are you seeing that?

3 came top with 90%, EE with 80%, GG with 75%, Voda with 70% and o2 with 60%......

The only thing EE beat 3 on was its unlimited. 3 also got the editors choice...

The coverage maps in that article for VF/O2/Orange are 2G maps, only 3's map shows 3G coverage

There are no reliable maps available that show network coverage (2G, 3G or both combined) using the same measurement methodology for all of the networks.

Ofcom did some in 2009, but things have changed quite a lot since then, so they can't really be used.


Not just that, but the maps used are those provided by the networks. They don't all use the same algorithms to predict coverage, meaning that you could end up with one network overestimating their coverage and another underestimating it.


The article (quite stupidly) assigns a number to each network.

I assumed that they were ranked in order of "best to worst", but that isn't the case.

The actual order (best to worst) is:

Three (90%)
EE - Orange/T-Mobile (80%)
Giffgaff (75%)
Vodafone (70%)
O2 (60%)

-Vodafone does badly because they have a poor selection of PAYG data options.
-O2 does worse than Giffgaff because the pricing is comparatively high for the same service

The article is quite stupid in many ways. They should have provided a separate rating for PAYG, Contract, 2G coverage and 3G coverage. If you want a monthly contract, then the Vodafone rating is somewhat useless, as its dragged down by a poor PAYG service.

Agreed, even though this article did a good investigation they laid it out all wrong and based the final scores on too many things.