Wow wave, a trial conducted with several hundred customers, Wow !

Back to earth with a bump, that was just a trial in a very small area involving a number of cell sites you could count on your fingers.

That's not the same as building backhaul for a national roll-out, involving the upgrade of thousands of sites. We're not talking about microwave as that only supports up to 145Mbps per site, which wouldn't have anywhere near the bandwidth required for LTE for a large number of users / proper LTE rollout, it's a good temporary solution if you had multiple microwaves to support a few hundred users, but it's not sufficient for a full launch.

As I and others have said, in terms of getting ready to provide a full launch of 4G services, it's not as you posted earlier just a case of ringing up BT and asking for 'a bit more internet please'. There is a very significant amount of upgrading of sites and distribution + network investment in order to make it happen, and that takes time, hence why EE have been working hard over the last year or more so they can launch 4G at 1800Mhz.

Data capacity for all of the networks has been increasing for years otherwise those buying smartphones (and O2 and Vodafone have about 20 million smartphone users between them) would be finding their devices pretty useless!

Evidence of the difference between the backhaul capacities of the rival networks is needed to asertain for certain that any particular operator has an advantage.

I expect all of the operators have been busy improving their network capacities for data to ensure customer satisfaction using mobile video sites like youtube etc. There does not appear to be any significant levels of complaint about the range of services available to O2 and Vodafone customers on even the latest data hungry smartphones, in fact overall consumer satisfaction is highest on those networks and has not decreased as data consumption has rocketed. So in terms of network capacities it would appear from customer feedback that all the operators can deliver and to have achieved that they all must have made significant improvements.

It's interesting to read comments on one of the largest consumer websites about the networks. Rarely does anyone moan about O2's coverage or data reliability but they do moan about billing, customer service etc. The same cannot be said for the network supposedly 'built for the Internet', lots of negative comments about coverage and reception. Worth checking out the latest comments on the first couple of pages for each of the mobile networks to get a flavour of what consumers appear to be experiencing.

http://www.reviewcentre.com/reviews12640.html (3)

http://www.reviewcentre.com/reviews145.html (O2)

http://www.reviewcentre.com/reviews172.html (Orange)

http://www.reviewcentre.com/reviews71.html (T-Mobile)

http://www.reviewcentre.com/reviews101.html (Vodafone)

That's fine, there have been no complaints that any operators networks are grinding to a halt (lately, anyway) - but there is the fact that some operators are offering 1-2GB per month of data max, and some are offering AYCE/unlimited data.

I don't think it is too much of a stretch to infer that those running AYCE/unlimited data plans with no issues have more capacity than those only selling limited data plans with no issues.

Depends how many customers they have.... some have far fewer than others (O2 has 3 times as many customers as 3) and also whether they employ software like Trafficsense to throttle heavy users and block specific types of data use.

The limits on data don't seem to be putting many off remaining with those networks that have them. As has already been stated most users don't use massive amounts of data. 3, I understand estimare average usage at about 1.1GB per month, which is available form all the networks on popular smartphone tarriffs (1GB).

That may be so, but it is ridiculous to claim that all networks have equal data transmission capacity. They quite simply do not. You don't just 'buy backhaul from BT or Virgin'.

There is a reason O2 are not offering unlimited data plans. And it is nothing to do with attempting to keep margins up - despite what Dunne might want you to believe - if that were the reason, they wouldn't be throwing minutes and texts around like confetti.

Nobody claimed they were equal but they all have sufficient backhaul to deliver to their customers and some as stated have many more than others to cater for.

Backhaul can be bought. Most of the mobile operators use third parties to carry their traffic. MBNL (Orange/T-Mobile/3 UK) buy theirs from Virgin Media Business.

http://www.mbnl.co.uk/_newsPdf/MBNL_...a_22072011.pdf

Yes you can buy backhaul but that's not the end of the matter. You need somewhere for the backhaul to go. You don't just plug it in to 'the internet' and job done, it is only one piece of the puzzle.

There is loads of fibre optic capacity in the UK and mobile operators use it to deliver data to their cellsites. They all use third party communications companies for this type of provision, none build their own national networks. They really do just buy backhaul capacity as they need it.

The big question is "Evidence of the difference between the backhaul capacities of the rival networks is needed to asertain for certain that any particular operator has an advantage." Who has what and how does that relate to the number of subscribers they have to deliver to?

I think its just totally ridiculous to assume that mobile networks serving 19 and 23 million customers respectively have not bothered to upgrade to deliver data to meet their customers needs and are lagging behind others to any great extent. The consumer feedback simply does not support such an assumption.

But where are they backhauling to? The magic internet plug?

I suggest ignoring wavejock. He backs up o2 no matter what. He's gone back in his word so many times and has been proved to be a hypocrite.

The question that needs answered is simple: What are the backhaul capacities of the networks currently in relation to their customer numbers? Unitl a relibale source for this is available all discussion about backhaul is speculation.

Backhaul seems to be sufficently good enough to allow O2 and Vodafone to retain 42 million subscribers. In the era of the data hungry smartphone its inconceiveable that millions would put up with limited performance from their service provider and that is what some are attempting to suggest. There is no magic just solid network engineering that seems to be satisfying many miliions daily on both Vodafone and O2 and to return to the discussion that is the reason why they both have every right to oppose the licencing of a single company to use new technology ahead of them being able to compete.

The internet backbone in this country is OpenReach is it not?

The backhaul is the part between the mast and the networks core network. The core network is the most important part, as this is where the data gets out to the internet. A simple traceroute will demonstrate how poor the O2 core network is, you're talking 10 hops at least before you reach the edge. It is incredibly inefficient. Pings are horrendous.

You can have all of the backhaul in the world, but if your core network is a shambles and your peering arrangements are poor, then this wont help you.

It's BT Wholesale that has the largest Fibre Ethernet network in the UK. All of the mobile operators buy capacity from them.

But one Traceroute from one cellsite will be totally different from others! I have tried using data on GiffGaff and SpeedTests are similar to other mobile networks.

Backhaul nowadays is generally BT's fibre so that should have no issues regarding speed and capacity. As for core networks being a shambles? Consumer feedback simply does not suggest that in the case of O2. Suddlenly its no longer the backhaul that seems to be in question but the core network? Goalposts moving? I would be delighted to see some evidence of such a shambolic core network, not just an example of a limited period of network failure.

The idea is to have enough points of presence that you don't need to route the data around your entire network before you can get it to the 'outside', or if you have to move it a decent distance, to do that as cleanly as possible.


This isn't the sort of thing that would show up in consumer feedback - but it does have an effect on that data products O2 can offer. If you have a messy core network, that isn't built for data, then increasing capacity in order to increase data limits becomes expensive. This is why there is no unlimited data offering from O2.


I didn't say anything about the backhaul - I was replying to your assertion that increasing data capacity is as easy as just buying extra backhaul from BT or Virgin.

Ah ha.... so can we then have an accurate verifiable source for the number of points of presence that each UK mobile operator has. If this is the key then that piece of evidence would confirm it.

I don't actually belive the pop issue is that relevant to the discussion about data capacity and backhaul though.

You can not believe it if you want - you would be wrong, though. Just look at what I and others have said to you - both on this site and others.

I am not convinced and have sat and watched as the discussion about network data capacities has went from backhaul to core networks then points of presence! Meanwhile there is no major groundswell of discontent with the services being provided by networks that some keep telling everyone are inferior.

Lets see the evidence - proper statistics from a reliable source and not marketing hype from any of the providers, heresay from a few users or limited tests carried out by customers.

I await the above to be convinced!

It is obvious that if you want to provide speeds of around 20Mbps per user, (those are typical LTE advanced speeds in real life), then you are going to need to considerably upgrade the network, as typically 3G speeds are around 2-3Mbps.

Any network wishing to sell LTE will need to significantly upgrade backhaul to support those new LTE speeds. For some reason Wavejock fails to see this, despite many people explaining it's not just a case of ringing your ISP and asking for 'more of the internet to be delivered please, down the same pipes, just turn the dial up, thanks'

EE's CEO has said they have spent the last year upgrading the network in preparation for LTE on the 1800Mhz frequencies. O2 have said nothing about this, all they have done is seek to delay 4G for consumers in the UK.

However as we know an argument by some that 900Mhz is brilliant, can get flipped around to 'it's not that much of benefit' in a moment whether it's in support of O2 or against it.

It's fair to re-use spectrum for O2, but not for EE

It's fair to allow an exclusivity of 1 particular Apple phone on O2, but it's anti-competitive for another network to use frequency they already own for 4G, just like O2 re-used a frequency they already owned for 3G instead of 2G. O2 got that frequency very cheap, whilst others paid BILLIONS for theirs as well.

EE also sold off a lot of 1800Mhz spectrum that was correctly sold by a 3rd party bank on behalf of EE, and could have been bought by O2, but they didn't buy it, somebody else did and now they're launching 4G with it too.

O2 also delayed 4G in the UK by threatening legal action to Ofcom, and therefore caused or contributed to the situation they are now in with EE getting such a big market exclusivity.

However according to some O2 never, ever does any wrong and should never be criticised, just twist the argument, try to change the argument to argue other things, or completely change to the reverse of what you've been saying for ages.

02 has been the most active company in the UK developing and testing LTE - Fact!

The resort to litigation is about competition issues and nothing whatsoever to do with anything else.

It's well documented that ALL of the mobile operators have been investing billions upgrading their networks to support all of the new technologies that can deliver data more efficiently.

O2 did a trial for a few hundred people involving several temporary microwave sites to provide the backhaul, this trial lasted 9 months and was on a very tiny number of cell sites, around 9 from memory. Whist it may be fact it's really nothing special and not really relevant to EE investing and working for a year to bring LTE to the market properly to 1000's of sites and provide speeds of 20Mbps+ on a large scale across the country.

O2 also caused or contributed to the delays in the 4G auctions, so they are now making it worse for themselves as a competitor has re-used spectrum for 4G, (just like O2 argued for spectrum re-use and have done themselves with 3G). O2 had the option to buy a big chunk of 1800Mhz which was on the market to do the same, but they chose not to.

O2 are now using more lawyers again to try and delay 4G for the consumer again, and when they failed to invest properly in the last generation of technology 3G, they had to have their arm twisted by the regulator just to meet bare minimum 3G coverage 5 years after launch, so if their 3G reputation is anything to go by then their 4G service won't be up to much anyway. Instead of spending money on lawyers, maybe they could funnel that money into at least catching up with the others on 3G first.

All three play a part in network capacity - but I didn't change any argument. I have always been of the position that the core network is the most important part, which is why I have asserted in most of my posts today that you don't just plug in to 'the internet' from the backhaul.

There are no published numbers, nor is there any marketing hype from any operator about their core network. It is commercially sensitive information.

But lets look at some traceroutes that I just did to the google dns servers (8.8.8.8)

Three:

O2:

Can you see the difference? With O2, you're at 7 hops before you even come out of private IP space! 12 before you get out of the O2 network. That is double Threes. And then you are into BTs, which is yet more complexity (assuming that isn't just more O2 but with BT slapped on).

If you aren't happy with 8.8.8.8, give me any IP/URL and I bet it will come out the same.

22 hops to a server in the UK is unforgivable - they are moving the data all the way around their network.

Mine Wilt:



C:\Users\z>tracert 8.8.8.8

Tracing route to google-public-dns-a.google.com [8.8.8.8]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 83 ms 79 ms 79 ms 172.31.62.65
2 * * * Request timed out.
3 * * * Request timed out.
4 174 ms 169 ms 189 ms 92.40.252.137.threembb.co.uk [92.40.252.137]
5 * * * Request timed out.
6 164 ms 209 ms 149 ms 209.85.240.63
7 188 ms 189 ms 209 ms 209.85.253.196
8 188 ms 189 ms 189 ms 209.85.243.33
9 100 ms 87 ms 89 ms 216.239.49.36
10 * * * Request timed out.
11 97 ms 99 ms 149 ms google-public-dns-a.google.com [8.8.8.8]

Trace complete.

C:\Users\z>

I am not particularly interested in one test on one phone on one cellsite! It proves nothing other than that particular cellsite may not be as well connected as others.

Meanwhile I have found out that Nokia Siemens have been upgrading the O2 network since January 2011 with LTE ready equipment. So 02 have been doing a lot more about LTE than operating the UK biggest consumer trial with 25 base stations in London.

"Under the contract, Nokia Siemens Networks has supplied its energy-efficient, LTE-ready Flexi Multiradio Base Station, the latest Radio Network Controller and its network management system NetAct for efficient configuration, optimising and monitoring of the network. The deal also covers services including network implementation, project management, advanced technical support and consultancy services to ensure rapid network deployment for O2 during 2011."

http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news...-network-19448