Ofcom have admitted that the 3G coverage obligation of only 80% was a mistake.

Ofcom's boss Ed Richards said "The wrong decision was made about coverage of 3G." Mobile operators were only required to reach 80% of the population under the terms of the 3G auction. "That stored up a problem of 20% of people not being able to get the service that everyone else had."

That decision was made in the 1990s before Ofcom existed, but its consequences, according to Ed Richards, are still being felt today.

Some companies have taken advantage of this to do the bare minimum roll out notably O2 being worst offender followed by and Vodafone.

4G should be much better "We have taken action to make sure there will be near-universal coverage. People will see a big difference in the next three to four years."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24367672

Honestly quite surprised O2 has even 80% 3G coverage. That isn't bashing of O2 just being honest there coverage on 3G is terrible even in large cities you struggle get a 3G signal sometimes. Used have a work phone on O2 and used struggle get a 3G signal in middle of deansgate.

I often hear in the office or when I'm down the pub people on about 4G and saying why should I pay extra I can't get a 3G signal a fair bit of time never mind 4G. Honestly I agree with them I think Vodafone and O2 are going struggle get people on 4G simply because there current 3G signal is so bad,

About time we heard it from Ofcom, we've had those 2 companies not bothering to invest in data coverage to the detriment of UK consumers and business. Ofcom did largely let O2 off for breaching the 80%, it will certainly be interesting to see if O2 meet the 4G obligation, or face Ofcom again.

O2 has 90% 3G coverage.

As for personal anecdote, I can say EE and 3 are rubbish, even in large cities you struggle to get 3G signal sometimes.

I'm sitting by a window in central Edinburgh - postcode EH10 4HQ - and getting 0 bars of 3G on EE and 3. Incidentally also getting full 3G signal on O2, actual signal reading of -69dB RSCP being equivalent to ten bars if the scale went that high.

"Just because I saw it once" means EE must suck and O2 3G is awesome, right?

Bollocks, even between one side of the city and the other there's considerable differences in coverage. O2 are far superior in south-central Edinburgh, EE are considerably better in the north-east. Every network "struggles to get 3G signal sometimes" in large cities.


That logic is completely flawed.

For one, 4G signals travel further than 3G, sometimes giving five times stronger signal in the same place given the same transmitter power and location.

Secondly, all networks are aiming for 98% population coverage of 4G within 2-3 years. O2 is obliged to provide 98% in 3 years. Some of the networks haven't even got to 90% 3G yet (i.e. Vodafone) after ten years.

So a) coverage will be much better and b) coverage will be rolled out a lot faster with 4G.

So to answer "what's the point of getting 4G if you can't get 3G", well 4G is not only faster it will have more coverage than 3G (and already does in some places)

I don't say that EE/Three are perfect in cities but I find it far more superior to O2/Vodafone in those places. Also I like having 3G in rural areas where O2/Vodafone simply is not and you can't argue that one.

You need learn to read I was saying that people aren't trusting what O2 and Vodafone are saying about there rollouts and coverage. General public not us in the know are going be the main people who are on 4G . I think it says something when O2 only just reaches obligations and Vodafone fails on 3G. Perhaps they both will succeed on 4G but honestly they should of done far better with 3G.

Plus a lot of general public don't honestly know that 4G will give better coverage and only know about speeds. It hasn't been well explained to the general public.

Biggest advantage for me is indoor coverage increasing and rural coverage increasing. Also more steady speeds of 20-30MB.

It's not what Vodafone and O2 are saying. It's what every network is saying and OFCOM are enforcing as well.

That's including several networks that far exceeded the 3G coverage obligation voluntarily.

And even those who failed to meet the requirements only did so by a few percent. If the same were to happen again, e.g. O2 missing their coverage obligation by 2%, that'd still mean 97% outdoor 4G coverage, which is still considerably more than their 3G is today and close to EE's current combined 3G coverage.

You missing what I am saying most of general public don't know what Ofcom even is. Plus I think all networks at moment have got a bad rep for coverage. Three always having a stigma for terrible coverage even if it unfounded. EE with them turning of old orange masts and leaving places with bad signal. O2 and Vodafone doesn't even need saying specially if you live in a rural area.

Actually I'd say most of the general public do know what OFCOM is. Otherwise we wouldn't have so many of the general public and Watchdog talking about complaints to them.

You seem to have a very dim view of the general public.

Incidentally what I'm far more excited about is this bit:

Lets put a "few percent" into perspective.

O2 failed to meet its 80% 3G coverage obligation in 2008. The operator had coverage of 75.69%, a shortfall of 4.31% which was approximately 2.5 million people.

I thought these coverage stats are about percentage of landmass rather then percentage of population. Presumably it's the more sparsely populated remote areas which are being neglected as there are lower returns for the networks.

I suspect by the end of this year O2 and Vodafone will only have just over 90% coverage meaning over 5 million still without coverage.

This is in contrast to Three and EE's 98% coverage.

No, coverage is always quoted in population. Makes it easy to cover large percentages while covering relatively little land mass.


And from another perspective, if they miss their 98% (indoor, = approx 99% outdoor) target by the same amount, that'd equate to about 95% population coverage of 4G in 3 years which is approximately 4 million more people getting 4G in 3 years than can get Vodafone 3G today.

Thanks.