Network Spectrum Holdings?

Aye Up · 16-10-2013, 21:27

Does anyone have an accurate figure of the amount of spectrum each operator holds in each range?

For example O2 has 2x10 mhz in the 800 range what else do they and the other networks have in total (broken down if possible?).

mogzyboy · 16-10-2013, 21:35

I'd also be interested to know. Not that I can do anything with such information, but I'm just curious...

daveyfs · 16-10-2013, 21:52

Post 20 in this thread (be aware they've got the operators back to front on the 1800Mhz slide):

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showt...=ofcom+auction

japitts · 20-10-2013, 15:01

Is this the sort of thing you're after?

http://www.prattfamily.demon.co.uk/mikep/frequency.htm

daclick · 20-10-2013, 18:06

Is that basically saying ee are king, after a quick glance

The Lord Lucan · 20-10-2013, 18:23

Yep. Although Voda should currently do better with 3G and should do ok with 4G if they invest.

enapace · 20-10-2013, 18:40

I always thought O2 and Vodafone had identical amount of spectrum in 900MHz didn't realize till now that O2 had more.

The Lord Lucan · 20-10-2013, 19:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by enapace

I always thought O2 and Vodafone had identical amount of spectrum in 900MHz didn't realize till now that O2 had more.

Its why O2 can use it to advertise the benefits of range but Voda has stayed relatively quiet.

Saying that, O2 are still fairly restricted in how much of it they can use and which sites they can use it at.

Also if you look at the spectrum per user, this tells you quite a lot about how the near future will roughly work out capacity wise.

japaul · 20-10-2013, 20:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by enapace

I always thought O2 and Vodafone had identical amount of spectrum in 900MHz didn't realize till now that O2 had more.

You thought correctly. The link posted isn't accurate. Both of them have 2 x 17.4 at 900. In fact the totals are also nonsense as it counts the up and down for FDD spectrum in the total MHz for some frequencies but not others.

The Lord Lucan · 20-10-2013, 20:28

Yeah some of it doesn't make sense now that i look at it. Still always thought myself that O2 had more....??

japaul · 20-10-2013, 20:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by daclick

Is that basically saying ee are king, after a quick glance

Depends on how you value low v high frequency spectrum. In fact most analyses seem to suggest that Vodafone has the most valuable spectrum portfolio. A typical example of one is here http://www.analysysmason.com/About-U.../#.UmQl5xbvxz8

Not sure I agree. I think given their history and existing network topology both EE and Vodafone have the spectrum that suits each of them best. Whichever way you look at it though, Voda / EE are ahead of the others.

enapace · 20-10-2013, 20:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by japaul

Depends on how you value low v high frequency spectrum. In fact most analyses seem to suggest that Vodafone has the most valuable spectrum portfolio. A typical example of one is here http://www.analysysmason.com/About-U.../#.UmQl5xbvxz8

Not sure I agree. I think given their history and existing network topology both EE and Vodafone have the spectrum that suits each of them best. Whichever way you look at it though, Voda / EE are ahead of the others.

Agreed I think Vodafone have a good strategy using 800MHz for the coverage will work out better indoor coverage but lower speeds to match there 3G900. Than in Urban areas using 2600MHz for speeds. EE instead have slightly lower indoor coverage but better speeds across the board amazing fast speeds in urban areas. Next is likely going be Three when they get there final 10MHz of 1800MHz in 2 years time slightly faster speeds across the board than O2 but less indoor coverage..

Obviously in all comes down to how good the rollouts of all 4 networks are and if they live up to what they saying at the moment.

japaul · 21-10-2013, 13:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lord Lucan

Yeah some of it doesn't make sense now that i look at it. Still always thought myself that O2 had more....??

They definitely have the same amount of 900. Maybe one way of looking at it is to ask why would they have different amounts when none of it was auctioned? It's odd though that the 2 links posted here have various mistakes when it should be relatively straightforward. Anyway I'd say the definitive guide is the list of licence holders on Ofcom's site which shows the holdings.

http://licensing.ofcom.org.uk/radioc...lar-operators/

Thine Wonk · 21-10-2013, 19:34

It is worth not looking at spectrum in isolation though, how many customers share that spectrum and other infrastructure investment should all be considered when choosing a network. Some networks have had the most 3G 2100Mhz spectrum for 10 years, but the least coverage percentage and less capacity, slower 3G technologies meaning slower speeds.

Spectrum is interesting, but it is only 1 aspect.

enapace · 21-10-2013, 20:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thine Wonk

It is worth not looking at spectrum in isolation though, how many customers share that spectrum and other infrastructure investment should all be considered when choosing a network. Some networks have had the most 3G 2100Mhz spectrum for 10 years, but the least coverage percentage and less capacity, slower 3G technologies meaning slower speeds.

Spectrum is interesting, but it is only 1 aspect.

I know who you hinting at [Vodafone] not completely fair but not completely untrue either O2 is much worse. But agreed there is no reason they couldn't of been in same situation as Pre-MBNL Three or Orange were.

Thine Wonk · 21-10-2013, 21:07

I was making a general point, but I did have Vodafone in mind as they had the most 2100Mhz spectrum before 900Mhz was re-farmed, yet they never bothered to use the later 3G technologies, typical speeds were slower and they had much less 3G coverage than other networks.

There wasn't much between O2 and Vodafone at one point, they were both low in terms of speeds and coverage for 3G, they didn't upgrade to HSPA+ as soon, or DC-HSPA, yet they held a lot of spectrum, particularly Vodafone.

enapace · 21-10-2013, 21:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thine Wonk

I was making a general point, but I did have Vodafone in mind as they had the most 2100Mhz spectrum before 900Mhz was re-farmed, yet they never bothered to use the later 3G technologies, typical speeds were slower and they had much less 3G coverage than other networks.

There wasn't much between O2 and Vodafone at one point, they were both low in terms of speeds and coverage for 3G, they didn't upgrade to HSPA+ as soon, or DC-HSPA, yet they held a lot of spectrum, particularly Vodafone.

Can't see there national rollout of 3G900 being that fast either 2x5MHz on 3G isn't going deliver very fast speeds.

japaul · 21-10-2013, 22:02

I'd say though that with 4G the amount of spectrum you have is a bit more important than before as there is a direct relationship with the capability you can offer. With 3G and 2G more spectrum usually just meant more capacity (other things being equal). However with 4G, the amount of spectrum you have determines what services you can offer. So EE (or Vodafone if they want to) can offer double speed 4G knowing full well it's something the likes of O2 and Three can't do right now even if they wanted to.

EE are pushing things even further by using their vast holding to double up again to 300 using 40MHz which if they hurry up could allow them a claim (for a short while at least) to be the fastest mobile network in the world. Of course, there's little sign yet that anyone wants to pay for these faster speeds.

Thine Wonk · 21-10-2013, 22:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by japaul

I'd say though that with 4G the amount of spectrum you have is a bit more important than before as there is a direct relationship with the capability you can offer. With 3G and 2G more spectrum usually just meant more capacity (other things being equal). However with 4G, the amount of spectrum you have determines what services you can offer. So EE (or Vodafone if they want to) can offer double speed 4G knowing full well it's something the likes of O2 and Three can't do right now even if they wanted to.

EE are pushing things even further by using their vast holding to double up again to 300 using 40MHz which if they hurry up could allow them a claim (for a short while at least) to be the fastest mobile network in the world. Of course, there's little sign yet that anyone wants to pay for these faster speeds.

I would agree with this, although I can't see what you need more than 25Mbps for on a mobile connection full stop. Having a generous allowance and the cost is more important to me than speeds which stop making a difference once they get to a certain point.

enapace · 21-10-2013, 22:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thine Wonk

I would agree with this, although I can't see what you need more than 25Mbps for on a mobile connection full stop. Having a generous allowance and the cost is more important to me than speeds which stop making a difference once they get to a certain point.

I can't find a reason why you need over a 100mbs on fixed line never mind 300mbs [Probably only going get 140-180Mbs but still] on a phone like EE think you do. If they going be offering speeds like there lowest plan has got to be around 15GB for it to be reasonable to anyone.

I do agree with you though after you get a steady 20-30mbs you want either a massive data package 50-100GB or unlimited.

japaul · 21-10-2013, 22:55

Yeah agree with you both. Last week EE mentioned a fixed line replacement service but the areas this would be most useful are unlikely to see 300Mb/s.

I applaud EE for pushing things technically but their marketing of faster speeds is awful. They seem to have no idea about explaining the benefit of this people. Their website talks about 2x20 MHz of 1800 spectrum which is great for geeks but meaningless to the vast majority of people. As for real practical benefits there is very little. A bit about downloading films and files in half the time. Great! I wonder how they will advertise a 300Mb/s service? Maybe Bacon telling us we can download a 4K version of Footloose. That won't quite do it for me.

enapace · 21-10-2013, 23:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by japaul

Yeah agree with you both. Last week EE mentioned a fixed line replacement service but the areas this would be most useful are unlikely to see 300Mb/s.

I applaud EE for pushing things technically but their marketing of faster speeds is awful. They seem to have no idea about explaining the benefit of this people. Their website talks about 2x20 MHz of 1800 spectrum which is great for geeks but meaningless to the vast majority of people. As for real practical benefits there is very little. A bit about downloading films and files in half the time. Great! I wonder how they will advertise a 300Mb/s service? Maybe Bacon telling us we can download a 4K version of Footloose. That won't quite do it for me.

Don't think for even 4K you need a 100mb connection would have to check that one. But 4K is still 3-5 years away before it becomes main stream so it doesn't really matter. I think there entire Marketing and Customer Service teams need shooting.

I understand wanting to push technology but they not going gain customers by that enough to off balance the ones who are leaving on 3G because of signal problems.

Also you have to consider might not even be that many places where you can download that fast anyway.

16-10-2013, 21:27	#1
Aye Up Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: North West Posts: 4,885	Network Spectrum Holdings? Does anyone have an accurate figure of the amount of spectrum each operator holds in each range? For example O2 has 2x10 mhz in the 800 range what else do they and the other networks have in total (broken down if possible?).

16-10-2013, 21:35	#2
mogzyboy Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Wales Posts: 4,554	I'd also be interested to know. Not that I can do anything with such information, but I'm just curious...

16-10-2013, 21:52	#3
daveyfs Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Swansea Posts: 871	Post 20 in this thread (be aware they've got the operators back to front on the 1800Mhz slide): http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showt...=ofcom+auction

20-10-2013, 15:01	#4
japitts Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 427	Is this the sort of thing you're after? http://www.prattfamily.demon.co.uk/mikep/frequency.htm

20-10-2013, 18:06	#5
daclick Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,336	Is that basically saying ee are king, after a quick glance

20-10-2013, 18:23	#6
The Lord Lucan Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Scotland Posts: 4,966	Yep. Although Voda should currently do better with 3G and should do ok with 4G if they invest.

20-10-2013, 18:40	#7
enapace Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2013 Posts: 4,249	I always thought O2 and Vodafone had identical amount of spectrum in 900MHz didn't realize till now that O2 had more.

20-10-2013, 19:23	#8
The Lord Lucan Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Scotland Posts: 4,966	Quote: Originally Posted by enapace I always thought O2 and Vodafone had identical amount of spectrum in 900MHz didn't realize till now that O2 had more. Its why O2 can use it to advertise the benefits of range but Voda has stayed relatively quiet. Saying that, O2 are still fairly restricted in how much of it they can use and which sites they can use it at. Also if you look at the spectrum per user, this tells you quite a lot about how the near future will roughly work out capacity wise.

20-10-2013, 20:21	#9
japaul Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Posts: 1,662	Quote: Originally Posted by enapace I always thought O2 and Vodafone had identical amount of spectrum in 900MHz didn't realize till now that O2 had more. You thought correctly. The link posted isn't accurate. Both of them have 2 x 17.4 at 900. In fact the totals are also nonsense as it counts the up and down for FDD spectrum in the total MHz for some frequencies but not others.

20-10-2013, 20:28	#10
The Lord Lucan Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Scotland Posts: 4,966	Yeah some of it doesn't make sense now that i look at it. Still always thought myself that O2 had more....??

20-10-2013, 20:29	#11
japaul Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Posts: 1,662	Quote: Originally Posted by daclick Is that basically saying ee are king, after a quick glance Depends on how you value low v high frequency spectrum. In fact most analyses seem to suggest that Vodafone has the most valuable spectrum portfolio. A typical example of one is here http://www.analysysmason.com/About-U.../#.UmQl5xbvxz8 Not sure I agree. I think given their history and existing network topology both EE and Vodafone have the spectrum that suits each of them best. Whichever way you look at it though, Voda / EE are ahead of the others.

20-10-2013, 20:37	#12
enapace Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2013 Posts: 4,249	Quote: Originally Posted by japaul Depends on how you value low v high frequency spectrum. In fact most analyses seem to suggest that Vodafone has the most valuable spectrum portfolio. A typical example of one is here http://www.analysysmason.com/About-U.../#.UmQl5xbvxz8 Not sure I agree. I think given their history and existing network topology both EE and Vodafone have the spectrum that suits each of them best. Whichever way you look at it though, Voda / EE are ahead of the others. Agreed I think Vodafone have a good strategy using 800MHz for the coverage will work out better indoor coverage but lower speeds to match there 3G900. Than in Urban areas using 2600MHz for speeds. EE instead have slightly lower indoor coverage but better speeds across the board amazing fast speeds in urban areas. Next is likely going be Three when they get there final 10MHz of 1800MHz in 2 years time slightly faster speeds across the board than O2 but less indoor coverage.. Obviously in all comes down to how good the rollouts of all 4 networks are and if they live up to what they saying at the moment.

21-10-2013, 13:46	#13
japaul Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Posts: 1,662	Quote: Originally Posted by The Lord Lucan Yeah some of it doesn't make sense now that i look at it. Still always thought myself that O2 had more....?? They definitely have the same amount of 900. Maybe one way of looking at it is to ask why would they have different amounts when none of it was auctioned? It's odd though that the 2 links posted here have various mistakes when it should be relatively straightforward. Anyway I'd say the definitive guide is the list of licence holders on Ofcom's site which shows the holdings. http://licensing.ofcom.org.uk/radioc...lar-operators/

21-10-2013, 19:34	#14
Thine Wonk Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 14,577	It is worth not looking at spectrum in isolation though, how many customers share that spectrum and other infrastructure investment should all be considered when choosing a network. Some networks have had the most 3G 2100Mhz spectrum for 10 years, but the least coverage percentage and less capacity, slower 3G technologies meaning slower speeds. Spectrum is interesting, but it is only 1 aspect.

21-10-2013, 20:28	#15
enapace Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2013 Posts: 4,249	Quote: Originally Posted by Thine Wonk It is worth not looking at spectrum in isolation though, how many customers share that spectrum and other infrastructure investment should all be considered when choosing a network. Some networks have had the most 3G 2100Mhz spectrum for 10 years, but the least coverage percentage and less capacity, slower 3G technologies meaning slower speeds. Spectrum is interesting, but it is only 1 aspect. I know who you hinting at [Vodafone] not completely fair but not completely untrue either O2 is much worse. But agreed there is no reason they couldn't of been in same situation as Pre-MBNL Three or Orange were.

21-10-2013, 21:07	#16
Thine Wonk Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 14,577	I was making a general point, but I did have Vodafone in mind as they had the most 2100Mhz spectrum before 900Mhz was re-farmed, yet they never bothered to use the later 3G technologies, typical speeds were slower and they had much less 3G coverage than other networks. There wasn't much between O2 and Vodafone at one point, they were both low in terms of speeds and coverage for 3G, they didn't upgrade to HSPA+ as soon, or DC-HSPA, yet they held a lot of spectrum, particularly Vodafone.

21-10-2013, 21:29	#17
enapace Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2013 Posts: 4,249	Quote: Originally Posted by Thine Wonk I was making a general point, but I did have Vodafone in mind as they had the most 2100Mhz spectrum before 900Mhz was re-farmed, yet they never bothered to use the later 3G technologies, typical speeds were slower and they had much less 3G coverage than other networks. There wasn't much between O2 and Vodafone at one point, they were both low in terms of speeds and coverage for 3G, they didn't upgrade to HSPA+ as soon, or DC-HSPA, yet they held a lot of spectrum, particularly Vodafone. Can't see there national rollout of 3G900 being that fast either 2x5MHz on 3G isn't going deliver very fast speeds.

21-10-2013, 22:02	#18
japaul Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Posts: 1,662	I'd say though that with 4G the amount of spectrum you have is a bit more important than before as there is a direct relationship with the capability you can offer. With 3G and 2G more spectrum usually just meant more capacity (other things being equal). However with 4G, the amount of spectrum you have determines what services you can offer. So EE (or Vodafone if they want to) can offer double speed 4G knowing full well it's something the likes of O2 and Three can't do right now even if they wanted to. EE are pushing things even further by using their vast holding to double up again to 300 using 40MHz which if they hurry up could allow them a claim (for a short while at least) to be the fastest mobile network in the world. Of course, there's little sign yet that anyone wants to pay for these faster speeds.

21-10-2013, 22:12	#19
Thine Wonk Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 14,577	Quote: Originally Posted by japaul I'd say though that with 4G the amount of spectrum you have is a bit more important than before as there is a direct relationship with the capability you can offer. With 3G and 2G more spectrum usually just meant more capacity (other things being equal). However with 4G, the amount of spectrum you have determines what services you can offer. So EE (or Vodafone if they want to) can offer double speed 4G knowing full well it's something the likes of O2 and Three can't do right now even if they wanted to. EE are pushing things even further by using their vast holding to double up again to 300 using 40MHz which if they hurry up could allow them a claim (for a short while at least) to be the fastest mobile network in the world. Of course, there's little sign yet that anyone wants to pay for these faster speeds. I would agree with this, although I can't see what you need more than 25Mbps for on a mobile connection full stop. Having a generous allowance and the cost is more important to me than speeds which stop making a difference once they get to a certain point.

21-10-2013, 22:16	#20
enapace Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2013 Posts: 4,249	Quote: Originally Posted by Thine Wonk I would agree with this, although I can't see what you need more than 25Mbps for on a mobile connection full stop. Having a generous allowance and the cost is more important to me than speeds which stop making a difference once they get to a certain point. I can't find a reason why you need over a 100mbs on fixed line never mind 300mbs [Probably only going get 140-180Mbs but still] on a phone like EE think you do. If they going be offering speeds like there lowest plan has got to be around 15GB for it to be reasonable to anyone. I do agree with you though after you get a steady 20-30mbs you want either a massive data package 50-100GB or unlimited.

21-10-2013, 22:55	#21
japaul Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Posts: 1,662	Yeah agree with you both. Last week EE mentioned a fixed line replacement service but the areas this would be most useful are unlikely to see 300Mb/s. I applaud EE for pushing things technically but their marketing of faster speeds is awful. They seem to have no idea about explaining the benefit of this people. Their website talks about 2x20 MHz of 1800 spectrum which is great for geeks but meaningless to the vast majority of people. As for real practical benefits there is very little. A bit about downloading films and files in half the time. Great! I wonder how they will advertise a 300Mb/s service? Maybe Bacon telling us we can download a 4K version of Footloose. That won't quite do it for me.

DS Forums

Network Spectrum Holdings?

21-10-2013, 23:10	#22
enapace Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2013 Posts: 4,249	Quote: Originally Posted by japaul Yeah agree with you both. Last week EE mentioned a fixed line replacement service but the areas this would be most useful are unlikely to see 300Mb/s. I applaud EE for pushing things technically but their marketing of faster speeds is awful. They seem to have no idea about explaining the benefit of this people. Their website talks about 2x20 MHz of 1800 spectrum which is great for geeks but meaningless to the vast majority of people. As for real practical benefits there is very little. A bit about downloading films and files in half the time. Great! I wonder how they will advertise a 300Mb/s service? Maybe Bacon telling us we can download a 4K version of Footloose. That won't quite do it for me. Don't think for even 4K you need a 100mb connection would have to check that one. But 4K is still 3-5 years away before it becomes main stream so it doesn't really matter. I think there entire Marketing and Customer Service teams need shooting. I understand wanting to push technology but they not going gain customers by that enough to off balance the ones who are leaving on 3G because of signal problems. Also you have to consider might not even be that many places where you can download that fast anyway.