Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 
 

Network Spectrum Holdings?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 16-10-2013, 21:27
Aye Up
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Somewhere only I know
Posts: 2,810

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?).
Aye Up is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 16-10-2013, 21:35
mogzyboy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 3,762
I'd also be interested to know. Not that I can do anything with such information, but I'm just curious...
mogzyboy is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 16-10-2013, 21:52
daveyfs
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Swansea
Posts: 649
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
daveyfs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-10-2013, 15:01
japitts
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 380
Is this the sort of thing you're after?

http://www.prattfamily.demon.co.uk/mikep/frequency.htm
japitts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-10-2013, 18:06
daclick
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,233
Is that basically saying ee are king, after a quick glance
daclick is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 20-10-2013, 18:23
The Lord Lucan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 3,749
Yep. Although Voda should currently do better with 3G and should do ok with 4G if they invest.
The Lord Lucan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 20-10-2013, 18:40
enapace
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,008
I always thought O2 and Vodafone had identical amount of spectrum in 900MHz didn't realize till now that O2 had more.
enapace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-10-2013, 19:23
The Lord Lucan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 3,749
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.
The Lord Lucan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 20-10-2013, 20:21
japaul
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 639
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.
japaul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-10-2013, 20:28
The Lord Lucan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 3,749
Yeah some of it doesn't make sense now that i look at it. Still always thought myself that O2 had more....??
The Lord Lucan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 20-10-2013, 20:29
japaul
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 639
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.
japaul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-10-2013, 20:37
enapace
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,008
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.
enapace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-10-2013, 13:46
japaul
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 639
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/
japaul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-10-2013, 19:34
Thine Wonk
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 10,014
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.
Thine Wonk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-10-2013, 20:28
enapace
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,008
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.
enapace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-10-2013, 21:07
Thine Wonk
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 10,014
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.
Thine Wonk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-10-2013, 21:29
enapace
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,008
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.
enapace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-10-2013, 22:02
japaul
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 639
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.
japaul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-10-2013, 22:12
Thine Wonk
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 10,014
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.
Thine Wonk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-10-2013, 22:16
enapace
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,008
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.
enapace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-10-2013, 22:55
japaul
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 639
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.
japaul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-10-2013, 23:10
enapace
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,008
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.
enapace is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:24.