[wavejockglw]

On the other hand one could say that with the lowest penetration of smatphone users they have the most potential for revenue growth. If you have 90% of your customers already using smart phones there is far less opportunity to increase revenues from exiatingh customers and the costly business is acquiring customers from competitors. The real strength of O2 appears to be in the brand as it continues to increase its customer base despite cutthroat competition.

O2 don't count Tesco Mobile numbers in their figures nor does EE count Virgin Mobile. I expect most other MVNOs are counted separately also.

[Everything Goes]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wavejockglw

On the other hand one could say that with the lowest penetration of smatphone users they have the most potential for revenue growth. If you have 90% of your customers already using smart phones there is far less opportunity to increase revenues from exiatingh customers and the costly business is acquiring customers from competitors. The real strength of O2 appears to be in the brand as it continues to increase its customer base despite cutthroat competition.

O2 don't count Tesco Mobile numbers in their figures nor does EE count Virgin Mobile. I expect most other MVNOs are counted separately also.

They have struggled to get to 50% and have pretty much stalled at this level

[wavejockglw]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Everything Goes

They have struggled to get to 50% and have pretty much stalled at this level

And perhaps that may be no bad strategy in the longer term. Remember the hare and the tortoise! Holding back on investment in 3G has had little consequence for O2's overall subscriber numbers, focussing on brand and concentrating investment where most people live seems to have paid off for them. Add to that the savings made by doing one upgrade on many sites for 3G/4G simultaneously. From a business perspective, which is what it's all about there is little question that O2 have read the market well in recent years and have been very good at holding on to their customers as well as gaining new ones.

Thinking about coverage it follows that most mobile customers use their service in their home area and there is a key difference in strategy between networks in this regard. If you live in a city like Glasgow that has great O2 2/3/4G coverage and spend most of your time there it's very likely you will remain loyal to O2. You might get a better signal on a bus or a train heading out for a visit to Stirling or Dundee on an alternative network that has invested in more 3G coverage but if that network has lots of smartphone users and unlimited tethering your user experience in your home city might not be as good. Most folks value their home area mobile experience most important as that is where they need to use the service most often. Price controlled data distribution ensures that the growing demand for mobile data can be regulated without the need for 'traffic management', fair use policies or enforced compression of media. You pays your money and takes your choice and the quarterly stats seem to suggest that O2 have been convincing and acquiring customers consistently for a long time. If the key factors that customers consider valuable were not delivered on O2 they would have been losing customers rather than gaining them. As a legacy network O2 has a lot of basic voice and text customers, which are still profitable and quite a few will doubtless be convinced to upgrade as the cost of smartphones continues to decrease.

[AlecR]

wavejock is looking for attention again guys...

[wavejockglw]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlecR

wavejock is looking for attention again guys...

Wrong...... Simply making comment and responding on-topic to posts made about telecommunications which seems far from the clear personalised mischief making agenda some appear to be using the forum for. Personal harassment and abuse won't be tolerated.....now hopefully we may return to serious telecoms discussion......

[jonmorris]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlecR

wavejock is looking for attention again guys...

Won't get it from me.

[AlecR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wavejockglw

Whilst O2 currently have 11.6 million smartphone customers, not everyone wants a smartphone. I have several colleagues who won't carry one and are more than happy with voice and texts on phones and use PC's and tablets for the Internet. O2, Vodafone and EE have been upgrading 2G networks and they all still promote and sell low cost phones that use 2G so they must feel there will be a profit to be made from that technology for sone time to come. Then there are those who have two phones, one smart and a cheapie for leisure and why not? The mobile phone as a simple communications device has a place for many even nowadays and thankfully there are options for those from some operators at prices less than £10.

Weren't you just boasting about smartphone use on O2?!?

[wavejockglw]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlecR

Weren't you just boasting about smartphone use on O2?!?

No......I mentioned O2 have plenty of potential to increase revenues by upgrading existing customers to smart phones.

[jabbamk1]

Wavejock is just looking for a pointless argument.

Put him on your ignore list rather than responding.

[Thine Wonk]

Interestingly I completely missed this supreme court ruling in BT's favour which O2 commented in their financial report about.

O2

Quote:

On 9th July 2014 the Supreme Court gave the judgement on variable wholesale termination charges for calls to 080, 0845 and 0870 numbers, in favour of BT. Telefónica UK is disappointed with the ruling, and is currently reviewing the implications in detail, however no significant income statement impacts related to the ruling are expected as the Company had already provided for the likely impact.

It seems BT charge a wholesale price based on what the end network retails their sale price to the consumer at, so in Three's case with 3-2-1 Three pay a percentage of that, whereas O2, who might charge 15p or 25p have to pay a lot more as they are selling it for more.

O2 thought that this was unfair, but BT won in the supreme court.

An interesting outcome.

[japaul]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thine Wonk

Interestingly I completely missed this supreme court ruling in BT's favour which O2 commented in their financial report about.

O2


It seems BT charge a wholesale price based on what the end network retails their sale price to the consumer at, so in Three's case with 3-2-1 Three pay a percentage of that, whereas O2, who might charge 15p or 25p have to pay a lot more as they are selling it for more.

O2 thought that this was unfair, but BT won in the supreme court.

An interesting outcome.

EE released their own statement about this too.

http://ee.co.uk/our-company/financia...raphic-numbers

It has dragged on for years ever since the mobile networks complained about BT's ladder pricing. Ofcom blocked it and it went through various appeals to where we are now.

[mogzyboy]

For once, I agree with Wavejock. I mean, O2's business model has to be commended. Their 'pay us your money and we won't bother to invest it into a service that you can actually make use out of, particularly your data, so up yours! then we'll drag our heels to catch up with the MBNL networks because, oh crap, data is where it's at now' approach has worked wonders...

[wavejockglw]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mogzyboy

For once, I agree with Wavejock. I mean, O2's business model has to be commended. Their 'pay us your money and we won't bother to invest it into a service that you can actually make use out of, particularly your data, so up yours! then we'll drag our heels to catch up with the MBNL networks because, oh crap, data is where it's at now' approach has worked wonders...

Nah...... you don't hold on to 12 million smartphone users with a policy like that. It beggars belief that anyone would think 12 million customers would sheepishly keep paying and not be able to use the devices they have chosen.

The truth is that O2 have been very shrewd and invested where they know people make use of the service mostly and have also been careful to ensure that what folks sign up for they can deliver without limiting factors like traffic management. For a very long time some on this forum have been waiting for the collapse of the O2 customer base and I suspect each quarter there has been sighs of disbelief when the numbers of O2 customers rise. I'm not sure how long it will take for some to realise that there is more than one business model and not all customers have the same requirements. O2 have steered clear of the unlimited data minefield and positioned themselves as a premium brand with high standards of customer service and that seems to have worked well just as it has for other premium brands like Thomson Holidays, BMW, Waitrose etc.

[Thine Wonk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wavejockglw

Nah...... you don't hold on to 12 million smartphone users with a policy like that.

You might not have 3-6 million extra smartphone customers you would have otherwise have had that want to use data outside of main towns and cities though, if that is O2 could have attracted the same percentage of smartphone customers as the likes of EE and O2, or anyone else they are significantly behind in smartphone percentage.

[mogzyboy]

I don't think that I'd feel like I was on a premium service if I was on a train and I could only get 3G for 50% of the journey...
After all, if I was buying a shiny new smartphone, the very least I would expect to be able to do is doo what I want, when I want, 97% of the time. O2 couldn't fulfil my requirement in that regard, whereas MBNL can.

[jonmorris]

Yup. Come 2020, O2 may well be a force to be reckoned with - but that's five and a half years away.

But at least we do all know that O2 is by far the best network in Glasgow.

[wavejockglw]

Where has it been stated that O2 is the best network in Glasgow? More mischief making? I used Glasgow as an example of a city where O2 had good range and depth of coverage, nothing more. Personally I use EE in my home city, for no other reason than because they had the widest 4G coverage when I upgraded last year. Now that Vodafone and O2 also have the city and surrounding areas covered their deals will be considered when I am next due to re-contract.

If a network can deliver in my home area that is pretty much all that matters to me as I do not travel greatly across the UK and I am sure there are 1000s like me. I really don't care about getting 3G in some far flung rural area of the UK that might account for 0.0001% of my yearly usage. It's good to know that XX% of the nation has coverage but for me it's my home city that really matters most and in most big cities there is coverage by all providers although some have more 4G than others currently.

The bottom line is that customers are not foolish and don't generally put up with deficiency of service to the exaggerated extent some here state. Coverage and performance surveys have seen a levelling out of the networks with EE enjoying a clear lead in most because of their head start and simultaneous upgrade and integration of Orange sites into one network. Different approaches by the network providers deliver different results. Who has the best approach remains to be seen with each attempting to gain customers whilst coping with specific issues like coverage Vs congestion. It's far from black and white especially in big cities where 70% of the UK population live.

Look forward to discovering what the next set of results deliver in 3 months from now.

[Everything Goes]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wavejockglw

If a network can deliver in my home area that is pretty much all that matters to me as I do not travel greatly across the UK and I am sure there are 1000s like me. I really don't care about getting 3G in some far flung rural area of the UK that might account for 0.0001% of my yearly usage. It's good to know that XX% of the nation has coverage but for me it's my home city that really matters most and in most big cities there is coverage by all providers although some have more 4G than others currently.

There lies the problem. Im all right Jack attitude. If it doesn't affect you its not a problem. Try going out of the Glasgow and it will open your eyes. Otherwise keep your head in the sand

[Redcoat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Everything Goes

There lies the problem. Im all right Jack attitude. If it doesn't affect you its not a problem. Try going out of the Glasgow and it will open your eyes. Otherwise keep your head in the sand

The problem with wavejock's comment there is that it's actually too blunt and truthful for some posters here to handle. The truth is that for the vast, vast majority of mobile phone users, national coverage (as a defined percentage of the population) is of no or very little consequence to choosing a network - the only people it'll really matter to are those that travel extensively across the country outside of cities where the rate of national coverage can actually start to matter. For everyone else, what matters is that they can use their mobile, tablet or data card where they happen to be most of the time. For wavejock, what matters to him is coverage within his vicinity, i.e. his home city. For someone like myself who spends almost all of their time in much less built-up surroundings, I've found that all four networks have their strong and weak points but as a compromise O2 tends to just about win out (though I am considering other options at the moment for myself). I've never been to Glasgow and I don't have any plans to visit any time soon. Conversely although I don't know wavejock's travel plans, he might not have any need to visit my neck of the woods any time soon. In both cases, mobile coverage in places we don't visit are not a factor in deciding what network we choose. No point in choosing a network that has 99% UK coverage if you can't get a signal at your own house and have to drive 1/2 mile away to get one bar of 2G.

Hey, I know O2's 3G coverage in some parts of the UK is poor or non-existent. OTOH in some others it can range from decent to excellent. Same goes for all networks, though some have bigger gaps to potentially fill than others.

[jabbamk1]

Agreed. And besides, a lot of it is brand. Just one example,I know a guy who has been on Vodafone for years on pay as you go paying extortionate rates and topping up £40 a month. It's what they're used to. (And yes, other networks work in his area as well)

There are many reasons as to why someone would join one network. Coverage is only one factor out of the hundreds of other factors. I can say without a doubt that EE and Three have overall better coverage than O2 or Vodafone but it doesn't mean 100% of mobile phone customers will be on EE/Three. Of course some people are going to go on O2 and Voda as well because of the other factors. Just like how not every one uses Amazon for their products when they're arguably the best and have the best range etc... Some people are still going to use supermarkets and other competitors.

Vodafone has always had a lot of brand loyalty due to the way they've positioned themselves and due to the value added services they provide and that's why they still maintain a huge customer base despite the fact that there are much better options out there for consumers. Obviously I'm generalising but I'd say that's a major reason.

You can say the same kind of things about O2 as well. Plus O2 has a great reputation for customer service and for being a somewhat reliable network and THE network for the UK.

[Everything Goes]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jabbamk1

Agreed. And besides, a lot of it is brand. Just one example,I know a guy who has been on Vodafone for years on pay as you go paying extortionate rates and topping up £40 a month. It's what they're used to. (And yes, other networks work in his area as well)

There are many reasons as to why someone would join one network. Coverage is only one factor out of the hundreds of other factors. I can say without a doubt that EE and Three have overall better coverage than O2 or Vodafone but it doesn't mean 100% of mobile phone customers will be on EE/Three. Of course some people are going to go on O2 and Voda as well because of the other factors. Just like how not every one uses Amazon for their products when they're arguably the best and have the best range etc... Some people are still going to use supermarkets and other competitors.

Vodafone has always had a lot of brand loyalty due to the way they've positioned themselves and due to the value added services they provide and that's why they still maintain a huge customer base despite the fact that there are much better options out there for consumers. Obviously I'm generalising but I'd say that's a major reason.

You can say the same kind of things about O2 as well. Plus O2 has a great reputation for customer service and for being a somewhat reliable network and THE network for the UK.

Anyone paying £40 a month on top ups should be on a contract even if its a sim only. Ive always struggled to find reasons why anyone would choose Vodafone. They aren't cheap for much anything and as for "Value added services" I don't think Vodafone have any

I see O2 and Vodafone as the golden oldies networks

[jchamier]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jabbamk1

You can say the same kind of things about O2 as well. Plus O2 has a great reputation for customer service and for being a somewhat reliable network and THE network for the UK.

The salesmen in my company are always saying they want Voda or O2 as they're the best "for phone calls". I asked one last week how many phone calls he made versus emails on his phone and tablet. He then realised how much fewer phonecalls he was making compared to responding to emails and meeting invites.

Vodafone is fine (even has HD voice on 3G) but O2's voice quality is so poor on 2G and just able usable on 3G :-/

[jonmorris]

People go with what they're used to. I was a loyal Vodafone customer from 1989 to the day Orange launched. For a while I had two lines, but quickly realised that Orange was superior (better value, more services etc) and dropped Vodafone.

Of course, back in the early 1990s Orange and even one2one were quite groundbreaking as they saw a way to offer value that neither VF or Cellnet did - no doubt because even then they had all the lucrative business contracts.

[jchamier]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonmorris

Of course, back in the early 1990s Orange and even one2one were quite groundbreaking as they saw a way to offer value that neither VF or Cellnet did - no doubt because even then they had all the lucrative business contracts.

Yes, I agree. I wonder if business contracts are as lucrative these days. Phones generally aren't subsidised by the networks on these contracts, and friends of mine report they get global roaming with data and high amounts of data in the UK. I suspect with the 4G roll out costs those deals will not be so good on renewal.

[Redcoat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Everything Goes

I see O2 and Vodafone as the golden oldies networks

And you accuse some others of having their heads in the sand.