• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • Gadgets
  • Mobile Phones
O2 UK Results
<<
<
6 of 14
>>
>
Everything Goes
02-08-2014
Originally Posted by Redcoat:
“And you accuse some others of having their heads in the sand. ”

Given O2 have only 50% of their customers on Smartphones I suspect they have a fair few Golden Oldies clutching on to their feature phones

Go join Wavey in that sand dune
gomezz
02-08-2014
Or is that only 50% of phones on O2 are smartphones? Very different thing.
Redcoat
03-08-2014
Originally Posted by Everything Goes:
“Given O2 have only 50% of their customers on Smartphones I suspect they have a fair few Golden Oldies clutching on to their feature phones

Go join Wavey in that sand dune ”

You whinge about others not being able to look beyond themselves when your angst with O2 is due to coverage concerned with your locality and can't get your head around the idea that others elsewhere actually have/enjoy good O2 3G and/or 4G coverage. And you can only respond by playing the man and not the ball.

The figure for smartphone penetrative on O2's network solely on its own is moot. What matters for them and for that matter all networks is the monetisation of its consumer base. I would suggest that O2 based on their revenue figures are doing perfectly fine with themselves across different user bases. While accountants can often be accused of looking at nothing but company bottom line, the same can be said for technophiles whom believe something is useless or obsolete if it doesn't cater to the absolute latest whim. No point investing in making major improvements if the RoI is impossible to achieve. Witness back at the start of the last decade when the networks were falling over themselves to build customer numbers during dot com booms before realising that it meant very little if millions of your customers brought as good as next to no revenue in for you. Once you understand why all networks target different customers, you'll then realise that mobile networks weren't designed only for you in mind!

BTW around 80% of mobile phone users in Northern Ireland use either O2 or Vodafone as their primary carrier yet smartphone use here as a percentage isn't much different to that in Britain, I doubt that 4 out of 5 mobile users in NI are "golden oldies"
wavejockglw
03-08-2014
The bottom line re O2 is that they have over 12 million smartphone customers across the UK. Reading some of the comments on this forum one could conclude that the company is facing a huge problem satisfying those customers needs due to coverage. The published facts reveal a very different story with the company not only maintaining it's customer share but consistently increasing it. O2 have for years had the lowest number of escalated complaints and highest ratings for customer satisfaction and that is proved by them having the lowest churn of any UK mobile provider. No company can produce those type of results with a sub standard service that affects consumers expectations and renders their technology devices less functional than with competitors.

As for the demographic of O2 customers...... allied to major contemporary music acts and live music venues the company has more focus on youth than any other UK network. Its by no means scientific but in my line of work I encounter lots of 16-25s and find that O2 has a good representation amongst that age group.

O2's business strategy is clearly different from others and might not be the preferred option for the small expensive to service number of data hungry customers but for millions of others it appears to be a valued standard of service that has earned loyalty beyond that which can be achieved with a focus on price alone. In an open market customers vote with their cash and there is no doubt that O2 has and looks set to continue to be a solid performer in the UK mobile sector.
Thine Wonk
03-08-2014
The point people are making is not about O2 as a successful business, it is simply around the poor data coverage the moment you set foot out of a main town, data usage per hear and smartphone penetration within the user base.

Just because O2 brand AEG stadiums doesn't actually mean they are attracting the customers they want, if they were then O2's smartphone penetration might not be the lowest percentage in the business.

Lets recap, regardless of who has the biggest customer base, bigger vs smaller networks:-

O2 as a company has the poorest, or joint poorest rural data coverage - fact
It has the smallest smartphone penetration as a percentage of userbase, by a wide margin - fact
O2 users use the least data amount per head of any of the main 4 networks - fact
prking
03-08-2014
Originally Posted by Thine Wonk:
“The point people are making is not about O2 as a successful business, it is simply around the poor data coverage the moment you set foot out of a main town, data usage per hear and smartphone penetration within the user base.

Just because O2 brand AEG stadiums doesn't actually mean they are attracting the customers they want, if they were then O2's smartphone penetration might not be the lowest percentage in the business.

Lets recap, regardless of who has the biggest customer base, bigger vs smaller networks:-

O2 as a company has the poorest, or joint poorest rural data coverage - fact
It has the smallest smartphone penetration as a percentage of userbase, by a wide margin - fact
O2 users use the least data amount per head of any of the main 4 networks - fact”

If all of that is true, does it make a difference? Not according to the figures. You can explain it away by denigrating O2 users, as some do, by making banal observations that they must be old or unsophisticated or somehow irrelevant.

Why is it so hard for some to understand that different companies have different business models and different users have different requirement?

Can we have some proper discussion without silly personal comments and unthinking smart-alec quips?
Thine Wonk
03-08-2014
Originally Posted by prking:
“If all of that is true, does it make a difference? Not according to the figures. You can explain it away by denigrating O2 users, as some do, by making banal observations that they must be old or unsophisticated or somehow irrelevant.

Why is it so hard for some to understand that different companies have different business models and different users have different requirement?

Can we have some proper discussion without silly personal comments and unthinking smart-alec quips?”

I started the post by saying "The point people are making is not about O2 as a successful business". Wavejock seems to think O2 are attracting lots of younger data hungry smartphone users and that there is no difference between O2 and the likes of Three & EE.

What others are saying is that O2 has a very different business and probably because of the limited data coverage and performance they don't have the same percentage of smartphone customers, or data usage by their users. These are the only points I and other have been arguing with Wavejock.
jchamier
03-08-2014
Originally Posted by wavejockglw:
“As for the demographic of O2 customers...... allied to major contemporary music acts and live music venues the company has more focus on youth than any other UK network. Its by no means scientific but in my line of work I encounter lots of 16-25s and find that O2 has a good representation amongst that age group.”

I've been working with a bunch of 20 and 21 year olds, who are on O2 and Vodafone with a mixture of handsets (all smartphones) ranging from entry level such as Moto G up to Galaxy S4. They are non technical, and unlikely to read these forums.

We were discussing businesses and customers, and I used mobile phone companies as an example - and they _all_ thought that 3G was the same for all networks. They had no idea that different networks would have different coverage patterns.

They were amazed that (our company provider) Vodafone could have EDGE only with no TCP/IP throughput, and I showed that swapping the SIM in the phone could go from no data, to a 30 Mbps 4G connection on EE, or a 10 Mbps connection on Three in the same location.

Yes, I know quite a few retired folk who have feature phones and they're mostly on O2 PAYG, and I know a company who provides O2 on their company phones (iPhones or blackberry) and they are happy with voice services, but live with poor data but get a good price. Many staff carry personal PAYG MiFi devices on Three to counteract, some now using cellular enabled tablets.

The 4G rollout will solve the problem, once enough people have devices that support LTE at 800 (for O2) and 800/2600 for Voda.

The idea that "voice is king" is changing very very rapidly.
wavejockglw
03-08-2014
Interesting but my teens and twenty's are all IT students and are well aware of the differences as quite a few have experience of more than one provider. Some are veterans having used the mobile Internet for most of their lives! What seems to matter to most is the ability to stream audio and video clips from sites like YouTube and Facebook and a few I have noticed lately are using the BBC iPlayer but mainly on WiFi. Coverage in the city area where I work and where these young people live is not an issue as all networks have at least 3G with HSPA. The big issue for some lately has been congestion making videos buffer and audio streams stop and that issue has made a few move to more restricted but more reliable mobile data on alternative networks.

Coverage is just one aspect that affects mobile service satisfaction and as stated previously if you are in a major city and don't travel much then other factors can be more important. Customer service, price, extras, reliability of connection and availability of bandwidth locally to view content seamlessly all matter. I doubt that branding whilst important plays much part in holding on to customers, especially demanding youngsters who make comparisons with their peers about most things. If youngster a is on O2 and can't view a clip on Facebook and youngster b on EE can the former won't be long in asking why and voting with their cash when the time comes to renew. To put it simply no matter what age the customer, people don't keep paying for a service that does not deliver for them especially when there are similarly priced alternatives on offer.
Thine Wonk
03-08-2014
I completely accept that not all networks have the same business model.

I am just trying to get Wavejock to realise that 50% of O2's customer base are 'old school' and don't care about smartphones, and of the remainder, they aren't as active users as the other networks either, consuming less than 1/5th of the UK's mobile data collectively, despite having 24M customers.

When you consider this, you see why a large amount of mobile forum members don't think O2 is right for them, as the majority here are passionate about smartphones and have done all the comparisons and looked at the data coverage and value for money from the various networks.
mupet0000
03-08-2014
Originally Posted by Thine Wonk:
“I completely accept that not all networks have the same business model.

I am just trying to get Wavejock to realise that 50% of O2's customer base are 'old school' and don't care about smartphones, and of the remainder, they aren't as active users as the other networks either, consuming less than 1/5th of the UK's mobile data collectively, despite having 24M customers.

When you consider this, you see why a large amount of mobile forum members don't think O2 is right for them, as the majority here are passionate about smartphones and have done all the comparisons and looked at the data coverage and value for money from the various networks.”

Sounds right to me. I started with my first mobile (Nokia 3310) when I was a kid and I was on O2. Stuck with them for about 6 years until I got my first Android phone (Desire HD). O2 always served me well for calls and texts, I was on PaYG & data was expensive on O2, so I switched to GiffGaff in 2011.

I was on GiffGaff until the beginning of the year and even though I had unlimited data, I found myself getting frustrated at how slow everything was to load, so I just used it for basic social media and occasional web browsing. I couldn't ever watch a youtube video without having to pause it and wait a good 5 minutes for 360p to buffer. And forget about downloading anything from the Play Store.

I'd finally had enough and decided to switch network, I found the £12.90 AYCE sim-only deal on 3 and I chose that because it was around what I was paying already on GiffGaff. To say the least, I was shocked at the data speeds when out and about. I could finally listen to spotify at high quality and stream youtube videos. Everything was much faster.

It never even occurred to me that another mobile network could be faster, I just assumed all mobile networks were as slow as O2s. 4 of my friends were on O2 as well and we'd all been in the same boat. All but one have switched to either EE or 3, the only one that hasn't is locked in a contract. All because I showed them the difference in speed.

Maybe the reason why users on O2 are consuming less data is because they literally can't consume as much as they could on another network. That's certainly true for me.
johnathome
03-08-2014
Originally Posted by mupet0000:
“
I was on GiffGaff until the beginning of the year and even though I had unlimited data, I found myself getting frustrated at how slow everything was to load, so I just used it for basic social media and occasional web browsing. I couldn't ever watch a youtube video without having to pause it and wait a good 5 minutes for 360p to buffer. And forget about downloading anything from the Play Store.

I'd finally had enough and decided to switch network, I found the £12.90 AYCE sim-only deal on 3 and I chose that because it was around what I was paying already on GiffGaff. To say the least, I was shocked at the data speeds when out and about. I could finally listen to spotify at high quality and stream youtube videos. Everything was much faster.

It never even occurred to me that another mobile network could be faster, I just assumed all mobile networks were as slow as O2s. 4 of my friends were on O2 as well and we'd all been in the same boat. All but one have switched to either EE or 3, the only one that hasn't is locked in a contract. All because I showed them the difference in speed.

Maybe the reason why users on O2 are consuming less data is because they literally can't consume as much as they could on another network. That's certainly true for me.”

That was exactly my experience with giffgaff, what finally pushed me to 3 was during the world cup when i tried to stream a game with TVCatchUp and couldn't even get the 0.6Mbps needed to stream.

Got the 30 day £12.90 sim and the difference is phenomenal, wish i'd changed earlier.
jonmorris
03-08-2014
It's perfectly possible to run a successful business when you have lots of loyal customers who, for whatever reason, have lesser demands than others - or lower expectations.

2G coverage for voice and text has never been questioned on O2 or Vodafone. It's excellent and has been for ages.

The problem is/was the lack of 3G roll out, and the necessary data capacity to provide a good service. It's ironic that users consume less data, and less people have a smartphone, meaning data usage demand is down - yet it still performs like a network that's saturated.

You could argue that not investing in the same level of 3G service as Orange, T-Mobile or Three has made O2 more profitable, and the money has been better spent on very slick advertising, inviting retail environments and good customer service.

And all that's fine, if you're the type of user that has a feature phone and still believe a mobile phone should only make calls and text. As long as it works for that, you have absolutely no reason to care about what the other networks are doing or offer. Why would you?

But it's fair to say that a lot of people are now more interested in data. A mobile phone is no longer used as a phone by a lot of people. Rarely make calls, rarely receive them - and texting is limited in that it can only be delivered to someone on a specific phone, as against an email or IM that can be picked up on anything, so is unlikely to be missed.

And that's where O2 has suddenly come unstuck and now has to invest heavily in rolling out a 4G network that also seeks to improve 3G at the same time. 3G coverage that, in my opinion, should have been done years ago.

Let's remember, Three launched 3G in 2003. That's ELEVEN years ago. So, is it really acceptable that we're saying O2 will be offering a robust data network by 2020?

17 years later??

EE and Three already provide a pretty solid 3G network right now. Today.
wavejockglw
04-08-2014
To suggest that O2 won't have reasonable coverage for data until 2020 is nothing more than malicious disinformation. Recent Root Metrics reports have shown that the company have made significant improvements delivering data in major markets and 900Mhz 3G with its superior range and penetration is being deployed in more places than ever. Coverage is only one aspect and in cities O2 customers are far less likely to be affected by congestion or subject to traffic management. The facts speak for themselves with over 12 million customers using smart phones on O2 and the whole smart phone revolution was started by Apple with the first iPhone which was exclusively launched in partnership with not 3, Orange, T Mobile or Vodafone but O2! In 2014 major companies and organisations choose O2 to communicate across the UK not only for voice and text but for data also. Huge organisations don't buy services the same way as the average customer, they research the market, get tenders and enter into complex contracts with service level agreements that have financial penalties etc. The only companies that can tender and win that type of business are those with robust networks and of the four UK operations there are three who compete for big user contracts. That does not probably mean much to personal users but should provide a clue as to the status of the UK networks by organisations that often have more to loose than a picture upload to Facebook.
prking
04-08-2014
Originally Posted by Thine Wonk:
“I completely accept that not all networks have the same business model.

I am just trying to get Wavejock to realise that 50% of O2's customer base are 'old school' and don't care about smartphones, and of the remainder, they aren't as active users as the other networks either, consuming less than 1/5th of the UK's mobile data collectively, despite having 24M customers.

When you consider this, you see why a large amount of mobile forum members don't think O2 is right for them, as the majority here are passionate about smartphones and have done all the comparisons and looked at the data coverage and value for money from the various networks.”

Here we go again. How do you know a "large "amount" of forum members" or "a majority are passionate" ?

Why the disparaging "old school"? There is a difference between not using a smartphone and extrapolating that to not being passionate. Writing as if having a smartphone is better than not, is bizarre.

You could equally say that the " majority " of forum members (you've asserted are passionate about smartphones) are out of step with the 11 million people on O2 who don't have one.
Redcoat
04-08-2014
Originally Posted by prking:
“If all of that is true, does it make a difference? Not according to the figures. You can explain it away by denigrating O2 users, as some do, by making banal observations that they must be old or unsophisticated or somehow irrelevant.

Why is it so hard for some to understand that different companies have different business models and different users have different requirement?

Can we have some proper discussion without silly personal comments and unthinking smart-alec quips?”

I've found that in my time on here, there is an inherent snobbishness in the regular O2 bashing here where they (O2) can't win. If they do improve their 3G coverage, they'll be moaning why they didn't do it years ago. If they start rolling out 4G coverage they're criticised as only now trying to respond to growing internet via mobile use rather than take a rational business response into adjusting to growing market trends. If they're criticised in having announced that their 4G roll out it being pushed back, they get criticised whereas a similar announcement by EE that they are pushing back their 4G coverage targets gets meet with a "meh". Look at the current EE general discussion thread where there are numerous complaints of data speeds suddenly slowing down; if O2 had that problem you'd have a 10+ page thread within two days mostly by posters who don't even use O2's network. Not to mention problems that 3 occasionally have cropping up e.g. data speeds in Central London at certain times of the day. The uninitiated coming on here would probably swear that the sun shines out of the backsides of 3 & EE, where as O2 is run by Satan himself!

The percentage of customers that have smart phones on each network can on its own itself be misleading. Many users on a network may be using a cheap Android or Windows phone without actually realising it e.g. a Samsung Galaxy Y and might only use small amounts of data if at all. OTOH there are many "non" smartphones still on the market that can do some basic internet services quite well (Facebook, YouTube, Twitter etc.) but don't have the same flexibility that smartphones have e.g. downloadable apps. That's why taking the percentage at face value is foolish.

Then there is taking into account O2 & Vodafone as "heritage" operators, as well as businesses that research into looking into network deals to suit their needs. As an example I know of several business customers that use different networks. The majority of those that use O2 (and one that uses Vodafone) tend to have little need for data on an extensive basis while going out and about. Indeed within a local context here what is important to them is that local retailers offer them deals for free roaming into the Irish Republic. Not surprisingly the employees are normally supplied with 2G only phones, though that's not to say all of them are like that, one of them uses O2 data extensively. OTOH, a couple I know use EE & Orange where their business demands are placed significantly more on data use - the main handicap they have is that they can't get the same cost savings on roaming over the border that is available on O2 & Voda, and one of these companies is seriously looking at 3 (with their roaming offer available) once their current EE contract nears renewal time, even if 4G via 3 looks like it might take a while to come yet.

Some may point out that this sub-forum is mainly composed of users who place a high value on mobile data. That's fine in terms of discussing the relative technical capabilities of networks and what prices they offer for it, but in terms of the overall picture it is only part of the picture. The demographic here, it is safe to say, is not proportional to the general make up of all mobile phone users in the country (i.e. virtually all demographics) and a step back has to be taken to recognise this in terms of working out each companies' business.
jabbamk1
04-08-2014
Originally Posted by Redcoat:
“where as O2 is run by Satan himself!
.”

Well? Is it?



I think wavejock is trying to make one point, and everyone else is trying to make another point. And in the end it's pointless...

Like I said in my previous post there are many reasons why someone would join one network over and other and vice versa. As you say redcoat business plays a part here as well as Three don't really have a large business base as they mostly focus on consumer.

When it comes to the data side though Three and EE are far ahead and Three carries over 45% of the data from all networks in the UK. Plus the average use is now 2.6GB a user which shows that Three have a lot of data hungry users where O2 in general do not. Doesn't mean people don't see O2 as a good offer for other services etc...
Redcoat
04-08-2014
Originally Posted by jonmorris:
“Let's remember, Three launched 3G in 2003. That's ELEVEN years ago. So, is it really acceptable that we're saying O2 will be offering a robust data network by 2020?

17 years later??

EE and Three already provide a pretty solid 3G network right now. Today.”

Talk about a red herring! Unless 3 were happy to run as an MVNO on O2 for a while, it had to get their backside up and running with its own network pretty sharpish. Not to mention that in its first few years of operation it was plagued with problems e.g. poor customer service, poor 3G network coverage, dodgy handsets (the early NECs being notorious), "walled garden" services instead of full net access etc. it's actually quite amusing to think back then it promoted itself as a premium network! To be fair to them they have managed to turn much of that around - for me there's two main reasons, one in forming their agreement with T-Mobile to have MBNL in place so that both companies could roll out their 3G networks more cheaply and quickly when both started introducing mobile broadband packages. Had this not happened, it probably would have been the case that even allowing for Hutchinsons deep pockets they would have pulled out of the UK market at some point. Secondly 3 eventually realised that they couldn't compete with (at the time) the four main networks at their own game and so had to reinvent themselves focusing more on data applications and IP connectivity to attract a demographic that was immersed into the internet, the result being the X-Series packages, free Skype calls & Windows messenger etc. with little focus placed on ordinary calls and texts (except recently with their 3-2-1 PAYG offering). This has paid off and the long term looks decent for them especially as they paid minimal amounts for 4G spectrum (the minimum for 800MHz spectrum and getting 1800MHz spectrum for nothing thanks to EE executives taking a gamble that blew up in their faces!) so have not much of a burden in terms of spectrum licensing to expand 4G services.

Contrast that to the other networks for the time. They were significantly burdened by the cost of 3G spectrum licensing so its not surprising their roll outs were more mundane in more about reaching the minimum levels specified by the licences they held (and even then O2 & Vodafone had to be pushed on it by Ofcom). Not to mention that up until at least around 2008/09 there seemed to be little need for speedy internet access for many users so 2G only handsets were more than enough - despite the growing rise of Symbian powered handsets, you can thank Apple, like them or not, for bringing the idea of smartphones into the mainstream - not to mention that ordinary 3G data speeds were not much better than EDGE where available until HSPA technologies started getting rolled out. Also data was still quite expensive then on all networks. It's not surprising that O2, Vodafone and to a lesser extent Orange didn't feel too arsed about it all until about five years ago or so when technologies and habits started to change.
jabbamk1
04-08-2014
Originally Posted by Redcoat:
“Talk about a red herring! Unless 3 were happy to run as an MVNO on O2 for a while, it had to get their backside up and running with its own network pretty sharpish. Not to mention that in its first few years of operation it was plagued with problems e.g. poor customer service, poor 3G network coverage, dodgy handsets (the early NECs being notorious), "walled garden" services instead of full net access etc. it's actually quite amusing to think back then it promoted itself as a premium network! To be fair to them they have managed to turn much of that around - for me there's two main reasons, one in forming their agreement with T-Mobile to have MBNL in place so that both companies could roll out their 3G networks more cheaply and quickly when both started introducing mobile broadband packages. Had this not happened, it probably would have been the case that even allowing for Hutchinsons deep pockets they would have pulled out of the UK market at some point. Secondly 3 eventually realised that they couldn't compete with (at the time) the four main networks at their own game and so had to reinvent themselves focusing more on data applications and IP connectivity to attract a demographic that was immersed into the internet, the result being the X-Series packages, free Skype calls & Windows messenger etc. with little focus placed on ordinary calls and texts (except recently with their 3-2-1 PAYG offering). This has paid off and the long term looks decent for them especially as they paid minimal amounts for 4G spectrum (the minimum for 800MHz spectrum and getting 1800MHz spectrum for nothing thanks to EE executives taking a gamble that blew up in their faces!) so have not much of a burden in terms of spectrum licensing to expand 4G services.”

I agree. The Three of 2003 is totally different to the Three of 2013. They really turned around from a struggling MNO to a successful and profitable MNO. And yeh, it's thanks to MBNL and their investment in the network as well as other depts that allowed Three to get to where they are today. Hard to believe they went from the worst rated network to the best in just two years.
Redcoat
04-08-2014
Originally Posted by jabbamk1:
“I think wavejock is trying to make one point, and everyone else is trying to make another point. And in the end it's pointless...”

Personally I think wavejock is making (mostly) valid points on the matter at hand, that being O2's overall business performance, rather than some others who are only interested in a "yah/boo SPEEDZZ!!!!!!!11" argument. The argument about the technical aspect of mobile networks and that of their business plans & strategies is one that needs to be kept in isolation from each other except in areas where they overlap e.g. the cost of investing in upgrading network infrastructure vs. return of investments. Until that is realised then yes, it is pointless!

Originally Posted by jabbamk1:
“Like I said in my previous post there are many reasons why someone would join one network over and other and vice versa. As you say redcoat business plays a part here as well as Three don't really have a large business base as they mostly focus on consumer.”

IIRC Three actually wound down the business arm of its retail end a few years ago on a short term basis because its share among business customers was very low, but once mobile data use suddenly started becoming more mainstream they invested more back into it and gave it another go. I do wonder what percentage of 3's business customers are solely on data as opposed to voice, text & data combined though. It wouldn't surprise me to see quite a few businesses use 3 only for data but then use O2 or Vodafone for voice & text, might cost a little more than keeping it all under one roof but it could give better returns.

Originally Posted by jabbamk1:
“When it comes to the data side though Three and EE are far ahead and Three carries over 45% of the data from all networks in the UK. Plus the average use is now 2.6GB a user which shows that Three have a lot of data hungry users where O2 in general do not. Doesn't mean people don't see O2 as a good offer for other services etc...”

Well it's not surprising that 3 have those figures as listed there as they market themselves at high data users, and they have made investments into their network to deliver consistently high speeds in many places. The average use of data per user is a bit moot though, it of course follows that if a customer has a bigger data pipe available to them and have less or no limits on how much data they can consume then it is near certain they will consume more data using more data intensive tasks and programmes. In my case nearly 10 years ago my local phone exchange was enabled for ADSL and when I first got it up and running, the difference in 512kbit/s speeds compared to around 40-45kbit/s for dial up was night and day and the likes of streaming low-res video became viable. However looking at it now 512kbit/s speeds is pretty inadequate for many internet based services now - the likes of streaming the BBC iPlayer or Netflix to your TV on those speeds would be painful, regularly buffer and be low-res. Not surprising that streaming services are a main component in the rising use of data across all internet connections.

Of course, as I said earlier, 3 isn't entirely faultless in this respect, as they have data squeezes in different parts of the UK - though if you live in a fairly rural part of the country you're much less likely to be affected. OTOH where I live O2 gets quite a hammering on its 3G by having a high amount of users yet I only have data problems very occasionally with them, which is more than I can say from my experience with Vodafone & T-Mobile in the last year. As with many things, local circumstances dictate quite a lot of preferences.
jonmorris
04-08-2014
Originally Posted by Redcoat:
“Talk about a red herring! Unless 3 were happy to run as an MVNO on O2 for a while, it had to get their backside up and running with its own network pretty sharpish. Not to mention that in its first few years of operation it was plagued with problems e.g. poor customer service, poor 3G network coverage, dodgy handsets (the early NECs being notorious), "walled garden" services instead of full net access etc. it's actually quite amusing to think back then it promoted itself as a premium network!.”

I obviously didn't imply Three's network from day one was excellent. Far from it. I know just how bad it was, but I was just giving some context about 3G and how old it is as a network technology.

By 2014, it should be available almost everywhere (as in every site upgraded), but for whatever reason (and I know some of them, but won't dilute this thread any further) O2 and Vodafone saw fit not invest in a speedy 3G rollout, or to keep upgrading the hardware to cope with the enhancements like HSPA/+/DC-HSPA and backhaul upgrades etc.

That's not even something to debate. It's fact, and both operators have come very close to getting in trouble for their rather pitiful rollout.

2G coverage has never been called into question and even now, if I'm in some big building in London where there's no signal - O2 is bound to be found. For some reason, in London, O2 2G coverage is everywhere. That's great for voice and text, and I'm not knocking O2 for any of the things it does right and does well.

The problem is data. Poor 3G, and very frequently no data flow at all over 2G. Limited 4G, and a long timeframe for that to improve. But when it does, as I see no doubt will happen, I'll be the first to announce how good it has become.

Nevertheless, in my opinion, O2 is way behind (so is Vodafone) and is now suffering a period where it can't realistically compete with EE and Three in a lot of places.

If some will argue that it just needs to work at home or at work, and you now have O2 or Vodafone 4G (and therefore upgraded 2G and 3G at the same time) then, fine, but for those that travel or haven't yet had 4G come to town, my point still stands. And I think O2 and Vodafone only has itself to blame, because myself and others have been saying this for many, many years.

Even back when we were seeing 3G offering speeds of 1.8 and 3.6Mbps (and, later, 7.2) it was always a case of asking why O2 and Vodafone weren't that bothered. Vodafone offered higher speeds only in selected post codes, mostly in the City of London. Meanwhile, T-Mobile and Three were introducing it on a sizeable percentage of its network - and clearly preparing for the possibility of increasing speeds further as time went on.

Orange was also behind too, so benefitted massively when it teamed up with T-Mobile. I couldn't wait for my SIM to be able to roam onto T-Mobile, so I got better coverage AND faster speeds. It took some considerable time, as initially the roaming was 2G only!
wavejockglw
04-08-2014
O2 and Vodafone can compete with EE where they have 4G and can easily outperform 3 due to their congestion issues in many big cities. Redcoat is right that there is no one size fits all best solution and what may work well in one area may not for others. Coverage is by no means the be all and end all of providing a mobile service. Just checkout what is happening with Verizon in the US as they try to solve the problem of dishing out unlimited data on previous price plans.

Everything runs in cycles.......
RAN Man
04-08-2014
So the real question might be which is going to come first:

O2/Voda enabling/improving 3G/4G for data to catch up with EE/Three for data services. (And integrating all O2/Voda sites into a single grid)
EE/Three utilising 800Mhz effectively + VoLTE to catch up with Voda/O2 for voice coverage. (And integrating all ex Orange sites into a single grid).

This is a bit of a simplification, but these are the big ticket items for me. How big the gaps are between them, and indeed whether there is one in all locations, is always going to be the subject of some debate and nobody has the absolute answer. The reality is, for me anyway, you should base your network choice on the current performance/value in the areas/services that you need, which will always mean different things for different people.
mogzyboy
04-08-2014
Originally Posted by RAN Man:
“EE/Three utilising 800Mhz effectively + VoLTE to catch up with Voda/O2 for voice coverage. (And integrating all ex Orange sites into a single grid).”

This will, without any shadow of a doubt, happen first. Probably by the end of this year, although almost certainly b the middle of next I'd imagine. MBNL/Three/EE are quite proactive, whereas the other two are more reactive, and only seem to do things because they HAVE to (see Ofcom slapping Voda's wrists last year over their 3G coverage level).

I haven't experienced any heavily congested areas with Three. In the centre of Cardiff, I get speeds of around 1Mbps on 3G, but it's pretty usable. It's not like I get no data throughput at all. I can understand how that could be frustrating for people who experience that all the time as they live in that type of area, but for those passing through / there for the day, I don't really think it's a problem.
Thine Wonk
04-08-2014
Originally Posted by mogzyboy:
“This will, without any shadow of a doubt, happen first. Probably by the end of this year, although almost certainly b the middle of next I'd imagine. MBNL/Three/EE are quite proactive, whereas the other two are more reactive, and only seem to do things because they HAVE to (see Ofcom slapping Voda's wrists last year over their 3G coverage level).

I haven't experienced any heavily congested areas with Three. In the centre of Cardiff, I get speeds of around 1Mbps on 3G, but it's pretty usable. It's not like I get no data throughput at all. I can understand how that could be frustrating for people who experience that all the time as they live in that type of area, but for those passing through / there for the day, I don't really think it's a problem.”

Agreed, Three and EE have been pushing ahead with rollouts 3G, then DC-HSPA and now 4G, whereas the other 2 both had to be chased by Ofcom to meet the minimum requirements for 3G and didn't bother upgrading to later 3G technologies to boost speeds.

If I had to bet I would say VoLTE will come to EE & Three first. I haven't experienced any heavily congested areas either, only occasionally like you, but no widespread problem, no worse than congestion on any network in certain spots at certain times. Each time I load the coverage map I notice a little bit of improvement, I see Coventry city centre now shows on the coverage map for 4G, and reports that Nuneaton has coverage although it doesn't yet show. More cells are being enabled every week which is good, it should slowly continue to roll out.
<<
<
6 of 14
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map