|
||||||||
Root Metrics Glasgow |
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,577
|
Root Metrics Glasgow
http://www.rootmetrics.com/uk/compar...-october-2013/
EE overall best performance. O2 launched 4G service in the Glasgow area, and its speeds were comparable to the speeds found in May. Vodafone’s 4G launch, meanwhile, resulted in significantly improved speeds compared to the speeds we found during our last visit to Glasgow: O2 came last for Mobile data, despite having 4G! beaten by Three, Vodafone and EE, average download speed on O2 half that of Three! A tiny 15k file on O2 or Vodafone with 4G takes on average 3 times longer than Three, despite O2 having 4G. EE and Three best for calls in the Glasgow area with few failed calls. All networks did well with SMS. O2 and Vodafone the least reliable networks on the network reliability index. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 4,967
|
And thats with very few customers on O2/Voda's 4G service...
Guys in our office with O2 4G are seeing speeds roughly the same as MBNL DC speeds. Totally pointless to pay extra for with them unless you need the extra upload. Depth isnt there yet to even justify getting it for coverage improvement either. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,577
|
What confuses me is why downloading a tiny 15k file takes 3 times longer on O2 and why average speeds across the area are only 3Mb/s, making it the slowest network in the area despite having 4G! ..and they want people to pay extra for this?
Does Wavejock post here anymore? last I remembered he bought an S4? I think? it would be interesting to see what the 4G speeds are from anyone in Glasgow on any of the 4G networks. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 4,967
|
Proxys maybe causing the issues... But the fastest speed test (and tethered downloads) in Edinburgh via O2 4G is http://www.speedtest.net/iphone/692914630.png
Many were around 15-20... |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,577
|
One thing I did notice was Root Metrics area covered a much larger area than O2's 4G coverage, so if average speeds are only 3Mb/s, then there must a be a lot of areas that just have GPRS surrounding Glasgow?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,286
|
Quote:
Proxys maybe causing the issues... But the fastest speed test (and tethered downloads) in Edinburgh via O2 4G is http://www.speedtest.net/iphone/692914630.png
Many were around 15-20... Latency has been pretty good though - 37ms to London, beating EE's LTE speeds. |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,286
|
Quote:
One thing I did notice was Root Metrics area covered a much larger area than O2's 4G coverage, so if average speeds are only 3Mb/s, then there must a be a lot of areas that just have GPRS surrounding Glasgow?
Mind you - these reports often come out quite a while after the testing is actually done - OFCOM's reports usually lag the actual start of the testing period by 9-12 months for example, coming out 3-6 months after the end of the half-year run. Remember Rootmetrics' London report said O2's service was second only to EE's (not surprising given EE's "Up to 300Mbps" 40Mhz LTE vs O2's 75Mbps 10Mhz) and faster than Vodafone's. Incidentally their London report also specifically quoted LTE speeds in addition to "blended" 3G+4G speeds: Quote:
The study found that EE had speeds 30% faster than its rival networks in London. The UK’s largest network had average download speeds of 29.6Mbps compared with O2’s 23.3 and 20.8Mbps from Vodafone. Where's the equivalent for this article?The mobile performance research company conducted over 11,000 test over 310 miles of the capital and found Vodafone had slightly more indoor coverage than O2 with almost 70% compared with 63.9%. EE also leads the way when testing blended 3G and 4G, with top an average download speed of 22.7Mbps compared with O2’s 16.3Mbps and Vodafone’s 16.2Mbps. O2 and Vodafone launched their 4G propositions only last month, while EE first launched its service last November, and now covers over 100 towns and cities. In fact now that I look at it, the article doesn't actually mention testing 4G speeds at all, unlike the London tests. In fact, with average "blended" speeds of 22.7Mbps in London and 13.2Mbps in Glasgow on EE, despite running the same network at the same speeds, it looks like the Glasgow test isn't including any 4G results at all. The London report also does specifically say things likee "This first look at London’s 4G services bodes well for the new providers and, more importantly, for people who chose to sign up.", again not mentioned in the Scotland reports. The Glasgow report also says "Vodafone’s average download and upload speeds were the fastest we’ve recorded by the operator in any market we’ve tested to date. [9.5 mbps download]" yet their own London report shows Vodafone's download speed to average 20.8Mbps on 4G and 16.2Mbps on 3G+4G So they're actually contradicting their own previous releases. |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,286
|
Aha, just reading the methodology and they admit they didn't use a 4G phone for most of the tests. Of the four networks tested, they used an outdated, non-DC-HSPA 3G phone for three of them. Also most of the tested area is rural, and has no 4G coverage from any network. Less than 10% of the covered area actually has any 4G at all.
The edge of the "Glasgow area" they've mapped is so far outside the city of Glasgow that if you applied the same scale to London you'd be 150 miles away and have Sheffield, Cardiff and Southampton included in the "London area". This is more of a test of south-central Scotland than Glasgow. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 509
|
I know for a fact that Vodafone are using only 800Mhz spectrum to get the coverage we need, but when they start using the higher spectrum we should see speed increases.
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,286
|
Makes no different what 4G spectrum they're using if the testers are not using a 4G phone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 363
|
Quote:
Aha, just reading the methodology and they admit they didn't use a 4G phone for most of the tests. Of the four networks tested, they used an outdated, non-DC-HSPA 3G phone for three of them. Also most of the tested area is rural, and has no 4G coverage from any network. Less than 10% of the covered area actually has any 4G at all.
The edge of the "Glasgow area" they've mapped is so far outside the city of Glasgow that if you applied the same scale to London you'd be 150 miles away and have Sheffield, Cardiff and Southampton included in the "London area". This is more of a test of south-central Scotland than Glasgow. If they're using different kit in the cities, how can we compare like for like? Especially using a non-DC phone. For goodness sake! I'm beginning to seriously doubt the validity of root metrics methodology. Who is behind them/pays for them? Is there an agenda here, or is it just *very* badly organised? |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,577
|
Quote:
Makes no different what 4G spectrum they're using if the testers are not using a 4G phone.
The Glasgow area they used is the extended map area according to Eurostat, which includes quite a wide area of commuter areas. |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 249
|
Phones used were as below
When measuring performance in Glasgow, the following devices were used: Samsung Galaxy S® III (EE, Three, and Vodafone) and the Sony Xperia™ Z (O2). I think you'd need to presume its the I9305 Galaxy (LTE version) which is DC-HSDPA. |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,286
|
Quote:
There was an LTE version of the S3 wasn't there? I think that was a typo though and they meant S4. That would actually make EE look worse than O2, so it doesn't at all back up the theory of some designed EE bias. Despite the fact (if it's not a typo) the only handset that has DC / LTE used for for O2 measurement, O2 STILL came last on mobile data.
As for it being a typo - the same devices are listed in the Edinburgh report. If it was indeed the S4 I see no reason why they should have picked a different handset just for O2 - it would have been fairer to use the same handset for all networks. Quote:
The Glasgow area they used is the extended map area according to Eurostat, which includes quite a wide area of commuter areas.
That's the thing - they title the report Glasgow, you name the thread Glasgow, yet people from 90% of the areas wouldn't dream of describing themselves as "from Glasgow" or "in Glasgow". The area far exceeds what any sensible person would describe as Glasgow (city), Greater Glasgow or even the Lanarkshire.Yes the Eurostat area is more centered around all areas where people commute to Glasgow, which obviously is much larger than Glasgow itself. But most people associate the term "Glasgow" as referring to the city Glasgow, which this report most certainly is not. Again, the area covered is mostly rural Scotland, and I find it quite misleading to refer to it as "Glasgow". |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,577
|
Who cares about so much nitpicking as to the areas defined, there's a map on the report under methodology. The area they choose is an extended urban area, and in any case all operators are compared against the same area.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,286
|
A lot of people care, when they see Glasgow they assume it means Glasgow. I bet you most people would be surprised when they saw the map and found actually 90% of it is not Glasgow. The data then becomes unrepresentative if not completely irrelevant to the 95% of the people actually living in Glasgow if most of the results are not from the area they are interested in.
The same thing occurred for me when I looked at the Edinburgh map and saw why the results were completely unrepresentative for me and most people I knew. Like most people in the Edinburgh area I actually live in Edinburgh, yet it appears less than 10% of their tests were actually done in Edinburgh if the distributions were as geographically fair as they claim. Do you think people in London would consider the London test useful and relevant if it included Southampton and Cardiff and Sheffield within the "London" area? |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,577
|
Quote:
A lot of people care, when they see Glasgow they assume it means Glasgow. I bet you most people would be surprised when they saw the map and found actually 90% of it is not Glasgow. The data then becomes unrepresentative if not completely irrelevant to the 95% of the people actually living in Glasgow if most of the results are not from the area they are interested in.
Whilst not perfect, Root Metrics does provide a good comparison of different networks within the defined area of the report. I know some will always try and nitpick, pick apart and argue things to death, but as a general indication it is one good resource of many. Several resources seem to report common trends, which indicates to me that they must be fairly accurate. |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,286
|
That's true but again, that's south-central Scotland, not Glasgow. The vast majority of the area's population live in Glasgow, not the surrounding potential commuter belts. According to Eurostat's data, over two thirds of the population live within the city boundaries, which is just 10% of the tested area.
The remaining 90% of the tests are only relevant to 31% of the population. Not all those people work in or commute to Glasgow either, and many commute to Edinburgh or Carlisle or Dumfries or Livingston and so on. It would be nice for, y'know, the 69% of people who lived in the city if the Glasgow report actually just covered Glasgow. |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,577
|
Quote:
That's true but again, that's south-central Scotland, not Glasgow. The vast majority of the area's population live in Glasgow, not the surrounding potential commuter belts. According to Eurostat's data, over two thirds of the population live within the city boundaries, which is just 10% of the tested area.
The remaining 90% of the tests are only relevant to 31% of the population. It would be nice for, y'know, the 69% of people who lived in the city if the Glasgow report actually just covered Glasgow. As I say, you can see links between different data sources, Speedtest.net stats on average network speeds, Ofcom reports on operators breaching their obligations, opensignalmaps, broadbandgenie and others. It is generally EE and Three always coming up trumps for mobile data, and overall network performance with O2 and Vodafone lagging behind on call quality, data coverage and speeds. |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,286
|
Quote:
I bet people that live in Glasgow travel the local area using their phone though and want mobile coverage on those commuter routes and surrounding towns.
The majority of people living and working in the city spend most of their time within the city and/or their own locality. It's only a few hardcore travelers that spend any significant amount of time outside their home area or traveling. I did spend several years working for a Glasgow transport metrics company recording and analyzing travel habits for Transport Scotland and the rail companies mind you. So I might just have a clue. |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 249
|
As I understand it the amount of tests in any area are based on the population density in that area, I.e. Even if the tests cover the Glasgow LUZ, they will be heavily weighted towards where people are, I.e. Within the urban areas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,577
|
Quote:
You'd be surprised how few of them actually do. Many people, particularly in the deprived suburbs of Glasgow city itself have never even been to the city centre, let alone 50 miles outside of the city.
The majority of people living and working in the city spend most of their time within the city and/or their own locality. It's only a few hardcore travelers that spend any significant amount of time outside their home area or traveling. I did spend several years working for a Glasgow transport metrics company recording and analyzing travel habits for Transport Scotland and the rail companies mind you. So I might just have a clue. |
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,286
|
Quote:
As I understand it the amount of tests in any area are based on the population density in that area, I.e. Even if the tests cover the Glasgow LUZ, they will be heavily weighted towards where people are, I.e. Within the urban areas.
That's good if it's true. They don't mention it in their methodology though, they state: Quote:
To prevent bias, RootMetrics utilises a sampling methodology that randomly selects the indoor locations used for testing; drive testing takes place during travel between these random indoor locations.
Doesn't say anything about weighting or selecting areas according to population density.Incidentally now I think about it they're missing a big trick with their "goodput" testing for data but not for voice. They only count a call failure if it is blocked completely or dropped completely, without accounting for the different networks' treatment of "cut outs" and timeouts for dropping a call. A common problem I hear on EE is calls going silent but not actually dropping, which counts as "good" in their results even if it's impossible to hold a conversation. |
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,577
|
Quote:
As I understand it the amount of tests in any area are based on the population density in that area, I.e. Even if the tests cover the Glasgow LUZ, they will be heavily weighted towards where people are, I.e. Within the urban areas.
http://rootmetrics.com/uk/methodology/ Quote:
Within a metro area, where do you test? Again, everything we do is designed with objectivity in mind. To prevent bias in our sample collection, RootMetrics utilises a sampling methodology that randomly selects the indoor locations used for testing; drive testing takes place during travel between these random indoor locations. The random selection process also means that areas of a market are tested at varying times. By the end of our time in a market, we have a statistically valid, spatio-temporal snapshot of network performance. In layman terms, our tests cover the metro area and results are collected at all hours of the day and night. Quote:
How do you decide where to test? Everything we do is based on objectivity. In the United States we test the 125 most populous urban areas, as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau. In the UK, we test the top 16 Large Urban Zones, as defined by Eurostat. The boundaries of the areas we test are defined by the governments, not RootMetrics. Because networks are constantly changing, we test each market twice per year, once during the first half of the year and again during the second half of the year. You deserve up-to-date looks at mobile performance and our testing schedule is meant to provide just that. Quote:
WE’RE OBJECTIVE.
We don’t play favourites. We don’t use surveys. All networks are put through the same battery of tests. Our methodology is applied equally to all. WE’RE ACCURATE AND STATISTICALLY SOUND. We vet all data that we collect for accuracy. We use a random sampling scheme. We have an analytics team that verifies results at an achieved significance level of 0.1 and constructs confidence intervals. It’s complex but it assures that the results we offer you are objective and statistically sound. |
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,286
|
Quote:
In general Root Metrics use the extended urban areas to see what the outer urban coverage is like around a location as well as the city. This obviously disadvantages operators who cannot be bothered to invest in data coverage in areas outside of main towns and cities. A lot of people live in the areas and towns outside of main cities, so I think it is important that those areas are measured.
The Glasgow tests actually cover areas further away from Glasgow than the City of Edinburgh is. I'm not disagreeing that more tests = good, what I'm trying to say is it should be broken down between Glasgow/Greater Glasgow (urban) and Glasgow's surrounding commuter areas (the 90% of it that's rural). No-one really expects the same sort of results at this guy's house than here |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 11:07.



