|
||||||||
O2's AWFUL 3G network |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 514
|
O2's AWFUL 3G network
Does anybody else think O2's network is just, AWFUL?
Here's a speed test, in the middle of a large town in the south of the UK, today, with full signal: http://imgur.com/0gFzUP8 This is 'good' by O2's standards, as far as I know. Why is O2's network so bad?!? Is it just in the south east (where I live)? |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,577
|
2.52Mb/s with a 75ms ping isn't absolutely awful, it's good enough to steam most things, download and for browsing. You have 3G, what makes you think this is awful?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 14,646
|
At least you have a 3G signal, and tbh that's better than some results I've been getting on 3 in a different major town in the south.
For a lot of people they can't even get a 3G signal out of O2, they get truly useless GPRS instead. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 514
|
Quote:
At least you have a 3G signal, and tbh that's better than some results I've been getting on 3 in a different major town in the south.
For a lot of people they can't even get a 3G signal out of O2, they get truly useless GPRS instead. Why O2's 3G reaches so few places, we'll never know, unless somebody would care to enlighten me? |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,577
|
Out of town coverage of 3G is an issue and it is true that O2's 3G network isn't as advanced as some (not as much HSPA+ / Dual carrier coverage). However I wouldn't say the example given is particularly bad, it is a fairly average 3G speed, maybe a little on the low side.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 42
|
Try coming up to Scotland, you'll be lucky to even get edge in most places with o2
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the future....
Posts: 11,259
|
Quote:
Try coming up to Scotland, you'll be lucky to even get edge in most places with o2
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 514
|
Quote:
Yes indeed O2 have concentrated 3G in highly populated areas. Leave the town or city limits its GPRS all the way to the next highly populated area. Edge was rare.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 16,705
|
Quote:
Does anybody else think O2's network is just, AWFUL?
Here's a speed test, in the middle of a large town in the south of the UK, today, with full signal: http://imgur.com/0gFzUP8 This is 'good' by O2's standards, as far as I know. Why is O2's network so bad?!? Is it just in the south east (where I live)? |
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 14,219
|
I spent a few days in Essex this week (I live on the fringes). The 3G was pretty good out there. Good enough for streaming video.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Bath
Posts: 682
|
Quote:
Does anybody else think O2's network is just, AWFUL?
Here's a speed test, in the middle of a large town in the south of the UK, today, with full signal: http://imgur.com/0gFzUP8 This is 'good' by O2's standards, as far as I know. Why is O2's network so bad?!? Is it just in the south east (where I live)? India will shortly launch Reliance Jio 49Mbps and Korea currently has 225Mbps on LTE-A. We are way behind. And operators often make false claims based on connections that are not limited by traffic sense when most are. |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,577
|
Quote:
Better than I'm getting with Three at the moment!
India will shortly launch Reliance Jio 49Mbps and Korea currently has 225Mbps on LTE-A. We are way behind. And operators often make false claims based on connections that are not limited by traffic sense when most are. The main delays to 4G were caused by waiting for the digital switchover to release the spectrum and some of the auction delays caused by some of the operators squabbling and threatening legal action. We're hardly backward though with 20Mb/s+ speeds becoming widely available this year. What do you need 50Mb/s speeds for on a mobile connection anyway? just 5Mb/s is enough to stream 1080p full HD video. |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: a land filled with trolls
Posts: 12,021
|
Quote:
Does anybody else think O2's network is just, AWFUL?
Here's a speed test, in the middle of a large town in the south of the UK, today, with full signal: http://imgur.com/0gFzUP8 This is 'good' by O2's standards, as far as I know. Why is O2's network so bad?!? Is it just in the south east (where I live)? I have no idea why O2 is so bad, but it needs to sort itself out. |
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 14,646
|
Quote:
Better than I'm getting with Three at the moment!
India will shortly launch Reliance Jio 49Mbps and Korea currently has 225Mbps on LTE-A. We are way behind. And operators often make false claims based on connections that are not limited by traffic sense when most are. What you actually get is quite different, and the networks tell you that. |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,577
|
Quote:
I did some speed tests in central London and struggled to get 4G or even 3G in places, as well as other problems (time out, lack of data flowing). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRJMwZpiFOM
I have no idea why O2 is so bad, but it needs to sort itself out. I typically found that O2 & Vodafone's out of town coverage was very poor and even some inner city 3G is patchy. I would get dropped down to GPRS a lot. However as we know they are both solid 2G networks. What I found with Three was that the rural coverage was very good for data and inner city coverage was pretty good too. I found it funny that in really rural areas you had brilliant 3G, but in some small towns and villages it disappeared, probably due to buildings and trees. In general though data coverage was great, but if you lost 3G then you got no 2G backup in most places, this was extremely rare although probably happens indoors more. |
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: a land filled with trolls
Posts: 12,021
|
Yeah, Three's lack of 2G is a problem if you rely on being always in contact for voice calling.. but on the flip side, O2 and Vodafone relies far too much on 2G which is fine for voice but useless for data. I'm a data user and maybe make or receive no more than 2-3 calls per day!
I mean, 2G would be okay if you got EDGE and it worked well, but the problem with Vodafone, O2 and even EE before it upgrades some of its old legacy Orange sites, is the backhaul is/was so crap that you end up with speeds of 0.01Mbps and similar. Not really usable even for just getting new emails or doing some simple web browsing. There's more to it than mere coverage, as it's about capacity - and I think Vodafone and O2 have each exceeded capacity and need to do a LOT of work to fix things. As it adds 4G, I hope it will improve as EE clearly has. Now I can travel around and get speeds on a par with Three on 3G, which is a MASSIVE improvement. The same can't be said for O2 yet. |
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Herefordshire
Posts: 22,810
|
Is there a network with a decent 3G service? vodafone seems to be naff, I hear people complain around here about EE and O2 don't seem to have a decent network.
Maybe we should forget about mobile internet, because it is so unreliable. I have been thinking of moving from Vodafone when contract is up, but I am nto sure if it is worth it now. |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,286
|
Quote:
Does anybody else think O2's network is just, AWFUL?
Here's a speed test, in the middle of a large town in the south of the UK, today, with full signal: http://imgur.com/0gFzUP8 This is 'good' by O2's standards, as far as I know. Why is O2's network so bad?!? Is it just in the south east (where I live)? Here's a speed test, in the middle of a large city in Scotland today, with full signal on 3 using a fairly new, DC-HSDPA handset: http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/a/725909902 And in the same spot on O2, using a several year old non-DC-HSDPA handset: http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/a/725922701 A few weeks ago down the road using a DC-HSDPA handset on O2: http://qasdfdsaq.com/images/speedtes...0-23-41-22.png Across the city, based on over 20,000 signal measurements I've made over the past few months O2's 3G signal is a lot stronger and has fewer weakspots than EE or 3. 4G signal is also stronger and available further outside the city than on EE though there's big blackspots in the city centre on 4G where upgrades have been delayed. In personal experience however EE and 3's 3G are both weak, slow and unreliable when I need them the most, and O2's 4G is the same, despite being better across the city, mainly in places I don't need it. |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Bath
Posts: 682
|
Quote:
No we're not! I have been to India and trust me the majority of their 3G is very slow, especially in busy areas.
And 5Mbps is NOT enough to stream full 1080p video. |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London, UK
Posts: 8,759
|
Quote:
No I don't think it's awful, I think it's excellent.
Across the city, based on over 20,000 signal measurements I've made over the past few months O2's 3G signal is a lot stronger and has fewer weakspots than EE or 3. Root metrics says that out of all the networks, O2 is the worst performing for calls and texts. And it's the second worst performing for Data. EE and Three are significantly ahead in every section compared to O2 Especially in data where O2 scores only 48pts yet EE has 96 and Three have 80. http://www.rootmetrics.com/uk/compar...-october-2013/ In my opinion, O2 have improved a lot recently with 3G (thanks to u900) and now with 4G. But O2's 3G coverage is still terrible compared to MBNL, especially outside of towns and cities. So I will say say MBNL is far superior than O2's 3G network and will continue to be. |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,286
|
Funny indeed, you once again trying to slyly move the goalposts by quoting figures that have nothing to do with the post you responded to.
Rootmetrics tests make no mention of signal strength, coverage, or blackspots. EE and 3 may be ahead when you have signal but top speed makes no difference when you can't get a connection at all. And once again, the Rootmetrics sample area covers an area well over ten times larger than the actual city that I'm referring to. |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London, UK
Posts: 8,759
|
Quote:
Rootmetrics tests make no mention of signal strength, coverage, or blackspots.
It's clear that EE and Three have the best networks in Edinburgh for data, calls and texts. Far superior than that of the O2 network. |
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,286
|
Quote:
Yes it does, it's right there on the first page where it mentions coverage and network reliability. Signal strength and blackspots can be found here- http://www.rootmetrics.com/uk/compar...ors/edinburgh/
It's clear that EE and Three have the best networks in Edinburgh for data, calls and texts. Far superior than that of the O2 network. Once again, you're looking at scores for a mostly rural area outside the city, where yes, O2's network is crap. I'm talking about inside the city where most people live. Course if you completely ignore the uncontrolled nature of Rootmetrics' crowdsourced data, and the fact it covers different locations and different handsets on different networks, even the maps you linked to yourself show O2 have better coverage than EE in the city. Comparing the maps for Edinburgh City: http://qasdfdsaq.com/images/misc/rm-ee.png http://qasdfdsaq.com/images/misc/rm-o2.png EE total samples 476,213 Number of yellow hexes (weakspots) within the city: 186 Number of red/black hexes (blackspots) within the city: 28 O2 total samples 489,840 Number of yellow hexes (weakspots) within the city: 98 Number of red/black hexes (blackspots) within the city: 6 I dunno about you but I wouldn't call having double the number of weakspots and nearly five times the number of blackspots "far superior". Now I don't know about Rootmetrics data but the other crowdsourced maps of Edinburgh are quite out of date as they mostly haven't updated following the big expansion over the last 3-4 years from the Cornerstone site sharing, yet Rootmetrics already shows O2 having better coverage even before that while O2 have been adding a lot of masts and EE/3 have mostly been decomissioning sites instead of adding new ones. |
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London, UK
Posts: 8,759
|
Quote:
No it doesn't, it has a combined score for "overall coverage and a good consumer experience." for an area over ten times larger than the city.
Once again, you're looking at scores for a mostly rural area outside the city, where yes, O2's network is crap. I'm talking about inside the city where most people live. Course if you completely ignore the uncontrolled nature of Rootmetrics' crowdsourced data, and the fact it covers different locations and different handsets on different networks, even the maps you linked to yourself show O2 have better coverage than EE in the city. Comparing the maps for Edinburgh City: http://qasdfdsaq.com/images/misc/rm-ee.png http://qasdfdsaq.com/images/misc/rm-o2.png EE total samples 476,213 Number of yellow hexes (weakspots) within the city: 186 Number of red/black hexes (blackspots) within the city: 28 O2 total samples 489,840 Number of yellow hexes (weakspots) within the city: 98 Number of red/black hexes (blackspots) within the city: 6 I dunno about you but I wouldn't call having double the number of weakspots and nearly five times the number of blackspots "far superior". Now I don't know about Rootmetrics data but the other crowdsourced maps of Edinburgh are quite out of date as they mostly haven't updated following the big expansion over the last 3-4 years from the Cornerstone site sharing, yet the fact it already shows O2 having better coverage even before that just proves you're talking nonsense again. After all the title of this thread is O2's 3G network. So wouldn't it be better comparing O2 to Three. And also including mobile data signal in your results. Plus your tests are just from yourself. Rootmetrics uses thousands of data points from lots of users an has determined that both EE and Three provide a better experience in Edinburgh than O2. |
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,286
|
Once again trying to change the subject once you've been proven wrong I see.
I said signal strength, not experience. No you can't compare the rootmetrics data on 3 because firstly there's too little of it to be comparable, and secondly because Rootmetrics doesn't distinguish between technologies, and the signal readings are for combined 2G/3G technologies you can only compare combined 2G/3G networks. Furthermore this demonstrates another way in which my data is superior, as not only is it controlled for handset, location and indoor/outdoor conditions, it can be specifically filtered to show 3G and only 3G. Which makes it far more relevant than the combined 2G/3G/4G signal readings you're trying to bend to fit your flawed case. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 11:01.



