[ACL777]

I thought these two companies were sharing masts. Whilst with VF I had no reception at home. I am now with 02 and have great reception. Also throughout the city 02 gives much improved 3g. So my question is how can this happen if they are sharing masts and more importantly if a mast share is a planned future development does that mean 02 will close masts currently in use which would be awful for me as 02 works at my location and VF didn't.

[sills]

It's the same here. There's a big area across the middle of east Kent that O2 covers fairly well, but Vodafone is very patchy. Vodafone's coverage map for 3G in the area seems broken too, it shows they have coverage now, but plan to remove it in the future!

[flagpole]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sills

It's the same here. There's a big area across the middle of east Kent that O2 covers fairly well, but Vodafone is very patchy. Vodafone's coverage map for 3G in the area seems broken too, it shows they have coverage now, but plan to remove it in the future!

It's their ridiculous 3G900 coverage calculator. they seem to think 900MHz has the penetrating power of something formed in the heart of a dying star.

presumably the future coverage map doesn't include that.

[moox]

I've noticed that even the mighty 3 has a pretty dodgy coverage algorithm.

It seems to advertise indoor HSPA+++++++++ in a place where there's a bloody big clay pit that blocks all of the mobile networks except for a very poor O2 GSM signal.

Vodafone's map should probably take into account performance. I can get GSM900 from them, but the data throughput is so useless you might as well use GPRS. At least O2's network where it exists nearby, provides pretty nice thoughput

[John_Patrick]

They are sharing masts but its a process thats only started to scratch the surface really.

For a couple of years, VF and O2 had the Cornerstone agreement where any new builds would be shared and if either operator wanted a new site where there was an existing site from the other, they would jump on that site.

Remembering that both VF and O2 have about 16,000 sites in the UK, any sharing agreement won't of happened overnight.

Going forward, VF and O2 have signed up to Project Beacon. Both networks are refreshing their BTS equipment and adding in 4G at the same time. In the East of the country it will be O2 'controlling' what sites are been kept and beaconised with their choice of equipment vendor(s) and in the west its VF in control. (its more complicated than that though).

[ACL777]

Quote:

Originally Posted by John_Patrick

They are sharing masts but its a process thats only started to scratch the surface really.

For a couple of years, VF and O2 had the Cornerstone agreement where any new builds would be shared and if either operator wanted a new site where there was an existing site from the other, they would jump on that site.

Remembering that both VF and O2 have about 16,000 sites in the UK, any sharing agreement won't of happened overnight.

Going forward, VF and O2 have signed up to Project Beacon. Both networks are refreshing their BTS equipment and adding in 4G at the same time. In the East of the country it will be O2 'controlling' what sites are been kept and beaconised with their choice of equipment vendor(s) and in the west its VF in control. (its more complicated than that though).

Very interesting, thanks for the info. Being in the east is beneficial for me as an 02 customer then. From what you've said 02 won't be losing any masts which is great for my area as their service is the best I have ever had.

[qasdfdsaq]

Quote:

Originally Posted by John_Patrick

They are sharing masts but its a process thats only started to scratch the surface really.

For a couple of years, VF and O2 had the Cornerstone agreement where any new builds would be shared and if either operator wanted a new site where there was an existing site from the other, they would jump on that site.

What he said

Also to add, the previous Cornerstone agreement for the last few years has only covered sharing the physical mast itself and not the electronics. Each network would still chose what technologies to run on each mast and the equipment they used .For example one network would have 3G and another network might be 2G only, and use different vendors' equipment. One might have 3G900 while the other doesn't. Thus you could easily have drastically different coverage from the same mast.

Going forward the BTS electronics are also being shared, so technology/frequency wise there will still be small differences but they will mostly be the same, as per:

Quote:

Going forward, VF and O2 have signed up to Project Beacon. Both networks are refreshing their BTS equipment and adding in 4G at the same time. In the East of the country it will be O2 'controlling' what sites are been kept and beaconised with their choice of equipment vendor(s) and in the west its VF in control. (its more complicated than that though).

Note by "the country" he's referring to just England (excluding London), not the UK. Only England has an east/west divide between the networks. London is divided north/south. Last I recall O2 was responsible for North London and Vodafone for South London. Scotland is entirely managed by one network (O2). Wales and Northern Ireland are also managed by just one network for its' entirety (not sure which one).

[ACL777]

Thanks. Very useful to know. What does managing the areas network actually mean in reality though? For those living in the east and on VF is there any disadvantage that 02 manages the areas network?

[Redcoat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

Wales and Northern Ireland are also managed by just one network for its' entirety (not sure which one).

NI is to be managed by O2.

[enapace]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redcoat

NI is to be managed by O2.

That's not to surprising O2 has far better coverage in NI specially on 3G than Vodafone does.

One other factor to consider is Vodafone want to use there Fibre network as much as possible imagine that will slow down there rollout compared to O2's as well.

Truthfully though most areas seem to get a lot of masts turned on at once in that area instead of just a couple so it seems be going well for them.

As others have said when this rollout is complete I doubt the end coverage between the two networks will vary much at all. Obviously Vodafone in some areas will have 2600MHz but apart from that should be near identical.

[interactiv-uk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

What he said

Also to add, the previous Cornerstone agreement for the last few years has only covered sharing the physical mast itself and not the electronics. Each network would still chose what technologies to run on each mast and the equipment they used .For example one network would have 3G and another network might be 2G only, and use different vendors' equipment. One might have 3G900 while the other doesn't. Thus you could easily have drastically different coverage from the same mast.

Going forward the BTS electronics are also being shared, so technology/frequency wise there will still be small differences but they will mostly be the same, as per:




Note by "the country" he's referring to just England (excluding London), not the UK. Only England has an east/west divide between the networks. London is divided north/south. Last I recall O2 was responsible for North London and Vodafone for South London. Scotland is entirely managed by one network (O2). Wales and Northern Ireland are also managed by just one network for its' entirety (not sure which one).

Not quite true.. VF's western controlled patch goes up to and includes Glasgow. The rest of Scotland is O2 controlled.

[qasdfdsaq]

Quote:

Originally Posted by interactiv-uk

Not quite true.. VF's western controlled patch goes up to and includes Glasgow. The rest of Scotland is O2 controlled.

Ah, did not know that, thanks. Had previously been told O2 had management of "Scotland".

[japitts]

Quote:

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

Note by "the country" he's referring to just England (excluding London), not the UK. Only England has an east/west divide between the networks. London is divided north/south. Last I recall O2 was responsible for North London and Vodafone for South London. Scotland is entirely managed by one network (O2). Wales and Northern Ireland are also managed by just one network for its' entirety (not sure which one).

Also remember in London, it's not a "Beacon" shared area as such - the legacy 2G/3G networks are remaining independent and separate, but the LTE800 layer is split North/South - O2 managing the North, VF the south.

Scotland falls entirely under O2 "East", Wales is VF "West". There are Voda sites in the west being removed in favour of O2-sites, equally there are O2-sites in the east being removed in favour of keeping VF-sites.

[daveyfs]

So who's controlling the operation in Wales?

ETA: Just seen the answer in the post above.

[ACL777]

Quote:

Originally Posted by japitts

Also remember in London, it's not a "Beacon" shared area as such - the legacy 2G/3G networks are remaining independent and separate, but the LTE800 layer is split North/South - O2 managing the North, VF the south.

Scotland falls entirely under O2 "East", Wales is VF "West". There are Voda sites in the west being removed in favour of O2-sites, equally there are O2-sites in the east being removed in favour of keeping VF-sites.

If I am understanding correctly 02 is managing east England and yet 02 sites in the east are being removed in favour of VF sites. If that is right it is scandalous as 02 is far superior in Norwich to VF.

[enapace]

Imagine each area will be looked at and whoever has the better coverage those are masts which will be used well that is if the people in charge have a brain.

[binary]

Quote:

Originally Posted by enapace

Imagine each area will be looked at and whoever has the better coverage those are masts which will be used well that is if the people in charge have a brain.

There's also the issue of varying rents to different landowners to take into account. If the landowner of a top spot is demanding top dollar, then the network might decide that paying significantly less for a marginally less top spot is the way to go.

[ACL777]

Your right. I guess it comes down to money in the end. I just naively assumed that as 02 managed the east and had superior coverage both would stick with their sites and get rid of the VF ones. It seems there isn't necessarily an advantage being with 02 and have them managing the east of England sites.

BTW; Is there any chance japitts you have got it the wrong way round and its 02 sites in the west being removed in favour of VF and VF sights in the east being removed for 02. It just seems odd that the company managing a particular area is getting rid of their own sites as that's is the way you described it in your previous post.

[enapace]

Quote:

Originally Posted by binary

There's also the issue of varying rents to different landowners to take into account. If the landowner of a top spot is demanding top dollar, then the network might decide that paying significantly less for a marginally less top spot is the way to go.

True enough it will eventually be something like MBNL is now. Though that is still a fair bit of in the future it is still pretty separate at the moment. T-Mobile/3 got the jump on everyone when they started MBNL think it has payed of for them. Mast sharing isn't just good to cut costs but it also allows networks to have superior coverage if done correctly. Lot of networks around the world are doing it now and results are clearly shown. In the end I expect you will basically have two choices in terms of coverage between a Legacy Networks [O2/Vodafone] and New Networks [EE/3]. Though as all network are claiming they will provide at least 98% Outdoor for 4G [Around 95% Indoor] imagine most won't struggle for coverage with either choice. In end I imagine 3/EE will want to get 98% indoor coverage as well nothing would stop them doing it.

One of the best sharing projects I think is the one Sprint has in America with smaller carriers. Sprint pays the cost of setting up the mast and then smaller carrier pays maintenance. Maximising coverage for the smaller carriers where likely cost wouldn't be enough for them to do themselves and allowing Sprint to boost rural coverage at same time.

[qasdfdsaq]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ACL777

If I am understanding correctly 02 is managing east England and yet 02 sites in the east are being removed in favour of VF sites. If that is right it is scandalous as 02 is far superior in Norwich to VF.

It's far more complicated than that.

It's nothing to do with who owned each transmitter to begin with and a lot to do with whether they can negotiate a joint lease going forwards. From around here all the single operator sites I see being removed (well, planned to be removed, as none have actually been removed yet) are because Cornerstone were unable or unwilling to agree terms with the landowner and are instead replacing the site with a completely new one being built to cover the same area and both operators.

If any O2 sites are being removed chances are there's a new 4G one being put up across the road for both O2 and Vodafone to replace it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by binary

There's also the issue of varying rents to different landowners to take into account. If the landowner of a top spot is demanding top dollar, then the network might decide that paying significantly less for a marginally less top spot is the way to go.

This.

A lot of sites are being removed because of these issues - though who is to blame I'm not sure, perhaps the networks are more at fault since I didn't see MBNL having as many similar issues. Two major players that Cornerstone haven't been able to agree joint leases with are BT and Network Rail, meaning a lot of (unshared) masts on either BT exchanges or anywhere on/next to the railway can't be shared.

Edinburgh University incidentally has also been a problem for O2/VF but not EE/3. So while all networks have sites on all their buildings, none of the O2/VF ones are being upgraded.

[Three]

Quote:

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

This.

A lot of sites are being removed because of these issues - though who is to blame I'm not sure, perhaps the networks are more at fault since I didn't see MBNL having as many similar issues. Two major players that Cornerstone haven't been able to agree joint leases with are BT and Network Rail, meaning a lot of (unshared) masts on either BT exchanges or anywhere on/next to the railway can't be shared.

Edinburgh University incidentally has also been a problem for O2/VF but not EE/3. So while all networks have sites on all their buildings, none of the O2/VF ones are being upgraded.

What do negotiations take place for between VF/O2 and Network Rail?

[ACL777]

Quote:

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

It's far more complicated than that.

It's nothing to do with who owned each transmitter to begin with and a lot to do with whether they can negotiate a joint lease going forwards. From around here all the single operator sites I see being removed (well, planned to be removed, as none have actually been removed yet) are because Cornerstone were unable or unwilling to agree terms with the landowner and are instead replacing the site with a completely new one being built to cover the same area and both operators.

If any O2 sites are being removed chances are there's a new 4G one being put up across the road for both O2 and Vodafone to replace it.



This.

A lot of sites are being removed because of these issues - though who is to blame I'm not sure, perhaps the networks are more at fault since I didn't see MBNL having as many similar issues. Two major players that Cornerstone haven't been able to agree joint leases with are BT and Network Rail, meaning a lot of (unshared) masts on either BT exchanges or anywhere on/next to the railway can't be shared.

Edinburgh University incidentally has also been a problem for O2/VF but not EE/3. So while all networks have sites on all their buildings, none of the O2/VF ones are being upgraded.

I am beginning to see it is quite a complicated process. With these joint agreements are 02 and VF basically becoming the same company?

[paulker]

Quote:

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

It's far more complicated than that.

It's nothing to do with who owned each transmitter to begin with and a lot to do with whether they can negotiate a joint lease going forwards. From around here all the single operator sites I see being removed (well, planned to be removed, as none have actually been removed yet) are because Cornerstone were unable or unwilling to agree terms with the landowner and are instead replacing the site with a completely new one being built to cover the same area and both operators.

If any O2 sites are being removed chances are there's a new 4G one being put up across the road for both O2 and Vodafone to replace it.



This.

A lot of sites are being removed because of these issues - though who is to blame I'm not sure, perhaps the networks are more at fault since I didn't see MBNL having as many similar issues. Two major players that Cornerstone haven't been able to agree joint leases with are BT and Network Rail, meaning a lot of (unshared) masts on either BT exchanges or anywhere on/next to the railway can't be shared.

Edinburgh University incidentally has also been a problem for O2/VF but not EE/3. So while all networks have sites on all their buildings, none of the O2/VF ones are being upgraded.

Ah, so thats why the sites on two BT exchanges in my local area have not been upgraded while most others have. One exchange has a 3g/2g o2 mast and a 3g only vodafone and the other only has an o2 3g/2g one. Vodafone really suffer in theses areas. Surely those problems can be overcome?

[qasdfdsaq]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Three

What do negotiations take place for between VF/O2 and Network Rail?

Not sure what you're asking here since your question doesn't make sense...

Quote:

Originally Posted by ACL777

I am beginning to see it is quite a complicated process. With these joint agreements are 02 and VF basically becoming the same company?

No more than 3 and EE are becoming the same company...

Quote:

Originally Posted by paulker

Ah, so thats why the sites on two BT exchanges in my local area have not been upgraded while most others have. One exchange has a 3g/2g o2 mast and a 3g only vodafone and the other only has an o2 3g/2g one. Vodafone really suffer in theses areas. Surely those problems can be overcome?

Yeah, both sharing and upgrading hasn't been progressing on any BT exchanges near me either because of a general disagreement. It's a shame because a lot of those sites are quite useful, and, there's literally hundreds of affected sites on BT exchanges across the country. I know in my area they have tried sourcing/placing replacement masts nearby but that's a huge amount of expense and hassle and they can't possibly expect to do that for every exchange site in the UK.

I have no idea what the terms are that is blocking them from coming to an agreement but surely 3 & EE faced similar obstacles and were able to deal with it just fine... Though that said 3 & EE have in most cases not removed individual operators' equipment so perhaps they are both maintaining ongoing leases with BT which is what O2/VF are deliberately refusing to do.

[Three]

Quote:

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

Not sure what you're asking here since your question doesn't make sense...

Sorry, I wrote that a couple of times over and I'm not entirely sure it made sense to myself at the time.

What services do Network Rail provide to O2/VF?