I'm currently with EE. In general I think I've made a good choice, as things stand right now I think I'm on the best network for consistent, reliable and wide spread data access.

However come 2016 when my contract expires will EE still be the best choice? If I have one main criticism of EE is that I still find myself inside buildings with poor/no service. In these situations typically o2/Vodafone do have coverage and frequently it's 3G (thanks to 3G900). Looking at the way EE is planning to use it's 800Mhz allocation I can't foresee in-building coverage improving.

Vodafone are currently dead last in my mind for data coverage and reliability but from everything I've read by 2016 they would appear to be (on paper at least) heading to be the best. They'll have upgraded the majority of cell sites with all-in-one 2G/3G/4G cabs and fast fibre backhaul. They are currently rolling out 4G mainly on 800Mhz (great for in-building) yet also have nice chunks of spectrum higher up the frequency range for throughput. They have 3G900 to fall back on too.

I don't care for "extreme speed" I just want reliable 3G/4G indoors and out in as many places as possible. 3Mbps would be fine as long as it works and the pings are low and stable.

So have I missed something or does it really seem that in a couple of years time Vodafone will be the best choice for reliable data indoors and out? I don't know much about 3's plans for their 800Mhz and I know o2 only have a relatively small chunk of 800Mhz.

Although this is all about looking ahead I am aware that Vodafone had the best 3G spectrum allocation after that auction and we all know how that's worked out.

Maybe. Just owning infrastructure and spectrum doesn't mean you know how to use it well.

O2's has the largest chunk of 800Mhz actually (well, joint largest with Vodafone). EE and 3 both only have half as much.

Given how unreliable switching between 2G/3G/4G properly is at the moment on the Cornerstone networks, I dread to think of what will happen when they introduce another band on LTE. Sure it'll be better than the currently pretty much non-existent 3G900/2100 switching but it does add yet another layer of complexity to optimize for.

I really don't foresee there being a huge difference on 4G coverage between the "big three" at the end of their rollouts, even if Vodafone does have an edge, it'll be fairly small.

If your contract doesn't expire till 2016 then you don't really have much choice now anyway. It'd be much better to revisit this topic in 2016 to see what the networks have done in that time. A lot can happen in two years... After all it hasn't even been two whole years since 4G was first launched in the UK.

Ah thanks for the correction re: O2.


I guess I was posting this more as a thought exercise on how things appear to be shaping up in the coming years. Perhaps the way Three are planning to use their 800Mhz allocation might mean that the choice in a few years for someone who really wants prioritised in-building 3G/4G wouldn't be Vodafone alone. I get the argument that EE have planned their cells around a network for indoor penetration at 1800Mhz but my experience in a large number of varied locations seems to show that 900Mhz is still the more important factor for indoor coverage. I can have a strong signal outdoors on EE and Vodafone but that drops to nothing on EE once I've made my way into the building. It seems EE doesn't have the spectrum quantity to use 800Mhz to solve this problem (not sure why, I'd still prefer a capable 2Mbps connection over no service...).

So in summary focusing on the indoor coverage aspect, to me it seems:

- Vodafone are in the best position to provide reliable indoor coverage as they're rolling out 800Mhz 4G as the priority and they have (some) 900Mhz 3G and 2G. They also have the most valuable mix of spectrum to be able to provide reliable speeds.
- o2 are in second place as they only have 800Mhz 4G but also (some) 900Mhz 3G and 2G yet their spectrum is much less diverse 4G wise so they could well suffer from congestion.
- EE are prioritising 1800Mhz 4G which even if all of their 2G sites are converted would leave me in situations like it already does with very poor/no service inside some buildings.
- 3 I'm unsure about, I think their 800Mhz spectrum is too limited to be able to provide the 4G speeds they'd want so they might limit it to countryside coverage in the main?

All thoughts appreciated.

Three has stated it will use 800MHz both in rural areas and in towns. The problem is that to provide better countryside coverage, or in-building penetration, Three has to have VoLTE or another viable and practical alternative, as it won't have any voice capable coverage in those locations (it has no 900/1800MHz voice to fall back on).

I totally agree that O2, Vodafone and EE all stand to offer the best overall service in the future, but VoLTE could then enable Three to still offer excellent coverage that it can't today.

Even if Three could get away with providing data only coverage in some areas, I doubt it would because of all the negative publicity. Only BT could get away with this because that's what it's expected to offer with its 4G capability.

Although that has just made me think; you know what? Three could roll out 800MHz right now and simply limit the service to certain SIM cards, sold purely for mobile broadband in the first instance. Bam - superior data coverage in rural areas and towns even before VoLTE.

Given that VoLTE is pretty much a certainty, and just a matter of time now, I don't see how 3's 800Mhz rollout, if overlayed on the same 1800/2600 masts as EE, would be any worse coverage or performance wise than EE's 800 or 1800 2G fallback. All of it will beat 3G2100 though 3G900 might still remain useful for non-4G users.

Perhaps badly worded on my part. Namely that until VoLTE is in place, Three is restricted in what it can do.

And like my other comment about long term investment, as data needs increase and populations grow, Three will still need to install new sites and not just ramp up the power of its network. Likewise every operator.

It seems that we should see better 4G coverage than 2G, and certainly far better than we ever did with 3G, so that won't be so much of an issue in the coming years - but capacity and data speeds will.