Root Metrics have revisited London, Liverpool and Manchester for their latest reports and have published their results on their website (link below). With 4G testing on all networks in these areas this is one of the first large scale comparisons about network performance since operators upgraded to LTE in big cities.

EE are the winners in all areas but others are catching up and the gap that appeared last year is narrowing. Speed results are interesting with EE in front in all markets so far this year although Vodafone and O2 are making moves to close the gap as the results detail.

The new survey results are available at the following link: http://www.rootmetrics.com/uk/

I'm sorry is Three now 2nd in all 3 tests?

I guess that's to be expected in those elements affected by 4G given its head start. When did the other networks publicly launch 4G ?

Rather than create a new thread those interested can now view new 2014 survey results for Leeds/Bradford on the Root Metrics site (Link above).

Some industry reporting of the latest Root Metrics surveys can be found at the link below.

http://www.mobiletoday.co.uk/news/in...n_network.aspx

Three as the most reliable network in the capital, according to mobile analytics firm Rootmetrics. That's great!

Overall EE came out top in the tests with a ‘RootScore’ of 92.2 points out of a possible 100 - this was followed by Three (88.5), O2 (87.5) and Vodafone (86.0)

I wonder what the situation would look like if EE weren't allowed to use their 3G spectrum to launch 4G earlier than everyone else.

2G spectrum
Wasn't it because they were in a sweet spot in terms of spectrum holdings due to the T-mobile/Orange merger?

Yep haha my bad.
And that is how they were able to do it yeah. Though there was quite a drawn out process where Ofcom could have ruled they weren't allowed to use it for 4G (or at least until other networks had got their 4G spectrum).

The Vibe at the time was Ofcom granted it to EE because Voda and O2 were using delaying tactics (court cases) to stall the 4g auction.

The decision to allow EE to use 1800MHz for early 4G launch was a good one for consumers as it got the ball rolling very much faster than it probably would have. It gave 3 a lovely free gift too of some valuable 1800MHz bandwidth. Ofcom did the right thing and brought about some real competition that has led to speedy coverage for 4G across the UK on most mobile networks.

Even if Ofcom had ruled they couldn't use it until after the auction they would still have had an advantage and most likely a (smaller) lead in rollout and capability. EE had the advantage of spectrum certainty - they knew exactly the primary spectrum they had for 4G since the T-Mob/Orange merger was approved and so could put in place detailed plans and even start rolling out hardware if they wanted to. As soon as Ofcom gave them the green light they could start testing it properly and launch a service soon after.

Vodafone/O2 were worst off in terms of spectrum certainty as they didn't have it until after the auction so couldn't start the detailed planning until then. Three were in a better position knowing what they had from the middle of 2012 but their problem was they weren't allowed to actually use it until after the others had already started.

EE's spectrum assets also gave them the capability to launch double speed early so that gives them an advantage in some of the speed tests in the score. O2/Three still can't do this with what they have. Vod could it with 2600MHz but presumably a fast rollout of their primary 800MHz is much more of a priority.

Agree that Ofcom's decision to let EE go early speeded everyone up.

Only free in the same way a phone might be described as "free" with a 2 year contract! And most certainly not a gift from EE. In fact depending on how things turn out, you could argue Three overpaid for their 1800MHz spectrum in swapping an up front fee for annual licence fees to Ofcom. They got better spectrum certainty but it came at a price.

I wasn't saying that the decision was right or wrong, just more interested in what the current situation would have been if they weren't allowed to. I think it is certain that EE wouldn't have the same kind of lead they currently do, but I think it is also correct that all of the operators would be further behind than what they currently are.

If Three can be the most reliable network and 2nd best overall in London, then why would you pay more?

Somebody referred to the likes of O2 as 'premium' in another thread recently, and they did a supermarket comparison with Waitrose. Thanks to the OP for highlighting this Root Metrics data and proving those people wrong.

But 3 did get a 'gift' of the 1800MHz from EE who probably did not want to auction it as it's value to the larger networks would have resulted in significantly greater competition. EE directors are playing at a different level and know what the inside track is with the competition. Did they foresee what might happen in the near future with further mobile consolidation? Companies don't give away spectrum valued at 100s of millions of pounds for no reason, it's business after all!

That said it's interesting watching the very different roll-out strategies of the operators. EE are by far the most proactive in terms of both coverage area and double speed performance. They clearly want to be the network of choice for the demanding customers who are prepared to pay premium prices. O2 seem to be trying to catch EE up and have good coverage in not many fewer areas now. They only have 800MHz so they could have an advantage with better building penetration but will require additional bandwidth to compete head on with EE in the future. Vodafone are a bit behind O2 in terms of coverage but they are trying hard to make their 4G attractive with content from Spotify, Sky and others. O2 and Vodafone look to be heading towards technology neutral offerings as equipment prices fall and the focus moves towards increasing capacity for all data customers. Which leaves 3 bringing up the rear for the first time in many years in terms of rolling out new mobile technology. 3 have 4G coverage in some areas but it's thin on the ground and in some big cities no more than 3 or 4 sites that allow them to tick a box for availability in the area. Perhaps that is slightly unfair as they stated from the outset that their 4G was about delivering additional capacity where it was needed so that may explain the limited provision presently. Of all the networks 3 have the most data use per customer so one would expect 4G to be a priority to maintain their marketing proposition of 'the network built for the Internet'. One has to wonder if parent HWL are treading water and doing only as much as they need to until the outcome is known of the mobile networks consolidation in Germany and France. If either or both reduce from 4 to 3 networks HWL may seek to acquire or merge 3 UK with one of the majors which would make business sense in the long term as a fourth network has little hope of ever gaining similar market share to incumbents, which is why T-Mobile and Orange made their merger move. Investing more than is absolutely necessary for 3 UK may be a foolish move if within the next couple of years they have the possibility to consolidate with a major established provider.

I have no doubt that 4G is now making headway and the landscape has changed in most major markets across the UK as Root Metrics surveys confirm. Those who had slow speeds have improved greatly and in many areas the fastest performing network just 12-18 months ago is now the slowest or second worst! The hare and tortoise syndrome...... nothing in the mobile market remains constant and competition delivers results from new strategies market forces impose on operators. The big winners are customers who are getting more mobile services in more places at cheaper prices than ever before.

Sorry Wavejock, no disrespect but I suspect you're not familiar with the 4G auction rules and the special reserved spectrum portfolios which in the end only Three were in a position to take advantage of. EE didn't give away the spectrum to Three out of altruism but to give themselves the chance of acquiring 800MHz spectrum at auction. Similarly O2 or Vodafone wouldn't have been interested in taking the spectrum as it could have seriously hampered their ability to get 800MHz spectrum which was their primary consideration.

I am familiar and realise that EE killed three birds with one stone. They gave the spectrum to the least threat commercially, prevented the big two from getting it and secured a more favourable position for valuable lower frequency lots in the auction.

As I stated, a very shrewd and probably very carefully considered commercial move by EE with an eye to future consolidation as well no doubt!

We should also note that if Three weren't serious about 4G, they could have just stuck with the 2 lots of 1800Mhz they got from EE, which Three have to pay considerable ongoing costs for now? However they also bid for 800Mhz meaning they have a mix of spectrum that will give them good rural coverage when they come to use it at the start of next year plus the 1800Mhz for the main towns and cities that they are rolling out this year.

If Three are coming out as the most reliable network in the capital and beating most of the others on performance then they are doing alight in my opinion. The poster of this thread has highlighted this very well, and shows how wide of the mark the people who posted the supermarket analogies from the other thread were.

It certainly allowed EE to enter the auction in a better position but Voda/O2 would have wanted Three to take the 1800 spectrum even more than EE! If Three had not taken the spectrum they could have walked into the auction and guaranteed themselves half of the 800MHz spectrum being auctioned just by bidding the reserve price which could have seriously scuppered O2/Voda's joint build plans.

I'm in Liverpool. O2 can't manage 3G 80% of the places never mind 4G.

Unless you're smack bang in the middle if the city centre you are stuck on edge.

Well just as a side note its interesting to see that Vodafone are now starting to roll out 2600 coverage in some areas.. I was told that this would happen by brother in law who works in Vodafones network operations team and has been confirmed to me by two sets of engineers working around Leicester. They said they are going round previously installed Voda/O2 800mhz masts upgrading the software and installing equipment in the Vodafone cabinets.

I asked why they did not do this originally but they said Vodafone wanted to monitor usage first as not all masts will be getting 2600 just high usage ones most seem to be around the ring road and in main shopping areas. I did a speed test on one of the upgraded masts and got 56mb where previously I used to get around 25-30mb