Can I ask... Why do you suggest to look at the maps individually over a side-by-side comparison? Are you suggesting that Jon has tampered with the ones in his comparison and, therefore, is distorting the truth?

Incidentally, I was in Cardiff last Wednesday, and Three 3G was quite slow (around 800kbps-1.2Mbps) Must be congestion which, I assume, will be sorted when that particular mast gets 4G'd. However, I still managed to stream some Radio 1 on my lunch break, so it was hardly unusable.

Slow speeds on Three and EE seem to be, as a rule, usable, which can only be a good thing, obviously.

To the OP... In the amount of time you've spent complaining on this thread, you do realise that you could've switched your Vodafone number to your preferred network, right? The 'life's too short' thing is quite pathetic and, because of that, I struggle to have too much sympathy.

Obviously you're not talking from experience otherwise you'd know that even going to remote places you still often have Three coverage.

Just look at what Jon posted Wavejock it is right there in front of your face, it is so clear to see. I'll re post it, anyone can clearly see side-by-side https://jmcomms.files.wordpress.com/...e-june2014.jpg

Look at Wales!! 80% of Wales is red on Vodafone and O2, whereas on Three there are only 14 little red dots. Try and count them on Vodafone or O2 - you'll give up after a few seconds! these dots are whole square miles or something! 80% of it is RED on O2 and Voda !!!

Now look at Devon! 2 red dots on Three vs and uncountable amount on O2 and Voda - just LOOK at it. Look with your eyes Wavejock... LOOK!

Click the + to zoom it if you can't see it very well or maybe adjust your monitor as I think everyone in the thread is in amazement that you can't see what we're seeing (either that or choosing not to).

White by the way is "untested", not no coverage.

I think business came first but Voda has been an absolute nightmare for Openreach staff who rely on a good 3G signal whilst in the field. Openreach is the biggest part of BT Group so coverage may have been a factor also.

O2, Vodafone, 3 and EE have 4G coverage in Glasgow and Edinburgh - obviously the extent of this varies, which is what I said in my original post.

Go on the O2 coverage checker, and put the 3G layer on. Scroll up above the central belt. Weep.

I had pisspoor connections in my house (other networks seemed to be fine) and got fobbed off by their cs on a regular basis. I found an email to the head of customer service. Used it within a few days i now have a suresignal box and perfect reception. Its not what you know, its what you find on the net lol

My point exactly!

That said it has to be agreed that 3G coverage on Vodafone and O2 is shite in areas that haven't been upgraded to 4G as yet. I would challenge anyone to go into an O2/Vodafone 4G coverage area and stuggle to find good throughput.

That said however the grass isnt greener on the otherwise either, I speak from first hand experience Three's coverage in South Manchester has went down the toilet over the last few months. Don't get me wrong their network support staff are helpful but when you tell them you only have 1 bar of signal outdoors they are mystified as a result. EE is a perculiar one, in areas where Three 3G coverage is crap EE is acceptable at about 3 bars on my phones.

For all though people quite rightly slag off O2 and Vodafone coverage, much like EE you have to give them credit for their rollout strategies. The 3 of them seem to do it on a scale which seems to build out from a central area. For example those three launched their 4G coverage in Manchester (at different times admittedly) in a large area and built outwards now it pretty much covers the M62 corridor from Leeds to Liverpool.

Then we have Three and their piecemeal rollout, I don't follow their logic I really don't. Enabling a few masts in a city they now count as being "covered" when in reality its shit coverage. Why annouce coverage in an area if it isn't available widely? Three's rollout strategy is frankly a mess, I would rather they upgrade areas in whole rather than in part as it benefits very few. They may want to relieve congestion, however simply offering 4G isn't a sure fire way to solve that. Areas that are congested should have extra capacity installed as a rule rather than the exception.

The point I make is MBNL may have upgraded lots of places to DC-HSDPA and such like, but Three especially have problems much like the other networks. In South Manchester service from Three has been very substandard...still doesn't make want to jump ship tho!

When you consider that Three doesn't have the same need to roll out 4G to offer people a usable data experience, having heavily invested in DC-HSDPA upgrades, it's more about fixing capacity issues than offering far higher speeds.

Remember, many people on Three can get speeds of almost 30Mbps on 3G. Sure, the uplink speed is slower, but most people don't care about that.

Of course, I'd like Three to upgrade sites to 4G quicker, but those that aren't upgraded don't leave people struggling to get any data at all.

There are obviously areas where Three users are struggling, and I am sure the best solution is to upgrade those places sooner than the rest - which means there will be gaps and no seamless 4G coverage for a while longer - but it will come.

EE might say it won't class a town as covered until it has 80% 4G enabled, but some users have claimed that this isn't the case, and I know it certainly isn't the case with O2 (and therefore I'd imagine Vodafone too, given the near identical roll out).

To a point I agree with that, 4G doesn't need to be upgraded but we are lead to believe it is targeted in areas with high loads. However even DC it apparently being available nationwide is struggling under the current load, gone are the days of 21Mbps+ now speeds like that 512k are the norm. Honestly I would rather have coverage and slow technology than anything else. I suppose thats where EE and the rest have the advantage of legacy networks (even though some see them as hindrance).

I have to give it to the rest areas that have been upgraded show substantial gains in coverage (4G etc) and throughput. Why is Three taking so long? Again why only a few masts enabled in choice locations? I just feel they are making it harder for themselves in the long run. Just look at Three 4G coverage map against the rest and its sparse at best. Don't get me wrong I still say where coverage is adequate they are head and shoulders above the rest regarding data. They are 6 months into administering 4G and it doesn't look to have expanded or rolled out very far beyond a few token masts (outside of London).

I accept you saying you're not still getting 21Mbps and above, but my experience differs massively and not just in London and the South East.

Whether I've been in Norfolk, Cornwall or York, when I've used 3G it has still been 10Mbps or above. And I've even had my highest 3G speeds in the last few months.

But perhaps I'm rather lucky in that I have 4G almost everywhere I go, except the one place where my parents have their office and I'll be visiting a fair bit in the future. No 4G likely this year, so I've moved them from Three to EE. Instead of 6-9Mbps they now get around 55Mbps down and 45Mbps up.

They pay £20 for 15GB instead of £15 for 15GB on Three, so for mobile broadband EE is now pretty competitive (at last).

I'd argue that 3's network can be a bit sub-par in urban areas. I spend a lot of time in Reading and the 3G can be pretty woeful in the town centre (1 or 2Mbit), although the 4G performance is typically very nice so it's not so important. Any really low throughput appears to be overzealous traffic shaping instead of congestion.

In Cornwall it's very nice though. Good coverage and throughput.

Compare this to Vodafone or O2 where 3G, where it exists, is not that brilliant and most of the time you are stuck on GPRS anyway.

Come to Glasgow and the landscape is very different. EE 4G is everywhere, Vodafone and O2 cover most of the city and suburbs with 4G and 3 have at most 4 active sites which have been chosen to cover the areas the Commonwealth Games venues are situated at.

No sign of any development at existing EE sites where one would expect 3 to install additional cabs etc as yet. So much for the mid-2014 claims made by 3 sales staff locally for the 4G rollout locally and denial from prominent supporters that mid-2014 in the biggest city in Scotland was a likely date for coverage. Looks like it's happening later than that now.

If people want 4G in Glasgow they have coverage from O2, EE and Vodafone in most city and suburban areas, 3 has only limited 4G coverage and nothing in Glasgow city centre presently according to their own coverage map. That is disappointing in June 2014.

Was doing some speed testing on EE (mifi) in East Kilbride, Hamilton etc the other day. I was getting woeful pings and speeds. Maybe there was a fault.

Vodafone nearer Glasgow but out to Mearns etc is great. Good 3G and 4g coverage and speeds. Hd voice too

On the same vein, I travelled from Cambridge to Cornwall and back this week. Anecdotally I saw that 9 out of 10 Three had 3g whereas O2 was stuck on 2G. It was really quite pathetic and definitely as bad as Vodafone.