[Gigabit]

EE seems to be lacking in the low frequency spectrum department, this worries me as it means in the future EE may be left behind.

Let me explain by way of an example...

Today, an EE customer sits in a pub somewhere, with no signal at all, or very low 2G signal, an O2/Vodafone customer sits in said pub with GPRS, a Three customer sits in said pub with no signal at all.

So, at the current time all the networks are useless for data in this kind-of situation.

But in the future:

O2/Vodafone customers get 4G indoors through 800MHz, Three has 4G indoors from 800MHz; what does EE have? According to my logic they'll be in the same position as they are in now.

So although they're ahead at the moment, it seems in the future they may struggle. Perhaps I am over-thinking it, perhaps things may change.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

[d123]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gigabit

EE seems to be lacking in the low frequency spectrum department, this worries me as it means in the future EE may be left behind.

Let me explain by way of an example...

Today, an EE customer sits in a pub somewhere, with no signal at all, or very low 2G signal, an O2/Vodafone customer sits in said pub with GPRS, a Three customer sits in said pub with no signal at all.

So, at the current time all the networks are useless for data in this kind-of situation.

But in the future:

O2/Vodafone customers get 4G indoors through 800MHz, Three has 4G indoors from 800MHz; what does EE have? According to my logic they'll be in the same position as they are in now.

So although they're ahead at the moment, it seems in the future they may struggle. Perhaps I am over-thinking it, perhaps things may change.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

Do you think EE bought their 800MHz just for fun? What makes you feel they won't be using it after paying so much for it?

[Gigabit]

But EE's 800MHz isn't being rolled out nationwide whereas Three/O2/Vodafone 800MHz is.

[Thine Wonk]

My thoughts are that you're far too obsessed with frequency and that in some circumstances 1800 Mhz can actually penetrate some buildings more easily. We've already seen studies showing that call stability, set up time and reliability is actually better in some cases on EE & Three. * see the link below where Three performed better than O2 and Vodafone for calls.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11...obile_network/

Quote:

P3 found that Three was the clear winner in Voice. It marked the networks out of 190 points and Three scored 153, with EE second at 140, Vodafone at 94 and O2 at 84. The survey looked at London, Birmingham, Manchester, Edinburgh and Glasgow – which it calls “Big Cities” – as well as Marlow, Stroud, Evesham, Stafford, Oldham, Preston, Leeds, Penrith, East Kilbride, Paisley and Stirling,

Cell spacing is determined when you know the spectrum you're going to use, so if anything it just means the build cost is higher for some networks than others.

In the future there'll be even more small cells inside buildings, shopping centres and office complexes to allow the capacity needed, so wide area coverage from high powered cell sites is actually only needed in rural areas, and of course both EE and Three have some 800Mhz for that and will have the opportunity to get 700Mhz in the next round of auctions.

[Gigabit]

Explain how 1800MHz can penetrate buildings better than 800MHz please?

[Thine Wonk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gigabit

Explain how 1800MHz can penetrate buildings better than 800MHz please?

The structure of some buildings allows the higher shorter wavelength signals in better, it depends on the the building construction.

Call reliability as measured by P3 in London, Birmingham, Manchester, Edinburgh and Glasgow – which it calls “Big Cities” – as well as Marlow, Stroud, Evesham, Stafford, Oldham, Preston, Leeds, Penrith, East Kilbride, Paisley and Stirling,

Three 91% in small cities and commuter areas vs 68% for O2 and 65% for Vodafone

In "big cities" Three 75% vs O2 32% !!!!!!

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11...etwork/?page=2

[d123]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gigabit

But EE's 800MHz isn't being rolled out nationwide whereas Three/O2/Vodafone 800MHz is.

I don't think that is a confirmed fact (unless you have seen otherwise), EE have still to officially declare what is being used where, but Olaf Swantee did say:

Quote:

The acquisition of low and high frequency spectrum allows us to boost our superfast data services and coverage - indoors and outdoors, in cities and the countryside.

“This result means that we are perfectly placed to meet future data capacity demands - further enhancing the superfast 4G services we already offer the UK’s consumers and businesses.

“We look forward to continuing the rollout of the nation’s fastest mobile internet services.”

I don't even think EE network services really know the exact plans yet.

[jabbamk1]

Gigabit, EE are going to have the best 4G network in the UK. Thats a fact.

They are going to have 1800 everywhere and 800 to fill in the gaps.

Cell spacing is key. Not the frequency, although that does help

[jchamier]

Orange and Vodafone were seen as the two "best" corporate networks for voice calls, until the 2007/2008 explosion of smartphones.

Orange was exclusively 1800mhz for 2G / GPRS.
Vodafone was pretty much exclusively 900mhz for 2G / GPRS.

Orange built double the number of masts, and so matched the coverage - but had more capacity for calls/data in each area.

Nothing to say with the 90mhz of 1800, and the assets of two networks that EE cannot match O2/Vodafone, especially in cities. They already have the sites mapped and planned for 1800 penetration from over 10 years go - and I would guess only 40% to 50% of 2G 1800 sites in big cities are now 4G enabled. In small towns and rural areas only 10% to 20% of sites have been upgraded.

No, EE won't have a problem.

Lots of people still buy O2 and Vodafone for "better coverage due to lower frequency" and my employer is the same. I travel the country reasonably for work, and in ALL the places, I normally get better service on EE than Vodafone - and in poor coverage places I get the same on both. (ie, GPRS).

[Thine Wonk]

Exactly jchamier, hence why MBNL has something like 16,00-18,00 masts which are 3G, which is much higher than the others. They designed the spacing around the spectrum of 1800 Mhz and 2100Mhz.

Also oddly some buildings are better penetrated by 1800 or 2100 over 900, admittedly it's not typical, but it can happen.

The latest P3 research is a very interesting read in the call reliability as posted above as they show big city and smaller city / commuter area figures and there's a massive difference between the networks in their tests.

Allegedly a 32% call reliability on O2 in big cities which I find hard to believe vs 75% on Three. It also shows O2 performing much worse on call quality which is obvious if you're used the O2 network in conference rooms on the 'pods' like I have an then had those blank looks around the room trying to work out what the person who couldn't join the meeting in person is saying.

[Gigabit]

Here in Hampshire I have found very few cases where EE/Three better O2/Vodafone in terms of pure signal. EE/Three beat O2/Vodafone in terms of technology used, but overall I find that the signal itself is better on O2/Vodafone.

I wish EE's 3G coverage was as good as O2's 2G

[jchamier]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gigabit

Here in Hampshire I have found very few cases where EE/Three better O2/Vodafone in terms of pure signal. EE/Three beat O2/Vodafone in terms of technology used, but overall I find that the signal itself is better on O2/Vodafone.

I wish EE's 3G coverage was as good as O2's 2G

In north east hampshire, - Farnborough/Aldershot, Camberley, Fleet - EE beats O2 and Vodafone hands down. (Three is pretty good too). In Winchester area, I never had problem with EE, and in Southampton, never a problem. This is 3G and 2G calling.

Vodafone is awful in Farnborough/Aldershot area, even right by main road (e.g. A331), in a housing estate where 3 and EE give full signal 3G indoors and outdoors, Vodafone can only manage 2 bars outdoors of 3G. Indoors its GPRS. O2 is the same, and in fact I get zero coverage from O2 indoors in my place.

That's only 25miles from LHR, and when I travel for work to other areas, I find my Moto G with prepay O2 SIM has no signal or has 1 bar GPRS, compared to several bars of 3G in my iPad with 3 data SIM, and similar on my EE phone. My work vodafone which is supposed to be for email is generally voice only.

[Thine Wonk]

Signal bars don't count, or even signal level for that matter, 1 or 2 bars is can deliver just as good voice calls, and even better data than a so called 'full signal' on another network. All networks vary area by area, often people people judge networks by the coverage in their town, which is fair enough, but try testing on your travels, when away in hotels, when streaming on train journeys and all over the place if you travel a lot and test different networks, you do tend to see the trends.

[jchamier]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thine Wonk

Signal bars don't count, or even signal level for that matter, 1 or 2 bars is can deliver just as good voice calls, and even better data than a so called 'full signal' on another network. All networks vary area by area, often people people judge networks by the coverage in their town, which is fair enough, but try testing on your travels, when away in hotels, when streaming on train journeys and all over the place if you travel a lot and test different networks, you do tend to see the trends.

Yup, I usually use dbm myself - The trend is obvious, my work vodafone never has working data, and I have to tether it to my personal EE phone. They're both iPhones. My test phone (moto g) has either 3 or O2 SIM in, generally shows that 3 follows the EE pattern, and O2 follows the vodafone pattern. (not unsurprisingly!).

This is across the country - however inside the M25 is a special case for all, and that may be the same inside Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds etc.

[Aye Up]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jabbamk1

Gigabit, EE are going to have the best 4G network in the UK. Thats a fact.

They are going to have 1800 everywhere and 800 to fill in the gaps.

Cell spacing is key. Not the frequency, although that does help

Based on what assumption?

I think everyone will agree it will be them and Vodafone challenging for the top spot in about 2 years or so. EE has the best network now by virtue of starting early, and credit to them they have very good 4G coverage and it being robust. But I don't get how you can claim they will have the best network when none of them have completed their rollouts yet?

I firmly believe that Vodafone is the best network but thats just my opinion, I value being able to make a call over trying to load bloody facebook when out in the sticks. Vodafone and EE are very well positioned to advance in the coming years they both have a good range of spectrum which will allow them to offer unique propositions. The other 2 not so much, the only thing O2 has in its favour is the lower 4G allocation (it being more), beyond that they are screwed unless they buy some 2300 when the next auction round occurs. I know Three will get another 2x5Mhz next year, again they are suffering due to the lack of varied spectrum.

What really bugs me though is people holding up Three as some shining example, you try going round the Yorkshire Moors or the lake district and get a signal........as we know theirs doesn't travel that well. The other 3 networks work fine. I know lots of people slag off 2G as being old and antiquated but when you just need to call or text it does the job fine, which is something Three can't do when its disabled 2G roaming virtually everywhere.

If anything O2 and Three will be the networks to avoid in the coming months and years, unless they change direction. O2 is at least upgrading areas and building out coverage to some degree, Three well......I don't know?

EE right now is hitting a home run, they have aggressively rolled out 4G and upgraded god knows how many masts as part of MBNL. Their service proposition has come a long way from when it first launched, 4G is becoming affordable even with decent data allowances. Vodafone admittedly is still catching up in both aspects, though I believe that will change in and around March (regarding tariffs, don't know about coverage).

If you are on EE or Vodafone the future looks bright.... (I am so wanting to say the next part ) there is plenty of things coming which will make them more attractive. The other 2 well I just don't know, both of them are sorely lacking in this respect.

[The Lord Lucan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gigabit

EE seems to be lacking in the low frequency spectrum department, this worries me as it means in the future EE may be left behind.

Let me explain by way of an example...

Today, an EE customer sits in a pub somewhere, with no signal at all, or very low 2G signal, an O2/Vodafone customer sits in said pub with GPRS, a Three customer sits in said pub with no signal at all.

800 is barely needed. O2/Voda would kill to have the 1800 spectrum that EE currently has. As for your example.. I could take you to dozens of places where O2/Voda have NO signal even using 900 Mhz but EE has usable 2G or 3G on higher frequencies.. and i can think of a few places off the top of my head where O2 has nowt but EE has DS 4G signal.. and where O2 has already rolled out 800 4G in the area!

I doubt this going to be a problem. Spectrum diversity & spacing is EE's biggest strength.

[jabbamk1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aye Up

Based on what assumption?

I think everyone will agree it will be them and Vodafone challenging for the top spot in about 2 years or so. .

Nah, EE will have the best 4G network. I've seen their road map.

They have the spectrum, right amount of sites being upgraded, right roll out strategy and plenty of other things such as VoLTE, Wi-Fi calling and LTE Broadcast coming before anyone else.

Vodafone will be good but not to the same extent. Maybe in cities/towns they'll match EE but not outside. Also, Vodafone will be behind EE pretty much all the time.

[Thine Wonk]

Aye up, the Yorkshire moors is an extreme example, being an area of outstanding natural beauty and with strict planning permission of course 2100Mhz networks can't put as many cell sites out there. In those very specific cases a massive tower on 900Mhz is best.

However if you look at the P3 report it shows O2 and Vodafone actually have the lowest call reliability and quality by a massive margin in big cities and minor cities and towns. Three's rural *(outside of AONB's) data quality is actually very good.

[Aye Up]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jabbamk1

Nah, EE will have the best 4G network. I've seen their road map.

They have the spectrum, right amount of sites being upgraded, right roll out strategy and plenty of other things such as VoLTE, Wi-Fi calling and LTE Broadcast coming before anyone else.

Vodafone will be good but not to the same extent. Maybe in cities/towns they'll match EE but not outside. Also, Vodafone will be behind EE pretty much all the time.

Again I fail to see how that translates into being better? Sooner or later VoLTE and the rest will end up on the other networks. Have you seen Vodafones rollout strategy? What they have planned will equal if not beat EE in my opinion, but again this isn't based on fact, I will concede EE are further along with their rollout than those here or even worldwide. They are in a fantastic position right now which they are rightly exploiting.

I suppose its a difference or opinion (and I am not trying to be patronising in this respect). The rollout strategies between EE and Vodafone are quite similar to some extent (although the latter is circling a media partner), to be fair EE will have more cells by virtue of necessity (to ensure coverage). Over the longer term I think we will begin to see some significant developments coming from them both.

Again as I say my experience of Vodafone runs counter to other people, but EE are on fire at the moment and its nice they are leading the pack and forcing the rest to catchup or move faster.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thine Wonk

Aye up, the Yorkshire moors is an extreme example, being an area of outstanding natural beauty and with strict planning permission of course 2100Mhz networks can't put as many cell sites out there. In those very specific cases a massive tower on 900Mhz is best.

However if you look at the P3 report it shows O2 and Vodafone actually have the lowest call reliability and quality by a massive margin in big cities and minor cities and towns. Three's rural *(outside of AONB's) data quality is actually very good.

Extreme example though it maybe, but my point stands. Even in built up areas where you would expect coverage and capacity to be plentiful isn't the case, I have been battling with Three to get them to fix problems in my area (Altrincham/Sale). This has been the case for the last 6 months, my experience with them travelling round he rest of Manchester has been very negative yet the other 3 I face no problems?

I am fortunate that I get to travel around a lot and stupidly have connections on the 4 networks. The only network that gives me grief is Three, whether I am in Sunderland, Glasgow or even London, it fails. Was in Blackpool recently on a short break with family, couldn't get throughput at all nor make a phone call on Three, guess which ones worked?

Admittedly this was also at a busy period for the resort due to illuminations and what not. What got me is how can the rest ensure adequate signal and capacity yet Three couldn't? If this was the exception rather than the rule I would acknowledge that, however their 4G rollout is at best a sticking plaster for the problems they are now facing (congestion etc).

The point I make is these science based surveys only show part of the picture, real world usage may offer a different insight.

[d123]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aye Up

:
The only network that gives me grief is Three, whether I am in Sunderland, Glasgow or even London, it fails. Was in Blackpool recently on a short break with family, couldn't get throughput at all nor make a phone call on Three, guess which ones worked?

You might want to get your handset checked, I travel around the North quite a lot, and have had no problem in any of the cities you mention (and I would notice quite quickly as I stream Internet radio in the car due to the awful FM signal we seem to now have in parts of the North.

Whilst I'm planning on leaving Three, it's not because of signal quality as signal in 90% of where I travel is good, and that includes Sunderland, Glasgow and Blackpool (as well as Edinburgh, Berwick, Newcastle, Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool and Carlisle).

[RAN Man]

Interesting discussion. For LTE data (and voice when VoLTE rocks up)

We know currently that EEs 20Mhz@1800 beats Vodas 10Mhz@800, from all the independent testing.

The currently announced and rolling out LTE-A config will be:

EE : 20Mhz@1800+20Mhz@2600
Voda.: 10Mhz@800+20Mhz@2600

As such, as they are both adding the same capacity (and hence speed), there seems little prospect of Voda overtaking EE for LTE performance IMHO. When you also take into account that, based on simulations, 1800+2600 gives 20% higher average speeds than 800+2600 (for the same spectrum quantities) (basically because 2600 covers a much lower percentage of the same sites 800 coverage), you might actually find that Voda gets further behind!

(Assuming Voda actually start adding some more 4G subs! If the load on each network is very uneven, I.e. Voda have very low load due to being unsuccessful in migrating subs to 4G, that would improve their performance relative to others due to it being a very lightly loaded network! This might be their best chance )

For O2/Three, they simply don't own enough available LTE spectrum to have a chance!

[RAN Man]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gigabit

But EE's 800MHz isn't being rolled out nationwide whereas Three/O2/Vodafone 800MHz is.

That 5Mhz@800 that EE and Three own is only good for one thing, coverage. By that I mean that it's pretty useless for data, given that average speeds on it (on its own) would be 5-10 Mbps. As such, the primary use for both (eventually) will be for voice, and hence needs VoLTE to be any use.

Personally, I'm Somewhat surprised at Threes apparent plans to roll it out in isolation in large areas next year, given the lack of VoLTE. Those who are hoping this rollout will significantly improve Threes data performance ( vs 10Mhz DC-HSDPA on many more sites in these areas) could well be pretty disappointed. Time will tell, as always.

[uno]

I am quite lucky to have 4G work phone on EE double speed enabled and also personal S5 on Vodafone 4G.

I agree with most of the statements on here especially that in the long term EE will provide the best service. Even more so once LTE advanced is used more and additional devices come out.

However during my testing Vodafone 2600 at 20mhz allows higher speeds than EE 1800 at 20mhz this was done in same location and time with masts similar distances apart. Obviously I expect EE had higher network traffic than Vodafone though.

As Ran Man said said it should be better for EE with 1800&2600 than Vodafone 800&2600 although the signal may reach a little further.
I do know from my contacts in network operations at both networks that they are both progressing well with VOLTE plans and to me seem to be at similar stages in product and testing cycle.

EE really need to get Wifi calling out on the public market ASAP now as have talked about it and customers are getting frustrated waiting for it as it will solve a number of customers issues with low signal and calling as well as taking hopefully taking quite a bit of load off the mobile infrastructure

[enapace]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thine Wonk

Aye up, the Yorkshire moors is an extreme example, being an area of outstanding natural beauty and with strict planning permission of course 2100Mhz networks can't put as many cell sites out there. In those very specific cases a massive tower on 900Mhz is best.

However if you look at the P3 report it shows O2 and Vodafone actually have the lowest call reliability and quality by a massive margin in big cities and minor cities and towns. Three's rural *(outside of AONB's) data quality is actually very good.

Imagine in those cases EE would use its 800MHz spectrum won't be quite as fast but the coverage should be pretty similar.

[frankie_baby]

Considering EE is fairly likely to be owned by either Three or BT in the near future plans will change anyway