Vodafone CEO says you dont need any more than 20Mb

jchamier · 14-01-2015, 07:52

Quote:

Bluntly put I think people need to get over themselves in relating to the legacy problems of Vodafone and focus more on what will happen in the future. Building out 4G like Rome, won't done overnight. However in those areas where Vodafone has put in place new infratructure you will generally find the service much improved and more importantly reliable, something that can't be said of another network.

I agree with you completely on Orange - I recall after I moved to T-Mobile, the Orange data prices were still insane, but my parents did a speed test in my home and they managed 0.05Mbps whereas on T-Mobile I was getting 16Mbps. The lack of investment from France Telecom was obvious - growing customers but not infrastructure.

Vodafone is still rubbish in a lot of places, and 4G is still in its infancy, as there are lots and lots of cheap 3G only handsets (e.g. Moto G) out there. Any Vodafone customers who aren't on 4G are getting a significantly substandard service compared to all of the other three networks. This is not going to be fixed overnight. For those with money and/or newer handsets, the Vodafone 4G network is a great solution - as it rolls out around the UK.

In terms of speeds - if Voda's CEO can get average speeds of 20Mbps then I'm happy. That means no problems streaming video etc. However if 20Mbps is his theoretical max, that means low end speeds of 1Mbps, and as such there won't be enough capacity for the volume of customers he wants.

sethpet · 14-01-2015, 09:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by jchamier

I agree with you completely on Orange - I recall after I moved to T-Mobile, the Orange data prices were still insane, but my parents did a speed test in my home and they managed 0.05Mbps whereas on T-Mobile I was getting 16Mbps. The lack of investment from France Telecom was obvious - growing customers but not infrastructure.

Vodafone is still rubbish in a lot of places, and 4G is still in its infancy, as there are lots and lots of cheap 3G only handsets (e.g. Moto G) out there. Any Vodafone customers who aren't on 4G are getting a significantly substandard service compared to all of the other three networks. This is not going to be fixed overnight. For those with money and/or newer handsets, the Vodafone 4G network is a great solution - as it rolls out around the UK.

In terms of speeds - if Voda's CEO can get average speeds of 20Mbps then I'm happy. That means no problems streaming video etc. However if 20Mbps is his theoretical max, that means low end speeds of 1Mbps, and as such there won't be enough capacity for the volume of customers he wants.

You that the vf rollout is a 2g/3g/4g rollout right.

They are not just putting 4g signal in amd not also installing or upgrading tye legacy technologies

The Lord Lucan · 14-01-2015, 13:48

I just don't agree. Edinburgh is an early Vodafone 4G City so you'd think they would been ok here, wrong the coverage still sucks compared to EE, the speeds hover around EE 3G speeds, 3G coverage shrinks gloriously at peak and 2G just isn't as strong as it should be.
Leave the city boundaries and 2G only..
Voda 4G here is what Voda 3G should have been a few years ago!

Chrysalis · 14-01-2015, 13:57

To be fair 20mbit will be fine for 99% of people.

If I had 20mbit on 3G I would have been happy, but I moved to 4G as I only had 2mbit at the most and often much worse.

The main issue with mobile broadband now is the low data usage limits.

M1kos · 14-01-2015, 17:00

Just got 18mb down and 5mb up on 3G in south East London at 5pm I think that's pretty good from my local mast 300m away hspa+ although I wish they would 4G it up

Aye Up · 14-01-2015, 17:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lord Lucan

I just don't agree. Edinburgh is an early Vodafone 4G City so you'd think they would been ok here, wrong the coverage still sucks compared to EE, the speeds hover around EE 3G speeds, 3G coverage shrinks gloriously at peak and 2G just isn't as strong as it should be.
Leave the city boundaries and 2G only..
Voda 4G here is what Voda 3G should have been a few years ago!

I suppose this is all subjective, genuinely they have improved immeasurably in the areas I frequent, I don't doubt other folks experience will be different. I understand the flak Vodafone get and to a larger extent deserve. But again this is not something that could changed overnight. MBNL has been operating for a much longer period relative to the two originators. Orange prior to EE was a festering bowl of dog shit, things changed after the merger. Things at the moment aren't great for Vodafone in large urban areas of the country.

But again people are going on like they will never be able to catchup to MBNL and latterly EE. For Vodafone its upgrade programme is very much still in its infancy, compared to EE which had a head start on 4G. This situation was inevitable when they got the go ahead. Vodafone by the end of 2016 should be in a broadly similar position to EE in terms of coverage and general capacity.

Vodafone have identified that initial speeds have been dropping on 4G, they are apparently according to another user looking to alleviate those issues. The other thing to recognise is that every mast that gets upgraded will also recieve similar attention to 2G and 3G service. I think Vodafone thought it would be plain sailing, hence the somewhat idiotic remarks from the UK Ceo. Obviously its not turning out as fortuitous as they hoped hence why rollout has slipped (even for EE).

Every piece of shit that is thrown at Vodafone is deserved for its past failures but there to comes a time when people need to stop living in the past and look to the future. BT buying EE, Vodafone going back into the home broadband market, the last few months have woken and arrested the corpses of two telecoms giants, the end result will be broadly the same. I can't speak for O2, I know they are sharing infrastructure upgrades, however I am lead to believe O2 is stalling to some degree. I think Vodafone and EE have different priorities to the rest of the market, they are both embracing new spectrum and technology and spending a wad load on it.

The Lord Lucan · 14-01-2015, 23:50

Agreed. I'm sure things will get better. I'm wondering if it's to do with O2 doing the roll out up here as O2's 4G coverage just seems better than Voda's. However surely there shouldn't be much difference at this stage in early roll out city.

Rossby41 · 15-01-2015, 12:14

I would partly disagree with that. What he is clearly failing to see is, more and more people are now using mobile internet as a form of home broadband (and getting rid of the land line altogether).
If the networks aren't careful, and get their act together, Relish broadband could take this from them.

andyukguy · 15-01-2015, 12:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by jchamier

Agreed, Orange 2G and T-Mobile 2G both on 1800 often out performed the legacy networks on 900mhz, purely due to more cell sites in closer locations.

Unfortunately for me (as I'm on a 2 year contract) this has not been my experience of EE, at least in a lot of locations I have found myself in the past few months.

I reckon I must sound like a broken record, but based on my experience in many many locations EE's signal is definitely not finding it's way indoors as often as Vodafone and O2's are.

I'm not saying in a "5 bars vs 2 bars" way I'm saying in "having a signal at all" way.

Just as another example, as I've given a few previously, I was watching the snooker at the Alexandra Palace yesterday, inside the auditorium I had the dreaded No Service or a very weak 1 bar of 3G which would disappear if the wind changed and never once gave me throughput. Friends on o2 and Vodafone each had full bars of 3G that was working great. As soon as I went outside into the lobby the signal improved and was usable.

tdenson · 15-01-2015, 13:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rossby41

I would partly disagree with that. What he is clearly failing to see is, more and more people are now using mobile internet as a form of home broadband (and getting rid of the land line altogether).
If the networks aren't careful, and get their act together, Relish broadband could take this from them.

Not sure I agree with you. Wireless spectrum will always be a relatively limited resource, whereas for all intents and purposes wired connections are an infinite resource and will typically be cheaper as a result.

moox · 15-01-2015, 13:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rossby41

I would partly disagree with that. What he is clearly failing to see is, more and more people are now using mobile internet as a form of home broadband (and getting rid of the land line altogether).
If the networks aren't careful, and get their act together, Relish broadband could take this from them.

Relish covers what, about 10 houses in West London? Do they even have nationwide spectrum?

Their parent company has had wireless networks for years in places like Reading but it hasn't exactly taken business from the DSL companies and Virgin.

I haven't seen what you describe, except for rural dwellers for whom mobile broadband is much faster and more reliable than what they can currently get over a wired connection - but that if they could get cheap, fast wired broadband they'd go straight back to it.

Wired networks have the ability to be continuously upgraded to meet new demands, and can provide predictable performance. When parts of the world are looking at doing gigabit fibre to the home, it's not likely that 30 or 40Mbit LTE is going to cut it

Rossby41 · 15-01-2015, 13:44

But that's not the point I'm getting at, they will undoubtedly roll out further. Ok the other networks have a greater head start.
Also more and more people are getting rid of line rental all together.
EE are clearly seeing this also with their 100gb free trial they offered. That was clearly to see if their network could manage more it.

de525ma · 15-01-2015, 15:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by moox

Wired networks have the ability to be continuously upgraded to meet new demands, and can provide predictable performance. When parts of the world are looking at doing gigabit fibre to the home, it's not likely that 30 or 40Mbit LTE is going to cut it

Yes, but for those on long rural lines, it will be far cheaper for BT to replace the 1-6mbps copper lines with a nice 4G transmitter, to use for the next few years, rather than splashing out for FTTP to 6 houses in the middle of nowhere. This should provide at least a 25 mbps service until FTTP becomes cheaper, or the govt throw some money at it.

Up here this situation is very common - areas with 5-10 houses, each one directly cabled to a distant exchange, all with a very poor service.

moox · 15-01-2015, 15:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by de525ma

Yes, but for those on long rural lines, it will be far cheaper for BT to replace the 1-6mbps copper lines with a nice 4G transmitter, to use for the next few years, rather than splashing out for FTTP to 6 houses in the middle of nowhere. This should provide at least a 25 mbps service until FTTP becomes cheaper, or the govt throw some money at it.

Up here this situation is very common - areas with 5-10 houses, each one directly cabled to a distant exchange, all with a very poor service.

You're assuming that it's FTTP or nothing at the moment, when it isn't - there are copper based options that will reduce the cost.

Besides, the post I was replying to implied that everyone would move from wired to wireless, which is rather different to it being used in situations where it makes sense

mrMick · 16-01-2015, 19:21

20Mbps would suit me fine, but then so would some 3G from vodafone

Nice to see some improvements due in my area in the coming months though. We shall see.

sethpet · 16-01-2015, 20:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rossby41

But that's not the point I'm getting at, they will undoubtedly roll out further. Ok the other networks have a greater head start.
Also more and more people are getting rid of line rental all together.
EE are clearly seeing this also with their 100gb free trial they offered. That was clearly to see if their network could manage more it.

Nothing to do with that at all, everything EE are doing and have been for a while is about making the base as attractive as possible to a buyer.

jchamier · 17-01-2015, 18:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by andyukguy

Unfortunately for me (as I'm on a 2 year contract) this has not been my experience of EE, at least in a lot of locations I have found myself in the past few months.

Quite surprising, as my experience is the opposite. I have a work Vodafone 3G contract in an iPhone 5s and a personal EE 4G contract in an iPhone 6. Vodafone might manage indoor coverage on 2G GPRS for about 10meters more than EE but if you make a call in that area the other person generally says "I can't work out what you're saying" - so its pretty useless.

Quote:

I reckon I must sound like a broken record, but based on my experience in many many locations EE's signal is definitely not finding it's way indoors as often as Vodafone and O2's are.

Yes 1800mhz is not as good at indoor penetration than 900mhz - but unless you're in London - inside M25 - (which is different) that is why EE has for years had more masts than Vodafone and O2; to counteract this difference.

Quote:

I'm not saying in a "5 bars vs 2 bars" way I'm saying in "having a signal at all" way.

Then its a not spot, and sadly all networks have them, but they're all in different places.

They're more comparable with 3G as they all use 2100, but then Vodafone and O2 started using a tiny slice of 900mhz for 3G - and so gained a bit more coverage, but with very slow speeds.

Quote:

Just as another example, as I've given a few previously, I was watching the snooker at the Alexandra Palace yesterday, inside the auditorium I had the dreaded No Service or a very weak 1 bar of 3G which would disappear if the wind changed and never once gave me throughput. Friends on o2 and Vodafone each had full bars of 3G that was working great. As soon as I went outside into the lobby the signal improved and was usable.

Sounds as if there is a repeater indoors for Vodafone and O2, probably designed around 900mhz only, and VF & O2 have used this to their advantage and repeating 3G/900. Pretty sure we can probably find a shopping centre somewhere where the reverse is true.

There isn't one network that solves all the problems, unless the tax payer bought all the networks, nationalised them, and made one network with all the masts

Gigabit · 17-01-2015, 20:46

I know one place near me where 900MHz O2 3G makes a big difference over EE and Three but that's it.

Chrysalis · 17-01-2015, 21:21

Incidently I took my S3 out today with me when my sister drove me to MCD (as she wants to borrow it) and it has my Three sim inside it. In the MCD drivethru, Three 2 bars and 800kbit/sec on speedtest, EE 5 bars and 78mbit/sec on speedtest.

planetf1 · 19-01-2015, 10:12

I'm so glad I'm not on vodafone - a few years of slow/dodgy data and limited bundles.

That being said I'm inclined to agree with him. I'd happily go with a network that could consistently offer 20 Mbps and not more. it's enough for what I do on my phone/tablet

The newer networking technologies add more capacity which is great, but from a user perspective it isn't that important.

Similarly I'm happy on 3UK with their more limited 4G network than others because when I'm on 3G it's generally pretty good, and they sell unlimited bundles.

Tariq_ali1 · 20-01-2015, 09:33

Ee are talking of a minimum speed of 5mbps on ltea

http://www.theguardian.com/technolog...ion-4g-rollout

Interesting to know what peak speeds would have to get to so as to achieve 20mbps minimum.

jonmorris · 20-01-2015, 15:08

Few people need 150 or 300Mbps LTE speeds (theoretical, obviously) but why not build networks for the best technology - cost permitting?

You could either restrict access by tariff, or just offer the higher speed and let the consumer use what they can based on what device they have. At the moment, how many people have a LTE device full stop, let alone a Cat 6, 9 or 10 LTE device?

When I'm working and need to upload a 1-2GB video, I want it done as quick as possible. But for normal usage, like being on here or streaming on Netflix I don't need it. I can't use it unless I'm doing a speed test.

However, to satisfy my needs when sending or receiving huge amounts of data, I'm going to look for the network offering the higher speeds even if I only need it a small percentage of the time.

I'm sure that when we see 300Mb, 400Mb and higher speeds, there will be more use of tariffs and supplements to make some speeds only available to some users. Perhaps the highest speeds being limited to people on mobile broadband tariffs by default, unless you pay a premium.

WelshBluebird · 20-01-2015, 15:15

I think the main issue is capacity surely?
If you build your network to only support 20Mbps speeds then as you get more users, that 20Mbps will get congested down to a couple of meg (or less) pretty quickly. A network that supports say 80Mbps will take longer to get congested down to the same level.

jonmorris · 20-01-2015, 15:32

Vodafone and O2 have never worried about capacity IME. Neither did Orange.

It sounds like Vodafone is going to make the same mistakes again.

This is why T-Mobile and Three were so ahead of the game, which obviously paid off when they teamed up and gave us the MBNL network so far ahead of the competition it's quite frightening. Orange was so lucky in that when EE was created, it gained significantly more from MBNL than it offered.

I assumed that the Cornerstone alliance/partnership was designed so O2 and Vodafone could play catch up but now I am wondering if it won't simply be much the same as it ever was. Sure, there will be more sites with 3G and a definite improvement on the backhaul compared to now, but where will things stand in 5-10 years time when LTE has matured? No doubt, Vodafone will be offering high speeds in key locations but still neglecting everywhere else.

Aye Up · 20-01-2015, 17:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonmorris

Vodafone and O2 have never worried about capacity IME. Neither did Orange.

It sounds like Vodafone is going to make the same mistakes again.

This is why T-Mobile and Three were so ahead of the game, which obviously paid off when they teamed up and gave us the MBNL network so far ahead of the competition it's quite frightening. Orange was so lucky in that when EE was created, it gained significantly more from MBNL than it offered.

I assumed that the Cornerstone alliance/partnership was designed so O2 and Vodafone could play catch up but now I am wondering if it won't simply be much the same as it ever was. Sure, there will be more sites with 3G and a definite improvement on the backhaul compared to now, but where will things stand in 5-10 years time when LTE has matured? No doubt, Vodafone will be offering high speeds in key locations but still neglecting everywhere else.

Even though I may sound like a torchbearer for Vodafone (and BT in another thread), that is one thing that concerns me. I think the only network with a concrete plan is EE, obviously they are part of MBNL which has its advantages. Its in LTE and future standards which they seem to geared to handle. I think they are genuine trail blazers in the UK market, they really have wrong footed the rest of the industry.

I do think Vodafone will catch up eventually, they have committed an exorbitant amount of capital for investment which in theory should allow them to equal or in some areas surpass EE. Three and O2 will be the ones who will struggle I think. By virtue of Cornerstone/Beacon agreement O2 should at least equal Vodafone's 4G coverage over the coming months. Three's 4G plans are obviously in flux, I think even the most reputable sources on this forum won't know whats really going on in terms of rollout.

Vodafone has a lot of repenting to do, customers are cynical having been fed claptrap for so many years. I do believe they want a genuine next generation network, else they wouldn't have spent so much money on the C&W purchase. They were the largest bidder by a country mile for the spectrum auction, I just can't see them spending so much for it not to be used.

Mind you I say all this and wonder why when they upgraded sites to 4G they didn't bung in 2600 spectrum as well. Some of the stuff I have been hearing and seen, suggests they are having to go back to each mast and do extra work, I think this has contributed to delays massively. Even worse the rollout out of CA 4G was premature they don't have that many masts built to handle it (I think I have only found one mast in Manchester C/C, even then it wasn't much better than double speed EE).

The only network that seems to have it sussed is EE, make no bones about it, they have the bext 2G/3G/4G network in this country. I like the approach of EE, they will build out the network as opposed to the peacemeal approach of Three. 1800 is perfect for the strategy they are pursuing. EE is forcing the rest of the market to catchup and keep pace, which is a good thing.

I think Vodafone still has some learning to do regarding coverage and 4G, however I suspect by the end of this year things will have improved massively.

14-01-2015, 07:52	#26
jchamier Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2000 Location: This forum Posts: 3,392	Quote: Originally Posted by Aye Up Bluntly put I think people need to get over themselves in relating to the legacy problems of Vodafone and focus more on what will happen in the future. Building out 4G like Rome, won't done overnight. However in those areas where Vodafone has put in place new infratructure you will generally find the service much improved and more importantly reliable, something that can't be said of another network. I agree with you completely on Orange - I recall after I moved to T-Mobile, the Orange data prices were still insane, but my parents did a speed test in my home and they managed 0.05Mbps whereas on T-Mobile I was getting 16Mbps. The lack of investment from France Telecom was obvious - growing customers but not infrastructure. Vodafone is still rubbish in a lot of places, and 4G is still in its infancy, as there are lots and lots of cheap 3G only handsets (e.g. Moto G) out there. Any Vodafone customers who aren't on 4G are getting a significantly substandard service compared to all of the other three networks. This is not going to be fixed overnight. For those with money and/or newer handsets, the Vodafone 4G network is a great solution - as it rolls out around the UK. In terms of speeds - if Voda's CEO can get average speeds of 20Mbps then I'm happy. That means no problems streaming video etc. However if 20Mbps is his theoretical max, that means low end speeds of 1Mbps, and as such there won't be enough capacity for the volume of customers he wants.

15-01-2015, 12:14	#33
Rossby41 Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 844	I would partly disagree with that. What he is clearly failing to see is, more and more people are now using mobile internet as a form of home broadband (and getting rid of the land line altogether). If the networks aren't careful, and get their act together, Relish broadband could take this from them. Last edited by Rossby41 : 15-01-2015 at 12:16. Reason: More information

14-01-2015, 09:57	#27
sethpet Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 494	Quote: Originally Posted by jchamier I agree with you completely on Orange - I recall after I moved to T-Mobile, the Orange data prices were still insane, but my parents did a speed test in my home and they managed 0.05Mbps whereas on T-Mobile I was getting 16Mbps. The lack of investment from France Telecom was obvious - growing customers but not infrastructure. Vodafone is still rubbish in a lot of places, and 4G is still in its infancy, as there are lots and lots of cheap 3G only handsets (e.g. Moto G) out there. Any Vodafone customers who aren't on 4G are getting a significantly substandard service compared to all of the other three networks. This is not going to be fixed overnight. For those with money and/or newer handsets, the Vodafone 4G network is a great solution - as it rolls out around the UK. In terms of speeds - if Voda's CEO can get average speeds of 20Mbps then I'm happy. That means no problems streaming video etc. However if 20Mbps is his theoretical max, that means low end speeds of 1Mbps, and as such there won't be enough capacity for the volume of customers he wants. You that the vf rollout is a 2g/3g/4g rollout right. They are not just putting 4g signal in amd not also installing or upgrading tye legacy technologies

14-01-2015, 13:48	#28
The Lord Lucan Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Scotland Posts: 4,966	I just don't agree. Edinburgh is an early Vodafone 4G City so you'd think they would been ok here, wrong the coverage still sucks compared to EE, the speeds hover around EE 3G speeds, 3G coverage shrinks gloriously at peak and 2G just isn't as strong as it should be. Leave the city boundaries and 2G only.. Voda 4G here is what Voda 3G should have been a few years ago!

14-01-2015, 13:57	#29
Chrysalis Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Leics Posts: 581	To be fair 20mbit will be fine for 99% of people. If I had 20mbit on 3G I would have been happy, but I moved to 4G as I only had 2mbit at the most and often much worse. The main issue with mobile broadband now is the low data usage limits.

14-01-2015, 17:00	#30
M1kos Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2014 Posts: 499	Just got 18mb down and 5mb up on 3G in south East London at 5pm I think that's pretty good from my local mast 300m away hspa+ although I wish they would 4G it up

14-01-2015, 17:54	#31
Aye Up Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: North West Posts: 4,885	Quote: Originally Posted by The Lord Lucan I just don't agree. Edinburgh is an early Vodafone 4G City so you'd think they would been ok here, wrong the coverage still sucks compared to EE, the speeds hover around EE 3G speeds, 3G coverage shrinks gloriously at peak and 2G just isn't as strong as it should be. Leave the city boundaries and 2G only.. Voda 4G here is what Voda 3G should have been a few years ago! I suppose this is all subjective, genuinely they have improved immeasurably in the areas I frequent, I don't doubt other folks experience will be different. I understand the flak Vodafone get and to a larger extent deserve. But again this is not something that could changed overnight. MBNL has been operating for a much longer period relative to the two originators. Orange prior to EE was a festering bowl of dog shit, things changed after the merger. Things at the moment aren't great for Vodafone in large urban areas of the country. But again people are going on like they will never be able to catchup to MBNL and latterly EE. For Vodafone its upgrade programme is very much still in its infancy, compared to EE which had a head start on 4G. This situation was inevitable when they got the go ahead. Vodafone by the end of 2016 should be in a broadly similar position to EE in terms of coverage and general capacity. Vodafone have identified that initial speeds have been dropping on 4G, they are apparently according to another user looking to alleviate those issues. The other thing to recognise is that every mast that gets upgraded will also recieve similar attention to 2G and 3G service. I think Vodafone thought it would be plain sailing, hence the somewhat idiotic remarks from the UK Ceo. Obviously its not turning out as fortuitous as they hoped hence why rollout has slipped (even for EE). Every piece of shit that is thrown at Vodafone is deserved for its past failures but there to comes a time when people need to stop living in the past and look to the future. BT buying EE, Vodafone going back into the home broadband market, the last few months have woken and arrested the corpses of two telecoms giants, the end result will be broadly the same. I can't speak for O2, I know they are sharing infrastructure upgrades, however I am lead to believe O2 is stalling to some degree. I think Vodafone and EE have different priorities to the rest of the market, they are both embracing new spectrum and technology and spending a wad load on it.

14-01-2015, 23:50	#32
The Lord Lucan Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Scotland Posts: 4,966	Agreed. I'm sure things will get better. I'm wondering if it's to do with O2 doing the roll out up here as O2's 4G coverage just seems better than Voda's. However surely there shouldn't be much difference at this stage in early roll out city.

15-01-2015, 12:28	#34
andyukguy Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 145	Quote: Originally Posted by jchamier Agreed, Orange 2G and T-Mobile 2G both on 1800 often out performed the legacy networks on 900mhz, purely due to more cell sites in closer locations. Unfortunately for me (as I'm on a 2 year contract) this has not been my experience of EE, at least in a lot of locations I have found myself in the past few months. I reckon I must sound like a broken record, but based on my experience in many many locations EE's signal is definitely not finding it's way indoors as often as Vodafone and O2's are. I'm not saying in a "5 bars vs 2 bars" way I'm saying in "having a signal at all" way. Just as another example, as I've given a few previously, I was watching the snooker at the Alexandra Palace yesterday, inside the auditorium I had the dreaded No Service or a very weak 1 bar of 3G which would disappear if the wind changed and never once gave me throughput. Friends on o2 and Vodafone each had full bars of 3G that was working great. As soon as I went outside into the lobby the signal improved and was usable.

15-01-2015, 13:29	#35
tdenson Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 4,214	Quote: Originally Posted by Rossby41 I would partly disagree with that. What he is clearly failing to see is, more and more people are now using mobile internet as a form of home broadband (and getting rid of the land line altogether). If the networks aren't careful, and get their act together, Relish broadband could take this from them. Not sure I agree with you. Wireless spectrum will always be a relatively limited resource, whereas for all intents and purposes wired connections are an infinite resource and will typically be cheaper as a result.

15-01-2015, 13:36	#36
moox Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 14,645	Quote: Originally Posted by Rossby41 I would partly disagree with that. What he is clearly failing to see is, more and more people are now using mobile internet as a form of home broadband (and getting rid of the land line altogether). If the networks aren't careful, and get their act together, Relish broadband could take this from them. Relish covers what, about 10 houses in West London? Do they even have nationwide spectrum? Their parent company has had wireless networks for years in places like Reading but it hasn't exactly taken business from the DSL companies and Virgin. I haven't seen what you describe, except for rural dwellers for whom mobile broadband is much faster and more reliable than what they can currently get over a wired connection - but that if they could get cheap, fast wired broadband they'd go straight back to it. Wired networks have the ability to be continuously upgraded to meet new demands, and can provide predictable performance. When parts of the world are looking at doing gigabit fibre to the home, it's not likely that 30 or 40Mbit LTE is going to cut it

15-01-2015, 13:44	#37
Rossby41 Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 844	But that's not the point I'm getting at, they will undoubtedly roll out further. Ok the other networks have a greater head start. Also more and more people are getting rid of line rental all together. EE are clearly seeing this also with their 100gb free trial they offered. That was clearly to see if their network could manage more it.

15-01-2015, 15:15	#38
de525ma Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Portsmouth Posts: 787	Quote: Originally Posted by moox Wired networks have the ability to be continuously upgraded to meet new demands, and can provide predictable performance. When parts of the world are looking at doing gigabit fibre to the home, it's not likely that 30 or 40Mbit LTE is going to cut it Yes, but for those on long rural lines, it will be far cheaper for BT to replace the 1-6mbps copper lines with a nice 4G transmitter, to use for the next few years, rather than splashing out for FTTP to 6 houses in the middle of nowhere. This should provide at least a 25 mbps service until FTTP becomes cheaper, or the govt throw some money at it. Up here this situation is very common - areas with 5-10 houses, each one directly cabled to a distant exchange, all with a very poor service.

15-01-2015, 15:31	#39
moox Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 14,645	Quote: Originally Posted by de525ma Yes, but for those on long rural lines, it will be far cheaper for BT to replace the 1-6mbps copper lines with a nice 4G transmitter, to use for the next few years, rather than splashing out for FTTP to 6 houses in the middle of nowhere. This should provide at least a 25 mbps service until FTTP becomes cheaper, or the govt throw some money at it. Up here this situation is very common - areas with 5-10 houses, each one directly cabled to a distant exchange, all with a very poor service. You're assuming that it's FTTP or nothing at the moment, when it isn't - there are copper based options that will reduce the cost. Besides, the post I was replying to implied that everyone would move from wired to wireless, which is rather different to it being used in situations where it makes sense

16-01-2015, 19:21	#40
mrMick Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Cambridge Posts: 1,259	20Mbps would suit me fine, but then so would some 3G from vodafone Nice to see some improvements due in my area in the coming months though. We shall see.

16-01-2015, 20:39	#41
sethpet Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 494	Quote: Originally Posted by Rossby41 But that's not the point I'm getting at, they will undoubtedly roll out further. Ok the other networks have a greater head start. Also more and more people are getting rid of line rental all together. EE are clearly seeing this also with their 100gb free trial they offered. That was clearly to see if their network could manage more it. Nothing to do with that at all, everything EE are doing and have been for a while is about making the base as attractive as possible to a buyer.

17-01-2015, 18:09	#42
jchamier Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2000 Location: This forum Posts: 3,392	Quote: Originally Posted by andyukguy Unfortunately for me (as I'm on a 2 year contract) this has not been my experience of EE, at least in a lot of locations I have found myself in the past few months. Quite surprising, as my experience is the opposite. I have a work Vodafone 3G contract in an iPhone 5s and a personal EE 4G contract in an iPhone 6. Vodafone might manage indoor coverage on 2G GPRS for about 10meters more than EE but if you make a call in that area the other person generally says "I can't work out what you're saying" - so its pretty useless. Quote: I reckon I must sound like a broken record, but based on my experience in many many locations EE's signal is definitely not finding it's way indoors as often as Vodafone and O2's are. Yes 1800mhz is not as good at indoor penetration than 900mhz - but unless you're in London - inside M25 - (which is different) that is why EE has for years had more masts than Vodafone and O2; to counteract this difference. Quote: I'm not saying in a "5 bars vs 2 bars" way I'm saying in "having a signal at all" way. Then its a not spot, and sadly all networks have them, but they're all in different places. They're more comparable with 3G as they all use 2100, but then Vodafone and O2 started using a tiny slice of 900mhz for 3G - and so gained a bit more coverage, but with very slow speeds. Quote: Just as another example, as I've given a few previously, I was watching the snooker at the Alexandra Palace yesterday, inside the auditorium I had the dreaded No Service or a very weak 1 bar of 3G which would disappear if the wind changed and never once gave me throughput. Friends on o2 and Vodafone each had full bars of 3G that was working great. As soon as I went outside into the lobby the signal improved and was usable. Sounds as if there is a repeater indoors for Vodafone and O2, probably designed around 900mhz only, and VF & O2 have used this to their advantage and repeating 3G/900. Pretty sure we can probably find a shopping centre somewhere where the reverse is true. There isn't one network that solves all the problems, unless the tax payer bought all the networks, nationalised them, and made one network with all the masts

17-01-2015, 20:46	#43
Gigabit Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 2,887	I know one place near me where 900MHz O2 3G makes a big difference over EE and Three but that's it.

17-01-2015, 21:21	#44
Chrysalis Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Leics Posts: 581	Incidently I took my S3 out today with me when my sister drove me to MCD (as she wants to borrow it) and it has my Three sim inside it. In the MCD drivethru, Three 2 bars and 800kbit/sec on speedtest, EE 5 bars and 78mbit/sec on speedtest.

19-01-2015, 10:12	#45
planetf1 Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Hampshire Posts: 521	I'm so glad I'm not on vodafone - a few years of slow/dodgy data and limited bundles. That being said I'm inclined to agree with him. I'd happily go with a network that could consistently offer 20 Mbps and not more. it's enough for what I do on my phone/tablet The newer networking technologies add more capacity which is great, but from a user perspective it isn't that important. Similarly I'm happy on 3UK with their more limited 4G network than others because when I'm on 3G it's generally pretty good, and they sell unlimited bundles.

20-01-2015, 09:33	#46
Tariq_ali1 Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2015 Posts: 61	Ee are talking of a minimum speed of 5mbps on ltea http://www.theguardian.com/technolog...ion-4g-rollout Interesting to know what peak speeds would have to get to so as to achieve 20mbps minimum.

20-01-2015, 15:08	#47
jonmorris Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: a land filled with trolls Posts: 12,018	Few people need 150 or 300Mbps LTE speeds (theoretical, obviously) but why not build networks for the best technology - cost permitting? You could either restrict access by tariff, or just offer the higher speed and let the consumer use what they can based on what device they have. At the moment, how many people have a LTE device full stop, let alone a Cat 6, 9 or 10 LTE device? When I'm working and need to upload a 1-2GB video, I want it done as quick as possible. But for normal usage, like being on here or streaming on Netflix I don't need it. I can't use it unless I'm doing a speed test. However, to satisfy my needs when sending or receiving huge amounts of data, I'm going to look for the network offering the higher speeds even if I only need it a small percentage of the time. I'm sure that when we see 300Mb, 400Mb and higher speeds, there will be more use of tariffs and supplements to make some speeds only available to some users. Perhaps the highest speeds being limited to people on mobile broadband tariffs by default, unless you pay a premium.

DS Forums

Vodafone CEO says you dont need any more than 20Mb

20-01-2015, 15:15	#48
WelshBluebird Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 720	I think the main issue is capacity surely? If you build your network to only support 20Mbps speeds then as you get more users, that 20Mbps will get congested down to a couple of meg (or less) pretty quickly. A network that supports say 80Mbps will take longer to get congested down to the same level.

20-01-2015, 15:32	#49
jonmorris Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: a land filled with trolls Posts: 12,018	Vodafone and O2 have never worried about capacity IME. Neither did Orange. It sounds like Vodafone is going to make the same mistakes again. This is why T-Mobile and Three were so ahead of the game, which obviously paid off when they teamed up and gave us the MBNL network so far ahead of the competition it's quite frightening. Orange was so lucky in that when EE was created, it gained significantly more from MBNL than it offered. I assumed that the Cornerstone alliance/partnership was designed so O2 and Vodafone could play catch up but now I am wondering if it won't simply be much the same as it ever was. Sure, there will be more sites with 3G and a definite improvement on the backhaul compared to now, but where will things stand in 5-10 years time when LTE has matured? No doubt, Vodafone will be offering high speeds in key locations but still neglecting everywhere else.

20-01-2015, 17:34	#50
Aye Up Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: North West Posts: 4,885	Quote: Originally Posted by jonmorris Vodafone and O2 have never worried about capacity IME. Neither did Orange. It sounds like Vodafone is going to make the same mistakes again. This is why T-Mobile and Three were so ahead of the game, which obviously paid off when they teamed up and gave us the MBNL network so far ahead of the competition it's quite frightening. Orange was so lucky in that when EE was created, it gained significantly more from MBNL than it offered. I assumed that the Cornerstone alliance/partnership was designed so O2 and Vodafone could play catch up but now I am wondering if it won't simply be much the same as it ever was. Sure, there will be more sites with 3G and a definite improvement on the backhaul compared to now, but where will things stand in 5-10 years time when LTE has matured? No doubt, Vodafone will be offering high speeds in key locations but still neglecting everywhere else. Even though I may sound like a torchbearer for Vodafone (and BT in another thread), that is one thing that concerns me. I think the only network with a concrete plan is EE, obviously they are part of MBNL which has its advantages. Its in LTE and future standards which they seem to geared to handle. I think they are genuine trail blazers in the UK market, they really have wrong footed the rest of the industry. I do think Vodafone will catch up eventually, they have committed an exorbitant amount of capital for investment which in theory should allow them to equal or in some areas surpass EE. Three and O2 will be the ones who will struggle I think. By virtue of Cornerstone/Beacon agreement O2 should at least equal Vodafone's 4G coverage over the coming months. Three's 4G plans are obviously in flux, I think even the most reputable sources on this forum won't know whats really going on in terms of rollout. Vodafone has a lot of repenting to do, customers are cynical having been fed claptrap for so many years. I do believe they want a genuine next generation network, else they wouldn't have spent so much money on the C&W purchase. They were the largest bidder by a country mile for the spectrum auction, I just can't see them spending so much for it not to be used. Mind you I say all this and wonder why when they upgraded sites to 4G they didn't bung in 2600 spectrum as well. Some of the stuff I have been hearing and seen, suggests they are having to go back to each mast and do extra work, I think this has contributed to delays massively. Even worse the rollout out of CA 4G was premature they don't have that many masts built to handle it (I think I have only found one mast in Manchester C/C, even then it wasn't much better than double speed EE). The only network that seems to have it sussed is EE, make no bones about it, they have the bext 2G/3G/4G network in this country. I like the approach of EE, they will build out the network as opposed to the peacemeal approach of Three. 1800 is perfect for the strategy they are pursuing. EE is forcing the rest of the market to catchup and keep pace, which is a good thing. I think Vodafone still has some learning to do regarding coverage and 4G, however I suspect by the end of this year things will have improved massively.