[jabbamk1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

Lets keep this simple.

The way 2G is deployed in this country, it has better penetration.

If you mean 2G in the UK today then yes. 100% agree.

But my posts are more in line with 2G technology vs 4G technology in general.

Lets imagine for a second that the UK has no mobile network in the UK. Given the choice then 4G first would be the way to go. Not 2G. There are so many more advvantages of 4G over 2G.

Again, you still don't know what you're talking about and have a very simplistic view of mobile technology.

[Gigabit]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Everything Goes

Please read my reply to you in post 193 regarding the networks coverage of not spots or partial not spots:

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showp...&postcount=193

I've have great O2 2G only coverage at my house for over a decade. They never bothered to upgrade it. Vodafone is 2G only if you leave the phone at the window. Three and EE have 1 to 2 signal bars of 3G coverage. I only live 1 mile outside a major town

Sounds like my area, although Vodafone have slightly better coverage (EDGE) than O2.

EE have some EDGE too although it's weak. Their 3G is very weak, along with Three's.

I assume it is the low frequencies that allow this area to be covered. Here's hoping for 800MHz 4G ASAP!

[jchamier]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gigabit

Sounds like my area, although Vodafone have slightly better coverage (EDGE) than O2.

EE have some EDGE too although it's weak. Their 3G is very weak, along with Three's.

I assume it is the low frequencies that allow this area to be covered. Here's hoping for 800MHz 4G ASAP!

Yes, 800mhz 4G works in places you wouldn't expect that have no 900mhz 2G, in my experience in Hartley Wintney last week. I have no idea if that is down to signal strength or location of transmitters or lead in the walls, but it worked.