Three CEO: "2 Mbps is enough for most things"

DevonBloke · 09-03-2015, 14:51

Quote:

Your guess has nothing to do with the article which im sure you haven't read.

People jump to conclusions way too quickly on this forum

I thought I'd better read it all for precisely that reason.
What he actually said was 4G was going to be around 18Mbps and a lot of people (not all people) don't need much more than 2 so he would rather have that with good reliability rather than super speeds with poor reliability.
That of course makes sense.
My question to him would be, does that fact that EE are going for speed (20Mhz), make their network less reliable??

enapace · 09-03-2015, 16:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by jchamier

If they can repurpose some of the 2100 spectrum, that might help. The issue with 2300 will be that a lot of second hand devices won't support it - the bulk of hardware in the market today probably won't (maybe iPhone 6? Don't know about Galaxy S6).

Quote:

Originally Posted by d123

iPhone 6 does, a quick search doesn't show what the S6 supports, S5 (G900f) doesn't.

iPhone 5 also the 5c/5S and 6/6+ supports 2100MHz LTE. The iPhone 6/6+ also supports 2300MHz on top of the 2100MHz LTE support.

Redcoat · 09-03-2015, 16:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Everything Goes

35k on GPRS is good enough for most things

And thanks to yourself and moox for coming out with the usual, predictable, cliched shite that would certainly help ensure a six-pager. Give yourselves a pat on the back.

Back on topic, he is right - for now anyway. Much better that customers can receive a good, stable service that will allow them to do pretty much anything on a mobile phone rather than have speeds on the same technology platform that go up and down like a whore's pants. HD video on any device with a screen size 5 inches or less is just a waste of additional detail & bandwidth that won't make a difference unless you hold the phone up to your nose. If HD video is that important, then 720p delivered using h.265 can be delivered with good quality at data rates well below 2Mbps.

Mobile broadband, larger tablets and those whom regularly tether may require better data speeds depending on requirements - but for all networks the fastest they can deliver data is limited by the narrowest part of their bottleneck. In five years time, things might change.

d123 · 09-03-2015, 16:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by enapace

iPhone 5 also the 5c/5S and 6/6+ supports 2100MHz LTE. The iPhone 6/6+ also supports 2300MHz on top of the 2100MHz LTE support.

Yes, sorry, I was only referring to the 2300MHz comment. I should have edited the quoted post to be more clear.

enapace · 09-03-2015, 16:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by d123

Yes, sorry, I was only referring to the 2300MHz comment. I should have edited the quoted post to be more clear.

No problem an unlocked iPhone 6/6+ is probably the best worldwide LTE device at moment. Has vast LTE band support.

jaffboy151 · 09-03-2015, 16:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris1973

2mbps enough eh? in that case I Can't wait for them to double the speed here in Congleton

.

http://s7.postimg.org/jdydouypn/Scre...5_14_00_14.png

I wonder what his thoughts are on ping times?!

That's ultra fast next generation lightening speeds compared to the Ketley mast in Telford, I'll try and get a 'speed' test on the way home..

Everything Goes · 09-03-2015, 17:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by enapace

No problem an unlocked iPhone 6/6+ is probably the best worldwide LTE device at moment. Has vast LTE band support.

Makes up for the crap LTE support of the iPhone 5 and its total lack of 800MHz

enapace · 09-03-2015, 17:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Everything Goes

Makes up for the crap LTE support of the iPhone 5 and its total lack of 800MHz

Oh completely agree I think the iPhones in last couple of years have come on leaps and bounds. I wouldn't of got an iPhone 6 if they hadn't vastly improved.

jabbamk1 · 09-03-2015, 17:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by DevonBloke

I thought I'd better read it all for precisely that reason.
What he actually said was 4G was going to be around 18Mbps and a lot of people (not all people) don't need much more than 2 so he would rather have that with good reliability rather than super speeds with poor reliability.
That of course makes sense.
My question to him would be, does that fact that EE are going for speed (20Mhz), make their network less reliable??

Well done haha. The most sensible post i've seen today.

In regards to your question we have to remember that what Dyson is describing is a theortical scenario between a reliable low consistent speed network and a non reliable high fluctuating speed network. So he's not actually comparing to other networks (or even their own network) but just stating what would be preferred ..

Of course if EE can do both then great. But the point is that there is no point just focusing on speed and not reliability.

Also those who haven't read the article should note that Dyson was actually saying that a consistent 2mbps is fine for most people and therefore the average 18mbps offered by Three will be more than fine for the majority.

so. For those who weren't bothered to read the article .. Dyson is actually saying thst 18mbps is more than enough for the majority In relation to the 2mbps point.

Old Endeavour · 09-03-2015, 18:11

What does it matter what speed 4G is going to be when my town was removed from the 2014 list never to be seen or mentioned again. It might be years away.

So for the have nots, 4G could be 1000Mbps for all the good that it is as they still won't be getting anything.

moox · 09-03-2015, 19:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old Endeavour

What does it matter what speed 4G is going to be when my town was removed from the 2014 list never to be seen or mentioned again. It might be years away.

So for the have nots, 4G could be 1000Mbps for all the good that it is as they still won't be getting anything.

Because 3 does not solely exist to serve your town.

swb1964 · 09-03-2015, 19:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by nbrasso

I completely disagree that 2mbps is enough, especially for high quality 1080p video streaming.

Do you really need to stream that fast to your phone?

I'd much rather have wider geographic coverage and more reliable coverage than faster bit rates.

jchamier · 09-03-2015, 19:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Everything Goes

Makes up for the crap LTE support of the iPhone 5 and its total lack of 800MHz

Isn't 800 used only by the EU, and Apple needed to launch LTE for the US market (e.g. Verizon) or be risk behind? Maybe the 5 was a "rush" and the 5s was what they wanted to ship but needed another 12 months?

who will ever know

Gigabit · 09-03-2015, 19:41

EE was the only UK 4G network at the time so it wasn't a big problem.

jchamier · 09-03-2015, 19:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gigabit

EE was the only UK 4G network at the time so it wasn't a big problem.

I think there was another 1800mhz network in Germany also - but yes, the 4G auctions hadn't been held, and the EU countries had only just agreed to use 800 at the time. We were a long way behind North America and Asia.

Gigabit · 09-03-2015, 19:56

Wait, so people are seriously having a go at Apple for releasing a phone that matched the technologies available at the time? **** Apple for not predicting the future!

DevonBloke · 09-03-2015, 20:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by jabbamk1

Well done haha. The most sensible post i've seen today.

In regards to your question we have to remember that what Dyson is describing is a theortical scenario between a reliable low consistent speed network and a non reliable high fluctuating speed network. So he's not actually comparing to other networks (or even their own network) but just stating what would be preferred ..

Of course if EE can do both then great. But the point is that there is no point just focusing on speed and not reliability.

Also those who haven't read the article should note that Dyson was actually saying that a consistent 2mbps is fine for most people and therefore the average 18mbps offered by Three will be more than fine for the majority.

so. For those who weren't bothered to read the article .. Dyson is actually saying thst 18mbps is more than enough for the majority In relation to the 2mbps point.

Thanks. I was on fire at that point....
No so much now.....
I've been invoicing all night and that's not fun in anyone's book. Oh, except for the money coming in...
Haha

jchamier · 09-03-2015, 20:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gigabit

Wait, so people are seriously having a go at Apple for releasing a phone that matched the technologies available at the time? **** Apple for not predicting the future!

Yeah, this is normal

Despite Apple including DC-HSPA and HD Voice support pretty much exclusively for the EU countries, and showing all the EU countries where DC-HSPA was rolled out and HD voice - which were not even thought of in the US at the time.

DevonBloke · 09-03-2015, 20:11

Apple!!!... those basta*ds. I hate them.
Why can't they predict the future? It's not like they don't have the money!!!
Oh wait...... no.... no sorry, just realised, I have an iPhone!!!

Gigabit · 09-03-2015, 20:27

**** Apple! My baby died because Apple didn't invent a machine which saves lives.

japaul · 09-03-2015, 20:46

But it was the UK that was the laggard not Europe as a whole. German networks for instance launched 800MHz LTE in 2010.

moox · 09-03-2015, 20:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redcoat

And thanks to yourself and moox for coming out with the usual, predictable, cliched shite that would certainly help ensure a six-pager. Give yourselves a pat on the back.

You are quite free to not read my posts once you've got off of that high horse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redcoat

well below 2Mbps.

The problem with the "no one needs fast speeds" argument is that it overlooks the capacity argument. People get fast speeds because there is lots of free capacity on the cell site. If someone is only getting a couple of Mbit/s that implies congestion is occuring and it doesn't take much more for speeds/latency/loss to get dramatically worse.

Speedtests showing hundreds of megabits might be nothing more than willy-waving on the surface but it means the network is healthy enough to cope with lots of people "who only need 2Mbps".

(and, given how woeful 3's 3G and 4G performance is reported to be these days in many urban areas, it seems like the CEO's making excuses rather than looking at upgrades)

jabbamk1 · 09-03-2015, 21:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by moox

it seems like the CEO's making excuses rather than looking at upgrades)

LEARN TO READ AN ARTICLE FIRST BEFORE COMMENTING>

Seriously wtf is wrong with people.

moox · 09-03-2015, 21:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by jabbamk1

LEARN TO READ AN ARTICLE FIRST BEFORE COMMENTING>

Seriously wtf is wrong with people.

I have read the article. I don't see how it invalidates my points?

BTW your caps lock was stuck on there for a moment. Or maybe you had something on the shift key since > was substituted for .

You could try pointing out where you think people seem to be going so wrong, instead of constantly repeating an empty statement

jchamier · 09-03-2015, 21:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by japaul

But it was the UK that was the laggard not Europe as a whole. German networks for instance launched 800MHz LTE in 2010.

Good point, those pesky court cases trying to stop EE reusing spectrum. Didn't the Home Secretary have to get all the networks in one room to thrash out a compromise?

09-03-2015, 14:51	#26
DevonBloke Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Totnes, Devon Posts: 6,694	Quote: Originally Posted by jabbamk1 Your guess has nothing to do with the article which im sure you haven't read. People jump to conclusions way too quickly on this forum I thought I'd better read it all for precisely that reason. What he actually said was 4G was going to be around 18Mbps and a lot of people (not all people) don't need much more than 2 so he would rather have that with good reliability rather than super speeds with poor reliability. That of course makes sense. My question to him would be, does that fact that EE are going for speed (20Mhz), make their network less reliable??

09-03-2015, 16:21	#27
enapace Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2013 Posts: 4,249	Quote: Originally Posted by jchamier If they can repurpose some of the 2100 spectrum, that might help. The issue with 2300 will be that a lot of second hand devices won't support it - the bulk of hardware in the market today probably won't (maybe iPhone 6? Don't know about Galaxy S6). Quote: Originally Posted by d123 iPhone 6 does, a quick search doesn't show what the S6 supports, S5 (G900f) doesn't. iPhone 5 also the 5c/5S and 6/6+ supports 2100MHz LTE. The iPhone 6/6+ also supports 2300MHz on top of the 2100MHz LTE support.

09-03-2015, 16:25	#28
Redcoat Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: The wilds of West Tyrone Posts: 2,122	Quote: Originally Posted by Everything Goes 35k on GPRS is good enough for most things And thanks to yourself and moox for coming out with the usual, predictable, cliched shite that would certainly help ensure a six-pager. Give yourselves a pat on the back. Back on topic, he is right - for now anyway. Much better that customers can receive a good, stable service that will allow them to do pretty much anything on a mobile phone rather than have speeds on the same technology platform that go up and down like a whore's pants. HD video on any device with a screen size 5 inches or less is just a waste of additional detail & bandwidth that won't make a difference unless you hold the phone up to your nose. If HD video is that important, then 720p delivered using h.265 can be delivered with good quality at data rates well below 2Mbps. Mobile broadband, larger tablets and those whom regularly tether may require better data speeds depending on requirements - but for all networks the fastest they can deliver data is limited by the narrowest part of their bottleneck. In five years time, things might change.

09-03-2015, 16:34	#29
d123 Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,993	Quote: Originally Posted by enapace iPhone 5 also the 5c/5S and 6/6+ supports 2100MHz LTE. The iPhone 6/6+ also supports 2300MHz on top of the 2100MHz LTE support. Yes, sorry, I was only referring to the 2300MHz comment. I should have edited the quoted post to be more clear.

09-03-2015, 16:38	#30
enapace Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2013 Posts: 4,249	Quote: Originally Posted by d123 Yes, sorry, I was only referring to the 2300MHz comment. I should have edited the quoted post to be more clear. No problem an unlocked iPhone 6/6+ is probably the best worldwide LTE device at moment. Has vast LTE band support.

09-03-2015, 16:42	#31
jaffboy151 Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Woore, Cheshire/Shropshire Posts: 1,675	Quote: Originally Posted by Chris1973 2mbps enough eh? in that case I Can't wait for them to double the speed here in Congleton . http://s7.postimg.org/jdydouypn/Scre...5_14_00_14.png I wonder what his thoughts are on ping times?! That's ultra fast next generation lightening speeds compared to the Ketley mast in Telford, I'll try and get a 'speed' test on the way home..

09-03-2015, 17:09	#32
Everything Goes Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: In the future.... Posts: 11,259	Quote: Originally Posted by enapace No problem an unlocked iPhone 6/6+ is probably the best worldwide LTE device at moment. Has vast LTE band support. Makes up for the crap LTE support of the iPhone 5 and its total lack of 800MHz

09-03-2015, 17:27	#33
enapace Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2013 Posts: 4,249	Quote: Originally Posted by Everything Goes Makes up for the crap LTE support of the iPhone 5 and its total lack of 800MHz Oh completely agree I think the iPhones in last couple of years have come on leaps and bounds. I wouldn't of got an iPhone 6 if they hadn't vastly improved.

09-03-2015, 17:53	#34
jabbamk1 Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: London, UK Posts: 8,759	Quote: Originally Posted by DevonBloke I thought I'd better read it all for precisely that reason. What he actually said was 4G was going to be around 18Mbps and a lot of people (not all people) don't need much more than 2 so he would rather have that with good reliability rather than super speeds with poor reliability. That of course makes sense. My question to him would be, does that fact that EE are going for speed (20Mhz), make their network less reliable?? Well done haha. The most sensible post i've seen today. In regards to your question we have to remember that what Dyson is describing is a theortical scenario between a reliable low consistent speed network and a non reliable high fluctuating speed network. So he's not actually comparing to other networks (or even their own network) but just stating what would be preferred .. Of course if EE can do both then great. But the point is that there is no point just focusing on speed and not reliability. Also those who haven't read the article should note that Dyson was actually saying that a consistent 2mbps is fine for most people and therefore the average 18mbps offered by Three will be more than fine for the majority. so. For those who weren't bothered to read the article .. Dyson is actually saying thst 18mbps is more than enough for the majority In relation to the 2mbps point.

09-03-2015, 18:11	#35
Old Endeavour Inactive Member Join Date: Jun 2014 Posts: 9,746	What does it matter what speed 4G is going to be when my town was removed from the 2014 list never to be seen or mentioned again. It might be years away. So for the have nots, 4G could be 1000Mbps for all the good that it is as they still won't be getting anything.

09-03-2015, 19:10	#36
moox Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 14,645	Quote: Originally Posted by Old Endeavour What does it matter what speed 4G is going to be when my town was removed from the 2014 list never to be seen or mentioned again. It might be years away. So for the have nots, 4G could be 1000Mbps for all the good that it is as they still won't be getting anything. Because 3 does not solely exist to serve your town.

09-03-2015, 19:13	#37
swb1964 Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2015 Posts: 2,455	Quote: Originally Posted by nbrasso I completely disagree that 2mbps is enough, especially for high quality 1080p video streaming. Do you really need to stream that fast to your phone? I'd much rather have wider geographic coverage and more reliable coverage than faster bit rates.

09-03-2015, 19:40	#38
jchamier Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2000 Location: This forum Posts: 3,392	Quote: Originally Posted by Everything Goes Makes up for the crap LTE support of the iPhone 5 and its total lack of 800MHz Isn't 800 used only by the EU, and Apple needed to launch LTE for the US market (e.g. Verizon) or be risk behind? Maybe the 5 was a "rush" and the 5s was what they wanted to ship but needed another 12 months? who will ever know

09-03-2015, 19:41	#39
Gigabit Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 2,887	EE was the only UK 4G network at the time so it wasn't a big problem.

09-03-2015, 19:44	#40
jchamier Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2000 Location: This forum Posts: 3,392	Quote: Originally Posted by Gigabit EE was the only UK 4G network at the time so it wasn't a big problem. I think there was another 1800mhz network in Germany also - but yes, the 4G auctions hadn't been held, and the EU countries had only just agreed to use 800 at the time. We were a long way behind North America and Asia.

09-03-2015, 19:56	#41
Gigabit Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 2,887	Wait, so people are seriously having a go at Apple for releasing a phone that matched the technologies available at the time? **** Apple for not predicting the future!

09-03-2015, 20:01	#42
DevonBloke Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Totnes, Devon Posts: 6,694	Quote: Originally Posted by jabbamk1 Well done haha. The most sensible post i've seen today. In regards to your question we have to remember that what Dyson is describing is a theortical scenario between a reliable low consistent speed network and a non reliable high fluctuating speed network. So he's not actually comparing to other networks (or even their own network) but just stating what would be preferred .. Of course if EE can do both then great. But the point is that there is no point just focusing on speed and not reliability. Also those who haven't read the article should note that Dyson was actually saying that a consistent 2mbps is fine for most people and therefore the average 18mbps offered by Three will be more than fine for the majority. so. For those who weren't bothered to read the article .. Dyson is actually saying thst 18mbps is more than enough for the majority In relation to the 2mbps point. Thanks. I was on fire at that point.... No so much now..... I've been invoicing all night and that's not fun in anyone's book. Oh, except for the money coming in... Haha

09-03-2015, 20:05	#43
jchamier Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2000 Location: This forum Posts: 3,392	Quote: Originally Posted by Gigabit Wait, so people are seriously having a go at Apple for releasing a phone that matched the technologies available at the time? **** Apple for not predicting the future! Yeah, this is normal Despite Apple including DC-HSPA and HD Voice support pretty much exclusively for the EU countries, and showing all the EU countries where DC-HSPA was rolled out and HD voice - which were not even thought of in the US at the time.

09-03-2015, 20:11	#44
DevonBloke Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Totnes, Devon Posts: 6,694	Apple!!!... those basta*ds. I hate them. Why can't they predict the future? It's not like they don't have the money!!! Oh wait...... no.... no sorry, just realised, I have an iPhone!!!

09-03-2015, 20:27	#45
Gigabit Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 2,887	**** Apple! My baby died because Apple didn't invent a machine which saves lives.

09-03-2015, 20:46	#46
japaul Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Posts: 1,662	But it was the UK that was the laggard not Europe as a whole. German networks for instance launched 800MHz LTE in 2010.

DS Forums

Three CEO: "2 Mbps is enough for most things"

09-03-2015, 20:47	#47
moox Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 14,645	Quote: Originally Posted by Redcoat And thanks to yourself and moox for coming out with the usual, predictable, cliched shite that would certainly help ensure a six-pager. Give yourselves a pat on the back. You are quite free to not read my posts once you've got off of that high horse. Quote: Originally Posted by Redcoat well below 2Mbps. The problem with the "no one needs fast speeds" argument is that it overlooks the capacity argument. People get fast speeds because there is lots of free capacity on the cell site. If someone is only getting a couple of Mbit/s that implies congestion is occuring and it doesn't take much more for speeds/latency/loss to get dramatically worse. Speedtests showing hundreds of megabits might be nothing more than willy-waving on the surface but it means the network is healthy enough to cope with lots of people "who only need 2Mbps". (and, given how woeful 3's 3G and 4G performance is reported to be these days in many urban areas, it seems like the CEO's making excuses rather than looking at upgrades)

09-03-2015, 21:12	#48
jabbamk1 Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: London, UK Posts: 8,759	Quote: Originally Posted by moox it seems like the CEO's making excuses rather than looking at upgrades) LEARN TO READ AN ARTICLE FIRST BEFORE COMMENTING> Seriously wtf is wrong with people.

09-03-2015, 21:26	#49
moox Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 14,645	Quote: Originally Posted by jabbamk1 LEARN TO READ AN ARTICLE FIRST BEFORE COMMENTING> Seriously wtf is wrong with people. I have read the article. I don't see how it invalidates my points? BTW your caps lock was stuck on there for a moment. Or maybe you had something on the shift key since > was substituted for . You could try pointing out where you think people seem to be going so wrong, instead of constantly repeating an empty statement

09-03-2015, 21:31	#50
jchamier Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2000 Location: This forum Posts: 3,392	Quote: Originally Posted by japaul But it was the UK that was the laggard not Europe as a whole. German networks for instance launched 800MHz LTE in 2010. Good point, those pesky court cases trying to stop EE reusing spectrum. Didn't the Home Secretary have to get all the networks in one room to thrash out a compromise?