DS Forums

 
 

O2 no longer top for Customer Satisfaction and Smartphone Penetration drops to 49.3%


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 20-05-2015, 20:59
moox
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 14,646
Multicast reduces the overhead too, as well as an LTE enhancement in the later versions that supports non duplication of data streams I think. It could become the standard listening method in years to come. I see DAB and older technologies as redundant in the long-term as they are very wasteful of spectrum and they need whole networks of masts just to steam digital MP2 audio streams only.

Somebody will bring up the free at the point of use question again, but there's nothing to stop development of a radio chip that works on IP data and where it is free to use because the broadcasters pay a (or multiple) network(s) to carry the permitted streams restricted and walled. We have already seen the likes of Amazon do deals with Vodafone for the Kindle that has a sim and permits access based on the Amazon to Vodafone contract, not the consumer. TomTom do the same with Vodafone.
I wouldn't say that DAB is particularly wasteful - unlike FM you get better efficiency because each transmitter in the network can use the same frequency (e.g. the BBC uses the same frequency nationwide for its DAB mux, whereas they occupy 10+MHz of FM), and if we moved to AAC+ that would improve audio quality and increase efficiency too. I don't think the VHF spectrum occupied by DAB is in any particular demand, unlike digital TV vs LTE

DAB transmitters aren't overly expensive because you don't need to run fibre or wired connectivity to them, it can all be done via satellite.
moox is online now   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 20-05-2015, 21:26
Thine Wonk
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,577
I wouldn't say that DAB is particularly wasteful - unlike FM you get better efficiency because each transmitter in the network can use the same frequency (e.g. the BBC uses the same frequency nationwide for its DAB mux, whereas they occupy 10+MHz of FM), and if we moved to AAC+ that would improve audio quality and increase efficiency too. I don't think the VHF spectrum occupied by DAB is in any particular demand, unlike digital TV vs LTE

DAB transmitters aren't overly expensive because you don't need to run fibre or wired connectivity to them, it can all be done via satellite.
I would! Invented 30 years ago, it uses hundreds and hundreds of transmitters kicking out transmissions of MP2 audio to deliver about 30 audio channels. 61Mhz of spectrum from 178Mhz to 239Mhz to deliver low quality single purpose audio!

It seems to me that using an existing IP data based multicast and LTE broadcast technologies could be more efficient and then the spectrum could be released. I'd love to see radios receive plain multicast IP data at some point. I don't know if 178-239 is any good for mobile use, but it could be released for other purposes and we could use mobile spectrum to deliver any IP data service people want inc multicast radio.
Thine Wonk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-05-2015, 21:48
Redcoat
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The wilds of West Tyrone
Posts: 2,122
I had an O2 sim for a while as I need calls and for that, it's superior to EE/3 where I live at least and I thought they were ahead of VOD for 3G900. The truth is that even when you get a full 3G signal like in Newton Abbot, you would often just get no data at all. Nothing. Quite absurd.
Must be a localised issue with yourself - I've had very few problems with O2's UMTS service on 900MHz since it's been around my neck of the woods despite it being heavily congested.
Redcoat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-05-2015, 21:56
Redcoat
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The wilds of West Tyrone
Posts: 2,122
I would! Invented 30 years ago, it uses hundreds and hundreds of transmitters kicking out transmissions of MP2 audio to deliver about 30 audio channels. 61Mhz of spectrum from 178Mhz to 239Mhz to deliver low quality single purpose audio!

It seems to me that using an existing IP data based multicast and LTE broadcast technologies could be more efficient and then the spectrum could be released. I'd love to see radios receive plain multicast IP data at some point. I don't know if 178-239 is any good for mobile use, but it could be released for other purposes and we could use mobile spectrum to deliver any IP data service people want inc multicast radio.
The UK uses only around 19MHz of VHF Band III spectrum, though the potential is there for more. Within Europe and beyond where DAB(+) is being broadcast, in a lot of places it does so alongside DVB-T in the same band. Not likely to happen in the UK any time soon though, but in some countries that don't at present have VHF DVB-T muxes they might have to strongly consider it with UHF TV spectrum being squeezed.
Redcoat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-05-2015, 22:04
Thine Wonk
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,577
I still don't get the point of a whole separate network of transmission just for DAB, when IP streams could carry any data you wanted including any IP multicast streams. I'm sure there are technically superior and more efficient ways of delivering the same thing.

I'll mention free at the point of use again before somebody pipes up with that one. Let me stress that we're only used to mobile being consumer charged because that is the way it has always been done, it doesn't mean multicast IP streams can't be funded by the broadcasters as open access with no consumer subscription required on the consumer receiver, and neither does it mean a copy of every stream for every listener as technologies built into LTE and IP Multicast mean you can de-duplicate live stream data and carry it once to each site and only if it is needed.

We will have an LTE network of 30,000+ sites in a few years capable of widespread IP streaming of audio, and hopefully new internet radio devices on the market for in-car and home.
Thine Wonk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-05-2015, 22:17
Denco1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 983
Hmm while I can't think of anything DAB spectrum could be repurposed for I agree it is less efficient than a multicast distribution. But I certainly wouldn't call for a switchover of any sort in the next 15yrs. LTE broadcast is still being worked on and the cost of replacing FM and DAB radios with more power hungry 3G/4G devices would be very expensive and wasteful. That doesn't even touch the problems with net neutrality and some services being free and others paid for.

Digital terrestrial TV is looking at a 2030 switch off, and with satellite TV also going out of fashion broadband multicast distribution could be the replacement like YouViews internet channels, however every premises in the UK will need a good connection of at least 5mbps or so, something which should easily be possible by 2030 mind.
Denco1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-05-2015, 22:22
Thine Wonk
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,577
Hmm while I can't think of anything DAB spectrum could be repurposed for I agree it is less efficient than a multicast distribution. But I certainly wouldn't call for a switchover of any sort in the next 15yrs. LTE broadcast is still being worked on and the cost of replacing FM and DAB radios with more power hungry 3G/4G devices would be very expensive and wasteful. That doesn't even touch the problems with net neutrality and some services being free and others paid for.

Digital terrestrial TV is looking at a 2030 switch off, and with satellite TV also going out of fashion broadband multicast distribution could be the replacement like YouViews internet channels, however every premises in the UK will need a good connection of at least 5mbps or so, something which should easily be possible by 2030 mind.
Net neutrality isn't an issue as all services would be available, currently you need to pay your provider for access to the internet. What I am saying is that the broadcasters could pay to carry the service over a mobile network where the consumer doesn't have to pay to receive it. The consumer could just buy a device that is able to connect to the radio streams without having to care about any subscription, but that those streams would still be freely available to those with mobile subscriptions.

This already happens when you buy a Tomtom and it gets traffic updates over Vodafone, paid for by Tomtom, the same with the Amazon Kindle, you'll see many more "internet of things" devices, hopefully including internet radios that use mobile networks to connect that aren't part of a consumer or end user mobile subscription that will make use of the extensive LTE deployments that will be much more widely rolled out over the next 2-3 years.
Thine Wonk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-05-2015, 22:54
Denco1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 983
I wouldn't say it isn't an issue, I'd say it were murky waters. T-Mobile USA currently doesn't count certain music streaming apps as part of a users data allowance and is currently being questioned on that.

If a radio company paid for its streams to be carried over a network for free for the consumer, but a competing radio companies streams were charged for and so were a competing companies video service, then not all data is being treated equally.

I'd argue that with a satnav or ereader you are paying for internet access as a part of the initial purchase cost, but say you were to buy a smartphone which came with access to Global's radio stations for free but you had to pay per the MB for Bauer's I would hardly call that fair.
Denco1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-05-2015, 22:56
Thine Wonk
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,577
Fair point, I hadn't thought of it that way. My main concern has always been that the user pays their internet access rate and can do what they want within their data quota, but I see the argument you put across.
Thine Wonk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-05-2015, 23:10
Denco1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 983
Yes I share a similar stance with net neutrality, I don't really agree with the Tory's on blocking certain services possibly including encrypted messaging like WhatsApp. One thing I don't like about net neutrality is that I believe traffic management should be accepted, or companies like Three would never be able to offer unlimited data.
Anyway this is all a bit off topic isn't it
Denco1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-05-2015, 23:20
jonmorris
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: a land filled with trolls
Posts: 12,021
Fair point, I hadn't thought of it that way. My main concern has always been that the user pays their internet access rate and can do what they want within their data quota, but I see the argument you put across.
Until Apple came along and 'invented' tethering, you just used your data however you wanted. Connect your feature phone to a PC via Bluetooth or USB and off you go.

Apple and AT&T/O2 clearly thought they were on to a winner with this thing called tethering, and where O2 could charge you a separate tethering tariff on top of your standard tariff. I forget how much it was at first, but think it was about £9.99 or £19.99 a month extra - and I don't remember how much data you actually got either.

If you think of the whole net neutrality thing then how does it affect tethering? Being made to pay extra for using data with some devices, or being limited in what you can do altogether.
jonmorris is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 20-05-2015, 23:37
Redcoat
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The wilds of West Tyrone
Posts: 2,122
Personally, I don't think broadcast type technologies like we have at present won't meet its end come 2030 - it still has plenty of life left in it. TalkSport and 5Live still have the majority of their listeners accessing them via Medium Wave! There's also inherent limitations of mobile cell coverage in looking to cover certain areas off main A roads and motorways which can be served adequately by FM, AM or DAB but where mobile reception is spotty - terrain and population density is a big factor. No mobile operator I know off has broke through the 95% population coverage barrier here in NI yet, even for 2G. There's also the case as to wherever individual 4G cell sites can potentially handle hundreds, if not thousands, of continuous streams to handsets at the same time. While internet radio, whilst growing but still having a limited mass appeal, can be handled reasonably well with a small-ish amount of users per cell as it is right now, its demand of requiring near continuous streaming contrasts to where bursts of data is perfectly fine for many other tasks e.g. sat-navs, even if multicasting is properly set up.

While the future is being looked at in terms of IP multicast, there are a lot of hardware hurdles to overcome - if TV is to be delivered over IP via terrestrial means without DVB-T or S variants, then such a line to the premises will need a guaranteed uncontented speed. Ordinary ADSL speeds themselves even at 8Mbps for those close to the exchange will struggle to cut it if contention isn't addressed. Many homes over here are at distances from the exchanges that get <2Mbps download speeds over ADSL and FTTC isn't available even allowing for the generally extensive coverage it has in NI. In some areas a properly installed fixed-wireless network that isn't heavily congested and doesn't fall over every two days (I'm looking at one NI provider in particular) could provide some breathing space in the short-term, the only viable long-term solution is FTTH or FTTP where line distance is far less critical
Redcoat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-05-2015, 23:43
Redcoat
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The wilds of West Tyrone
Posts: 2,122
Until Apple came along and 'invented' tethering, you just used your data however you wanted. Connect your feature phone to a PC via Bluetooth or USB and off you go.
I remember years ago with Orange on PAYG (and I still think it exists albeit as a 25MB limit) where they offered a £1 unlimited data bundle for the day. I often used it to tether on my laptop but officially Orange did not allow it under their T&Cs. They didn't seem to be bothered much about enforcing it though. It was the same with 3 around 2007/8 with their X-Series package, again tethering was against T&Cs but not really enforced unless you took the complete piss!
Redcoat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-05-2015, 23:56
jonmorris
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: a land filled with trolls
Posts: 12,021
X-Series. Wasn't that the deal with a Slingbox and some other bits and bobs? I had pretty much forgotten about this!
jonmorris is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 21-05-2015, 00:20
Redcoat
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The wilds of West Tyrone
Posts: 2,122
X-Series. Wasn't that the deal with a Slingbox and some other bits and bobs? I had pretty much forgotten about this!
Yeah, there were two different levels, the Slingbox was in the gold package while the non-Slingbox was the silver package. The sliver package was £5 a month which gave 1Gb of data for browsing as well as large allowances for Skype and Windows Messenger, which back in 2007 was not a bad deal especially as it would have taken a while to get through 1GB compared to now as data was just UMTS until around Sep/Oct 2007 when they started rolling out HSDPA in parts of the country. I think the gold package that included the Slingbox was £10 a month.
Redcoat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-05-2015, 00:56
Stereo Steve
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,378
I used to be on 3 PAYG with an AYCE data add on and tethering was no problem. Never got pulled up on it but only really used it when away from home. It was good.
Stereo Steve is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 21-05-2015, 09:58
Gigabit
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,887
I remember the days of Orange PAYG where only Facebook access was allowed for a certain price but the whole Internet was available anyway. I felt so guilty haha.
Gigabit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-05-2015, 15:32
Resonance
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,214
I remember the days of Orange PAYG where only Facebook access was allowed for a certain price but the whole Internet was available anyway. I felt so guilty haha.
Three had a walled garden early on. Seemed daft to me, especially for a 3G network.
Resonance is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 21-05-2015, 15:34
moox
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 14,646
Three had a walled garden early on. Seemed daft to me, especially for a 3G network.
Probably because the "killer app" for 3G was deemed to be that people would pay 50p/min for video calling. I think 3 also wanted you to buy ringtones, video, games and such from their own site rather than from a third party.

It took them a few years to change course
moox is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 21-05-2015, 15:41
Resonance
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,214
Probably because the "killer app" for 3G was deemed to be that people would pay 50p/min for video calling. I think 3 also wanted you to buy ringtones, video, games and such from their own site rather than from a third party.

It took them a few years to change course
Yeah, video calling never really took off did it. Think I tried it about twice before the novelty wore off/my wallet had had enough.
Resonance is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 21-05-2015, 17:13
Mark in Essex
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,646
Yeah, video calling never really took off did it. Think I tried it about twice before the novelty wore off/my wallet had had enough.
I know.

Even though I had something like 50mins free of video calls a month with Vodafone when 3G was first launched with my old Nokia phone I think I made 2 and then the novelty wore off.

I have not even really bothered with it nowadays either as it does not really add much as you know what the person you are speaking to looks like.

Might be different for business etc though.
Mark in Essex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-05-2015, 21:20
Gigabit
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,887
Apple tried to do it again with FaceTime, which again I've only used about three times, mostly out of curiosity as opposed to actually needing to use it.
Gigabit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-05-2015, 21:24
moox
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 14,646
Apple tried to do it again with FaceTime, which again I've only used about three times, mostly out of curiosity as opposed to actually needing to use it.
I have never used FaceTime. It would probably help if Apple, Google, MS and others actually worked on interoperability. Why can't an Apple user with a facetime account call a Google user with Hangouts or a Skype user? It seems like the only way around it is to use Skype exclusively as it's the only thing that is available on all 3 platforms

The professional video conferencing world prides itself on interoperability - a company with Tandberg/Cisco equipment can theoretically call a company with Polycom equipment without trouble
moox is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 21-05-2015, 22:07
jchamier
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: This forum
Posts: 3,392
Apple tried to do it again with FaceTime, which again I've only used about three times, mostly out of curiosity as opposed to actually needing to use it.
Depending how far you're calling, and the interconnecting networks, I've found facetime more stable than Skype with better picture quality. iPad 2 (ie, quite old now) at each end.

I agree with the other comment that we need interoperability & standards. Apple lied when they launched Facetime and said it would become open.
jchamier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-05-2015, 22:42
Gigabit
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,887
I agree with the other comment that we need interoperability & standards. Apple lied when they launched Facetime and said it would become open.
I don't believe they ever said that? Didn't they advertise it as an iPhone-exclusive feature?
Gigabit is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:59.