[ryan125hst]

Hello, this is my first post so I hope I've done everything right

I'm studying Electrical and Electronic Engineering at university (in my first year at present) and one area that I have got myself interested in lately is how mobile phones work. As a result, I've spent quite a bit of time over the last week or so reading posts in this forum and it's interesting stuff!

One question I have that hasn't really been answered is whether or not 2G and 3G coverage will be improved by mobile networks over the next few years. After all, while 4G on 800 Mhz will vastly improve indoor coverage, phones that only support 2G are still being sold, not to mention 3G phones as well as 4G phones that don't support voLTE and so may not get access to that frequency on certain networks.

As an example, I live in Retford and am currently on 3. The coverage map says that I will get outdoor coverage only, yet I luckily manage to get a signal even when I'm downstairs and I frequently get speeds of over 5 Mbps down on 3G- not bad when the ADSL broadband in my house maxes out at about 2.75 Mbps (I'm keeping my fingers crossed that my Dad will upgrade to fibre when the contract runs out in the next month!). I tested my sister's phone which is on EE to find that the 3G performance was very similar to 3's. In fact, I did a speed test on both my phone and her phone at the same time while standing in my bedroom and the ping as well as the download and upload speeds were pretty much identical- clearly the mast is shared in Retford. When I got up to my room having first tested her phone downstairs, I noticed it briefly dropped to five bars of Edge which is more than the one to three bars of 3G I get with 3 which is a good thing as far as call and text reliably is concerned. I even managed to test 4G when it found a 4G signal and got an impressive 22 Mbps down, yet I've never got a 4G signal at home with 3 despite the fact that they have recently added 4G to my local mast (as I found out to my surprise last week!).

However, going up the road to my Grandparents and Uncle's house is a completely different story as I am unable to get a signal at all in their kitchen, dining room or conservatory except for one bar occasionally that drops out whenever I use the internet. I seem to get 3-5 Mbps at least if I stand on the landing, although to be fair, it does say outdoor coverage only there. I've not tested EE, although I did used to be on Orange and I'm sure I used to get a signal there although it's likely that it'll be 2G only. My phone is an iPhone 5S so doesn't support voLT|E so I'll have to wait until I get a new phone when my contract runs out in September to see if this makes a difference, assuming EE have switched it on by then as I am thinking of switching to them. Even on O2, with their 900 Mhz 2G and 3G, my parents and Uncle have a difficult time getting a signal downstairs and my Uncle's Samsung Galaxy S5 was showing Emergency Only or No Service when I was round there yesterday. In fact, only Vodaphone seems to work downstairs despite the masts being quite close to O2's- my Grandma's basic Nokia is years old but never lets her down. I hope my Grandad's new one is just as reliable when it arrives at Argos next week!

Apologies for rambling on! What I really need to ask is are the operators are likely to add more masts (or turn up the power to existing ones if that is an option at all?) for 2G and 3G or is that it now, and getting a 4G phone is the only option. If the former is the case, looking at EE's coverage for this example, there's three or four areas of Retford alone with large areas of outdoor coverage only where there are housing estates. A large area of Worksop also appears to have poor indoor 3G coverage in the area just below the station. If the latter is the case, I hope that some basic 4G voLTE phones costing £30 or less enter the market soon. The phone my Grandad is getting is 2G only, but if all phones were 4G voLTE, then coverage could improve for everyone and not just those with £500 plus phones and £30 a month plus contracts.

As a final point, I find it daft how fields can have a decent signal, yet as soon as you get to a village it's outdoor only or even No Service. As an example, look at North Leverton and Sturton Le Steeple (both near Retford) on 3's 3G coverage map. it's outdoor coverage until you get to these villages yet No Service in some of the village. I understand that this is due to the fact that the masts are a few miles away and that to put masts up in villages requires planning applications which could be refused, backhaul to be added which isn't always easy, and it costs a lot of money to build and maintain them. It still seems a bit of a daft scenario though, particularly given the price of mobile contracts these days.

So, to conclude, is it likely that the 2G and 3G coverage will be improved over the next few years or is it simply a case of make do until 4G voLTE becomes more widespread? Could new technologies, such as those trialed in Cumbria by EE, be useful in situations like this? Is it viable for monopoles to be put up in towns to fill in coverage gaps or weak spots such as those that I have mentioned?

Many thanks

Ryan

[InfamousTeal]

Hi! Firstly, I'm gonna PM you, because I've applied to do Electronic Engineering next year at uni!

Concerning 2G and 3G, other people may have a bit more of a clue, but I think networks are focussing on 4G from now on. VoLTE will eventually be standard, and 4G power can be turned up to full (as phones won't have to fall back to 2G and 3G), so coverage will improve. Especially with low frequencies, like 800MHz.

However, to take my local Vodafone mast as an example, it's currently got ancient 2100MHz 3G on it, which is nearly as slow as 2G. When vodafone 4G the mast (they're going to, they have planning permission), they'll add 900MHz 3G for fallback, thus making the coverage wider, so improving 3G, which is the title of your thread.

Hopefully someone else can either back me up, or tell me I'm talking nonsense and correct me

[lightspeed2398]

I'm not an expert by a long means but I'll have a shot at answering.

About coverage maps they are often a rough guide. They can't take into account a lot of the factors, such as terrain, foliage and building materials. But some serious maths does go into stuff like this. I met some people about 2 years ago who were something completely different but related, Cambridge students modelling High Altitude balloon trajectory based on raw weather data, the maths that goes into stuff like this is unbelievable!

Most EE and 3 3G coverage is shared through MBNL, the former T-Mobile and 3 mast sharing agreement. A fair few former Orange 3G sites have been added (they tended to not be as good performance wise as the MBNL ones but most have been upgraded) to the MBNL agreement and they can be used be customers of both networks, some have not been added to the network sharing agreement and they can be used by EE customers only unless 3 has a 2G national roaming agreement on a mast by mast basis.

Whether 2G and 3G will get better is interesting. 2G will on masts that haven't been upgraded for a long time because the antenna technology on the mast itself has improved. 3G won't improve because of that I don't think the antennas are getting upgraded with 4G because of the MBNL agreement, but it will improve as masts gets 4G and more and more users switch to 4G because each individual cell won't "breathe" as much, whereby it reduces its coverage as it comes under heavier load.

It is important to note on o2 and Vodafone especially a lot of their masts haven't been upgraded to both the 3G900 and 3G2100 with proper backhaul, this will make their 3G networks a lot better in their 4Ged areas in addition to the fact that I think o2 and Vodafone are meant to be refarming spectrum from 2G to 3G for CSFB, allowing them to turn the power of their 4G up.

I don't think we'll see too many masts apart from the MiP ones for the moment because they're focused on upgrading their existing network, but they all have geographic coverage guarantees to meet I think so we are going to see improvement.

The 900MHz of o2 and Vodafone is useful in a lot of buildings and places but EE and Three are launching 800MHz on VoLTE and I expect the advantage o2 and Vodafone have will be quickly eroded by EE especially as they improve their network with it.

Please someone correct me if that was total bollocks!

[jchamier]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lightspeed2398

The 900MHz of o2 and Vodafone is useful in a lot of buildings and places but EE and Three are launching 800MHz on VoLTE and I expect the advantage o2 and Vodafone have will be quickly eroded by EE especially as they improve their network with it.

EE (Orange/T-mobile) countered the 900mhz distance penetration by installing literally double the mast sites for their 2G from 1993 (one2one launch) onwards. In 1994 when Orange launched many journalists reported better coverage from Orange in launch cities than on Vodafone/Cellnet digital back then (analogue was still going!) Frequency isn't all, mast position is, and these are often changing in cities as buildings change. Even in more rural locations masts can be moved/changed over time.

Newer antennas being fitted to EE 2G sites give usefully increased coverage on 1800 used by both 2G and 4G.

[Redcoat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryan125hst

Hello, this is my first post so I hope I've done everything right

I'm studying Electrical and Electronic Engineering at university (in my first year at present) and one area that I have got myself interested in lately is how mobile phones work. As a result, I've spent quite a bit of time over the last week or so reading posts in this forum and it's interesting stuff!

First, welcome!

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryan125hst

One question I have that hasn't really been answered is whether or not 2G and 3G coverage will be improved by mobile networks over the next few years. After all, while 4G on 800 Mhz will vastly improve indoor coverage, phones that only support 2G are still being sold, not to mention 3G phones as well as 4G phones that don't support voLTE and so may not get access to that frequency on certain networks.

As Infamous Teal mentioned, all the UK networks are now heavily focusing on 4G with incremental improvements to 2G & 3G as either a side effect or as part of a stage for long term coverage.

From what I know neither EE, Vodafone or O2 are introducing any new masts to expand coverage of their 2G network only outside of commitments of the mobile infrastructure project. The only thing I can think of where they still might do this otherwise is in places where getting leased line or fibre links are difficult, and a microwave link would prove problematic but doable, for example the other mast the new mast is to be linked to via microwave doesn't have enough capacity to handle additional 3G data at present but has enough to allow extra voice & text capacity along with GPRS - maybe EDGE if they're lucky. In the future the backhaul can be upgraded and the new mast which was 2G only at first could be upgraded to bring 3G or even 4G into the same area.

3G coverage however continues to expand from all networks to either fill in such blackspots or to help improve voice & data services. Although EE's 3G coverage is pretty comprehensive, there are still places where they serve with only 2G coverage. The majority of these places are in the highlands & islands of Scotland but they can also be elsewhere in the UK like parts of mid & north Wales, north Norfolk, Yorkshire Dales & Moors, Antrim Glens etc. which I presume would be down to present backhaul links being unable to carry large amounts of data capacity. 3 itself will likely be investigating new sites perhaps looking at Orange 2G sites in rural areas that may eventually be integrated into MBNL.

Vodafone & O2 are in a different pickle - both networks have been playing catchup to EE (and 3 to a slightly lesser extent) in terms of 3G coverage as for much of the 00's their 3G coverage was limited to mostly urban & suburban locations. They have been starting to catch up though are still a little bit off EE in terms of population coverage. O2 made the start a few years ago by taking a portion of its 900MHz spectrum from 2G use to 3G - prior to this all 3G coverage in the UK was in the 2100MHz band. The advantage of using 3G in 900MHz over 2100MHz is improved geographical coverage and in many cases in-building signal penetration. Vodafone then later on also started with their own 3G900 coverage though in my experience this was less extensive than that of O2. For both networks this was more to solidify existing 3G2100 coverage rather than to significantly expand 3G coverage into new areas itself. A little later on O2 had then started rolling out their 3G900 network into some places (mainly rural) where the base station was 2G only with no 3G2100 service. In recent times O2 and Vodafone have signed a site-sharing agreement called Cornerstone (often abbreviated to CTIL) which is similar to EE & 3's MBNL agreement though not quite as integrated. On Vodafone & O2 sites where they are to be upgraded for both networks to operate on as part of Cornerstone, this will normally bring both 3G & 4G networks online from that site. It appears from anecdotal and coverage map evidence that when 3G is added in these upgrades it is done regularly on the 900MHz band for both operators, but not necessarily both in the 2100MHz band.

In terms of 3G coverage as a percentage of the population, EE & 3 are roughly level at approx 98%. I've seen recent claims that O2's 3G coverage is now at 98% but I find that suspicious - it's certainly well into the 90s though, 93-95% is perhaps more realistic. Vodafone currently brings up the rear at 89%.

With regards to 4G coverage in the future, ultimately there will come a time when 4G with VoLTE will become as ubiquitous as standard 2G calls & text are now. However we are quite a bit away from this point until coverage matches & exceeds that of present 2G (or 3G in the case of 3) and you can get a basic or feature phone that simply does VoLTE for £20 or less. Once that happens we'll start to see a gradual disappearance of both 2G & 3G networks. No UK network has yet announced a date for a closedown of their 2G network, but if I was to speculate I'd say EE will be the first UK network to do so, even though you can still buy cheap 2G PAYG phones on their network.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryan125hst

As an example, I live in Retford and am currently on 3. The coverage map says that I will get outdoor coverage only, yet I luckily manage to get a signal even when I'm downstairs and I frequently get speeds of over 5 Mbps down on 3G- not bad when the ADSL broadband in my house maxes out at about 2.75 Mbps (I'm keeping my fingers crossed that my Dad will upgrade to fibre when the contract runs out in the next month!). I tested my sister's phone which is on EE to find that the 3G performance was very similar to 3's. In fact, I did a speed test on both my phone and her phone at the same time while standing in my bedroom and the ping as well as the download and upload speeds were pretty much identical- clearly the mast is shared in Retford. When I got up to my room having first tested her phone downstairs, I noticed it briefly dropped to five bars of Edge which is more than the one to three bars of 3G I get with 3 which is a good thing as far as call and text reliably is concerned. I even managed to test 4G when it found a 4G signal and got an impressive 22 Mbps down, yet I've never got a 4G signal at home with 3 despite the fact that they have recently added 4G to my local mast (as I found out to my surprise last week!).

Sounds like the cell site in question is part of the MBNL network - in most cases the download speeds for both networks should be roughly the same assuming both networks are evenly loaded - i.e. have the same amount of users with the same corresponding signal strength on them at any one time. If 3 on the same site had twice a many users at the same time as EE has, then it's very likely that 3's download speeds will be significantly lower - not necessarily half however.

When 3G cells start to get loaded to their capacity of users, a phenomenon known as "cell breathing" occurs which is inherent to all CDMA based systems - the excessive amount of electronic noise means that the cell site cannot 'hear' devices on the fringes of their (unloaded) coverage area and can only hear those where the radio link is stronger/cleaner. Think of it standing in the centre of a large room or hall with just two other people who are in a corner talking away - you should be able to hear them even if it's a bit weak. Then say six more people come into the room and start talking themselves to each other in pairs - listening to the couple in the far corner will now be trickier but not necessarily impossible to be unintelligible. Now flood 30 more people into the room with each having a one-on-one conversation - now the couple in the corner are pretty much impossible to hear from your central point, being drowned out by the "noise" of the other conversations. Other conversations at or near the walls of the room also become impossible to make out - the only ones that are intelligible are those who are fairly close to where you are standing. Now replace you, being stationed in the centre of the room, with a base station antenna & equipment, and each couple having a conversation replaced by a mobile phone or dongle, and you have how 3G coverage behaves in a nutshell! The 2G & 4G networks don't suffer from cell breathing, and the coverage level provided from a base station will be nominally consistent.

The EE phone dropping down to 2G EDGE but the 3 one didn't can be easily explained. A 3 sim card will hold on to its 3G network signal for dear life until it can't receive it at all. Only then will it look for an Orange 2G signal to roam - if it's allowed to connect to an "approved" mast. On EE, to allow for reliability of their voice & text services, a threshold is set by the network whereby if the 3G signal & noise go below a certain point it'll automatically fall back on to 2G if possible. The same switchover might be made also in-call if the 3G cell is highly loaded, thus the network will hand the call over to 2G to allow for capacity on 3G be available. Both Vodafone & O2 operate a similar threshold where 3G service will transfer to 2G if available, however it's reckoned that the signal level required on 3G reception on these network to then "fall back" on to 2G automatically is higher than that of EE, therefore falling back quicker than EE normally would. This made a good bit of sense when you were still in Primary school , but these days with a lot of emphasis on mobile data it can be an annoyance to some users. If the phone only does 2G & 3G then in many cases it can be forced to receive 3G only and disabling any fall back to 2G.

In terms of 4G, commercial field tests, posts by users on here and my own anecdotal evidence is that signal strength is not as critical a factor for determining data speeds compared to 2G & 3G - for both of these technologies you need significantly strong enough signals (something like 4 or 5 bars signal strength) to help reach the highest available speeds. With LTE, the best throughput levels can be achieved at rather low signal levels - you're unlikely to see an improvement if on an LTE network between say 3/5 and 5/5 bars, and maybe even on 2/5 compared to 5/5. However at very weak signal levels you will find a degrading of speeds, especially if it's trying to hold on to the LTE signal for dear life at the threshold of where reception is lost.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryan125hst

However, going up the road to my Grandparents and Uncle's house is a completely different story as I am unable to get a signal at all in their kitchen, dining room or conservatory except for one bar occasionally that drops out whenever I use the internet. I seem to get 3-5 Mbps at least if I stand on the landing, although to be fair, it does say outdoor coverage only there. I've not tested EE, although I did used to be on Orange and I'm sure I used to get a signal there although it's likely that it'll be 2G only. My phone is an iPhone 5S so doesn't support voLT|E so I'll have to wait until I get a new phone when my contract runs out in September to see if this makes a difference, assuming EE have switched it on by then as I am thinking of switching to them. Even on O2, with their 900 Mhz 2G and 3G, my parents and Uncle have a difficult time getting a signal downstairs and my Uncle's Samsung Galaxy S5 was showing Emergency Only or No Service when I was round there yesterday. In fact, only Vodaphone seems to work downstairs despite the masts being quite close to O2's- my Grandma's basic Nokia is years old but never lets her down. I hope my Grandad's new one is just as reliable when it arrives at Argos next week!

I know the feeling - 3 & EE reception in my own home can often depend where you are. Often the side of the house that faces the base station you are connected to will provide a more reliable signal, and the first floor will usually have better signals than the ground floor etc. A network with 900MHz capacity is not a magic bullet when it comes to reception everywhere - if it's located fairly far away or there is a significant obstruction in the way the signal will likely be weaker anyway just outside the building before it tries to get indoors. Other factors can include the height of the base station antennas, the configuration of antenna panels (usually three directional sectors are used to cover 360 degrees at 120 degrees each, though there are times when one or more panels may be left out, or the antenna used is an omnidirectional one), the beam tilt of the base station antenna and so on. So as to why Vodafone coverage may be better than O2, it could be that the Vodafone aerial is at a significantly different height above ground level compared to O2's, or Vodafone's antennas have a different beam tilt which is more favourable to those closer to the masts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryan125hst

Apologies for rambling on! What I really need to ask is are the operators are likely to add more masts (or turn up the power to existing ones if that is an option at all?) for 2G and 3G or is that it now, and getting a 4G phone is the only option. If the former is the case, looking at EE's coverage for this example, there's three or four areas of Retford alone with large areas of outdoor coverage only where there are housing estates. A large area of Worksop also appears to have poor indoor 3G coverage in the area just below the station. If the latter is the case, I hope that some basic 4G voLTE phones costing £30 or less enter the market soon. The phone my Grandad is getting is 2G only, but if all phones were 4G voLTE, then coverage could improve for everyone and not just those with £500 plus phones and £30 a month plus contracts.

I don't mind ramblings as long as they're coherent & logical. Turning up powers at existing sites isn't really an option - handsets themselves are restricted in power by standards and for mobiles to work, both links between handset and base station need to be clear. Sometimes you might hear about operators "turning up the power" at base stations - this is normally to do with the field strength levels that accommodate the amount of users of that cell and doesn't give an increase in mobile phone reception that you'd notice.

If I was in the position you're in concerning your grandfather, I'd be looking at getting a basic phone or feature phone that can do 3G for a few simple reasons - the improvements being made to both Vodafone & O2's coverage with the Cornerstone where 3G & 4G from both operators are added to a former one network only site means that combined 2G/3G coverage from both operators have been improving, so for example in a spot where O2 2G is weak but Vodafone 2G is good, and that Voda 2G mast is upgraded by Cornerstone for Vodafone & O2 3G & 4G, then O2's overall 2G/3G coverage will be improved as a result even when 2G signals are still weak as 3G can of course be used for voice. Another reason is call quality - 3G on its own gives a less harsh sounding call quality compared to 2G, and if it supports it can also do HD Voice which if you have not yet experienced it gives call quality exceeding that of landlines. Finally, if you have a 3G phone it'll support 2G as well - if a network is to announce that it is planning to close it's 2G network in the future, you won't need to replace the phone. The same applies if for some reason a network is closing their 3G network but keeping it's 2G network open. The time when both 2G & 3G networks from all UK operators will have closed is some time way off yet - not for at least another 8-10 years IMO. By that time whatever constitutes a 5G network will likely be in operation and talk of a 6G technology will probably be in the planning - at that stage probably where the idea video calling will be passé, instead who you're talking to can appear straight in front of you as a hologram!

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryan125hst

As a final point, I find it daft how fields can have a decent signal, yet as soon as you get to a village it's outdoor only or even No Service. As an example, look at North Leverton and Sturton Le Steeple (both near Retford) on 3's 3G coverage map. it's outdoor coverage until you get to these villages yet No Service in some of the village. I understand that this is due to the fact that the masts are a few miles away and that to put masts up in villages requires planning applications which could be refused, backhaul to be added which isn't always easy, and it costs a lot of money to build and maintain them. It still seems a bit of a daft scenario though, particularly given the price of mobile contracts these days.

Well anti-mobile mast hysteria can be to blame to some extent, it can also simply be down to local geography. Many villages are often situated on low-ish local ground often with a stream or river either flowing through it or next to it rather than at elevated locations. Such low locations can end up being in the shadow of a mobile phone mast. Also, though I'm not sure how much networks account for this when planning coverage maps, clutter also comes into account like the shielding of buildings, trees etc. which in areas they're concentrated in will also affect even outdoor signal levels. IIRC outdoor signal levels on network coverage maps assume the handset is 1.5 metres above the ground - sometimes a mobile phone signal at a window above the front door of a house will get a better signal than just at the doorstep.

On the other hand, lush green fields often present few large nearby obstructions where radio waves have little trouble navigating through and can also be on significantly higher elevations than the nearby village, giving them another advantage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryan125hst

So, to conclude, is it likely that the 2G and 3G coverage will be improved over the next few years or is it simply a case of make do until 4G voLTE becomes more widespread? Could new technologies, such as those trialed in Cumbria by EE, be useful in situations like this? Is it viable for monopoles to be put up in towns to fill in coverage gaps or weak spots such as those that I have mentioned?

Many thanks

Ryan

2G? Not likely unless you live somewhere where you presently have no mobile coverage at all from any network. 3G? Quite possible, especially in areas where the operator is at present still 2G only, or concerning O2 & Vodafone if 3G2100 is present but not 3G900 - if the local site is yet to be upgraded by Cornerstone then its likely 3G900 will be added when 4G is made available that this should help solidify reception in fringe areas of 3G2100 reception as well as indoor reception nearer the base station. However if the masts locally have been upgraded by MBNL & Cornerstone, then the chances of the operators adding new masts in a different location would appear to be unlikely in the short term - though there's no harm asking your operator about it.

Personally I'd like to see small, discreet nano & picocells like those played about with by Vodafone & EE to reach a more mature level of deployment but how fast this will progress is up in the air.

[andyukguy]

What fantastic replies this thread has had very informative!

[Redcoat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jchamier

EE (Orange/T-mobile) countered the 900mhz distance penetration by installing literally double the mast sites for their 2G from 1993 (one2one launch) onwards. In 1994 when Orange launched many journalists reported better coverage from Orange in launch cities than on Vodafone/Cellnet digital back then (analogue was still going!) Frequency isn't all, mast position is, and these are often changing in cities as buildings change. Even in more rural locations masts can be moved/changed over time.

Newer antennas being fitted to EE 2G sites give usefully increased coverage on 1800 used by both 2G and 4G.

I reckon Orange & One-2-One need to be taken separately rather than be bundled together to what is now EE. Vodafone & Cellent I believe largely added GSM at the same sites as as their (E)TACS base stations, where ETACS had different coverage properties with a gradual degradation of the signal in weak areas compared to GSM's near "digital cliff", nor did ETACS suffer the hard 35km limit between base station and handset to accommodate the time division multiplexing that is part of the GSM standard. Eventually both Vodafone & Cellnet had to add "virgin" GSM sites to fill holes in 2G coverage that where previously ETACS reception was at least adequate - a scenario that was to repeat themselves regarding 3G coverage around a decade later.

On the other hand, Orange (and One-2-One) with no legacy analogue network could concentrate on designing a 2G1800 network on its own and plan accordingly, creating a more "dense" network as opposed to the "breadth" of Vodafone & Cellnet's ETACS. So its not surprising that they implemented GSM coverage much better than Vodafone or Cellnet on 2G900 which was more of a bodge on. It also happened to be a nice coincidence that 3G2100 coverage could roughly match that of 2G1800 from the same site, therefore Orange & One-2-One (to soon be T-Mobile) didn't need to install that many "virgin" 3G sites to solidify their 3G coverage compared to Vodafone or O2 - though that didn't stop T-Mobile being hugely arsed about it until they joined up with 3 to form MBNL.

[Gigabit]

Yes T-Mobile 3G coverage was truly terrible before MBNL. They benefited a lot from that and so has EE today. Orange didn't have a great 3G network either (not in my experience anyway) - they also benefited from joining MBNL.

[jchamier]

Yes exactly, I witnessed this (friends on analogue) and was surprised how good the Orange 1800 service was. DevonBloke will I suspect also remember.

[jchamier]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gigabit

Yes T-Mobile 3G coverage was truly terrible before MBNL. They benefited a lot from that and so has EE today. Orange didn't have a great 3G network either (not in my experience anyway) - they also benefited from joining MBNL.

Actually T-Mobile 3G was not bad at all, I moved from Orange to T-Mobile to get much faster 3G, and they launched HSDPA before anyone else (just before the MBNL contract).

At least Orange HAD a 3G network when Vodafone was still saying 2G was all businesses needed and selling Blackberries (aka 2007 when my employed moved to Vodafone).

The orange network was seen as slow after MBNL showed that high speeds were possible, I remember my iPhone 4s and 5 on T-mobile contract having 20+ mbps, and my parents on iPhone 4s then 5 on Orange having about 1.8 mbps. My work Vodafone was on 2G and no 3G signal.

[Redcoat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jchamier

Actually T-Mobile 3G was not bad at all, I moved from Orange to T-Mobile to get much faster 3G, and they launched HSDPA before anyone else (just before the MBNL contract).

What date was it? I remember being on 3 in September 2007 when they switched on HSDPA and I was in one of the first places to get it. The speed & response difference between UMTS and just 3.6Mb/s HSDPA was amazing for its time!

[Gigabit]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jchamier

Actually T-Mobile 3G was not bad at all, I moved from Orange to T-Mobile to get much faster 3G, and they launched HSDPA before anyone else (just before the MBNL contract).

At least Orange HAD a 3G network when Vodafone was still saying 2G was all businesses needed and selling Blackberries (aka 2007 when my employed moved to Vodafone).

The orange network was seen as slow after MBNL showed that high speeds were possible, I remember my iPhone 4s and 5 on T-mobile contract having 20+ mbps, and my parents on iPhone 4s then 5 on Orange having about 1.8 mbps. My work Vodafone was on 2G and no 3G signal.

I really need to add "in my experience" to more of my posts. I never was able to receive T-Mobile 3G as it never reached anywhere I went

[d123]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jchamier

Actually T-Mobile 3G was not bad at all, I moved from Orange to T-Mobile to get much faster 3G, and they launched HSDPA before anyone else (just before the MBNL contract).

.

I would agree with you, and did the same move. T-Mobile 3G was really good in my use, better than any of the others at the time (around 04/05 iirc).

[jchamier]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redcoat

What date was it? I remember being on 3 in September 2007 when they switched on HSDPA and I was in one of the first places to get it. The speed & response difference between UMTS and just 3.6Mb/s HSDPA was amazing for its time!

Around the time T-mobile UK launched the first MDA Vario handset, made by HTC, running Windows Mobile 5.

[jchamier]

Quote:

Originally Posted by d123

I would agree with you, and did the same move. T-Mobile 3G was really good in my use, better than any of the others at the time (around 04/05 iirc).

About the time www.modaco.com arrived, and the T-Mobile MDA Vario handset, and yes, I suspect it was 2005 that I moved over from Orange, where I'd been since Nov 1994. According to Wikipedia the HTC Wizard was launched in Oct 2005, but I think the European launch was earlier.

The Vario did the first HSDPA speeds as I recall, maybe the 3.6megabit spec, and I managed about 1.2megabit in my flat - but at my parents only 400kbps. Still amazing in those days

[Redcoat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jchamier

Around the time T-mobile UK launched the first MDA Vario handset, made by HTC, running Windows Mobile 5.

According to Wikipedia, T-M UK launched HSDPA on 1/8/2006, so yeah. Seems 3 were one of the last to add HSDPA.

[Thine Wonk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redcoat

According to Wikipedia, T-M UK launched HSDPA on 1/8/2006, so yeah. Seems 3 were one of the last to add HSDPA.

Three were a funny one, because they launched 3G, but with the idea that video calls and walled services would be very popular.

They then realised years later that they needed to allow internet access over 3G and only then did they go down the route of concentrating on mobile data. You have to remember that back then people really only used phones as phones.

I remember using a nokia phone on infra-red modem or plugging in a cable and using GPRS whilst driving around Cornwall and Devon using a laptop in the back of a friends 4x4 on days out. We'd be driving somewhere and we would be browsing the internet in 2005/2006 on a laptop in the middle of nowhere. Back then the pages didn't actually take too long to load on Orange 2G as websites weren't as big as they are now, just text and low quality images on 800x400 res screen, at most 1024x768. Most sites stuck to 800 width just in case, even if you were viewing on 1024.

It felt so clever being able to browse whilst going to the beach or driving to the other side of Devon on a day out. These days you wouldn't think twice about it.

[lightspeed2398]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thine Wonk

I remember using a nokia phone on infra-red modem or plugging in a cable and using GPRS whilst driving around Cornwall and Devon using a laptop in the back of a friends 4x4 on days out. We'd be driving somewhere and we would be browsing the internet in 2005/2006 on a laptop in the middle of nowhere. Back then the pages didn't actually take too long to load on Orange 2G as websites weren't as big as they are now, just text and low quality images on 800x400 res screen, at most 1024x768. Most sites stuck to 800 width just in case, even if you were viewing on 1024.

Maybe a bit later than that I had a Dell Laptop which I used working at home occasionally with a second BT line installed by my work, but I also got issued with a Vodafone 3G card for my laptop, I thought on one hand the future's good on the other hand it was very slow! Ironically I now have less mobile connectivity from my work than then. My Orange mobile broadband SIM card that replaced the Vodafone has been deactivated recently and I can't get an answer why and my o2 Blackberry won't go on the Internet, just Microsoft Exchange, not that I'd want to use o2's network anyway.

[d123]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thine Wonk

I remember using a nokia phone on infra-red modem or plugging in a cable and using GPRS whilst driving around Cornwall and Devon using a laptop in the back of a friends 4x4 on days out. We'd be driving somewhere and we would be browsing the internet in 2005/2006 on a laptop in the middle of nowhere.

You weren't the only one, I remember buying a Nokia N70 (which puts it as 2005) and using it almost permanently connected via cable to a lightweight Dell laptop (I can't remember the model, but it was one of the first ultra-type notebooks, no optical drive 11" screen) and using it on T-Mobile. It gave what seemed like excellent service, browsing and even downloading files.

[jchamier]

Quote:

Originally Posted by d123

You weren't the only one, I remember buying a Nokia N70 (which puts it as 2005) and using it almost permanently connected via cable to a lightweight Dell laptop (I can't remember the model, but it was one of the first ultra-type notebooks, no optical drive 11" screen) and using it on T-Mobile. It gave what seemed like excellent service, browsing and even downloading files.

Back in 1994/1995 I used a Nokia data card with my Nokia Orange 2140 and dialed up a ISP with an 0800 number (as 0800 was free on orange back then). Only 9600bps circuit switched data (CSD) rather than packet switched GPRS, but it worked very well. Lots of emails sent and received.

[d123]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jchamier

Back in 1994/1995 I used a Nokia data card with my Nokia Orange 2140 and dialed up a ISP with an 0800 number (as 0800 was free on orange back then). Only 9600bps circuit switched data (CSD) rather than packet switched GPRS, but it worked very well. Lots of emails sent and received.

I think the n70 was the first data device that impressed me, I had messed around with data cards, Nokia Communicators and phones (anyone remember the first phone with a modem? The Ericsson 888) but I wasn't big into email and anything else over GSM was just so slooow.

[jchamier]

Quote:

Originally Posted by d123

I think the n70 was the first data device that impressed me, I had messed around with data cards, Nokia Communicators and phones (anyone remember the first phone with a modem? The Ericsson 888) but I wasn't big into email and anything else over GSM was just so slooow.

I remember the 888 which had an infra-red serial port didn't it? Nokia were late copying that. I had a Nokia that supported HSCSD the 28.8kbps spec on dialup, and it used a serial cable to the laptop but you had to run the Nokia software - as the modem was actually in software on the PC! It worked, but Orange only supported HSCSD in limited areas

And GPRS arrived very soon afterwards, with that abomination called WAP and the Nokia 7110 which I think had an infra-red modem in, as well as that strange design. most unreliable Nokia 2G phone I recall.

[d123]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jchamier

I remember the 888 which had an infra-red serial port didn't it?

Yes, it was the first, I've still got my old 888 in a drawer somewhere. Battery is probably completely dead by now .

Quote:

Originally Posted by jchamier

Nokia 7110 which I think had an infra-red modem in, as well as that strange design. most unreliable Nokia 2G phone I recall.

But it did have a really addictive tennis type game .

[moox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jchamier

Back in 1994/1995 I used a Nokia data card with my Nokia Orange 2140 and dialed up a ISP with an 0800 number (as 0800 was free on orange back then). Only 9600bps circuit switched data (CSD) rather than packet switched GPRS, but it worked very well. Lots of emails sent and received.

I did it much later on with a 6310i, HSCSD, and a heath-robinson-esque data cable between the phone and my Psion PDA (the other option was infrared but that was a pain)

I remember using my ISP's 020 dial-in number for it. I was doing a lot of SSH and HSCSD (or even CSD?) was much lower latency / jitter than GPRS

Then I had the Nokia 9500 - an absolute brick

Around that time I remember permanently having my 6310i connected to my PC at home - so I could have some semblance of an "always on connection" without tying up my phone line. Orange had some really long free GPRS promotion that I took advantage of

[jchamier]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gigabit

I really need to add "in my experience" to more of my posts. I never was able to receive T-Mobile 3G as it never reached anywhere I went

I could drive from my home in Farnborough, to my parents near Gatwick, and had 3G signal for a lot of the journey, so it was fairly obvious T-Mob was investing - but that could be after MBNL was signed and things were starting to be shared between 3 and Tmob.