I never had a Psion, but my mate did. I bought the second generation Communicator that supported 1800mhz and had that on Orange and then T-mobile account until I bought the MDA Vario.

Good to see the culture of investment starts so early. O2 were ****ed from the start.

As I and others discovered on buying iPhones (3G or 3GS) and switching to O2 due to the exclusive, and then finding lots of places where data was non existant and being unable to make calls.

People used to tell me "I can't hear you properly" and I thought it was the iPhone 3GS handset. Switching to T-mobile cured that immediately, with the same iPhone 3GS. O2's fantastically bad voice quality at work :-/

No, O2 as a network has suffered from lack of investment for too long.

And I don't think merging with Three is going to help much

It opens up more capability, if the merged entity used Three's backhaul and 3G network (ie, MBNL) and the 2G network was the O2 sites (CTIL), with the spectrum from both companies being used to create the 4G network - it could be good.

Not superfast as EE can be, or as fast as Vodafone 4G+ is reported - but pretty good for the high number of customers.

I just don't see it getting through the regulators.

I'm not sure why people see data speed as a big factor.

If they have to create new openings in the market by setting up MVNOs, if they have to release some 800, if they have to separate and tell Tesco / Giffgaff, if they have to offer open wholesale etc to get the approval then I think they will.

I don't think consumers benchmark or consider data speed or even capacity as much as people here do. I doubt there will be any real world noticeable difference in real world usage 2-3 years time if it goes through, that is outside of benchmarking and techie forums.

Speed today shows capacity for future as more and more people upgrade handsets. All the networks have graphs showing data usage exploding, and you've probably seen the Three ones posted on this forum.

120mbps today might mean 10mbps in 10 years time but that is still workable, rather than 40mbps today and 0.01mbps in 10 years time.


Correct - people don't care about speed, they want their data service to "work" be that WhatsApp, Facebook, iMessage, Google Hangouts or whatever.

On Vodafone 2G and O2 2G these services were not working very recently - I had colleagues at work with iPhones back in 2013 ask me what the point of iMessage was as it didn't work. Turned out they were on Vodafone on 2G only signal and hence no data. Those of us on Three and EE had no such issue.

Overloading networks with users tends to cause that issue.

We must remember that Three's 4G network is only 20% complete really, as so many sites have no 4G, that's before you even consider adding more small cells or adding 700Mhz spectrum or moving some 2100Mhz to 4G or offloading more stuff like voice to wifi etc.

I think they're ok for 5 years and by then new options will come up in terms of technology enhancements or spectrum options. The worst case scenario is they boot the heavy users again and end unlimited and put in a 40GB package instead, and just say "it's not unlimited but it's what 98% of users would use less than" so they again kick off the people really going mad. Every 100GB+ user kicked off is another speed boost for the vest majority.

In summary, the issues you mention can be solved by the following if some or all of them are even necessary:

More spectrum becoming available
2100 being used for 4G in future
80% of the network still to be upgraded
Small cells
Data restrictions and end of unlimited in favour of 40G cap etc.

I would suggest that the network upgrades alone will last then for a few years before they even need to look any further.

You're assuming there is sufficient spectrum to have enough masts to keep up data rates. You talk about 'streaming' and I assume you mean video, and its Three that has the problem here due to unlimited on handset. The others manage this issue by selling gigabytes per month. Streaming even high quality radio is tiny by comparison.

Future spectrum will need new handsets that support these bands, and more and more people are keeping handsets longer than longer. Lots of Galaxy S4 handsets are still in use by people and that is a 3 year old handset this spring. People see no reason to change.

Those "abusers" using 100GB+ via tethering sounds like should be solved by now, but if not it makes me wonder what Three's business plan is.

Not necessarily as tethering whilst not permitted or going over limits seems to be something people can do, as is putting sims in other devices, but I suspect they'll clamp down more over time.

When I talk of streaming I mean HD video, as I would say that app downloads and streaming are really where you notice speeds. Browsing is not really noticeable on a low latency 40ms 4Mb/s + connection.

I bet if we put a handset in front of 10 users on the forum, with no operator logo (bit of masking tape over the top of the screen) on a modern good, high performing smartphone and then let them browse, stream and download apps, if we didn't let them use speedtest I bet they couldn't tell the difference what so ever between EE and Three, betcha! even in a 'double speed' area, willing to do it if others are hahaha!

I have had an EE sim and I notice no real difference in real world usage, sure the 4G coverage is better, but I'm not talking about coverage here, just performance.

First of all, thank you to everyone for the quick replied and detailed posts! I will reply to all of you but I don't have a lot of time now so I'll have to finish off later.



Good choice! I'll reply later when I get chance to.

That's what I feared really. I guess the improved backhaul and renewed antennas added during the upgrade will help, but unless the area has non existent coverage, then 2G and 3G won't be improved. It's a shame really as there are surely many places, such as those that I've pointed out, that would benefit from such improvements.

Those coverage maps must be a nightmare to predict! I've been in places where it's been predicted I'll get no signal yet have got a 3G signal that is just about usable, yet you can be in an area where there should be good indoor coverage yet the type of building means that it isn't the case at all. You can never get it right, but the presentation could be improved (I'm looking at you Vodafone!)

I've seen a lot of posts about MBNL and think it's a great idea. Looking on Sitefinder, you see five masts with five different operators in a relatively small area (six if you count Airwave) and think how stupid it is that one operator can have coverage when another one doesn't. What with MBNL and Cornerstone, there will only really be two networks of similar coverage (except for the different frequencies used, lack of 2G on Three etc making things slightly different) so it improves that situation massively, especially given the issues with getting planning permission and getting backhaul to the masts. I wonder if MBNL and Cornerstone would consider sharing a mast in areas where planning permission is difficult such as in National Parks? There are already locations where all operators are on one mast/TV transmitter, so it can't be impossible.

It looks like the 4G improvements will help 2G and 3G the most then, helped by MIP where there is no coverage at all. It's a shame that there's no 900 Mhz spectrum left that EE can have to help boost indoor 2G and 3G coverage. Saying that, as I've said above, those frequencies don't guarantee coverage on O2 and Vodafone. VoLTE and 800 Mhz will improve things though I hope. This next year or two will be interesting!

The coverage maps are an absolute maul to use. Vodafone has a public map server though you can mess around with if you want to see that. https://mapserver.vodafone.co.uk/arcgis/rest/services I click on each one and then press ArcGIS.com map.

Sitefinder also is a bit of a maul now because it's so out of date and is more for general ideas than precise details. I'd say sharing is possible but would have to be on a mast by mast network by network basis.

Vodafone used to have Atlas which was great. Wonder why they withdrew that

That being their internal coverage map? Wonder if there are any screenshots of it around on the internet. I'd love to see an Internal Coverage Map to see how much the networks have on each mast.

At one point 3 certainly had a detailed mapping system that even lowly store staff could access. I remember asking if they could look up the state of the local network in my area, if there were any planned new masts, etc. I believe it gave the locations of the masts at the very least

Now I'm going to have to pop into a shop at a quieter time and ask if they can look at my area if they still have it that is. I see no reason not to give employees in stores access, especially considering they will end up doing some tech support tasks no matter how sales focused they are expected to be.

Thank you!


Thanks Redcoat, a very informative post. I've seen that EE and 3 are much further ahead when it comes to 3G. I'm on Three myself and I have to say I'm impressed. The coverage of O2 and Vodafone is improving though and looking on the coverage maps for my area, even 4G coverage has improved for them recently, although they don't yet offer 4G from the Retford masts unlike EE and, more recently, 3. While it hasn't really been a great idea to go with O2 and Vodafone if you want a smartphone and want to use data in rural areas until recently, it looks like the gap is closing at last. Do you think that they have much of an advantage when it comes to indoor 2G and 3G coverage due to the lower frequencies? As I say, my parents aren't overly impressed with O2 at home even though the map claims that we are in an indoor and outdoor coverage area for 2G, yet Three has been very reliable despite our house being in an outdoor coverage only area. The other thing is that frequencies may give O2 and Vodafone a theoretical advantage, but if the speeds are very low on 3G, then it's not worth it being there at all really (I'm talking Speedtests where the download speeds have been less than 0.5 Mbps). Of course, once EE swtich on 800 Mhz 4G and voLTE, they'll be miles ahead as long as you have a compatible handset.


I'd gathered that they'd MBNL'ed the mast, although I've seen the mast today and there's still a lot of antenna's on it at different levels. I know there's Airwave on the mast and that it used to be Orange and T-Mobile. I'd guess it's just EE and 3 now, with 3 moving from a site that seems to have been on top of a factory. Vodafone have a 3G mast very near to the rather large MBNL mast and have a 2G mast a little further away on a little used railway curve. O2 have a mast further in town near the theatre broadcasting 2G and 3G according to Sitefinder, as well as a 3G only mast out of town near the rugby ground. There also used to be an Orange 2G mast near the builders yard/car park but having been past there a couple of times over the last few days it seems to have gone. It's still on Streetview however, but I'm almost certain its gone. Maybe someone can confirm which masts broadcast what now

I've been reading up on how the 2G, 3G and 4G works so have heard of cell breathing- it probably explains why my phone sometimes drops to No Service at home yet I also get three bars and speeds of 7 Mbps plus sometimes as well. There's no 3 2G backup in Retford as their 3G is good here. My sister's phone only dropped onto 2G for maybe 10 seconds, but it was good to see as I know there's reliable 2G coverage so I'm likely to go to EE next time and I know i'll probably end up with No Service a little less often.

As for signal bars, I've realised that bars aren't everything. I've got 7 Mpbs down off 1 bar of 3G before, and on another occasion, no throughput at all on five bars (due to congestion I think). My sister's phone was only picking up a very weak 4G signal when I got a speed of 22 Mbps which is very impressive!


While the mast's aren't all located in the same place, I don't think that they are too far away from each other really, yet the performance of O2 despite the lower frequency and supposedly good indoor coverage is very poor. I'm looking forward to EE's 800 Mhz 4G being switched on so I can see if I have a signal downstairs at my Grandparents if I switch to them.


It's a good job because I do talk a lot! Oh right, so you can't really turn up the power that much. All the more reason for 800 Mhz 4G then!

As for my Grandad, he had a basic Nokia phone that's over 10 years old that he used to use until he retired from contract combine harvesting. He hadn't used it in a while so his credit was removed. He's just turned 79 and has decided to get a new phone. I'm not sure if they do a basic 3G phone- he's getting a Nokia 108 which can still take photos etc. but all he really wants it for is for calls. He's stuck with Vodafone as he was with them before and never had problems before. It also seems to be the only network where it works at his house as my Grandma's phone is always going off when texts come through from her relatives! I don't think he'll use it much really but it does mean he'll be able to take a phone with him if he goes off somewhere without my Grandma. As for the networks being switched off, it's only costing him £9.99 plus top up, so it won't be a massive investment to replace. I appreciate your help and advise though, but he has reserved this model at Argos and I doubt he'll want to change his mind now. I'll let you know how he gets on with it (although I'm off back to uni tomorrow so I won't see him for a few weeks.



On the maps, it does look like it's the buildings that are blocking the signal, although it could be down to the local geography I guess. The question is, will the coverage there be improved?


Your opinion seems to be shared by others so is seeming very likely. I doubt that Three's 3G coverage will improve much now in Retford, and EE's will be about the same. I need to test out there 2G though to see how much better it is, and of course 4G800 will be better still. I just hope basic, cheap voLTE phones (like a 4G version of that Nokia 108) start appearing within the next couple of years as the networks are going to struggle switching off the 2G networks otherwise.

I agree with the nano and picocells. There needs to be more small cells in buildings that have poor coverage, although I don't know how that would be funded. It would be good to see more monopoles and even those small cells that EE used in Cumbria to help fill in coverage black spots. I doubt they'll end up everywhere though as it'd cost too much.

Your uni should contact the operators, we are more than happy to do the odd lecture on this kind of topic.

It certainly is!


How quickly did the 2G rollout happen then in the early 1990's? Obviously mobile phones we new in the 1980's when the analogue networks were switched on and, reading around the internet, it seems as though Cellnet and Vodafone started in London and worked there way out to other cities and along main roads. By the time the 1990's hit, mobile usage had increased (not by the same level as today though of course, but they were popular with business people I believe) so there would have had to be a number of 2G masts ready for the day the network became available to make it viable for people to ditch there old analogue handset and move to digital. Did people have to carry two handsets so they could have an analogue back up?

As an aside, what was indoor coverage like. I remember my Dad telling a story about when he had an analogue phone (he still has it actually!) not long after he first started going out with my Mum, so early 1990's. He said how he had to go upstairs and stand on a chair at my mother's parents house in order to get a signal. My Grandparents used to live in a village at the time admittedly, but was this common with those phones in those days or was it just due to being on the edge of coverage?

It's interesting to see how Cellnet and Vodafone had to make 2G work from there analogue sites and add additional sites where necessary where as Orange and one2one were able to plan there network for the higher frequency 2G1800 from the start. I guess this potentially meant they had a greater capacity as they would have to install more masts, as well as the fact that there network was newer and built for digital which must also have been an advantage. It probably also explains why EE's 3G coverage is so much better than O2 and Vodafone's 3G coverage today as it was always an easier job to add 3G given the frequency their network uses and positioning of the masts. What O2 and Vodafone gain in having the lower frequency spectrum, they loose in the lack of ability to get good 3G coverage by simply adding 3G to all their 2G masts. Even 3G900 hasn't helped massively as they have a far lower bandwidth compared to 3G2100 don't they?


I remember my iPhone 3GS on PAYG on Orange and on the rare occasions I used data it never seemed to be that fast, even on 3G. EE's MBNL network is far better now I guess.


Could you explain each of these 3G technologies, maximum speeds and UK switch on dates please? HSPDA seems to show up as 3.6 Mb/s, 7.2 Mb/s and 14.4 Mb/s, so did the networks add the latest spec every few years? Also, is UMTS just 0.3 Mb/s or does it go as high as 2 Mb/s? I'm a bit confused with how the roll out of each of these improvements worked, particularly as searching the net often throws up American results which may well have had a different rollout!

It's a bit scary to think that we were still on dial up at home at this point (maybe we'd just got ADSL) and I was still at primary school. How times of changed now I can get over 40 Mb/s on my phone. We still have 2.75 Mb/s ADSL but are now in an Infinity area at last, so 30 Mb/s plus will hopefully be available in my house soon!


I find it quite sad that O2 had exclusivity to the iPhone, the phone that started the whole smartphone revolution and therefore the desire for access to a high speed internet connection everywhere, yet they are so bad when it comes to 3G.

Thanks, that does look better. Why do they show no 3G coverage as "Internet and Email on 2G" and no 2G coverage as "Limited" though. It misleads those wanting a 3G signal and gives those in areas of no coverage hope that there will be something. All the other networks are honest and say that a certain area has no coverage. Why can't Vodafone?

That's actually a very good idea! I'm not sure exactly when we are covering communications (my knowledge so far is just something I've looked into and learnt about in my spare time because I'm inquisitive like that) but it would definitely be worth mentioning this to my course leader.

Many people will talk about the "best" coverage, quite often referring to either national coverage or talking about a region. Ultimately the coverage that matters to most people is if they can use the network at home, their place of work (if allowed of course!) and where they often go for recreation & leisure. If your job or lifestyle involves a lot of travelling particularly in rural and remote areas then talk of such wide coverage becomes more important, but for a large majority it doesn't need to be thought too much about.

As jchamier pointed out, frequency isn't everything - if your nearest Vodafone 2G cell site is some five miles away yet the nearest MBNL mast is only 500 metres from your house, I'd be confident that the latter would give better indoor coverage. However you can't change the laws of physics - apart from a few cases where the shorter wavelengths above 1GHz are able to pass through smaller apertures where sub 1GHz can't, then the lower wavelengths will normally win out. However the materials of the building's construction is a big factor - solid stone walls do an excellent job of blocking mobile phone frequencies all round while modern building regulations concerning insulation like foil used in attics and inside walls kill most radio signals dead in their path - most modern windows will also be provide a detrimental effect as they have metal particles in them to reflect heat which affects radio wave penetration as a side effect. A lot of people find it hard to believe that their windows house could be affecting their indoor mobile reception but many times that is the case.

The public coverage maps from ALL mobile operators need to be taken with a pinch of salt - they can't be directly compared to each other as each network uses different criteria to decide wherever a place is covered or not, and is determined through computer predictions and not through subscriber feedback. In my experience Vodafone are the most guilty in pimping up their coverage to unexpected levels, while sometimes the networks underestimate coverage - but this can be though localised factors.

At present, both O2 and Vodafone use some of their 900MHz spectrum for 3G (WCDMA/UMTS) coverage but the frequency of use itself is no indicator as to how well data throughput will be - it will only be as good as the narrowest bottleneck it has to go through. If the mast backhaul is limited below the theoretical best that the cell can be offered, then it will be hampered (as is the case with a lot of Orange 3G sites that are connected to low-bandwidth lines), while if the backhaul capacity is there to match or exceed what the cell can offer to users, then it is generally limited to the technology of the cell hardware & software along with the amount of users, who themselves will have different levels of HSPA compatibility (though in general any 3G900 phone will have at least some level of HSPA compatibility as opposed to ordinary UMTS 3G) as well as the quality of the radio link between base station & handset. Unless things have changed very recently, both networks only use a single WCDMA carrier in the 900MHz band meaning they can't offer dual carrier (DC-HSPA) speeds but can still offer up to 21.1 Mb/s down & 5.76 Mb/s up data speeds (though at best you're unlikely to get no better than half of these speeds). 2100MHz 3G cells offer all operators the possibility of using dual-carrier DC-HSPA+ and as far as I know, all four carriers offer this in their 2100MHz holdings - this doubles the theoretical download speeds to 42.2 Mb/s download though again, around half is probably the best you can expect - 15 Mb/s is the best I've seen personally. However this doesn't mean the 2100MHz band doesn't always mean higher speeds - all networks have places where during busy peak times 3G speeds can grind to a halt. In more rural locations, the chances of this happening are much less, simply because 2100MHz cells generally cover smaller geographical areas than 900MHz does (it takes about 3-4 2100MHz cell sites to cover the same area that one 900MHz one does to give comparable levels of service) so the amount of customers on the cell are unlikely to significantly load it nearly all the time.


Streetview is now well out of date by at least five years - it can be used as a starting point for mast locations but the technology info associated is likely to be out of date in all cases. The mobile network operators, for understandable reasons, tend not to be keen on publishing details of their cell locations though O2 do have an option to show where their nearby masts are on their coverage maps if you enter a location to search for.

EE have been through MBNL rationalising their cell sites, in Britain a lot of originally Orange 2G/3G sites where they haven't been integrated into MBNL have been decommissioned that I understand (it's been the reverse scenario in Northern Ireland for different reasons). You local council website might indicate where planning permission has been applied for to install new masts or where changes are being made if this requires PP for it to be carried out - though in England small mast sites (under 15 metres AGL) don't normally require planning permission.

Your experience with speeds will mirror I'm sure almost everyone else here, usually during quiet times 2G & 3G speeds even with weak signals can be fairly impressive for what they're capable of, while during busy times even solid signals might struggle for data.



From what you've mentioned so far, if EE decide to use their 800MHz bandwidth for use at the same MBNL mast that you currently get 3G coverage from 3, then I'd say the chances in that location should be good. But no one will fully know until coverage starts getting rolled out.


Oddly enough many 4G sites current in place are actually on reduced power, the 3 4G800 sites thought to be an exception. This is because for EE, Vodafone & O2 because they have not yet implemented VoLTE and they have to fall back to either 3G or 2G for making or receiving calls (SMS is not 100% clear) so the LTE power is currently restricted to match that of 2G or 3G coverage levels from the same site, otherwise someone might have a good 4G signal but no way to make or receive calls. From 3's 4G800 coverage maps so far, it looks like a single such cell at that frequency could on a high enough location cover a very wide radius indeed, probably matching that of the old 1G analogue ETACS networks!

Basic 3G phones do exist, but they don't tend to be at the front of the cheap 2G PAYG phones that are often promoted. One such phone I can recommend is the Doro PhoneEasy 632. It's not dirt cheap, but I've got two sourced for my parents that I got for £60 each which happily does 3G900 and also HD Voice (though my mother's phone does HD voice, my father's doesn't! I suspect it's because the former is unbranded while the latter is O2 branded and for some reason has HD Voice disabled?). There is another Doro mobile that does 3G900 which is a candybar shape and is cheaper than the 632 (the main reason for getting the 632 for my parents in both cases was that they are clamshell/flip phones, so buttons don't get accidentally pressed if the keypad isn't locked!) Also any phone 3 sell for PAYG will automatically be 3G enabled.


The big problem with VoLTE right now is that it isn't fully standardised yet and might not be for a little while yet. Where it does exist, it's limited normally to carrier-supplied handsets - even if a handset has VoLTE capabilities the network might not allow for it if it isn't using the carrier specific firmware (or carrier update for Apple phones - I'm not sure exactly as I don't really deal with them).

Both EE and Vodafone certainly seem to have ideas about addressing rural and small town blackspots but I think it needs more will from the operators, communities and governments at national & local levels. The Mobile Infrastructure Project (MIP) was intended to address a significant portion of this problem but it's been a failure in general with only a fraction of identified blackspots being actively tackled.

I never owned an analogue mobile phone but I do have some knowledge from those that had them. Both Cellnet and Racal Vodafone (as they were known then) did start in London - VF had something like 10 cell sites ready in London while Cellnet just had one - on the BT Tower! Coverage for both increased to the point that by the mid 90's their analogue networks had covered around 98% of the population if not more.

The date I have for the first GSM network in the UK was Vodafone in December 1992, with Cellnet a few months later, then One2One around the same time with Orange being the last. I don't recall anyone carrying both an ETACS and GSM mobile around with them to be honest - there were good reasons for subscribers to move from analogue to GSM in terms of protection from eavesdropping, and also to stop the problem with "cloning" along with SMS capabilities. Analogue still had a big edge in terms of geographical coverage however, particularly important for rural dwellers and workers. Cellnet closed their analogue network in December 2000 while Vodafone closed theirs down spring 2001. By this time both networks had expanded their GSM networks to cover nearly all that the old analogue networks served.

It's worth noting that back from the 80's to the very early 2000's mobile phone use was different to what it is now even without considering data. Back then in the early days quite often subscriptions didn't give any free minutes to use with calls costing up to 50p per minute. Also you didn't call a mobile from a landline unless it was urgent or had bottomless pockets as it was similarly expensive. When free minutes started getting added to contracts, they were often only to the same network or to landlines only except for some dearer ones. SMS originally could not be sent cross-network, it was only in the early 2000's that all four GSM networks were interconnected for SMS. I think it was one-2-one who started offering free minutes on their contract deals to use to call any UK mobile or landline network as standard from around 2001/02, and in due course the remaining networks followed. I don't think any network now offers a full contract where the minutes are on-net & landline only. 3 might have been the last one to offer on-net only minutes but as an additional extra to cross-network minutes. Offers on on-net minutes still exists in a lot of pay-as-you-go offers however. O2 have them while numerous MNVOs offer free on-net calls for topping up a certain amount for a limited time, or charge a discounted rate for them. Aside from that, the networks expected their phones to be used either outdoors or as part of a carphone set up - they explained that indoor coverage could be variable even in strong signal areas. Some coverage maps up until the early 2000's still produced coverage maps for those using carphone setups. OTOH the coverage of some cell sites could cover significant distances, a while ago I seen a Cellnet 1G coverage map dated from mid 1993 which appeared to show it covering nearly all of Co. Tyrone and much of Co. Fermanagh with just three cell sites!


The network legacies do have an impact when looking to roll out next-gen networks - the problem with GSM for Vodafone & O2 at the time was the inbuilt 35km limit between base and handset, not to mention that GSM required a stronger radio signal than analogue. An analogue call albeit with a little noise could still take place at around a 1/5 to 1/10 of the signal strength where a GSM call would fail. It meant that particularly outside of urban areas where hilltop & mountain top sites were used to provide widespread 1G coverage, 2G demanded a more dense cell network to provide equivalent coverage even though both technologies used frequencies pretty much next door to each other.

Off the top of my head, it takes around 3 to 4 cell sites for 2G1800 coverage to be comparable to that of one 2G900 cell. 3G21000 required more still, and it's at this point VF & now what was O2 suddenly realised that a major amount of new masts would be required if they wanted to meet the same coverage level as their 2G900 networks. Orange & T-Mobile (now from one-2-one) already had somewhat denser masts in place but still needed to get equipment installed, new antennas erected, increased backhaul etc. but at least they didn't need as many new masts. And of course 3 were starting afresh. For the first few years, 3G didn't matter much, the main 4 GSM networks had concentrated their 3G mostly in urban areas, while 3 went a little beyond otherwise relying on their O2 2G fallback for their customers. The networks didn't focus on pure data for 3G initially, instead thinking people would pay 50p a minute to make video calls to each other. When that bombed there was little incentive for most people to get 3G until the Jesusphone had its first coming and even that was 2G only (though it did force O2 to upgrade some of its 2G network to EDGE in many places).

Also, 3G WCDMA carriers have a fixed bandwidth of roughly 5MHz operated in pairs for uplink and downlink, regardless of the frequency band used. As I said in may last thread, the frequency of use itself doesn't dictate data speeds. But the main advantage for using 3G in the 900 band is that it can give wider geographic and (generally) better in-building coverage. In most cases this means that if 3G is only being provided at a cell on 900 MHz then that cell will be supplying more customers than a 2100 MHz cell at the same location, so the quality of service will likely be lower - not to mention that dual carrier is done on most places on 2100MHz. Technically it can be done on 900MHz at the expense of 2G capacity, but I've not seen O2 or Vodafone do this yet. And dual carrier gives the ability to double the download data rate.



The initial UMTS spec was 384kb/s download and 64kb/s upload, though when it was being first talked about speeds of 2Mb/s were being banded about which at the time was enormous! This compared to 2G data at the time which for Circuit Switched Dialling (CSD) was normally 9.6kb/s (though higher speeds were possible, Orange often promoted this), then GPRS was roughly the same as dial-up landline internet at 56kb/s download and around 28kb/s upload, with EDGE being the last 2G commercial data deployment that under ideal conditions could go over 200kb/s download. EDGE never caught on quickly in the UK mainly because the operators paid a s*itload of money for 3G licences and weren't planning to roll out EDGE (which with some equipment only required software updates) where it could have given UMTS a serious run for its money for data speed. It was a different story in some other countries however where it was more successful even after the abomination that was WAP (thank you BT Cellnet and your silver surfer!)

The link below at Wikipedia should be a good start for wanting to know more on HSPA technologies, but it appears the first release was commercially launched worldwide in late 2005, with the first UK networks making it available in Summer 2006.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Speed_Packet_Access