Indoor 3G coverage of Tesco Mobile, O2, Virgin, EE and Three is excellent here.
Will indoor 2G and 3G coverage improve in the future?
3 of 3
Originally Posted by david16:
“Indoor 3G coverage of Tesco Mobile, O2, Virgin, EE and Three is excellent here.”
“Indoor 3G coverage of Tesco Mobile, O2, Virgin, EE and Three is excellent here.”
I get excellent 3G coverage from all networks where I live, but that's probably because I am only 400m (or so) away from the local Voda/O2/MBNL mast!
My experience in rural areas is outdoors Three and EE usually work great with O2/Vodafone normally stuck on GPRS (although this has changed to EDGE in certain areas and 4G in a few). Three/EE will generally be on fast 3G (or relatively weak 4G for EE but still useable).
When you go indoors though, it's down to almost certainly useless GPRS for O2/Vodafone (good enough to make a phone call and send a text but nothing else). EE/Three will be stuck on "no service". EE might have very weak 1800MHz GPRS but this is very rare indeed.
I'd imagine that when EE rollout 800MHz things might change but then again it really depends on where the cell sites are. In my personal experience most of the big ones are from O2/Vodafone with EE/Three on smaller sites, further away.
When you go indoors though, it's down to almost certainly useless GPRS for O2/Vodafone (good enough to make a phone call and send a text but nothing else). EE/Three will be stuck on "no service". EE might have very weak 1800MHz GPRS but this is very rare indeed.
I'd imagine that when EE rollout 800MHz things might change but then again it really depends on where the cell sites are. In my personal experience most of the big ones are from O2/Vodafone with EE/Three on smaller sites, further away.
This article shows some nice old coverage maps of the UK.
http://cellnet.illtyd.co.uk/project-definition
Interestingly, they seem to have had masts on the Isle of Man?
http://cellnet.illtyd.co.uk/project-definition
Interestingly, they seem to have had masts on the Isle of Man?
Originally Posted by Gigabit:
“My experience in rural areas is outdoors”
“My experience in rural areas is outdoors”
Wow, my experience is the complete opposite - in rural remote areas (especially in Scotland) before the 4G rollout (ie, 2012) - the O2/Vodafone networks had good outdoor signal but nothing indoors as their masts were too far away (900mhz is good, but still decays at distance). Orange/Tmobile had generally good indoors where they admitted signal; but they had outdoor coverage gaps. Three was pretty useless indoors everywhere.
This of course led to people calling them "mobile phones, of use outdoors only" in rural areas - but in Hampshire and Sussex I found even driving through single track roads north of Winchester that Orange/Tmobile managed 3G where O2 and Voda were often "No Service" that would come and go like a yoyo - and when there was service it was 2G voice calls with no data throughput.
Your experience is completely the opposite, so it shows how local opinions form.
Originally Posted by InfamousTeal:
“Interestingly, they seem to have had masts on the Isle of Man?”
“Interestingly, they seem to have had masts on the Isle of Man?
”
Cellnet covered the Channel Islands as well as the Isle of Man.
I've got a 2G mast very near to me, so I always get full strength signal both indoors and outdoors, but it winds me up that they still haven't upgraded it. I live in a town but O2 seem to think 2G is adequate. The internet is totally unusable on it (GPRS is a joke).
I mean, we're in 2016 and almost everyone has a mobile -- most of those being smartphones. Surely 3G is a basic now?
I would add that there's a 3G mast on the other side of the town, so quite why O2 feels one side of the town is more deserving of a better signal is anyone's guess.
I mean, we're in 2016 and almost everyone has a mobile -- most of those being smartphones. Surely 3G is a basic now?
I would add that there's a 3G mast on the other side of the town, so quite why O2 feels one side of the town is more deserving of a better signal is anyone's guess.
Originally Posted by jchamier:
“Wow, my experience is the complete opposite - in rural remote areas (especially in Scotland) before the 4G rollout (ie, 2012) - the O2/Vodafone networks had good outdoor signal but nothing indoors as their masts were too far away (900mhz is good, but still decays at distance). Orange/Tmobile had generally good indoors where they admitted signal; but they had outdoor coverage gaps. Three was pretty useless indoors everywhere.
This of course led to people calling them "mobile phones, of use outdoors only" in rural areas - but in Hampshire and Sussex I found even driving through single track roads north of Winchester that Orange/Tmobile managed 3G where O2 and Voda were often "No Service" that would come and go like a yoyo - and when there was service it was 2G voice calls with no data throughput.
Your experience is completely the opposite, so it shows how local opinions form.”
“Wow, my experience is the complete opposite - in rural remote areas (especially in Scotland) before the 4G rollout (ie, 2012) - the O2/Vodafone networks had good outdoor signal but nothing indoors as their masts were too far away (900mhz is good, but still decays at distance). Orange/Tmobile had generally good indoors where they admitted signal; but they had outdoor coverage gaps. Three was pretty useless indoors everywhere.
This of course led to people calling them "mobile phones, of use outdoors only" in rural areas - but in Hampshire and Sussex I found even driving through single track roads north of Winchester that Orange/Tmobile managed 3G where O2 and Voda were often "No Service" that would come and go like a yoyo - and when there was service it was 2G voice calls with no data throughput.
Your experience is completely the opposite, so it shows how local opinions form.”
And of course naturally I respect your opinion and value it as this will help everyone gauge a more objective view of the UK networks, so thank you for your post
I must say, I've never been in an area where I only had EE signal and no O2/Vodafone signal. It's always the other way around, again in my experience anyway
Originally Posted by Paul237:
“I've got a 2G mast very near to me, so I always get full strength signal both indoors and outdoors, but it winds me up that they still haven't upgraded it. I live in a town but O2 seem to think 2G is adequate. The internet is totally unusable on it (GPRS is a joke).
I mean, we're in 2016 and almost everyone has a mobile -- most of those being smartphones. Surely 3G is a basic now?
I would add that there's a 3G mast on the other side of the town, so quite why O2 feels one side of the town is more deserving of a better signal is anyone's guess.”
“I've got a 2G mast very near to me, so I always get full strength signal both indoors and outdoors, but it winds me up that they still haven't upgraded it. I live in a town but O2 seem to think 2G is adequate. The internet is totally unusable on it (GPRS is a joke).
I mean, we're in 2016 and almost everyone has a mobile -- most of those being smartphones. Surely 3G is a basic now?
I would add that there's a 3G mast on the other side of the town, so quite why O2 feels one side of the town is more deserving of a better signal is anyone's guess.”
That's a bit like one of the towns near me (Thrapston, Northants). There is an O2 mast that has both 900 and 1800 MHz on it (why 1800 is on there, I don't know) but it is all 2G only. Ok for calls and texts, pointless for data. Why hasn't that had at least 3G added to it? And why are O2 using 1800 for 2G?
Surely the best thing would be to put 3G900 on every mast, with 3G2100 for capacity on most masts (the really rural ones could stay on 3G900 only) and use the 1800MHz for 4G instead of 2G? That way it'd help out with 4G capacity, and 2G900 would still be available.
Though personally, if 3/O2 goes ahead, I'd have 3G900 on every mast (MBNL and CTIL), 3G2100 on every mast, 4G1800 (combining Three and O2's 1800 spectrum) and 4G800. Then they'd be able to refarm 2G900 -> 3G900.
Originally Posted by Redcoat:
“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.”
“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.”
Sorry for the very late reply!
I guess that this is the issue when it comes to people choosing a mobile operator, one that coverage maps are only a prediction, and two that things can vary massively depending upon where you live. As an example, Ollerton (which isn't too far away from Retford) is a 4G black hole for both EE and Three, yet O2 and Vodafone have 4G coverage. I don't know if EE and Three's 3G masts are upgraded to DC-HSPDA speeds or whether VO2's 4G performs well there however. Tuxford, just down the road from Ollerton, has 2G, 3G and 4G from EE, 3G from Three (and over 7 meg down upstairs at my Grandparents, although no signal in their kitchen!), yet Vodafone and O2 don't even have 3G. If you live in Ollerton, Vodafone is probably a good one to go with, yet in Tuxford, EE would be the winner. The problem is when you live somewhere where, say, EE have great 4G coverage, but work somewhere where EE's coverage is poor but where Vodafone performs reasonably well. Then what do you do! Hopefully this issue will reduce as the coverage of all operators improves. As for 3G, I've got 27 Meg down and 4 Meg up on Three's 3G (clearly DC-HSPDA) at Toby Calvary in Sheffield, although the mast was just outside, The 4G speed hit 65 down and 32 up!
Originally Posted by Redcoat:
“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. ”
“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. ”
I don't understand why they don't want mast information published if I'm honest. O2 already publish it and the masts are hardly invisible. The fact that the planning applications show the technologies used on each mast makes this even more strange!
Originally Posted by Redcoat:
“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.”
“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.”
Three now appear to be broadcasting 4G800 from that mast according to their coverage checker. My iPhone 5S can't use it though as it isn't voLTE compatible, although the coverage shown is a massive improvement.
Originally Posted by Redcoat:
“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.”
“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.”
This 800Mhz coverage from 3 and EE is going to be fantastic when it's done. I can't wait for EE to release it and I hope they implement it properly- 3's way of doing it isn't great!
My Grandad went for the £9.99 Nokia in the end. He wouldn't be bothered about having 3G and only uses it to make calls occasionally. Three has no service downstairs and O2 isn't much better either. This phone is on Vodafone and seems to be working fine, The good thing about the low price is that if, in a few years time, low price voLTE phones are available, he could buy a new one and it wouldn't really matter. Saying that, as long as he can call when he wants to, I don't think he'll be bothered.
Originally Posted by Redcoat:
“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.”
“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.”
This is a major issue with 4G, having a mobile network that supports data and not voice. It'll be great when it's sorted, but it's a waiting game in the mean time. As for MIP, it's failure is a huge shame as there are many rural communities with either 2G only (maybe from only one operator) or even no coverage whatsoever, and they often have sub 1 Mbps broadband connections as well. I don't know how people living in such communities cope in this day in age. Surely they feel cut of from the rest of the UK?
Originally Posted by Redcoat:
“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!”
“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!”
Reading that, it's amazing how much things have changed in such a relatively short time. From analogue phones that could only call, were expensive and had major security issues, to the smartphone age where we can have access to unlimited calls and texts and a reasonable amount of data at speeds sometimes exceeding 100 Mbps and for prices which would seem very cheap to people back in analogue days!
Originally Posted by Redcoat:
“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 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.”
Reading through this, I do wonder whether the spectrum allocations could have been done differently. I know that Vodafone and Cellnet got their 900 Mhz spectrum first before one2one and Orange, but if all networks were allocated both 900 Mhz and 1800 Mhz for 2G and both 900 Mhz and 2100 Mhz for 3G, would that have improved the coverage situation? The government maybe should have done more to force the operators to give good nation wide 3G coverage, particularly in more recent years. I saw a thread on here the other day with a link to the mobile spectrum in Germany and the frequencies seems to be well balanced across all operators. Over here, EE has masses of high frequency spectrum which is great for capacity in busier areas, but they do suffer when it comes to rural and in building coverage it seems. For O2 and Vodafone, they can cover rural and in buildings far easier, but capacity takes a hit as a result. Should things have been done differently do you think?
Originally Posted by Redcoat:
“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.”
“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.”
I think I can phrase my question a bit better. Last night, I was looking at how the 3G technologies changed from the first iPhone to the current one, ie. no 3G on the original phone, 3.6 Mbps HSPDA on the iPhone 3G, 7.2 Mbps on the 3GS and 4, 14.4 Meg on the 4S, and then up to DC-HSPDA and 4G on the iPhone 5. The question is, how does this compare to the rollout of these speeds by the operators? Was 7.2 Mbps readily available when the 3GS came out, or was it in cities only? How did the operators upgrade each site? Ignoring backhaul, is it a software update or did it require all new equipment? Additionally, how do phones work out what speed they connect at. My iPhone 5S supports DC-HSPDA. Will it connect at UMTS speeds and then quickly step up through them all, or can it jump straight to HSPDA at 21 Mbps and then switch on the second carrier if the signal is good enough. Likewise, will it drop through each technology as the signal fades, or doesn't it quite work like that?
Originally Posted by Gigabit:
“My experience in rural areas is outdoors Three and EE usually work great with O2/Vodafone normally stuck on GPRS (although this has changed to EDGE in certain areas and 4G in a few). Three/EE will generally be on fast 3G (or relatively weak 4G for EE but still useable).
When you go indoors though, it's down to almost certainly useless GPRS for O2/Vodafone (good enough to make a phone call and send a text but nothing else). EE/Three will be stuck on "no service". EE might have very weak 1800MHz GPRS but this is very rare indeed.
I'd imagine that when EE rollout 800MHz things might change but then again it really depends on where the cell sites are. In my personal experience most of the big ones are from O2/Vodafone with EE/Three on smaller sites, further away.”
“My experience in rural areas is outdoors Three and EE usually work great with O2/Vodafone normally stuck on GPRS (although this has changed to EDGE in certain areas and 4G in a few). Three/EE will generally be on fast 3G (or relatively weak 4G for EE but still useable).
When you go indoors though, it's down to almost certainly useless GPRS for O2/Vodafone (good enough to make a phone call and send a text but nothing else). EE/Three will be stuck on "no service". EE might have very weak 1800MHz GPRS but this is very rare indeed.
I'd imagine that when EE rollout 800MHz things might change but then again it really depends on where the cell sites are. In my personal experience most of the big ones are from O2/Vodafone with EE/Three on smaller sites, further away.”
Originally Posted by jchamier:
“Wow, my experience is the complete opposite - in rural remote areas (especially in Scotland) before the 4G rollout (ie, 2012) - the O2/Vodafone networks had good outdoor signal but nothing indoors as their masts were too far away (900mhz is good, but still decays at distance). Orange/Tmobile had generally good indoors where they admitted signal; but they had outdoor coverage gaps. Three was pretty useless indoors everywhere.
This of course led to people calling them "mobile phones, of use outdoors only" in rural areas - but in Hampshire and Sussex I found even driving through single track roads north of Winchester that Orange/Tmobile managed 3G where O2 and Voda were often "No Service" that would come and go like a yoyo - and when there was service it was 2G voice calls with no data throughput.
Your experience is completely the opposite, so it shows how local opinions form.”
“Wow, my experience is the complete opposite - in rural remote areas (especially in Scotland) before the 4G rollout (ie, 2012) - the O2/Vodafone networks had good outdoor signal but nothing indoors as their masts were too far away (900mhz is good, but still decays at distance). Orange/Tmobile had generally good indoors where they admitted signal; but they had outdoor coverage gaps. Three was pretty useless indoors everywhere.
This of course led to people calling them "mobile phones, of use outdoors only" in rural areas - but in Hampshire and Sussex I found even driving through single track roads north of Winchester that Orange/Tmobile managed 3G where O2 and Voda were often "No Service" that would come and go like a yoyo - and when there was service it was 2G voice calls with no data throughput.
Your experience is completely the opposite, so it shows how local opinions form.”
This shows just how variable each network can be, even though O2 and Vodafone can provide better indoor coverage on paper due to the frequencies used doesn't mean that it will be the case. I normally get over 5 Mbps down at home on 3's 3G downstairs even though the signal isn't the strongest. My parents are on O2 and even their 2G900 Mhz doesn't help- I had to go upstairs to my room to hear my Grandad properly when my Dad passed me his phone to speak to him on Christmas day. We were in the kitchen at the time. My 3 phone works fine in the kitchen- very clear. O2's 2G mast is slightly further away, but their 3G mast is probably a little closer. Mind you, I managed to get over 3 Meg down while waiting to pick my sister up from school with my Mum. My signal was very weak and it lost connection afterwards. My Mum's O2 phone could only manage 0.5 Mbps on three bars signal. I doubt it was congestion, just backhaul as O2 has another 3G mast in town (the nearest one at the time was the one in Ordsall). They are the only operator to say they have good indoor 3G coverage in that area of the town yet the performance is very poor. I'm sure the mast is due to be upgraded though- there's no 4G from either of those O2 masts in Retford yet, likewise for Vodafone.
Originally Posted by Paul237:
“I've got a 2G mast very near to me, so I always get full strength signal both indoors and outdoors, but it winds me up that they still haven't upgraded it. I live in a town but O2 seem to think 2G is adequate. The internet is totally unusable on it (GPRS is a joke).
I mean, we're in 2016 and almost everyone has a mobile -- most of those being smartphones. Surely 3G is a basic now?
I would add that there's a 3G mast on the other side of the town, so quite why O2 feels one side of the town is more deserving of a better signal is anyone's guess.”
“I've got a 2G mast very near to me, so I always get full strength signal both indoors and outdoors, but it winds me up that they still haven't upgraded it. I live in a town but O2 seem to think 2G is adequate. The internet is totally unusable on it (GPRS is a joke).
I mean, we're in 2016 and almost everyone has a mobile -- most of those being smartphones. Surely 3G is a basic now?
I would add that there's a 3G mast on the other side of the town, so quite why O2 feels one side of the town is more deserving of a better signal is anyone's guess.”
I agree totally. 2G can be useful of course: you can make and receive calls and send and receive texts using it, and even check emails, weather, news and maybe a bit of web browsing if you're on EDGE. In fact, I was with my housemate in a shop the other day and I noticed his phone had dropped down to EDGE. I mentioned the fact and he joked it was still faster than the internet we have at home (we have a 13 Mbps ADSL Sky Broadband connection but it often slows down or cuts out). It didn't affect him on Yik Yak at all (although I wish it did as we were trying to find a Birthday card for our other housemate and he wouldn't get off his bloody phone!).
That said, in this day in age, everywhere should ideally have at least good 3G coverage, and the networks should make it a priority in my opinion.
Quote:
“The problem is when you live somewhere where, say, EE have great 4G coverage, but work somewhere where EE's coverage is poor but where Vodafone performs reasonably well. Then what do you do!”
“The problem is when you live somewhere where, say, EE have great 4G coverage, but work somewhere where EE's coverage is poor but where Vodafone performs reasonably well. Then what do you do!”
I have exactly the same issue. O2 and Voda has 4G where I work, but EE and Three don't have 4G or even usable 3G. However at home, in a rural area I can get good EE 3G and even a weak 4G EE signal, but there is no 3G from either O2, or Vodafone for several miles.
As a result I have to subscribe to two service providers. An EE MBB Sim in a Mifi for Data use at home or on holiday and Giff Gaff on PAYG for handset - used mainly at work.
There are quite a few places in Cheshire where EE and 3 are both still struggling to provide even 3G DC-HSDPA
Quote:
“That said, in this day in age, everywhere should ideally have at least good 3G coverage, and the networks should make it a priority in my opinion.”
“That said, in this day in age, everywhere should ideally have at least good 3G coverage, and the networks should make it a priority in my opinion.”
They should, but the interest they show in doing so, in my experience has been zero. I've been a customer of both 3 and EE and in that time, i've complained to both about the poor 3G speeds in the area I work in and on several occasions. During the fours years I was a customer of the two networks, nothing has ever been done, and the mast still gives only 0.2mbps - 0.5mbps speeds, day and night, and I suspect it will be the same for the next four years.
Originally Posted by Chris1973:
“I've been a customer of both 3 and EE and in that time, i've complained to both about the poor 3G speeds in the area I work in and on several occasions. During the fours years I was a customer of the two networks, nothing has ever been done, and the mast still gives only 0.2mbps - 0.5mbps speeds, day and night, and I suspect it will be the same for the next four years.”
“I've been a customer of both 3 and EE and in that time, i've complained to both about the poor 3G speeds in the area I work in and on several occasions. During the fours years I was a customer of the two networks, nothing has ever been done, and the mast still gives only 0.2mbps - 0.5mbps speeds, day and night, and I suspect it will be the same for the next four years.”
Whereabouts in Cheshire is this Chris?
Quote:
“Whereabouts in Cheshire is this Chris?”
“Whereabouts in Cheshire is this Chris?”
Congleton - A34 Clayton Bypass area.
This is a fairly typical '3' speed test screenshot for this area
http://postimg.org/image/63tewpqyh/
and this is one i've just run today
http://postimg.org/image/ch1l8e6vl/
Todays test is about as good as it gets in this part of Town. I've never seen more than about 0.5mbps from this mast in the last few years. Not sure exactly which mast is covering it, but its either the one on the old Water Tower at Forge Lane, or the one on Beresfords Factory.
Originally Posted by Chris1973:
“Congleton - A34 Clayton Bypass area.
This is a fairly typical '3' speed test screenshot for this area
http://postimg.org/image/63tewpqyh/
and this is one i've just run today
http://postimg.org/image/ch1l8e6vl/
Todays test is about as good as it gets in this part of Town. I've never seen more than about 0.5mbps from this mast in the last few years. Not sure exactly which mast is covering it, but its either the one on the old Water Tower at Forge Lane, or the one on Beresfords Factory.”
“Congleton - A34 Clayton Bypass area.
This is a fairly typical '3' speed test screenshot for this area
http://postimg.org/image/63tewpqyh/
and this is one i've just run today
http://postimg.org/image/ch1l8e6vl/
Todays test is about as good as it gets in this part of Town. I've never seen more than about 0.5mbps from this mast in the last few years. Not sure exactly which mast is covering it, but its either the one on the old Water Tower at Forge Lane, or the one on Beresfords Factory.”
Good upload though.
Quote:
“Good upload though.”
“Good upload though.”
Yes, i'd be quite happy to have swapped upload speed with download, at least you can get online with 2 mbps - 3 mbps. EE isn't any better from this mast either, so I guess its an infrasructure issue. I know they use a different infrastructure, but just a short distance away is an O2 mast giving 4G.
EE and 3 really are a network of contrasts, with many here often speaking of seeing 50 and 100+ mbps download speeds, this busy part of Town is still waiting to hit 1 mbps.
Originally Posted by Chris1973:
“Congleton - A34 Clayton Bypass area.
This is a fairly typical '3' speed test screenshot for this area
http://postimg.org/image/63tewpqyh/
and this is one i've just run today
http://postimg.org/image/ch1l8e6vl/
Todays test is about as good as it gets in this part of Town. I've never seen more than about 0.5mbps from this mast in the last few years. Not sure exactly which mast is covering it, but its either the one on the old Water Tower at Forge Lane, or the one on Beresfords Factory.”
“Congleton - A34 Clayton Bypass area.
This is a fairly typical '3' speed test screenshot for this area
http://postimg.org/image/63tewpqyh/
and this is one i've just run today
http://postimg.org/image/ch1l8e6vl/
Todays test is about as good as it gets in this part of Town. I've never seen more than about 0.5mbps from this mast in the last few years. Not sure exactly which mast is covering it, but its either the one on the old Water Tower at Forge Lane, or the one on Beresfords Factory.”
Ah, yes. In my area (Tushingham, near Whitchurch and Malpas) we get similar speeds from both 3 and EE, with the added bonus of dire upload speeds or failures too.
I present you with the typical EE status :
https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resi...nt=photo%2cpng
Originally Posted by Chris1973:
“
Yes, i'd be quite happy to have swapped upload speed with download, at least you can get online with 2 mbps - 3 mbps. EE isn't any better from this mast either, so I guess its an infrasructure issue. I know they use a different infrastructure, but just a short distance away is an O2 mast giving 4G.
EE and 3 really are a network of contrasts, with many here often speaking of seeing 50 and 100+ mbps download speeds, this busy part of Town is still waiting to hit 1 mbps.”
“
Yes, i'd be quite happy to have swapped upload speed with download, at least you can get online with 2 mbps - 3 mbps. EE isn't any better from this mast either, so I guess its an infrasructure issue. I know they use a different infrastructure, but just a short distance away is an O2 mast giving 4G.
EE and 3 really are a network of contrasts, with many here often speaking of seeing 50 and 100+ mbps download speeds, this busy part of Town is still waiting to hit 1 mbps.”
I guess they need to upgrade the backhaul? How big is the town, like in terms of population?
Quote:
“I guess they need to upgrade the backhaul? How big is the town, like in terms of population?”
“I guess they need to upgrade the backhaul? How big is the town, like in terms of population?”
About 30k people.
Quote:
“I present you with the typical EE status”
“I present you with the typical EE status”
Yes, I get those too
No idea why there are so many areas in Cheshire and Shropshire where 3 and EE are so poor, but they definitely have a long way to go to in order to improve it.
Originally Posted by Chris1973:
“Yes, I get those too No idea why there are so many areas in Cheshire and Shropshire where 3 and EE are so poor, but they definitely have a long way to go to in order to improve it.”
“Yes, I get those too
No idea why there are so many areas in Cheshire and Shropshire where 3 and EE are so poor, but they definitely have a long way to go to in order to improve it.”
The land that time (and networks) forgot...
3 of 3
