Just thought I'd share my latest experience.

I've been using a iPhone 6s+ with an EE 4G 30day SIM for the last few months. However I've found battery life is affected by 4G and the constant flicking between 2/3/4G between calls low signal areas etc. Therefore, I started locking the phone to 3G which improved my battery life substantially. EE's 3G network is brilliant around here, 4G good but not strong, so I was finding the difference in network speeds and performance wasnt vastly noticeable.

Then I decide I'm paying over the odds for something I don't really use (4G on the EE network). So I requested a PAC and transferred over to a Virgin 30day SIM - 4GB data unlimited calls etc for £15 a month - a much better deal.

I suppose the point I'm making is I've taken a step back technically when most people are upgrading to 4G. For those obsessed with speeds (myself not included) I've done a few tests and range from 5 up to 22mbps on Ookla. Plentiful for what I use my iPhone for - which is practically everything.

Discussion point - is there life left in 3G yet? Is 4G overpriced? Did we all get obsessed with pure speeds when network reliability and consistency can sometimes be the key to a smooth mobile experience?

Keen to hear people's thoughts

I've found 4G to be useful in places where the 3G is horribly congested.

The use of 800MHz for 4G should mean it has better indoor coverage than 3G does (unless you are on Vodafone or O2 and they are doing 900MHz 3G where you are)

On a customer site I've been to, everyone is on Vodafone or O2 800mhz - so the evening speed of 80mbps drops to around 1.5mbps during the day - but it still works. 3G at 900mhz collapses to no data due to overload. Vodafone need more capacity here than 2x10 @ 800mhz can handle, so hopefully 2600 will arrive soon - however I doubt 2600 will make it indoors.

EE's 1800 is also present, evening speeds of 80mbps or higher, and daytime speeds of 10mbps, yes due to load. More capacity at 1800, and they have 2x20. EE also needs to deploy 2600 too.

I must say, the Nexus 6P has rather incredible reception.

As someone with no 4G in my home location and abysmal 3G performance (<0.5Mbps) I'd be very happy with a reliable and consistent 3G experience at anything over 5Mbps.

Yes, I'd like a much faster 4G connection, but I'd trade waiting a year or two for that for getting a good 3G connection now.

It would also shut me up and stop me griping, which would please an awful lot of people!

4G doesn't have much practicality about it. People are using their phones more, yet the experience for everyday people is no different to that of 3G. When someone goes to buy a phone or simo deal from EE, they don't care about the Gs only the coverage. Eventually it will all fade into obscurity, in future the technology won't matter so as long as you can keep using the phone how you want to.

I don't really care for the fastest speeds - as long as I get at least 5meg which I do most places with Three.

I could not care if it's 3G or 4G as long as it's a usable speed.

It's nice and feels good to see the needle on Speedtest shooting upto 70meg, but I don't really need that speed.

The main thing I care about is if I can stream Internet radio in the car everywhere I go without it cutting out.

Ditto, and I live and work in the Cheshire / Staffordshire area. Cheshire certainly seems to be the County that EE and 3 forgot, and where I work in Congleton, i've never seen more than 0.5mbps from Three on 3G, in the last four years. It speaks volumes when you find Giff Gaff to be a better network for Data than EE or 3!.

I do get 1 bar of weak EE 4G at home in the Staffordshire Moorlands (probably from Stoke or Biddulph) but elsewhere its terrible. It's possible to drive from North Wales, through Shropshire and back into Cheshire and not see a 4G signal from '3' once, around here its a woeful network, and 4G roll out is painfully slow (if its happening at all)

Yes, 4G means people are able to use their smart phones - without 4G having been launched and people moving to it, the 3G networks would have become overloaded so everyone would have had poor experiences.

Not necessarily, if 4G wasn't launched then I'm sure the networks would've invested their money in increasing capacity for 3G instead.

I agree with the OP, whilst I can see the benefits of 4G for transferring files if you're using a mobile hotspot or USB dongle to get data on a laptop, for just browsing the web, social media, email etc that people generally do on a smart phone 3G speeds are more than adequate.

I drove home from work yesterday which is a 45 mile trip from London to Berkshire and streamed Spotify the whole way with no drop outs at all on 3G.

Easier said than done if you're already using all of your 2100MHz spectrum (only two out of the four have 900MHz for 3G).

They'd need/want more spectrum for additional capacity, and 4G is more efficient than 3G, and has fewer hassles (no cell breathing). No reason not to do it this way.

The real problem is that 4G in the UK was relatively delayed compared to other countries


It's not just about speed, it is about capacity.

Not really possible, there are so many 'connections' a 3G mast sector can support at the same time, once reached, you need another mast to support more.


Don't confuse 4G speed with the fact that its a completely new way of connecting mobile phones that significantly increases the number of phones connected at the same time. Forget voice calls, this is smartphones connected and polling for 'push notifications' whatsapp messages, facebook status etc.


But on all phones, you can start on 4G, and whilst using data (e.g. streaming) can transfer to 3G but there is no way back up to 4G unless you stop the data using application.

In the USA, which has a much more mature LTE market, HSDPA+ is quite often faster than LTE as it is much less congested. It will probably happen here as well. Although I do want Three to roll out LTE at my house I do get about 20 down on HSDPA+ so it is fine, my son and wife get 70 down on EE LTE. I think though I would take a consistant 10 down everywhere I need it and not worry about the technology delivering it.

The main advantage will be it basically replacing 2G once 800MHz is enabled. We still see 2G a fair few places here indoors etc. If it's not enabled by renewal time (Sept) though I would be tempted to move to 3 myself, which has a minimal 4g network

Mature yes, but capacity, not necessarily. Some networks only had 2x5mhz then added 2x10 then added 2x20. So there may be LTE coverage indoors (using 700mhz spectrum) but no capacity.

The UK being later has had a bit of time to think about this, but the 2x10mhz at 800 that O2 and Vodafone have is likely to be a limit, which is why EE and Three are very carefully managing their 2x5mhz at 800.