Unlike Vodafone's expanding 4G network, its 3G network doesn't have a great reputation. But is it likely to improve at all in tandem with the 4G network expansion, or will it just stay as it is now?

I guess one indirect improvement would be more Vodafone customers using the 4G network, so the 3G network might be left with more capacity...

I ask because a friend is looking at a Talkmobile plan - Talkmobile runs on the Voda network (and is in fact also owned by Voda nowadays too), but it only has access to the 3G network. The plan is the "Large 12 month SIM Only" deal, which has a special offer of 4GB instead of 2GB data but this offer runs out at midnight today!

It is improving hugely as 4G rolls out.

Yes as 4g goes in then 3g gets an update. They are making improvements, just it takes time. I suspect this will be the main breakthrough year where most people see the cornerstone improvement and then it will be filling in the gaps the year after.

The other option could be Tesco Mobile. That's o2 and they have 2gb for £11 at the moment, but you get 4g with that. Typically o2 and VF have similar coverage these days.

Massively better than a year ago by when Cornwall and Wales are being upgraded finally I agree by the autumn Vodafone will be a real rival to EE for data as well as voice

Thanks all, sounds promising.

One question in my mind is why are Vodafone (and also presumably O2, through the Cornerstone partnership) improving 3G at the same time as rolling out 4G - would they not do better just focusing on 4G and forgetting about 3G?

The major beneficiaries I can see are those with 3G only phones, though I guess that's quite a lot of users, and those on MVNOs that don't have 4G access (such as Talkmobile).

Of course having said that I guess the other factor is 3G fallback for voice calls, given that VoLTE is a long time coming and when it does will only work with the newest handsets, and possibly only those supplied by Voda itself.

So if 3G is easy enough to add on to the 4G installations, then I guess they might as well - and as I understand it, lots of the required network equipment and aerials provides for 2G+3G+4G all in one.



There's a place where only VF have solid coverage, which is what my friend is interested in. Indeed I've recently switched to Voda itself as they're the only network that provides proper indoor coverage where I live in London (it seems I live in a Faraday cage!) - O2's coverage just isn't as good.

You've answered your own question. 3G can handle more simultaneous calls per sector than 2G.

Once the 4G work starts on a site, the back haul gets upgraded, and from that all the other upgrades are easier. Many sites are 3G already, just with 20 year old back haul.

Unless it turns out to be largely fictional, there are big areas starting to going live in the next few months across Staffordshire, Cheshire & Shropshire, though they still have lots of work to do in some parts of the south west and east anglia, have haven't really got going in Wales or the lake district yet.

As others have said if you lock your phone to 2G in CTIL refreshed areas you get pretty decent EDGE now too.

Its just you never notice it with the phone sat at 4G in these areas, and when it drops down in older areas, then its all crap anyway :-P

Its becoming a fairly decent network, however its those old 2g areas that are an issue still. In fairness though its the same on EE for me, as its the old 2g coverage that seem all over the place that ruins what I suspect would be an amazing network if you got data, everywhere.

I left VF about 3/4 years ago due to the rubbish 3g coverage... lately my Three coverage/speeds have gone downhill so I'm thinking about returning the VF, especially with the current 20gb for £20 offer. A quick check with a PAYG VF sim and it appears they have got much better in the last few years.

Well, they do have a lot of catching up to do, especially in rural areas. Coverage in the Towns are generally good, and speeds often better than EE and 3, but the sudden and dramatic loss of 3G as soon as you step outside of the Town borders is probably the worst of all the networks, you can almost draw a line where the signal vanishes, its not like you drop into a valley or go behind a hill either

For example, just 50 yards outside of Leek in Staffordshire, 3G drops like a stone, by the time you get to the Rudyard turn off, about 500 meters from Leek, you are back on 2G again, and 3G doesn't reappear until you get to Macclesfield or Congleton in Cheshire. Then once you drive through those Towns, it vanishes again....for another 10 miles, until you reach the next town. I guess that Vodafone don't build masts on hills and rural areas!.

When you are surrounded by miles of rural area between towns the lack of 3G coverage becomes really noticeable and does often make the decision in choosing a network, and sadly this is a weak spot for both Vodafone and O2.

Where I live, work and socialise, I have the unenviable situation of having to use two networks in order to keep a usable data connection. EE and 3 are both crap in the Town and where I work, but 02 have excellent 3G and 4G there - far superior to the others.

However in rural areas and where I live, O2 only have 2G, and EE gives 3G and even 1 bar of 4G. Not one single network seems capable of getting at least usable 3G into both areas.

Is there a time frame for this? If you look at the Vodafone 4G map on their map server, you can see how widespread 4G coverage basically stops at the Somerset border (and similarly in East Anglia)

Though I recently swapped from Three to VF, and I'd say the pretty comprehensive (if 'ancient') rural 2G coverage is arguably a benefit in terms of being able to receive calls and texts - with Three, yes I'd be more likely to get 3G coverage whereas with VF it'd only be 2g (though that seems to be changing), but in places where Three has no 3G reception, VF still has 2G.

I say 'arguably a benefit' because when I'm out walking in the sticks, I've generally not been all that fussed about whether I've got mobile coverage or not - however, lately things have changed a little and so I must admit I've found it useful to be out and about and have some more confidence that I'll actually be able to receive an incoming call.

Which I guess just goes to show that it all depends on one's personal priorities and intended usage.
Last edited by binary : 11-02-2016 at 13:44

I agree entirely with the comment above. With 4G you should get good data speeds soon as well.

Vodafone just couldn’t care less about the rural population.

There is also a bit of a difference too between occasionally visiting and walking in the sticks for a few hours, and living in them. .

Not having access to reasonable ADSL means i'm quite reliant on mobile data, if only to check and send emails during the weekends. The landlines are flaky too in bad weather, and high winds and fallen trees have taken the overhead lines out twice since Xmas. So, yes, having a phone for all purposes is something of a must, and when freak weather arrives or being cut off by snow occurs, that desire to have a back up connection with the outside world, increases a bit.

To be honest (outside of the current deal) Vodafone is a premium priced network, they are a bit too expensive to pay solely for calls and texts. Fortunately all of the networks around here have excellent 2G, apart from perhaps O2 so its the one which gives good 3G which clinches the deal with me.

But, I agree people base their decision, and make their purchase based on their individual requirements.

Sure tempted myself with the 20gb offer.

I currently pay £78 a month for an account with 2 lines and a shared pool of data at 20gb, now on VF this is £20 for the main line and £12 for a second line to share the pool of 20gb of data. £32 instead of £78 is mind boggling.

Living in Sheffield shouldn't be a problem with 4G and the coverage is plenty in the surrounding areas. Heck the guy even offered me 2 months free in the phone too.

Yep, that was all I was really getting at - basically, the best choice for anyone is "it depends"!

Though my primary reason to switch from Three to VF was to get reliable indoor coverage at home where I live in London (definitely not in the sticks!) - none of the other networks do the job properly. So my decision was based on a very local issue of coverage!

For what it's worth, I know some folk who live out in the sticks with unreliable sub-0.5Mbps ADSL, and indoor 2G coverage from one network (Vodafone), but only if you're next to one particular window! For some of the other networks you need to walk up the hill to get a signal.

It's sort of like that here. I agree that it's very reassuring to know your phone will ring if you have kids at school or whatever. VOD 2G is far superior to EE or 3 here for basic calls and the phone basically rings everywhere. For data it's hopeless. Nothing. So I bought a cheap dual SIM phone and have a 3 sim for data. Works OK for the moment.

What I need is either VO2 to upgrade the whole of the South Hams to 4G (not holding my breath), EE to roll out 800Mhz and VoLTE or 3 to get 800 working properly. If I could use the In Touch app over 3 800 I would ditch VOD today but I suspect the nearest solution is going to be EE 800 for me.

I still don't know why they don't focus on some of the big TV masts as they would add so much geographical coverage in one hit. Like Beacon Hill near Torbay. Covers a huge area. 3 have 800 on it and you get a strong signal 15 miles away. Yes, they are filling in around the edges of towns like Paignton and Torbay which is nice to see but it leaves huge areas of nothing. Or are they worried that masts like Beacon Hill would just be swamped if they don't get 2600 out in the towns first? Possible I suppose.

The problem with Vodafone's 3G network was that, basically put, they only cared about densely populated areas. Anywhere remotely rural was left with EDGE or GPRS - which is insufficient for today's world of technology. There is a large requirement for data pretty much everywhere now, so 2G/GPRS/EDGE is pretty insufficient.

As the 4G upgrades are being taken care of, 3G is also getting an upgrade. A site that is very local to me used to have 3G2100 and 2G900; now it is getting 3G900 as well, boosting the coverage in that area. Even sites that only have 2G, will be getting 3G when 4G is also activated.

There are also legacy sites that were activated to 3G (in order to meet Ofcom's target), but not upgraded in terms of backhaul - thus making any internet connection dodgy, to say the least. But again, when 4G comes along, the backhaul will be upgraded, to make sure that 4G works nicely - so 3G performance will also improve.

So yes, 3G will get better as the network is upgraded - it depends on where you are as to how much better it will get, and when it will get better.

I think that they are probably looking to put 800/2600 out in the towns/cities, before putting 800 on the larger masts. If the larger masts were done first, they would probably get swamped. However, if they do the towns/cities first, with 800/2600 (and possibly 1800 in the future), then the towns will have a nice strong 4G signal that can cope with the demand. Then, the larger masts (such as Beacon Hill) can be switched to 4G800, because that will cover nice amounts of rural areas, whilst leaving the towns/cities with the masts that are closer, stronger, and have more network capacity.