12% and as you say, a board member. In fact, it's the CEO of Deutsche Telekom who is now on the BT Board. Orange also own 4% of BT following the deal but without a board member.

The DT CEO is quite the enthusiast for consolidation amongst European telcos although the deal specifies that DT can't buy further shares in BT for 3 years except they can take their total to 15% if they buy some of Orange's stake.

I guess this arrangement gives DT options if they want to acquire BT completely after 3 years. If that happened maybe EE could be rebranded.........T-Mobile.

I can't see DTAG ever acquiring anything close to a controlling share in BT - unless Openreach/BT Wholesale were finally torn out of it.

Far too many concerns about national security and foreign ownership of essential infrastructure. We have a few foreign companies owning things like power stations but this would be a whole new level.

(and it wouldn't be unprecedented, BAE Systems has a government "golden share" that allows the state to ensure that no one can own too much of the company, and that the chairman/CEO have to be British nationals)

The Government specifically removed those kind of restrictions in the late 90s. It had to as it prevented BT doing (at the time) what they wanted to do. BT had global ambitions too but much of that would have been blocked by foreign regulators if BT itself wasn't open to foreign takeovers.

Given that Android users have to be on a specific ROM and iPhone users have to choose a non-default data setting is there a reason that VoLTE looks like it's going to take 6 months+ to roll out?

Surely for the vast majority they could enable VoLTE for all and they wouldn't even know it was there as they haven't enabled it on their handset?

The network (EE in this case) can change the iPhone carrier bundle relatively easily, by engaging with Apple. They could change the default setting to be VoLTE on for example in say 3 months time.

I wonder what the criteria is for the cities already enabled anyway?

Nottingham has 4G close to everywhere, we have a fair amount of 2600 deployed too.

A video I've just done explaining why 4G has to be kept at relatively low power:
CSFB/SRVCC/rSRVCC Calling on 4G/VoLTE

Nice video. Always a really hard thing to explain as there are too many variables from too many technologies all interacting with each other.
You start off saying 4G is on low power as calls have to go to 3G.
So then the question is why is it so low. The answer, WCDMA/cell breathing /3G is crap etc.... So you have already gone off on some gigantic tangent before you even start.....

On the off-chance that they get that then it's "well why not just CSFB to 2G then, forget 3G?"
So then you have to explain that 2G really can't cope with all the calls right now and the networks don't want it too anyway... etc....
Then the need to get a certain amount onto 4G voice before the switch can be made etc etc
This then throws up a load more questions and Aarrggghhhhh!!!!!

Before you even start this you have to try to convey the concept of frequencies high/low so they actually know why 2G is better than 3G ect.... (but oh wait then there's the cell breathing thing as well so it's not quite that simple...... etc etc etc......)..

Before you know it, your wish you'd never started.

I wonder if Bookey spends his days doing this? I hope not......

Nobody ever said technology is easy to understand

Great video as always, and I agree with others in that technology is never easy to understand!

Why didn't 4G launch with voice... that would have made things easier! Otherwise, you have this weird situation.
4G1800 can't be whacked up to the same power as 2G1800 because 2G1800 just can't cope with all of the calls - added to the fact that the voice quality is poor as well!
Thus, 3G has to do the calls.. but 3G has cell breathing.
So you have to keep 4G within the minimum 3G coverage area...

result: 4G has the least coverage out of all the technology...

If 4G had native voice from launch, then 2G could go (leaving 3G to do calls for legacy devices, 4G to do 4G calls, and people with 2G only phones buying new phones) - and in the medium long term, 3G could go as well - meaning that all calls would be done on 4G.
But for now, we have this weird system...

Lets hope 5G launches with native voice, so that in time, everything else (possibly even 4G too) can be switched off in favor of something that does native voice as well as a very fast data rate.

its not just 2g phones that would be lost if 2g went awol, but all the telemetry devices out there too, such as the maestro 100. still being sold and does whats required. 2g only.

2g products need to cease sales for at least 5 years before even considering killing off gsm in that form.

Wonder why the coverage map isn't being updated? 2G & 3G hasn't been updated for many many months, 4G a bit better but rendering issues on certain zoom levels still persists. Not doing themselves any favours are they?

Well there's the understatement of the year!! lol

Yes it would have made the 4G rollout very easy indeed (this is assuming new 4G handsets at the time came with VoLTE of course which they may not have done so there's another spanner in the works).

You're still wrong on the 2G/3G thing though.
It would still be 3G going first.
A: all that 2100 could be used for 4G getting 4 times the capacity.
B: all non 4G phones can do 2G, not all can do 3G.
C: all the GSM M2M devices that are eventually being moved to 4G

I fail to see your obsession with 3G. It's a terrible technology.l

If I was a network planner/designer/builder, I would want rid of it asap.

And as i was saying... Power output will not being going up any time soon.

3G wouldn't be so bad if there was no cell breathing, or maybe a few more masts for infill and capacity. It can deliver decent speeds, it's just the variability of coverage that's the big issue.

I also don't see 3G going for over 10 years either.

If we look at the analogue TV switch off, we will probably hang on to flawed technology longer than we need to.

I mean, in ten years, how many people will not yet have a 4G phone? Thus, who will actually need 3G if 3G spectrum could be refarmed for better and more efficient 4G?

I have had some queries regarding the recognition of broadcast frequency by cable tags and input tags, so here is a guide: Antenna Frequency recognition: Cable tags and input tags.

I think we'll see a phased 'switch off' like Three did with Oranges 2G backup in well covered areas, within 10 years.

It will be interesting to watch, as it really depends on phone replacement time frame. I'm noticing more and more people happy to keep older smartphones for longer. The Samsung S4 for example is now 3 years old and along with iPhone 5s. (Bad example as these are 4G data phones, that need 3G/2G for voice).

In which case, the best plan would be to add a few more masts in to alleviate the cell breathing issues. Had it not be for the coverage variability (and the fact that 3G can never have as good a coverage as 2G) and 3G would have been awesome.

Adding 4G onto the extra 3G masts would add additional capacity to the area, thus making sure that there would be plenty of data to go round, irrespective of what device you have.

Just contrast the UK and US approach to this! UK was about 8 to 12 years - the USA did the cutover in a weekend. :-/

That plan would win worst plan ever in the national Worst Plan Ever championships!

I mean it wouldn't be just a few would it. It would have to be thousands of masts in between the current ones. There are around 20,000 now you know.

You seem to think they can just be put up over a weekend and job done.
Firstly planning would be a nightmare and most would be blocked or drag on for 3 years.
Secondly do you have even the first idea of what that would cost?
I don't but I know it would be in the billions.

No the best plan is the plan that's happening right now.
Get 4G1800 rolled out fully and then fill in with 800.

Said like a quote from Blackadder.

Absolutely right though, it is so difficult to get planning permission, there often has to be compromise on where you can put sites. It is also so costly to build new pasts, especially many more thousands of them. As you said that would be a bad plan.

I don't know, I think Beansontoast is on to something. What about mobile masts? All you would need is a fleet of ex GPO LDV 200 vans, some scaffold, a 12v Battery and some 'techno-wizardry' and you could essentially run a truly mobile network. 3G would be perfect for this because as it 'breathed in' you could drive towards the user, thereby negating that problem.

You guys are losers and have no vision. I reckon Beansontoast is Hans Snook and he's going to make a big comeback into the UK once he's finished his...um..that thing with the pipes.