Because Three claims that they're different when in fact they're changing into that which they campaign against.

Also, their network is still well behind EE's. Why pay EE prices for a substandard network? That's why I moved - if I'm paying more, I actually want to see 4G more than 10% of the time

I can't remember exactly (is been a while) but I think the BT product was cellstream or megastream using STM-1 lines which could be copper or fibre.

Not sure if they're currently available (they've been long since priced out and are old tech) but I can't see why it would be impossible for a cell site to have one (though I grant you unlikely).

I have regularly see BT's underground network feeding cell sites. It's mostly just a load of fibre of various ages, and some standard copper lines (usually just for telemetry nowadays) that are just the same as residential ones. I've never seen the type of service you're talking of that would work over copper. You can bond multiple copper lines to form something called EFM nowadays but it doesn't get to the kind of speed you're talking of.

I think STM-1 is a fibre standard though.

I'm well aware of EFM which is technology that is 20 years more modern.

I'm referring to circuits providing high speed data before fibre/OC's took over, I don't think they're available to buy today, but that doesn't mean they're not still in use.

STM-1 was available as both OC and copper.

Having no experience with cell networks, I didn't suggest its what they use, only that it was available.

We will have to agree to disagree then. And it does still mean they're not still in use. I've never heard of 155Mb over copper on BT's network. They're still battling to get speeds close to that nowadays using G.Fast. The only cables BT have in the ground are fibre and twisted pair copper, that's it. You couldnt do 155Mb over twisted pair copper until G.Fast came along. Like I say even if you bond 8 copper lines and use EFM it doesn't get to that, and that's with modern technology too.

If STM-1 was available over copper then the speed would have been more like 2Mb years ago.

Are you sure you're not talking about coaxial cable for STM1? Sure, it's copper based, but it's not something that's "just there", it'd need bespoke engineering as fibre did

I can't think of a reason why a cell site would need that much bandwidth back then - i.e. before the age of fibre (whether SONET or ethernet) being cost effective and easier to deploy. Not even sure if you'd see either version at a cell site - some crusty old E1s maybe?

Which is most likely why the old Orange 2G/3G masts were slow (before upgrades).... as I know of at least a few quite rural Orange 3G masts that don't have microwave and are doing about 0.2Mbps on 3G. That wouldn't be congestion - that'd be copper backhaul.

I've definitely heard people mention some sites are or were on 2Mb copper backhaul.


I know BT used to use coaxial for trunk circuits (and we're talking donkeys years ago), but I've honestly never seen a coaxial cable in the D-side network which is where any cables feeding cell sites would reside.

I'm just gonna say that WiFi Calling on the iPhone kicks ass.

Clocked 149Mbps D/L today at WOODFORD, London: http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/a/2164627247

This one still on copper backhaul. Note the telegraph pole.
Orange. Nice and remote. : )
Overhead fibre here I reckon.
Probably wrong though...

Just kind of works doesn't it.

Had my first call on it yesterday too. Dunno who it was, some mad man in B&Q. Have to agree, it is pretty awesome. The concept of just picking up the mobile and wondering around the house with perfect call quality did take a little while to get used to.

You've lost me a bit there sorry. You think your current mast is copper backhaul but you think the upgrade will be overhead fibre?

If that's what you mean you're probably right. Hell BT even use overhead fibre in very urban areas. Can think of 3 masts here where they could have dug the fibre in underground but for whatever reason strung it along a few poles. I get that it's cheaper but still.

For remote locations it's got to work out WAY cheaper, so makes more sense.

Yes it was coax rather than twisted pair, I knew 2 sites which used it (both in the media industry) for 155Mb circuits. Coax is still copper and leased lines would be unlikely to reuse existing cabling (Def. not twisted pair) in the past or today.

I think some of the replies are thinking of home or small business use DSL circuits (EFM is of this type).

Every leased line I've had installed was laid fresh from the nearest junction point with capacity (sometimes a long distance).

I would imagine that hard to reach locations could still be using old lines like these to avoid the cost of running new cable (especially if it's several KM). Some might just have lazy managers that see no reason to change something that's working. We only replaced one such line in a London office a couple years ago, so it's likely the are others.

It's good to question things you don't understand, but I don't know why people proclaim things incorrect when they simply don't know themselves. A Google search easily gives details on the above services and technology.

I agree it's unlikely looking at it, what about a long daisy chain? Probably right though an E3 at most, more likely E1's.

Well I question it because every year I probably go into hundreds of BT pavement and carriageway jointboxes including ones directly feeding cell sites and TV transmitters. All I've ever seen are copper twisted pair cables or fibre cable. But maybe I've just missed these old coax cables you mention.

I was in a couple of boxes feeding quite a big TV and mobile phone transmitter in the last couple of weeks, all they had in them was absolutely stacks of fibre cables ageing from the 90s through to now. Huge fibre joints, quite impressive actually.

I agree with you, fibre leased lines are usually laid from scratch even if there is existing fibre in the ground. But this is starting to change, planners will be encouraged to re-use existing fibre cables that have been ceased or have spare pairs.

E1/3 circuits are presented to the user as coax but travel thorough the BT network as twisted pair or fibre.

https://www.openreach.co.uk/orpg/home/contactus/cabletheft/metalthefttaskforce/cable_theft_flipbook/9140_CableTheftbooklet_05_phme73254_WEB2.pdf

This link shows all the types of cable BT use and have used in the past. Coax is indeed shown for "high grade" circuits. Legacy though, when fibre came they stopped using them. From the outside it would look like a 100 pair copper cable. I wouldn't be surprised if some engineers have cut into one of those in the past thinking it was!

All very interesting but we're way off topic now!

BT happily uses overhead fibre for residential FTTP too, seems to be largely based on what is already there. Though down the road from me I think they use underground fibre and overhead copper (there is no evidence of FTTP hardware or an FTTC cabinet, but BT says FTTP is available), further down the road again is overhead FTTP

Overhead fibre here too, that's how I get my interwebs delivered.

Phone masts around here are underground fibre fed once they've been upgraded though. At least, the ones they have upgraded are underground fed, the rest are typically microwaved.

It depends on the site. Obviously round here the vast majority of cell sites are underground fibre fed with just a few overhead fed. But unless you look carefully you wouldn't know as the fibre always goes underground again 50-100m before the actual transmitter.

I'm not sure how much say the mobile providers get in exactly how the backhaul is provided. BT will give them an a service level agreement I'm sure. But it will just get handed to Openreach planners to plan the route of the fibre as they see fit.


Nearly every FTTP deployment I've seen recently to existing properties has been overhead.

Maybe it varies by area. There's an estate near me (maybe less than 10 years old) which very definitely is FTTP, absolutely no overhead infrastructure at all (pretty much confirmed when I saw some BT people messing around with an underground fibre splice case)

Oh dear...

It's been over a year since I first noticed this, but the issue is still no better. Great Staughton (in Cambridgeshire) still has rubbish mobile phone reception from EE/3!

Tried 4G. Result? Nothing!
Tried 3G. Result? Occasional 0 bars, -113dBm signal picked up - however, the vast majority of the time was again, nothing.
Tried 2G. Result? 1 bar (about 20-25%) Orange (code 23433) GPRS signal, which is rated at a theoretical maximum of 55kbps. In reality, it'd be 30kbps. I didn't bother testing it as I knew it'd be extremely slow and insufficient for my TuneIn Radio streaming.

And all of this is outside signal strength. Inside, you'd be looking at needing an EE Home Signal Box for every single house in that village!

I don't know what the mast situation is like in that area - obviously there are no local MBNL masts, and Orange 2G must come from a distant mast - but the only solution to this is to either build a new mast, or put 4G800 onto the closest mast (Orange 2G) at max power, allowing all 4G devices to connect to it.

From what I have found out, O2 has a mast close to Gt Staughton, which is 2G Only, and Vodafone plans to have 4G to Gt Staughton within the next 3 months (possibly utilising O2s mast).

edit: According to Sitefinder, Orange seems to have a 2100MHz only mast close by (1800MHz GSM not listed), but was that switched off during the Orange/T-Mobile merger? Seems foolish if it was, seeing as there is now virtually no coverage....

Another EE Not-Spot is on the rail line between Brundall & Brundall Gardens, Norfolk. Not a whiff of 2G let alone 3G. All calls go to emergency calls only provided by Vodafone sadly.

Inside or outside? If it's in the train, then the train may well attenuate the signals. I know that East Midlands Trains' newer trains (Meridian) block our 1800MHz 4G and 2100MHz 3G very nicely (don't know about 2G as I don't use it outside of testing purposes), but the older EMT trains (HST 125) let all signals, including FM Radio, through quite nicely. I have noticed that, whilst on the train (Midland Mainline, Meridian Train) the signal does seem to go to emergency calls only, often 234-15 and Band 8 (VF 900MHz 3G). But I use the wifi anyway so that's good.

There's a lot of places on that rail line, whereby the signal would be fine outdoors, yet is blocked by the train. However, if the signal is bad outdoors as well, something needs to be done...

Well yes, the deployments I'm thinking of are all rural. New build FTTP would all be underground of course.

We don't have any FTTP in urban areas around here, well there's small pockets about 50 miles away from the original roll-out back in 2009/10. Everywhere else is FTTC.

Was in Hunstanton today and nearly no coverage on EE or Three and looking later it seems only 2G on Vodafone too.

Now Three does show 800MHz 4G but my current phone doesn't support it.

Amazed such a popular place for tourists and day trippers (same thing?!) has nearly no phone coverage. I wasn't even getting 2G on EE in most places along the sea front, and sod all indoors.

Into the town centre and there were spurts of 4G but no data flow!

Where are all the sites? Planning issues?