I added a comment, but it's awaiting moderation.

http://blog.three.co.uk/2016/11/28/c...king-air-fair/

Three just seems to behave like a spoilt child. It's totally bizarre.

I understand that the economics are difficult for Three in the position they are, whereas EE's massive sale was allowed and the massive merger previously of T-mobile / Orange. I accept that should be taken into account, and compounded even more by the refused merger for Three.

However the points I made on the blog are fair (in my view).

I would argue they wanted to merge because both businesses had made terrible business decisions and thought a monopoly provider would somehow resolve them.

If Three had rolled out their network as much as commercially viable, exhausting their spectrum and was massively inhibited by lack of bandwidth, then fair enough.

However, I don't see evidence of the above except in some busy city centres.

For the newest network they have done pretty well. It's cost them a lot to create it. Prices are competitive. I get good speeds everywhere I go really. I sometimes disable 4G and switch to 3G as its not used as much now days apart from calls. Hoping they refarm some 3G spectrum to 4G asap but they prob have a load of customers on old non 4g compatable handsets.

It is the lack of handset support that is getting my back up at the moment, if I want to be compatible with both of Three's 4G bands I have very limited choice. They won't even list certain handsets in the checker like OnePlus3, Pixel etc.

In my view they should stop investing time, money and effort into campaigning to be given additional 'leg-ups' and redivert the effort into improving the network, maximising what they do have, and bidding on future spectrum.

I even saw a promoted (ie. paid for) tweet from some mickey-mouse body yesterday campaigning for all operator's spectrum holdings to be limited to 30% (or something like that, I didn't pay much attention). No prizes for guessing who's funding and driving that.

I don't think Three have any intention of supporting any phones they don't sell.

Just further adds weight to the arguments that three has lost its way in the UK market now, they could have bid and still can bid for more spectrum, they've got a good chunk of 1800mhz 4g and alot of 2100mhz 3g spectrum to play with but as others posted aren't really using it to the max as it stands right now..
There biggest PR issue is still voice coverage amongst many people, they should be pushing every possible VoLTE handset through that 800mhz spectrum and be rolling out 1800mhz on every possible mast with a view of refarming 10mhz of the 2100mhz 3g over to 4g use..
But they aren't are they..
As we move out of 3g to 4g that mbnl deal with EE might start to look a little shakey too.

The great thing about percentages is if three bid for some more the percentage of other operators will naturally reduce. When ofcom also include the 1400Mhz spectrum into the usable mix EEs percentage will also reduce.

Certainly down here in the South West 3 have very good coverage, only beaten by EE. Plus they are rolling out 800 quite quickly. The biggest let down is their 1800 4G but I'm thinking they are going for max coverage on 800 first to get over their historic frequency disadvantage and then come back to the 1800 afterwards.

With native wifi calling and their 321 deal, I would certainly have thought hard before signing a contract with EE, it was really the wifi that swung it as I'm not a heavy user. I was with 3 for a couple years and it really is quite a good network down here.

The issue is you can't get 800 coverage unless you go buy from Three or happen to have a short list of not very new phones, or an iPhone.

And even if you do have a supported phone it's usually pointless anyway as you'll just cling onto an unusably weak and slow 3G signal.

Some wild claims about "increased network patchy coverage" if this isn't addressed.

Well that is BS as VF/O2 are both on a massive drive to get close to / if not better EE. They clearly are spending and investing in getting better and the longer three moans aboit it bei g unfair, the further behind everyone else they will fall.

Sadly three seem to think a monopoly would have solved the problem as they could have hiked charges and shafted the customer quicker than trying to spend on building a network.

I was having the exact same debate with someone i know (gos by the name jack_wilson on here) the other day, He basically bums the ground three stand on and will not hear a bad word about them,
He was saying he is all for this campaign as its not fair EE have so much spectrum and three have hardly any, My views were first off EE is 3 times bigger so of course they are going to need more anyway maybe not as much as they have but defo more than three , But the main point was three had the chance to bid for just as much as any other network and they chose not to where as EE chose to, to make sure customers got a better experience and actually invest in the network where as three seem to basically be wasting a load of dosh on stupid petty campaigns and all but goin at a snail pace on actually rolling their network out,

All his reply was that three are a much better network because they offer AYCE data and they deserve to have some of EEs spectrum given to them so they can sustain to keep that, (basically hes one of the people i can guess why three got rid of the one plan he thinks because hes got 1TB of tethering he should be able to use it all every month),

guess you cant agree on everything in life but thinking a network that paid millions for its spectrum should just give it away free to make things a bit more "FAIR" is just nuts

Ash

Very true, thanks to them putting all there eggs in the O2 basket and the constent moaning instead of building out the useful side of there 4g, I'd say they've gone from number 1 for data 2 years ago down maybe to last place behind O2, if not last place now then by mid 2017.
All there talk and actions of late look like a company gearing up to exit the market in the near future.

We have monopoly now thanks to EE and BT's approval, that's the issue. The UK market is now:

1) The former state telecoms operator with lines into every house and contact and marketing details, landline, backbone, TV service, home broadband, owning the largest mobile network which was the result of an already merged 2 networks hogging a giant amount of spectrum which they could afford to throw billions at.
2) The largest mobile company in the world by revenue

If that ain't a monopoly I don't know what is, Hutch's mobile only operation as a result of O2 and Three's merger with it's smaller spectrum holding and no footprint in national infrastructure and no TV, Broadband offering etc wouldn't have been the same level of threat to competition as we have now.

The monopoly you talk of is real and it is here now, it's just the monopoly you want. It is also incredibly bad for the market as a whole.

The hyperbole meter just went into the red...