Originally Posted by PFMprod:
“Be careful of the advice you may receive on these forums, there are a lot of people with axes to grind against particular networks, because they couldn't get something for nothing probably. 95% of these people have absolutely no idea what they are talking about, they've probably read it somewhere in another forum!
When buying a new phone I often wish you could have it for a 'test drive' and see how well it works!
”
Er, this is what 14day return policies are all about when you first connect to a network.
Originally Posted by PFMprod:
“Here was my reply to someone slagging off O2 and Vodafone:
Thats all well and dandy BexTech, as long as you can actually receive a good signal. The 1800Mhz networks are great if you live and work next to a transmitter and never venture away from your town or city. As I'm sure you are aware, the higher frequency doesn't travel as far as the 900Mhz networks (approx half the distance for the same radiated power), nor does it permiate brick or concrete as well so 'in building' coverage is also not as good.
”
1 - Great in theory, but quite frequently the local terrain means that the maximum footprint of sites in rural areas can rarely be reached. Since this argument is only ever trotted out where remote areas are concerned, it needs to be considered very carefully.
2 - Yes, 1800Mhz doesn't permeate walls as well - but 900Mhz can be lot worse with certain windows and doors.
3 - Quite often, in locations where there's a lot of in-building usage (offices, railway stations, shopping centres etc), "in-building systems" ensure there's blanket coverage anyway. Where these aren't deployed, any network with sufficient depth of coverage (obtained through street-level installations if necessary) will be fine indoors.
It all boils down to the number of sites a particular network has in a given area, and their location.
Originally Posted by PFMprod:
“I take a lot of car and train journeys for my job and as far as the 1800 Mhz networks go you can forget it, the coverage away from conurbations is at best patchy, with the phones constantly 'hunting' for the next cell. The 900Mhz networks are much more stable. Oh, and don't forget, both O2 and Vodafone can and do use both frequencies in areas where the call volumes are of a higher density. The T-mobile and Orange can't even if they wanted to.
”
I'll only respond to the bandwidth issue here, because coverage is always a localised, subjective issue.
Orange & T-Mobile have more available capacity at 1800Mhz alone, than Voda & O2 have at 900Mhz & 1800Mhz combined. Again, in situations where capacity rather than coverage is concerned, the most critical factor can be cell size. The smaller the cell, the sooner its frequency can be re-used. 1800Mhz networks are at an inherent advantage here, although again - the design and planning of the network in any given area (i.e. the use of "umbrella" macrosites and "in-fill" microcells/picocells) can change all that.
Originally Posted by PFMprod:
“A lot of the O2 network was set up when it was BT Cellnet. This has the advantage that a lot of the major cells are 'hard wired' to the country's major land line network making it more stable and less prone to 'falling over'. No other network has this, they all use rf backhauls.
”
Untrue. I can only speak for one network here, but I know for a fact they use a mixture of microwave and landline backhauls. Both have their advantages.
You also seem to be assuming that technical faults on sites are only ever caused by backhaul failures. Not so.
Originally Posted by PFMprod:
“Ben1800, don't be swayed by people on these forums, 95% don't have a clue what they are talking about. Make up your own mind by your own experiences.”
Hmmm... you do make some good points but also some very poor ones.
Regards