• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • Gadgets
  • Mobile Phones
Best / Worst Network signal uk wide?
<<
<
2 of 3
>>
>
hamid84
18-05-2008
Im in wolverhampton and 3 is pain when you are in the room...other wise 3 is doing well now
belleville1
18-05-2008
Originally Posted by ok.:
“Actually Oranges rural coverage is really good, remember it's the comapny that owns Three that installed and located most of those transmitters for Orange before France Telecom bought Orange from Hutchinson.

The switching is good if you've got a newer phone, some of the older phoes didn't switch so well. Also Three never used to switch well mid call a long time ago, but that has been long fixed and is very smooth now.

As the poster says above, best of both worlds coverage wise.”

Fair play, I'm talking about really remote areas in the western Highlands and Hebridean islands, where Vodafone rules the roost. I have a fairly modern phone, mind (Nokia E-61). It might be alright in most of the countryside.
themagicmonkey
06-06-2008
I know a lot of people criticise T-mobile but I was on Virgin for years before switching over to T-mobile (same network I know) and I have to say their network has got a LOTbetter in the last couple of years or so. There used to be some ludicrous gaps in the network - parts of Oxford Street in London was the most infamous - and plenty of annoying holes in rural areas, but whilst it still isn't quite as reliable in very remote areas (Lake District, parts of Scotland etc) even there it is getting much better. Going back to places where a couple of years ago I didn't have a chance in hell of getting a signal it's now fine. It works for example all the way across the fairly remote A66 from Penrith to Barnard Castle (free weekend calls, was on the phone for ages!) whereas last time I think I lost the signal just outside Penrith and didn't get it again until BC. So you get excellent tariffs plus an ever-better network! It's definitely worth thinking about at least, its deals were always very good.
Sun!
28-12-2011
Across urban South Wales O2 have shocking 3G signals once you leave Swansea or Cardiff. Every other network including 3 is better.
daleski75
28-12-2011
I would place orange and tmobile way above 3 for coverage as they also have 2g to fall back on where as 3 is turning off that functionality.
pinhead9810
29-12-2011
In regards to 2G reception I can vouch for Vodafone, closely followed by O2. I can't say much on 3G.
douknowotimean?
29-12-2011
Where I live in South East Wales. I'd say Orange or Vodafone are the best for 3G coverage. Both along with 02 and T-Mobile are the best for 2G coverage too.

The worst coverage in my area is 3. You'd be lucky to get one bar where I live.
gazzaboy
29-12-2011
vodafone is terrible in my town (Haddington East Lothian) so much so i wont be renuing my contract in feb!! Orange or O2 for me
ney
29-12-2011
Depending on where you are 02s 3g coverage can be poor. 02s 2g coverage is medium to good in 95% of my town. 02s 3g service has no signal in the new part of the indoor shopping centre in town and you are lucky to even get 1 bar on there 2g service when in the new part of the centre.
I have also heard a few other people complan about mobile signals in the new part of the indoor shopping centre in town.
In my living room I can sometimes go from 1 bar to no signal for some reason. My sisters Iphone is not much better for signal in my living room. I get 2 bars for signal upstairs in the house 96% of the time.
I was in Edinburgh one day last week and the 02 3g service was good in most places. I did get a weak 02 signal in one pub we went into though.
I was near Kincardine on Forth a few Sundays ago and my HTC was flickering between 1 and 2 bars for 02 signal and that was on 2g as I could not get a 3g signal. My sisters Iphone also had no 3g signal there but her 2g signal was 2 bars most of the time.

Darren
Batch
29-12-2011
Originally Posted by daleski75:
“I would place orange and tmobile way above 3 for coverage as they also have 2g to fall back on where as 3 is turning off that functionality.”

My opinion is Three have ruined their network coverage by turning off the 2G fallback. So much so I'm considering leaving them where as 6-12 months ago I thought they were fantastic.

The problem is two of the three main places I take my phone now have next to no coverage - home (to be fair Orange has issues too), my mums house where I used to get good 2G fallback now nothing. Work is good, but then I can see the comms tower from my window

If only there was another PAYG provider that gave as much as three do - free top up minutes and texts, and also a flat £5 p/m data charge.
Daveoc64
29-12-2011
Originally Posted by Batch:
“My opinion is Three have ruined their network coverage by turning off the 2G fallback. So much so I'm considering leaving them where as 6-12 months ago I thought they were fantastic”

3 seems to be incredibly quiet about this at the moment.

There's virtually no reference to 2G fallback on their website anymore.

I assume they're still offering it in very remote places, although as I predicted when the change was announced they've unnecessarily reduced coverage for a lot of people.
Lummo
29-12-2011
For me i think the best network coverage-wise must be Everything Everywhere now. They have Orange and T-Mobile masts for 2G and also Three masts for 3G.

Not one place i have been where i have no coverage now(except underground lol)
daleski75
30-12-2011
Originally Posted by Batch:
“My opinion is Three have ruined their network coverage by turning off the 2G fallback. So much so I'm considering leaving them where as 6-12 months ago I thought they were fantastic.

The problem is two of the three main places I take my phone now have next to no coverage - home (to be fair Orange has issues too), my mums house where I used to get good 2G fallback now nothing. Work is good, but then I can see the comms tower from my window

If only there was another PAYG provider that gave as much as three do - free top up minutes and texts, and also a flat £5 p/m data charge.”

This may need another thread but 3 will let you out of your contract without penalty if you can prove you have no signal and 2g was all you could get before.
daleski75
30-12-2011
My brothers house has next to zero coverage on 3 and also the place where my wife works also has next to zero coverage and this is in a built up residential area in Northampton.

As soon as my wife's contract runs out on 3 I will be getting her to go straight onto Orange.
reclusive46
01-01-2012
Originally Posted by daleski75:
“My brothers house has next to zero coverage on 3 and also the place where my wife works also has next to zero coverage and this is in a built up residential area in Northampton.

As soon as my wife's contract runs out on 3 I will be getting her to go straight onto Orange.”

I find Three coverage great here in Norwich and Norfolk (Only Network which really has 3G outside of Norwich) but I only get 1 bar at home and it sometimes drops out but I can live with it.
wavejockglw
01-01-2012
Originally Posted by daleski75:
“As soon as my wife's contract runs out on 3 I will be getting her to go straight onto Orange.”

That might be a bit like jumping out of the frying pan into the fire as Orange, T-Mobile and 3 share transmission sites across the UK. Orange and T-Mobile have 1800Mhz GSM for voice and text (and some data) which is a bit better penetrating buildings than 2100Mhz 3G which 3, T-Mobile and Orange also have.

Vodafone and O2 have a site sharing agreement which will allow them to rationalise their cell sites. In many cases there will be one mast used instead of two presently. The agreement will save all networks a fortune in rents and reduce maintenance costs. It will also allow them to focus on improving geographic coverage. O2 and Vodafone have the widest range of operating frequencies of all of the networks with 3G on 900 and 2100Mhz and GSM on 900 and 1800Mhz.

In the not too distant future there will effectively be only two choices of networks - 3/T-Mobile/Orange Vs O2/Vodafone. It has to be remembered though that coverage is only part of the story and reliability can be affected by each operators core network capacity so two customers being served by the same transmission site may experience different quality of service.

Usual advice is to ask local friends what their service is like before making a switch
Thine Wonk
01-01-2012
Originally Posted by wavejockglw:
“That might be a bit like jumping out of the frying pan into the fire as Orange, T-Mobile and 3 share transmission sites across the UK. Orange and T-Mobile have 1800Mhz GSM for voice and text (and some data) which is a bit better penetrating buildings than 2100Mhz 3G which 3, T-Mobile and Orange also have.

Vodafone and O2 have a site sharing agreement which will allow them to rationalise their cell sites. In many cases there will be one mast used instead of two presently. The agreement will save all networks a fortune in rents and reduce maintenance costs. It will also allow them to focus on improving geographic coverage. O2 and Vodafone have the widest range of operating frequencies of all of the networks with 3G on 900 and 2100Mhz and GSM on 900 and 1800Mhz.

In the not too distant future there will effectively be only two choices of networks - 3/T-Mobile/Orange Vs O2/Vodafone. It has to be remembered though that coverage is only part of the story and reliability can be affected by each operators core network capacity so two customers being served by the same transmission site may experience different quality of service.

Usual advice is to ask local friends what their service is like before making a switch ”

I just don't agree. You see things very differently to others, you've failed to take account of the fact you are purely talking about cell sites, those networks have different capacity, different customer service, different frequencies, different handsets on offer, shops, marketing etc.

People don't join up to a network purely because of cell sites, and there is far more to it than just who shares with who.

You left out the fact that in 2012 the government is going to set up cell sites in rural areas and allow multiple providers to use them.

You left out the fact some networks have better coverage of technologies such as HSPA+

You left out the fact that average speeds on Orange are lower than those on T-mobile, that Three are generally faster than both of those because of better backhaul.

The O2 / Voda site share doesn't mean the same coverage at all as they will both use their own single sites too. One of those networks could stick some 3G cells on and 1 some 2G on the same shared mast, that doesn't give the same coverage.

If you look at the Ofcom map you'll see the vast majority of Voda / O2 cells are still standalone, and that it's just an agreement that gives them the option of sharing.

Where 1 network has a lot more customers in 1 area they need more cells for capacity, so it doesn't always work to share everything. Three for example has some of their own masts that they don't contribute to MBNL, which are there for capacity, I expect each of the providers to do this.

Your post is an over-simplified idealised reflection of warped reality and misinterpretation of what you read, O2 / Voda never said all sites would be shared and most won't be, it's simply an agreement to cross share sites in areas where they want to as I understand it.

EDIT: ok you did mention capacity, but to say their will only be 2 choices of network is totally and utterly misleading.
wavejockglw
01-01-2012
Originally Posted by Thine Wonk:
“I just don't agree. You see things very differently to others, you've failed to take account of the fact you are purely talking about cell sites, those networks have different capacity, different customer service, different frequencies, different handsets on offer, shops, marketing etc.

People don't join up to a network purely because of cell sites, and there is far more to it than just who shares with who.

You left out the fact that in 2012 the government is going to set up cell sites in rural areas and allow multiple providers to use them.

You left out the fact some networks have better coverage of technologies such as HSPA+

You left out the fact that average speeds on Orange are lower than those on T-mobile, that Three are generally faster than both of those because of better backhaul.

The O2 / Voda site share doesn't mean the same coverage at all as they will both use their own single sites too. One of those networks could stick some 3G cells on and 1 some 2G on the same shared mast, that doesn't give the same coverage.

If you look at the Ofcom map you'll see the vast majority of Voda / O2 cells are still standalone, and that it's just an agreement that gives them the option of sharing.

Where 1 network has a lot more customers in 1 area they need more cells for capacity, so it doesn't always work to share everything. Three for example has some of their own masts that they don't contribute to MBNL, which are there for capacity, I expect each of the providers to do this.

Your post is an over-simplified idealised reflection of warped reality and misinterpretation of what you read, O2 / Voda never said all sites would be shared and most won't be, it's simply an agreement to cross share sites in areas where they want to as I understand it.

EDIT: ok you did mention capacity, but to say their will only be 2 choices of network is totally and utterly misleading.”

The point is that coverage will soon be down to just two transmission networks providing co-located facilities for the now four UK cellular networks (3, EE, Vodafone & O2).

3, T-mobile and Orange (now merged into EE) use a RAN operated by MBNL. That is a common set of transmission facilities providing access to all of the frequencies operated by those networks. It makes no sense for MBNL to provision a facility for one provider only. The whole idea is to save on coverage costs for them all so transmaission equipment is shared and dependent on the frequency range traffic is routed to the EE or 3 network from each base station maintaining the independence of each. The notion that 3 UK has many more sites to serve the smallest number of customers of any network is not credible and would not make any business sense. 02 and Vodafone don't use a RAN they operate completely separate networks and where possible will share transmission sites to save on costs across the whole of the EU where they both have interests. It wont happen overnight but it makes sense for O2 and Vodafone to rationalise and have the same coverage on each of their co-located sites although O2 have provisioned 900Mhz for 3G very promptly in some areas but I have no doubt Vodafone will do likewise. The whole idea of co-location is to reduce the number of sites and there will be lots of instances where one new site will replace two older separate locations. In O2/Vodafone's case though they have lots of prime sites as the original networks and those will be combined rather than being resited. They are co-locating to remain competitive as they have to try and match others operating costs.

All networks are implementing HSPA+ and some are experimenting with LTE, there is no network presently with a monopoly on new technology. Backhall is generally outsourced to BT or Virgin Media who provide the fibre optic capacity acoss the UK and is bought as need arises.

Speeds will be network dependent but speed was not the issue that was being addressed, nor was it anything to do with handsets or services or price. It was a simple question of coverage and on that basis there will within a short space of time be only two real options for mobile customers in the UK.
Thine Wonk
01-01-2012
Originally Posted by wavejockglw:
“The point is that coverage will soon be down to just two transmission networks providing co-located facilities for the now four UK cellular networks (3, EE, Vodafone & O2).”

But it won't though will it as O2 / Voda is a sharing agreement, not an agreement to share all sites.

Originally Posted by wavejockglw:
“ It makes no sense for MBNL to provision a facility for one provider only.”

Not what they say, they plan for providers of the 3 networks to keep some of their own sites for capacity need.

Originally Posted by wavejockglw:
“The notion that 3 UK has many more sites to serve the smallest number of customers of any network is not credible”

Except that you forget they are the fastest growing network, the network that shifts 50% of the UK's mobile data and are the market leader in mobile broadband.


Originally Posted by wavejockglw:
“ It wont happen overnight but it makes sense for O2 and Vodafone to rationalise and have the same coverage on each of their co-located sites”

You think it does, but all they have done is agreed to share some sites. Each network will have it's own needs in certain areas and their own coverage wants. Even if this were to happen it could be years and years away as the vast majority of the sites are still separate.

Originally Posted by wavejockglw:
“In O2/Vodafone's case though they have lots of prime sites as the original networks and those will be combined rather than being resited.”

You've said this before, but those prime sites date back from the old days of call and text coverage on big wide areas from the top of hills. In future it'll be about smaller monopoles and high capacity data services which are more localised in every few streets. What MBNL are doing is having lots more sites that are on lamp posts and monopoles.

Originally Posted by wavejockglw:
“All networks are implementing HSPA+ and some are experimenting with LTE, there is no network presently with a monopoly on new technology. Backhall is generally outsourced to BT or Virgin Media who provide the fibre optic capacity acoss the UK and is bought as need arises.”

Some networks have way more HSPA+ than others, backhaul will vary, although by the same providers (and there are others I believe other than BT / Virgin) there is also different size pipes, the networks that have different contention ratios, more break out points, etc there will be big differences in speeds between the networks due to the different backhaul network configurations and how much they want to invest / provide to their customers.


Originally Posted by wavejockglw:
“ It was a simple question of coverage and on that basis there will within a short space of time be only two real options for mobile customers in the UK.”

And I disagree for the reasons listed above.
wavejockglw
01-01-2012
Originally Posted by Thine Wonk:
“And I disagree for the reasons listed above.”

Disagree all you like, carry on with the blinkered pro 3 anti O2 campaign but most of what has been stated above is based on misunderstanding of the key business concepts of mobile communications and the reality of convergence of the UK's mobile phone networks.

MBNL state that the agreement between 3 and T-Mobile was a shared Multi-User Radio Access Network, some evidence to support the exclusive provision of sites for a single operator would be of interest as that differs significantly from what MBNL have stated.

One does not need to read much to determine that the most prominent statements made could quite easily have come from a 3 UK press release!

Pointless attempting to rationally discuss this topic with anyone who has blatently posted so much company propaganda.
Thine Wonk
01-01-2012
Originally Posted by wavejockglw:
“Disagree all you like, carry on with the blinkered pro 3 anti O2 campaign but most of what has been stated above is based on misunderstanding of the key business concepts of mobile communications and the reality of convergence of the UK's mobile phone networks.

One does not need to read much to determine that the most prominent statements made could quite easily have come from a 3 UK press release!

Pointless attempting to rationally discuss this topic with anyone who has blatently posted so much company propaganda.”

Nice way to answer a sensible and well reasoned post.
wavejockglw
01-01-2012
Originally Posted by Thine Wonk:
“Nice way to answer a sensible and well reasoned post.”

One has to try and be realistic
neo_wales
01-01-2012
Had no problems with giff gaff, sent three text messages around 23:55.
Daveoc64
01-01-2012
Originally Posted by Thine Wonk:
“You left out the fact that in 2012 the government is going to set up cell sites in rural areas and allow multiple providers to use them.”

This sounds like an interesting idea.

Do you know of an article or any other information about this?
Thine Wonk
01-01-2012
Originally Posted by Daveoc64:
“This sounds like an interesting idea.

Do you know of an article or any other information about this?”


Here you go:

http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news...e-towers-41236

http://www.pcr-online.biz/news/read/...-mobile/019176
<<
<
2 of 3
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map