Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Varche]

I am all for tech but isnt this just increasing speeds for areas with existing service? ( assuming you have a 5G handset)

Am I the only person that thinks mobile phone isn't fit for purpose. Lots of areas whilst driving from Yorkshire to Scotland including motorway with no signal. In Portpatrick there is no 4g signal on 3 and quite often no 3g signal. Portpatrick to Glasgow very patchy service even using car antenna.

Why hasn't the regulator insisted on 99% coverage of the country?

[TheBoy]

Well, count yourself lucky to get a signal *ANYWHERE* with Three. They have pretty poor coverage.  The real networks - Voda, O2, EE - do have pretty reasonable outdoor coverage.


The UK regulator, OFCOM, are totally inept in every way.  Cynics might actually go as far as saying corrupt.  I'm kinder, and think its just they are incompetent.

For the licence auctions for both 3G and 4G, there was a demand as part of that that they had to provide 95% (from memory, might be slightly different) coverage.  Being inept/corrupt/incompetent, they never specified what that meant, so all mobile networks took the easier option of 95% population coverage, not 95% geographical coverage.  And OFCOM never even bothered to enforce that, too busy meddling elsewhere due to being inept/corrupt/incompetent.  EE is, for other statuary reasons, aiming for 100% outdoor geographical coverage on 4G (not, 4G cannot do native voice calls, you handset will drop back to 3G or 2G, or attempt VoIP instead if your handset and provider support it).

It is catastrophically expensive to build a mobile network, and catastrophically expensive to run it, and UK consumers don't want to pay anything for the network element (but are happy to pay a grand for a shiny handset - go figure).  Proper, large 5G masts are going to need at least a 10Gbps backhaul per site, which is catastrophically expensive.  Its proper big money.

So its only natural, like 4G, 3G, GSM or even TACS before it, its initially deployed where there will be lots of early adopters. Cities.  No point putting the first ones in a remote valley where you may at best get 1 or 2 users, as putting up an expensive mast, then paying a horrifically high rental on your fast backhaul. Clearly that's financial suicide.  You need to get it to the masses first.

As to 5G, I wont be an early adopter.  Its unlikely to come to Brackley in the next couple of years (although cell tower software updates could potentially be applied, that doesn't solve the backhaul issue - one of the reasons O2 were so slow to roll out 3G), and I have no plans to update my ageing handset for a couple of years, due to cost.  The combination of my handset, an iPhone 6S, and my provider EE is good enough for me.  Its incredibly rare I can't get a good 4G outdoor signal.  And 4G is plenty good enough for me - Christ, I've had an Ookla speedtest show it over 140MBps before (granted, at Wembley Stadium, obviously one of EE's showcase sites).  However, I think the technology available added to the desire for more ISPs to tie up with mobile operators and build 5G femtocells into consumer routers and use the fixed broadband lines as the backhauls, could allow for better mobile coverage in rural villages.  But obviously the hype is all about its speed speed speed…  ...and I think that mises the point.

[STEMO]

I got enough of a signal to navigate Daley Forest on google maps this week, on Three. TBH, I've never had any problems with them at all. When I was away last week, I obviously didn't trust the free pub Wi-fi, so used my mobile all week, including posting on here.

[Varche]

No signal so no internet all afternoon. Bit of mist.

How come the regulator didn't insist mast sharing? OK cost but I could get a full signal this afternoon on my Spanish mobile. I don't pay any extra for that.

[TheBoy]

No signal so no internet all afternoon. Bit of mist.

How come the regulator didn't insist mast sharing? OK cost but I could get a full signal this afternoon on my Spanish mobile. I don't pay any extra for that.

Your basic issue is Three is shite. End of.  Any of the other 3 networks would fair significantly better.


As for OFCOM, accept the fact that they are utterly useless, and couldn't arrange a piss up in a brewery. Civil Servants. 'nuf said.

[TheBoy]

Although enforced mast sharing would likely reduce rollout speed in rural areas - nobody will erect a mast at great expense, they would wait for somebody else to do it, and then they could jump on that much cheaper.

Also, remember the ongoing backhaul costs are still going to be there.

[Andy B]

We were at a village in the Lakes last week Bampton where neither of us could get a phone or Interweb signal .... I'm on O2 she's on Vodaphone   

[Sir Tigger KC]

I'm with 3 and generally get a good service. 

[Varche]

We are with 3 and it isnt fit for purpose.

By definition a mobile phone is ....well a mobile phone. Imagine if you had a Ford car and it didn't work in the countryside or sections of the M6 in Cumberland. Bit like computers but lets not go there!

Oh and Britain is a technologically adavanced , first world country, relatively 2D country too.

[Lazydocker]

I'm with 3 and generally get a good service. 

Me too, including driving up from N Yorks to Glasgow and around Scotland.

I will confess that the helldesk can be interesting Although it’s quite apparent that TuBy has issues with everything 

[zirk]

In my experience and Im talking about a long time now, Voda and O2 have always nailed it, especially in built up Cities, nailed it as in consistency of Network Service and delivery over the years. EE are pretty much up there now with Voda and O2 and in some cases exceed with there Network, but they've had the advantage of years of juggling and fine tuning between the the Orange and and T Mobile Networks, which I must add a lot of the original TM and Orange Customers suffered with during this merge. Three have never been a properly self dedicated Network always relying on another Network Carriers to fill the gaps for them. In a word they are just not up to being a self built consistent Network.

If you get a good service from Three and are happy then fine, bit they will fall over backwards on high demand City Area's when pushed to thd limits.

[TheBoy]

In my experience and Im talking about a long time now, Voda and O2 have always nailed it, especially in built up Cities, nailed it as in consistency of Network Service and delivery over the years. EE are pretty much up there now with Voda and O2 and in some cases exceed with there Network, but they've had the advantage of years of juggling and fine tuning between the the Orange and and T Mobile Networks, which I must add a lot of the original TM and Orange Customers suffered with during this merge. Three have never been a properly self dedicated Network always relying on another Network Carriers to fill the gaps for them. In a word they are just not up to being a self built consistent Network.

If you get a good service from Three and are happy then fine, bit they will fall over backwards on high demand City Area's when pushed to thd limits.

That about sums it up. Voda did have coverage issues around my part of the world, which kept me as a Cellnet/O2 user for years.

Also, traditionally O2/Voda had the better 900MHz frequencies (for 2G/3G), and T-Mobile and Orange had the less desirable 1.8GHz.  Although its all been mixed up now.

Also, I believe Three no longer use other networks in the UK for fallback, and has been the case for several years.

[TheBoy]

We are with 3 and it isnt fit for purpose.

By definition a mobile phone is ....well a mobile phone. Imagine if you had a Ford car and it didn't work in the countryside or sections of the M6 in Cumberland. Bit like computers but lets not go there!

Oh and Britain is a technologically adavanced , first world country, relatively 2D country too.

The nature of mobile means that its incredibly difficult to provide universal coverage, particularly when using microwave frequencies (and most of Three's 3G network is 2.1GHz), which are essentially line of sight one. And penetration is poor.

So the only solution is more masts. Which as discussed is horrifically expensive and timeconsuming (as none of the Nimbys want a mast near them, particularly in the countryside).

Presumably you bought Three because it offered fantastic mins/txt/data for a low cost.

[TheBoy]

I'm with 3 and generally get a good service. 

Me too, including driving up from N Yorks to Glasgow and around Scotland.

I will confess that the helldesk can be interesting Although it’s quite apparent that TuBy has issues with everything 

At the ABS monthly club meets, we are always taking the piss out of TT (Omegatoy knows who I mean) who is on a legacy Three contract. He gets unlimited mins/txt/data for around £20 a month. But he can never get a usable signal anywhere around Oxfordshire outside of the larger towns. Even when he can get a signal, its so weak you cant hold a conversation.  And he has the audacity to take the piss out of my gayPhone.

I do regularly buy Three SIMs myself, as their Roam like Home means it is a great temporary SIM for outside Europe...   ...with the added advantage that abroad it uses decent networks.

[TheBoy]

Oh and Britain is a technologically adavanced , first world country, relatively 2D country too.

I'm guessing you haven't tried using cellular technology in the US...   ...supposedly tech advanced, 1st world, and mostly flat.  The signal is poor/non existent outside of built up areas, even on the interstates.