EE's degraded service and coverage - time to leave after 15 years?

diamonds

ZhugeEX wrote: »

Not quite sure I see your argument Diamonds. Especially as this is 2014 and not 2004. Building a 2G network is pointless when 1)you've had a 3G network since opening and that's the whole point of Three 2) you already have roaming on 2G via EE in the places that don't have 3G services.

There is no ROI with 2G at this point. It'd be like Virgin Media suddenly going back to offering ADSL as a selling point.

The fact is that 4G can offer Data, Voice and Text over IP much better than 3G or 2G. More than 35% of Three's userbase already has a 4G device and with their whole "no extra cost" for 4G promotion that number is only going to grow.

Also everyone is investing 4G for the very reason to eventually phase out 2G.

ARGUMENT ? I consider it a point of view, 800mhz 2G would give 3 the best 2G coverage in the UK, add 3 and 4G and its like Telstra in AU - unbeaten and unrivalled coverage, and thus 3 would become a UK leader on coverage. 2G is a long way off extinction.

diamonds

d123 wrote: »

You do realise Three only has 2x5MHz of 800MHz? If they were to do as you suggest what spectrum would you want them to run 4G on?

800mhz is the best for the sticks, 2/3/4G. I've been in remote bushland in AU with a signal, more often than say the Highlands.


3 missed a trick when agreement to buy 1800 spectrum from EE with Ofcom, they were in a position to renegotiate frequencies use. Anyway they didn't. If BT buy EE 3 really did miss a trick and UK advantage.

ZhugeEX

diamonds wrote: »

ARGUMENT ? I consider it a point of view, 800mhz 2G would give 3 the best 2G coverage in the UK, add 3 and 4G and its like Telstra in AU - unbeaten and unrivalled coverage, and thus 3 would become a UK leader on coverage. 2G is a long way off extinction.

When I say argument I mean the case you were making for Three to use 1800 or 800 on 2G.

I still think it's a terrible idea and just doesn't make any sense at all. Why would Three roll out 2G now? It's not going to improve signal at all as they already have a very robust 3G network and are rolling out 4G to enhance their current network. There is no ROI on 2G either. Why do you think neither O2, Voda or EE are investing in a 2G roll out, a refresh yes but not a roll out.

Even O2 and Vodafone don't have 2G everywhere yet customers stay with them. What advantage do Three get by rolling out 2G in the same places they already have 3G/will have 4G? By rolling out 4G on 800 and 1800 they not only increase coverage above current 2G coverage but they allow reliable calls/texts/data as well. It's a win win for everyone.

Unless you're talking from a "perfect world" point of view?

Once again I refer you to the Virgin Media example.

ZhugeEX

Just so you're aware as well Diamonds.

Despite 2G being rolled out more than 20 years ago, none of the networks have got to 95%+ indoor coverage.

The 4G obligation that O2 have says they need to get to 98% indoor coverage. Granted this can be done on any technology but O2 have committed to rolling out 4G with 98% indoor coverage by the end of 2016. Vodafone have also matched this. EE say 98% outdoor by this time next year and no doubt they will continue rolling out 4G to match indoor coverage of O2/Voda. Three have said 95% indoor coverage by this time next year and that's going to be a stretch.

The point is that rolling out 2G now is not worth it for any network. Hence why they're committing to higher indoor coverage on 4G only.

pioneer31

ZhugeEX wrote: »

Orange masts are being decommissioned. That will include both 2G and 3G masts.

Surely you understand that when they say "optimisation" they're talking in favour of EE. It's just a nice way of dressing it up. In the same way that Vodafone and O2 are currently "optimising" their network.

In regards to that other thread. It's a very simple answer.

Some phones, especially older phones won't have the SIM settings to roam onto T-Mobiles network. As you're aware EE now has 2G/3G sharing between T-Mo and Orange. But these really really old phones with Orange SIM cards will only ever pick up an Orange signal from an Orange mast as they don't have the ability to roam onto T-Mobile's networks.

So in the case that an Orange mast is taken down the user will lose signal as it can't roam onto the T-Mobile mast. For everyone else they won't notice a difference as they'll just connect to the T-Mobile mast.

In this case it's the OP who needs to buy a cheap £5 2G phone and swap their SIM card to a new one in order to fix the issue.

Would a Nokia 3410 be classed as a really really old phone? I guess it is

d123

pioneer31 wrote: »

Would a Nokia 3410 be classed as a really really old phone? I guess it is

I think it would fall into the really really really old category .

ZhugeEX

pioneer31 wrote: »

Would a Nokia 3410 be classed as a really really old phone? I guess it is

Honestly, no idea. I'd assume so.

The best way to test it if you can is to try a t-mobile sim or put a t-mobile phone next to yours and compare signal strength. Obviously make sure the second phone is in 2G only mode.

If you get no orange signal on your phone but get T-Mobile signal on the other phone then the answer is clear.

diamonds

ZhugeEX wrote: »

When I say argument I mean the case you were making for Three to use 1800 or 800 on 2G.

I still think it's a terrible idea and just doesn't make any sense at all. Why would Three roll out 2G now? It's not going to improve signal at all as they already have a very robust 3G network and are rolling out 4G to enhance their current network. There is no ROI on 2G either. Why do you think neither O2, Voda or EE are investing in a 2G roll out, a refresh yes but not a roll out.

Even O2 and Vodafone don't have 2G everywhere yet customers stay with them. What advantage do Three get by rolling out 2G in the same places they already have 3G/will have 4G? By rolling out 4G on 800 and 1800 they not only increase coverage above current 2G coverage but they allow reliable calls/texts/data as well. It's a win win for everyone.

Unless you're talking from a "perfect world" point of view?

Once again I refer you to the Virgin Media example.

The 2017 commitment is easier to text and calling, coverage and capacity of this is much more cost effective on 2G in the short term until 2017... its one thing a consumer having a signal but if all base station capacity is used for data then its failed if people can't make good quality calls.

ZhugeEX

diamonds wrote: »

its one thing a consumer having a signal but if all base station capacity is used for data then its failed if people can't make good quality calls.

I don't think you understand how VoLTE works? You know there are QoS requirements that guarantee the above will never ever happen. ever....

Also, VoLTE is over IP....

d123

diamonds wrote: »

The 2017 commitment is easier to text and calling, coverage and capacity of this is much more cost effective on 2G in the short term until 2017... its one thing a consumer having a signal but if all base station capacity is used for data then its failed if people can't make good quality calls.

Some more reading for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VoLTE