MSE News: The top mobile providers revealed - where cheaper can mean better

ValiantSon

Ezorqs wrote: »

Users of Giffgaff are usually on Giffgaff for a reason less money around, on pay as you go. This means that they likely do not travel very far, probably don't use mobile internet that much and primarily live in areas with strong O2 signal.

Those on O2, more likely have more money and need more "goodies" such as more minutes/texts/data. This will also mean that they are more likely to travel, have a higher demand on data and are more likely to encounter areas that do not have a strong O2 signal. Hence it'll be lower reported coverage than Giffgaff.

What a ludicrous generalisation that Giffgaff customers have less money than O2 customers! Choosing to use Giffgaff shows financial awareness, but this is not the same as lacking money. Why on earth do you assume that Giffgaff customers don't travel very far?

I love how people on here make completely unsubstantiated statements (and display their biases).

[Deleted User]

problemcashback wrote: »

In a discussion with their Managing Director last year he said they were in it to make money for o2 to invest in the network hen asked where they going to improve speeds he said no. When question why so many customer had left he said we are trying to entice more customers to make money for o2. Forget the customer who they have or have left we simply don!!!8217;t care was the message that came across.

So when you say that "he said" something, you mean he didn't actually say that?

That said (no pun intended) I left GG due to the very poor download speed, I actually moved to O2 at the time and the speed jumped from 5Mbps (rough guess after all this time) to 24Mbps (I actually remember that speed). I'll never go back that's for sure and I'm a very light user.

Edit: Ha, just checked on my Plusnet sim and I get 28Mbps in the house, why would anyone want Giffgaff?

problemcashback

Colin_Maybe wrote: »

So when you say that "he said" something, you mean he didn't actually say that?

That said (no pun intended) I left GG due to the very poor download speed, I actually moved to O2 at the time and the speed jumped from 5Mbps (rough guess after all this time) to 24Mbps (I actually remember that speed). I'll never go back that's for sure and I'm a very light user.

Edit: Ha, just checked on my Plusnet sim and I get 28Mbps in the house, why would anyone want Giffgaff?

Honestly he didn’t say that but might as well have, totally blunt with users though not there for their benefit just to make o2 money. The thread was on the community site, he actually came back and addressed the customers who complained but sadly for GG it was not to tell them speeds would increase and at the time the market was changing with the with the likes of plusnet joining in. What actually happened was that GG shortly after got less of o2 as they gave Sky a slice.

We went from 2mb to 40 in our area with plusnet when we left but didn’t rest either it taught us like all of the other services we pay for not to just sit there paying top dollar but to move on when prices change.

sully1311

ValiantSon wrote: »

I'm not sure that was their point. If it was then it was extremely poorly expressed.

Apologies. I read your point wrong. Thought you said coverage, not coverage rating.

The point I was making EE and Three customers with the right plans and handsets can generally get better coverage than the MVNOs using the same network (couple of exceptions being BT and iD Mobile) by using the 800mhz spectrum.

Paul_DNAP

ValiantSon wrote: »

Except the survey suggests that people are getting better coverage on MVNOs, as opposed to the networks, which is clearly drivel. Some examples for network coverage being, "great" (however you quantify that!):

Giffgaff = 53%, but O2 = 33%
Tesco = 49%, but O2 = 33%
PlusNet = 39%, but EE = 35%

The survey is garbage.

I would guess that a part of it is the subjectivity of what "OK" actually means. If you're paying top rate for your contract on a top brand latest gen handset then anything less than full bars 4G signal every second of the day would punch it into "POOR", but if you're on a sim only £1 a week on cheap handset then even the odd signal blackspot may be acceptable while still remaining "OK".

ValiantSon

Paul_DNAP wrote: »

I would guess that a part of it is the subjectivity of what "OK" actually means. If you're paying top rate for your contract on a top brand latest gen handset then anything less than full bars 4G signal every second of the day would punch it into "POOR", but if you're on a sim only £1 a week on cheap handset then even the odd signal blackspot may be acceptable while still remaining "OK".

Perhaps, but that just adds to the point that the survey - and the related "news" article - is garbage.