UK 3G coverage is poor by comparison - why??

[Anonymous]

I've just spent a few months in Australia and South Africa. Not surprisingly I chose not to roam on my 02 account but bought a local PAYG sim for each country respectively and got a local number.

In South Africa my carrier was Vodacom and in Australia it was Telstra. In both countries I was able to tether and use 3G extensively. I almost never found the phone I was using dropping connection speed to EDGE or GPRS. It was usually 3G or nothing.

In both countries we did long road trips and found the 3G coverage along major highways to be very good. Sure there gaps in the service, but in general I could get a decent net connection most places.

Returning to the UK we drove back from Heathrow along the M4. Most of the time connection was GPRS. Only around major towns was the connection speed 3G. sitting here in a small town in the Westcountry I'm stuck with GPRS.

I really do believe that by comparison with other countries the UK carriers are backsliding on improving net connectivity and signal. Put simply, they are not upgrading their masts and pocketing revenue streams instead of providing a modern service that we can all use efficiently and effectively.

It's time that the Government and regulators stepped in and spelled out to the carriers that they must invest or risk losing their licenses.

Both South Africa and Australia have far larger geographical areas to cover, with much sparser and smaller populations to service. If the carriers in these countries can perform and provide such excellent 3G service it raises serious questions about why the UK carriers are failing to maintain such good standards.

How much longer should we put up with this?

[Anonymous]

My friend in Australia is often complaining about the poor coverage compared to over here. So I would suspect that "your actual mileage may vary" as they say and no country has an always acceptable service.

[Anonymous]

My friend in Australia is often complaining about the poor coverage compared to over here. So I would suspect that "your actual mileage may vary" as they say and no country has an always acceptable service.

What network is your friend on? I can assure you that Telstra is excellent and has 'Next G' coverage reaching 99% of the Australian population. As to other Aus service providers like Optus, Vodafone or 3, I could not comment.

If there was a network here in the UK prepared to break ranks and invest in upgrading masts etc like Telstra have I'd join them like a shot.

[Anonymous]

Its much easier to cover a smaller population over a large area than a larger population over a smaller area. Especially, when putting up new masts is so difficult and expensive in this country.

[Anonymous]

Its much easier to cover a smaller population over a large area than a larger population over a smaller area. Especially, when putting up new masts is so difficult and expensive in this country.

I fail to see your logic concerning population and geography, what's more you fail to explain why this is the case.
Furthermore, I don't see why there is a need for *new* mast sites when there are so many existing masts that simply need an **upgrade**. This need not be a matter for planning, but in any case its getting easier to erect new masts in the planning process rather than more difficult.
The fact remains that Telstra provides the small outback town of Ilfracombe, Queensland (pop 269) with Next G connectivity capable of streaming video, whilst Ilfracombe in Devon (pop 11,000) has to make do with GPRS from o2. Explain that!

[Anonymous]

Sorry, its always difficult to know someone's level of expertise and I guess I got it wrong. In layman's terms there is a limited amount of bandwidth. There are only so many "slots" per cell. That explains why its easier to cover a less densely populated area and why in a more densely populated area you need more cells. Its not a case of just "upgrading" each site.

This one reason why mobile companies wish to share masts, given the difficulties of new sites, as it allows more efficient use of bandwidth.

Things are further complicated because 3G sites "breathe". That is their footprint contracts as demand increases.

You also ignore the different regulatory regimes in various countries.There are some interesting documents on the OFCOM site, and more accessible interpretations on sites like Mobile Industry Review. These explain how all the networks are vying for available spectrum. (O2 and Vodafone may have to give up some of their existing 2G spectrum and in return would expect to be able to use what remains to improve 3G coverage and implement LTE )

This whole issue of coverage is going to be a hot potato in the next few years. I can't see any decisions being made until after the election. (OFCOM will likely be abolished by a conservative government)


There is more to it than this and I would strongly urge you to look into it.

[Anonymous]

The arguments over slots is almost irrelevant in UK rural areas like round here.

There should be no difficulty in providing 3G along major highways and in small towns, regulation, planning and bandwidth regardless. Someone has decided that its not worth providing places like Ilfracombe with 3G, not that its impossible.

If its possible to provide 3G in a similar sized town elsewhere in Devon (such as say prosperous Honiton or Tavistock, also with populations around the 11,000 mark) then its purely an **economic and strategic** decision not to implement 3G in other areas.

That is where the UK carriers are falling down and if OFCOM has failed to buck them up then its time it was replaced by a regulator with some teeth.

[Anonymous]

Last month in France, HSDPA coverage was rock solid, even in rural areas in the south. This was for both available networks of Orange and Bouygues.

I live in Stamford, a popular destination for people to come and visit and has quite a large population for a town in this area has no O2 3G coverage whatsoever. Peterborough is well covered, so is surrounding towns of Melton Mowbray, Grantham and Spalding (and the A1 services at Colsterworth).

We have to 'make do' with one solitary EDGE base station which gives a slight speed increase but as there are 3 other GPRS only base stations, in invaribly locks onto the GPRS signal!!.

O2 say there are no plans at the moment to cover the town anytime soon :robotsad:

Owen

[Anonymous]

I live in Stamford, a popular destination for people to come and visit and has quite a large population for a town in this area has no O2 3G coverage whatsoever. Peterborough is well covered, so is surrounding towns of Melton Mowbray, Grantham and Spalding (and the A1 services at Colsterworth).
We have to 'make do' with one solitary EDGE base station which gives a slight speed increase but as there are 3 other GPRS only base stations, in invaribly locks onto the GPRS signal!!.
O2 say there are no plans at the moment to cover the town anytime soon :robotsad:
Owen

I live 10 miles from Stamford in rural Rutland. 3G is unheard of here, EDGE non-existing and to get 3 bars (top signal strength!!!) I have to get into my sons bedroom on the first floor. The rest of the house is from 2 bars to No Service.
I am actually looking forward to go to Stamford because of better signal strength.

Covering the bigger cities and towns with 3G equals a higher proportion of the population get 3G, as more people live in towns and cities. Sadly a geographical coverage of 3G would be much more customer friendly, but the times when the customer was king seem to have vanished and the customer have to do with what is given to them.

[Anonymous]

At home in Plymouth and at work in Plympton, both have solid 3G throughout, and 99% of places inbetween.

Seeing as I spend 99.999% of my time in these areas, O2 suits me.