O2 - Three proposed merger?

I didn't know about this.

But Ofcom are trying to get the European Commission to block it. Link.

it would make 4 become 3

if this merger happened, O2 and 3 overall very good coverage, 3 i would assume would get 2G for areas where 3 does not work but O2 does (and also lacks 3G) and it could stop paying EE for 2G access

can't see prices going up any more then they have right now (but then again some of EE prices quite bad especially on sim only, with a Phone not to bad)

it would leave vodafone at a large disadvantage overall (maybe give them an incentive to expand there 3G network

I would have thought that 3 networks would cost less to operate than 4.

The cost of a 4th network has to be passed onto the consumer. Better to have 3 networks and try to get some decent coverage.

In reference to www.theguardian.com/media/nils-pratley-on-finance/2016/feb/01/ofcom...:

It is a poor show that Sharon White, head of communications regulator Ofcom, is reduced to writing columns in the FT to try to block Three’s takeover of 02. The blame lies with European legislation, which dictates that Brussels decides on deals between companies whose parents have big operations in more than one EU country, as both Three and O2 do.

In reply to a post by Michael_Chare:

I would have thought that 3 networks would cost less to operate than 4.

The cost of a 4th network has to be passed onto the consumer. Better to have 3 networks and try to get some decent coverage.

Has nothing to do with it. Each network is separately licenced by ofcom and compete with each other for coverage under the licence conditions. Reducing number of networks would have no material impact in coverage.

Also if we closed one network, whom would take down the masts no longer in use?

In reply to a post by Michael_Chare:

I would have thought that 3 networks would cost less to operate than 4.

The reasoning given in the FT article where I first saw this is:-

Ofcom has carried out research analysing mobile prices over recent years in 25 countries that found that average prices were up to a fifth lower in markets with four operators compared with those with only three established networks.

It's paywalled so I found the link I gave, which isn't.

In reply to a post by jchamier:

In reply to a post by Michael_Chare:

I would have thought that 3 networks would cost less to operate than 4.

The cost of a 4th network has to be passed onto the consumer. Better to have 3 networks and try to get some decent coverage.

. Reducing number of networks would have no material impact in coverage.

it would give 3 and O2 customers more coverage as the O2 masts would be merged into 3 network and O2 customers will be able to use 3 masts

like orange did then they bought T-mobile just hopefully not as badly this time and don't take down overlapping masts or masts they Think we don't need, EE have left some villagers with no EE coverage due to that

It would give 3 and O2 customers more coverage as the O2 masts would be merged into 3 network and O2 customers will be able to use 3 masts

like orange did then they bought T-mobile just hopefully not as badly this time and don't take down overlapping masts or masts they Think we don't need, EE have left some villagers with no EE coverage due to that

That's very unlikely - when Orange and T-Mobile initially merged, users could roam between T-Mobile and Orange masts. The issue was:
1) I make a call using an orange mast as I am driving
2) I lose orange signal
3) My phone switched to T-Mobile signal
4) Transitioning from an Orange site to a T-Mobile site causes the call to drop.
5) I am a customer, seeing signal all the way, being confused why my call has dropped.

Ultimately EE chose to keep T-Mobile sites and become a T-Mobile broadcasting network only... All Orange sites will be turned off. In areas they really believed the T-Mobile coverage is not adequate, the Orange transmitter gets taken down and replaced with a T-Mobile one. So effectively EE became T-Mobile, and a little bit more.

With O2 and 3, the issue is 3 has an agreement under NBNLto share masts. This goes back years where 3 and T-Mobile agreed to share masts. Hence you have EE and 3 using the same sites.

Meanwhile O2 and Vodafone have an agreement - named Cornerstone to share masts. Hence there are effectively 2 underlying networks in the UK.

When O2 and Three merge, a decision will likely be made to either use the 3 masts under the NBNL agreement or to use the O2 masts under the Cornerstone agreement.

A decision will also be made to either make the network an O2 transmitting network or a 3 transmitting network. Due to the dropped call example earlier, it makes no sense to continue broadcasting both O2 and 3 signal simultaneously as all that creates is dropped calls.

So the reception does not just become the whole of 3s signal and the whole of O2s signal merged together, it turns into a strategic decision to cover each area with just one signal.

They will for sure, and it makes sense to, remove the overlapping masts. It will need to become one network, broadcasting one signal, from one provider, to ensure consistency when users switch between sites.

If O2 choose to drop the Vodafone cornerstone agreement, this will leave Vodafone high and dry, as each provider is covering half of the UK each. That will be messy. Although the data network on 3 is far far superior.

Edited by ukhardy07 (Tue 02-Feb-16 10:27:45)

I have an EE 4G contract on my latest phone, and an Orange 3G PAYG on another.

At home the EE one always says EE. I think this is so everywhere I use it - certainly everywhere I look at it, including the hands-free in the car.

The Orange one at home normally displays T-Mobile, as it is doing now. Last night when I turned it off before going to bed, with it having been in the same place since the morning, it was showing EE.

old phones some times still show the masts old names

the mast near me is a t-mobile mast on my blackberry if i open tunein radio it says t-mobile or orange