In reply to a post by BuckleZ:

The upload is poor though compared to 4G

Three's 3G is often better than their 4G.

In reply to a post by jchamier:

In reply to a post by BuckleZ:

The upload is poor though compared to 4G

Three's 3G is often better than their 4G.

Think that has a lot to do with Three's target average speed for 4G (12mb/s).

They are apparently more interested in coverage than speed, which I find quite amusing as their coverage is patchy.

In reply to a post by jchamier:

In reply to a post by BuckleZ:

The upload is poor though compared to 4G

Three's 3G is often better than their 4G.

Three dimension the backhaul to favour 3G as that bearer still has the bulk of the traffic, they can change this on the fly though if cell loading shows a regular growth in 4G enabled users and less 3G traffic.

In reply to a post by bookey:

Three dimension the backhaul to favour 3G as that bearer still has the bulk of the traffic, they can change this on the fly though if cell loading shows a regular growth in 4G enabled users and less 3G traffic.

Interesting the backhaul is sized for each type of traffic. Thanks.

Bear in mind....

3 want to buy O2.

If 3 buy O2, they get O2's 4G coverage obligation. Ofcom might also take some of their 4G spectrum away, as they forced EE to sell some when Orange and Tmob merged.

Given that, it probably makes little sense for 3 to rollout 4G rapidly right now when the O2 merge may change things and 3's 3G speed is actually good.

In reply to a post by nemeth782:

Bear in mind....

3 want to buy O2.

If 3 buy O2, they get O2's 4G coverage obligation. Ofcom might also take some of their 4G spectrum away, as they forced EE to sell some when Orange and Tmob merged.

Given that, it probably makes little sense for 3 to rollout 4G rapidly right now when the O2 merge may change things and 3's 3G speed is actually good.

a) O2's "coverage obligation" doesn't specify technology, so they can use 3G UMTS service.
b) Three aren't buying O2 - its their owners Hutchison who are buying. What Hutchison then do is unknown.
c) Ofcom may or may not require spectrum to be sold as Three and O2 combined still don't have as much spectrum as the other two (Vodafone or EE). EE was forced to sell spectrum becuase of the sheer quantity they had.

In reply to a post by jchamier:

In reply to a post by nemeth782:

Bear in mind....

3 want to buy O2.

If 3 buy O2, they get O2's 4G coverage obligation. Ofcom might also take some of their 4G spectrum away, as they forced EE to sell some when Orange and Tmob merged.

Given that, it probably makes little sense for 3 to rollout 4G rapidly right now when the O2 merge may change things and 3's 3G speed is actually good.

a) O2's "coverage obligation" doesn't specify technology, so they can use 3G UMTS service.
b) Three aren't buying O2 - its their owners Hutchison who are buying. What Hutchison then do is unknown.
c) Ofcom may or may not require spectrum to be sold as Three and O2 combined still don't have as much spectrum as the other two (Vodafone or EE). EE was forced to sell spectrum becuase of the sheer quantity they had.

The coverage obligation on O2 does denote 4G coverage, also it would be a damn site easier in 800mhz than any other spectrum they hold. EE has publicly announced that they plan to exceed the O2 coverage requirement by the end of this year and Vodafone have commented they expect to do the same but have not provided a timeframe.

If I was Hutchinson I would keep the Three RAN, enable roaming between the two RANs then shift the UMTS spectrum from O2 to Three to support 3 and 4 carriers, which would boost capacity by about 60% on the UMTS stack. I would then look to migrate the O2 GSM spectrum to the software defined radios in the LTE based radio controllers they Three are deploying. The I would look to close down the O2 LTE RAN and migrate the spectrum across the (what would now be) the legacy Three network.

They would be closer to EE but no 2600mhz for LTE capacity, or any mid band holding in 1800mhz well except the sliver that EE had to divest to Three.

Interesting, what I had read elsewhere - probably wrong - had commented that the requirement wasn't for 4G coverage but for a certain speed??

Like your idea on how Huch could merge the assets, that would leave the legacy O2 network using the 2G GSM spectrum network for voice, with the legacy Three network using all 3G UMTS spectrum, and also the Three network using the combined LTE spectrum.

They'd surely need to buy some more spectrum for that many users wouldn't they?

In reply to a post by jchamier:

Interesting, what I had read elsewhere - probably wrong - had commented that the requirement wasn't for 4G coverage but for a certain speed??

<snipped>

They'd surely need to buy some more spectrum for that many users wouldn't they?

It's a coverage requirement with a minimum of 2Mbps speed, but this is being measured through the expected signal strength not by real speed tests.
EE speed test on 4G signal strength of -115 dBm
Ping - 49ms
Download - 31.99 Mbps
Upload - 5.24 Mbps
Cell site is 1.7km away


Spectrum wise I know the split of complete spectrum holding and market holding.

Operator / Spectrum / Market (%)
EE / 36 / 34
Vodafone / 28 / 28
O2 / 15 / 27
Three / 12 / 11
BT / 9 / 0

As you can see EE have slight headway in the spectrum, Vodafone is parity, O2 is shocking as no headway on a already congested network, Three is running around parity and BT is the dark horse with spectrum holding but no customers using it.

If the EE / BT and O2 / Three weddings take place it will look like.

Operator / Spectrum / Market (%)
EE + BT / 45 / 34
Vodafone / 28 / 28
O2 + 3 / 27 / 38

O2 + 3 would be the largest player in the pure mobile space but have the least amount of spectrum, once customers realise that other operators offer more then I can see them moving operators.

EE + BT would still be the biggest telco but not biggest in pure mobile, but I am sure EE and BT management plan to change that!

In short, yes O2 and Three need more spectrum but there is none currently for sale...

Note: For those who don't already know, I am employed by EE, but all comments posted are my own and not that of my employer.

Edited by bookey (Sat 21-Feb-15 16:12:44)

In reply to a post by bookey:

O2 + 3 would be the largest player in the pure mobile space but have the least amount of spectrum, once customers realise that other operators offer more then I can see them moving operators.

That will be interesting to watch. Do people buy for speed or for any connectivity. I still don't understand how peole think todays 3G performance on O2 and Vodafone is acceptable.

EE + BT would still be the biggest telco but not biggest in pure mobile, but I am sure EE and BT management plan to change that!

I can't see BT buying the current number 1 and not wanting to maintain that position, but anything is possible.

In short, yes O2 and Three need more spectrum but there is none currently for sale...

Maybe 3500mhz eventually; but hardly any handset support.

Note: For those who don't already know, I am employed by EE, but all comments posted are my own and not that of my employer.

Thanks for posting your obviously well informed comments