In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

I think I have been misinterpreted.

I didnt mean they stopped building new masts, but rather stopped the previous investment approach.

Not really… there was a massive switch from old circuit-switched 2G and 3G to deploy packet switched 4G, and with 19,000 masts that took a while.

Since then 5G has launched, but it isn’t immediately of benefit to many people, same just faster, as 4G has solved the problem of ‘signal but no data’ that was always common on 3G.

So EE and the other networks are involved in the Shared Rural Network project to increase coverage in not-spots, and in the Huawei replacement, this means the number of new towns getting 5G is lower than I guess you expect.

They are still on plan to have 5G in most places by 2028.

In reply to a post by jchamier:

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

I think I have been misinterpreted.

I didnt mean they stopped building new masts, but rather stopped the previous investment approach.

Not really… there was a massive switch from old circuit-switched 2G and 3G to deploy packet switched 4G, and with 19,000 masts that took a while.

Since then 5G has launched, but it isn’t immediately of benefit to many people, same just faster, as 4G has solved the problem of ‘signal but no data’ that was always common on 3G.

So EE and the other networks are involved in the Shared Rural Network project to increase coverage in not-spots, and in the Huawei replacement, this means the number of new towns getting 5G is lower than I guess you expect.

They are still on plan to have 5G in most places by 2028.

Kind of.

their old approach was to have low towns coverage, and initially no rural, but the towns they enabled they packed it out and did a "proper" rollout.

This feels like the BT FTTP approach where they seem to be doing a scatter gun enabling lots of areas but with only small coverage in those areas. Hence my comment on a different investment approach.

We do seem to be over kind on telco rollouts to rural areas in England, and there is a price to that felt by the cities.

The pure simple explanation is the EE 5G rollout in my area is just not up to par, and nothing like how good the 4G rollout was, whatever the reason that fact cant be evaded. EE was the clear leader on 4G, there were miles ahead of even their closest competitor. So yes they had a high standard to follow, but it is what it is.

Edited by Chrysalis (Wed 22-Feb-23 22:41:23)

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

The pure simple explanation is the EE 5G rollout in my area is just not up to par, and nothing like how good the 4G rollout was, whatever the reason that fact cant be evaded. EE was the clear leader on 4G, there were miles ahead of even their closest competitor. So yes they had a high standard to follow, but it is what it is.

Maybe EE's decline started when BT bought it in January 2016.

At the Commonwealth Games, in Brum, I regularly managed a 90 mbps download and 30 mbps upload. This was at the University so not quite City Centre and there were a few thousand at the hockey.

The Coventry Building Society Arena, Coventry, also had 5g access but I didn't test the speed. Pages loaded very quickly even with about 15,000 spectators in the venue.

Don't care about EE. They are pure greed! And way too expensive and stupid capped 600GB on 5G limit. What the point?

Smarty for me all the way! Three is the winner overall for 5G.

In reply to a post by adslmax:

stupid capped 600GB on 5G limit. What the point?

Have you ever used 600GB in a month on any mobile broadband network?

Edited by deleted (Thu 23-Feb-23 22:57:11)

I always get over 1TB every month at home. Using broadband with 12 devices.

In reply to a post by adslmax:

I always get over 1TB every month at home.

Can see why the 600GB cap wouldn't work for you then.

We were averaging 1.5TB on Three and then EE, when 4G was the only option here that would get us more than 20 down, 3 up.

Thankfully now we have Starlink.

In reply to a post by adslmax:

I always get over 1TB every month at home. Using broadband with 12 devices.

Ummmm.

I hope you are fibbing again.

Don't you live alone? IIRC you did have one family member there but she left some time ago. Even with her, twelve devices is rather a lot without a fair number of people in the house.

Unless of course there's a lot of business use, in which case you are breaking your ISP contracts and other things. The most devices I've seen in a house with one person was someone with a bank of seven computers, earning his living doing deep data mining for big businesses. (Or maybe that was his story and he was crypto-mining).