EE Deploys 411 New Small Cells to Boost UK 4G and 5G Mobile
Mobile operator EE (BT) has announced that they’ve deployed another 411 small cells (tiny base stations) on UK street furniture and buildings in order to boost the coverage and speed of their 4G based mobile broadband network (total of 611), which they claim allows customers to “take advantage of download speeds of up to 300Mbps.”
Unlike larger base stations and masts, small cells are only designed to deliver limited coverage over a shorter distance and thus tend to be more focused on busy urban areas (e.g. shopping malls) or specific sites (e.g. airports and ports). But they can also be used to help improve coverage in parts of some rural communities. Such kit is often positioned on the side of buildings or street furniture, such as lamp posts, CCTV columns and street kiosks etc.
The operator states that their latest deployment of 411 units (adding to the 200 they deployed last year) has been rolled out to various locations, including in major cities such as Birmingham, Brighton and Sheffield. Other new locations include the cities of Swansea, Leicester, Coventry, Wolverhampton, Southampton and York. On top of that, a host of seasonal hotspots have also received the boost ahead of Summer holidays, including Newquay, Paignton, Salcombe, Southend-on-Sea and Clacton-on-Sea.
Advertisement
The cell sites are currently all carrying a whopping 20TB (TeraBytes) of data traffic every day. However, the claimed download speeds of ‘up to’ 300Mbps should be taken with a pinch of salt, since they’ll obviously still be subject to the usual high variability of the mobile environment, end-user devices and consumer demand etc.
James Hope, EE’s Director of Mobile Radio Access Networks, said:
“As demand for data continues to rise, small cells are becoming an increasingly integral part of our mobile network. Our partnership with Nokia ensures customers continue to benefit from our fastest 4G speeds even at the busiest times and in the most congested of locations, and we’re proud to pass another milestone in this project as we continue to invest in improving the UK’s best mobile network* up and down the country.”
The good news is that there’s more of this to come. EE said they’re planning to deploy “hundreds more small cells … in the coming months“, both in existing and new towns and cities. The operator is also trialling the extension of small cells to accommodate its 5G network, with Nokia’s AirScale portfolio able to seamlessly upgrade to 5G.
Mark is a professional technology writer, IT consultant and computer engineer from Dorset (England), he also founded ISPreview in 1999 and enjoys analysing the latest telecoms and broadband developments. Find me on X (Twitter), Mastodon, Facebook, BlueSky, Threads.net and Linkedin.
« Gigaclear Raise Full Fibre Target to 1 Million UK Premises on Funding Boost
EE are way too slow to catch up. More likely it all done by 2040!
they already win all the awards, who do you think they should be “catching up” to?
Are you sure about that? EE is definitely better than O2 at least with better coverage and speeds.
In reality the speeds are up to 460 Mbps, which is about the fastest I’ve gotten on the B1+3+46 small cells.
It’s nice to have left a legacy David.
Where was this and were there adjacent sites where you could maintain high throughput? Cluster deployment should mean that even with short range you’re able to handover to an equally capable site.
Once again leaving their rivals standing still, least EE is cracking on with improving coverage unlike a certain operator “cough cough O2″…
Can’t wait till I can abandon Slow2. Can never get reception in London Bridge
EE have good coverage and speed on both 4g and 5g.
Only problem indoor coverage and voice calls quality.
Voice quality is terrible need to sort.
I am on 1P mobile and never have a problem with the quality of voice calls – you sure it’s not your phone?
That’s easily resolved, by Wi-Fi calling and 4g calling. In door coverage is a tricky one. Vodafone and 02 apparently have better in door coverage, but I’ve never experienced that and had the reverse experience.
In my experience, EE are awful indoors in and around London. If you go into a theatre, museum or certain shops, you can’t really get any signal.
Vodafone and O2 are better with band 20 or lower, but then they can have no throughput outside where EE excels. You can’t win…
If you got yourself a dual SIM phone and two good value sims – one on EE’s network, the other on say Vodaphone’s.
Might this approximate to winning?
O2 is cracking on with small cells, in London they have a ridiculous number, providing indoor coverage now where no other network does.
It is outside London where the issues are and therefore I can’t recommend O2 for that reason.
But don’t let that stop people saying O2 don’t have a small cell rollout, they are the only network using the City of London small cell network for example.
O2 are alright here, their 5G can be snappy but more often than not it thinks about it to much to start with before anything happens.
Also I have this issue where my mast has band 8,3,1,28 and 40, so sometimes when you are connected to 5G it can just switch randomly to another band and your on 4G again. I’m not sure if it’s a phone issue or bad implementation of the bands and coverage strengths.
On the other hand, O2 sometimes relies too much on small cells. Even in London, you’ll find masts with B20 only because they have small cells in the area. The problem is that you’re screwed if you’re not in the range of the small cell.
I hope they put one in Westfield, Stratford. That place has awful cellular reception.
At Westfield Stratford Vodafone and O2 have a DAS now
Some people will not like that 5G cells close to people. To be honest, I don’t like the idea of them being that close to people.
It’s literally less radiation than a Wi-Fi router
What’s so special about 5G cells? What’s the different in practice to the widely deployed 4G small cells?
I’m not looking for dumb Facebook conspiracies, but for an actual explanation about the differences.
@No One, it is not 5G cells as such, it depends on the power they use and what frequency. Also, are they really needed? UIf 5G is as good as we are told it is then there should not be no need for more masts or cells or are we being lied to?
Ad47uk, the article mentions “licenced 1800MHz and 2600MHz […] coupled with unlicenced 5GHz spectrum”:
1800MHz = B3
2600MHz = B7
“unlicensed 5GHz” = same as the Wi-Fi
B3 and B7 would be called n3 and n7 when used for 5G, but it’s essentially the same bands used as EE uses for 4G/LTE: b1, b3, b7. They also use B20/B28 for long range/indoors/rural, but that’s very slow.
O2 uses B3 and also started using B38 where more capacity is needed. I don’t know what’s the power, but they have one with B3 ~150 meters away from my home and I can’t connect to it because there’s a house in the way. It only provides coverage to the area around it (a train station).
I don’t know what “they” have been telling you about 5G, but it’s not that different from 4G. The speed in increases we’re seeing is because a new band (n78, ~3500 MHz) was introduced, but it doesn’t travel that far, so networks are now deploying 5G on the same bands they use for 4G (B1, B3, B7, B8, B28, etc) with a tech called DSS that allows them to transmit 4G and 5G over the same bands… that’s why 5G on some networks/areas is very slow… it’s the same as using 4G.
If you’re thinking about the high bands (24GHz-40Ghz) they use in some countries (eg: US), then you won’t find them in Europe yet. They’re high capacity, but very short range, walls kill the signal, etc… a bit like Wi-Fi. Makes sense in a place like a football stadium, but you can’t build your coverage with that. What we have in the UK is the low and mid band 5G (700-3500MHz), similar to our 4G. To give you an idea, 700-800MHz was used by analogue TV (and then made available for 4G and now 5G), EE’s 5G uses 2100MHz, channel 36 on your Wi-Fi uses 5180MHz.
This is why I don’t understand the complaints about 5G. If this 5G is dangerous, then so is 4G, but everyone seems to be fine with it. But then again, some people think a mobile network can spread viruses (eg: covid)… maybe I shouldn’t be surprised with their claims.
Are small cells needed? I think it makes sense in some areas. I’ve seen them being used in popular squares in London where networks can’t build a proper masts. The one O2 has near me is useful because their coverage is bad around here and a lot of people use that train station. In this case, that small rectangular box on a lamp post gives ~60Mbps for those connected to it while I, just a few meters away, sometimes can’t load Google’s homepage.
The problem today is that people are using more and more data, so you you need faster bands which are have shorter ranges. This forces you to build more cell towers, otherwise it will be slow. So to answer the question, small cells are needed if you want your network to perform in certain areas. (This applies to all radio based tech, including 4G, wi-fi, bluetooth, etc.)
Some tried to overhype 5G, but it’s just an upgrade. Better than 4G and cheaper for the networks, but it won’t make your car drive by itself, it’s not as good as a wired connection, and it certainly doesn’t break the laws of physics. Don’t fall for the hype.
@No One
thanks for all of that. I knew that some of 5G was on the same bands we use now, but I did think that we also used the higher bands, you saw Europe don’t use them, YET. I know about higher frequencies not being able to penetrate walls due to the waves being so short, I used to use CB radio many years ago, and I had 27Mhz and the 934Mhz, 27 could go for miles, while 934 could not, hit a building and it would bounce back. Also, going by Wi-fi now, 5Ghz, no matter what they do with it have a difficult time getting to my front bedroom and certainly will not go outside to the backyard, where 2.4 does a wonderful job, one reason why I wanted to put my old router back on a couple of months or so ago. But sadly, it can’t cope with the amount of Wi-fi devices I have.
You say people are using more and more data, which they may be, even on their phones, but are doing much that really needs the super-duper speed we are told that 5G will give us? This is what we have been told, in adverts, and other propaganda. Get 5G for superfast connection to your phone and then when you get it, not only do you find that the superfast is not superfast, but that a lot of the time if will vanish when you get inside a building
5G is more of a cost reducing exercise for the networks, just like Fibre, but with fibre at least you can normally get the higher speeds.
I still don’t think we need the small cells are required, the majority of people had coverage with 4G, so if we are still using the same frequencies, then just use the masts we have got.
Three put in permission to build some masts around here, massive ones, but they all refused. There are already enough masts, use them.
As for 5G causing Covid, that is silly, Covid is a virus, but 5G could cause us to all become Zombies. Oh too late, that is already happening.
@No one
Thank you for taking the time to post, it helps make this site an amazing resource.
@Ad47uk
It’s pretty clear that user habits are changing and more throughput is needed. 5G standards and more cells are the best way for operators to address that at the moment.