Sponsored Links

EE Finalise Their 3G Switch Off Plans

The Wee Bear

ULTIMATE Member
Hope I'm wrong but I see these switch offs causing problems. If so hopefully only in the short term. Be interesting seeing how it effects 4G in terms of congestion .
 
Hope I'm wrong but I see these switch offs causing problems. If so hopefully only in the short term. Be interesting seeing how it effects 4G in terms of congestion .
The switch offs are required as per the Government's request, sadly too many people have protested to their local councils and are about to see a lack of mobile coverage due to their actions.
 
Sponsored Links
Hope I'm wrong but I see these switch offs causing problems. If so hopefully only in the short term. Be interesting seeing how it effects 4G in terms of congestion .
Never have worked out why I get EE 3G in a certain room at work over Band 20 and N1.

Really weird.
 
sadly too many people have protested to their local councils and are about to see a lack of mobile coverage due to their actions.
Yes and that's why the UK is falling behind the rest of the world in 5g and other infostructure .
 
Yes and that's why the UK is falling behind the rest of the world in 5g and other infostructure .
You'd think something would be done about it? Not saying 'let them build what they want where they want', but there must come a point where it's a case of this needs to happen or else? Does such rule exist in these circumstances?
 
You'd think something would be done about it? Not saying 'let them build what they want where they want', but there must come a point where it's a case of this needs to happen or else? Does such rule exist in these circumstances?
I think at some point they've have too just to keep up with the rest of the world . There's suppose to be new schemes to make it easier for providers to expand but we'll have to see if it truly ever helps. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...oll-out-and-improve-mobile-phone-connectivity
 
Sponsored Links
The best thing that can happen in areas where upgrades are blocked is for them to lose signal. I bet that those upgrade applications won't be rejected to easily then.
Just turn all 3G off for a couple of days, get the popcorn out and enjoy the fun.🍿🥳

NIMBY areas first of course.:devilish:🤭

I wonder if they'll warm to a lovely new shiny PoW then? :unsure:
 
The best thing that can happen in areas where upgrades are blocked is for them to lose signal.
Ragebait online pushing people to engage by getting them angry is going to be the downfall of society.

Couldn't agree more though, the "FAFO" method usually works pretty well for people who won't accept required change. My whole area was skipped for NTL rollout at the time of deployment here (literally a ring of activated areas around us) because some NIMBY kicked off about them digging up the verges next to a main road and having to cut across pavements - so they stopped at the end of the road and didn't continue into my village.

There's suppose to be new schemes to make it easier for providers to expand but we'll have to see if it truly ever helps.
This happened with the FTTP Rollout - one of the biggest things that helped with that was in my opinion:
1) BT being given a strict set of what was/was not going to happen (re: forced to allow others to use their kit - that they've paid for)
2) Tax breaks for installation (Business rate reduction)
3) Wayleave changes (Easier)
4) Not requiring planning permission for new telegraph poles/similar last mile kit (though this has it's own set of NIMBY's now whingeing)


The same thing needs to happen for mobile, but the problem is #4 above has already started causing push back with people whingeing about telegraph poles.

If it was me, I'd start a campaign of malicious compliance and remove any that are requested providing everyone agrees - then blacklist the area from any upgrades from any provider for at least 5 years and watch as everywhere else gets done - and then they can wonder why their house price tanks when no one wants to move to the area with <50mbit connectivity and crap mobile signal). Maintain that street/postcode list and any provider who provides service just slap a huge fine on (like 10% revenue).
 
Ragebait online pushing people to engage by getting them angry is going to be the downfall of society.

Couldn't agree more though, the "FAFO" method usually works pretty well for people who won't accept required change. My whole area was skipped for NTL rollout at the time of deployment here (literally a ring of activated areas around us) because some NIMBY kicked off about them digging up the verges next to a main road and having to cut across pavements - so they stopped at the end of the road and didn't continue into my village.


This happened with the FTTP Rollout - one of the biggest things that helped with that was in my opinion:
1) BT being given a strict set of what was/was not going to happen (re: forced to allow others to use their kit - that they've paid for)
2) Tax breaks for installation (Business rate reduction)
3) Wayleave changes (Easier)
4) Not requiring planning permission for new telegraph poles/similar last mile kit (though this has it's own set of NIMBY's now whingeing)


The same thing needs to happen for mobile, but the problem is #4 above has already started causing push back with people whingeing about telegraph poles.

If it was me, I'd start a campaign of malicious compliance and remove any that are requested providing everyone agrees - then blacklist the area from any upgrades from any provider for at least 5 years and watch as everywhere else gets done - and then they can wonder why their house price tanks when no one wants to move to the area with <50mbit connectivity and crap mobile signal). Maintain that street/postcode list and any provider who provides service just slap a huge fine on (like 10% revenue).
You need to remember not everyone is interested in having the fastest connectivity and might be more interested in the look and amenity of their home, street and area.

Why should a company who only has one purpose, to make profits for shareholders, ruin the look of an area with infrastructure and go unchallenged? It's not beyond the wit of man to install masts and new fibre connections where they can go unnoticed. For example, on my street we have electricity, gas, water, sewage, drains, telephone connections plus now FTTP from Openreach and FibreMe, but you wouldn't know by walking up the street as it is all invisible, and they made it all invisible for a reason. Imagine what our streets would be like of these other utility companies decided it was too expensive to put their stuff out of sight underground?

The reason they go for poles and big ugly large phone masts is they want to maximize profit, end of. You can bet the directors of said companies don't have new poles put up outside their expensive houses.
 
Sponsored Links
"When we launched our 3G network in the UK in the early 2000s, the world was a different place. Back then, the first iPhone had not launched, there was no WhatsApp or Facebook, and 3G was the most reliable mobile technology available. Fast forward twenty years and things have moved on."

Erh no, that was the other BT, BT Cellnet
 
You need to remember not everyone is interested in having the fastest connectivity

It isn't just about fast connectivity it's also about sustainability. Quality goes up, power usage goes down.

Everyone is going to be a mobile user for emergency use come Digital Voice switch over anyway as you no longer have a guaranteed phoneline to each house.

People need to pick up and move with the times.

and might be more interested in the look and amenity of their home, street and area.
If you've got nothing better to do then look at a telegraph pole on your street then I think you're beyond help.

The reason they go for poles and big ugly large phone masts is they want to maximize profit, end of. You can bet the directors of said companies don't have new poles put up outside their expensive houses.
Correct - or because it's not feasible. Outside my house I already have 2 underground networks which intersect each other in the pavement several times. If you have more networks doing this then you're going to hit a point where you physically can't get in more lines.

What about all of these houses that have "utility" poles - e.g. Their power is also pole fed, often shared with BT. People seem happy to have electricity coming into their house via a cable? Drive around areas in Essex with £750k+ properties, all electricity pole fed, and none-upgraded VDSL on the pole.
None-mains gas properties? Happy to have an absolutely huge gas tank sat at their property boundary usually painted some garish colour, people accept the appearance and move on.

"So force BT to open up their lines to everyone"
Yeah - that's a chunk of why BT wouldn't invest, because why spend the millions putting the money in to give it away to someone else for a pittance in rent?

"So only have one network in each area"
OK - So whats the plan here? have a national gov run network which is then wholesaled? Yeah - GPO was in a state when it was privatized. Royal Mail is a state. Water companies are a state. It's easy for a central body to sit and underinvest, then when the big money is needed sell it on for someone to make profit post investing.

The whole "Nationalize BT" argument doesn't really work and infuriates me. Because once the initial rollout would be done then you'd have them sweating the assets until it's literally worthless, it'll get sold for a pittance and then the customers will end up picking up the tab once the wheels fall off (Water is about here)

We do not have good enough regulation for privatization, and state-owned is always a bloated inefficient mess. They'd be better doing some company with "UK GOV PLC" as say 75% shareholder and <corp entity> having the rest, then profits and dividends get paid to the gov when times are good, and can block them when things aren't as good (Looking at you Thames Water)

The solution we have currently isn't perfect - I think there are far too many altnets building and hopefully consolidation will correct a chunk of that - but if people are expecting networks to be retrospectively be put underground - I have bad news for you.

Putting networks etc. underground in greenfield sites is easy. When you do this in an area what has god knows what under ground - which isn't marked, mapped, labelled or detailed anywhere - who in their right mind is going to voluntarily dig through this to lay ducting to properties? (Which then you have to have permission from the home owner to dig a trench from the toby/ducting to their property) - again, more construction time, effort and cost.

If you want a goal quickly, doing it via poles is very fast, cheap, and doesn't use a huge amount of labour.
You can bet the directors of said companies don't have new poles put up outside their expensive houses.

When you start looking at the £1m+ housing, you'll find that when rebuilt / developed / extended there's generally no issues in digging the entire building out - because the person who wants the work doing will pay to correct any of these issues found.

Where's the incentive to deploy a ducted network to properties for them to never take up service?
VS I can put a pole in, which can serve a similar amount of properties, which is cheap, permitted development so I don't need planning permission, and minimizes local disruption - and once it's built I can connect end customers up easily, without any additional construction requirements

Erh no, that was the other BT, BT Cellnet
T-Mobile:
"T-Mobile launched their 3G UMTS services in the Autumn of 2003"
Orange:
"The first to market will be the 3G Mobile Office Card. Targeted at Corporate and small business customers, it will be available to buy in the UK from 19th July (2004), complete with a flat rate tariff structure and offering speeds of up to 384 kbps."

"We" as BT Group includes EE (T-Mobile / Orange UK).
 
If it was me, I'd start a campaign of malicious compliance and remove any that are requested providing everyone agrees - then blacklist the area from any upgrades from any provider for at least 5 years and watch as everywhere else gets done - and then they can wonder why their house price tanks when no one wants to move to the area with <50mbit connectivity and crap mobile signal). Maintain that street/postcode list and any provider who provides service just slap a huge fine on (like 10% revenue).


No houses anywhere around here get close to 50Mb/s. We get about 18Mb/s and we're fairly lucky to get that. Next small hamlet along our lane is still stuck with ADSL, and they are lucky to get 5Mb/s.

Cheapest house on the market around here at the moment is a 2 bed terraced cottage at £375k asking price. They'll probably get it, too, as that's cheaper than the same sort of place was selling for a year or two ago. A week does't go by here without a glossy card arriving in the post asking us to put our house on the market. Houses seem to sell very quickly here even though there's virtually no mobile coverage and nothing faster than FTTC.


Crazy situation, as there are no affordable homes for first time buyers anywhere nearby, so as youngsters grow up and start to look for somewhere to live they have no choice but to move miles away. There were a few rental places, but gradually the landlords have sold up, as the combination of more onerous regulations and the buoyant market meant selling up was a no brainer.
 
You need to remember not everyone is interested in having the fastest connectivity and might be more interested in the look and amenity of their home, street and area.

Why should a company who only has one purpose, to make profits for shareholders, ruin the look of an area with infrastructure and go unchallenged? It's not beyond the wit of man to install masts and new fibre connections where they can go unnoticed. For example, on my street we have electricity, gas, water, sewage, drains, telephone connections plus now FTTP from Openreach and FibreMe, but you wouldn't know by walking up the street as it is all invisible, and they made it all invisible for a reason. Imagine what our streets would be like of these other utility companies decided it was too expensive to put their stuff out of sight underground?

The reason they go for poles and big ugly large phone masts is they want to maximize profit, end of. You can bet the directors of said companies don't have new poles put up outside their expensive houses.

Regarding mobile networks, we have limited spectrum, so we are forced to use that spectrum in the most efficient way possible. 3G is an old technology, costs more to operate, it's not very efficient, data usage keeps increasing, so independently of our attachment to it, it must go.

Having 4G doesn't affect those that don't need better speeds and 2G is still available for old devices. Yet in some areas even upgrades that just replace the equipment are blocked. Why?

We must consider the needs of everyone, not just our own. If some area that blocked all upgrades stops having service, then that's just the consequences of their own actions... I only feel bad for those who actually need service and had nothing to do with blocking upgrades.

Regarding the rest, I think it's fine for an area to require cables to be under ground and have rules, as long they don't block the deployment of new tech just because some NIMBY doesn't want to hear the noise of the required street works. Again, we must consider the needs of everyone, not just the needs of the "me me me" crowd.
 
Is it a full switch off, or just consumer side? As these companies have long term contracts in place for 3G with various entities.
 
Sponsored Links
Is it a full switch off, or just consumer side?
Nationwide - so will be everything. I'm assuming they'll follow Vodafone, who are also killing business 3g-only masts (and will remove them). Remember, they want the frequencies to re-farm them - that means they need them empty.

(see -> https://www.vodafone.co.uk/business/3g-switch-off "In-building coverage scheme" -> https://www.vodafone.co.uk/business/business-mobile-plans/mobile-plan-features/in-building-coverage)

As these companies have long term contracts in place for 3G with various entities.
Do you have examples? I'd be surprised if the contract calls out the specific technology ? From what I've seen before they give an example of a specific technology or a minimum requirement, but not a specific tech.
 
I must say even rurally I rarely see 3G on EE these days.

The Band 20 does it’s job of keeping a 4G signal on your phone.

Vodafone today have shocked me. Large stretches on 2G 900 out in the wilderness which did not used to exist. It’s good for voice and better than nothing but forget streaming.
 
It isn't just about fast connectivity it's also about sustainability. Quality goes up, power usage goes down.

Everyone is going to be a mobile user for emergency use come Digital Voice switch over anyway as you no longer have a guaranteed phoneline to each house.

People need to pick up and move with the times.


If you've got nothing better to do then look at a telegraph pole on your street then I think you're beyond help.


Correct - or because it's not feasible. Outside my house I already have 2 underground networks which intersect each other in the pavement several times. If you have more networks doing this then you're going to hit a point where you physically can't get in more lines.

What about all of these houses that have "utility" poles - e.g. Their power is also pole fed, often shared with BT. People seem happy to have electricity coming into their house via a cable? Drive around areas in Essex with £750k+ properties, all electricity pole fed, and none-upgraded VDSL on the pole.
None-mains gas properties? Happy to have an absolutely huge gas tank sat at their property boundary usually painted some garish colour, people accept the appearance and move on.

"So force BT to open up their lines to everyone"
Yeah - that's a chunk of why BT wouldn't invest, because why spend the millions putting the money in to give it away to someone else for a pittance in rent?

"So only have one network in each area"
OK - So whats the plan here? have a national gov run network which is then wholesaled? Yeah - GPO was in a state when it was privatized. Royal Mail is a state. Water companies are a state. It's easy for a central body to sit and underinvest, then when the big money is needed sell it on for someone to make profit post investing.

The whole "Nationalize BT" argument doesn't really work and infuriates me. Because once the initial rollout would be done then you'd have them sweating the assets until it's literally worthless, it'll get sold for a pittance and then the customers will end up picking up the tab once the wheels fall off (Water is about here)

We do not have good enough regulation for privatization, and state-owned is always a bloated inefficient mess. They'd be better doing some company with "UK GOV PLC" as say 75% shareholder and <corp entity> having the rest, then profits and dividends get paid to the gov when times are good, and can block them when things aren't as good (Looking at you Thames Water)

The solution we have currently isn't perfect - I think there are far too many altnets building and hopefully consolidation will correct a chunk of that - but if people are expecting networks to be retrospectively be put underground - I have bad news for you.

Putting networks etc. underground in greenfield sites is easy. When you do this in an area what has god knows what under ground - which isn't marked, mapped, labelled or detailed anywhere - who in their right mind is going to voluntarily dig through this to lay ducting to properties? (Which then you have to have permission from the home owner to dig a trench from the toby/ducting to their property) - again, more construction time, effort and cost.

If you want a goal quickly, doing it via poles is very fast, cheap, and doesn't use a huge amount of labour.


When you start looking at the £1m+ housing, you'll find that when rebuilt / developed / extended there's generally no issues in digging the entire building out - because the person who wants the work doing will pay to correct any of these issues found.

Where's the incentive to deploy a ducted network to properties for them to never take up service?
VS I can put a pole in, which can serve a similar amount of properties, which is cheap, permitted development so I don't need planning permission, and minimizes local disruption - and once it's built I can connect end customers up easily, without any additional construction requirements


T-Mobile:
"T-Mobile launched their 3G UMTS services in the Autumn of 2003"
Orange:
"The first to market will be the 3G Mobile Office Card. Targeted at Corporate and small business customers, it will be available to buy in the UK from 19th July (2004), complete with a flat rate tariff structure and offering speeds of up to 384 kbps."

"We" as BT Group includes EE (T-Mobile / Orange UK).
There is a lot you have written which I haven't time to read but one point regarding poles for fibre and your mention of emergency use. Installing what you are implying is critical infrastructure on poles is not where critical infrastructure should ever be! All new build housing has critical infrastructure underground for good reason, its more reliable and often space is at a premium. Where existing streets are being wired up with fibre where existing telecoms are underground, and the replacement for copper is then strung on poles should never be allowed.
 
There is a lot you have written which I haven't time to read but one point regarding poles for fibre and your mention of emergency use. Installing what you are implying is critical infrastructure on poles is not where critical infrastructure should ever be! All new build housing has critical infrastructure underground for good reason, its more reliable and often space is at a premium. Where existing streets are being wired up with fibre where existing telecoms are underground, and the replacement for copper is then strung on poles should never be allowed.
Why not? its more reliable than the copper it is replacing and its better than having the roads all dug up.
 
Top
Cheap BIG ISPs for 100Mbps+
Community Fibre UK ISP Logo
150Mbps
Gift: None
Virgin Media UK ISP Logo
Virgin Media £22.99
132Mbps
Gift: None
Vodafone UK ISP Logo
Vodafone £24.00 - 26.00
150Mbps
Gift: None
NOW UK ISP Logo
NOW £24.00
100Mbps
Gift: None
Plusnet UK ISP Logo
Plusnet £25.99
145Mbps
Gift: £50 Reward Card
Large Availability | View All
Cheapest ISPs for 100Mbps+
Gigaclear UK ISP Logo
Gigaclear £17.00
200Mbps
Gift: None
Community Fibre UK ISP Logo
150Mbps
Gift: None
Virgin Media UK ISP Logo
Virgin Media £22.99
132Mbps
Gift: None
Hey! Broadband UK ISP Logo
150Mbps
Gift: None
Youfibre UK ISP Logo
Youfibre £23.99
150Mbps
Gift: None
Large Availability | View All
Sponsored Links
The Top 15 Category Tags
  1. FTTP (6026)
  2. BT (3639)
  3. Politics (2721)
  4. Business (2439)
  5. Openreach (2405)
  6. Building Digital UK (2330)
  7. Mobile Broadband (2146)
  8. FTTC (2083)
  9. Statistics (1901)
  10. 4G (1816)
  11. Virgin Media (1764)
  12. Ofcom Regulation (1582)
  13. Fibre Optic (1467)
  14. Wireless Internet (1462)
  15. 5G (1407)
Sponsored

Copyright © 1999 to Present - ISPreview.co.uk - All Rights Reserved - Terms  ,  Privacy and Cookie Policy  ,  Links  ,  Website Rules