4G tests reveal patchy urban coverage

bealtine

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20408514

The first large-scale test of EE's new 4G network has indicated less than half of Manchester city centre is able to take advantage of its high speeds.

Data collected by mobile coverage firm RootMetrics and shared exclusively with the BBC reveals just 40.2% of its test locations had access to the 4G network.

Outside the city centre there was no 4G coverage, according to the tests.

RootMetrics also found 4G provided much faster speeds indoors, something EE's rivals had questioned when it launched.

Quick song

In test locations that had access 4G, users were getting speeds averaging 17Mbps (megabits per second), according to the survey.

Across all test locations, including those where 4G was unavailable, EE averaged download speeds of 7.6Mbps.

That is still double the average speed of the next fastest operator in the area - Vodafone - which recorded average download speeds of 3.1Mbps in previous tests.

It means that, for example, downloading a song would take less than 15-25 seconds compared with the minute or so it would take on a typical 3G network.

The survey also found:

31% of tests were achieving speeds of more than 10Mbps
9% achieved speeds of 6-10Mbps
18% speeds of 3-6Mbps
23% speeds of 1.5-3Mbps.
That left 19% achieving speeds of less than 1.5Mbps, which actually compares favourably with EE's rivals.

In previous tests, 46% of all the tests for other mobile operators performed at these low speeds, according to RootMetrics.


While the patchy coverage may frustrate users, it mirrored rollouts in the US, where deployments had typically launched with 30% to 60% coverage, said RootMetric's chief executive Bill Moore.

"Although EE's 4G service is much faster than any network currently available in the UK, our testing shows that 4G connections are not consistent even within a nominated area," he said.

"Customers need to be aware of this as there will be an expectation of blistering fast mobile internet speeds whenever they use their phones," said Mr Moore.

EE told the BBC the rollout was "ongoing".

"Every day we expand coverage," said a spokesman.

EE has currently deployed 4G in 11 UK cities, with a plan to increase this to 16 by the end of the year.

Indoor coverage
When EE's network launched, rivals questioned whether the spectrum band that it was using - 1800MHz - would provide good indoor coverage.

But the results suggest that it is not significantly worse - 93% of tests conducted indoors were successful, compared with 97% of outdoor tests.

The survey suggests that 4G has actually offered an uplift to typical indoor speeds.

In fact, RootMetrics found that indoor download speed was higher than its download speeds outdoors - averaging 9.7Mbps versus 8.6Mbps. The caveat to this is that the test did not separate 4G coverage from 3G.

"You would never get the indoor speeds we have seen without 4G. The figures are far in excess of what 3G is capable of on average," said Mr Moore.

Both coverage and speed tests were conducted in Manchester during November using off-the-shelf Samsung Galaxy S3's.

The firm will be testing more 4G services in other cities around the UK and the findings will be published on its website.

watty

But is the 4G really so much better? If you have 10 users streaming at same place you get 1/10th of the speed.

About 70% of tests are less than 10Mbps. So when there are significant number of customers (almost none now), the speed will drop dramatically. Of course this is why it's more expensive and has small caps. To reduce contention and have this as higher quality service for rich road warriors.

What it isn't is a solution for missing fixed Broadband. Not even in Urban areas. It's a MOBILE service for intermittent use "on the go". That's also how Vodafone markets 4G in Germany.

A lot of people are simply lying about so called "4G" (LTE) to excuse doing nothing.

Also UK isn't clearing Digital TV for 5G. There really isn't a 5G (yet) and if there was the cleared space is TOO SMALL. The UK left a 600MHz gap that no-one wants. They are simply moving the gap to beside the 800MHz band. However they need more TV channels, even using DVB-T2, as they are mandating Local TV and more channels want HD.

Ofcom should just admit they were wrong and greedy and dedicate the 600MHz block to TV (as it is mostly everywhere else in Europe).

The so called "Digital Dividend" shouldn't go below 790MHz (the current Europe Wide limit). Like Comreg, Ofcom is obsessed with Mobile.

bealtine

These tests were done on a largely empty network as there are very few LTE devices on the market at this time so "sharing" wasn't probably an issue.

This is more likely this is a clear view of the probable type of variable performance one can expect from LTE.

Also it lays bare the wacky predictions of 180Mb/s claims of some mobile operators

watty

When the network has customers the variability is FAR WORSE!

You need 2 x 20MHz channels, perfect signal (likely view of mast) and NO other users to get anything like 180Mbps. Meaningless. Stupidity.

Cheerful Spring

From what i have read on the web so far, the 800MHz and 900MHz signal is likely to improve mobile broadband speeds to rural Ireland. Another good thing too is there is a lower volume of people living in Irish cities, towns, and villages ( if one was comparing us like by like to the UK). Surely this can only benefit us and help with congestion?

I would also hope mobile broadband companies based in Ireland, will be bright with where they plan to install their 4G technology?


4G, success is depend on people using it and the service been stable 24 hrs a day. If mobile broadband companies decide to spent most of their time trying to provide 4G to urban dwellers ( this is a mistake) There wasting their time. (why?)

It just a fact Fibre broadban is a better product than 4G broadband. Fibre is likely to reach the outer reaches of city areas within 5 to 10 years and were will that leave 4G in urban areas?

Bring 4G to rural Ireland first goes against the norm, but its actually the most prudent way forward.

Cheerful Spring

bealtine wrote: »

These tests were done on a largely empty network as there are very few LTE devices on the market at this time so "sharing" wasn't probably an issue.

This is more likely this is a clear view of the probable type of variable performance one can expect from LTE.

Also it lays bare the wacky predictions of 180Mb/s claims of some mobile operators

If we talking about LTE advanced speeds above 180mb is possible, but I'm not aware of a LTE advanced rollout in Europe were speeds have gone above 140MB. Not everyone deploys the same standard 4G, some 4g networks are better than others. I heard 4G vodaphone network was the best standard.

oscarBravo

It's simply a question of economics. If I had committed to spending several hundred million euros on 4G licenses, I'd be rolling out services in areas where I'm going to get the highest numbers of customers. It's all very well for government to talk the talk about 4G solving all our rural broadband problems, but what government wants to believe and what the commercial realities are for mobile phone companies don't necessarily coincide.

We've been so completely brainwashed in this country into thinking of mobile Internet technologies as a replacement for real broadband that we forget that they are actually designed to do what the name implies: provide connectivity to mobile devices.

watty

4G/LTE was designed as MOBILE service COMPLEMENTARY to Fixed Broadband.

lucernarian

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

From what i have read on the web so far, the 800MHz and 900MHz signal is likely to improve mobile broadband speeds to rural Ireland. Another good thing too is there is a lower volume of people living in Irish cities, towns, and villages ( if one was comparing us like by like to the UK). Surely this can only benefit us and help with congestion?

I would also hope mobile broadband companies based in Ireland, will be bright with where they plan to install their 4G technology?


4G, success is depend on people using it and the service been stable 24 hrs a day. If mobile broadband companies decide to spent most of their time trying to provide 4G to urban dwellers ( this is a mistake) There wasting their time. (why?)

It just a fact Fibre broadban is a better product than 4G broadband. Fibre is likely to reach the outer reaches of city areas within 5 to 10 years and were will that leave 4G in urban areas?

Bring 4G to rural Ireland first goes against the norm, but its actually the most prudent way forward.

With technology that involves multiple users sharing a given bandwidth from one broadcasting place, the single biggest factor is the number of places LTE will be broadcast from. It's no good if they enable a few rural sites with 800MHz spectrum to provide "coverage" when all that means is 200 users can now connect where before 50 users connected. Given the way the spectrum has been doled out, the max bandwidth is not significantly different from what was used with 3G based stuff.

And we all know the results of mobile internet performance as more and more people took up three's underpriced internet offer. The most important thing will be able to provide a base station that serves as few people as possible. Or even provide simultaneous 1.8GHz and 900MHz service from one site to supplement coverage from existing 3G only sites. The 1.8GHz will nearly mimic existing coverage and usage requirements whille 800MHz can serve all the new customers that will result from increase coverage. And it might mean fewer cell sites needed than the combined number of GSM and 3G sites , but certainly more than the number 3G sites alone (in suburban or rural areas, where the impact of 800MHz will be felt the most).

And the amount of money needed to make all that happen will certainly rival the cost of building one national Fibre to the home network. Meaning LTE is not really going to change the status quo much if all other things remain equal.