WiFi Tethering with Froyo on the Google Nexus One

[Hands0n]

One of the nice things that comes built in with Android 2.2, codenamed Froyo, is that of Wireless Tethering. It delivers a WiFi access point that shares your 3G/HSPA connection to the outside world. So the first piece of advice to anyone reading this is "Be careful of your usage", as it will be very much more using a tethered laptop/iPad than it will via the handset's own Internet applications (browser, email etc...).

I am using the generic Google Nexus One, bought SIM-free direct from Google when it came out. The software is completely unbranded. Whether the UK mobile networks own versions of the Nexus One will have the built-in Tether software or not remains to be seen. I do suspect that they'll cripple it, however.

I can recommend tethering as an alternative means of connecting [a laptop] to the Internet while on the move. In days gone by I have used USB tethering on the likes of the Nokia N95, so this is nothing new. WiFi tethering takes things to a new level, however.

In use
The first thing anyone does when checking out tethering is a speedtest - and for this I used speedtest.net, a trusted favourite. I was using my Macbook Pro to attach to the Nexus One and a single-shot speedtest gave a typical result for my present location
1110

In use the tethered laptop feel no different to when used via any other 3G/HSPA means. The WiFi and the Android OS impose no penalties. This feels as it would had I used a 3G/HSPA USB stick or the Three MiFi device that I recently acquired.

Reasons to use Tethering
This built-in wireless AP is very useful if you find yourself stuck away from your usual means of Internet connectivity. As an emergency device it is a godsend. There are plenty of times that I am nowhere near my USB stick or MiFi as now is. Occasionally I've had that "I wish I had my 3G facility", not often mind you, but it would have been much easier to use the laptop than the handset's own screen. And believe me, Flash on the smaller device's screen is no match for the real thing on a full-sized laptop screen.

Reasons not to use Tethering
In a word ... cost. It can be horrendously expensive to use your handset's own 3G data allowance, particularly if you go out of your data plan's limits. And these have got a lot lower of late - at the time of writing we are witnessing O2, Vodafone, Three and Orange imposing swingeing cuts to the mobile data allowance from "Unlimited" to 500MB per month. Right now only T-Mobile has Gibabyte mobile data caps.

If you are going to use such tethering I strongly suggest the use of a usage monitoring tool on your Android handset. One that I swear by is NetCounter, a nice, simple and free app that tracks usage of WiFi and Cell (3G) usage by Day, Week and Month. It is a very handy tool to help keep yourself within your data cap.

[Ben]

When should I get this as an update to my Nexus One? I want to experience the end-user upgrade :D

[Hands0n]

That is a very good question Ben. The OTA has not formally been sent out to the entire planet :) Up to now it seems to have been very restricted but Google are keeping completely quiet about this, so no one truly knows what is going on. It is a case of watch, wait and see. Or if you're half as impatient as me then do the upgrade manually :-)

[billynibbles]

Reasons not to use Tethering
In a word ... cost. It can be horrendously expensive to use your handset's own 3G data allowance, particularly if you go out of your data plan's limits. And these have got a lot lower of late - at the time of writing we are witnessing O2, Vodafone, Three and Orange imposing swingeing cuts to the mobile data allowance from "Unlimited" to 500MB per month. Right now only T-Mobile has Gibabyte mobile data caps.
.

Since this was written, '3' have introduced The One Plan after reducing my existing tariff from 2mbytes to 1 mbyte, presumably as a pre-emptive step to making The One Plan more attractive! As I understand it, 3 is now the only operator to offer truly unlimited data, and therefore anyone using this tariff can make use of the PC tethering and Wifi Hotspot without living in dread of the bill dropping onto their mat a month later.

[3GScottishUser]

It's interesting looking at the current developments regarding mobile data. There appears to be two quite different strategies networks are using to solve the issue of bandwidth.

3 have 'unlimited data' and thats fine as a marketing concept but as we all know even they with the largest 3G spectrum have a finite capacity and the more people who use their service the more it affects their download speeds for everyone. Recent side by side comparisons where I work have shown 3 to me significantly slower using 'Speedtest' than Vodafone or 02. Of course mast siting etc has to be taken into account but even with that in mind there can often be 3-4Mbs difference. So perhaps 3 have decided on a 'free for all' and let the network capacity regulate usage.

Vodafone, 02 and Everything Everywhere seem to be promoting the use of Wi-Fi where its available. I think that is a smart move leaving 3G for travellers and places outwith Wi-Fi coverage. My Galaxy S switches to Wi-Fi as soon as I get home and its good as its faster than 3G and does not consume much of my 1GB mothly data allowance. I have used an app called network counter to monitor 3G data and have been astonished to learn how little I consume. Just a few MB a week for checking Facebook and browsing really. I don't use the phone whilst travelling and have 100s of network connected PCs at work to use so I suppose the phone is only required occasionally for data.

[Hands0n]

You are absolutely correct, at this time :) It was only six months after I wrote that piece that Three introduced All You Can Eat (AYCE) to The One Plan and became the first and only operator to introduce truly unlimited mobile data that you could also tether to.

The response from other networks has been to make mobile data more expensive or restrictive.

[Hands0n]

3 have 'unlimited data' and thats fine as a marketing concept but as we all know even they with the largest 3G spectrum have a finite capacity and the more people who use their service the more it affects their download speeds for everyone. Recent side by side comparisons where I work have shown 3 to me significantly slower using 'Speedtest' than Vodafone or 02. Of course mast siting etc has to be taken into account but even with that in mind there can often be 3-4Mbs difference. So perhaps 3 have decided on a 'free for all' and let the network capacity regulate usage.

That would be a wholly incorrect assumption.

Three are the first network to implement HSPA+ in the UK. This lifts them completely out of the 7.2Mbps ceiling of the other network operators and paves the way for 3G speeds of up to 84Mbps downlink and 22Mbps uplink (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_HSPA ). In the first iteration of the network update they are allowing speeds of up to 40% greater than previously.

Using one of Three's new HSPA+ dongles I achieved a practical speed result of 9.72Mbps downlink (see: http://technoratia.com/2011/06/12/threes-mobile-broadband-huawei-e367-dongle/ ). Alongside that, using a non-HSPA device on Three's network at the same location, therefore the same mast, I got 5.2Mbps.

Now compare that with Vodafone, same location, equidistant mast, the speed and ping times of that company's network were wholly inferior to Three's with downlink speeds below 2Mbps. There is an O2 mast also equidistant to my location that performs even worse!

Three have made massive investments in their core network and relentlessly manage the experience there where it really is important. The other networks do not and hence we see the ridiculously long ping times, slow throughputs, jitter conspire to deliver a poor experience, even where the airtime (that between the handset and nearest mast, is very good. This is why you will see reports (see Vodafone and O2 Twitter channels for reference) from customers declaring a full five-bars of signal but dreadful data throughputs. Now that has absolutely nothing to do with mast distribution, rather it is down to the back-haul circuits and core network design and capacity. It really is not all about airtime!

Three, with their The One Plan and All You Can Eat data completely liberate the individual from constraint and worry about over use for the measly sum of £25 a month. For that alone Three are to be applauded while the other networks look on and blink like rabbits caught in the headlights.

[3GScottishUser]

Three, with their The One Plan and All You Can Eat data completely liberate the individual from constraint and worry about over use for the measly sum of £25 a month. For that alone Three are to be applauded while the other networks look on and blink like rabbits caught in the headlights.

But others are not simply looking on and doing nothing! 02 and Vodafone are refarming 900Mhz to 3G and along with EE are trying to make customers use Wi-Fi where it's available. All of the networks are now employing HSPA+. There is no evidence as yet that 3's AYCE proposition will attract any significant gain in customers. I have yet to hear anyone moan about additional charges for out of bundle data usage and that may be the only thing that could make people churn to 3. One thing that prevents 3 gaining customers is that many have had very poor experience with them both in terms of network performance and customer service. The small number of data hungry customers are probably the most likely to have tried 3 in the past and that could be where the AYCE strategy hits problems. I know I would not consider 3 as a primary mobile provider because I would be fearful of the lack of GSM fallback and the overall reliability of voice calls.

[Hands0n]

But others are not simply looking on and doing nothing! 02 and Vodafone are refarming 900Mhz to 3G and along with EE are trying to make customers use Wi-Fi where it's available.

This is all fiddling at the edges. It is not all about the airtime. And yet the core networks of O2 and Vodafone are of very poor quality in comparison to the lighter-weight Three. Network latency and jitter in the core of Vodafone for example, but not exclusively, is dreadful in the extreme.

So yes, by all means fiddle with the airtime, re-purpose the 900Mhz spectrum for better penetration. But it will all count for nought if you simply cannot carry the data through the core network itself. And that is what afflicts the likes of Vodafone and O2.


There is no evidence as yet that 3's AYCE proposition will attract any significant gain in customers.

If Twitter feedback is anything to go by the AYCE proposition is proving very popular. Empirically, Three's financial position has strengthened to the point of declaring profits for the past financial year.


I have yet to hear anyone moan about additional charges for out of bundle data usage and that may be the only thing that could make people churn to 3.

I would simply suggest making use of Google, most of the customer group forums, Twitter, newspapers, Internet magazines for starters. Plenty of reading matter out there to support the fact that people do not like out of bundle data usage charges, and instead fear them. These iniquitous charges act as a dampener on smartphone usage, with Three and giffgaff alone in promoting practical use.


One thing that prevents 3 gaining customers is that many have had very poor experience with them both in terms of network performance and customer service.

I can attest to the poor customer service experience at the hands of the Indian call centre. I can attest to that same experience with every supplier that I have ever used that has an Indian call centre. Witness Vodafone now taking a customer beating because it has shifted a large chunk of its CS into India with the utterly predictable shabby customer experience thereafter.

But I simply cannot agree with any assertion of a poor quality network. For me, and I accept that is not a global experience, I have had nothing but a superb network experience from Three since 03/03/03 when they launched. The voice quality has been superb. Network continuity also. For sure, there are areas where there has been no cover. But that is also true of all other networks.

Three's data performance surpasses all of the other networks where there is available signal. Certainly, there are no core network issues, with ping and jitter at UK lows, setting the bar for the other networks.


The small number of data hungry customers are probably the most likely to have tried 3 in the past and that could be where the AYCE strategy hits problems. I know I would not consider 3 as a primary mobile provider because I would be fearful of the lack of GSM fallback and the overall reliability of voice calls.

What possible use is GSM (2G) fallback to mobile data? Who on planet Earth can make practical and reasonable use of a smartphone on the legacy data standards? And with Three the actuality of needing 2G fallback is negated by the broad availability made possible through the MBNL joint venture, which will see even wider coverage as Orange fold into the JV by way of the EE deal. In that respect, for Three, T-Mobile and Orange ... as the song goes ... things can only get better.

I think that anyone who knows me will also know that I have been one of Three's greatest critics. Not only on the forums but also to their own staff and managers who have given the time to listen to me, even in person. I remain utterly agnostic to any network operator. They earn my praise and respect, and it is not given lightly. So, when you read me offering praise of Three, the network operator, then it is an indication that they are making a difference, and a worthy one at that.

Three are not yet out of the water, but it is completely clear to me that Three want to improve. There are no doubt corporate rules that prevent them from removing that dead albatross [that is the Indian call centre] from around their neck. But that is something that they desperately want to do, and maybe, in time, it will come to be.

I would caution anyone against particular prejudice for or against the network operators. Remember how great Orange once were - setting the bar for the UK operators. And then look at them now, a mere shadow of their former self. But with a loyal customer base that may recall those halcyon days, no longer apparent. My advice, always, is to move on when the network operator goes into decline against their peers.

NB: WiFi off-load, something that the legacy network operators are all looking at, is a complete cop-out. It is inefficient and too sparsely distributed to be of any particularly practical use. Most back-haul circuits for WiFi are ADSL, with all that implies. The lack of national investment in WiFi is very significantly worse than that for 3G networks. You can read into that for yourself, and set your expectations accordingly.

[3GScottishUser]

This is all fiddling at the edges. It is not all about the airtime. And yet the core networks of O2 and Vodafone are of very poor quality in comparison to the lighter-weight Three. Network latency and jitter in the core of Vodafone for example, but not exclusively, is dreadful in the extreme.

Three's data performance surpasses all of the other networks where there is available signal. Certainly, there are no core network issues, with ping and jitter at UK lows, setting the bar for the other networks.

Wow... what a sweeping statement!

Never once has 3 managed to beat my Vodafone handset in a Speedtest in the Glasgow area. 3 struggles to get to 2Mbs when Vodafone hits 4,5 or sometimes 6Mbs. This may be due to local conditions but it proves that 3 do not have the best available data speeds whereever they have a signal.

To prove the point I used my phone to test both 3 and Vodafone within minutes of each other from the same location (3's mast is significantly closer than Vodafone's).

Result for 3 UK: Download = 1.57Mb/s Upload = 0.40 Mb/s Ping = 89ms Link to result = http://www.speedtest.net/android/61427204.png

Result for Vodafone UK: Download = 3.97Mb/s Upload = 1.70 Mb/s Ping = 144ms Link to result = http://www.speedtest.net/android/61428395.png

Some difference eh? Even with the latency Vodafone is streets ahead which is why I wont be tempted by AYCE on 3 anytime soon.

[Hands0n]

The reality behind my statement is clearly evident for all and any to see.

By your very own examples it is supporting of my statement regarding the ping times (latency), and if you'd care to run a Pingtest from the same test organisation you will see that the Jitter within Vodafone's network is even worse. Do not ignore Ping and Jitter, they are very important if you are going to take on fixed-line broadband as indeed Three are with their AYCE, particularly on The One Plan. This being the first time that it has been economically viable to do any such thing.

And so to answer your closing question, yes, some difference indeed. It is not all about raw speed. Ping and Jitter relate to quality which is significant for media applications such as VoIP or streaming video.

Three are continuing, still, their network upgrade as part of the MBNL joint venture. Do not ignore the significance of the JV, it is not a roaming agreement but a full network share between Three and T-Mobile. It will be extended to Orange in due course (they (EE) currently only have a 2G roaming agreement in place). The three (no pun intended) networks put together make for a very formidable UK coverage, unmatched by any other UK network. This is highly significant.

And so perhaps in Glasgow the experience of HSPA+ will eventually be realised, even if it is not today. But I can safely attest, by my own recent experience, that in the South of the country, extending into Wales that Three's 3G is very evident, very much alive and kicking - more so in blackspots where the other networks (O2 and Vodafone in my direct experience) were hopelessly unavailable (even in 2G).

I can also safely state that Three's 3G network is more evenly available, by direct experience, than are O2 (and by that virtue giffgaff) and Vodafone. That is. coverage is more reliably available on Three than any of the others - which is why I often end up using my Three-powered Nexus S to provide a WiFi HotSpot to my Vodafone-equipped iPhone 4 because there is no signal of any kind from Vodafone.

[3GScottishUser]

Three are continuing, still, their network upgrade as part of the MBNL joint venture. Do not ignore the significance of the JV, it is not a roaming agreement but a full network share between Three and T-Mobile. It will be extended to Orange in due course (they (EE) currently only have a 2G roaming agreement in place). The three (no pun intended) networks put together make for a very formidable UK coverage, unmatched by any other UK network. This is highly significant.

Hold on!!

The Mobile Broadband UK joint venture is a mast sharing, network maintenence and planning collaboration. It does not extend to combining of the separate companies networks and probably never will. Everything Everywhere might eventually combine theirs but even now they simply allow roaming on each network (due to licencing). 3 does not have any roaming agreement with any other 3G provider and operates it's own 3G network which is and will always be entirely independent of EE's. Neither 3, T-Mobile or Orange can change this without approval from Ofcom who would have to revise their licences. It's very doubtful Ofcom would permit 3 of the 5 mob ops to share networks for competitiion reasons.

The ping ratings seem to be variable depending on the distance one is from the mobile mast. Tests side by side in Glasgow have proved time after time that Vodafone beats 3 every time to the webpages on a mobile device and buffers less than 3 does when viewing YouTube or the BBC iPlayer. I knnow this as I have done this test many times at work with a variety of high end handsets on 3 and the result has been the same every time.

[hecatae]

wifi tethering on my zte blade generic stock froyo works fine.

[Hands0n]

Hold on!!

The Mobile Broadband UK joint venture is a mast sharing, network maintenence and planning collaboration. It does not extend to combining of the separate companies networks and probably never will.

Actually ....

Mobile Broadband Network Limited (MBNL) is a 50/50 joint venture company owned by 3 UK and T-Mobile (UK). MBNL was formed following the ground breaking network consolidation agreement that was completed on the 18th December 2007. MBNL manages and delivers the combined 3G access networks of the two companies.

Citation: http://www.mbnl.co.uk/

This is a sophisticated infrastructure share that has assured a greater deployment of Three's 3G network across the country. And they have bitten the bullet and are nearing completion of the roll-out of their 3G technology across all available MBNL sites. When or if Orange join the crowd then there will be an even wider potential to cover the UK even more.

As such, the deployment is much more efficient than any roaming agreement.



What is being shared?
Mobile: The operators are sharing three things: equipment, such as the base stations, masts and cell sites; transmission from the cell site to the core network and site management, which involves planning and building masts.

Citation: http://www.mobiletoday.co.uk/Feature/6734/A_guide_to_3_and_T-Mobile%E2%80%99s_network_share.aspx




The ping ratings seem to be variable depending on the distance one is from the mobile mast. [QUOTE]
Ping (latency) is less likely to be an airtime issue than a back-haul or core network problem. When investigating Vodafone's extraordinarily rubbish ping times some time back I ran a series of Traceroutes to see where the delays were. In all cases the latencies were deeper in the network path than the airtime. There is a lot of legacy in their network that was never designed to handle the data demands of 3G and above. To address LTE and eventually 4G they will have to re-build their core completely.


[Quote=3GScottishUser]
Tests side by side in Glasgow have proved time after time that Vodafone beats 3 every time to the webpages on a mobile device and buffers less than 3 does when viewing YouTube or the BBC iPlayer. I knnow this as I have done this test many times at work with a variety of high end handsets on 3 and the result has been the same every time.

And I can counter that with the experience in the South and Wales where Three's network wiped the floor with the others, consistently. Try a mainline train journey from mid-Kent into London and there will be almost zero Vodafone signal vs Three with a strong and highly accessible signal.

A classic complaint to Vodafone is the London Bridge area - here is a huge and significant metropolitan rail complex that is all but bereft of Vodafone signal. Three, on the other hand, is completely available.

Given that mobile operators tend to favour deployment in city centres it is staggering that this would be the case in a major London station.

[3GScottishUser]

Now are we being a little selective about the MBNL sharing?

Their original press release states: "By combining their 3G access networks (the mobile masts and infrastructure that connects to each operator’s separate core network) T-Mobile and 3 UK will create Europe’s most extensive high-speed downlink packet access (HSDPA) network." The continue by explaining: "Although masts and the 3G access networks are being combined, each company’s core network and T-Mobile’s 2G network will not be shared. Both parties will retain responsibility for the delivery of services to their respective customers and use their own frequency spectrum."

So my original point is correct: They share masts, maintenance, planning and some communications facilities BUT their networks are totally independent and on different frequencies which cannot be shared due to licencing conditions. 3 can benefit from access to more sites but still have to install their own transmission equipment maybe in existing cabinets or ones next to established ones. (I believe this has been happening all over the UK and is now happening with Vodafone and 02 sites since they negotiated a similar sharing agreement for their 900/1800 & 2100Mhz serices). One other little point to remember is that MBNL consolodated lots of sites and will continue to do so now that Orange has joined them. So the total number of cell sites for the three operators will be greatley reduced and that is the key benefit for the operators. So we have to balance the gains in additional sites for 3 against the losses as they will have to close 1000s of their own sites and co-locate them to make sense of the MBNL venture. I understand that is exactly what has happened and whilst some have benefitted others have not as their 3 site may have been better located for their need to the new shared site. Add to that the removal of Orange roaming for voice and text and it adds up to a whole new 3 coverage map which probably won't suit every existing 3 users needs and cause them more bad reviews and customer issues. Things may work out better after some time but it's yet another problem that has the potential to further damage 3.

So 3 might now have more sites and the most bandwidth at 2100Mhz but the proof of the pudding is in the eating and my Speedtest results confirm that where I am situated 3 is nowhere close to being the best option for mobile broadband.

[Hands0n]

Nearly, but not quite.

The consolidation of sites merely means that where perhaps there were a T-Mobile and a Three mast located close to each other they have been able to be combined into a single installation site. That reduces the amount of physical masts and cabinets in a particular area, but will do little to nothing to reduce the coverage - that would be contrary to the point of the exercise. It is the propagation of airtime coverage that is at stake here while generating economies of scale under the JV that is MBNL.

The closure of sites is where there is an overlap occurring - my own particular location is a classic in mast proliferation where I have separate Vodafone, O2, T-Mobile, Three and Orange masts (although the Orange is a PicoCell and so coverage is crappy). As MBNL do their stuff in this particular area I would anticipate one of either of the T-Mobile or Three mast to disappear.

The cessation of Three's use of Orange for 2G fallback is irrelevant to the smartphone experience. In time MBNL will fill in the gaps and coverage will continue to improve while still making the operational savings that they set out to make.

That this move does not suit "... every existing Three users needs ..." is somewhat moot. This simply has to happen, the economics of the old method do not add up. But longer term, and that is the game that HWL are in, it makes complete sense to feel some short term pain for a much longer gain.

Already, Three's recent developments have been well received by both its customers and the watching community of bloggers and other technology reporters.

Our, yours and mine, experience of Three's network is clearly different. But I feel that it is important to take a completely non-partisan and agnostic view of the services they currently supply. These are unquestioningly good, and while they do not have 100% coverage (which network does?) they are officially rated as having the broadest coverage and the highest performance of all. They are also winning industry awards all over the place.

Now, if they can only remove that dead albatross from around their neck, that is their Indian call centre, they have the strongest potential to be the 2011/12 Orange of old.

[Hands0n]

Just for clarity - here are a few test results to mull over ...

Three HSPA http://www.speedtest.net/result/1348825540.png (http://www.speedtest.net)
The PingTest for the same connection: http://www.pingtest.net/result/42277416.png

The speedtest reveals Downlink speed 6.27Mbps, Uplink 1.54Mbps, Ping 60ms
The pingtest reveals Line Quality B, Ping 70ms, Jitter 17ms

Vodafone http://www.speedtest.net/result/1348834318.png
PingTest for the same connection: http://www.pingtest.net/result/42277718.png

The speedtest reveals Downlink speed 1.98Mbps, Uplink 1.08Mbps, Ping 140ms
The pingtest reveals Line Quality D, Ping 154ms, Jitter 48ms

The above tests were taken from the same laptop computer, connecting by WiFi to Android Gingerbread handsets, one on Vodafone and one on Three. The results are consistent, they do not vary. The 3G masts for each network are equidistant from the location of the handsets, give or take a few metres. I placed each handset such that it had clear line of sight with the mast, with no blocking structures or trees to corrupt the airspace.

So what does the above tell us about this specific location? Well, it is clear that the Vodafone facility is performing considerably less than the Three service.

What does this mean in real and practical terms? A 4.27 YouTube video at 360p (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rsciRaJVtE) exhibited some stuttering video. While a 1.16 video at 720p (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceNFkQ7fV8s&feature=feedrec_grec_index) was completely unwatchable as the Vodafone service simply could not keep up and deliver the video stream with any reasonable performance.

The same videos were completely watchable without any video quality impacts using the Three service.

NB: I fully accept that I am in a bit of a unique environment - but given the equidistance and clear line of sight it is abundantly apparent that the Vodafone service is the inferior of the two.

There is an O2 mast in a similar position to these two - but my giffgaff SIM is out on loan so I cannot use it here for comparison. Suffice to say that my experience there mirrors Vodafone's to a large extent.

Oh, and let us not forget that with Three's The One Plan with All You Can Eat data there is absolutely no fear to be had in using streaming video sites such as YouTube, BBC iPlayer, 40D, Sky Player etc. to my heart's content. On the other networks I am constantly watching NetCounter to make sure I do not go over my data allowance.

[DBMandrake]

Wow... what a sweeping statement!

Never once has 3 managed to beat my Vodafone handset in a Speedtest in the Glasgow area. 3 struggles to get to 2Mbs when Vodafone hits 4,5 or sometimes 6Mbs. This may be due to local conditions but it proves that 3 do not have the best available data speeds whereever they have a signal.

To prove the point I used my phone to test both 3 and Vodafone within minutes of each other from the same location (3's mast is significantly closer than Vodafone's).

Result for 3 UK: Download = 1.57Mb/s Upload = 0.40 Mb/s Ping = 89ms Link to result = http://www.speedtest.net/android/61427204.png

Result for Vodafone UK: Download = 3.97Mb/s Upload = 1.70 Mb/s Ping = 144ms Link to result = http://www.speedtest.net/android/61428395.png

Some difference eh? Even with the latency Vodafone is streets ahead which is why I wont be tempted by AYCE on 3 anytime soon.

All this comparison of speeds at one or just a few isolated locations is a bit pointless. You have a statistically invalid sample size that any High School statistics teacher would shoot down in flames.

So in one particular area of Glasgow Vodafone is faster than Three. So what ?

Speeds of all the networks vary wildly around the country depending on which mast you're connected to during the test, how much load is on that mast at that time of day etc.

You can easily find a location where any given network is the fastest, and another location where the same network is the slowest.

I'm not that far from Glasgow and when I tested Three tonight I get about the same speed as you - 1.8Mbit down, 0.35Mbit up. (Bear in mind my 3GS doesn't have HSUPA support so upstream will always be limited to 0.35Mbit regardless of network) But guess what - whenever I walk 5 minutes down the road to the train station, which I can see from my window, I get between 3 and 4Mbit downstream almost without fail. Yes, I've tested it frequently.

This is because there are 3-4 different Three masts all within a mile radius of here and going to the train station causes my phone to roam onto a different mast. Some masts are more heavily loaded than others.

Unless you sample a very large number of locations (hundreds at least) and times of day you can't draw a valid conclusion about the performance of a network nationwide, to do that would require statistical rigour, at best both yours and Hands0n's (and my) experiences are all anecdotal.

Having said that, I do think Three's speeds have slipped considerably in the greater Glasgow region in the last 6 months, but I don't find Vodafone good either. As a matter of interest, I don't get 3G from Vodafone at home at all, so Three's 1.7Mbit is better than Vodafone's GPRS any day. At the train station I get a weak 1 bar 3G signal from Vodafone which is far slower than Three.

Do I think this is statistically valid one way or the other ? Not really, just saying...

[3GScottishUser]

What seems to be proved is that network performance is dependent on your location.

In Central Scotland 3 is a basket case with abysmal speeds but OK ping latency.

In the Home counties 3 have a better result.

So it's a case of buyer beware and test the water before commiting. What you get depends on where you live and where you use your mobile network.

It's really no different to comparison of voice and text coverage and that is still a huge issue for smartphone as well as every other mobile user. Voice and text are the primary reasons why anyone buys a mobile phone so 3G coverage and GSM fallback is not insignificant. 3 are now the big gamble for users who travel as they have dtched their Orange roaming. As for 3G see above, it's location dependent and the mast sharing with T-Mobile and Orange in due course may do nothing much to help 3 customers in areas where UMTS has difficulties.

I am 100% convinced that GSM/UMTS 900/1800/2100 coverage is worth paying a little extra for to get the best mobile reliabiliy. I don't care if it takes an age for a page to load via Edge or GPRS as long as I can get it and in some areas those are the only workable options. Slow or nothing? I'll pay the small premium and get the data in the widest possible number of places across the UK thanks.

[DBMandrake]

What seems to be proved is that network performance is dependent on your location.

In Central Scotland 3 is a basket case with abysmal speeds but OK ping latency.

I really can't agree Three are a basket case in Central Scotland, but they are certainly slower than they were last year. Last Autumn I was travelling all around Scotland for work and although there were a few country road routes that had spotty 3G coverage almost every city and small town I went to had great 3G coverage and speeds. In a few smaller towns like Stranraer Three was the only network to have any 3G coverage at all. Meanwhile my work colleague whose work phone was with Vodafone was having "can you hear me now" moments calling head office from indoors while I was happily checking my emails...


In the Home counties 3 have a better result.

So it's a case of buyer beware and test the water before commiting. What you get depends on where you live and where you use your mobile network.

That's always been the case though. Coverage of all the networks is surprisingly spotty, it's just the spots are in different locations ;)


It's really no different to comparison of voice and text coverage and that is still a huge issue for smartphone as well as every other mobile user. Voice and text are the primary reasons why anyone buys a mobile phone so 3G coverage and GSM fallback is not insignificant.

I think that's stretching it a bit. Voice and text coverage are the primary reasons for buying a feature phone, (since that's all it really does) but I really don't think that's necessarily the case with modern smart phones. Maybe I'm not typical but I make very few phone calls, use sms moderately, and use data a lot.

For me, GPRS might as well be no signal in most cases - if I can't access usable data it's useless to me.


3 are now the big gamble for users who travel as they have dtched their Orange roaming.

It hasn't been ditched, it's just been turned off in some areas. It's turned off where I am but it's actually still active in most parts of Glasgow city, and in a lot of rural areas. I do agree that they have taken a big gamble switching it off even in some areas though.


As for 3G see above, it's location dependent and the mast sharing with T-Mobile and Orange in due course may do nothing much to help 3 customers in areas where UMTS has difficulties.

I am 100% convinced that GSM/UMTS 900/1800/2100 coverage is worth paying a little extra for to get the best mobile reliabiliy. I don't care if it takes an age for a page to load via Edge or GPRS as long as I can get it and in some areas those are the only workable options. Slow or nothing? I'll pay the small premium and get the data in the widest possible number of places across the UK thanks.
If those are your needs, Vodafone probably suit you better. That's fine, and it's your right to choose the network that suits you the best. Don't assume that everyone has the same needs or priorities as you though.

There are also another class of users who don't care about 2G fall-back. Tablet users and mobile broadband dongle users. Is an iPad running on GPRS really that useful ? I don't think so, let alone a PC. For this type of user getting 3G data in a lot more places makes up for the occasional no signal in a few places where the other network would only have unusable GPRS anyway. Three's data SIM's have never roamed on Orange 2G anyway, so are unaffected by any 2G roaming switch off.

Three's strategy including phasing out of 2G seems to be banking a lot more on the tablet and mobile broadband dongle users than mobile phones in general.

[3GScottishUser]

Three's strategy including phasing out of 2G seems to be banking a lot more on the tablet and mobile broadband dongle users than mobile phones in general.

A big gamble as I think most users still buy a mobile primarily for voice and text communication. Sure tablets and dongles have been gaining in popularity but by far its smartphones that have been increasing access for mobile Internet use. Smart..... phones.... note the phone part of the name. Phone is still important for most users so reliabilty of voice and SMS has to be paramount. It's no good having high speed data in some places if you can't receive calls and texts in others. I'm sure everyone has to make their choice dependent on needs, so for that reason I am happy with the reliabilty of voice and text, speed of data in my home area and the level of UK based customer service offered by Vodafone for the monthly fee I pay compared with alternatives.

[Hands0n]

Let us not forget that Three have become the second UK network to adopt HD Voice (on certain devices only, they have to be HDV compatible).

Three are making all the right steps to become the UK's premier mobile broadband operator on the 3G network. They have made a stated commitment to LTE also, which extends that commitment. They are also the first operator to have available HSPA+ out in the network, yet again affirming their commitment to mobile data.

If anyone buying a smartphone, iPad, data dongle or MiFi thinks that they will cope at all well at 2G/GPRS speeds they are kidding themselves, and will very soon be disappointed. A commitment to 3G, and all that entails, is what is essential in this day and age, if never before. However, the other four networks have responded to the new data demands by introducing restrictive and expensive data caps and FUPs that do nothing to service the customer. It is the same story in the USA where the mobile operators do not have a disruptor like Three to spoil their game.

As things stand, I cannot recommend any network over Three for anyone wanting a Smartphone, 3G Tablet or the need to tether a personal computer. The day that another UK operator meets the bar that Three have set will be the one that I extend my recommendation to include them. Simples.

[3GScottishUser]

Just to clarify ..... the first UK network to offer HSPA+ speeds of up to 7.2Mb/s in most major cities was Vodafone UK!

All of the UK Mob Ops are hoping to offer LTE and it was 02 who were the first to trial it in the Isle Of Man.

02 have been the first to refarm 900Mhz for HSPA+ data use delivering more stability and longer range using that fequency range.

3 are far from the only player commited to mobile data in the UK and since 2003 they have struggled to gain a signaificant market share because all of the other Mob Ops have provided better rates of customer satisfaction. I can see no reason how that will change with 900Mhz shared site HSPA+ from Vodafone/02 and the combined marketing might of Everything/Everywhere and their significant VMNO Partners. Despite all 3's efforts they have to contend with consolodation and technology that vastly gazumps them. Will Ofcom do them any favours and gift them some advantage? I doubt it as they have a lot to answer for about the mess they made of 3G technology in their first five years of operations. they just didn't get it and probably did more damage to the reputation of 3G technology than anything else.

Sorry but I don't anticipate any mass demand or migration to 3's servces in the next few years.

[Hands0n]

Err, 7.2Mbps from Vodafone was HSPDA which was later followed by an update to HSUPA to improve the uplink. Vodafone have yet to deploy HSPA+ in the UK (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSPA%2B#Deployment ) but have done so in other countries.

Three have been the first UK carrier to deploy HSPA+ and O2 are doing so during 2011, updating its 14.4Mbps HSPA network. None of the other carriers have made any intentions known, so one can consider that in terms of investment as being sub-par.

O2's trials of LTE are irrelevant - if they repeat their performance with 3G then we can expect a comprehensive LTE deployment by O2 some time in 2017, unless OFCOM give them yet another regulatory shove in the right direction. O2 seem to have more investment going into the big tent on the Greenwich Peninsula than it does into [what should be its core business of] mobile networking.

Three's commitment to mobile data in the UK is entirely evident. Just because it is not available in certain areas does not mark its corporate strategy to be the one to beat in terms of mobile data. And so far it is putting on a very good demonstration of how to do it that the others are finding hard to follow. The closest is its MBNL partner T-Mobile.

To suggest, however, that Three ruined the reputation of 3G is a rather specious. They led the 3G advance party, one that O2 are only just getting up to speed with. The other networks took their own sweet time with 3G, having bought licences they did little with them for several years while Three had to battle to get masts established and fight off the uniquely British NIMBYism that prevails. But despite all of that, they rolled out 3G and it was good where it was. The rest is history, and we now find Three with a very comprehensive set of national cover to rival the others. Spectrum aside, on a like for like basis, that is 2100MHz UMTS, Three are doing the job, and doing it rather well.


Sorry but I don't anticipate any mass demand or migration to 3's services in the next few years.
It is probably as well that you're not betting the eating of your hat as I do believe that I might need to ask you what condiments you would like with it. :)