[Ben]

From Mobile Today, title my own!


Vodafone’s UK CEO Guy Laurence defended networks’ hard work as he accepted the award for Power 50 Person of the Year at the Mobile Industry Awards last Thursday (16 June). Laurence commented on the role mobile has to play in society, saying the industry is one to be proud of.

He said: ‘Mobile plays a pivotal role in society. It keeps family and friends together and makes business more productive. We also employ tens of thousands of people collectively. But somehow I feel we are increasingly on the back foot.’

‘When I see articles from people like eBay and Skype accusing us of delaying 4G, I say – if you don’t like it, feel free to build your own network.’

Laurence added: ‘You invest the billions in network, retail chains, customer services and everything else required to run a network. I also see our regulator sometimes criticising us as well and I compare the way that regulators work with their mobile industries in other countries and I see a big difference; and I don’t think that is good for us.

‘You need to be proud of what you do in this industry and the service that you provide to both consumers and businesses. I am sure that tomorrow morning some of you will wake up with a hangover, but I hope all of you wake up and are proud of the industry that you work in.’

http://www.mobiletoday.co.uk/News/11865/Vodafone’s_Laurence_defends_networks.aspx

Is anyone else feeling a lack of sympathy for "our regulator sometimes criticising us"?

[jokiin]

From Mobile Today, title my own!



http://www.mobiletoday.co.uk/News/11865/Vodafone’s_Laurence_defends_networks.aspx

Is anyone else feeling a lack of sympathy for "our regulator sometimes criticising us"?

he should feel lucky, they cop a bigger beating down here, and rightly so many would argue eg http://www.vodafail.com/

[3GScottishUser]

Its sickening reading tripe .....

Honestly .... Vodafone have been a trailblazer in terms of 3G with the first Mobile TV, Massive investment in handset upgrades for their customers and bottom line is that they were first to deploy HSPA+ offering 7.2Mb/s in mjaor cities.

Couple that with pricing that has been pitched to compete with others and UK based customer support.

It's easy to post a short cheap and nasty comment but the proof of the pudding is that Vodafone have retained a user base of 18 million plus in the UK. They have not managed that by being complacent and ignoring their customers needs.

More than 18 Million UK customers pay to use Vodafone and only 02 as a single network player has more paying customers. Poor little Vodafone..... not!

[Ben]

You don't think Lawrence was whining in the slightest? Should the UK CEO really be making such comments?

OFCOM aren't exactly heavy handed now are they! If their touch were any lighter we'd probably have a duopoly and higher prices than our friends across the Atlantic!

Have you called Vodafone consumer CS these days? I always get India.

You know I have utmost admiration for Vodafone, but I'm not a 'fan' of anything and my loyalty stops when things start going down the toilet :)

[3GScottishUser]

Well I have always got a UK CS operator when I have needed to speak to someone.

Vodafone is faster than most where I live and far from going down any toilet!

The speedtests and side by side smartphone comparisons I have done recently with 3 users in the local area have left all of them thinking about the wisdom of their commitment to 3 UK. (Others on 02 and EE seem happy and I have yet to benchmark speeds and performance with those localy to be honest).

[Hands0n]

Vodafone were certainly not the first to deploy HSPA+ and in fact they are still yet to do so - as I quite eloquently pointed out in another thread, complete with citations.

Ben has covered off the rest.

[3GScottishUser]

Vodafone have to use HSPA+ to get 7.2Mb/s and I have posted proof of 6Mb/s + using Vodafone in Glasgow.

In Turkey Vodafone have HSPA+ as standard for 3G and have speeds of up to 14Mb/s currently.

I recall Vodafone were the first to offer speeds of 7.2Mb/s in the UK when 3 were stuck and advertising around 3Mb/s for Mobile BB.

Have a look back at the product offerings and I am sure you will find Vodafone have been the leader in offering faster Mobile broadband using HSPA+.

[miffed]

LOL !! I Still get 2G from Vodafone from most of my "haunts" , Only network in the country to achieve this (other than maybe Orange ? not sure because I haven't used them)

This is one of the main things that wound me up with them , Getting a 2G signal - while seeing "UK's Fastest network" plastered all over every billboard I saw !! Adding insult to injury

...And then the UK Call centre , my favourite moments were a Welsh twat laughing at me down the phone (over an expensive , long running billing issue where they charged me £60 pm for my £12 pm contract for over 6 months ) .... and the fact that EVERY time I rang there would be no record of the issue (lost count of the amount of calls - must have been easily 50 )

No , much as I dislike Indian call centres I have never had THAT much trouble with 3 ! and would choose them over vodafone anyday

Interesting that 4 of us (I think ? ) have posted up about about furiously cancelling contracts in favour of Three ? I am sure it must be connected to our Apple bias in some way ? :D

[3GScottishUser]

Interesting that 4 of us (I think ? ) have posted up about about furiously cancelling contracts in favour of Three ? I am sure it must be connected to our Apple bias in some way ? :D

I think that must explain it!!

Not that I'd be tempted to run to 3 to get them to subsidise an Apple product!

Do I consider I am missing out on something? I don't think so!

[Hands0n]

Vodafone have to use HSPA+ to get 7.2Mb/s and I have posted proof of 6Mb/s + using Vodafone in Glasgow.

Seriously, you are going to have to back that up with some evidence or citation. Everything I read indicates that is simply not correct. the only UK HSPA+ supplier is Three right now, and O2 are rolling out during 2011. Vodafone have HSPA+ in other countries as you say, but not the UK.

[3GScottishUser]

Seriously, you are going to have to back that up with some evidence or citation. Everything I read indicates that is simply not correct. the only UK HSPA+ supplier is Three right now, and O2 are rolling out during 2011. Vodafone have HSPA+ in other countries as you say, but not the UK.

Why on earth would anyone think that the world's No1 mobile phone network (by coverage area) would be daft enough to let their competition capitalise on new developments?

Vodafone UK have been at the forefront of HSPA+ development since 2009! (Gooogle and see who has been the major developers).

They and 02 have been upgrading their UK networks since April 2011.

Not that it makes a lot of difference as my recent speedtests have proved. Vodafone vastly outperformed 3 in a side by side testing and have always done so in Central Scotland for data use to date.

[Hands0n]

Well without any proper citation or evidence I'll have to take that as opinion. 7.2Mbps is HSDPA and HSUPA but not HSPA+. This may seem pedantic, but if you're making the claim then it has to be substantiated and accurate.

To answer your "why" question - Vodafone, like all large corporations, is not going to be as agile as the smaller and newer entrant that is Three. It has too much legacy to be as such. We see this in all industries where companies make profits despite arcane working and business practises, earning almost in spite of these. Nothing new there then.

To take a parochial speedtest and cite it as evidence that one "vastly outperforms" another is somewhat specious. I can, and have already, demonstrated that Three with their HSPA and HSPA+ technology outperforms Vodafone, O2 and T-Mobile from where I sit, equidistant from the supplier's masts. But that may not ring the same two miles down the road. And so one has to take the wider view, and that is that Three have a demonstrably greater affinity with mobile data than any of the UK carriers. Their product and their network (most importantly the core) are built to carry large volumes.

But it is not only about speed, and there is widespread speedtest information and anecdote that Vodafone are in trouble where despite anything else, their data quality suffers abysmally. I have seen the worsening here and on my travels where my employers are a corporate Vodafone customer. I do not speak out of one solitary corner of Kent.

[3GScottishUser]

Well I stood in a room last week and performed not only speed test with a new 3 LG Dual Core handset owner and my Vodafone single core Galaxy S made a complete fool of 3's network performance and left his shiny new LG buffering and stuttering whilst my year old Samsung displayed full sceen BBC iPlayer without a hitch. (Lets just say the new 3 customer was less than pleased!)

That despite the benchmarking testing where my Galaxy S was left in the slow lane by his LG which had almost twice the benchmark rating for processing and video performance!

So not so much the handset that made the difference but the network and 3 could not compete despite their mast being visable on the same rooftop just 100 meters away.

Different areas, dfferent experiences, always has been with mobile techonolgy and always will be.

[3GScottishUser]

I made a mistake and deleted the post I was quoting rather than my reply! (Sorry Hands-On!)

But I noted the comments about the iPhone and 3 and made the comment that we have heard this before..... it's becoming the 3 & iPhone songs of praise......and that is what I have been highlighting as becoming far too prominent.

[Hands0n]

We are waiting for the mobile networks to respond to Three's All You Can Eat with an effective bit of competition. But what did they do? They retrenched, jacked up the prices, reduced the FUPs and dug in for the duration. We commented at the time.

So you cannot expect me to remain silent when coming on here to write how dire Three are, how they suck, how they cannot possibly do anything right, at all, ever and ever, ahmen. That damages the impartiality of Talk3G by allowing unchallenged rhetoric and unsubstantiated opinion. Otherwise reader may well think that the negative feedback on Three is very real. It is not. It is, like much else to do with radio networking, an observation of how bad radio can be.

But there needs to be balance (as you called for in another post) to show how good radio can be, and how well some firms - yes even Three - are capable of putting on a damned good show.

[3GScottishUser]

But there needs to be balance (as you called for in another post) to show how good radio can be, and how well some firms - yes even Three - are capable of putting on a damned good show.

Indeed and as I have stated before AYCE is an interesting and excellent offer BUT it probably won't make a lot of difference to the average mobile user.

Poor 3 have not learned from their NEC handset days when they offered loads more minutes than the rest of the networks but ended up admitting that most users did not consume anything like the number of minutes they were given for the cost. It was a marketing ploy and 3 knew that 900 minutes was unlikely to be consumed by the vast majority of buyers but it looked a good proposition!

Same applies for AYCE. It seems attractive but when can you use it? Most folks work 7 hours a day then have broadband at home so that leaves travel time and weekend outings to use AYCE! Don't think I would swap my ADSL2 or Virgin BB for 3's Wireless to watch BBC iPlayer or do on-line gaming so 3's AYCE will be a secondary home BB service for most.

I consume nowhere near the 1GB a month I have with Vodafone, maybe 125MB on a busy month and I am a heavy user checking news, my Facebook (and this) at work during breaktime) according to my workmates.

[Hands0n]

Why don't we stop going round in circles. It is entirely evident that Three can do absolutely no right by your judgement, no matter what they try you will deride it and curse them to hell and back. As you have done throughout these latest threads. Okay, fair enough, I can accept that you remain very angry and bitter towards Three, as you have quite clearly shown. And that is absolutely fine.

I prefer to take a more moderate and pragmatic look at things. Customers and industry are recognising what Three are doing, and I know from close watching that they are making significant changes from within. These are showing for the better.

I suggest that Three's huge offering for £25 is not about lessons not learned, and in fact are the direct opposite. For £25 it is possible, very possible, for a customer to place all of their needs in a single proposition. This will suit flat-dwellers and students who move frequently, able to replace fixed-line services with mobile that they truly can use universally. That was never possible before and with the incumbent operator's propositions. The value comes through the use of, and if people consider what they really could use The One Plan for (for example) they may find that it more than pays for itself if other traditional services are eschewed in lieu of this offering.

Of course, as with all things, it won't suit all people. But as a forum poster don't you feel it your duty to be less disingenuous with some of the bold proclamations made? Three are far from being the crappy little backwater wannabe that you paint them to be. They have been an industry disruptor and we all benefit from that.

And look who it took to put the smartphone in every single operators portfolio and almost every individual's consciousness? Another absurd upstart that everyone said would fail in the first year!

[miffed]

I don't think the relevance of AYCE is actually about the numbers involved , That is to say I don't think customers will say "I am going to use 0.9GB , ....This provider caps at 1GB , .....but this one is AYCE , hmm the former will fo .

It is more significant because of the previous abuse of the word "unlimited" and dodgy , poorly advertised FUP's - This caused customers not to trust the networks , and alway have one eye on how much data they were using.

The significant thing about AYCE is the true sense that the user can do WHAT THEY WANT - without having to worry or monitor their usage - hell it may well have been that they *could* have done whatever they wanted and still not reached their 1GB (or whatever ) cap, but because there was a limit , they'd alway have reservations - the amount of times I have heard about people that are scared to watch videos or download software update because they didn't want to go over

[3GScottishUser]

Honestly I don't feel too badly about 3 nowadays. They are still around, not making a huge impact but probably keeping others on their toes. They need to as they have £10 billion reasons to do so! I still check to see how they are performing to keep in touch with their value proposition but for now where I stay they offer no viable alternative to what I already subscribe to.

I'm not convinced about any of the networks pitching themselves in competition to fixed line BB providers. None currently do for good reason as they simply can't offer the same type of service to the mass market which is now using vast amounts of data for video and gaming. Huge take up of mobile broadband would cripple any of the networks so they won't advertise in competition to Virgin, TalkTalk, BT, Sky or other fixed line service providers. Maybe 4G might change that but I doubt even that wil have the capacity to replace fixed line broadband in urban areas in the UK for may years to come.

[Hands0n]

Three have the network capability to usurp fixed line. And like I have said before, it has a particular value to those that are not in a fixed residence. All the worry of loss of service, number portability out of exchange area and everything else just goes away with a single The One Plan with AYCE data. Boom! Pow! Gone. £25 a month and you're set for life. That is powerful, and people are steadily waking up to it.

Now you simply must go and re-read about 4G because, unless a UK network operator ballses it up *cough*O2*cough* you will find that LTE and then 4G will do exactly that. The need for fixed line will have gone. But it all depends on how the UK operators build and tariff the technology. Lord help the lot of us if Three have been acquired and subsumed into one of the legacy networks by then.

[3GScottishUser]

Sorry M8 but thats not what the latest comprehensive Ofcom research has stated. Even 4G LTE will not deliver the demand for mobile data in the years to come let alone replace fixed line in anywhere but rural areas where ADSL/Cable are not viable.

Show me a mobile network brave enough to pitch for fixed line broadband business..... The stats are fine in theory for performance but capacity is the big issue and in urban areas you would have to build a cell site on every road to meet customer needs. (A cellsite can cope with about 40 customers using data at reasonable speeds, not counting the voice and text requirements).

02 sell ADSL, so does Orange and Vodafone.... if they thought their 3G was an alternative why would bother to help sell a BT product? A little of something is better than all of nothing perhaps?

[Hands0n]

My God! If ADSL is our future, we're doomed! I know sufficient about ADSL to tell you that it is all but over! There is nowhere else for it to go. The next step is either fibre or wireless, or a combination of both. Fibre has its own challenges.

Just watch wireless carefully and do not underestimate what is already possible in HSPA+ and what is on the cards for LTE first and then 4G. The limit is NOT the airtime, but the infrastructure behind it. Some 3G masts, for example, are still fed by ADSL. Those that are having their back haul replaced by gigabit fibre are delivering stonking performance to large numbers of connections concurrently.

The issue has always been "the last mile" and wireless is a ready in the wings supplier of that kind of capacity as the 3G+, LTE and 4G technologies are deployed.

[hecatae]

O2 is losing ADSL customers, they reported a huge loss last quarter. Orange gave up installing their own ADSL equipment in exchanges and have given up and using BT Wholesale equipment instead. Vodafone only has a BT Wholesale service, there were reports that they wanted to buy Tiscali, but they decided not to.

Everything Everywhere is testing LTE with BT in the Cornwall area.

https://talk3g.co.uk/showthread.php?8847-4G-Superfast-Broadband-Trial

BT would not be testing LTE if they had not realised it will be a critical income generator in the future.

Is it just me or has 3GSU blocked me so all the stuff I have posted is missed by him?

[Hands0n]

02 sell ADSL, so does Orange and Vodafone.... if they thought their 3G was an alternative why would bother to help sell a BT product? A little of something is better than all of nothing perhaps?

O2, Orange and Vodafone all bought up existing ADSL suppliers to further their revenue and become multi-players to compete. ADSL, to them, was an afterthought. The three you cite have all underplayed their investment in 3G and are yet to up their game effectively. We've discussed each of their quality issues previously not to go through them yet again here.

[3GScottishUser]

My God! If ADSL is our future, we're doomed! I know sufficient about ADSL to tell you that it is all but over! There is nowhere else for it to go. The next step is either fibre or wireless, or a combination of both. Fibre has its own challenges.

The future is fibre as the folks in the Channel Isles are experiencing now with 1Gb/s speeds, the fastest in the UK.

This is the future and whilst there will be an increasing demand for mobile services there will be huge demand for fixed line services too. Could Love Film, Netflix or Sky offer HD VOD with wireless? I don't think so and demand for these services alone with networked gaming will sustain and develop future investment in fixed line services.

BT and others will invest to compete with Sky and Virgin for distribution of HD services installing fibre to cabinet initially then fibre to home. Wireless will get better but it will not be a mass market alternative to fixed line, especially fibre.

[3GScottishUser]

O2 is losing ADSL customers, they reported a huge loss last quarter. Orange gave up installing their own ADSL equipment in exchanges and have given up and using BT Wholesale equipment instead. Vodafone only has a BT Wholesale service, there were reports that they wanted to buy Tiscali, but they decided not to.

Everything Everywhere is testing LTE with BT in the Cornwall area.

https://talk3g.co.uk/showthread.php?8847-4G-Superfast-Broadband-Trial

BT would not be testing LTE if they had not realised it will be a critical income generator in the future.

Is it just me or has 3GSU blocked me so all the stuff I have posted is missed by him?

I have not missed or blocked anything!!

EE and BT are interested in 4G for rural coverage. That is what it is best suited for in terms of broadband coverage to homes in the short to medium term. Save s a lot of cost of laying cables!

It can't compete in urban areas especially with demand for HD video services which Ofcom is keen to promote to break the dominance of Sky. Just compare what Netflix charge for unlimited HD movies and TV via BB in the USA ($7.99 a month) to what Sky charge for their HD Movies and channels in the UK. The difference is scary! https://www.netflix.com/

[Hands0n]

Could Love Film, Netflix or Sky offer HD VOD with wireless? .

Yes. Very, very easily.

[3GScottishUser]

Yes. Very, very easily.

Not to a mass market urban population surely?

They need 30Mb/s for HD video per customer so how could they cope with that in an area of dense population all wanting VOD services?

They would need to build a wireless network with a transponder on just about every street corner surely!

[hecatae]

HSPA is capable of up to 84Mb/s, we just need the networks to create fat enough pipes for the backhaul

[solo12002]

Well what a debate.

Some users on here standby by iphone while others like me standby blackbeery and or goggle os.Their is one thing being opened another being one sided and one sided only which appears to be the case of one person on the forum.

In respest of networks over the years I have used them all, each one has their own good and bad points. Over the last four years I have used O2 and three. O2 3G coverage is crap while three CS staff at times can be crap, but three is maoving fast to change this and anythime I have had to contact three CS I have found them more than helpfull.

Its a shame that some on here will knock three in the balls every chance they get and no matter what they do. Three is the only network to offer a deal at £25 a month that I personal would get rid of my BB and line at home only for having a ill 73 year old in the house.

One poster on here talked about three offering loads on mins that no one will ever use just to get ppl on their network, no offence I rather have 2000 mins that I know I am hardly likely to use but are there if I need them rather than pay a few quid less to be scred by the networks for out of calls costs.

A few months it was o2 increasing their prices, I now note vofaone are increasing thers from 21ppm to 25 ppm an inceased of 4p, one wonders what benifits that will bring to thers 18 million users. NONE I THINK!

[Hands0n]

Not to a mass market urban population surely?

They need 30Mb/s for HD video per customer so how could they cope with that in an area of dense population all wanting VOD services?

They would need to build a wireless network with a transponder on just about every street corner surely!

Isn't the danger with that logic that there is a wild assumption that this "dense population" will in fact be "all wanting VOD services"? Such an assumption is not only unlikely but it is also unreasonable where the truth is that VOD is not mainstream in favour of broadcast TV (terrestrial or satellite). As such, that assumption can be dispensed with in favour of the likely reality, that being that people will make varying demands on the network from time to time, as indeed they do right now.

Just to add some realistic dimension to your point, what ADSL service in the UK is capable of 30Mbps? Exactly. So by your very own logic HD VOD is already impractical, so why dismiss wireless because it [too] cannot deliver those speeds [currently]. And also let us not ignore the absolute fact that wireless has much more headroom right now than ADSL does, that is already maxed out at 20Mbps best.

Much more realistically is that the mobile network user [on, for arguments sake The One Plan] will make no more use of their wireless service than they do right now of their ADSL service. On that basis, and using a like-for-like scenario, it is very plain to see that wireless can indeed compensate for landline copper services.

[gorilla]

@solo12002 you raise a point that is often ignored. People are quite happy to pay a flat monthly fee safe in the knowledge their monthly spend is basically capped. I don't break my usage down, I pay my tenner a month basically for data access, but my tariff includes calls and texts that I never use.

Regarding the LTE question, mobile networks are bound to evolve into 'dumb' pipes. Three are effectively that already. I do not know whether LTE or 4G can deliver what I need it to do, but assuming we get something similar to what the yanks have now then it will allow video streaming. (I'd like to think by the time we get it, it will be vastly superior).

If you think about how virgin deliver tv and internet at the minute, it would be hard to imagine them moving to a wireless infrastructure within the next 20 years. I'm perfectly happy with how I get my tv/internet at present and wouldn't shift to LTE for home usage.