Who the hell needs 3G when I've got 2G fallback?

[Hands0n]

I'm sharing this experience while it is still hot and seared into my brain.

There is a lot of debate on the interwebs as to Three's wisdom in cutting loose their 2G fallback and moving to a 3G-only network. Living, playing and working in an apparent ocean of 3G this has never been an issue for me. Even in my travels as far as mid-Wales in one direction and the very edge of Kent and Sussex in the other, I have yet to experience any particular wholesale issue.

That said, I do read on the forums and Twitter of very many who have a diametrically opposite experience. Understandable, more so since this weekend's direct experience.

I have just returned from 24 hours in a 3G wilderness, that being the Chelmsford area of Essex. It was a wedding, a day-long celebration, with a stop-over in the area. And in 3G terms if was dreadful. The area is largely a 3G NotSpot.

Three
Of course, once I hit the notspot I was completely disconnected from phone, sms and mobile data (the latter of which is more important to me). At the hotel the only place I could pick up a signal was in the car park. At the venue, I had a signal at one part of the grounds (Leez Priory (http://www.countryhouseweddings.co.uk/leez-priory/)) but not at the main building. Travelling around the county it was a checkerboard of signal vs no signal.

I feel for the poor Chelmsfordians.

Vodafone
Ah yes, I was indeed armed with both of my smartphones, the other being on the Vodafone network. So all was saved, I remained connected. Except that I wasn't.

The reality I experienced is that Vodafone has much more 3G NotSpot in Chelmsford, and a fair degree of 2G NotSpottery too. At Leez Priory I had neither 3G or 2G, anywhere on the grounds. Same deal at the hotel, no 2G or 3G.

Where I did find patches of 2G the data was of GPRS quality, not once did I locate any EDGE. I had to pinch myself and double-check the calendar to verify what year I was in. Yup, it was still 2011, I hadn't inadvertently driven through some timewarp back to the 1970s.

So Vodafone on 2G is better than nothing at all on Three? Right? Well, it may have been if it actually worked, and it didn't. Nothing I attempted on 2G/GPRS worked. Timeouts in abundance trying to use Twitter, Facebook, Google+, IMAP email, even location services. Nothing worked.

Whatever 2G networking was in place was patently completely saturated to the point of uselessness.

Conclusions
Whilst it is very inconvenient to have no 3G connectivity I have to say that it is frustrating beyond belief to have a 2G connection that is useless to the point of worthlessness. It raises a false expectation that cannot be realised. So , my personal preference, is for me to be either connected or disconnected, not in some place of limbo.

Not only Three but all of the networks need to get their coverage sorted out. They must know that an area as large as Chelmsford has blanket NotSpot coverage. In such a densely populated county that, in 2011 is unacceptable.

[3GScottishUser]

That scenario works for data services but ignores what most folks use a mobile phone for most often. Keeping in touch with voice and text.

I would far rather have a phone on a network with lots of options (GSM 900/1800 & UMTS 900/2100) to be able to keep in touch with basic services any day.

The BBC did an interesting coverage survey with Android handsets and you can compare all of the results provided from all of the networks. 3G is good on 3 in urban areas and along major trunk routes. (I don't think many folks surf the net whilst driving but maybe an issue for bus or car passengers). 3 don't always have the best 3G coverage though and in many areas outwith big cities GSM is still the only available mobile coverage which 3 are abandoning. 3 look like they are making some strategic errors by ending 2G roaming in many places and the AYCE proposition will by their own admission result in capacity issues by the end of 2012.

Kevin Russell, Mark Alera and co got out of 3 UK at the right time as I suspect the policies are now fuelling another major customer service problem that will result in 3's historical performance of expensive investment in short term gain leading to one step forward before they end up three steps back.

[Wilt]

Well not really, he still had no 2g most of the time. And this is on Vodafone who are one of the two networks who you expect to get 2G coverage everywhere.

While it is still not a great amount of coverage, Three was still able to touch areas with 3G coverage where Voda and their good 2G network couldn't (Leez Priory and hotel car park). That is quite admirable when you consider the 2100Mhz handicap that Three suffer.

As for your last sentence, that is ridiculous.

[3GScottishUser]

Well not really, he still had no 2g most of the time. And this is on Vodafone who are one of the two networks who you expect to get 2G coverage everywhere.

While it is still not a great amount of coverage, Three was still able to touch areas with 3G coverage where Voda and their good 2G network couldn't (Leez Priory and hotel car park). That is quite admirable when you consider the 2100Mhz handicap that Three suffer.

As for your last sentence, that is ridiculous.

I think taken across the UK it is fact that any 900/1800Mhz GSM operator will provide more reliable basic mobile voice and text provision than a 2100Mhz UMTS network in more places.

Ofcom's recent mapping proves that point clearly and the example of a car park somewhere specific is not a serious scientific measure of UK network performance and coverage.

[Wilt]

Are these the maps that only show where all operators have coverage?

[3GScottishUser]

Ofcom's show where all operators have coverage but the BBC provide specific coverage maps based on samples from Android users who installed an app to collect data.

The BBC one is interesting and can be viewed here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14574816

As for Ofcom's, there can be no doubt that GSM has far better geographic and premises coverage than all UMTS networks. Stands to reason as GSM at lower frequencies penetrates buildings better and has wider range. It also has a 15 year start on UMTS with lots of prime first choice transmission sites across the UK.

[gorilla]

I experience the lack of 2g fallback at work and it's incredibly annoying. I rang 3 earlier in the week and the rep blamed my phone, yet their twitter staff provided a more sensible explanation but equally daft - they told me to ring orange.
I have been told that they are upgrading local masts, but whether that will improve coverage i do not know. I'll probably give them another month before looking at alternatives.

[Wilt]

I'm not arguing that 2G doesn't have better coverage than 3G (I even said as much in my post), but in terms of real world use it isn't as important to have coverage in the middle of nowhere as you are making out.

As for the BBC maps, as with most initiatives like this (there are better ones that have been going on for longer than the BBCs) much data is missing, they're basically useless. And in situations like the one hands0n has posted about (and is what we're discussing here), Three did pretty well considering it is a 2100Mhz network.

[3GScottishUser]

Well if coverage is the issue, and that is what I thought it was, a network with 2G and 3G must be a better option than one with only 3G available for the basic mobile communication services like voice and texts.

For mobile broadband use and smartphone applications 3G coverage is important but it's mainly urban areas that have that coverage now and as Hands On has stated it's overdue for all of the networks to extend the reach of it to more folks. (Easier for 900Mhz networks which can cover greater geographic areas and penetrate buildings better than with 2100Mhz though).

[Ben]

2G and 3G would be a better option if we were talking about Three's 3G coverage with EDGE fallback. Vodafone's proposition of a country scantily clad in 3G with swathes of almost unusable 2G (from a smartphone perspective) is wholly frustrating. If Three release a femtocell I'll probably switch networks, because then at least I'll be able to use my nice expensive smartphone as something more than a Nokia 3310 when I'm out and about in Canterbury or London. Ever since the iPhone 4 came out, Vodafone's 2G data network has ground to a halt.

[Hands0n]

Well if coverage is the issue, and that is what I thought it was, a network with 2G and 3G must be a better option than one with only 3G available for the basic mobile communication services like voice and texts..

I think you missed my point of the original post somewhat. Three was more available with 3G only than Vodafone was with 3G, 2.5G or 2G.

Too much fuss is made about 2100Mhz's supposed weaknesses. The exact same "stuff" is traipsed out when the 1800Mhz networks launched. The same arguments were put forward that that One2One and Orange would fail miserably. They didn't. All that it required was for the networks to build out their networks, something that Three is engaged in with MBNL.

While not a serious "scientific" analysis one should not be too dismissive of the anecdote of experience. The reported experience was not merely confined to a car park somewhere, that was a single citation. I travelled much of Chelmsford as we went into the centre of the county (?) and back out again the next day. Many miles were covered in the NotWork of Vodafone and, to a lesser degree, Three.

And like I said, when returning to Kent the place was awash with Three 3G, still only 2G on Vodafone that later turned to 3G in the town centre. So the [again subjective experience] was that Three's 3G network was more available than Vodafone's 3G network, and in some places more available than even Vodafone's 2G network.

[andyukguy]

Interestingly Three claim to have blanket outdoor mobile broadband coverage for the Leez Priory postcode (CM3 1JP). Vodafone claim good indoors coverage in the vast majority of the postcode.