O2 Apologizes for Wireless Network Performance Issues in London

[AidenShaw]

Maybe instead of making 3G better, companies should figure out a way to make WiFi available everywhere.

Considering the problems with getting cell coverage, with a cell tower max range of 50 km to 70 km - getting WiFi coverage with access points with max range of 250 m would be quite a task.

Here's one attempt at city-wide wifi.... http://wifi.google.com/city/mv/apmap.html

 

[bluePeter]

So maybe it is the iPhone that is the problem then?

Remember that at the turn of the century, when operators started to roll out their new 3G networks, they prayed for a "killer service" that would motivate people to pay for all that bandwidth?

Now they've got it and are acting surprised that they can't cope with a 100% yearly bandwidth increase. Go figure.

 

[satcomer]

Remember that at the turn of the century, when operators started to roll out their new 3G networks, they prayed for a "killer service" that would motivate people to pay for all that bandwidth?

Now they've got it and are acting surprised that they can't cope with a 100% yearly bandwidth increase. Go figure.

They are counting on people won't remember that.

Don't any of these companies have analysts ?

The anecdotal evidence so far tells me that they don't have any clue about networking. They tend to think if they just buy enough "pipes" then everything will be fine.

 

[Matt-M]

Yes Rogers, Telus, Bell, and Fido in Canada.

No offense, but Canada has less than the population of California spread out over an area 140,000 square miles larger than the U.S. That's 1/10th the population density of the U.S., and only 1/75th that of the U.K. With four separate carriers, it's the last place where there'd be any potential for network congestion. OK, maybe Greenland is the last place, but Canada is right up there.

 

[JGuez]

It's nice to hear a company admit to and apologize for their shortcomings. I think more AT&T customers would be content if AT&T treated their customers like intelligent beings who can observe the obvious, instead of pounding their chest and boasting about the nation's "fastest network".

What are you saying? AT&T said it all summer that they were fixing their network because they were not prepared for the iPhone. They even made videos and posted them on YouTube explaining what they were doing to fix their network. No one remembers the AT&T blogger guy everyone hated?

They boast the fastest 3G network because that is what drives customers in. Do you expect them to say "Join AT&T. We're a network that can't handle the iPhone, yet we have it exclusively.". You sound really smart.

 

[Inconsequential]

102Mb a month here (408mb over 4 months!)

Hardly a huge amount.

And yes I couldn't get phone calls or data in London for a very, very long time in London while I was visiting and when I was trying to meet up with someone it was quite annoying!

 

[mkjellman]

I had O2 for 4 months this past fall '09/winter '09 due to extended time in London on my Blackberry. I am normally on Verizon. I couldn't believe what they "give you" with the unlimited Blackberry plan. You cannot use any of their APNs without paying an additional £5/mb. So I was already on the BES plan (£45) and I couldn't do anything such as stream video, youtube, use applications that used data....

In addition, I would frequently have my data drop; towers would be down for voice and data for 2-3 days until they came back...moving one tube stop or even two blocks down and everything would be fine. I ALWAYS had 4-5 bars of 3G though. Oh, and the dreaded "Call Failed." message became a regular occurrence.

Their customer service is also one of the worst I have ever dealt with in my entire life. I would hope nothing more for this company to continue to be put in the spotlight and really uncover how truly bad they are.

 

[Evangelion]

I just don't understand this attitude.

You know what I don't understand? That people are sold "unlimited data", and when people start taking advantage of that unlimited data, some people/operators start whining that they should pay more or that they should cut back on their data-usage.

Which part of "unlimited data" do you NOT understand?

Everyone acts like data costs nothing to transmit and that the infrastructure to improve the network and handle higher capacities costs nothing.

of course it costs money. But fact is that those people are already paying for the service. They were sold unlimited data, and thats what they except to get. There's nothing unreasonable about that.

Operators have touted their data-networks for years, and now that people actually start to use their phones with internet, the whining begins...

If you want to blame someone, blame the operators. They are sellig a service that they are unable to deliver. The users are doing nothing wrong here. They are paying for their service, and they expect to be able to use it as advertised.

So what exactly is the problem here? Why exactly are the users to blame here.

 

[Whatisart]

O2 and Vodafone are in the early stages of sharing infrastructure in the UK - and in other countries in Europe through O2's parent, Telefonica. While instigated as a cost-saving measure, this has to be a short term solution for some of the problems.

 

[countrydweller]

You know what I don't understand? That people are sold "unlimited data", and when people start taking advantage of that unlimited data, some people/operators start whining that they should pay more or that they should cut back on their data-usage.

Which part of "unlimited data" do you NOT understand?



of course it costs money. But fact is that those people are already paying for the service. They were sold unlimited data, and thats what they except to get. There's nothing unreasonable about that.

Operators have touted their data-networks for years, and now that people actually start to use their phones with internet, the whining begins...

If you want to blame someone, blame the operators. They are sellig a service that they are unable to deliver. The users are doing nothing wrong here. They are paying for their service, and they expect to be able to use it as advertised.

So what exactly is the problem here? Why exactly are the users to blame here.

Yes, the contract says unlimited data, use it while you can. I expect it will change and as contracts run out, data will be tiered, a much fairer system.

 

[Droid13]

102Mb a month here (408mb over 4 months!)

Hardly a huge amount.

And yes I couldn't get phone calls or data in London for a very, very long time in London while I was visiting and when I was trying to meet up with someone it was quite annoying!

Not that different here - 200Mb/month, and I used roughly the same on my previous handset with little difficulty. As for the phone signal dropping, I had problems in central London maintaining data connections to use AroundMe, dropped calls were thankfully much rarer - I get that more often around the highlands, it can be pretty annoying.

 

[AndyMulhearn]

Not just mobile

You know what I don't understand? That people are sold "unlimited data", and when people start taking advantage of that unlimited data, some people/operators start whining that they should pay more or that they should cut back on their data-usage.

Which part of "unlimited data" do you NOT understand?

Unfortunately it's not just the mobile vendors. Unlimited on BT Internet means you get a snotty email and a threat of bandwidth reductions when you breach 80GB in a calendar month and then a 30 day reduction when you breach 100GB. With two kids at home for two weeks watching two or three hours of HD Iplayer content a day, you can breach that limit with ease.

If it's not unlimited stop calling it unf***inglimited

 

[mdurwin]

Fast but Few

I agree 100% and I hope Verizon gets the iPhone just so #1 people go to them and lighten the load #2 to see if this would be true and #3 Competition is always good for us customers

I disagree with Verizon having the same issues as AT&T reckless2k2. WHen AT&T merged with Cingular, AT&T got the customers (much to my chagrin since I hated AT&T and loved Cingular) and Verizon bought the towers. By doing so Verizon got a broader network while AT&T got more customers than it could handle. Now bring in a device that access wireless networks heavily and we've seen AT&Ts network breaking under the strain.

I live in Boston and was told by an AT&T rep that there just weren't alot of towers here so we have moderate coverage. In a town that's FULL of students and foreigners (both of whom are big smartphone users), that has a high percentage of tech and financial jobs (again, both of whom are big smartphone users), why would they not do something about the network here? I'm on the 3Gs now but was in line for the first iPhone. We have 4 Apple stores within 20 minutes drive of each other. Duh!

True AT&Ts network is faster than Verizon's, but it's certainly not as pervasive. I certainly hope that Verizon are building up their wireless network here s when that contract is up I can bounce!

 

[zombitronic]

What are you saying? AT&T said it all summer that they were fixing their network because they were not prepared for the iPhone. They even made videos and posted them on YouTube explaining what they were doing to fix their network. No one remembers the AT&T blogger guy everyone hated?

Yes, I remember that video. The one where AT&T wanted me to feel sorry for them, right? O2, on the other hand, shows that they're sorry for their customers by issuing an apology. This, of course, doesn't fix any problems but it does show a bit of respect for their customer.

The fact is, the quality of my AT&T service has been in a decline since last summer and all of their claimed "fixes" are either incomplete, ineffective or a placebo. What's more, is that AT&T has been placing the blame on their customers. That's the difference.

They boast the fastest 3G network because that is what drives customers in. Do you expect them to say "Join AT&T. We're a network that can't handle the iPhone, yet we have it exclusively.". You sound really smart.

Of course I don't. But I also don't expect them to boast the fastest network in the country while ignoring the elephant in the room. They very well may have the fastest network in the country, but that doesn't matter if you can't connect to it. That's the angle that Verizon is taking against them, and rightly so.

Their marketing is what it is, and it must be taken with a grain of salt. The problem is the mounting evidence against the quality of service, or more specifically, the availability of service, together with claims of improvement.

The network of today will be dwarfed by the network of tomorrow. Hopefully, someday these problems will be reduced. Until then, I would just like to see more action and less bragging.

 

[winterspan]

Ya, I know that, I am saying they should charge heavy data users more. Change contracts as they run out. Like $30 for a gig, $60 for 2 gigs, $90 for unlimited, something along those lines.

You have got to be kidding... Thats an incredible rip-off. All they have to do is change the "unlimited" business to the standard 5 GB/month ($30/month) of PC data plans. If you need more than that, then charge $5/GB after the first 5. Seems pretty fair to me.

 

[simulacra]

*Sigh* When will they learn that almost the entire western populus is connected to the net in some way and want to access those services even when on foot?

 

[countrydweller]

You have got to be kidding... Thats an incredible rip-off. All they have to do is change the "unlimited" business to the standard 5 GB/month ($30/month) of PC data plans. If you need more than that, then charge $5/GB after the first 5. Seems pretty fair to me.

I just threw those figures out, I have no sense in what the data should cost. The cell phone companies should have an idea of what data actually costs and charge accordingly with their profit margin built in.

 

[wizard]

This reinforces what I've been saying for a long time AT&Ts network is OK.

Really considering the network went 3G with the arrival of the 3G iPhone it really isn't that bad. Actually I'd say it is very good where i live right now.

As to people in New York city, what do you expect for living in that sort of he'll hole? I mean really why would the phone service be any better than any other service in such a corrupt and decadent environment.

Further this highlights another issue that isn't AT&Ts fault. That is for a given spectrum and technology you only have so much bandwidth for a given area. It is one of the reasons the telcos have ganged up on the FCC to steal spectrum from other services. The current issues with the iPhone will only see a marginal improvement when new providers are brought on board.

I can already tell you what will happen when the iPhone goes online with Verizon. Initially the new users will go online trumpeting just how great the service is. Rather quickly, as the number of iPhone users increase we will start to hear the familiar whine about poor service. It isn't a pretty picture right now.

That however doesn't mean the telcos are working on solutions to the issue of network congestion. One example is AT&T making more of it's WiFi sights free. In fact I wouldn't be surprised to see future iPhone OS's auto routing calls through WiFi connections transparently to the user. Plus we are see lots of effort going into Micro and Nano cell nodes. The cell companies have also floated a plane to steal spectrum allocated to broadcast TV. Finally 4G is coming. All of these new techs can go to reducing cogestion on the cell networks.

People can blame AT&T all they want but in the end they just end up looking stupid. Is AT&T perfect? Certainly not, however they have done a tremendous job of delivering a 3G network, that works fine, in the allotted time they had.


Dave

 

[wizard]

Don't blame AT&T for Bostons problems and ignorance.

I disagree with Verizon having the same issues as AT&T reckless2k2. WHen AT&T merged with Cingular, AT&T got the customers (much to my chagrin since I hated AT&T and loved Cingular) and Verizon bought the towers. By doing so Verizon got a broader network while AT&T got more customers than it could handle. Now bring in a device that access wireless networks heavily and we've seen AT&Ts network breaking under the strain.

AT&T was fine at the time. Considering no one knew about IPhone when Cingular was purchased you can't really blame AT&T for being surprised. Even after it's debut many where surprised by iPhones success and rapid adoption. So if the industry as a whole didn't grasp the importanance of iPhone we should still expect better of AT&T?

I live in Boston and was told by an AT&T rep that there just weren't alot of towers here so we have moderate coverage. In a town that's FULL of students and foreigners (both of whom are big smartphone users), that has a high percentage of tech and financial jobs (again, both of whom are big smartphone users), why would they not do something about the network here? I'm on the 3Gs now but was in line for the first iPhone. We have 4 Apple stores within 20 minutes drive of each other. Duh!

First off you are making an assumption that they are doing nothing but the evidence is just the opposite. AT&Ts investment rate in cell technology is still pretty massive.

Second you make the assumption that AT&T can plant a cell tower anywhere it wants in Boston. This is so far from the truth as to be pathetic. Frankly Boston only slightly trails NY City as the leading hell hole in America. The government there is both corrupt and regressive. Don't believe me? How about checking up on local cell tower regulations and the length of time to get a permit to build. Further tell us how many towers get placed in Boston based on technical merits rather than emotional factors.

It is rather sad to see all the people whining about AT&Ts cell coverage that seem to come from some of the most regressive and corrupt places in America. Of course you will have bad coverage as there are far more ethical places in the country to do business.

True AT&Ts network is faster than Verizon's, but it's certainly not as pervasive. I certainly hope that Verizon are building up their wireless network here s when that contract is up I can bounce!

Now I can take that to indicate that Verizons network isn't all that great in Boston either. This backs up my point that the carriers are not the problem in Boston nor NYC. Building up a network requires in part building physical structures. Getting those structure built in corrupt locations is difficult to say the least and requires care and patience on a companies part. Otherwise you end up filthy with somebody elses crap.

So blame AT&T if you want but the rest of us in this great country would rather see you clean up Boston and put blame where it is deserved.


Dave

 

[SpecOps2087]

Really considering the network went 3G with the arrival of the 3G iPhone it really isn't that bad. Actually I'd say it is very good where i live right now.

As to people in New York city, what do you expect for living in that sort of he'll hole? I mean really why would the phone service be any better than any other service in such a corrupt and decadent environment.

Further this highlights another issue that isn't AT&Ts fault. That is for a given spectrum and technology you only have so much bandwidth for a given area. It is one of the reasons the telcos have ganged up on the FCC to steal spectrum from other services. The current issues with the iPhone will only see a marginal improvement when new providers are brought on board.

I can already tell you what will happen when the iPhone goes online with Verizon. Initially the new users will go online trumpeting just how great the service is. Rather quickly, as the number of iPhone users increase we will start to hear the familiar whine about poor service. It isn't a pretty picture right now.

That however doesn't mean the telcos are working on solutions to the issue of network congestion. One example is AT&T making more of it's WiFi sights free. In fact I wouldn't be surprised to see future iPhone OS's auto routing calls through WiFi connections transparently to the user. Plus we are see lots of effort going into Micro and Nano cell nodes. The cell companies have also floated a plane to steal spectrum allocated to broadcast TV. Finally 4G is coming. All of these new techs can go to reducing cogestion on the cell networks.

People can blame AT&T all they want but in the end they just end up looking stupid. Is AT&T perfect? Certainly not, however they have done a tremendous job of delivering a 3G network, that works fine, in the allotted time they had.


Dave

Finally, someone hit the nail on the head.

 

[instaxgirl]

This is pathetic. O2's 3G network has been rubbish in London for years, not months.

Only in London did I have proper network coverage, and even then it wasn't all the time. I was recently in Aberdeen, where you only get full 3G reception in the very heart of the city and not even a decent EDGE connection just 20 minutes out

Edge is spotty all over Edinburgh - I never rely on having it. I only have a 2G iPhone, and the edge network in London was fantastic (if I had the complete edge coverage up here I had down there then I'd be chuffed)

I bought and returned a 3GS because 3G is as unreliable as I remember it being from a few years ago. And O2 are my favourite phone company . . .

 

[seedster2]

Now I can take that to indicate that Verizons network isn't all that great in Boston either. This backs up my point that the carriers are not the problem in Boston nor NYC. Building up a network requires in part building physical structures. Getting those structure built in corrupt locations is difficult to say the least and requires care and patience on a companies part. Otherwise you end up filthy with somebody elses crap.

So blame AT&T if you want but the rest of us in this great country would rather see you clean up Boston and put blame where it is deserved.


Dave

Dave, you are wrong about Verizon's performance in NYC. It is head and shoulders above AT&T. As a matter of fact, there coverage in the entire northeast as a whole is superior. This has been reported in various publications and anecdotally confirmed on various messageboards. I also enjoy living in NYC despite how much of "he'll hole" you think it is. Sorry AT&T isn't quite off the hook yet.

 

[AidenShaw]

AT&T halts online iPhone sales to New York City residents ...

This one is odd:

AT&T apparently resumes online iPhone sales in New York City

By John D. Sutter, CNN
December 28, 2009 4:49 p.m. EST

(CNN) -- AT&T caused a ruckus Monday morning after it reportedly halted online sales of iPhones to New York City residents.

The incident sent Web rumors flying. Some bloggers speculated that AT&T couldn't handle the Big Apple's wireless data traffic. Others blamed an alleged case of fraud, which may have prevented safe online transactions....

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/12/28/iphone.sales.nyc/index.html

 

[Speedy2]

Ah well..
Londoners are used to traffic congestion, how about a higher congestion charge to keep all the bankers out of the City?

 

[Speedy2]

No offense, but Canada has less than the population of California spread out over an area 140,000 square miles larger than the U.S. That's 1/10th the population density of the U.S., and only 1/75th that of the U.K.

You think there are no big cities with high population density in Canada?