|
Historically T-Mobile had the best (2G) coverage in London and less so in other areas. But, now there is nothing at all to choose between any of the operators except for 3, which is significantly worse. These are the results of extensive drive testing following hundreds of millions of pounds of investment by all the operators, who are all bound by the same government regulation and principles of diminshing returns which mean that once they reach 99%+ population coverage (which they have) then they start spending on something else instead. Any statements along the lines of 'I had no O2 coverage in my house but I do have Vodafone, therefore nationally O2 is rubbish and Vodafone are good' are utter bunk.
The reasons for 3 being worse are that obviously they are latecomers so have fewer cells and because they foisted flaky early 3G handsets on all its customers since launch even though they had hardly any 3G cells, and handover from 3G to 2G would often result in dropped calls. But 3 priced themselves crazily cheap and may still be the best choice for some, 3G handsets are more stable now, and they are rolling out cells very quickly.
For 3G, Vodafone have the most cells but even for them coverage is nowhere near ubiquitous, and customers should not make decisions along the lines of (making up an illustration) 'Vodafone have 70% more 3G cells in London and Birmingham than O2 do, therefore I will have better 3G coverage on Vodafone even though I live in Leicester'.
The networks have online coverage checkers on their sites, and should coverage adversely affect your experience you have statutory 14 days to retun your phone for a full refund (IIRC, and some networks offer 30 days) so it's not worth worrying about coverage when choosing a network. It's really best to just sign up to whatever contract gives you the handset you want and the most appropriate call allowance for your needs, at the best price.
|