News - EE announces London mobile data speeds of up to 150Mbps

[HEXUS]

The 4G+ (LTE-Advanced) service is now live at around 150 sites in the capital.

Read more.

[mark_a_scott]

How about activating 3G and 4G to 100% of the country before even increasing speeds.......

[Kevsta]

Utterly pointless. My work phone is 4G and I get a fantastic data speed of 25mbps synchronous. And yet I can't make a phone call! 2G and 3G signal is none existent in my area of London.

Perhaps they should enable voice over 4G before increasing the data speeds.

[Tabbykatze]

How about activating 3G and 4G to 100% of the country before even increasing speeds.......

This, Some areas have utterly poor coverage for even 2G. Three hasn't been too bad because I have extremely decent coverage for HSDPA+ and coverage for 4G in a reasonable amount.

[[DW]Cougho]

How about activating 3G and 4G to 100% of the country before even increasing speeds.......

I'd settle for them fixing the online account portal, oh and not charging me for the bills I ask them to send me in it's place.

Roll on the end of my EE contract.

[crossy]

Some areas have utterly poor coverage for even 2G. Three hasn't been too bad because I have extremely decent coverage for HSDPA+ and coverage for 4G in a reasonable amount.

One of the reasons that I moved to Three to be honest - at least they're promising 4G for my area this year. On the other hand EE have a "we'll get around to it" type attitude - not impressed with the lack of urgency. (Plus the fact that EE seem to be slapping a hefty premium on for 4G).

How about activating 3G and 4G to 100% of the country before even increasing speeds.......

I'd agree with this 100%, but I'm sure I read somewhere that 4G has better coverage properties, so it makes more sense to jump from 2G to 4G in areas of no/poor 3G coverage.

Back to the article, I'm getting pretty jaded by the constant "we've got the fastest" PR flap from either mobile or broadband companies, and when you look deeper it turns out to be some small blessed enclave in that area surrounded by the M25 "tarmac moat". Apologies if you're a Londoner and think I'm putting your manor down - but heck guys, what about the rest of the country? If EE et al want an "attaboy" out of me then I'll do that when we get lower headline speeds but more universally available. Heck, there's areas of my house where I get no mobile signal never mind some fancy pants "4G".

Although, gotta say, when I do get that "4G" id on my phone, the transfer speeds are damned good. Then again Three seems to be able to deliver pretty good data rates, shame the coverage still ain't the best.

[OilSheikh]

At Old street now. 3G speed - 0.15Mbps
Fix 3G first buffoons!

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Plus since its "4Gee" they have now massively bumped up the price of data even when most of the country is lucky to get a solid 3G signal.

You used to get 3GB of data for £16.99 but now for a similar price it is 2GB of "4Gee" data.

[Top_gun]

Back to the article, I'm getting pretty jaded by the constant "we've got the fastest" PR flap from either mobile or broadband companies, and when you look deeper it turns out to be some small blessed enclave in that area surrounded by the M25 "tarmac moat". Apologies if you're a Londoner and think I'm putting your manor down - but heck guys, what about the rest of the country? If EE et al want an "attaboy" out of me then I'll do that when we get lower headline speeds but more universally available. Heck, there's areas of my house where I get no mobile signal never mind some fancy pants "4G".

London is a world class city so you expect world class facilities.

[crossy]

London is a world class city so you expect world class facilities.

And your point is? Since we seem to be stating the blindingly obvious then I'll go with "water is wet".

Or are you saying "London is a world class city, so the rest of the UK gets bee all until 'the smoke' has had it for a couple of years and moved onto the next generation anyway".

Is Manchester, Birmingham, Cardiff, Newcastle et al any less deserving? Heck, I can make a case that London gets it because you've got the "city types" down there (with more bonus money than common sense) who'd quite happily pay for the privilege of techno tackle waving with the latest tech gizmo. On the other hand, improving the networks in other places might actually go someway to attracting business to those areas and lowering unemployment. Oh, shock, horror - he's actually suggesting putting new business investment somewhere other than London! Burn the heretic!

(Yes, I'm in a bad mood again ... does it show?)

London = world class facilities? Erm, try a trip to Paris, Amsterdam, Berlin, etc, never mind the newer cities of the east. And yes, I used to live in London.

[Tabbykatze]

London is a world class city so you expect world class facilities.

I would like to agree with you that it's "world class", but I just can't. It's just one of the most densely populated areas of england. And when you have dense population and not enough broadcast towers, what do you get? Congestion. EE made this mistake the first time around with massive oversubscription. I get on average more consistent speeds on Three with 4G than my friends do on EE. They can get a fast speed yes, but i'd prefer a constant 20mbps than a flaky 30-40 that sometimes does nothing.

[stanonwheels]

Great, now I can burn through my feeble 1GB allowance in half the time!

[kingpotnoodle]

Or are you saying "London is a world class city, so the rest of the UK gets bee all until 'the smoke' has had it for a couple of years and moved onto the next generation anyway".

London contains the highest number and densest concentration (i.e. less masts for more win) of people with enough money and motivation to pay for the latest thing, it will always get done first for that reason alone, never mind it being the capital, prestigious, where the boss lives etc. I'm sure this will roll out to other areas, but because networks are businesses they'll always target the most profitable areas first, it's just good business...

I went to 3 (much cheaper), recently enabled 4G on my Nexus 5 to discover that more minor places like Cambridge and Stevenage are quite well covered - pleasant surprise.

[Top_gun]

I would like to agree with you that it's "world class", but I just can't. It's just one of the most densely populated areas of england. And when you have dense population and not enough broadcast towers, what do you get? Congestion.

Nonsense, it's more cost effective to install more telecom masts in a densely populated town and so you get a much quicker return of investment on your money. The money is then reinvested in other areas outside London.

Describing London as 'world class' was an old term used by Ken Livingstone when he was Mayor of London. Boris Johnson now describes London as the capital of the world.

Still, I shall look forward to the day when London becomes a fully devolved region. Let's see how far your area gets without London's money.

[Syphadeus]

One of the reasons that I moved to Three to be honest - at least they're promising 4G for my area this year. On the other hand EE have a "we'll get around to it" type attitude - not impressed with the lack of urgency. (Plus the fact that EE seem to be slapping a hefty premium on for 4G).

I'd agree with this 100%, but I'm sure I read somewhere that 4G has better coverage properties, so it makes more sense to jump from 2G to 4G in areas of no/poor 3G coverage.

Not when you consider that 4G in the UK does not yet support voice calls, only data.

[MrRockliffe]

AND YET THEY STILL HAVE DATA LIMITS. Jesus, idiotic people running idiotic companies. Why not actually give 100% coverage before giving us speeds that aren't needed?

No but really, with all of the apps and the advancement in technology, why are 3 the only people to offer unlimited 4G? That's the main reason why I stay with them, because it's not for the signal...