Can someone pls explain mobile coverage, especially 3G

[stripeyknickersspottysocks]

I'm looking to get an iphone and thought I'd go with Orange. Then everyone said not to as the reception is always bad. I've looked on their website and for my home postcode it says its ok for talking and browsing based on 2g technology but not for browsing and downloading based on 3g technology. As the iphone is 3g I'm guessing this means its no good?

Vodaphone's website states that their standard reception is good for my postcode but that 3g is poor

O2 have good reception for standard service, no hspda coverage, their website doesn't mention 3g.

So which one is best? None ofthem?

anyone?

have you tried 3?

i think their 3g reception is supposed to be good. i would also ask around in your area to see who has what network, i think that would be the best way to go.

There are different antennas for 2g and 3g. The 3g network is gradually being rolled out across the country but obviously possible that some cells are not covered yet.

HSPDA relates to data download - eg internet services/email. If there is none I wouldn't go for O2. Depending on what 3 say, I would probably hold off getting an iPhone as it would be frustrating to not get full use out of it.

HSDPA is sometimes shown on the connection software for Three (I've been using them for nearly 18 months), and is 'better' than 3G when it comes to the data rates.

Without knowing how much time you'd use the iPhone at home and in your general area, it's awkward to know whether it would be a problem.

Similarly, would you be using it more for internet than voice ? (away from home? from home?)

If you already have wi-fi indoors, then it would use that, and therefore lack of data in your postcode area should be little/ no problem.

It really is more about how you will use the phone, ie for voice or for data, and from home or elsewhere, as to whether O2 or some other would be best.

As far as I know, O2 offers higher data allowances than the other networks (BICBW), so it depends also on whether you have an existing account with a mobile network (where getting an iPhone might be a suitable upgrade), and back to that 'how you expect to use it' question, once more.

"As the iphone is 3g I'm guessing this means its no good?"

I think it's worth clarifying that when there's not a 3g connection available that I believe that it will drop down and use the older "2g" technology.

Then also remember WebDude's point that if you have a home WIFI connection then you'll be using that when you're there.

So not having 3G at home may not be that much of a problem.

I'd be using it more for apps and internet than phonecalls/texting. I don't have wifi at home, dh reckons it causes cancer.

I'd probably use it 50/50 at home and out and about.

Some routers have a button on the side to enable / disable the wi-fi.

If you are planning to get an iPhone, it surely makes sense to be using your home router (for higher speed, reliability of access, and unless the network offers truly 'unlimited' internet use on your contract, to avoid exceeding any network data allowance limits).

I'd say it's time to have a rethink over whether the iPhone is worth having, without also having a home wi-fi router, if only because there will surely be times when the iPhone is in use and putting out signals for you to browse... so DH's concerns would {logically} be equally high for a mobile phone as for a wi-fi router.

Unless you live in a very detached location and have built screening into the property's walls to make a "Faraday cage" then there are doubtless signals going through the house and yourselves from neighbours with wi-fi and from all the mobile phones and mobile network transmitters dotted around the place.

It's probably going to be another 50 years before studies prove either way about all these high frequency transmissions and any links to cancer, but DECT phones, microwaves, and sitting on the train with someone behind you using a wireless connection means your DH is unlikely to find many places where there isn't exposure to these radio signals...

(Before anyone comes in with horror stories - I've worked on maritime transmitters and been close enough to radar kit to know there are significant hazards - I'm not dismissing them - but until there's sufficient scientific belief that for health and safety the lot must be switched off and an alternative technology used, I'm willing to risk it, and will have to cope with any side-effects if they appear.)

As I posted it on another thread, thought it may be useful here as well...

SiteFinder will enable you to look up where mobile phone masts are located and will tell you what operators are using each mast, plus what frequencies and signal strengths they are permitted to use.

Webdude will probably correct me if I'm wrong - I think the lower the frequency the better the signal travels through objects. Thus the GSM frequencies are fairly low, where as the 3G signals used by 3 are fairly high.
My local 3 mast uses 2100 MHz for UMTS.
Orange shares the mast and has 1800 MHz for GSM and 2100 MHz for UMTS. My nearest 02 mast uses 900 MHz for GSM and 2100 MHz for UMTS.

So I think the 3G connection is usually using 2100 MHz, where as a 2G connection is using something lower 1800, 900... thus the 2G signal travels better through objects and thus gives better coverage area.

I'm not sure that helps overly, though may go some way to explain why coverage for 2G may be better than 3G in any given area, as both services may be on the same mast but will due to the frequency used travel different distances from that mast.

I wrote a long piece early yesterday evening, but managed to lose that browser tab and am back to a blank box

It's not just how well something travels through objects, but equally as much, it's down to what is around to absorb signals.

Consider a microwave oven. Put in a glass plate and give it a blast for 30 seconds. Is it hot? (To be honest, I have not tried, but assume it won't be hot, or even warm.)

Microwave ovens work by transfer of energy into water molecules and similar constituent parts within food, and whilst I had believed they vibrated, I see from Wikipedia that it is not vibration so much as rotation.

Anyway, going back to mobile phones... Around the time of the introduction (early 90s) of Orange and one2one there was much discussion about the additional costs involved because the higher frequency would have a shorter {reliable} range (because of reflections / absorption) and therefore more 'cells' would be needed, bumping up the costs for setting up the networks.

Having more cells allows for more active phones, and if T-Mobile and Orange were not merging (which will force some changes in future years) then they could between them have had a larger market share than O2 + Vodafone simply on network capacity. Of course, the downside would be that if each of those active phones went on to be using the internet, their networks would be overloaded with data traffic, so either sluggish web browsing would occur, or they'd have to invest heavily to cope. Academic now, as the whole market will change over the next few years as the networks change and more get internet access via the mobile networks.

There was a deal between 3 and T-Mobile for sharing networks (allowing phone users access via either firm's masts) but that will be modified once T-M and Orange merge. So it is still worth looking at O2, for iPhone, if only because it should not change too much, too soon (if you start a 2 year contract with T-M or Orange or Three, who knows what will be happening by mid-2012 ?)

Setting up against established networks Vodafone and CellNet must have been quite a struggle for one2one as the first competitor, and they started with big cities and then motorways. Looks like phones will need to cover 3 to 5 bands for them to be international best sellers as the USA uses 850 and 1900, not 900 and 1800, and in the UK we are using 2100 MHz too, for Three and 3G.