Mobile phone coverage in ED

[Mrs Nicklin]

T-mobile just isn't cutting it anymore. You'd think that we'd have no problems in Zone 2 these days!

Is there a network that's generally thought to be the best to use over here?

Thanks for any help!

[Only me!]

I'm with Vodafone & apart from a few gaps up & around Sydenham Hill/Crystal Palace area (not Rd)

when I think you are too close to the transmitters on the mast(?)

I seem to have good coverage, both at home & when driving about the area.

[Tanday]

I'm on vodafone and live up the top end of lordship lane near the Grove Tavern. I get a dreadful signal and often cant get any reception bars at all.

[Pickle]

I've been with Vodafone for 11 years and get a good signal at all times, have never noticed any areas in ED where it cuts out.

[Penguin68]

The problem for all mobiles is hills, we have quite steep ones around ED which means that, when you are relatively close to transmitters, but out of line-of-sight (below the crest of a hill etc.) you can lose or get poor reception.

Additionally cells are programmed to try to keep conversations going, so when one cell hands over to another for an ongoing conversation, if it has too few circuits to manage this hand-over it will 'remove' connection from a phone not currently in active use - so sometimes you seem to lose signal in places you previously had it.

I am under a brow of a hill, so I often only get (Vod) signal on upper floors (but not always). Atmospheric conditions can also effect signal attenuation.

Two places I often lose signal (even during conversations) are on Dog Kennel Hill and Sydenham Hill - in each case I believe that is a line-of-sight issue.

[aquarius moon]

Not sure about ED, but I left vodafone as the coverage in Nunhead/Peckham was dreadful.

I'm with O2 now and never get any problems anywhere.

[Glutenberg]

Never had a problem in ED on Orange

[Twirly]

Interesting, as I'm with t-mobile and haven't had any problems at all in ED. I do lose signal when on the train into town in certain spots, but they are always the same ones so it doesn't bother me (and that's internet mostly).

Husband is on Vodafone, and although he's OK in London, whenever we go out of a big city he loses signal (which being a geek and needing a lifeline to the internet all the time is a big problem!). We can be in the middle of nowhere and I'll have 4 bars and he'll have none. I'm sticking with t-mobile, and if they did the phone he wants, he'd move to them.

[Sue]

I'm with Orange, who fairly recently combined their coverage with T-Mobile, and I rarely have any problems.

Interested in this thread as I'm due an upgrade shortly so want to make sure I stay with/change to a good provider.

[yummumbums]

I've been with 3 network since they started and never had any problems with them until 6 months ago where coverage is so bad now i am losing the will to live as i get cut off on nearly every phone conversation i have grrrrrrrrr

[Growlybear]

The only mobile phone network which has any signal inside my house in my part of Wood Vale is Orange/T-Mobile, and even that isn't great. People can sometimes get a signal on O2 if they stand at the end of my driveway, but there is never a Vodaphone or 3 signal in my front or back gardens.

[DulwichFox]

Orange seems to be fine.. I have no problems..

Fox.

[Bic Basher]

Remember that T-Mobile and Virgin Mobile customers can roam on to Orange at no additional charge which I find better in ED than T-Mobile.

[Lowlander]

I'm happy with Vodafone (and previously T-Mob/Orange) at the top of Lordship Lane.

You can find transmitter info here: http://www.sitefinder.ofcom.org.uk/search

As others have said, ED is fairly hilly and built up; with most transmitters on top of the hills this affects reception.

[aicardo]

If you're on Vodafone, buy a Sure Signal box, it connects to b/band and boosts signal in your home. It's the only way to get good signal in London.

From work with Vodafone, my understanding is that all telcos are at near max capacity in London. Each (small) mast can handle 20 calls at once and they often cover a small radius.

[Penguin68]

The higher the planned or anticipated traffic density the smaller the cells (micro-cells) - and thus the more hand-overs between cells for a moving call, and the greater likelihood for signal loss (through contention) for those not connected.

Micro-cell towers also broadcast at lower signal strengths (because they have less far to hold calls before hand-overs).

Signal loss is typical just below the brow of a hill, when the microwave 'beam' hasn't had the opportunity to spread out (curiously this often means that the towers are relatively close to where you have lost signal).

Problems of connection are exacerbated when data connectivity is required - even though signals are packetised they can be much more demanding on bandwidth than voice. In fact capacity of existing systens is reduced the more data is sent. As people increasingly use smart-phones as data hubs this problem exacerbates. The release of the analogue TV bandwidths is meant to ameliorate this with G4 services. Eventually.

Local authority and planning rules (and simple unavailability of suitable sites) mean that carriers cannot (sometimes) errect as many cell towers as they would ideally like to match traffic.

[DulwichFox]

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The higher the planned or anticipated traffic

> density the smaller the cells (micro-cells) - and

> thus the more hand-overs between cells for a

> moving call, and the greater likelihood for signal

> loss (through contention) for those not connected.

>

>

> Micro-cell towers also broadcast at lower signal

> strengths (because they have less far to hold

> calls before hand-overs).

>

> Signal loss is typical just below the brow of a

> hill, when the microwave 'beam' hasn't had the

> opportunity to spread out (curiously this often

> means that the towers are relatively close to

> where you have lost signal).

>

> Problems of connection are exacerbated when data

> connectivity is required - even though signals are

> packetised they can be much more demanding on

> bandwidth than voice. In fact capacity of existing

> systens is reduced the more data is sent. As

> people increasingly use smart-phones as data hubs

> this problem exacerbates. The release of the

> analogue TV bandwidths is meant to ameliorate this

> with G4 services. Eventually.

>

> Local authority and planning rules (and simple

> unavailability of suitable sites) mean that

> carriers cannot (sometimes) errect as many cell

> towers as they would ideally like to match

> traffic.

This is not entirely true..

When sending Data Packages can Stored and Resent.

You will see this when downloading large pictures.

the picture will build up slowly.

You cannot do this with Speech as Speech has to be continuous to be understood.

Fox

[Penguin68]

When sending Data Packages can Stored and Resent.

You will see this when downloading large pictures.

the picture will build up slowly.

I watch streamed video on my mobile and that will be even easier via G4 - it is true that if you are using more limited bandwidth options that can make picture download slowly - but many people are now using higher speed connections - these inevitably hold more bandwidth. Voice (which is now actually packetised as well over IP systems) is dramatically pared back (high and low frequencies are filtered out) making 'continuous' voice calls quite light consumers of bandwidth. The old 'always open' circuit for switched voice calls (as opposed to packet data switching) is a thing of the past - most transmissions systems use IP backbones. You no longer measure usage in erlangs but in Mbts.

[DulwichFox]

Basically Old Telephone Twin Copper Wire had a Bandwidth of 3.4Khz. (0.3 - 3.4 kHz)

Restricted by distance of copper wire to Local Exch. 3 miles would be near the limit.

Ok for Speech..

Fox.

[dirty tree]

same here.

live near grove pub end of lordship.

on t mobile with nada bars. wife has 02 and has 5 bars.

i'm leaving them when contract is up.

[Bic Basher]

dirty tree Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> same here.

> live near grove pub end of lordship.

> on t mobile with nada bars. wife has 02 and has 5

> bars.

> i'm leaving them when contract is up.

That'll be because O2's base station is on the corner of Underhill Road. T-Mobile's is outside The Grove!

[KidKruger]

yummumbums:

"I've been with 3 network since they started and never had any problems with them until 6 months ago where coverage is so bad now i am losing the will to live as i get cut off on nearly every phone conversation i have grrrrrrrrr"

I spoke with 3network earlier todayabout a potential switch of network, the guy asked for my postcode and said SE22 near the CPT/Great Exhibition pub is great. Perhaps he fed me a line, or you're in a different part of East Dulwich ?

Anybody use 3 Network OK in ED ?

Also - anyone moved to 3 Network and actually tried the 'all the data you can eat' service, sounds too good to be true.

Any advice appreciated.

[Bic Basher]

I use 3 for their MBB service and get 5 bars by the Grove.

[intexasatthe moment]

Another vote for 02 ,both here and in rural spots where others struggle .

[KidKruger]

great vodafone here in SE22.