back to article Brits blissfully unbothered by snail-paced mobile network speeds

Brits are satisfied with the speed of their mobile network, research finds, despite the UK having some of the slowest average 5G download speeds among G7 nations. Twitter is also no longer among the top 10 most used mobile apps. According to mobile insights consulting firm GWS, the network "sweet spot," the point at which …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Interesting list

    The lack of Safari in the top 10 means one of two things.

    1) the El Fruity world does little or now web browsing from their 'i" device

    or

    2) Apple does not release this sort of stat.

    I prefer to think that it is 2).

    Out of the top 10,, I use just one of them and that is rarely.

    1. Dan 55 Silver badge

      Re: Interesting list

      Data was only slurped from Android (see Methodology section). Apple keeps its precious for itself.

      1. SVD_NL Silver badge

        Re: Interesting list

        To be fair, i can see why apple would refuse any apps that collect usage data 24/7, they likely dont even expose APIs for that.

        1. DS999 Silver badge

          Re: Interesting list

          You can view the usage data under Screen Time in Settings. I assume Apple is collecting that data (with the user information removed) unless you have opted out of the data collection for analytics in Settings. So Apple will know what the top 10 apps are, but yes no one could produce an app to access that data.

          The way it breaks down though is funny. I see Safari high in my list, but also top individual sites visited in Safari are separately listed.

          1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

            Re: Interesting list

            "I see Safari high in my list, but also top individual sites visited in Safari are separately listed."

            That seems eminently sensible to me. Looking at the stats in the article, Chrome is shown as #2, but is a jack of all trades and people are using it for many and varied reasons, possibly even to access the site used by the apps also listed in the top 10. All the rest of the top 10 are what I would call "one trick ponies" and so are not comparable at all with a browser.

  2. SVD_NL Silver badge

    Makes sense

    Mobile experiences have been pretty optimized for slower network speeds. looking at the most used apps, 1-5Mbps is going to be more than enough to browse facebook, use whatsapp, use navigation, or watch a 480p youtube video (default quality while on mobile data, 720p on youtube is around 5Mbps bitrate i believe).

    Websites may not be as snappy when loading, but you need to remember the majority of people are using older and/or cheaper phones, so they are not used to a snappy experience on their phone to begin with!

    Having more bandwidth matters most with large downloads, which people don't want to do on connections with a data cap to begin with.

    With network technology improving, mobile providers are quick to boast with increased network speeds you are never going to need or be able to use from a mobile device, but the true improvements are QoS-related. Especially improvements in MU-MIMO-related technology of 4G and 5G mean there is a better, more fair and faster distribution of bandwidth. Fast speeds are fine, but it's better to have 1Mbs together with 100 people, than it is to queue up with 100 people and access 100Mbs one at a time. the last in line is not going to be happy.

    1. abend0c4 Silver badge

      Re: Makes sense

      For people using mobile data from a mobile phone (which, admittedly, is probably the majority), then that's probably true enough.

      I'm mostly dependent on "mobile" services for my "fixed" connectivity these days: the price is increasingly comparable and the contractual tie-in is usually lower. For that type of usage, anything less than 20-30Mbit/sec can be painful. On the plus side, upload speeds often exceed those of FTTC and I can (recently) get download speeds of over 200MBit/sec on 5G though I'm not convinced the backhaul will sustain it once usage increases.

      1. SVD_NL Silver badge

        Re: Makes sense

        I was specifically commenting on mobile usage here as that's the subject of the article. For a home internet connection i believe the "sweet spot" would be more around 30Mbps. The main reasons being that there are multiple devices (even while standby they chip away at bandwith), and that PCs have higher bandwidth requirements. Bigger screens such as monitors and TVs means you'll notice lower resolutions more than on a phone. You'll be more actively multi-tasking, and desktop web pages are often less optimized for lower load times.

        While the limits are a bit different, the same principles apply: You don't need as much bandwidth as the ISPs make you believe, and the true improvements that make fiber and 5G "faster" than DSL are reduced latency and a more consistent experience.

        The big difference between home internet and mobile internet is that there are use cases for higher bandwidths, for example downloading a large video game.

        I'd say that the vast majority of households still really don't benefit much from going over 100Mbit

        1. abend0c4 Silver badge

          Re: Makes sense

          that's the subject of the article

          The reason I brought it up is that the article itself refers only to mobile network users without qualification as to the type of device they're connecting.

          It is true that GWS only survey mobile phone users (via an app on their phones) but the article seemed to be making a broader point (hence, perhaps, the surprise that the modest speed found acceptable seems a little low to us). Or perhaps someone just read the press release and failed to examine the methodology before writing it up...

      2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: Makes sense

        I would assume that devices that are "fixed" but using "mobile" connectivity have better aerials than most mobile phones too and so likely to get a much better signal. And probably less likely to be in high footfall areas where lots of people are trying to use their phones :-)

    2. Dave 126 Silver badge

      Re: Makes sense

      > Mobile experiences have been pretty optimized for slower network speeds.

      You'd hope so, wouldn't you? However, I saw this today, and it confirms my anecdotal prejudices:*

      "Modern Web Bloat Means Some Pages Load 21MB of Data [Quora and most social media sites amongst the worst offenders]"

      https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/modern-web-bloat-means-some-entry-level-phones-cant-run-simple-web-pages-and-load-times-are-high-for-pcs-some-sites-run-worse-than-pubg

      *My social site of choice is called a public house. Sadly, I sometimes need to check on a pub's FB page to see if there is a band playing. This seems common, even if if a pub has it own website. Pub's open website loads near instantly, Facebook page takes twenty seconds.

  3. Lee D Silver badge

    "the network "sweet spot," the point at which consumer demands for network mobile speeds match what the operators deliver, sits between 1 and 5 Mbps. This seems a little low to us, especially as the average download speed for UK mobile broadband is about 30 Mbps, according to some estimates."

    Why would that be low?

    The home connection is used for far more than just browsing, it's far more likely to see people doing actual work or watching lots more video, plus it's shared with a few other people on the same connection - so if 30Mbps is adequate at home, 5Mbps is more than adequate when out and about.

    That said, the SPEED of the thing doesn't really matter to me. I don't care about the speed when mobile half as much as actually being able to connect. And there are so many deadspots once you get outside cities that that becomes a problem. And I'm counting GPRS/Edge/2G as a dead-spot in this instance. Great for phone calls, pathetic for anything data-bound.

    Even then I know of basic GSM deadspots - I work in one! A town outside London, built up with offices and houses and schools and other buildings, and yet there are still places where you can't take or receive even a basic phone call even if you step outdoors, and that just shouldn't be happening in this day and age.

    I don't care about speed, sort the coverage. If that means 4G/5G upgrades, then do it, and limit the speed on the individual connections.

    It's insane that when I go into London on the train I have recorded 500Mbps on a basic mobile phone but if I want to take a phone call from near a station just a couple of stops outside London, I have to wander a few hundred yards down the road to get basic GSM signals.

    They're supposed to do things like ensure that they increase coverage every time they plan major speed upgrades so that nobody is left behind, but it just doesn't happen. The cabinets / masts get upgraded, sometimes, but new ones are never added.

    It's insane that the core cellular networks are not nationalised infrastructure, with the providers competing on top and paying a percentage to ensure that the infrastructure gets to constantly expand and upgrade.

    1. jospanner Silver badge

      Can confirm. Have fibre internet but no mobile service. Great stuff.

      1. xyz Silver badge

        To confirm the confirmation... I have internet and no mobile signal which is bloody annoying when certain companies... Amazon for example, want to send you an SMS confirmation code to log on with. Such a year 2000 mentality. And no I don't have wifi calling and no SMS app seems to work.

    2. Korev Silver badge
      Pirate

      The home connection is used for far more than just browsing, it's far more likely to see people doing actual work or watching lots more video, plus it's shared with a few other people on the same connection - so if 30Mbps is adequate at home, 5Mbps is more than adequate when out and about.

      4K Netflix wants ~25Mbs, so if someone is watching telly and a phone updates itself then bye bye the film...

      Icon because piracy would provide a better experience in this case...

      1. werdsmith Silver badge

        4K Netflix wants ~25Mbs, so if someone is watching telly and a phone updates itself then bye bye the film...

        So it has no buffer or a very short buffer to queue the data locally.

        1. Lee D Silver badge

          And absolutely no use of the inbuilt features of the modern streaming video formats where it can downgrade the resolution, etc. for a short period and then upgrade when the connection restores.

          1. MatthewSt Silver badge

            NowTV does that, and out of the two I'd rather have a pause for buffering.

    3. SVD_NL Silver badge

      The great thing about 4G and 5G is that bandwidth distribution is actually one of the main improvements, where it basically has a pool of connections that it can dynamically allocate based on demand.

      this issue is that they use a shorter wavelength, which drastically reduces range and material penetration.

      Small sliver of hope: 5G allows for a lot of funky network configurations, allowing mesh-like configurations, or a remote tower using 5G as a backbone instead of fiber. This may decrease the cost of building new towers in areas with poor coverage, but there still needs to be an incentive to make that investment as long as this infrastructure is privately managed. The business case is not there unless the government brings a bag of cash.

    4. ARGO

      >but new ones are never added

      Indeed. And then about a year after planning is refused, the same people who campaigned against the mast are in the local paper complaining about the lack of mobile service in their area.

      (From personal experience of a village near where I live)

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      It's insane that the core cellular networks are not nationalised infrastructure, with the providers competing on top and paying a percentage to ensure that the infrastructure gets to constantly expand and upgrade.

      You mean so that they could be as well-run and competively priced as the railway network?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        I could retort with how about how the private sector has done with gas and water?

        Are you American?

        If the government service is crap, replace the government, or employ better people. Moving to the private sector is NEVER the solution, it adds to costs with shareholder dividends and profits etc.

        The right wing have convinced you that government run services are crap, so that they can sell our assets to their mates, but remember, these aren't services that would benefit from healthy competition - they are core infrastructure services.

        Leave cars and TVs etc. to the private sector, but social resources that are monopolies should always be Nationalised.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Are you American?

          No.

          If the government service is crap, replace the government, or employ better people.

          Absolutely. Sadly it's hard to fire civil servants so that they can be replaced by better ones, witness the UKs Home Office, HMRC, DWP, etc.

          Moving to the private sector is NEVER the solution, it adds to costs with shareholder dividends and profits etc.

          Ah, someone who's been drinking the kool-aid, and has apparently never actually lived for any amount of time in a place where such services are state-run.

          There's a wide assumption that government-run services don't need to make a profit, and so can be run economically for the benefit of the users. That's complete bullshit.

          Even governments have to invest in services, and do do so they either need tax money, or they take out loans whose interest is paid from tax money. They could, of course, make a profit and even pay taxes, but under your plans that isn't allowed, so the taxpayer has to fork out instead. Lose-lose. Without enough investment, of course, the services themselves are crap. Think 1970's GPO phone service and BA internal UK flight prices (£250 return Belfast-London, that's £1000 in today's money, whereas EasyJet & co charge 1/10th of that).

          Furthermore, because the civil servants who run the state departments who run those services think they don't have to make a profit they develop a "there's always more money" mindset, so everything is run inefficiently. They don't need to care about improving "service" because they get paid anyway, so running a minimum service is all they need to do. There's no benefit in improving service, because they don't get more pay or more money for doing so.

          The right wing have convinced you that government run services are crap

          No, 40-odd years of living in countries, both left- and right-wing, where the services are government-run have convinced me they're crap.

          Leave cars and TVs etc. to the private sector, but social resources that are monopolies should always be Nationalised.

          There a a few state-mandated services, like Police and prisons, which clearly need to be state run. Nothing else should be, it is always an economic and social disaster.

          1. Missing Semicolon Silver badge

            +1 this.

            The people who demand state-run monopolies for services weren't around when you had to wait weeks for a new phone line, longer for an ISDN line, and there was no impetus to allow anything but an expensive-to-rent piece of GPO kit to be connected to the hallowed copper pair that entered your property.

      2. Lee D Silver badge

        The railway network is far from nationalised infrastructure in the UK.

        "Network Rail Limited is the owner (via its subsidiary Network Rail Infrastructure Limited, which was known as Railtrack plc before 2002) and infrastructure manager of most of the railway network in Great Britain."

        "Network Rail's main customers are the private train operating companies"

        "Britain's railway system was built by private companies, but it was nationalised by the Transport Act 1947 and run by British Railways until re-privatisation which was begun in 1994 and completed in 1997.As a part of the privatisation process, the railway infrastructure, passenger and freight services were separated into separate organisations. Between 1994 and 2002, the infrastructure was owned and operated by Railtrack, a privately-owned company"

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Rail

        Also:

        "In May 2021, the Government announced that Network Rail is to superseded by a new body, Great British Railways, in 2023"

        "Great British Railways (GBR) is a proposed state-owned public body that is to oversee rail transport in Great Britain except for Transport for London, Merseytravel, light rail and tram services. In addition, it is to absorb Network Rail to become the operator of most rail infrastructure across Great Britain.[a] It will not affect the existing powers of the UK's devolved administrations in their areas."

        Notice the repeated use of the word most, and the fact that a "public body" is being replaced by a "state-owned public body" without limited-company subsidiaries.

        Also note that the last 25+ years of railway infrastructure were under privatisation and have a marked decrease in value-for-money, quality and maintenance over that time.

        And even now, "Great British Railways" still hasn't actually happened yet, in 2024.

        1. Tom 38

          The railway network is far from nationalised infrastructure in the UK.

          "Network Rail Limited is the owner (via its subsidiary Network Rail Infrastructure Limited, which was known as Railtrack plc before 2002) and infrastructure manager of most of the railway network in Great Britain."

          The next line, which you do not quote, says: "Network Rail is a non-departmental public body of the Department for Transport with no shareholders, which reinvests its income in the railways."

          A public body, with no shareholders, owned by the government is *not* nationalised? Strong disagree.

          Also note that the last 25+ years of railway infrastructure were under privatisation

          Railway infrastructure has been publicly owned in the UK since 1947, apart from 8 years from 1994 - 2002. You even list all those dates in your post...

          1. NeilPost

            Network Rail - or rather its predecessor Railtrack was brought back under State control after it crashed and burned quite spectacularly.

            .https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/article_456jsp/

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              A good example of how catastrophic it can be when governments interfere and try to "half-nationalize" businesses.

  4. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

    Download speed is immaterial once it's fast enough for further improvements to be unnoticeable. For my part I'd just like a signal at home that's consistent enough to make and receive phone calls. Consistency seems to have vanished along with 3g. Coincidence?

    1. RichardBarrell

      I believe 3G had worse coverage per-base-station than 2G, 4G or 5G (i.e. both the stuff that came before it and the stuff that came after it). So you'd expect consistency to improve if somebody swapped out the 3G base stations for 4G base stations, one-for-one.

  5. McBread

    Based on the Facebook usage, I'm deducing they exclusively polled boomers.

    1. AMBxx Silver badge

      Facebook is installed by default on most phones adn most people don't bother to uninstall. They're watching you even if you don't know it.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        re : Facebook is installed by default on most phones

        Even on iDevices?

        As a 'boomer' and an owner of an iPhone (2nd hand) I've never seen a FB app. It would not matter anyway as all of FB domains are blocked by my home router. The same goes for all social media sites.

        As for boomers using FaceBook? None of my boomer friends use it these days. Like Twitter, it has descended into a pile of rancid dog poo.

        Perhaps you might like to update your opinion of us boomers? Many of us grew up using computers long before the Internet.

        1. McBread

          Re: re : Facebook is installed by default on most phones

          All Facebook users are Boomers != All Boomers are Facebook Users.

          It's known that younger users are disproportionately abandoning FB for trendier social media.

        2. Spazturtle Silver badge

          Re: re : Facebook is installed by default on most phones

          This data doesn't include iOS devices because Apple refused to allow the company to load it's telemetry software onto them.

  6. Lazlo Woodbine Silver badge

    I'd just like something over 3G speeds at home please...

  7. Jason Hindle Silver badge

    Probably ok

    Speed tests are down from early 5G, but I'm generally able to do what I need to do. Teams and Google Meet sessions are pretty reliable. Manchester is problematic with EE (especially in the centre), where I often need to switch mobile data off and back on again when on the move (even with an apparently good signal). I think they have a problem handing off between cells. This was not a problem in the early days of 5G and might (I think) be down to the replacement of Huawei equipment not going smoothly.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Facebook

    Still a thing?

    At least in Blighty.

  9. Ball boy Silver badge

    Facebook isn't used as much by the younger genertation(s)

    As already pointed out, FB tends to be the domain of the 30+ user.

    What would be interesting is to see the app/service usage split by age group. I think it'd show a rather different bandwidth demand: if you're an oldie (like wot I is) then you're probably less likely to live your life apparently totally reliant on high speed connections to feed a video chat/TikTok habit!

    Some perspective: I rarely - if ever - come close to my 2Gb/month cap: my daughter regularly moans that her 20Gb limit is cramping her style! On reflection, maybe I just don't have as many friends as her ;)

    1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      Re: Facebook isn't used as much by the younger genertation(s)

      I think age-group is very important. Unless I expect to make 100, I can no longer call myself middle-aged. Gulp! And I remember the costs of making calls in the 1990s - had my first smartphone in 2003 (Sony Ericsson P800), and data was ruinously expensive. Fortunatly it was a rubbish smartphone, so I couldn't use much data on it anyway. I've quickly listened to a band's latest song on Youtube or quickly brought up a TV clip to show someone on mobile data, but I wouldn't use it for video. But da kidz think nothing of it. They're used to data being cheap. In my case, I've got very poor eyesight, even watching video on my iPad is uncomfortably small - but most people I know about my age also don't watch video on mobiles much. Even at home on WiFi. There's the TV, laptop or tablet for that.

      Although I get the impression tablet use has dropped off. The kids go for big phones, and older people also use their phone, or get out the laptop for bigger things. For most people a phone is big enough for web browsing or email.

      I think cities are different though. Because of better data and more (plus richer) people using public transport. You see more people on trains and buses in London watching video than on the bus in my large market town in the South East.

      I tend to use about 1GB a month on tracking public transport, mapping, email, a bit of mobile web and work VOIP.

      I was surprised by the article:

      We find it surprising that Twitter isn't included in the top 10

      Even before Musk, Twitter was a minority activity, dominated by a few niche areas. Now that he's put it behind a paywall you don't come across content in casual web searches anymore. So it's even less relevant to those not terminally-online.

      It's another thing, like podcasting, that people involved seem to assume is universal, but actually isn't. I'd say that no more than 10% of my friends and family have ever listened to a podcast - and regularly using Twitter is under half that. Whereas over half are on Facebook.

      Most people use the interent for a few things and then go off to do other things. And really treat the internet almost in the way they treat TV or newspapers. As a broadcast medium they tune into for a bit, then turn off. Joining forums, playing online, getting and discussing news on Twitter is a minority activity, like writing to the letters page of newspapapers. Facebook changed that for many people, but they treat facebook as its own separate thing.

      1. Jamie Jones Silver badge

        Re: Facebook isn't used as much by the younger genertation(s)

        Apparently, you can still call yourself "middle aged" until you are 60... That's not quite my definition of "middle aged", but I'll take it seeing as I can!

        1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

          Re: Facebook isn't used as much by the younger genertation(s)

          Jamie Jones,

          That's great news! I'm definitely not expecting to make 120 - but I'll take it anyway...

          When my Nan hit 80 she started saying things like, "I'm not buying a new coat now. I might die before I've got full use out of it." But then she was already signing all her grandchildren's birthday cards on January 1st each year (with £5 inside) - so that if she died part-way through the year, nobody would miss out on their birthday money. Which would have been odd if we were all under 10, but by the time I was in my 20s, £5 was only a couple of pints, and I can't imagine how creepy it would have been to receive a birthday card from beyond the grave...

          I think I'll have to wait a few more years before i can become properly eccentric. I'm looking forward to having a walking stick to wave at people though.

          1. ravenviz Silver badge

            Re: Facebook isn't used as much by the younger genertation(s)

            I’m 14 years off my ‘3 score and 10’ and have started my death declutter already!

        2. IGotOut Silver badge

          Re: Facebook isn't used as much by the younger genertation(s)

          Don't worry about age it's just a marketing scam to make you be boring and compliant.

          Yours lovingly a 52 pink haired long boarder, who you will find in the mosh pit or in front of the speaker stack at a rave.

          Fuck em all and be happy.

      2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: Facebook isn't used as much by the younger genertation(s)

        "I'd say that no more than 10% of my friends and family have ever listened to a podcast"

        Same here. I'm not sure what a "podcast" is other than marketing jumping on the iPod bandwagon years ago and the term stuck. The best I can work out is it's a radio programme that was never broadcast. The BBC advertise their "podcasts" on BBC Sounds, the same place they put all the radio shows that you can download after, sometimes even before, over the air broadcasts. So basically, it seems a podcast is just a name for an audio file you can download and listen too "offline".

        And yeah, technically I'm a "boomer", whatever that is. But as an Astrologer might say "on the cusp" between "boomer" and whatever the label is for the following generation 8-)

        1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

          Re: Facebook isn't used as much by the younger genertation(s)

          John Brown (nb),

          Podcasts are brilliant. I have many GBs of them on my phone, more than I can ever listen to, and come across new interesting ones all the time. The BBC do some, which just means I can have some programs delivered to my phone to listen offline. Plus they’ve bunged all 900-odd episodes of Alistair Cooke's 'Letters from America' out there. And they’re great historical documents. He was starting to repeat himself by the 80s, but was still an acute observer.

          But it’s also allowed people to do their own thing, and some have even made a career out of it. Mike Duncan started a History of Rome, rather badly. He’d hit his stride by a few episodes in and made a really good narrative history of the empire in a few years. He used that to do a great 'Revolutions' series, and has become a professional historian. The podcast funded him to move to Paris to research a book on Lafayette. He then inspired a bunch of imitators, some bad, some good, some truly amazing. David Crowther's 'the History of England' is the best I’ve come across.

          There’s a lot of crap out there. And a few companies funding some weird stuff in the hope that one day vast amounts of profits might magically appear. But also some truly amazing professional quality stuff from enthusiastic amateurs. 'Missed Apex' is a great example of an F1 podcast whose analysis makes a lot of the professional media’s output look like they don’t know what they’re talking about. The TV guys all employ ex F1 drivers, who obviously do, but then dumb-down what they’ll allow them to say so much, that they might as well not have bothered.

        2. doublelayer Silver badge

          Re: Facebook isn't used as much by the younger genertation(s)

          "basically, it seems a podcast is just a name for an audio file you can download and listen too offline"

          Yes, you have it right. There's an RSS feed around it, so it is a feed of audio or video files that you can download and monitor for new ones. That's really all there is to it. And yes, Apple did start a lot of it so they got to get the "pod" in the name, but they don't make iPods anymore, it's a very open standard that doesn't give any power to Apple, and the one thing they still have (a popular but optional database making it easy to find podcasts) is open to everyone on all platforms, so can't we give them the name thing?

          Whether you like that or not is up to you, but the concept is not complicated. Podcasts are just another way to listen, and there are quite good ones and a large number of crap ones, just like everything else on the internet.

      3. ravenviz Silver badge

        Re: Facebook isn't used as much by the younger genertation(s)

        I use tablets a lot, an iPad at home, iPad mini on the train, and iPad Pro for watching movies while travelling. Phone screens are just too small for more than reading WhatsApp messages.

  10. Giles C Silver badge

    As a comparison

    I am just out for a walk during a break and in cherry Hinton Cambridge reading the reg on my phone

    Just tested and 28mb down 20 up on 4g

    Fine for what I need

  11. Big_Boomer

    I use mobile data for the BBC News app, Google Maps, Web browsing (Chrome), and occasionally for email/web-banking, and such. I do not spend my life glued to my phone and feel sorry for those that do. I do however sit in front of a PC for 8hrs per day/5 days per week and use my tablet (WiFi only) for 3-4 hrs every day. For me mobile data's biggest problem is AVAILABLE bandwidth, especially in busy areas. When I was still commuting daily, the worst area for AVAILABLE bandwidth was when stuck in the daily M25 traffic jam on the Dartford Tunnel approach. Over 14 years the coverage (3G, 4G, and now 5G) never improved and is still crap to this day. I guess it is a limitation inherent in the cell layout,..... or maybe just the companies don't want to provide enough cells to cope with their peak usage?

  12. User McUser
    FAIL

    Finally, a promise is realized!

    [...] the network "sweet spot" [...] sits between 1 and 5 Mbps.

    3G was supposed to provide 7Mbps in 2007 - nice to see it only took 17 years to not quite achieve that goal. (¬_¬ )

    Good job guys - drinks all around.

    1. Munehaus

      Re: Finally, a promise is realized!

      When 3G launched in 2003 it didn't even provide internet access, something 2G already had. It took them another year or so to get that working and another 5 years till HSPA etc made it usable. 3G was always over promised and under delivered, so it's ironic that 2G has outlived it.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The networks still have obnoxiously high charges for data, so the theoretical speeds of 4G and 5G are unaffordable to use for large volumes. We have mobile operators with a base rate of £0.10 per MB. If someone was to use an hour of 100 Mbit bandwidth on 5G, on the base rate, they would be paying £3,600 for it! Ok, so most people are not paying the base rate, but there's no excuse for it to be so extortionate, sitting there like a trap for the unwary to either zero your PAYG credit or drop a nice little demand for a grand on your doormat at the end of the month (one of the networks did this to me when they screwed up and removed my data plan instead of modifying it, and wouldn't void the charge until I got senior management involved).

    Even on the more affordable plans, we have top tier pay as you go plans with only 100GB allowance per month, which would be used up in around 3 hours if we used data at 100 Mbit. It's not much better on contracts, they all have some sort of cap or fair use policy which is orders of magnitude below the fantasy data rates that might be possible on 4G and 5G, if someone was to actually try to use them heavily at the advertised data rates.

    Aside from that, the networks rarely seem to offer much better than 3G speeds most of the time, regardless of whatever of their latest super amazing high speed towers that have been erected in the immediate vicinity.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like