EE has made the classic mistake of trying to sell a feature rather than a benefit. There is no killer application for LTE. The key benefit of LTE is more bandwidth and EE isn't even trying to sell that. I generally get about 4 Mbps down 2 Mbps up on 3G and I'm happy with that, and I'm a pretty demanding punter. What matters to most consumers is being able to download decent amounts of data at reasonable cost with good coverage on a cheap phone with good battery life. EE, daft rebranding without owning the .com domain, doesn't hit these requirements. I can't see this 4G-only network idea enabling them to grab market share or increase customer satisfaction and margins, any more than a wholly 3G-only network approach helped Hutchison. And Hutchison thought they had a killer app with video calls. EE doesn't even have that.
I fear EE has gone down a cul-de-sac with this. It only takes one of its competitors to realize that differentiation between 3G and LTE tariffs is not only futile but also counter-productive (i.e. very limited coverage, pisses off existing customers, few phones, damages existing brands and relationships, gives an excuse to reconsider loyalty as 4G more important than existing brand) and where does EE go? Imagine if 3, or one of the other competitors announces "All our customers have 4G. Does your network love you enough?" It doesn't cost them much, as most customers don't have LTE phones and LTE technology can be delivered to alleviate current network overload. Meanwhile, T-Mobile and Orange, overloaded and unloved, lacking LTE contracts, become perceived as budget network and go into a death spiral. But remember, this is where most of EE's customers live. This approach might have been worth the risk for a small player like 3 (though I still don't believe it), but it doesn't make any sense for the biggest player in the market.
This just shows that Olaf Swantee isn't very smart.