Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[zirk]

BT looking at buying O2 back.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30178199

If O2 aren't up for it EE could be.

[Varche]

oo I hope so. BT shares up 14p on the news.

 

[TheBoy]

Its hardly a secret BT want back in to the mobile market.

O2 I think is unlikely, except to stop Sky snapping them up...  ...though not sure Sky has that level of backing 

EE is more credible, as unlike O2, they have bothered to put some level of investment into the network. O2 has essentially done SFA since acquired by Telefonica.  That said, EE is going to be a larger chunk of BT to acquire.  EE also fit much closer with BT's strategy.

I wouldn't mind guessing that O2 shareholders caught wind of BT sniffing EE, and wanted a piece of that (as Telefonica UK has no other survival options really), or BT approached O2 in order to make EE's board more nervous.

[Rog]

I never really understood why BT flogged off Cellent in the first place. Maybe they thought that the mobile pone wouldn't take off as much as it did ?   

I was with BT Cellnet . . . . . and I've never changed. Still the same number except for when they added the "7" a few years ago.

[Marks DTM Calib]

I never really understood why BT flogged off Cellent in the first place. Maybe they thought that the mobile pone wouldn't take off as much as it did ?   

I was with BT Cellnet . . . . . and I've never changed. Still the same number except for when they added the "7" a few years ago.

Simple......they spent FAR to much money on the 3G licenses and needed to get cash and offload an asset.

Unlike TB I am of the opinion that O2 would be a much better option than EE as they have considerably more base stations in much better locations. Then to move the network forward its only hardware upgrades rather than having to go through issues of site purchase and planning for masts as you would with EE.

Also a lot of the sites were originally the Cellnet ones and are close to BT assets already.

[aaronjb]

I was with BT Cellnet . . . . . and I've never changed. Still the same number except for when they added the "7" a few years ago.

Ditto

[zirk]

I was with BT Cellnet . . . . . and I've never changed. Still the same number except for when they added the "7" a few years ago.

Ditto

0860 from memory was the original Cellnet Prefix, the other mob Voda was 0836 which I still have. 

[Diamond Black Geezer]

Have BT sold o2, then??? 


That bloody creep Major will be getting Maggie kicked out of Number Ten next 

[zirk]

Have BT sold o2, then??? 


That bloody creep Major will be getting Maggie kicked out of Number Ten next 

2001, keep up at the back. 

[Diamond Black Geezer]

 

The RAF'll be scrapping the Vulcans and the Victors next! Mark my words!!!!

[chrisgixer]

I never really understood why BT flogged off Cellent in the first place. Maybe they thought that the mobile pone wouldn't take off as much as it did ?   

I was with BT Cellnet . . . . . and I've never changed. Still the same number except for when they added the "7" a few years ago.

Simple......they spent FAR to much money on the 3G licenses and needed to get cash and offload an asset.

Unlike TB I am of the opinion that O2 would be a much better option than EE as they have considerably more base stations in much better locations. Then to move the network forward its only hardware upgrades rather than having to go through issues of site purchase and planning for masts as you would with EE.

Also a lot of the sites were originally the Cellnet ones and are close to BT assets already.

I was under the impression the 1800(?) network of O2 and Voda was stronger than the old Orange T mobile network. So EE would need more masts do deliver the same service....?

Certainly the old Orange network was poor by comparison to O2 round these parts. So on signal strength and coverage I'd expect O2 would be the better bet...?

[zirk]

I never really understood why BT flogged off Cellent in the first place. Maybe they thought that the mobile pone wouldn't take off as much as it did ?   

I was with BT Cellnet . . . . . and I've never changed. Still the same number except for when they added the "7" a few years ago.

Simple......they spent FAR to much money on the 3G licenses and needed to get cash and offload an asset.

Unlike TB I am of the opinion that O2 would be a much better option than EE as they have considerably more base stations in much better locations. Then to move the network forward its only hardware upgrades rather than having to go through issues of site purchase and planning for masts as you would with EE.

Also a lot of the sites were originally the Cellnet ones and are close to BT assets already.

I was under the impression the 1800(?) network of O2 and Voda was stronger than the old Orange T mobile network. So EE would need more masts do deliver the same service....?

Certainly the old Orange network was poor by comparison to O2 round these parts. So on signal strength and coverage I'd expect O2 would be the better bet...?

Other way round Chris, putting Data, 3/4G aside for one minute, O2 and Voda are GSM 900Mhz, where the later TM, Orange, EE where PCN 1800 Mhz.

The Original TAC and GSM Networks could accommodate a Higher Mobile Power due to the Full Car kits and Transportables, which obviously are hardly used these days, as most use Handhelds now. As a rough guide the higher the frequency the less range you tend to get for your power in Omnidirectional mode.

I believe the point Mark is making, is, when Voda and Cellnet first kicked off with TACs they were able to acquire premium Transmitter Sites for their major Network coverage design then just a case of finding some fill in sites for GSM and Handportable coverage, where the later PCN Networks had to start from scratch.   

[Marks DTM Calib]

Exactly that, what's more, BT placed a lot of masts on its existing assets e.g. exchange buildings which tended to be big and at the centre of major area of population......all at no real costs to them at the time.

Add to this the large trunk network they were able to tap into easily the result was a well considered and positioned network much better than those around it.

[Kevin Wood]

It really depends what your strategy is as to who you'd favour. EE has more spectrum than O2, but it's all up in the gigahertz where it can be great for providing fast data in well built-up areas but a real struggle to provide coverage in more rural areas.

O2 has less total spectrum but quite a chunk down at 900 MHz where rural coverage is much easier, but providing bandwidth a bit more challenging. It also has a much better established network of sites, as previously mentioned. Monetary value of their spectrum may well be greater.

Only Vodafone is as well positioned spectrum wise, but hasn't really capitalised on it. Since the Cellnet days, the O2 network has offered the best countrywide coverage and I'm guessing BT would target universal coverage rather than blisteringly fast hot-spots of coverage in the cities and shite coverage elsewhere.

Then again, BT already has infrastructure reaching to every telegraph pole, and a lot of that is now fibre, so maybe they would figure that they are best positioned to capitalise on the higher bands by plastering the place with small cell sites. After all, a big cell site at every exchange is a bit 1990's. When consumers expect tens of megabits, the cells have to be smaller. 

[TheBoy]

I never really understood why BT flogged off Cellent in the first place. Maybe they thought that the mobile pone wouldn't take off as much as it did ?   

I was with BT Cellnet . . . . . and I've never changed. Still the same number except for when they added the "7" a few years ago.

Simple......they spent FAR to much money on the 3G licenses and needed to get cash and offload an asset.

Unlike TB I am of the opinion that O2 would be a much better option than EE as they have considerably more base stations in much better locations. Then to move the network forward its only hardware upgrades rather than having to go through issues of site purchase and planning for masts as you would with EE.

Also a lot of the sites were originally the Cellnet ones and are close to BT assets already.

I was under the impression the 1800(?) network of O2 and Voda was stronger than the old Orange T mobile network. So EE would need more masts do deliver the same service....?

Certainly the old Orange network was poor by comparison to O2 round these parts. So on signal strength and coverage I'd expect O2 would be the better bet...?

The lower frequencies have better penetration than the higher ones