Why is the signal so bad in central London?

[h29039f]

Can someone explain the technical reasons why I got better signal in central London in the 90s, than I do in 2025 on EE? I work near Oxford Street, and the signal is dire. Often it will show that I have good signal, and yet calls will drop, or web page will simply not load. I assume it's a capacity issue, rather than signal strength problem - but if that's the case, why can't they increase it? The other day, the hospital phoned, and it took 5 phone calls back to try and get them to relay the some really important information - despite wandering around outside by several hundred metres trying to find the best place to stand to get signal. No other European city I've travelled to has this problem. 

[Ali_A]

Hi @h29039f 

Sorry to hear you’re facing problems with signal while in London. 

Do you recall if you are on 5G or 4G when you experience the call drops and slow internet access? 

You can check coverage and network status at Check mobile coverage where you can also report any issues you are facing. The engineers will take a look at what's going on and get in touch with you when investigating. 

Ali 

[h29039f]

Both 4g and 5g (tried switching to each). Coverage map says 'excellent coverage', which suggests its an underlying EE capacity rather than signal issue. Plenty of other busy parts of London which have the same issue. Vodafone seem to be investing more on this front, so might give them a try for a couple of weeks. 

[bristolian]

---

@h29039f wrote:

Can someone explain the technical reasons why I got better signal in central London in the 90s, than I do in 2025 on EE?

---

This massively depends what you mean by "better signal". In the 2G days, EE operated one technology on one frequency. 3G increased that to 2 technologies on very similar frequencies.

Now  you have 4G & 5G operating across 6 frequency bands from 700Mhz to 3500Mhz. Very different characteristics, good at different things. Joe in the street seems to want the most bars all the time - fine, all sit on low-band 700/800Mhz but get poor data speeds (and most likely failed calls) due to congestion. Fred in the street wants the fastest data speeds, which are obtained by a combination of smaller cells & higher-band deployment - neither of which give good on-screen bars. Too many users get upset by "only one bar".

VoLTE  & VoNR are prioritised above other network traffic, thus voice calls dropping in good radio conditions should be rare. Equally even when there's data congestion, web pages should only need a fraction of the bandwidth and basic internet use should usually be possible, even if running speedtest contests becomes difficult or UHD-multiple-device-streaming isn't possible.

Deploying additional capacity... if only it were as easy as saying so!! Sometimes it is, and it's done. All networks have good & bad areas, but the national benchmarking surveys do publish regional breakdowns which do vary. "Seem to be investing" is an interesting phrase - there's certainly a PR offensive from certain networks at present, but how much this translates into real-world network performance also depends on the start point.

For what it's worth, yours is a far more reasoned post than some of the rant-style ones that frequent this board more often. Hence my more reasoned answer.

[h29039f]

“Deploying additional capacity... if only it were as easy as saying so!”

Other countries don’t seem to have this issue in densely populated areas. 
I assume this comes down to a combination of Nimbyism that restricts increased small cell installation and masts in Westminster, combined with EE underinvestment. 

[bristolian]

There's lots of things EE can be accused of, but underinvestment is not one of them. There's other networks that are far more suitable candidates for that accusation, based on experience over the last 12-18months!

A good RAN in urban areas is generally created by a combination of high-capacity umbrella macro sites, with a good concentration of street-level micros. I don't have any recent experience within Westminster, but it's not unusual for planning issues to cause frustrations with deployments in heritage areas.

Capacity adds to existing sites completely depends on individual site config, it's very rare for two sites to be the same!

[h29039f]

If that really is the case, then that leaves NIMBYism and lack of local government interest. We should be able to at least make a phone call in the centre of London. I see in the Ookla global mobile index, the UK is ranked terribly… no surprise there…

[Schockwave]

@h29039f , where in London are you querying about? As I have had signal when I have been there, not very often I admit, but still have not had a problem. As for ranking, that depends on who complains and what about, people like to complain just about anything, see it all the time, here, on social media etc., for anything and not just about network. Hiding behind a mobile, computer, is so easy to complain without a face to face.

[bristolian]

---

@h29039f wrote:

We should be able to at least make a phone call in the centre of London.

---

Absolutely true. But then why should central London be any different from any other large city? Or any rural area?

The challenges to network planning are different of course.

[h29039f]

See my original message for where I’m having issues. However, there are other locations in central London with similar problems. 

No idea what rankings you’re referring to - but the UK is about 53rd on the global speed index - behind some pretty undeveloped countries. We are a densely populated country with a geographic advantage (no major mountain ranges etc) - so we already have an advantage. 

People making excuses lack ambition and likely why this country has falling productivity - it’s a lazy “computer says no” attitude towards something that’s clearly an issue.