By Andy McCue, 23 October 2003 15:00
NEWS Mobile operators have slammed research that claims they are putting cash ahead of the quality of calls.
A study comparing the quality of voice calls on mobile phones to landlines was carried out by BT Exact spin-off Psytechnics.
In what is perhaps a statement of the obvious it found that, on average, voice quality is 20 per cent less on mobiles than fixed lines. The UK's five mobile carriers 3, O2, Orange, T-Mobile, Vodafone failed to score higher than 'poor' or 'fair' on quality in the research.
Ian Volans, spokesman for the GSM Association, told silicon.com that mobile operators have never tried to claim voice quality is better than that of landlines.
"I've never been aware of any of the operators making claims that mobile calls offer superior voice quality on a consistent basis against landlines. It has never been a major part of operators' marketing strategies. Just as listening to Radio 1 on the radio there are good and bad areas of coverage."
The study also claimed that the cost of a handset does not guarantee better quality of calls either, despite the cost. Volans said that is not a feature that customers buy handsets for.
"It depends on the radio components. The price of a handset is not dictated by the quality of the calls. It is things like functionality and brand quality of the operator."
But John Winchester, CEO of Psytechnics, accused operators of putting cash before quality.
"For some reason, when it comes to mobile phones, there is a widely accepted view that quality will be compromised as a trade off against convenience," he said in a statement. "The fact is that mobile phone quality can, and must, be improved who knows how much longer the customer will put up with paying for calls that break up halfway through a conversation."
Comments
There are 11 comments. Join the discussion
1. Bob Sherriff
To say I'm gobsmacked would be an understatement. The mobile companies were always preaching about 'how many of the population' they reach. The main reason I buy a mobile is because I want it to work wherever and when ever I am - so to speak.
They need to get their house in order, they do not provide a good service and reception is poor.
I have used 1-2-1/Tmobile, Vodaphone and Orange, all as bad as each other.
2. Simon Hobson
What I care about, first and foremost, is :
1) Does the damn thing work where I am stood
2) Does the provider charge what was agreed in the contract
As for 1, why oh why are they allowed to quote coverage 'of the population' when I am interested in the phone working where I am at the time, not where my home is !
As for 2, am I the only one who finds that certain operators are a bunch of incompetent crooks whose bills bear littel resemblance to what was contracted, and who try to 're-interpret' what the contract means when I complain ?
As for all the bells and whistles on a modern phone, what is wrong with a phone that goes "ring ring" ?
3. Jim Povey
The Mobile Operators might get some credit if they would publish each week how many new cell sites they had opened that week, so that we could see that they were serious about improving network quality.
4. Tony Craske
My sales team have been complaining that quality and 'lost halfway through'problems are getting worse - despite the number of new masts and their new handsets.
Now I can see the reason.
When will IT companies learn that we don't need new products every 6 months, just products which do the job they are meant to -Properly!
5. anonymous
Customers should complain more and insist on compensation... perhaps the providers will then take more notice! After all, we all pay enough for the 'service' and (other than British Rail) in what other field would we put up with less than 80% of the service offering?
6. Chris Wright
The quality of mobile calls within the UK is far worse than any other european country I have visited (Crete,Denmark,Ireland,Sweden,Norway) recently. As with almost all goods and services in this country we get a lower quality for a higher price. If more people complained perhaps the greed of UK business would be tempered and higher priority given to quality.
7. anonymous
I want call quality - not gizmos! Listen to the customers VODAFONE et-al.
8. Chris Wright
The quality of mobile calls within the UK is far worse than any other european country I have visited (Crete,Denmark,Ireland,Sweden,Norway) recently. As with almost all goods and services in this country we get a lower quality for a higher price. If more people complained perhaps the greed of UK business would be tempered and higher priority given to quality.
9. Adam Carden
I agree I am fed up with broken calls, poor quality calls (at least 30% of the time)
If I were a rural user I might be prepared to put up and shut up.
The problem is I live in croydon and work in london where there are great deal of transmitters so why such a shoddy service?
And although I can do nothing about I am also disgusted with current operators such as Video Messaging, MMS etc. All I want is good call quality at a resonable rate (not currently) and decent data transfer (E.g. 3g) however it seems that like most corporations greed is biggest factor here. Certainly not customer service, pricing, quality of service or genuinely useful features. Shame on them.
10. Dan Evans
What's the use in extra "features" if coverage/service is so poor that you can't use the phone?!?!
Good coverage, good quality and quicker data rates are more important!
11. anonymous
To provide better quality cellular services and greater coverage you generally need to add more base stations (towers). This increases the service provider cost, and hence potentially increases the price of the service.
The key question for those commenting on this thread is .... would you be prepared to pay more for better service?