UK's first 4G network says it now covers half the country's population

EE, currently the UK's sole provider of 4G LTE services, has announced that its 4G network is now live in a total of 50 towns and cities, five months after its launch. The operator says today's 4G light-ups mean its 4G network now covers half the UK population.

Today EE's LTE has been switched on in Bradford, Bingley, Doncaster, Dudley, Harpenden, Leicester, Lichfield, Loughborough, Luton, Reading, Shipley, St Albans and West Bromwich. EE says it's committed to bringing 4G to a further 30 towns and cities by the end of June.

EE claims its 4G network currently offers average download speeds of 16Mbps and peak speeds of 50Mbps. That average speed sounds about right, but the 50Mbps claim is nowhere near what we've seen from EE's network in real-world use. If you've been using EE's 4G network in recent months, let us know how you're getting on down in the comments.

We've got the full list of all towns and cities with EE 4G service after the break.

As of Mar. 28, 2013, EE's LTE is live in Amersham, Barnsley, Belfast, Bingley, Birmingham, Bolton, Bradford , Bristol, Cardiff, Chelmsford, Chorley, Coventry, Derby, Doncaster, Dudley, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Harpenden, Hemel Hempstead, Hull, Leeds, Leicester, Lichfield, Liverpool, London, Loughborough, Luton, Maidenhead, Manchester, Newbury, Newcastle, Newport, Nottingham, Preston, Reading, Rotherham, Sheffield, Shipley, Slough, Southampton, Southend-on-Sea, St Albans, Stockport, Sunderland, Sutton Coldfield, Telford, Walsall, Watford, West Bromwich and Wolverhampton.


Reader comments

EE's 4G LTE reaches 50-market milestone in the UK


Also EE's coverage of actual decent speeds suck and 3's "Ultra-fast" HSPA+ is faster. Not to mention as the other person did that EE are appalling with their prices.

Who are the retards at EE deciding the priority of towns to roll out coverage to?!

Bingley, a small market town with a population under 20,000 gets coverage before Norwich, a city of 140,000 people?!

Bingley probably has one network, which has a monopoly on subscribers as it’s the only decent network there; EE can take a chunk of the market there now with their superior network and with a about 6 months before any network can catch up they can ensure customers.

They do this because other networks are on their way to roll out their 4G and will not have time to start with to cover these places as they have no choice but to play catch up with the population, so EE wants to grab as many new consumers as possible with little competition. They can do this while covering as many people before the competition gets started.

When it comes to large cities network coverage is good for all networks and consumers don't like change network unless the alternative is much better quality and price.

For example I am on o2 and get 10mbps down and 3mbps up in Birmingham, thats fine for me and I can wait for 4G on o2.

That’s my assumption anyway.

I always consistently get over 38Mbps in Bristol. Most of the time almost 50. For example on the 18th of March I got 49.15 down, 20.70 up.

Despite what Americans think, the UK isn't the size of a village (no matter how small it is in comparison to the US) :P

My Work Blackberry Z10 is on EE and I have got on average 20-24Mbps download and nearly 30Mbps on upload in Rotherham, so happy with that! Just need a nice 4G android phone to use with my work SIM as I wouldn't pay EE's prices.

I play Ingress a fair amount and you need good quality connection.. Doesn't have to be blazing fast but does need to be responsive (low packet loss and low latency).
I tried Vodafone and Three.. Voda was much better than 3, even when signal is poor it is still reliable. With 3 if the signal gets weak and drops out then nothing works for 30s. With the narrow streets and tall some buildings in the city of Cambridge this is a big problem.

On the other hand 3G outside the city disappears fast and all that's left is GPRS not even Edge in most places.