back to article Cellnex and CK Hutchison have just 5 days to prove mass mobile tower sell-off won't harm competition

Two bigwigs in the UK's mobile phone biz have been given just five days to provide "legally binding proposals" that the proposed sale of thousands of phone masts won't damage competition and harm consumers. The tight deadline came as the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) raised "concerns" about the proposed acquisition …

  1. Mike 137 Silver badge

    keeping control?

    So instead of being owned by a Chinese company they'll be owned by a Spanish one. Politics apart I see not a lot of difference here. But politics considered, maybe there might be, and maybe not to our detriment?

    1. Roland6 Silver badge

      Re: keeping control?

      I'm unsure just what 'competition' looks like in the mast site market.

      Whilst there will be some potential competition whilst telco's build out their 5G networks and so will be wanting some new mast locations, once a telco has a 5G infrastructure they are unlikely to switch mast sites just because ANO site is cheaper.

      If anything Ofcom needs to regulate the market ie. prices site owners can charge.

  2. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

    Two into One does go

    go... towards increasing prices for all users which will naturally be passed on to us mere plebs as vastly increased prices.

    Same old, same old. nowt new there then. Move along now. Nothing to see. etc etc etc

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    And yet...the CMA doesn't lift a finger to the massive increase in PAYG call and data pricing.

    PAYG call and data pricing has gone through the roof in the past year and the CMA if anything, made matters worse by allowing the merger of o2 and Virgin Media.

    Vodafone reduced its inclusive data from 500GB per day to 50GB per day, with its capped £1 a day rate.

    With effectively, a charge of £1 per call and £1 per message from the 12th Jan 2021.

    Just touch your phone, (switch data on for a moment) and expect a £1 charge that day, pretty much can't be avoided, with a data cap of 50MB.

    Yes, FFS, 50MB.

    o2 got rid of it's 3-2-1 tariff for new customers.

    three increased it's 3-2-1 tariff by 333% (or so it seems, but you don't forget it that way three-three-three' hundred percentage rise) to 10-10-5.

    '10p per minute, 10p per text message and 5p per MB of data.

    1GB of data now costing £50, up from £10.

    Yes, there is still 1p mobile, but that is a minimum of £30 per year to stay connected.

    It's clearly no coincidence that these massive price increases happened as Banks introduced compulsory two-factor access to bank accounts, where there is now no choice but to have a mobile phone even if it's just used for banking.

    You really do have to ask, what is the point of these regulators when there is a 170,0000 (two year waiting list) to escalate any complaint with the FO (Financial Ombudsman). All of them are an utter time-wasting merry-go-round of pen-pushing nonsense, forcing each individual to explain the same complaint which has affected hundreds of customers at once.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: And yet...the CMA doesn't lift a finger to the massive increase in PAYG call and data pricing.

      So get a contact.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Masts should be publically owned.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      . . . After selling the licenses required to build the towers to industry for something like 30billion if we include the various generations of spectrum auctions?

      Are you proposing giving those companies a refund for those licenses and their costs of building the masts? If so, what are you proposing to cut out of the Government budget to get the money from, or are you proposing additional taxes on people not using the services? (that's rarely popular)

      Also, I take it that you don't remember when it was privatized British rail earned lots of money; the income went to the treasury, who also decided on spending. The spending always went to more worthy places such as the NHS "to save lives" instead of going to things like "adequate maintenance" for railway infrastructure. (resulting in the railways having a massive maintenance backlog at the point of privatisation that as a result effectively still exists some 30 years on...)

      Why would any sane person want to establish a government run monopoly? The one thing experience does show is that leads to awful outcomes.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        No, I said they should be publically owned. The companies still would pay for the spectrum.

        Your faux libertarian arguments could be applied to anything. Imagine if all roads, fire stations, police were private, and someone suggested they should be public. Your argument would be equally as valid in those examples.

        Ironic that you use the British rail example, that was a disaster that has been given money, and finally been privatised again.

        And what's with the silly NHS argument? Again you could apply it to anything. I presume you voted Brexit for the NHS 250 million a week?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like