MPs want Blighty to enforce domestic roaming to fix 'not spots' Parliamentary bloc the British Infrastructure Group (BIG) has dropped something of a bombshell, calling for Ofcom to push roaming between mobile carriers. In a report published here, the Grant Shapps-chaired BIG says the UK's £5 billion agreement with mobile networks, cut in 2014, isn't going to get rid of blackspots by its …
But the cost of these packages is very high compared to normal single carrier SIMs.
So?
If there is demand from the market either the cost will come down or services from single carrier SIMs will improve.
As was noted previously on El Reg regarding EU roaming, the original roaming plans (before the EU capped the roaming benefit) to would of been very consumer friendly as they would have enabled you to use a cheap single carrier SIM from any other EU country to permanently roam in the UK.
Perhaps someone needs to tell Westminster et al, if you want good mobile coverage for consumers in the UK then remaining in the EU is the way to go...
Yes, does look a bit pricy, the service mentioned is GBP 40 (inc. VAT) for 400 minutes or 400 MB. For a UK customer it would actually be cheaper to get a Vodafone contract in the Netherlands which gives you unlimited calls in Europe and 7 GB of data (also throughout Europe) for EUR 35 (exc. VAT, so about GBP 38 inc. VAT)/month. (www.vodafone.nl/zakelijk/shop/mobiel/abonnement/?duration=2 RedPro Select, 'onbeperkt' = 'unlimited')
That also gives you roaming on the UK networks.
The other option is to separate cellular infrastructure from operators so it is fair to everyone.
That's not quite "fair" from the operator's perspective as it rewards those who spent less building it with more coverage. Don't get me wrong, I am all for pooling network resources but it needs a model that rewards those who continue to expand/refresh it, or it's quite simply not going to grow any further.
Perhaps the solution is mandatory roaming, with legally set prices and a large tax on those prices.
That will focus the minds of everybody because they're not just paying each other making it an almost zero sum game - they're also paying a large proportion of that fee to the government.
I guess usual Government stupidity was applied to the grant.
Seems the contract was "Have a few billion to build out the network. If you dont meet the coverage goal then we'll give you another billion."
How about this:
"If you do not meet the target then the following penalty charges apply: The CEO's car collection, the CEO's thighbones and 50% of the grant shall be forfeited to OFCOM who shall sacrifice them to the Gods of Radio in the hope that this will have a greater effect on coverage than your sorry efforts."
"That £5bn was a commitment from the operators to spend their own money."
I think you'll find that they're spending *their customers* money. Or more accurately, not spending (investing) it, at least where infrastructure (especially coverage) is involved.
Or in the case of Vodafone, maybe it's customers money that should have been paid to the state as taxes.
ICBW etc.
Problem is it's not in their sole power to deliver. N. Norfolk coverage is poor in some areas with locals complaining like hell. But not as much as they complained when the networks wanted to put up a new (government funded) tower to improve coverage and the local council denied them planning permission.
Stupid network wanted to put it on a hill where it would spoil the view.
hills? Norfolk? what are you smoking?
Ok, I jest. There are some hils in Norfolk. Apparently the highest point in the county is 256ft above the perrishing cold north sea.
As for putting the towers on the hills errrrrr where else do you suggest? That gives the best coverage. There are already a lot of farm buildings in N. Norfolk with masts on them. The farm on the small hill near the Titchwell RSPB reserve spring to mind.
As for the local council refusal, then they can be taken to appeal if the phone companies really wanted to but obviosuly they haven't so perhaps the phone companies are lukewarm to this idea in the first place and have only applied because 'ofcom told them to'.
If the Government were to pass a law mandating the filling in of the 'not spot' the mobile companies would complain but IMHO, if they allowed the carrier roaming in the not spots then the companies could spread the cost out amongst them but that is a far too common sense approach.
My guess is that we'll see the F-35 operational from a UK Aircraft Carrier before anything is done.
Well, there are plenty of church towers, and they make good sites for mobile phone transmitters. As I understand it, there are no problems with the ecclesiastical authorities providing they merge in with the architecture. Most churches would welcome the income from leasing a spot in their tower, providing, of course, that the access to the top of the tower is in a safe condition (not all are!). And as no-one would notice the equipment (I understand that "stealth" versions of the kit are available to match a variety of architectures), who's to object?
Ok, I jest. There are some hils in Norfolk. Apparently the highest point in the county is 256ft above the perrishing cold north sea.
105 metres (344 feet) actually. It's on the North Norfolk coastal path route, and if you've spent the last couple of days mooching along pretty much at sea level between salt and fresh water marshes, it's a shock to the system to suddenly find a hill, and in Norfolk! The whole route is worth walking.
Ofgem don't regulate (or provide oversight) of the roll out of new billing systems. If a Utilty company rolls out a complete lemon of a system (CoopEnergy, still not resolved 18 months later). Ofgem will do nothing. Ofgem only deal with the consequences, not the prevention. Ofgem were told in month 1 of massive problems regards CoopEnergy, yet did absolutely nothing for 18 months. Then you find out Ofgem don't regulate CRM+Billing (Customer Relational Management Systems).
You have to ask what is a UK Utility Company in 2016, if not 'just' a CRM+Billing System, with a bolt on call centre. I often wonder what the purpose of ofcom/ofgem really is. They seem more like narcissistic organisations (caring about their own image more than customer resolution) i.e. appeasement smokescreens (at best) for the industry, paid for by consumers.
In a word,
Basically useless.
"Even worse, some mobile operators such as Three only provide 4G coverage to domestic consumers 43.7 per cent of the time, leaving over half of their consumers without high-speed internet coverage"
Given that the non-4G part of 3's coverage is 3G DC-HSPA, I wonder how "high speed" is being defined here. The average thoughput I get on 3's 3G network is the same 20Mbps that OFCOM say is an average *fixed* broadband connection
I was about to post the same - I barely care whether I'm using 3's 3G or 4G services. The only noticable difference is latency when starting a data session - 3G takes some time to start passing data, 4G is pretty much on instantly.
The level of understanding BIG have of these issue therefore seems to be on the level of "4 is better than 3, innit?".
This of course presupposes that the is a signal from any of the networks. More often than not they all claim to have coverage particularly data, but it is GPRS is you are lucky and the bandwidth is non-existent. The only way this will be resolved is to put a Universal Service mandate in place that forces networks to provide the coverage the same as is currently in place with Royal Mail. This will never happen for the same reasons that profit chasing private companies are trying to take all Royal Mail's profitable business, and then either do not deliver or expect RM to carry the can.
In a remote area it is surely not beyond the whit of man (or the technology) to have a single tower that is open to all networks.
"forces networks to provide the coverage the same as is currently in place with Royal Mail"
So your first-class data packets are delivered probably tomorrow if the destination is in the UK? Or you can spend twenty times as much for it to be almost(1) definitely delivered tomorrow instead of just probably?
(1) On one memorable occasion, I sent something to a guy in Belfast from near Oxford by Special Delivery post, and it took a week to get there. This was a guy who, when I phoned him about the item, mentioned in his broad Belfast accent that his place looked like a bomb had gone off. Seriously. He did comment on how that must have sounded.
" the operators' lobby Mobile UK said if roaming were enforced, there'd be no incentive for operators to build infrastructure."
Unless the operators were told to charge each other extortionate fees for roaming on each others' networks, while still providing such a service free to customers.
I think we'd then see a sudden surge in infrastructure creation.
That's my preferred option. It would force phone companies to build more, while also being as price-competitive as possible; they're going to want to avoid having gaps in their network while at the same time having losing all their own customers to cheaper companies.
This is exactly it - make sure the cost of roaming is in line with the savings an operator would make from not having to build a complete base station but not so high that roaming has to be mandated by law. That should avoid the unintended consequence of operators not building anything to piggy back on the others via roaming.
Operators should be championing this idea - you don't need four separate* base stations to serve some small village with five houses and a shop miles from a main road. Have one operator build a suitable base station and charge the other operators to roam onto it**; or have all four operators share the cost of construction. Unfortunately that means they're colluding as a monopoly and would need protection from competitive laws - risky territory with Telcos unless it's done very carefully!
* yes I know it's really two with MBNL and Cornerstone.
** Roaming at the MNO level so a roaming agreement to use that base station signed by O2 would apply to all MVNOs on O2 e.g. GiffGaff and Tesco.
"you don't need four separate* base stations to serve some small village with five houses and a shop miles from a main road. "
A large chunk of the problem is that unlike other countries in europe, UK operators are NOT allowed to pool resources in low population density areas and build a single tower + radioset that will handle all networks.
They're frequently not even allowed to co-locate their kit on the same tower.
"frequently not even allowed to co-locate their kit on the same tower." (and the previous bit).
Citation very welcome.
Anyway, the operators mostly no longer own the transmission infrastructure themselves, surely? It's not exactly independently owned either (yet), but...
The question that the telcos raise about incentives could easily be fixed.....just introduce a roaming fee (to be paid by between operators without recharge to customers) for all such roaming. That way, the operator who puts up a mast where no-one else has done so, gets not only their own happy customers, but also some revenue from the other operators (who if they don't like it, can always add their own mast!). Overall, if the telcos have similar infrastructure, then this should all balance out and be cost neutral, but those who don't provide enough of their own masts could end up forking out a lot.
This is so simple and obvious me, that there must be some reason why BIG haven't explicitly suggested it - what am I missing here?
This is so simple and obvious me, that there must be some reason why BIG haven't explicitly suggested it - what am I missing here?
Yeah, it's so obvious that I'd spotted that too. Simply mandate roaming between carriers, and apply some sort of control (that might need some thought) to stop the bigger ones ganging up on the smaller ones with punitive roaming rates - and no roaming charges to users. Then it makes the system fairly simple for the end user - they get a network connection wherever any carrier has coverage.
From the carrier PoV, they then get to choose - put up a base station (and get roaming fees from other networks), or pay roaming fees to other networks but save on the infrastructure.
One problem I can see though ... What if you have a new entrant with just one base station (which makes them a mobile operator), can they then make a business just roaming all their users to the other networks ?
A site with low traffic (even roaming) will take years to payback the CAPEX / OPEX needed to build a new site.
But that's not the question. I don't think anyone (in this context) is suggesting that operators will fill in completely not-not-spots. But I strongly suspect that there would be quite a few sites where a base for one network wouldn't be viable, but some roaming income could tip it over to being profitable (or at least be worth doing).
As it is, I'm sure there will be sites now that lose money - just the operators have decided that not having coverage will cost them more in disgruntled customers than the amount the site loses.
From yesterday morning's experience, I would say this is rather high.
I spent 4 hours yesterday within 400m of an EE 4g mast, for only a few minutes of that did I get a '4g' experience and was able to upload a few dozen meg of pictures view a live results website before 'normal' service was restored and just loading google's home page took forever...
Market forces yeah... We'll have 5 (count Em, 5) competing networks... No wait 4... Merger, what merger... Ok 3.
Yeah, market forces at work.
Here in Vietnam I pay about $10/month for 4g and I haven't found anywhere remote enough to avoid coverage, only in tiny valleys.
UK Government: please please please
Tellcos: Me, me, me , me, me.
The west and not least UK need to stop sitting on their laurels before they are the "developing" country... Even Cambodia is rolling out 4g.
I suspect the planning regime in Vietnam is not as limiting as in the UK.
An example: There's a village down the road from me where the residents blocked a mobile mast a couple of years ago. Last month same villagers were in the local paper raising a petition against the poor coverage they "have to put up with" :-/
The carriers kicked back against roaming because "they would have no incentive to invest" and now it has been shown that they haven't invested anyway.
Granted that having access to infrastructure you don't have to build can give a cost advantage. However MVNOs do this already.
So as others have suggested, there needs to be compensation built into the tarrif structure if you roam onto another network. The basic connection facility is already there for "emergency calls only".
Perhaps the underlying issue is the capabilities of the billing systems. Although they seemed perfectly capable of screwing roaming users before the EU stepped in.
I'm intrigued by the statement "they haven't invested anyway". Really? Quick speed test whilst on my 4G HD-Voice call (VoLTE) and I'm hitting 30Mbps DL.
Before any irate response then I appreciate this isn't a national picture yet but you can't just say there's been no investment.
Would definitely be useful.
I have a compromise where I have 2 SIMS (different networks obviously) to increase my chance of getting a viable signal (dual SIM phone useful, though obviously could use 2 cheap & cheerful phones instead).
(Things like anywheresim et al are just too pricey for any reasonable amount of data)
I'm in rural areas a lot & the Mobile Telcos just do not care about coverage in low population density areas.
And 90% coverage for voice as a target is pants - 100% coverage (with a bit of wiggle room on some deep valleys because physics) on voice and data should have been forced on the mobile networks ages ago - other countries manage it OK.
It's a nice quaint idea however...
Can you imagine the mess they would all make out of the billing?
A 4 way transfer of billing data probably in their own formats (one is ~ delimited csv's from experience) that would need to be done and processed each month to enable accurate billing. How would they manage late billing? European and worldwide billing is always late and this would make calls outside plan a nightmare.
I think the simple solution would be to put more masts up in London, Cambridge and Oxford that way the problem goes away.
Can you imagine the mess they would all make out of the billing?
The billing requirements are no different to those that exist today for MNO's passing on billing data to MVNO's and foreign operators. The only potential problem is the massive increase in the volume of such data. However, this with caps on roaming charges could give the incentive as you allude to for networks to improve their coverage - although from my experience in Ireland the masts that will be improved first will be those people first encounter after travelling, as once registered on a network a roaming handset tends to prefer that network...
A fairly easy solution would be to prevent any billing of legacy 2G data connections, if a consumer connects to a mast as 2G (or equivalent in terms of speed). The billing is dropped for those packets.
Mast Congestion, should be a 3 strike policy, with a plan initiated to increase capacity or face ongoing fines for slow speeds/contention. There should be strict definitions of what 3G and 4G are, in terms of an acceptable Mbps speed by distance/radius/topology for each mast.
(All smartphones can connect '3G/4G', but this doesn't determine the throughput, the mast's backhaul does).
Temporary mobile masts should be erected for enforcement in notspots, which are able to route data/calls for all networks, any calls/data routed though such temporary masts, equates to a fine against mobile operators. Gives ofcom the ability to prove via the use of temporary masts the need for coverage that is not been offered.
The only way networks will be improved if it hits actual network operators in the pocket, not their customers.
"The only way networks will be improved if it hits actual network operators in the pocket, not their customers."
ITYM in the shareholders' and directors' pockets.
The problem at the moment is that fines are simply factored in as a cost of doing business.
Fines should be targetted against the people responsible for these decisions and levied against the operating profits/dividends.
The problem at the moment is that the UK mobile legal structure as laid down by Ofcom prohibits networks from pooling resources, which results in substantial unnecessary overbuilding.
The simple solution for NIMBYism on towers (more frequently - poles) is to make it very clear that those objecting are shooting themselves in the foot for coverage. Responding to every signatory on those petitions about shitty coverage with "We attempted to put up a tower in order to fix this and objections from this list of people killed it" will make the issue self-limiting.
Yes, the mobile companies have power of planning appeal but the more recent planning rules which were supposed to free things up have actually had the opposite effect in many areas and made it MUCH harder/far more expensive to appeal, with no guarantee of being awarded court costs, let alone the entire bill for taking it to court.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
