So I could go to France and use my phone as if I were at home, but if I'm in the local pub which happens to be a black spot on my network, I pay the roaming charges, or my operator does it on my behalf?
If I decide to manually lock my handset to another network cos I can, do I pay for the privilege or does my home operator, despite the fact it's entirely outside their control?
I don't know what it is you understand by revenue neutral. i mean that it is a zero some game. every penny spent by one network on national roaming would go to another network.
'It could mean that networks would have to reduce allowances, eliminate unlimited data or impose other restrictions - none of which I'd like to see happen.' - how could it? made up scaremongering. why would it do that. the actual cost of delivering a megabyte, a minute or a text would stay the same. either over your own network or someone else's.
You have no evidence to say that would be the case. In other countries where they have national roaming, that does not happen.
I don't think that any business model for this can avoid some form of negative financial impact on subscribers.
But surely the point I made at the start still stands.
If a network with poor coverage was negatively impacted through paying higher costs via national roaming, they'd put some effort into expanding coverage, therefore the net benefit at the end would be greater coverage for all?
Yes, you're right, your point does stand up - that's clearly the theory in the thinking behind all this anyway. A similar principle to the LINK network of cash machines around the country, as I understand it.
Of course, there is the potential that it could make coverage worse! Lets say o2 have the only mast that covers a village. This means everybody who lives there will have an o2 phone, which makes the mast viable for o2 to run. Now if these villagers have a choice of 4 networks, maybe only 25% of them are on o2, and the rest are roaming. I'm guessing a user roaming is less profitable to o2 than somebody on a contract with them, so maybe that mast now becomes unviable, and it makes financial sense to remove it.
Just playing devil's advocate really :-)
Yes... but the opposite would also be true. In villages where O2 do NOT have a mast, they'd gain from any new roamers there (if all this went through). They'd also, presumably, gain from the additional capacity in areas where their own service is currently overrun.
The reality is that Three already have such access to Orange 2G, and have made their own commercial decision to try to remove it where possible, to reduce roaming costs.
If there's no charge you then get the scenario where you buy the cheapest deal and lock your phone to the best network in the area which again ends up as a financial winners and losers situation. What would then prevent Voda/O2 simply stopping any 3G investment and piggy backing on EE/Threes more widespread 3G coverage. Who would pay for that? In extremis, somebody switches off their network in these areas as it cheaper for them to roam elsewhere!
Sounds like a great idea for consumers, but the reality in terms of the distortion to the overall market is not quite as straightforward.
BIB 1 - Yes. Also, EE are switching off/faffing with Orange 2G signal, so that'll affect things too as Three's 2G roaming agreement evidently doesn't include T-Mobile (so it's probably just as well Three's 3G is solid here).
BIB 2 - flagpole is right, in the example you give O2/Vodafone would have to pay EE/Three. Whether that would stop them though is a completely different matter. Overall though, I do see the point you're getting at. Putting it simply, there's a danger of this turning into a money game (i.e. what's the cheapest option) rather than a coverage game (i.e. do we have coverage there) which could go completely the other way to what's intended by all this. Here it would turn into Three's network being pummelled by O2 users, and I'm not sure how I feel about that.
I sort of disagree with this, because it allows certain networks (looking at you 02 & Vodafone...) to continue their usual thing of not investing in their networks, but benefiting from those that have been prepared to pump cash into creating coverage across most of the country, without having to bother themselves.
I sort of disagree with this, because it allows certain networks (looking at you 02 & Vodafone...) to continue their usual thing of not investing in their networks, but benefiting from those that have been prepared to pump cash into creating coverage across most of the country, without having to bother themselves.
Don't forget that O2 (and therefore Vodafone by proxy of Beacon)!is legally obliged as part of their 4G licence to provide 98% INDOOR coverage by 2017. This will equate to ALMOST 100% outdoor with the few obvious middle of no where locations which hopefully MIP will look to fill. The MBNL networks have said they will have 98% outdoor in the same timeframe, if anyone is investing the most heavily at the moment it is O2/Voda!
Don't forget that O2 (and therefore Vodafone by proxy of Beacon)!is legally obliged as part of their 4G licence to provide 98% INDOOR coverage by 2017. This will equate to ALMOST 100% outdoor with the few obvious middle of no where locations which hopefully MIP will look to fill!
I agree, with interactiv O2 and especially Voda (who im with) have been very slow with their 3G rollout I think we all agree, but with Project Beacon finally we are getting somewhere! If Beacon upgrades all the 2G masts (and obviously removes any duplicates) to 3G 900 AND 4G 800 We finally have a truely world class network to use which I beleive will out perform EE for Coverage depth indoors and in the middle of nowhere, EE may have the upper hand on speed but dont forget voda has 2600 to deploy too
I agree, with interactiv O2 and especially Voda (who im with) have been very slow with their 3G rollout I think we all agree, but with Project Beacon finally we are getting somewhere! If Beacon upgrades all the 2G masts (and obviously removes any duplicates) to 3G 900 AND 4G 800 We finally have a truely world class network to use which I beleive will out perform EE for Coverage depth indoors and in the middle of nowhere, EE may have the upper hand on speed but dont forget voda has 2600 to deploy too
Yes but remember, EE have some 800 available too although they won't be using it everywhere. Their 1800 also becomes more effective as they rollout 20MHz double speed throughout the network. Whilst this is often thought of as a speed increase (which is correct) it also improves coverage as speeds increase at all signal levels so the signal cut off point where speeds are no longer usable is lower for double speed areas which effectively means a coverage increase.
We'll probably reach a point where 4G coverage is quite similar overall between O2/Vod and EE. Ironically O2/Voda's coverage advantage might be on 3G. It won't be the fastest 3G but if they have 3G900 throughout the network then it would probably be cost prohibitive to try and match this with only 2100MHz. Having said that, I suspect for most posters here, if they end up with 4G coverage at current 2G levels, they won't care what 3G is like.
BIB 2 - flagpole is right, in the example you give O2/Vodafone would have to pay EE/Three. Whether that would stop them though is a completely different matter. Overall though, I do see the point you're getting at. Putting it simply, there's a danger of this turning into a money game (i.e. what's the cheapest option) rather than a coverage game (i.e. do we have coverage there) which could go completely the other way to what's intended by all this. Here it would turn into Three's network being pummelled by O2 users, and I'm not sure how I feel about that.
if that were a danger then i think it could easily be avoided with a slight adjustment to the roaming fee.
if all the networks bar one were to sit back and let the other provide coverage it would not be the worst thing anyway. but say it did happen. everyone bar three is doing nothing. you would still have rural areas that had no coverage. it would be far more commercially viable for, say vodafone to go and build a mast there. far more so than it is now. plus they do have their coverage obligations, this would ensure that the most commercially effective way of doing this was for one network to provide coverage where there was non, rather than where there was.
I have a question hopefully somebody can answer forgetting about costs in planning,labour and licenses how does a new 4G mast and base station cost ?
Just including the equipment still leaves a huge number of choices. A few to choose from. Micro or macro? Which vendor? Are you a small or big customer, maybe buying across several countries e.g. Vodafone Spring? Just 4G or combined with 2G/3G? Power requirement? Number of sectors? Backhaul?
Low vendor margin micro site around £5k. Macro paying full whack around £70k. In reality, anywhere in between.
if that were a danger then I think it could easily be avoided with a slight adjustment to the roaming fee.
if all the networks bar one were to sit back and let the other provide coverage it would not be the worst thing anyway. but say it did happen. everyone bar three is doing nothing. you would still have rural areas that had no coverage. it would be far more commercially viable for, say Vodafone to go and build a mast there. far more so than it is now. plus they do have their coverage obligations, this would ensure that the most commercially effective way of doing this was for one network to provide coverage where there was none, rather than where there was.
so i just don't see it happening.
As I say, in theory - you're right, and that's clearly the thinking behind this.
In practice though it may not be that clear cut. EE for one, during their network optimisation here, switched off a mast they knew quite well would cause a blackspot - their reasoning for this being that it would be cheaper to switch off the mast and lose customers served by that mast (both PAYG customers leaving, and contract customers being released from their minimum terms early) rather than leave it on and not have a blackspot. Make of that what you will.
Overall though, on current information, it would depend on the individual networks and their overall coverage plans as to how well (or otherwise) this would all work, and I'm not entirely sure how much of an impact roaming fee adjustments and coverage obligations would be - especially with the latter being population coverage rather than geographical.
In short though, I agree on balance that it probably wouldn't happen either - but it's much more likely that it could happen than most of us think.
The network's that would benefit are: Vodafone and O2 with much more 3G. EE with more 2G.
I can't see Three benefiting. I can't think of a place where other networks have 3G coverage and Three doesn't. Three aren't suddenly going to allow 2G roaming because it goes against their whole ideology.
As I say, in theory - you're right, and that's clearly the thinking behind this.
In practice though it may not be that clear cut. EE for one, during their network optimisation here, switched off a mast they knew quite well would cause a blackspot - their reasoning for this being that it would be cheaper to switch off the mast and lose customers served by that mast (both PAYG customers leaving, and contract customers being released from their minimum terms early) rather than leave it on and not have a blackspot. Make of that what you will.
Overall though, on current information, it would depend on the individual networks and their overall coverage plans as to how well (or otherwise) this would all work, and I'm not entirely sure how much of an impact roaming fee adjustments and coverage obligations would be - especially with the latter being population coverage rather than geographical.
In short though, I agree on balance that it probably wouldn't happen either - but it's much more likely that it could happen than most of us think.
in the example you give of turning off the mast knowing it would cause a black spot to save money, if that caused people to roam to another network then it may no longer be economically viable them to do it.
The network's that would benefit are: Vodafone and O2 with much more 3G. EE with more 2G.
I can't see Three benefiting. I can't think of a place where other networks have 3G coverage and Three doesn't. Three aren't suddenly going to allow 2G roaming because it goes against their whole ideology.
i think your nomenclature is different from the one the rest of us are using. when you talk about three not benefiting you mean Three customers? rather than Three itself.
three would likely do very well as it's coverage is good and it's customer base small. but i think you are wrong anyway. there will be 1000s of little villages that are covered by one network or other that isn't three. it's not a criticism of three's network. it's just somehow how things fall.
Three aren't suddenly going to allow 2G roaming because it goes against their whole ideology. - i suspect they will do what they are told by the regulator
in the example you give of turning off the mast knowing it would cause a black spot to save money, if that caused people to roam to another network then it may no longer be economically viable them to do it.
Not really, since they knew people would go elsewhere anyway it wouldn't change a thing - at least going by the example I gave.
With that in mind that's why, going on current information, I'm sitting on the fence as to how well (or not) this will all work.
In principle, a great idea... However, having experienced the merger of T-Mobile and Orange, with the initial 'roaming' between networks, it was a flippin' nightmare. I'd be constantly swapping out from a speedy T-Mobile mast to a slow as molasses Orange mast, which was 5dB 'stronger'. The call dropping, the issues of 'connected to a cell, but can't use it...'. The problems went on for ages, and this was between 2 companies being managed in to a single brand. I don't think the 'preferred' network thing ever really worked properly, and I think they changed the operator name to "EE" for legacy customers sooner, just to hide that the roaming wasn't working very well.
I'd be pretty annoyed if my 4G or even 3G EE service kept swapping out to a crappy EDGE Vodafone mast, just because it has a stronger signal. I can't see how else the roaming would work with the phone, at least not from experience.
I guess it'd have to have a very low signal strength / none at all, and a quick failback to the home network for it to be acceptable, but as this is largely device dependent, I can't see it working that well - at least from the experiences above.
Just for all those stating that nothing bad can come from this...
- Regulation forces companies to roam.
- This costs companies more money than now
(either through roaming fees or building additional masts).
- Who will pay for this?
I see two options:
1. Us.
2. Us (through an operator ceasing trading due to being economically unviable and therefore impacting competition factors).
Nothing comes for free. If this doesn't cost the networks, they lose their build incentive, of it does we pay.
The only benefit would be coverage for some in at least the short term.
We already have a competitive market. There is not that much fat to cut into.
Just for all those stating that nothing bad can come from this...
- Regulation forces companies to roam.
- This costs companies more money than now
(either through roaming fees or building additional masts).
- Who will pay for this?
I see two options:
1. Us.
2. Us (through an operator ceasing trading due to being economically unviable and therefore impacting competition factors).
Nothing comes for free. If this doesn't cost the networks, they lose their build incentive, of it does we pay.
The only benefit would be coverage for some in at least the short term.
We already have a competitive market. There is not that much fat to cut into.
I think you misunderstood.
the networks would pay a roaming fee but only to another network. they would obviously receive roaming fees too. in all it would be a zero sum game.
and over all the costs for the industry would be reduced.
the networks would pay a roaming fee but only to another network. they would obviously receive roaming fees too. in all it would be a zero sum game.
and over all the costs for the industry would be reduced.
I don't think it would be a zero sum game. Take the smallest operator (Three). Due to their current network frequency their in-building penetration would put them at a serious disadvantage if roaming was nationwide (esp. cities) now. I cannot imagine they will have the resources to roll out 800 MHz quickly enough if roaming started right now.
Three already admit that their users off-net calls do not zero out costs with calls in from other networks. They pay more minutes to the other networks than they get back (possibly due to their pricing structure encouraging heavy users).
Its a nice idea, but its far from guaranteed to work as intended.
That said, I am for it. I'm also happy to pay for a better service, so I don't really mind if it does cost money.
The Mobile Operators Association (MOA) agreed, “National roaming isn’t the silver bullet that is being suggested. It will take years to implement and will not address the problem of notspots. National roaming would be a disincentive to build more infrastructure. And it is technically difficult and expensive to set up national roaming, and customers would face more dropped calls.”
Comments
That's exactly what I meant.
How on earth is that "revenue neutral"!? You're saying one thing, then contradicting it entirely!
The argument that the extra cost would drive networks to enhance their own coverage in the long term seems rather naive.
You have no evidence to say that would be the case. In other countries where they have national roaming, that does not happen.
I don't think that any business model for this can avoid some form of negative financial impact on subscribers.
I'm really not.
Yes, you're right, your point does stand up - that's clearly the theory in the thinking behind all this anyway. A similar principle to the LINK network of cash machines around the country, as I understand it.
Yes... but the opposite would also be true. In villages where O2 do NOT have a mast, they'd gain from any new roamers there (if all this went through). They'd also, presumably, gain from the additional capacity in areas where their own service is currently overrun.
BIB 1 - Yes. Also, EE are switching off/faffing with Orange 2G signal, so that'll affect things too as Three's 2G roaming agreement evidently doesn't include T-Mobile (so it's probably just as well Three's 3G is solid here).
BIB 2 - flagpole is right, in the example you give O2/Vodafone would have to pay EE/Three. Whether that would stop them though is a completely different matter. Overall though, I do see the point you're getting at. Putting it simply, there's a danger of this turning into a money game (i.e. what's the cheapest option) rather than a coverage game (i.e. do we have coverage there) which could go completely the other way to what's intended by all this. Here it would turn into Three's network being pummelled by O2 users, and I'm not sure how I feel about that.
Don't forget that O2 (and therefore Vodafone by proxy of Beacon)!is legally obliged as part of their 4G licence to provide 98% INDOOR coverage by 2017. This will equate to ALMOST 100% outdoor with the few obvious middle of no where locations which hopefully MIP will look to fill. The MBNL networks have said they will have 98% outdoor in the same timeframe, if anyone is investing the most heavily at the moment it is O2/Voda!
98% population coverage.
Yes but remember, EE have some 800 available too although they won't be using it everywhere. Their 1800 also becomes more effective as they rollout 20MHz double speed throughout the network. Whilst this is often thought of as a speed increase (which is correct) it also improves coverage as speeds increase at all signal levels so the signal cut off point where speeds are no longer usable is lower for double speed areas which effectively means a coverage increase.
We'll probably reach a point where 4G coverage is quite similar overall between O2/Vod and EE. Ironically O2/Voda's coverage advantage might be on 3G. It won't be the fastest 3G but if they have 3G900 throughout the network then it would probably be cost prohibitive to try and match this with only 2100MHz. Having said that, I suspect for most posters here, if they end up with 4G coverage at current 2G levels, they won't care what 3G is like.
if that were a danger then i think it could easily be avoided with a slight adjustment to the roaming fee.
if all the networks bar one were to sit back and let the other provide coverage it would not be the worst thing anyway. but say it did happen. everyone bar three is doing nothing. you would still have rural areas that had no coverage. it would be far more commercially viable for, say vodafone to go and build a mast there. far more so than it is now. plus they do have their coverage obligations, this would ensure that the most commercially effective way of doing this was for one network to provide coverage where there was non, rather than where there was.
so i just don't see it happening.
Just including the equipment still leaves a huge number of choices. A few to choose from. Micro or macro? Which vendor? Are you a small or big customer, maybe buying across several countries e.g. Vodafone Spring? Just 4G or combined with 2G/3G? Power requirement? Number of sectors? Backhaul?
Low vendor margin micro site around £5k. Macro paying full whack around £70k. In reality, anywhere in between.
As I say, in theory - you're right, and that's clearly the thinking behind this.
In practice though it may not be that clear cut. EE for one, during their network optimisation here, switched off a mast they knew quite well would cause a blackspot - their reasoning for this being that it would be cheaper to switch off the mast and lose customers served by that mast (both PAYG customers leaving, and contract customers being released from their minimum terms early) rather than leave it on and not have a blackspot. Make of that what you will.
Overall though, on current information, it would depend on the individual networks and their overall coverage plans as to how well (or otherwise) this would all work, and I'm not entirely sure how much of an impact roaming fee adjustments and coverage obligations would be - especially with the latter being population coverage rather than geographical.
In short though, I agree on balance that it probably wouldn't happen either - but it's much more likely that it could happen than most of us think.
I can't see Three benefiting. I can't think of a place where other networks have 3G coverage and Three doesn't. Three aren't suddenly going to allow 2G roaming because it goes against their whole ideology.
in the example you give of turning off the mast knowing it would cause a black spot to save money, if that caused people to roam to another network then it may no longer be economically viable them to do it.
i think your nomenclature is different from the one the rest of us are using. when you talk about three not benefiting you mean Three customers? rather than Three itself.
three would likely do very well as it's coverage is good and it's customer base small. but i think you are wrong anyway. there will be 1000s of little villages that are covered by one network or other that isn't three. it's not a criticism of three's network. it's just somehow how things fall.
Three aren't suddenly going to allow 2G roaming because it goes against their whole ideology. - i suspect they will do what they are told by the regulator
Not really, since they knew people would go elsewhere anyway it wouldn't change a thing - at least going by the example I gave.
With that in mind that's why, going on current information, I'm sitting on the fence as to how well (or not) this will all work.
I'd be pretty annoyed if my 4G or even 3G EE service kept swapping out to a crappy EDGE Vodafone mast, just because it has a stronger signal. I can't see how else the roaming would work with the phone, at least not from experience.
I guess it'd have to have a very low signal strength / none at all, and a quick failback to the home network for it to be acceptable, but as this is largely device dependent, I can't see it working that well - at least from the experiences above.
- Regulation forces companies to roam.
- This costs companies more money than now
(either through roaming fees or building additional masts).
- Who will pay for this?
I see two options:
1. Us.
2. Us (through an operator ceasing trading due to being economically unviable and therefore impacting competition factors).
Nothing comes for free. If this doesn't cost the networks, they lose their build incentive, of it does we pay.
The only benefit would be coverage for some in at least the short term.
We already have a competitive market. There is not that much fat to cut into.
the networks would pay a roaming fee but only to another network. they would obviously receive roaming fees too. in all it would be a zero sum game.
and over all the costs for the industry would be reduced.
I don't think it would be a zero sum game. Take the smallest operator (Three). Due to their current network frequency their in-building penetration would put them at a serious disadvantage if roaming was nationwide (esp. cities) now. I cannot imagine they will have the resources to roll out 800 MHz quickly enough if roaming started right now.
Three already admit that their users off-net calls do not zero out costs with calls in from other networks. They pay more minutes to the other networks than they get back (possibly due to their pricing structure encouraging heavy users).
Its a nice idea, but its far from guaranteed to work as intended.
That said, I am for it. I'm also happy to pay for a better service, so I don't really mind if it does cost money.
Unsurprisingly the plan has gotten rejected.
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2014/09/uk-mobile-operators-say-national-network-sharing.html