[Everything Goes]

Worth a read.

Quote:

As for national roaming, the Ministry of Fun does acknowledge the difficulties. It cites the 2010 Ofcom paper, which says that seamless national roaming – where your call is handed over from (say) Vodafone to EE as you move along – is complex and expensive to implement, and reduces operator differentiation. It also hammers battery life, with the handset constantly looking for a better signal across any network it can find. That means a (roughly) tenfold increase in power consumption required for radio operators. (Note that this is only part of the overall power drain of a handset – displays and background data processing also consumer power – but it’s not a trivial part).

DCMS also acknowledges another difficulty: a handset would lose its weaker 3G or 4G signal after it glommed onto a stronger 2G signal. The user would lose their data connection – which is perhaps not what they wanted to happen.

Well-heeled rural communities vigorously fight the installation of equipment that improves their mobile communications – then complain that their mobile coverage is inadequate.

Perhaps it’s no coincidence that Prime Minister Cameron has a home in the Cotswolds – as Reg readers point out, Oxfordshire NIMBYs have been successful in ensuring coverage resembles a former Eastern European Soviet satellite. Do you want decent mobile coverage or do you want a village untainted by modern transmission equipment? Pick one of two.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11..._21st_century/

[Gigabit]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark C

Most of the objections from the networks, actually seem to be technical. We had all this nonsense back in 1998 about being able to send SMS messages between networks, there was a lot of bleating back then, but, hey, it all got solved.

The networks constantly want their safe cartel preserved, that's what's driving this 'can't do' culture, as I've said up thread, mobile network provision needs to be centralised (nationalised if you like) it's now too important not to be, and managed by a single organisation , let the telcos just become service providers, buying capacity (IMHO)

That is never going to happen with a Conservative government.

And I'd rather not have Labour, thanks.

[Mark C]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gigabit

That is never going to happen with a Conservative government. .

I agree

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gigabit

And I'd rather not have Labour, thanks.

I agree

[roadshow2006]

Well this escalated quickly into some political debate.

[The Lord Lucan]

And i'd rather not have UKIP in Govt... So are we all voting Greens ?

[japaul]

The proposals also contained a different option for multi operator MVNOs so that an MVNO's subscribers could use whatever network is best at the time. Bet the real networks would love having to agree to that...

[jonmorris]

O2 would likely agree to that...

[roadshow2006]

Has anyone studied this document to go with the consultation?
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...nsultation.pdf

Would be interested to know your thoughts.

[Gigabit]

I think the current mobile network situation is good, privatisation (I think) is good in this sector.

What the government should be doing is allowing the easier installation of masts (i.e. relaxing planning permission laws for this sort of thing) and not rejecting masts because "they cause cancer" or "they hurt my children", both of which have been proven to be bollocks.

You should see the number of masts rejected in Winchester for that reason and as a result, coverage there is poor.

[WelshBluebird]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gigabit

I think the current mobile network situation is good, privatisation (I think) is good in this sector.

What the government should be doing is allowing the easier installation of masts (i.e. relaxing planning permission laws for this sort of thing) and not rejecting masts because "they cause cancer" or "they hurt my children", both of which have been proven to be bollocks.

You should see the number of masts rejected in Winchester for that reason and as a result, coverage there is poor.

The issue is that is not the only cause of poor coverage.
Networks simply not being bothered to give an area coverage is another real issue.
And so clearly, the situation is NOT good in those areas.

[japaul]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gigabit

What the government should be doing is allowing the easier installation of masts (i.e. relaxing planning permission laws for this sort of thing) and not rejecting masts because "they cause cancer" or "they hurt my children", both of which have been proven to be bollocks.

You should see the number of masts rejected in Winchester for that reason and as a result, coverage there is poor.

I don't see how that can be true. Do you have an example? The rules don't allow planning authorities to refuse masts on health grounds for good reason. Would you really want a decision about your health being taken by a council planning officer?

[Everything Goes]

Mobile phone networks met clueless Culture minister Sajid Javid to discuss their National Roaming plan. Ironically the government has tried to fund the filling in of not spots, indeed Javid’s own department stumped up £150m three years ago and has managed two cell sites in that time.

Vodafone's Colao claims the "problem in the UK is very simple”, and doesn't see national roaming as part of the solution. He outlines the three problems that Vodafone faces: “One, the process for getting permits approved is too long, I think it takes 18 months to build a site, and we need a fast track process like the one that exists in several other nations.”

“There is a need to add electronic equipment to ours and our competitors' equipment on existing masts. There's no point in building masts when you can use your competitors or existing ones. There's also too many restrictions here that landlords can apply, so the solution would be to declare us [the mobile telecoms industry] a critical infrastructure, allowing us to put up whatever."

Colao wants this done quickly, as it's the type of thing that's "very easy and the Government can do it in a heartbeat”.

He saves the hardest point until last. “The third wish is more controversial in this country - higher masts. Now, I understand this is very sensitive but I am not sure why London should have 17m average height and Madrid or Milan 24m. I mean it doesn’t seem to me that they are particularly less appealing from a landscape point of view."



http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12..._be_so_stupid/

[WelshBluebird]

I don't buy the whole "planning approval" excuse. If Vodafone could get permission to put a mast on the hill behind my parents house, there is no reason why O2, Three and EE couldn't either.

[Everything Goes]

Quote:

Originally Posted by WelshBluebird

I don't buy the whole "planning approval" excuse. If Vodafone could get permission to put a mast on the hill behind my parents house, there is no reason why O2, Three and EE couldn't either.

Permission takes about 18 months to get a sight up and running plus there's always Nimby's there to slow down the process then moan about not getting a signal at the same time Its a costly and onerous process to get a single mast up.

[paulker]

Councillors have their own agendas. Votes usually. There have been loads of masts refused in my area but hey its easy to get permission to build new housing estates and commercial buildings.

It amazes me that permission to put a pole up with a box beside it can be so difficult.

[WelshBluebird]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Everything Goes

Permission takes about 18 months to get a sight up and running plus there's always Nimby's there to slow down the process then moan about not getting a signal at the same time Its a costly and onerous process to get a single mast up.

I am not saying it isn't an issue in some areas. But for other areas, it really is not a reason at all. The government could relax planning rules this second and the networks wouldn't bother covering many parts of the country.

[Daveoc64]

Quote:

Originally Posted by WelshBluebird

I don't buy the whole "planning approval" excuse. If Vodafone could get permission to put a mast on the hill behind my parents house, there is no reason why O2, Three and EE couldn't either.

Of course there are reasons.

"Having more than one is too much of an eyesore."

"Do we really need to have more than one network here?"

"We were told it would only be one, if we let any more go up who knows what'll be next?"

[WelshBluebird]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daveoc64

Of course there are reasons.

"Having more than one is too much of an eyesore."

"Do we really need to have more than one network here?"

"We were told it would only be one, if we let any more go up who knows what'll be next?"

Or more likely the networks saying: "We have a mast less than a mile away, that will do, it is only a handful of streets in this village that are deadspots so we can get away with that and save us some money".

[jaffboy151]

The problem with masts is if you asked the average person to describe one or draw a picture of one they'd all say & draw the same style, the big old ugly triangle ones! Most people don't even notice or even know about all the street lamp style ones or mock wooden telegraph pole types there phone is often connected to in there very Street, so when asked if they want a mast in the area they say on your bike!

[gardensleeper]

Quote:

Originally Posted by japaul

The proposals also contained a different option for multi operator MVNOs so that an MVNO's subscribers could use whatever network is best at the time.

That does seem to be a more workable way forward than roaming within networks - and if people want that kind of service, they can chose to pay a premium for it. A kind of "super MVNO"

As others have already said - there is a solution in place already: MIP. We just need the government to get on with implementing it, and at more than a handful of sites. It's perhaps in the case of MIP new shared sites that the planning restrictions should be relaxed.

Further, if government wants to see better geographic coverage in places where the networks don't consider it economic to provide, they should channel some of the increased spectrum fees they are planning to levy into MIP.

To me, this whole national roaming plan smells like a bit of quick fix electioneering from the government. They want to be seen to be doing something. The trouble is if they press ahead with it, I fear it would ultimately do more harm than good, and as others have said, you can't just magic up coverage where there isn't any.

[moox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gardensleeper

To me, this whole national roaming plan smells like a bit of quick fix electioneering from the government.

Considering that it seems to have been rushed on the basis that Cameron couldn't use his phone in Cornwall on what is probably the worst network for coverage, that may well be true.

I'd say that the week of government giveaways we're having would be much more electioneering (despite the investments actually being useful)

[Everything Goes]

Government offers networks spectrum fees cut over National Roaming

Proposals submitted last week pledge 90% outdoor voice and data coverage by 2017 in return for a cut in annual spectrum licence fees of around £10m per operator, sources say.

The new deal would see operators agree to reach 90% outdoor coverage at -93 signal strength – recognised as the international standard for strong outdoor coverage – which was a prime focus of the Government’s ‘national roaming’ proposals. They also pledge 90% outdoor coverage by 2017, which was not stipulated in the Government’s suggestions.

http://www.mobiletoday.co.uk/news-li...es-closer.aspx

[moox]

I don't know why they didn't get cheaper licences in exchange for fast rollouts in the first place.

Some people like to use the 3G auction as an example of how it should go, hailing how much money got brought into the exchequer (and wasted in minutes) - but they seem to forget that every penny spent on those licences needs to be made back somewhere, and it just means less money to build the damn network (3 being the sole exception because it was vital for them)

[Everything Goes]

Quote:

Originally Posted by moox

I don't know why they didn't get cheaper licences in exchange for fast rollouts in the first place.

Some people like to use the 3G auction as an example of how it should go, hailing how much money got brought into the exchequer (and wasted in minutes) - but they seem to forget that every penny spent on those licences needs to be made back somewhere, and it just means less money to build the damn network (3 being the sole exception because it was vital for them)

You just need to look at how long its taken Vodafone and O2 to roll out their 3G networks to see where they saved money from the pricey 3G licence's