|
||||||||
Mobile phone deal will give UK 90% geographical coverage. |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#51 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 427
|
Quote:
The networks aim to convert nearly every site eventually. EE for example is to convert all but a handful of sites to 4G. Last time I heard it was about 12 (landlord/backhaul logistic issues) that wouldn't get done so.. Even if they were only 1800 MHz 4G sites there would be no issues.
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#52 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London, UK
Posts: 8,759
|
Quote:
Is it still a long-term plan to have those "all but a handful of sites" carrying G1800 & U2100? Or is it possible there could be G1800-only/U2100-only sites when the consolidation is complete?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#53 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Totnes, Devon
Posts: 6,683
|
If mine is one of the 30 I'm going to fecking kill someone!!!!
Hahahahahahahahahahaha |
|
|
|
|
|
#54 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,249
|
Quote:
If mine is one of the 30 I'm going to fecking kill someone!!!!
Hahahahahahahahahahaha |
|
|
|
|
|
#55 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 427
|
Quote:
you already know it isn't as it has got some decent speeds in the past. Only reason those 30 aren't getting upgraded is backhaul issues.
I'm guessing those 30 sites are geographically remote then.. and that we're talking 2G only rather than 3G only. |
|
|
|
|
|
#56 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 145
|
Quote:
Good to know, so there is hope for the Green Park area of Reading after all! (patchy G1800, and poorly-performing U2100)
I'm guessing those 30 sites are geographically remote then.. and that we're talking 2G only rather than 3G only. |
|
|
|
|
|
#57 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 14,636
|
Quote:
Good to know, so there is hope for the Green Park area of Reading after all! (patchy G1800, and poorly-performing U2100)
I'm guessing those 30 sites are geographically remote then.. and that we're talking 2G only rather than 3G only. At least EE has company (although I don't remember having issues with the then T-Mobile when I worked there 5 days a week) |
|
|
|
|
|
#58 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the future....
Posts: 11,257
|
Something interesting is happening. We have been wondering what is in it for the mobile networks. Well it looks like they will get cheaper easier access to put up masts. This hasn't gone down well with land owners or the CLA for that matter.
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php...rage-deal.html |
|
|
|
|
|
#59 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the future....
Posts: 11,257
|
Important Update There may be trouble ahead as the song goes. Labour aren't happy with the proposals and are threatening to vote against them. Why? Well the mobile networks will get a nice cut in the licence fees that Ofcom were threatening to hike from £65 Million to £247 Million at last count and will now remain at £65 Million ![]() Personally I see the licence fee cut as a good thing that will encourage investment. WTF Ed Miliband is thinking ![]() Quote:
The new code does give mobile network operators more control over what can be done on sites, encourages site sharing and removes the power tenants had if a landlord wanted to put a site on a building. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/01...to_fall_apart/
It does, however, give landlords more power over mobile site removal. However, the new code doesn’t address the issues of planning permission, or mast height. The site-sharing panacea is overblown, and the operators are generally pretty good at sorting out site sharing without needing the government to wield a stick. And, because the people making the decisions are experts in legislation and property they have completely missed that radio planning a 900MHz network is very different to an 1800MHz one, which is as different again to a 3.4GHz one. Yet none of this is the reason why Labour is looking to vote against the legislation. The information which was released proudly stated that the UK government would not pay anything towards the improved coverage ... and then snuck in a line saying that the government "will bring this agreement to the attention of Ofcom in the context of their work to revise Annual Licence Fees - this is the subscription fee mobile networks pay government”. That fee is for spectrum the networks originally got free and for which the government then proposed a £65m annual fee. It then changed its mind to £309m and then to £247m. Labour has seen the implication, that Ofcom will stick to the number it first thought of and only charge £65m. It’s then taken the difference, multiplied by five (£910m) and then claimed that the government is being sloppy and throwing away a billion pounds over five years. |
|
|
|
|
|
#60 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 14,636
|
Labour seems to think that high licence fees is good because it means a better short-term boost for the treasury. Like the billions they got in the 3G auction, that meant no one could actually be bothered to build a 3G network using them and pushed prices up so no one wanted 3G either. Like 50p/min video calling.
Billions that probably got spent in seconds on some wonderful wheeze like NHS IT failures or Iraq |
|
|
|
|
|
#61 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,249
|
If Labour really do vote against this then it is basically saying that they don't care about better Mobile connectivity in the UK. 1 Billion extra over 5 years isn't going to be a massive boost to the economy at all but better Mobile connectivity is going to be a boost.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#62 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the future....
Posts: 11,257
|
Quote:
Labour seems to think that high licence fees is good because it means a better short-term boost for the treasury. Like the billions they got in the 3G auction, that meant no one could actually be bothered to build a 3G network using them and pushed prices up so no one wanted 3G either. Like 50p/min video calling.
Billions that probably got spent in seconds on some wonderful wheeze like NHS IT failures or Iraq |
|
|
|
|
|
#63 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Totnes, Devon
Posts: 6,683
|
Quote:
Personally I see the licence fee cut as a good thing that will encourage investment. WTF Ed Miliband is thinking
![]() My politics are right of centre but I always listen to the other point of view. Labour are doomed luckily as they can't seem to see he is unelectable. Forget the politics, just him. You can't have a slightly strange guy as your Prime Minister. End of. Now if they got Alan Johnson in I would almost be able to vote for him. Like him a lot. Political Heavy weight but a real nice guy with it. Cameron would be in real trouble no doubt! |
|
|
|
|
|
#64 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: North West
Posts: 4,883
|
Quote:
Ed Miliband doesn't think. He just eats bacon sandwiches really badly : )
My politics are right of centre but I always listen to the other point of view. Labour are doomed luckily as they can't seem to see he is unelectable. Forget the politics, just him. You can't have a slightly strange guy as your Prime Minister. End of. Now if they got Alan Johnson in I would almost be able to vote for him. Like him a lot. Political Heavy weight but a real nice guy with it. Cameron would be in real trouble no doubt! I think Labour are shooting an own goal here, I think its right to expect licensees to pay a fair amount for the spectrum they have. Though I don't think it should be to the hundreds of millions that was originally proposed prior to this fudge setup by the current administration. Relative to the amount of spectrum and crucially more advantageous it is, should be priced accordingly. So the lower range frequencies should carry a premium compared to that of say 2600 and soon. I am sure it will all balance out sooner or later though, I think the current government has apporached the situation as sensibly and reasonable as can be expected. I suppose that rural roaming proposition was what brought the networks to heel and to the table. I would assume it will get voted through as a fast track measure before the election. Though my spies tell me, the tories might push for the snoopers charter by the back door........that will fail quite frankly. I think when all is said and done, the apporach by networks and the government will be viewed as most progessive considering the alternatives. I |
|
|
|
|
#65 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,541
|
Quote:
Ed Miliband doesn't think. He just eats bacon sandwiches really badly : )
My politics are right of centre but I always listen to the other point of view. Labour are doomed luckily as they can't seem to see he is unelectable. Forget the politics, just him. You can't have a slightly strange guy as your Prime Minister. End of. Now if they got Alan Johnson in I would almost be able to vote for him. Like him a lot. Political Heavy weight but a real nice guy with it. Cameron would be in real trouble no doubt! Our economy is improving, deficit halved, unemployment down and new industry starting to come on-line, plus the boost from Obama support has all helped Cameron. I suspect Labour will see a crushing defeat and then it'll cause them to have a complete re-organisation, find a new leader and possibly make themselves electable in 4 years. |
|
|
|
|
|
#66 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 4,965
|
If Cameron wins it won't be because he's liked.. It will be because the other guy is unelectable. This is going to be one strange election. With the Greens, Scottish (SNP landslide or not) and UKIP all having a potentially huge input into the next Govt indirectly. If what the pollsters are saying ends up happening it could be a fun and horrible 4 years for the country.
Alan Johnson would be ok with me too, however even with him in charge I couldn't vote for Labour because of the new Scottish Labour leader Murphy, He's such a shyster, rated worse than Miliband & Cameron even.. Ed.. Poor Ed, I feel for him, he's not done anything drastically wrong per say but just couldn't vote for him, he's not a PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
#67 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,875
|
Cameron is the least bad option out of all of them.
It is a shame how we vote based on who is the least crap, as opposed to voting for the best. |
|
|
|
|
|
#68 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the future....
Posts: 11,257
|
Quote:
If Cameron wins it won't be because he's liked.. It will be because the other guy is unelectable. This is going to be one strange election. With the Greens, Scottish (SNP landslide or not) and UKIP all having a potentially huge input into the next Govt indirectly. If what the pollsters are saying ends up happening it could be a fun and horrible 4 years for the country.
Alan Johnson would be ok with me too, however even with him in charge I couldn't vote for Labour because of the new Scottish Labour leader Murphy, He's such a shyster, rated worse than Miliband & Cameron even.. Ed.. Poor Ed, I feel for him, he's not done anything drastically wrong per say but just couldn't vote for him, he's not a PM. ![]() He's a real boost for the SNP as Jim is a complete and utter buffon which is confirmed every time he opens his mouth (which he does all too often sadly). At any rate in Scotland we have a decent choice so it's SNP for me! |
|
|
|
|
|
#69 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,249
|
Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if there was a hung parliament come May. I can't see anyone getting a majority I think Labour will get close to one. Liberal Democrats will probably lose a lot of there seats but will hold on to some of them. Greens will likely gain a small amount and expect UKIP to as well goes without saying SNP will gain some as well.
whatever happens I hope the current government approves the Geographical Coverage agreement as it is very good we might finally be able make a call in a national park. |
|
|
|
|
|
#70 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London, UK
Posts: 8,759
|
Quote:
whatever happens I hope the current government approves the Geographical Coverage agreement as it is very good we might finally be able make a call in a national park.
I'll have you know that I live near a national park and I'm sure you probably live in some big rich city or something where you don't have beautiful views like we do. Well let me tell you that the national park near me has a great landscape and is a really amazing place to visit, just wish we could get a phone signal here... |
|
|
|
|
|
#71 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,249
|
Quote:
I hope not. I don't want my beautiful view ruined by a mobile phone mast thank you very much!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'll have you know that I live near a national park and I'm sure you probably live in some big rich city or something where you don't have beautiful views like we do. Well let me tell you that the national park near me has a great landscape and is a really amazing place to visit, just wish we could get a phone signal here... |
|
|
|
|
|
#72 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: This forum
Posts: 3,388
|
Quote:
Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if there was a hung parliament come May.
So to try and bring back to topic, would 90% 4G/LTE geographical coverage entice more businesses into the UK that would be paying tax and helping the finances? Who knows
|
|
|
|
|
|
#73 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London, UK
Posts: 8,759
|
Quote:
You can't have signal and not have a mast lol and what's wrong with having a Tree mast or something. Plus not sure how you could even get 90% geographical without including National Parks I think they probably make up a good percentage of that last 20%.
I was taking the mick out of certain groups who are against masts in these areas. Surely you don't think I can be that stupid enapace
|
|
|
|
|
|
#74 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,249
|
Quote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSy5mEcmgwU
I was taking the mick out of certain groups who are against masts in these areas. Surely you don't think I can be that stupid enapace ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#75 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 14,636
|
Quote:
I hope not. I don't want my beautiful view ruined by a mobile phone mast thank you very much!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'll have you know that I live near a national park and I'm sure you probably live in some big rich city or something where you don't have beautiful views like we do. Well let me tell you that the national park near me has a great landscape and is a really amazing place to visit, just wish we could get a phone signal here... They don't seem to like cabinets either. When BT tried to install its FTTC network in one London borough (Kensington and Chelsea I think) they walked away after the local NIMBYs gave them too much hassle |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 17:46.






