[Zebb]

...wants to scrap rules which allow councils to block plans for masts taller than 15metres which could help with the rollout of 4G coverage. ... have launched a consultation on scrapping planning permissions for taller mobile masts, 'in order to support improved mobile connectivity in rural areas'.

http://dailym.ai/1HSR9ZH

[Gigabit]

Why are you reading the Daily Fail.

[Zebb]

It was a link in a search engine tech news. There's more links, they should put one up next to Big Ben.

[lightspeed2398]

Vodafone posted in their blog the other day that this prevented them from building their network out as much as they liked because they couldn't build the masts tall enough.

[Gareth_Beer]

@light, think that's Voda PR spin, blame the Govt for their lack of motivation & investment in their network - they've got masts by me that haven't been touched in 20 years - 2G pitchforks!

I would say they need shorter more confined & specific coverage, giving capacity and very good localised coverage is what's needed - hidden in lampposts etc easy to pick up backhaul. Giant masts are more or less done!

But hay, who I am I to tell Voda how to roll out & operate a network considering they're top by almost all metrics - in the Twilight zone!

[swb1964]

Good. Let's get decent 4g coverage everwhere.

[lightspeed2398]

Yeah it's a great big load of spin. They seek to be in a phase of blaming everyone else for their problems like my teenage son! I remember when Olaf Swantee took over EE he blamed the government for the fact we were behind everyone else in 4g rollout, perhaps more true in that case but Vodafone need to look no further than themselves. Compared to EE and Three though they had it easy with their 900MHz spectrum.

[omnidirectional]

Anything that gives NIMBYs less power is to be welcomed.

Although Vodafone's dire data coverage is entirely their own fault. EE, Three and even (to a very small extent) O2 have managed to build better data networks with their current masts.

[noise747]

Quote:

Originally Posted by omnidirectional

Anything that gives NIMBYs less power is to be welcomed.

Strange how people say this, until it affects them. It is a different thing then.

Quote:

Although Vodafone's dire data coverage is entirely their own fault. EE, Three and even (to a very small extent) O2 have managed to build better data networks with their current masts.

Simple answer is to have smaller masts in more places. Not that i care about 4G to be honest, I do not have a 4G phone and in no rush to get one.

[swb1964]

Quote:

Originally Posted by noise747

Strange how people say this, until it affects them. It is a different thing then

No man is an island. We all have to put up with certain things for the common good. And it's fairly easy not to look at a mast if it offends you.

[DevonBloke]

Didn't EE have plans to raise the height of a lot of existing masts anyway?
What happened to that plan?

[mupet0000]

Take a look at the comments on the Daily Fail article . I lose brain cells every time I visit that site.

If we were able to have really tall sites, they could be few and far between with small cells covering highly populated areas or harder to reach locations. Mobile signals can travel really quite far, coverage could be much improved especially in the countryside.

[Aye Up]

Bigger cells does not mean better service or coverage. I hope all networks follow the trend EE and Vodafone have been setting by installing smaller masts in more locations. This will help with capacity and coverage. As superfast broadband is rolled out further it means 4G in theory could be delivered to more people. Generally nowadays "massive masts" tend to host all networks as opposed to say EE and Three like it is with MBNL. Obviously that isn't universal, large masts are expensive to install and maintain.

[M1kos]

I blame trees the pesky things keep growing and out sizing there neighbours in all honesty masts up to 20m should not need planning if they are more than 100m from residential houses

[Cloudane]

Tories doing something I agree with

I'd very much welcome this. Vodafone had a 3G mast planned just around the corner a few years ago, but of course NIMBYs (which around here are very active, they're always stopping plans for masts and supermarkets) did a massive campaign about the planned "eyesore" and put a stop to it. I'm more of a WIMBY, they're more than welcome in ours. Literally, put one in the back yard, it'd be awesome

There are already huge masts everywhere now anyway due to the new train signalling system which was exempt from planning permission. I remember when one popped up here and I thought "how on earth did they get that one under the radar?!" before learning about the exemption. (To be fair, this one IS actually a bit ugly and doesn't really add anything to anything despite my ramblings below). It's a pity they don't share them with the mobile networks.

There's always so much complaining about anything that's visible or audible, it's like everyone just wants to live on their own little island where they can't see or hear anything. We got on just fine with electricity pylons and telegraph poles, I don't know their history (I'll save that study to Arnold Rimmer) but imagine if we had the same fuss about those. It's all subjective - whilst some think it ruins it, I think our technological infrastructure can add character to nature's scenery:

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2829/...9b6e04cb_b.jpg

I think the wind farms that people keep complaining about can be very pretty as well. I don't have any of my photos of those to hand but they can look great against a sunset. People need to try and see the beauty in things more rather than having such a limited scope of what looks nice and seeing everything else in the world as "eyesores" getting in the way. Mankind is constantly advancing its technology and capabilities and enjoying more and more diversity in things like architecture as well, and that's something to be seen and enjoyed IMO.

[mupet0000]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aye Up

Bigger cells does not mean better service or coverage.

I don't see why not. When 4G first rolled out in my area on Three, they enabled one site, a huge pylon site that has all networks on it, it's about 2 miles away from me in a straight line. I didn't get coverage indoors but it worked fine outside. This kind of coverage is fantastic for motorways and vast countryside-type places.

It doesn't work everywhere. We need a combination of everything, not just large sites, not just small sites. Relaxed planning permissions on large sites can only help coverage.

[noise747]

Quote:

Originally Posted by swb1964

No man is an island. We all have to put up with certain things for the common good. And it's fairly easy not to look at a mast if it offends you.

Plenty of places to put masts that are out of site, but it costs more money, so they prefer to build taller and taller masts in places where they look out of place.

The other problem is that these people who complain about masts are the first ones to complain when they have no signal on their phone/.

[Resonance]

Quote:

Originally Posted by noise747

Plenty of places to put masts that are out of site, but it costs more money, so they prefer to build taller and taller masts in places where they look out of place.

The other problem is that these people who complain about masts are the first ones to complain when they have no signal on their phone/.

Problem is with out of sight is that it means out of coverage. The frequencies used by mobile phones are pretty much 'line of sight'.

[Mark in Essex]

Quote:

Originally Posted by M1kos

I blame trees the pesky things keep growing and out sizing there neighbours in all honesty masts up to 20m should not need planning if they are more than 100m from residential houses

I think the mobile networks should promise to cut down a tree and replace it with a phone mast everytime somebody buys a new phone from them.

[japaul]

Quote:

Originally Posted by M1kos

I blame trees the pesky things keep growing and out sizing there neighbours in all honesty masts up to 20m should not need planning if they are more than 100m from residential houses

Often the the trees are planted by the operators when they put the mast up to hide it somewhat. But then the trees grow...

[Aye Up]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cloudane

I'd very much welcome this. Vodafone had a 3G mast planned just around the corner a few years ago, but of course NIMBYs (which around here are very active, they're always stopping plans for masts and supermarkets) did a massive campaign about the planned "eyesore" and put a stop to it. I'm more of a WIMBY, they're more than welcome in ours. Literally, put one in the back yard, it'd be awesome

There are already huge masts everywhere now anyway due to the new train signalling system which was exempt from planning permission. I remember when one popped up here and I thought "how on earth did they get that one under the radar?!" before learning about the exemption. (To be fair, this one IS actually a bit ugly and doesn't really add anything to anything despite my ramblings below). It's a pity they don't share them with the mobile networks

Its funny you mention that BIB, Network Rail last Autumn was opening up a consultation around its infrastructure and how better to exploit and monetise it. At the time it was suggested by some in the media and those at Network Rail whether it would be feasible for operators like EE or Vodafone to use them or piggy back. Network Rail is the only state owned coimpany I know of that can sidestep any planning requirements when they want to install infrastructure. I believe it is through this vehicle the government will push to rollout out superfast 4G to more locations.

It is said Network Rail has the larges mobile infrastructure dwarfing that of even EE, who have thousands of masts. The other thing some of the frequencies Network Rail use are in the 400 range similar to emergency services, Airwave unless I am mistaken. Given the decline in Government funding for rail projects its likely Network Rail will enter into some kind of agreement similar to Arquiva has with the big 4.

I still think the future will be in smaller cells more easily deployed in areas with superfast broadband availability. Its only in small numbers at the moment, as and when Virgin Media & Openreach open their cabinets there should be dramatic improvements in city and suburban areas. BT/Openreach will likely be one of the providers that will spearhead 4G in more rural locations due to FTTC rollout.

[Aye Up]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mupet0000

I don't see why not. When 4G first rolled out in my area on Three, they enabled one site, a huge pylon site that has all networks on it, it's about 2 miles away from me in a straight line. I didn't get coverage indoors but it worked fine outside. This kind of coverage is fantastic for motorways and vast countryside-type places.

It doesn't work everywhere. We need a combination of everything, not just large sites, not just small sites. Relaxed planning permissions on large sites can only help coverage.

I agree to somer extent, I just don't think large masts have the answer. I live in the Trafford area of Manchester, in Altrincham there is one of the tallest masts in the area. Living under its gaze reception and service levels were shit, this was across most networks except Vodafone, which needed me to leave Orange. The actual mast only received maintainence last year which then upped the service levels to 4G. But by City/Town area standards that mast is big, but it doesn't do the job it is supposed to, previously I would find myself connecting to another mast 2 miles away as this one was so bad.

The point I make is that more small to medium sized maps are the best way to ensure coverage and service. EE is in a very good place right now, prior to the joint venture T-Mobile had a network to die for, Orange came on bored and was shat on. Since then they have spent huge somes bringing both legacy masts/networks up to scratch. They have more masts in 2G/3G than O2 and Vodafone combined, that was down to needing to erect more because of 1800 range nor being as agile as 900 in terms of reach.

EE has one of the best networks in the world in respect of the 3 technologies it uses, its for that reason they win so much praise. EE's network upgrade/rollout should be admired and crucially emulated, they are blazing a trail.

[noise747]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Resonance

Problem is with out of sight is that it means out of coverage. The frequencies used by mobile phones are pretty much 'line of sight'.

But as I said they could hide smaller masts in places. i can understand large masts being used in large open spaces, but smaller ones could be put in cities.

Not that I have any problem myself with large masts.

I know that the frequencies that mobile phone uses are line of sight., as the wavelengh are so small they bounce around structures more so than penetrating like the larger lower frequencies.

[bookey_uk]

Just to add to some of the comments on here...

Bigger cells does not always mean better coverage but in certain locations the extra height would be a massive benefit.

Big macro cells that are 30m+ provide 'coverage', cells ~15m provide capacity, a good networks needs a blend of both in the right place.

Mobile phones do NOT work on line of sight, different frequencies penetrate buildings differently.

Forcing Network Rail to open up near trackside masts would be a huge benefit to all rail users and those who live nearby, right now the 'fix' for rail coverage is 800Mhz LTE with VoLTE.

If money was no object it would be ideal to have a grid of large macro sites providing 98%+ coverage with thousands of small cells in the center of town and villages providing the capacity and in-building coverage people desire.