[Alex_1]

"Mobile phone companies should allow customers to roam between networks in areas of the UK where they struggle to get reception, a group of MPs has said.

The British Infrastructure Group said foreign visitors get better coverage, as they are not tied to any provider, so can use the strongest signal."

Can some of you learned guys explain please how visitors have it better over here?
When i go abroad you cannot use the strongest signal, just those companys who are associated with my provider.
Do visitors here get the luxury of being able to use any network???

Is this rubbish, i can't see for example EE who have spent loads on their infrastructure wanting to share it with others that have not bothered so much

[Thine Wonk]

Exactly the MPs don't understand technology, unskilled career politicians who haven't had experience of business are often talking out of their backside. Visitors only roam specifically with the roaming partners defined by their network provider, it can be more than one but it typically isn't all.

It is an ok idea in principal, but there are quite a few technical challenges like somebody getting stuck on crap networks they don't want to roam on, handover issues, costs where consumers buy dirt cheap to deliberately roam all the time, signing up to slow2 and getting better speeds from EE so forcing the roaming in settings etc.

How about consumers actually get a couple of free sima, test and actually sign up to the provider with better coverage in their village. The local people often cause planning to be rejected on masts so maybe MPs should grow some balls and push for planning approval for masts if they feel so strongly about coverage.

[omnidirectional]

This has just been on BBC News. Someone said they couldn't speak to their friend in Australia via Whatsapp because of a poor WiFI signal!! National roaming won't solve that.

[Alex_1]

Thanks for the clarification THINE WONK i thought it was a load of bull

It would be great to share all networks but that would be very unfair on the networks spending the most.

Perhaps the emergency number 999 could share all networks for safety, that would be justified.

[Mark Smith]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex_1

Thanks for the clarification THINE WONK i thought it was a load of bull

It would be great to share all networks but that would be very unfair on the networks spending the most.

Perhaps the emergency number 999 could share all networks for safety, that would be justified.

The 112 and 999 numbers are already shared across networks.

[Thine Wonk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex_1

Perhaps the emergency number 999 could share all networks for safety, that would be justified.

It does.

[sills]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex_1

Perhaps the emergency number 999 could share all networks for safety, that would be justified.

It already does

Edit: wasn't quite quick enough.

[Gigabit]

Didn't they try to do this a few months ago and the networks basically said **** off?

EE won't allow this as essentially it will be their network holding up everyone else!

[Thine Wonk]

Which MPs turn up to a planning decision about a new mast and put their full backing behind it saying how important it is and how strongly they feel about coverage?

[clewsy]

I guess the best and fair solution is to allow / force more site sharing. This way at least the networks have the option to cover more areas, however if they choose not to then it's their problem.

[jchamier]

Quote:

Originally Posted by clewsy

I guess the best and fair solution is to allow / force more site sharing.

There are independent site owners that the networks can put their equipment onto. The biggest is Arqiva whom run over 16,000 sites:

Quote:

As the UK’s largest independent provider of wireless sites, we offer space on towers, masts and rooftops for our customers’ wireless equipment. We currently have 8,700 active sites and a total of more than 16,700 sites available for sharing.

https://www.arqiva.com/overviews/mob...ms/site-share/

Of course this isn't new, its been around for over 15 years.

Engineering sites takes time.

[clewsy]

Yes in talking more UK areas where EE/vf/o2/3 have a site but the others don't, which they own.

It's a fine balance between not punishing the networks for investing, but also ensuring fair coverage and decent competition for the consumer.

[Orangy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by clewsy

I guess the best and fair solution is to allow / force more site sharing. This way at least the networks have the option to cover more areas, however if they choose not to then it's their problem.

No thanks. It was bad enough when EE merged T-M and Orange. Getting stuck on awful legacy Orange masts just because they were slightly stronger, instead of the nice & fast T-M sites.

I can't see how this would work well in reality. Handsets might be switching around all the time. I'd like to stick on my home network. Yes, the signal might be weaker at home than Vodafone/O2 but conversely I'd prefer to be on an EE 4G cell even if it's a lower signal and further away than a Vodafone 2G mast which I happen to be standing next to.

Handsets wouldn't cope well with this, it was a nightmare in the early days of EE. I can't see providers being happy about data agreements with roaming. As others have already mentioned, it would potentially stunt growth.

I suppose you could target certain rural areas which are known to have zero coverage - such as Cumbria, mid-Wales, parts of Cornwall, East Anglia, Highlands etc. A bit like when 3 were phasing out the 2G fallback. But in areas which have mixed coverage from multiple providers - no. Still doesn't solve small notspots in most areas.

Sure, it's annoying when I go somewhere on EE with no coverage that I know I could get with another network. But if I lived there, I would choose the most appropriate network anyway so that's a moot point.

On another point, I would prefer EE to be more realistic about their real coverage. Cell breathing is a major problem for me at home, to the point where I had to get a signal box. At work, the nearest legacy cell is so congested when 2000 students are around at the school to the point calls often fail. This is worse than having no signal at all as there is an expectation of service. (Why don't I switch? Because EE is the only network that suits my needs in general.)

[BKM]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex_1

The British Infrastructure Group said foreign visitors get better coverage, as they are not tied to any provider, so can use the strongest signal."

Can some of you learned guys explain please how visitors have it better over here?
When i go abroad you cannot use the strongest signal, just those companys who are associated with my provider.
Do visitors here get the luxury of being able to use any network???

Agree totally! When I go abroad I can ONLY get to use those providers my network has agreements with and NOT my choice of the ones available.

[David_bl1]

I have a lot of experience of UK roaming with multi-network roaming SIMs, and they aren't the perfect solution that the providers claim in their marketing materials.

Firstly, most multi-network SIMs (with a few exceptions) are "steered" to prefer networks which charge the SIM provider less for calls/data. So you might prefer to use EE for better data performance, but the SIM is configured by the provider to prefer Vodafone and O2 for lower call rates. This means you could be right next to an EE 4G mast, but will connect to a weak Vodafone 2G mast miles away just because it's higher on the preference list. Unsteered SIMs are available but cost much more. Some networks (generally H3G) are excluded because they charge a lot for roaming.

Secondly, a multi-network roaming SIM doesn't always select the provider with the strongest signal or best technology. If the SIM connects to Vodafone, then it will remain connected to Vodafone no matter how poor the signal is until it moves into an area where there is absolutely no Vodafone signal at all. Only then will it search for an alternative network based on the steering list above, a process which can take several minutes. You could end up on a very weak 2G unusable signal on one provider and the SIM won't switch to a strong 3G or 4G signal from another operator unless the signal is completely lost.

Thirdly, there is no handover between providers. If you have an active call or data connection and lose the signal from one provider, then your call or data connection will be dropped for several minutes while the phone searches for another provider and re-authenticates. It's a much slower process than reconnecting to a "home" network after a temporary loss of signal.

Finally, when switching the phone off and on, the SIM will always re-connect to the last used network regardless of signal strength. So again if you last used Vodafone then when you switch the phone on the SIM will reconnect immediately to Vodafone, even if the signal is a terrible 2G one.

Obviously there are some exceptions and workarounds (like manual network selection, modifying CPOL lists, modifying device configuration) but for the vast majority of public users a multi-network roaming SIM is unlikely to give a very positive experience until such time as all networks achieve similar technology deployments (i.e. 3G/4G everywhere).

[Rodney McKay]

The simple problem is in many areas well off middle class people don't want phone transmitters near their homes.

I remember a woman knocking on my door who wanted me to sign a petition to prevent a mast going up in her village not far from where I lived.

I asked her if she had a phone, to which she replied yes and I then asked her what would happen if everyone refused to have a phone mast near them.

Her answer was a middle class classic. "There is a council estate nearby it can go there"

I told her to go away in not so polite terms.

[Mark C]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BKM

Agree totally! When I go abroad I can ONLY get to use those providers my network has agreements with and NOT my choice of the ones available.

Same with me, though weirdly arriving in Malta last month I was surprised to see
my EE phone lock straight away to Vodafone Malta, my wife's Three phone locked to Go Mobile (as I'd expect). Mine refused to budge from Vodafone until 36 hours later, when it switched to Go, and then couldn't be budged from it (as you'd expect !)

[Orbitalzone]

This is a classic example of how people who are in positions of power know very little about what they're talking about, not just phones but any technology or probably most other things. Once you know a bit about a subject you can usually pick massive holes in things reported in the news or what politicians say.

Of course we all know when a politician is talking out of their arse, it's when their lips move.

Anyhoo, can't imagine this happening otherwise we might as well have 1 national network and I think they prefer competition?!?

[rasseru16]

France have free national roaming in rural or mountainous areas whereby one of the main network providers installs their mast and that 1 mast serving the area also broadcasts a roaming network called 'F-Contact' under the 'Zone Blanche' (White Zones) agreement. All other users can use this 'F-Contact' network just like their own customers do of whoever owns the particular mast.

More details on France's "Zone Blanche" https://translate.google.co.uk/trans...-text=&act=url

[David_bl1]

F-Contact is only GSM though (not even EDGE in most areas). Fine for calls and SMS but useless for data. Arguably that's better than nothing in an emergency situation, but in the UK you can make a 999 call on any available network anyway. Also many MVNOs can't use F-Contact.

The Mobile Infrastructure Project (MIP) was a much better idea, but too many proposals became mired in planned objections and were shelved. If the Government had included planning permission exemptions for MIP masts then far more would have been built by now, and providing 2G/3G/4G technology.

[BKM]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rasseru16

France have free national roaming in rural or mountainous areas whereby one of the main network providers installs their mast and that 1 mast serving the area also broadcasts a roaming network called 'F-Contact' under the 'Zone Blanche' (White Zones) agreement. All other users can use this 'F-Contact' network just like their own customers do of whoever owns the particular mast.

Is this very recent? This March I was in part of the Val Thorens ski area where 3's appointed provider (Brueges Telcom) had zero coverage - I got a solid "No Signal". Another person (on either VF or O2 in the UK) got coverage there (from SFR I think). I don't recall ever seeing F-Contact.

[rasseru16]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BKM

Is this very recent? This March I was in part of the Val Thorens ski area where 3's appointed provider (Brueges Telcom) had zero coverage - I got a solid "No Signal". Another person (on either VF or O2 in the UK) got coverage there (from SFR I think). I don't recall ever seeing F-Contact.

3 have removed their list of roaming providers now but they have almost always been able to use Bouygues Télécom but they have never been able to use F-Contact. Only EE, O2 & Vodafone customers have access to F-Contact.

[BKM]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rasseru16

3 have removed their list of roaming providers now but they have almost always been able to use Bouygues Télécom

So French Bouygues subscribers are excluded from F-Contact??

3 phones were able to connect to Bouygues (as always) and Free (fairly recent) last time I was in France.

[carguy143]

People should just choose the best network for them and their area. The UK mobile coverage is certainly better than other countries. All this will do is ramp up prices for consumers. It's counter productive for us.

[Mark C]

Quote:

Originally Posted by carguy143

People should just choose the best network for them and their area. The UK mobile coverage is certainly better than other countries.

Really ? How on earth can you make that statement ? !

I've had superb urban area coverage in some foreign cities, and as long ago as Nov 2010 had a Vodacom 3G signal 40 miles from any habitation in the Karoo desert (South Africa)