DS Forums

 
 

What needs to be done to improve rural phone signal?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 21-12-2016, 09:24
roadshow2006
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,581

I'm just wondering if you were the government what would you make the networks do, or what would you do if you were in charge? It seems ridiculous many areas suffer without 3G/4G, and many are without calls and texts coverage on a number of networks.
roadshow2006 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 21-12-2016, 10:08
Redcoat
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The wilds of West Tyrone
Posts: 2,122
I'm not sure what you'd expect those in authority to do to force networks to provide additional coverage where it's not viable at present, the Mobile Infrastructure Project was largely a failure because too many thought what would be a simple programme turned out to be more complicated in reality.
Redcoat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-12-2016, 10:22
Cloudane
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 868
The biggest notspots around here are the valleys in the Lakes. I'd say run a backbone down those and allow small monopoles etc to be erected without argument. (People seem fine with all the telegraph poles and associated wires, but lose their minds if they see any mobile infrastructure)

Many see the lack of coverage as a positive though. It's an "escape the world" kind of area.

Also, to cover small towns etc around the country, allow NIMBYs to have less power than they currently do. Currently it just seems to take the usual handful of moaners to stop anything around here. Small towns have those people who see everything as quaint and special and anything modern as objectionable.
Cloudane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-12-2016, 10:41
lightspeed2398
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,294
This might end up being one of my long rambling posts which usually end up not being very serious but I'm gonna try.

There are some areas which will never legitimately be viable, money wise etc. Operators have to try and get a return on investment for each site, after all they're businesses which have to make profit.

But to answer the first part of your question about 3G and 4G. We're currently in the middle of a very very active build cycle, EE, Vodafone and o2 are expanding their data networks at record paces, CTIL in particular at the moment from all the data I've seen are going like a bat out of hell. So whilst it's good enough now, on the existing 2G network side things will get better. All of those 3 should be finished with the main stage of their rollout by the end of 2017 and that'll be excellent in many ways. Additionally 3 and EE are rolling out their brand new 800 low band spectrum which means that they're going to be able to expand their whole network with 4G for the first time, meaning that a lot of EE rural coverage will be 4G only after September next year.

Secondly on your general issue of coverage, there are several challenges an operator faces when trying to erect a new mast which would fix the coverage issues.

So to fix mobile coverage you've immediately got to start fixing several area and it very quickly becomes very complicated.

- Backhaul. Trying to get a physical connection to a mast to connect it to the internet, this can be hard enough in a city let alone in some ultra rural area. Fibre is pretty much a no go, microwave is hard to deploy in terrain and limited capacity. Satellite is very expensive and high latency. So how is this one resolved? Well to be honest it's quite hard! Over time it'll get easier to fibre it all up but I think we have to have a think in this country as to how we do fixed line communications.

- Planning. At the moment if an operator wants to build a new mast it has to go through the local planning system which is incredibly complicated and time-consuming. Simple answer would be to reform the system allowing them to build without planning requirement, but that tends to annoy people that businesses have such wide-reaching powers. So a more gradual and moderate reform would probably be good here. That's what the Government has been trying to do so progress is being made, but it becomes quite an ideological issue this one. You can compare the planning systems across Europe Here

- Access. So we've got our backhaul and we've got potential permission, but we need someone who will let us put our mast there in return for money and guarantee that we'll be able to get there. Not too easy because for cellular planning purposes you'll probably need the mast within about a 250m-500m radius of where it's needed. Now for rail for example Network Rail don't let operators place equipment trackside where it's needed the most. Solution here really is to either force people/companies to let operators place equipment on their land (bit of a big no no) or to offer more money until they cave in.

- Money. Our biggest issue. All of the former are surmountable with a bit of money but compared to other countries the average revenue per user is low here and margins are very very tight. And a lot of people won't pay more for a better network service, o2 knew that which is why they did so little 3G and focused on customer service & brand perception instead, which is why a lot of analysis shows that people thought they were the best network even when they really weren't. The solution here is to raise prices and guarantee network investment of a certain amount or to a certain level but who will really want that or to subsidise shared masts like the MIP project attempted to (they found out it was a bit harder than giving some money and telling them to go away and build masts).

There are a few positives though, there are a lot of solutions coming up technology wise in the next year or so that should make it easier to get round some of these issues. Rural small cells of the kind used in Japan, indoor 4G femtos etc. Things can only get better to quote that awful song.
lightspeed2398 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-12-2016, 11:09
Cloudane
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 868
There are some areas which will never legitimately be viable, money wise etc. Operators have to try and get a return on investment for each site, after all they're businesses which have to make profit.
This is where I think government funding and regulation come in (and where the far economic right where there's no government involvement would be a disaster). Indeed if the only objective is profit - which for a company it is by nature - then we get the worst of everything at the highest price we're willing to pay in as few locations as they can get away with.

They used to make the same argument about half decent internet connections (i.e. fiber) - and we'd most definitely still be sat here on ADSL in my area if the government hadn't invested in FTTC for as much of the population as possible a couple of years ago. (In fact I seem to recall the ADSL was assisted, we'd probably still be on dial-up!)

Which brings me to the backhaul point, given this new found position as ruler of communications I think I'd insist that all mobile networks be allowed to use the fibre we just flooded the country with.
Cloudane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-12-2016, 22:55
errea
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Not leaving the EU (quite yet)
Posts: 295
It's fairly simple -

Alter their licences from population to geographic coverage.
Bring in an adjudication service for mast disputes - rates, planning etc
Relax roaming/ network sharing rules in rural areas like France's 'Zone blanche'

Scandinavian countries (like Sweden/Finland) have the population similar to Scotland but a land mass similar in size to the whole of GB. They manage decent rural coverage and at cost comparable to the UK.
errea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-12-2016, 23:00
jonmorris
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: a land filled with trolls
Posts: 12,010
EE told me of the problems getting access to upgrade sites, and the demands for a great deal of money. EE rightly point out that people aren't willing to pay more for 4G over 3G and 2G, but it seems that everyone wants a slice of the supposed pie.

The Government does need to look at how things work with planning, site access (besides routine maintenance) for upgrades and so on.
jonmorris is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2016, 00:48
errea
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Not leaving the EU (quite yet)
Posts: 295
I'd would have thought EE would have had the most existing reusable sites - with their legacy 2G and 4G both using 1800 MHz?

EE told me of the problems getting access to upgrade sites, and the demands for a great deal of money. EE rightly point out that people aren't willing to pay more for 4G over 3G and 2G, but it seems that everyone wants a slice of the supposed pie.

The Government does need to look at how things work with planning, site access (besides routine maintenance) for upgrades and so on.
errea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2016, 00:58
jonmorris
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: a land filled with trolls
Posts: 12,010
I am not sure the details of the contracts, and obviously never will, but I assume there are payments to access sites to do even repair work. For emergencies, I expect they pay too.

What's happening now, presumably to all operators, is that some people who have sites are refusing access without higher payments. If new equipment is to be installed, I guess that goes beyond normal maintenence. And I doubt a network can sneakily do work as there are companies out there that help land owners make as much money from utilities as possible.

On the flip side, you might say that's just good business sense and the operators have plenty of money.

At the end of the day, work will get done but the real harm is that it can delay upgrade work and also cause problems when there are faults that require site visits.

In Welwyn Garden City, for a while no network could get access to a site on the roof of the QEII hospital during building and demolition work, creating problems for EE, Three, O2 and Vodafone. I am not sure how that happened or how it was resolved (cost, legal action etc) but it wasn't good for local residents or visitors.
jonmorris is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 28-12-2016, 06:52
nigelbb
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 834
It's fairly simple -

Alter their licences from population to geographic coverage.
Bring in an adjudication service for mast disputes - rates, planning etc
Relax roaming/ network sharing rules in rural areas like France's 'Zone blanche'

Scandinavian countries (like Sweden/Finland) have the population similar to Scotland but a land mass similar in size to the whole of GB. They manage decent rural coverage and at cost comparable to the UK.
It's madness to have four networks all replicating coverage. It's like having four separate competing rail networks. Roaming is not the answer as it penalises those networks with the best coverage by allowing the worst networks to ride on their coat tails. Like the rail network mobile network coverage should be seen as a national resource & managed by a single operator. The business details would be straightforward with all current networks having a share in the network provider. It would be cheaper to run as there would be far fewer sites & masts required as there would no longer need to be the four masts covering the same geographic area.
nigelbb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-12-2016, 10:26
paulbeattie87
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,210
It's madness to have four networks all replicating coverage. It's like having four separate competing rail networks. Roaming is not the answer as it penalises those networks with the best coverage by allowing the worst networks to ride on their coat tails. Like the rail network mobile network coverage should be seen as a national resource & managed by a single operator. The business details would be straightforward with all current networks having a share in the network provider. It would be cheaper to run as there would be far fewer sites & masts required as there would no longer need to be the four masts covering the same geographic area.
Sounds a lot like BT. Look where that got us. Ok it's not exactly BT but it's not that far away from Sky building their own fibre network to service exchanges around the country and TalkTalk doing the same thing.

In an ideal world this works but unfortunately this isn't an ideal world. Operators lose the ability to implement different technologies faster than others should they wish, they lose the ability to fix issues with coverage should they wish. That also works the other way with those being exclusive to one network at a local level.
paulbeattie87 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 28-12-2016, 10:45
moox
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 14,636
Presumably 700/800MHz 4G and VoLTE that actually works will help massively. My dad lives in a bit of a not-spot (works fine upstairs, no signal downstairs, thick granite walls) and when his phone decides to move to 3's 800MHz 4G it is fantastic. Unfortunately it doesn't stay there because it wants to cling onto a very very poor 3G signal.

Sounds a lot like BT. Look where that got us. Ok it's not exactly BT but it's not that far away from Sky building their own fibre network to service exchanges around the country and TalkTalk doing the same thing.

In an ideal world this works but unfortunately this isn't an ideal world. Operators lose the ability to implement different technologies faster than others should they wish, they lose the ability to fix issues with coverage should they wish. That also works the other way with those being exclusive to one network at a local level.
It basically is what Openreach does. Apart from the fact that one telco owns it.

I guess it depends on what the country wants. Do they want cherrypicked coverage of new technologies while leaving large amounts behind, or do they want a rock solid network that works basically everywhere?

It also depends on exactly how things are structured. MBNL for example hasn't prevented EE and 3 from doing their own things for 4G, while providing economies on the things that remain shared, like site access, antennas, backhaul - but it did give T-Mobile/EE and 3 an massive lead over VO2 in 3G coverage for the past decade
moox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-12-2016, 11:37
CheshireBumpkin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Cheshire/Shropshire Border
Posts: 589
Like the rail network mobile network coverage should be seen as a national resource & managed by a single operator.
Do you mean like Network Rail, or truly nationalised as a sort of 1970s Corbyn-Mobile?

Either approach would be a disaster in my view, especially the latter.

I think the answer lies in relaxing planning rules (with safeguards) and setting strict (and enforced) geographic coverage targets linked to punitive fines if not met. BT/Openreach should be forced to fund backhaul installation in remote areas out of the profits made from their corrupt BDUK gains. This would encourage investment and remove a common barrier to deployment.

I realise the BT bit is a little fanciful and extreme, but I do despise them...
CheshireBumpkin is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 28-12-2016, 12:26
paulbeattie87
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,210
Presumably 700/800MHz 4G and VoLTE that actually works will help massively. My dad lives in a bit of a not-spot (works fine upstairs, no signal downstairs, thick granite walls) and when his phone decides to move to 3's 800MHz 4G it is fantastic. Unfortunately it doesn't stay there because it wants to cling onto a very very poor 3G signal.



It basically is what Openreach does. Apart from the fact that one telco owns it.

I guess it depends on what the country wants. Do they want cherrypicked coverage of new technologies while leaving large amounts behind, or do they want a rock solid network that works basically everywhere?

It also depends on exactly how things are structured. MBNL for example hasn't prevented EE and 3 from doing their own things for 4G, while providing economies on the things that remain shared, like site access, antennas, backhaul - but it did give T-Mobile/EE and 3 an massive lead over VO2 in 3G coverage for the past decade
Absolutely. MBNL has worked very well. Although I think the reason it has stood out as being such a huge success is that the competition (VO2) for most of the last decade stood still, with little to no improvements to speak of.

This leads us into an interesting point, we've had a long period of rock solid, reliable coverage through MBNL on 2/3 operators. It begs the question why anyone is still with VO2 given the disparity in service. Perhaps people care much less about having a rock solid network which works basically everywhere. If you take the above into consideration you could draw that conclusion.

Sure you'll have localised coverage which might be better, that still doesn't explain why O2 have around 5 million subscribers less than EE despite having a poor 2G, limited 3G and even more limited 4G network.
paulbeattie87 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 28-12-2016, 12:29
Gigabit
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,875
I think branding has a lot to do with it. EE just isn't as good of a brand as O2 or Vodafone.

There's also the perception that all networks are crap. Vodafone customers are often convinced they have the best coverage for instance. People stay with them for a LONG time. I'd say the average customer I dealt with was with them for over three years. EE hasn't been around much longer so they haven't built up as much customer loyalty.

Now Orange was a brand. I think they should have kept that.
Gigabit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-12-2016, 13:04
jonmorris
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: a land filled with trolls
Posts: 12,010
It begs the question why anyone is still with VO2 given the disparity in service.
Slick advertising on the part of O2 made everyone think O2 was best network. Meanwhile, Vodafone had it sewn up for business customers.

What you get, like PS vs Xbox or PC vs Mac is people convinced they connected on the best network and telling everyone. You then get everyone believing the hype.

VO2 are at least now building networks that really ARE good. Vodafone in particular has come on leaps and bounds since it launched 4G and this year is going to significantly improve things to a point where I believe there won't so much of a difference between EE and Vodafone. Speed, indoor coverage, rural coverage and overall capacity all boosted.

I think branding has a lot to do with it. EE just isn't as good of a brand as O2 or Vodafone.

Now Orange was a brand. I think they should have kept that.
EE doesn't have to stay the name forever. Who knows, BT could one day decide to bring the Orange name back...
jonmorris is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 28-12-2016, 13:20
Mark C
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 8,078
I think branding has a lot to do with it. EE just isn't as good of a brand as O2 or Vodafone.

There's also the perception that all networks are crap. Vodafone customers are often convinced they have the best coverage for instance. People stay with them for a LONG time. I'd say the average customer I dealt with was with them for over three years. EE hasn't been around much longer so they haven't built up as much customer loyalty.

Now Orange was a brand. I think they should have kept that.
Many folk assume that mobile coverage is the same, and if reception is poor in one location, all networks will be poor.

Also, many people have company provided mobiles, and corporate service departments seem to only go with VF or O2, probably back to the marketing thing.
As long as there's signal within their building, then that's fine it seems ? Also VF and 02 do seem to have far better roaming deals on their business accounts ?

There are only two companies I know that have EE corporate phone accounts, and significantly perhaps they are both television outside broadcast outfits. Ummm
Mark C is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-12-2016, 13:59
paulbeattie87
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,210
I think branding has a lot to do with it. EE just isn't as good of a brand as O2 or Vodafone.

Now Orange was a brand. I think they should have kept that.
AFAIK the Orange brand is owned by France Telecom and the agreement when they merged was that the Orange brand would be phased out by a certain date. This happened much quicker than that though, I may be wrong however.

Slick advertising on the part of O2 made everyone think O2 was best network. Meanwhile, Vodafone had it sewn up for business customers.

VO2 are at least now building networks that really ARE good. Vodafone in particular has come on leaps and bounds since it launched 4G and this year is going to significantly improve things to a point where I believe there won't so much of a difference between EE and Vodafone. Speed, indoor coverage, rural coverage and overall capacity all boosted.

EE doesn't have to stay the name forever. Who knows, BT could one day decide to bring the Orange name back...
Of course it's all down to marketing. My point is that even with a nationwide network used by all operators which is great the average customer clearly aren't that concerned about coverage or performance. It doesn't take a whole lot of digging to find which networks have better coverage and performance. The fact most people don't baulk at the VF map filling in non-3G areas with 2G coverage when checking 3G coverage is beyond me. It doesn't take much to ask and figure out what "Internet and email on 2G" is. It's even stranger when you've got the zoom limits on VO2 coverage checkers not present on EE/Three.

On an unrelated note during the last decade you've had VO2 unwilling to spend on their network and MBNL/EE spending. How do you deal with such a discrepancy in strategy when you're sharing an underlying infrastructure?
paulbeattie87 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 28-12-2016, 14:15
xtaz
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Bristol
Posts: 269
EE doesn't have to stay the name forever. Who knows, BT could one day decide to bring the Orange name back...
Orange was bought by France Telecom. The brand Orange was then licensed back to Orange to be able to use in the UK. Orange become EE, but was sold to BT. The license rights to be able to use the Orange brand expire in mid 2017 I think so the brand will vanish completely. BT don't have any right to use it any longer. Chances are you'll just see EE become BT Mobile at some point.
xtaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-12-2016, 14:51
nigelbb
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 834
On an unrelated note during the last decade you've had VO2 unwilling to spend on their network and MBNL/EE spending. How do you deal with such a discrepancy in strategy when you're sharing an underlying infrastructure?
By making sure that each operator pays the appropriate share according to a formula based on usage. In my plan the independent single network would be forced by the government to provide 100% geographic coverage just as the Royal Mail must provide deliveries to every address in the UK for the same fixed price.
nigelbb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-12-2016, 14:52
nigelbb
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 834
Orange was bought by France Telecom. The brand Orange was then licensed back to Orange to be able to use in the UK. Orange become EE, but was sold to BT. The license rights to be able to use the Orange brand expire in mid 2017 I think so the brand will vanish completely. BT don't have any right to use it any longer. Chances are you'll just see EE become BT Mobile at some point.
Not BT Cellnet?
nigelbb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-12-2016, 15:09
Gigabit
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,875
What about O3?
Gigabit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-12-2016, 16:45
Stereo Steve
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,373
History tells us that as soon as BT gets it's hands on anything it will turn to utter shyte. As will EE over the next 5 years. They will screw it up. It might take 10 years but mark my words, they will ruin a perfectly good vision. Ironic really. In a way. Sort of. Not really.
Stereo Steve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-12-2016, 17:51
jchamier
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: This forum
Posts: 3,388
Of course it's all down to marketing.
For corporates for years it was about voice calls. Essentially the data revolution was home and small businesses. Corporates didn't often provide data, and those that did was Blackberry (which worked well over GPRS!). So the old 2G only but reliable networks of VO2 were popular with corporates whom could pay *rock bottom* prices, run ancient handsets for 5 to 8 years, and staff had to put up with.

My point is that even with a nationwide network used by all operators which is great the average customer clearly aren't that concerned about coverage or performance.
Don't think we've ever had a "nationwide network used by all operators" that sounds similar to Openreach which doesn't exist in the mobile world. Perhaps its where European mobile should have gone, but you'd have to go back to 1980 and the first licenses and change it then. To nationalise the multi-billion pound investments would probably tie the government up in litigation for compensation for decades. Government policy was for different operators to compete - and hence we have different coverage patterns.

Most consumers have the provider that works for them, in the places they go. Most people don't need national coverage, they need their area, however everyone has a different personal area. (home/work/friends/entertainment/holidays etc).

It doesn't take a whole lot of digging to find which networks have better coverage and performance. The fact most people don't baulk at the VF map filling in non-3G areas with 2G coverage when checking 3G coverage is beyond me.
I would suspect a lot of mobile customers are not technically aware of this! I'll never forget a conversation with some 25 year olds whom were on O2, Vodafone and I was on T-mobile back in 2009, and I had 3G and they were all on 2G. They thought the network brands were essentially the same just price plans!!

Remember the general public on the whole is uninformed.

It doesn't take much to ask and figure out what "Internet and email on 2G" is. It's even stranger when you've got the zoom limits on VO2 coverage checkers not present on EE/Three.
Yes Ofcom should have taken Vodafone to task over this, but the map isn't part of their advertising, its again Buyer Beware. Stupid consumers?

On an unrelated note during the last decade you've had VO2 unwilling to spend on their network and MBNL/EE spending. How do you deal with such a discrepancy in strategy when you're sharing an underlying infrastructure?
Sharing? They didn't.... but now VO2 are spending a LOT of money via CTIL to try and catch up, and in many populated parts of England, Wales and Scotland it feels they have. Well I get 35 to 40mbps on 4G on Vodafone where EE manages 80 to 100mbps - and only 18 months ago Voda had no service!
jchamier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-12-2016, 17:51
jchamier
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: This forum
Posts: 3,388
History tells us that as soon as BT gets it's hands on anything it will turn to utter shyte. As will EE over the next 5 years. They will screw it up. It might take 10 years but mark my words, they will ruin a perfectly good vision. Ironic really. In a way. Sort of. Not really.
BT's investors would say that would be a misuse of funds, so hopefully the shareholders will prevent it.
jchamier is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 17:50.