Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bowdon]

90 Cross-Party MPs Call for Better UK Mobile Cover and National Roaming

A new report from the British Infrastructure Group (BIG), which was setup by Grant Shapps (Conservative MP for Welwyn Hatfield), has brought together 90 cross-party Members of Parliament in order to demand better UK mobile coverage and a limited national roaming agreement.

At present most of the United Kingdom’s primary Mobile Network Operators (Three UK, Vodafone, O2 and EE) are aiming to deliver 98% population coverage of 4G (LTE) based mobile broadband technology by the end of 2017 and one (EE) has effectively already achieved that goal. Most operators also claim to have already delivered 99%+ coverage of 2G and 3G services.

However for many people the reality is that mobile coverage remains patchy and unreliable, which is partly due to the fact that geographic (landmass) coverage is still fairly poor and also because Ofcom’s coverage estimates are often more optimistic than even those figures being supplied by mobile operators’ themselves.

[niemand]

Ofcom are fixated with the idea that competition mandates 4 MNOs. If 'national roaming' is allowed there's no point in having any more than a single MNO from the coverage point of view. If customers can use any network where's the motivation to invest in your own?

[Chrysalis]

All they need to do is make a rule which enforces certian amount of coverage in every area the service is sold.  If a provider cannot cover an area (e.g. they dont want to spend money on a transmitter) then they not allowed to sell services in that area.

Suddenly the problem would be solved as if by magic because the accountants would approve the expense..

However analysis of ofcom activity, shows the vast majority of it is only to increase competition, they dont like to directly manipulate retail to consumer service levels.  This is the core problem with ofcom.

Roaming is definitely not the answer for the reason ignition said.

[stevebrass]

All they need to do is make a rule which enforces certian amount of coverage in every area the service is sold.  If a provider cannot cover an area (e.g. they dont want to spend money on a transmitter) then they not allowed to sell services in that area.

Suddenly the problem would be solved as if by magic because the accountants would approve the expense..

However analysis of ofcom activity, shows the vast majority of it is only to increase competition, they dont like to directly manipulate retail to consumer service levels.  This is the core problem with ofcom.

Roaming is definitely not the answer for the reason ignition said.

Not sure how this would this work. The MNO would have to ask the  customer where they live? Or where they might use the service?

BTW accountants don't approve expense - budget holders do.

[sevenlayermuddle]

BBC and other media have been headlning this is 'foreign visitors get better coverage' because of course, foreign visitors will be able to switch to strongest roaming signal.  They kind of gloss over how much that costs the foreign visitors.

If the BBC really believe that foreign visitors get a better deal from roaming vs local services they will, of course, be reissuing all staff with phones registered to foreign networks?   

[Chrysalis]

Not sure how this would this work. The MNO would have to ask the  customer where they live? Or where they might use the service?

BTW accountants don't approve expense - budget holders do.

The check is done at their home address.

I understand the point that it is a mobile service so maybe not as simple as I thought, but there needs to be something to provide an incentive for them to build the transmitters.

Roaming is probably what the networks would love, especially those who have under invested such as O2 and three.

Budget holders are basically accountants, like how most CEO's tend to be qualified accountants.

Another idea is the phone is made to log the amount of time it has no signal (already does this), then based on % of time with no signal, the monthly fee is reduced accordingly, so e.g. 15 days of month no signal then say 50% reduction in cost.

[stevebrass]

The check is done at their home address.

I understand the point that it is a mobile service so maybe not as simple as I thought, but there needs to be something to provide an incentive for them to build the transmitters.

Roaming is probably what the networks would love, especially those who have under invested such as O2 and three.

Budget holders are basically accountants, like how most CEO's tend to be qualified accountants.

Another idea is the phone is made to log the amount of time it has no signal (already does this), then based on % of time with no signal, the monthly fee is reduced accordingly, so e.g. 15 days of month no signal then say 50% reduction in cost.

So if a buy a phone locally near my home address to use somewhere else the MNO should not be allowed to - seems very impractical.

I guess at the moment most people buy a phone first, then a service. Getting the shiny new phone is their priority.

As for your comments about budget holders and accountants -  we must have worked in very different industries!

[sevenlayermuddle]

The trouble is, there are quite a lot of areas of UK that are so sparsely populated it will never make economic sense to install individual base stations, one per network.

So I wonder, has anybody ever considered an additional shared network to cover these areas, that would be available to all users of the big four, and subsidised by compulsory levies paid by the big four? 

[Ronski]

I understand the point that it is a mobile service so maybe not as simple as I thought, but there needs to be something to provide an incentive for them to build the transmitters.

Quite often they want to build transmitters but locals complain and permission is blocked, or they are not allowed to site the mast in the ideal position so the signal is affected.

Another idea is the phone is made to log the amount of time it has no signal (already does this), then based on % of time with no signal, the monthly fee is reduced accordingly, so e.g. 15 days of month no signal then say 50% reduction in cost.

Great idea, I'll knock up a lead lined box and put my phone in it overnight and get a nice big reduction on my bill 

[Chrysalis]

glad you found the positives