Are we ready for 5G mobile internet?

Yeah that 🙂

This comment was removed at the request of the user

Some while ago, perhaps on here, perhaps elsewhere, a smart person mentioned that their use of an Irish mobile phone contract was the best way of getting good coverage in the UK.

Because, when in the UK, they were treated as roaming, whereever they were, they could simply always use the best available network,

This comment was removed at the request of the user

BT had already sold off its Wireless division when a lot of that happened Duncan and it became O2 which is now owned by Telefonica. BT did not become a big mobile phone service provider again until just a few years ago when it took over EE which gave it most of the infrastructure it now has. I don’t think the unbundling of the landline telephone network and roll-out of superfast broadband is in any way connected with the lack of mobile signals in some areas. That is purely due to fragmentation of the mobile phone industry and its focus on just the profitable parts combined with a lack of interest by the government in ensuring proper coverage of all areas. The economical and efficient way would be by allowing networks to interchange their traffic to avoid duplication of masts and transmitters. The mobile phone industry has now consolidated again but there is still not much progress with serving remote and rural communities.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

It is arguable that there are now too few mobile phone service providers in the UK – 28% of the market is too much for one company and by some definitions is classed as a monopoly. Comparing Telefonica under the Spanish regime with the mobile companies in the UK under our regime is not really helpful because the situations are quite different. As you have said, people should not be blaming BT [EE] of the failure to provide full mobile signal coverage, and the partitioning of Openreach as a quasi-independent profit centre within the BT group makes it difficult to cross-subsidise the different market segments [in any case the BT TV operation is heavily loss-making so]. It would be more appropriate for Vodafone to fill in the mobile phone signal gaps.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

John said there is still not much progress with serving remote and rural communities.

There is still much progress to be made in non-remote and non-rural communities.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

A monopoly situation is usually taken to be 25% or more of the market. With only a handful of entrenched operators there is not enough competition to stimulate the providers into completing the coverage since the returns are nowhere near as good as they were in the early days when they competed to cover whole cities and easily picked up lots of customers..

This comment was removed at the request of the user

I don’t think there is a proper definition of a commercial monopoly; it is natural to assume it would be over 50% but it seems to come down to “dominant market position” in a situation where access to markets for new businesses is difficult [e.g. retail banks]. I lose track of the comings and goings of the mobile phone service providers but a city centre tour today suggested that there are just EE, O2, Three, Virgin Mobile, and Vodafone some of which have poor coverage in Norfolk. If two of those nationally count for 55% of the market that is not healthy and there is a case for a shake-up.

I agree, Duncan. There is no organised process for achieving adequate coverage of 3G mobile let alone 5G.

Incidentally, Deloitte is a UK accountancy and business consultancy firm but it has had American constituents for a very long time and is now one of the major multi-national businesses with operations in most economies. I remember it as Deloitte, Haskins & Sells before they merged with Touche Ross and gradually swallowed up many others. Another case of being too big and open to conflicts of interest.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

I question whether the government even accepts any responsibility at all for improving mobile phone signal coverage; it sees it as the role of the commercial companies who profit from mobile phone calls. The problem is that I can’t see why BT or Vodafone or any other company should be expected to fork out for additional masts and dishes to serve some isolated community who all have mobile phones with different service providers and will expect roaming. Unlike with cable there is no mechanism for ensuring that the users bear the costs in both directions at the point of use [and that isn’t exactly perfect itself with heavy downloads but no financial contribution].

My view is that essential services should not just be run for the benefits of business but regulated so that the needs of citizens are met. Sharing of mobile networks to route calls via alternative networks in areas with poor or non-existent coverage would be a great help. This has been in place for calls to the emergency services for years. Network sharing would benefit us all and all that’s needed is for the companies to apportion costs according to use.

I would have thought the government could have done this as part of the license conditions. Perhaps we should ask why they didn’t?

In recent years, at least, governments have acceded to the wishes of business. Political parties should never have been allowed to be provided with funding by industry.

Governments are not separate entities, but made up of individuals. Many have their own financial interests and, I suspect, are looking at their future incomes once their political careers are terminated. Many of the public servants who work for us also have any eye on their future, after retirement for instance. So whether a political party receives donations from business or trades unions, for example, I believe it is the individuals who are persuaded rather then the whole. Few will have the integrity to rock the boat.

I have a cynical view of politicians, local and national, and see them and many public servants, just like the rest of the population, as having self-interest as a priority.

So, I don’t think it is anything new, nor that external funding is particularly important on individual decisions. It certainly is supposed to be useful in getting a particular party elected though. Funding individuals, entertaining them, providing them with free holidays, access to sporting events, dinners, now that seems to be the way to foster a worthwhile relationship (for the parties involved) Maybe all that should be stopped?

This comment was removed at the request of the user

Maybe so, but an effective “administration” should consider what is best for the consumer, surely, and impose the appropriate conditions? ?zz=1
(pic from greenkozi)

This comment was removed at the request of the user

I tried to indicate my comment was “tongue in cheek” duncan. I would be very happy if it were a large piece of liquorice toffee.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

This comment was removed at the request of the user