Are we ready for 5G mobile internet?

That wasn’t my point John , Susan was “impressed ” by the Spanish service I was replying to her pointing out Telefonica isnt hampered deliberately by the Spanish government by legislation blocking it from competing with smaller firms , it isn’t legislated against and still has an overall majority while undercutting the competition in big cities therefore its able to use the big profits to supply outlying areas with ALL types of telephone and broadband services , This countries government blocked BT and allowed small firms and BIG firms to take away all the very profitable customer bases in cities therefore greatly reducing BT,s profit margin and hampering its ability to upgrade the telephone network . HMG knew this thats why they put the original FTTC contract out to tender but as history has shown ALL the competition knocked it back –not enough long term profit in it for them – cities -good- countryside -bad. Now we are left with the governments legislative faults in their unbundling operation –10 % with 1Mbps (approx ) . Yet everybody blames BT when its the government actions that brought this about with much hand clapping in the City -worked the British population up to a frenzy -we want FTTP over 100 % of the UK something NO country or government in the world has achieved or done even the USA does not have 100 % FTTP .

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.

John-Telefonica used its big profits to invest in the cell-net industry, bringing in Vodaphone to help . As I posted before , contrary to some peoples impression BT plus EE only account for 28 % of the cell-net market in the UK thats less than one third. If it still had the same effective income as Telefonica is allowed in Spain then their cell-net ability to cover the UK would be enhanced by the bigger input in infrastructure due to higher profit but unbundling and negative government legislation caused a very big drop in profit . One business action leads to another or should I say government action in favour of VM/SKY/ Talk-Talk /et al to take all the “juicy ” city profits hampered BT both in telephone network and in cell-net expansion.

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.

How about a well known one at 27 % is that too much to John ? While its nice to have choice its an infrastructure problem with the “big boys ” being able to extend their coverage more than little companies HMG has already complained about the slow expansion of cell-net tower coverage , and the reply ? -sorry guv we aint got the cash. What we are talking about in those percentages is market/customers not coverage . Coverage is entirely different . BT as you know uses EE,s good coverage using old T-mobile and Orange frequencies -best coverage award -2017 -fastest mobile network award and Apple music is thrown in. Want to know the worst (on this years figures for 2017 ) ?? Vodaphone backs up what my own MP found out actually talking to Vodaphone in London.

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 requires more cell-net masts Alfa as technically its “line-of-sight ” due to the high frequencies involved , and many buildings /forests /mountains block coverage.

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..

I am out of date with my “monopoly figures” John , I dont know why but I always thought it was nearer the 50 % mark . Your right though about the returns .

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.

Your logic is right Wavechange ,just like the big commercial companies providing apps/videos/films/games /etc and complaining of “how slow the UK network is ” the same voices are pressuring the public about “how good it is to have 5G” because they can use their bandwidth consuming to sell to the public . They are not bothered with those who are lucky to have 3G only in making a profit so they pressurise (lobby ) the government in both countries to “upgrade ” the system , obviously this angers those who can get 3G only and so the public complain but this time HMG cant leverage BT because all the other companies wont let them get away with what they can do to BT (just look at VM -untouchable ) so its much slower progress as they wont pay out for many more masts let alone micro-dishes. It all gets back to pressure from the big US entertainment media on the backs of HMG and colourful adverts promising UHD for all and fast gaming etc as I posted on using a high end PC for gaming without actually owning one (STREAMING ) .

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?

Malcolm , because of the protests at the costs of sharing and loss of bandwidth doing it requiring additional equipment on their masts.

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)

That you as a child malcolm sucking a “Murray MInt” -too good to hurry mints or is it a 1950,s “gobstopper ” -big hard ball that changes colour as you suck it? Pretty good definition on my PC.

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.

My wife would also be happy with liquorice and toffee/caramel malcolm.

Commercial profit Larry5, the upgrade allows them to put out more and more money making opportunities the same as demanding very high broadband speeds while not contributing to the cost of the infrastructure.