David Cameron wants mobe network roaming INSIDE the UK

It was also an essential part of O2's buildout as the fourth network in Germany. It was switched off by O2 presumably because it cost more to keep paying for it (costs no extra to the customer) than build out where it was economically viable and leave white space where not. Establishing the charges - the termination fees could be a model - wouldn't be impossible and if set by Ofcom wouldn't need extra haggling, though you can imagine Ofcom setting floor prices and some operators negotiating volume deals.

White space remains a problem for all operators, which is why licences never stipulate 100 % coverage. In such areas the French solution is reasonable for voice services because these scale predictably: phones need only 2 voice channels at any one time. Data is more of a challenge so you can expect that to be permanently throttled.

Depending on the pricing, it could also benefit the operators who've invested in better coverage. If they got 90% of the value from a roaming call, say, then having other operators' customers using these low-utilisation parts of their network would actually reward them for the investment they've made.

It sounds good, but there is nothing to force operators to provide an adequate service in the zone that they have been allocated.

Could we not just make it more/very expensive for the network to be carried on competitors network where they do not have capacity? If they pass the cost on to the consumer instead of investing in more POP to reduce future costs, then they become more expensive and less competitive than their rivals that do have capacity.

This way, the whole thing becomes a market driven by consumer demand. If you don't provide an adequate network, you will have to raise prices, which will then mean you lose customers eventually to the networks that do provide an adequate service and do not have to raise prices.

Re: Nightmare

Hmm, that's true. Kind of like how silly it would be to start running many different postal systems across the nation, duplicating infrastructure, feet on the ground covering the same areas, backhauls, etc, we'd never start doing tha...oh

Re: Nightmare

Two arguments against a unified network:

The biggest mobile firms, that have already invested billions, don't want competition using their kit and give up market share.

If we had a unified national mobile network, then we'd get the same ahem…"alleged" collusion and price gouging we see in the privatised energy, rail and water networks.

Re: Nightmare

What are the incentives for improvements (or even maintaining the current standard) if they pool the services?

Certainly, during build out having the ability to plan your own network is a competitive advantage. Long-term centralised network ownership that is independent of the operators is the most likely outcome. Indeed this has already been happening for years as equipment get into the business of supplying the network rather than just the kit. You still need to balance the demands by the networks of lower costs with those of capacity and coverage. The model might be the rail network… the experience of which varies from country to country.

Re: Nightmare

Because better coverage (or the perception of it) is a differentiator.

The other risk is that you could end up with less redundancy and should there be a problem with one mast everyone in that area could lose coverage whereas now O2 may have an issue but probably does not affect Vodafone customers.

Also I believe many of the companies already share the masts already.

Re: Nightmare

Because in theory, they could identify an area that's likely to see an increase in demand and then build a mast nearby to give themselves a competitive edge (everyone else's masts being a bit further away). As well as capturing punters, they can rent some of that mast space to the other networks for a suitable price.

In reality, if that happens it's rare. At the moment the main focus seems to be on rolling out 4G in heavily populated areas rather than trying to eliminate blackspots (though as the former is potentially more profitable, you can't really blame them).

With tongue carefully in cheek, I'd also point out that having multiple companies, any one of which could be the owner of that brand new mast, probably (briefly) makes the network's life easier, as those wishing to complain of having headaches/illness from the radiation emitted by the (occasionally, not even turned on yet) mast will have to narrow down the owner before sending their emails.

Re: Nightmare

Terrible idea. I think it's the same reason that Tesco, Sainsbury, Aldi, Waitrose et al have different premises. They are different companies.

You could have a national grid style model for mobiles in principle, but that would require significant change from where we are now, and a lot of money given you'd be effectively nationalising some profitable companies. The political climate is also against it; most politicians now taking the view that competition provides a better result than central control. i.e. that the efficiencies of running it centrally will be undermined by the stifling blanket of monopoly.

Even if you could create such a beast who would own it? If the state, welcome to meddling. If a company, welcome to profits for the owners and poor service. And it would become one of those "too big to fail" problems where public cash gets mopped up by the bucketload if the company gets in trouble.

Re: Nightmare

Why let them operate at all? They could just be a state owned monopoly.

Come to think of it this could solve the housing crisis, why allow anyone to own a house the state could own everything and allocate it as it sees fit.

Hmmmm.. we don't need 600 or so MPs either, all we need is one bloke with an interesting moustache and maybe a hat to keep an eye on everything.

Re: Nightmare

I believe that in the early days the regulations said each operator had to run their own network. I believe it was to encourage service differentiation and competition. It's only recently that things like mast sharing (and then network sharing) has been allowed.

Re: Nightmare

Because when the networks were being set up coverage was one of their major differentiators. One2One essentially tried cherry-picking major conurbations and transport routes, but eventually had to roll our national coverage to a similar level to the other three. Now that they all have similar coverage they have been consolidating their infrastructure, so there are only two organisations operating cell sites now, MBNL (3UK and EE) and Cornerstone (Vodafone and O2). MBNL is the more integrated of the two, but if Call Me Dave shows some perseverance and actually pushes on with his knee-jerk plan then he'll probably find that the effect is a lot less than he imagines in his simplistic little mind.

Re: Nightmare

I wish your downvoters had replied properly instead of just slapping you. I can imagine the benefits to the operators of sharing the infrastructure at the connection end-points; much like the gas/electricity companies don't have separate pipes and cables going to your house. Whether they like it or not, the telcos are just another group of utility companies.

Re: Maybe this could work with the right regulations

I was thinking this too.

But I don't think that you can realistically stop those charges getting passed on to the customer, and I don't think you actually need to either.

Say it turns out that O2 actually has the best coverage overall, and 3 the worst, with Voda and EE somewhere in the middle.

O2 will be getting more in revenue from this forced sharing, and will of course reap the profits and not bother to build new infrastructure because, hey, they're a mobile phone company and they're all a$$holes.

3 will end up paying a lot more, to O2 and Voda / EE than they get from the reverse, and will be taking a hit. They will either (a) pass on the costs to their customers or (b) build new infrastructure in the places where they see the problem. If (a) (which seems more likely - all mobile phone companies are a$$holes remember) then their customers will leave them for O2, or Voda / EE. They will eventually go bust, or find a level, or realise they need to build more infrastructure to get a slice of that sweet forced roaming agreement deal that O2 have been basking in.

Voda and EE may do nothing, being revenue neutral here, or they may see the opportunity. But when 3 starts investing and they start being the ones paying more out than they get, they may start seeing infrastructure as a benefit.

Assuming you mean 100 yds. There is a way round that of sorts, in that if you're fairly near a big town, you can get a PAYG sim from $provider_with_mast_in_area.

Re: Noooo

Could you remind people that mobile phones do in fact have an "off" button...

Re: Whatever the answer may be......

"Much of the landmass of the UK is far behind the third world in mobile access terms"

I call that the leapfrog effect. Existing infrastructure will be used until it has to be replaced. Then it gets replaced with the latest tech. If there's no existing infrastructure, they start with the latest tech.

So called 3rd world countries have, in some cases, much better mobile phone coverage because they installed modern kit from the start as their first level of coverage. There was little to no landline coverage and no analogue mobile phone system to compete with and/or replace. Will they be first to full 4G (or 5G/6G) coverage or will they be leapfrogged by other "early adopters" moving past them?