UK may not hit goal of 95% mobile coverage, commons committee warns
- Reference: 1717410674
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2024/06/03/uk_may_not_hit_goal/
- Source link:
A [1]report from House of Commons Public Accounts Committee says that to meet the 95 percent target, build-out progress will have to continue at the same rate as over the past year, but that this may not be sustainable due to increasing costs.
Announced [2]back in 2020 , the Shared Rural Network program aims to improve mobile coverage across the country, specifically addressing rural black spots. Its goal is to increase 4G coverage by the 4 mobile operators - Vodafone, EE, O2 and Three - from 91.4 percent of the UK landmass up to 95 percent by the end of next year.
[3]
Ofcom licence obligations also commit each individual mobile network operator to increase its own 4G coverage to 88 percent of the UK landmass by 30 June 2024, and to 90 percent by 31 January 2027, but the report states that 3 of the 4 mobile network operators have already advised the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology (DSIT) that they are unlikely to meet the upcoming June target.
[4]
[5]
According to Building Digital UK, an agency of DSIT, the operators have been averaging an increase in coverage of about 0.1 percentage points a month over the past five or six months, and the challenge is to sustain that rate of increase in order to hit the eventual target.
However, the report reckons that cost pressures and delivery challenges experienced on the program so far have led to the costs of installing new masts being higher than expected.
[6]
On the Extended Area Service element of the program, the costs are said to have risen by an estimated £44 million (about $56 million) due to VAT and inflation alone. To absorb this additional cost, DSIT is said to be considering ways it might deliver the required increase in coverage, but using fewer new masts.
For the Total Not Spot element, which targets the hardest-to-reach areas of Scotland, the report finds that cost increases have cast doubt over the overall figure, while DSIT expects that any additional costs will be funded by the mobile operators.
But Ofcom’s licence agreements with the operators allow for relief of their individual obligations if costs are deemed excessive, thus leading to uncertainty about who will foot the bill for the extra cost or whether the target for 95 percent 4G coverage will be met.
[7]
The report makes a number of recommendations, including that DSIT should work closely with the operators to get a handle on the cost increases and how these will be managed while ensuring coverage targets are met. It suggests new technologies such as connectivity provided by low Earth orbit satellites should be considered.
[8]Telecoms shack in the middle of Scotland put up for auction at £7,500
[9]Some smart meters won't be smart at all once 2/3G networks mothballed
[10]Vodafone, Three hustle to tie knot before regulators crash wedding
[11]Qualcomm inserts GenAI into smartphones at industry's mega tradeshow
It also recommends that final decisions on both the locations and the number of masts should be informed by a revised cost-benefit analysis, and that DSIT should then be in a position to confirm which areas of the UK will still not have 4G coverage once the Shared Rural Network program is complete. The department should develop a plan for alternative ways of delivering connectivity to the remaining unserved areas.
Finally, the report recommends that DSIT should detail what it has achieved so far from its investment to date in 5G networks, and set more meaningful and measurable targets. It has set an ambition for standalone 5G to be available in all populated areas by 2030, but has not defined what constitutes a populated area, or the level of 5G performance it considers sufficient. ®
Get our [12]Tech Resources
[1] https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5804/cmselect/cmpubacc/650/summary.html
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2020/03/09/govt_and_carriers_formalise_plans_for_rural_shared_4g_network/
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2Zl3oq2pO3ISuSh4E32yjwgAAAAo&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Zl3oq2pO3ISuSh4E32yjwgAAAAo&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Zl3oq2pO3ISuSh4E32yjwgAAAAo&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Zl3oq2pO3ISuSh4E32yjwgAAAAo&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Zl3oq2pO3ISuSh4E32yjwgAAAAo&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/03/telecoms_shack/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/19/uk_smart_meters_pac/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2024/03/22/vodafone_threeuk_merger_headed_for_deeper_probe/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2024/02/26/qualcomm_puts_genai_into_smartphones/
[12] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Should never have switched off 3G
Those who made the decision probably never go outside of the M25 -- so what is the problem ?
Re: Should never have switched off 3G
Yup. Vodafone coverage has gone to shit since they turned off 3G. Now when travelling I go from 4G to E on the signal display, and E means Eff Off as far as Internet is concerned!
Re: Should never have switched off 3G
"But i guess there's no profit in maintaining such a fallback system"
If the requirement* is to maintain it where there's no 4G coverage it doesn't matter whether there's specific profit in it or not, it just becomes part of the overall cost of doing business.
* A requirement as in "you need to do this to retain your network licence".
Devon
Its not just Scotland. Just back from a holiday in Devon. Got better mobile reception in the middle of the moors than in the small hamlet we were staying at. Zero signal. Means you got to keep fit as you had to run up a local hill to get a signal.
Who'd have thought granite hills would be a problem for phones...
These dumb targets are always made by someone sitting in the middle of a city. See also broadband.
Re: Devon
Its not just Scotland. Just back from a holiday in Devon. Got better mobile reception in the middle of the moors than in the small hamlet we were staying at. Zero signal. Means you got to keep fit as you had to run up a local hill to get a signal.
You don't even have to get that remote. The signal around Brailles in Warwickshire is pretty dire. It's not great at my golf club either and that's only two miles from the Banbury and the M40. In that case it's probably due to terrain blocking the signal and likely depends on who your provider is.
Re: Devon
And equally crap on many main rail routes, where the rail industry collectively approach mobile coverage with the same tenacity, inventiveness and commitment that they use to handle all problems (that is to say, none).
Meanwhile, slow but steady, the creep of decent mobile coverage continues across the London Underground continues.
Re: Devon
See also industrial estates, another place with a population of 0, but where there are lots of people around.
These coverage things are based on the assumption that everyone only uses their phone at home, the one place where you probably don't need it, because you have Wifi.
Re: Devon
"the one place where you probably don't need it, because you have Wifi"
Until you have a power failure. You can always use POTS at home... except that's being turned off as well.
Re: Devon
A few miles from Watford, Herts in the middle of suburban new build I can only get a signal indoors by hanging over the bathroom sink. For safety, there has to be a fallback but that's being ignored to the extent that an online form I had to complete recently for some service required a mobile number as the only option, rejecting any number not starting with 07.
Re: Devon
"in the middle of suburban new build"
Is that part of the problem? Can't speak for your house, but many new build estates have houses very close together, with relatively small windows, low-e glazing and tons of foil backed plasterboard. All of which make for crap reception indoors.
Re: Devon
You really don't have to be in the sticks. Try between Preston and Blackburn, five minutes off the M6...in an area that officially has a "Very Good" mobile signal. Could be worse - SMS usually works, as does data albeit not that fast. But you need to be outside to make a call, and even then you may have trouble making yourself understood. If it rings at all... Which is a problem because the broadband isn't really good enough to support VOIP (worn out wires hung through trees - fibre only goes to the cabinet by the main road), lots of dropped packets mean very poor call quality. So when the old phone network is switched off next year we won't have a usable phone service.
Re: Devon
Don't worry yet, Openreach [1]has delayed the switchoff by two years .
On the other hand, our little hamlet with patchy mobile coverage and dodgy underground DPs meaning that even FTTC (which arrived in 2019 IIRC) can be a little hit-and-miss (I'm still on ADSL), which last time I checked - at the beginning of the year - didn't even have a date for FTTP installation, has seen a flurry of activity by Openreach engineers over the last month and suddenly it seems it's possible to order FTTP products. Bit pricey, but suddenly available when a few months ago there wasn't even a date range.
M.
[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5119g5z4q5o
Re: Devon
"has seen a flurry of activity by Openreach engineers over the last month and suddenly it seems it's possible to order FTTP products. Bit pricey, but suddenly available when a few months ago there wasn't even a date range"
When FTTP suddenly appeared without fanfare outside AC Towers, within a month or two there were some quite attractive offers from various ISPs, including some of the better, smaller ones like Aquiss. Admittedly cheaper still deals were available from the large players, but only with longer contracts, baked in annual price rises, and crap service. Might be worth keeping an eye on what sort of deals you can get, they don't all seem to recognise newly served addresses at the same time.
Re: Got better mobile reception in the middle of the moors ...
So you have to hit a target for % geographic coverage ... what do you do? Stick a new mast in the middle of nowhere, giving a maximum increase in newly-covered geography, but arguably benefit almost nobody; or fill in a smallish notspot that gives you not much in the way of extra geography, but would make a difference to many people.
Hmm, I wonder.
Re: Got better mobile reception in the middle of the moors ...
> So you have to hit a target for % geographic coverage
That explains why it works great in the middle of the moors, but not in the valleys.
Great for the sheep I guess
Sounds Ideal
5% of the country won't have coverage, where are these places so I can live there?
No means of cold callers to call me.
No means of texts from Vodafone with their new offers.
No means of my utilities provider to annoy me in to having a smart meter.
No means of my wife calling me while I'm at the pub asking me where the fuck I am.
I mean yeah I'm dead if there's a fire or I have a stroke, but for the sweet glorious non-life threatening moments it'd be wonderful.
Re: Sounds Ideal
"5% of the country won't have coverage, where are these places so I can live there?"
Much of Wales, much of Scotland, plenty of Dartmoor and Exmoor, good stretches of Dorset, likewise Pennines and Cumbria. Surely there's somewhere in that list you could live?
Re: Sounds Ideal
I'm off to look at RIghtMove and I'll let you know!
Re: Sounds Ideal
Also, Oxford City Centre.
Re: Sounds Ideal
>plenty of Dartmoor and Exmoor
Reception problem can generally be solved by climbing to the top of the nearest tor...
I would have thought (being sensible) that the powers that be, would have identified areas - such as Dartmoor and Exmoor and much of Wales of Scotland (ie. "wilderness" national parks) where they had no intention of providing full geographic coverage. Then at least everyone would know where they stood.
"No means of my wife calling me while I'm at the pub"
You can get that in city centre Aberdeen. Ma Cameron's is a notorious blackspot.
Laughing in Australian
Go on then, what's Australia's coverage by landmass?
100%, as a didgeridoo can be quite loud.
On the Extended Area Service element of the program, the costs are said to have risen by an estimated £44 million (about $56 million) due to VAT and inflation alone
VAT hasn't changed since about 2011, so that's rubbish .
And other than certain niches, VAT is reclaimable by businesses as it's a consumer tax, so wouldn't affect the cost of building out the network. I suspect the PAC are parroting the lies told by the mobile networks.
Neither, the article is slightly misleading:
"9. Both the Department and BDUK acknowledged that there have been significant cost challenges on the programme. On the Extended Area Service element of the programme, the Government’s costs have risen by an estimated £44 million due to irrecoverable VAT and inflation, while, on the Total Not Spot element, in late 2023, DMSL indicated that delivery of the planned number of sites and the increase in coverage required from this element was set to exceed the current level of associated government funding."
[HoC PAC Report page 10-11.]
Originally, the Extended Area Service was to be provided by:
"The Home Office is making available up to 292 masts in remote parts of the UK that it is building as part of its Emergency Services Network programme, and will upgrade these masts so that the mobile network operators can then install the equipment they need to provide commercial 4G coverage."
[HoC PAC Report page 4.]
The proposal to address this cost increase is to reduce the number of masts to circa 170, which would satisfy the EAS coverage target (point 10 on page 11). Alternatively, the (next) government could provide more funds...
So what is the ESN meant to use when in these vast swathes of uncovered territory?
Just don't have an emergency, and it'll be fine.
Lack of mobile coverage
What annoys me the most is the two-Factor Authentication that seems to be required for so many things these days.
Start a transaction on my desk top, run up the hill to get the SMS code, run back down the hill again, go to type it into the computer and it has timed out!
(WiFi calling is just about OK, but WiFi SMS doesn't seem to work at all!)
Re: Lack of mobile coverage
That's dependent on phone make/model and network. My pixel on Vodafone does calls and SMS. My wife's pixel on O2 won't do SMS! Why isn't service over WiFi not standardised like it is over LTE?
Pretty simple to resolve
If it's somewhere people regularly want to use their phones, then it should have adequate coverage. If it's the middle of the Cairngorms or Dartmoor and you want good mobile coverage, then I recommend a Satellite phone. Yes, they are expensive, but that's the cost of going to or living in the middle of nowhere and wanting mobile phone coverage.
I can see a case for providing coverage in some remote areas for emergency use, but the masts need to be camouflaged effectively as otherwise they ruin the area. It is not difficult to camouflage antennas yet the providers make a big brouhahah about it because they don't want the expense. Towers don't have to be omnidirectional so could be low-rise on either side of a ridge and camouflaged to look like rocks or whatever the local background looks like.
An area should never be forced to have a cell tower if the locals don't want it regardless of what some bureaucrat thinks. However, if the locals choose to not have the tower, then they need to shut the **** up about their crap coverage.
As for those who don't want coverage,...... then why not switch your phone off? If fact, why do you even have a mobile phone?
Roaming
At home, two 'phones, same model. Lebara SIM gets 4G, 3 SIM gets only 3G.
To solve the problem with 4G/3G, OFCOM should mandate cost-free roaming to (an)other network if 4G not available.
Alternatively, mast sharing. Masts run by a central authority (see TV masts). Networks rent space on masts.
Should never have switched off 3G
3G was so often the only usable network when out in the sticks, due to its much longer range compared with 4G and 5G..
The argument is that smaller cells reduce contention and increase total throughput and of course that is true, but a fallback is still needed - and 3G won't ever be overloaded so long as it is only used as a fallback and 4G/5G is available in the most populated areas..
But i guess there's no profit in maintaining such a fallback system, unless they could charge a fee for its use, which afaik they cannot. (And of course if they could charge for using 3G, there'd be an incentive to bork their own 4G/5G towers, so probably not a great idea either)