back to article Mobe not-spots 'landmark deal'? We ain't thick, Javid

The “landmark agreement” between the government and the mobile phone operators has been reported as a coup, something worthy, and a step forward. However, scratch the surface and it’s merely a face-saving exercise. It’s more than a little difficult to work out what the agreement actually says, but we here at the offices of El …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Face saving.... as usual....and ?

    Since when has any govt announcement been anything but an a*se - sorry face - saving exercise?

    This being said why such animosity against national roaming agreements?

    They have worked and keep working perfectly well on the continent without any of the

    "horrific" issues technical or commercial claimed by opponents.....

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Face saving.... as usual....and ?

      The "big 4" operate across 3 different set's of frequencies so they would all need to install their own kit in each others masts requiring legal and environmental agreement with each other, landlords, local do gooders, NIMBY's, mumsnet and every other "cells cause <insert illness> group out there ......so it would be easier financially to just not do anything

  2. KjetilS

    I don't see why roaming should be a huge problem? It's already in place for foreign users, so the technical aspects are already in place.

    I also don't see why it should be an economic problem? This way operators can choose whether to pay for their own sites or rent capacity from their competitors. It should even make it economically feasible to build more sites, since that means competitors will probably have to rent capacity and help pay for the site.

    However, this all means fairer competition between operators, so I can see why the operators are against it.

    1. Tom 35

      There is a big plus for customers, you only really need one network in areas with low population.

      But a big negative for the current providers. It's now easier for some upstart to move into the market as they don't need to build a full network all at once.

      1. MatthewSt

        But surely the new upstart would pay roaming rates to the existing network, meaning that everyone wins? The consumer gets signal and the existing network gets a return on their investment.

        For the record I think national roaming isn't the way forwards but I'm confused why this is always overlooked.

        1. SImon Hobson Bronze badge

          I agree, for any operator, there will be a financial penalty (payments made to the 'foreign' network) whenever one of their customers can't use the home network. Each operator will be free to decide where to draw the line between paying another operator or putting their own cell in.

          Conversely, any operator with better coverage at a location will gain revenue from competitors.

          And "technical problems" ? What technical problems ? Roaming is part of the spec, all the operators already support it (both ways - their own customers when abroad, foreigners when over here). "All" it will need is some management interfaces to handle the inter operator billing - which they already do with non-UK operators.

          1. Paul Shirley

            @Simon operators are more than happy to support it for foreign phones or networks, till recently they got to charge what they liked for the service and even now they charge far beyond cost. There's no way to hide profiteering in this compulsory national roaming, of course they don't want to play.

            The argument against seems to be little more than the networks don't want to do it and government won't be able to compel them or have any clue about doing it right. It's a fair observation, gov IS incompetent and the networks are experts at maintaining profits by fair means or foul. Not hard to guess which will get what they want in that contest.

      2. James 100

        "But a big negative for the current providers. It's now easier for some upstart to move into the market as they don't need to build a full network all at once."

        Not really: first, we have plenty of upstart operators with no network at all, some even owned in whole or part by the main networks themselves (Giffgaff by O2, Tesco Mobile part-owned by O2). Second, that roaming has been an option for years: because of their "significant market power", both O2 and Vodafone were already required to provide roaming services to the other operators if asked. When Three were getting started, though, they contracted with both Orange and T-Mobile for this instead.

        So, all five (now four) operators have already either been required or have chosen to participate in similar arrangements for years - it just hasn't been much use.

        I happen to have a SIM card which is already capable of domestic roaming (I can choose whether to use O2, Vodafone or EE - Three should also be an option, but apparently doesn't work right now) - but it turns out (perhaps thanks to O2 and Vodafone having merged network operations under "Cornerstone" anyway) that in almost every single case I've had a poor signal from one network, it's been much the same from the others anyway.

        TL;DR: Government making a big fuss about "forcing" the networks to offer stuff that was already available anyway and actually offers negligible benefits. Rather like Perry's efforts to ram filtering down everyone's throats...

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    And the URL is :-

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7x14ZD9IEBE

    for those wishing to brush up on their Turkish.

  4. Dazzz

    Network testing

    It would be nice if Ofcom got someone to do the network testing with handsets rather than an external aerial bolted onto a car to check coverage, much more of a real world test.

    1. Richard 12 Silver badge

      Re: Network testing

      I don't think any of the handsets expose the necessary detail.

      I believe they only test signal strength though, which isn't a great indicator of whether or not a given cell can actually sustain a call.

  5. Gary Heard

    A possible alternative to Roaming

    As El Reg is so opposed to Network roaming (and I still do not buy the reasons they put forward) how about something slightly different?

    Let's assume you are a country dweller like myself. My phone is on all the time, the networks can see what the capability of the mast I'm connecting to is. If I pay for a 3G plan, but the network is incapable of providing it, the network should rebate some of the (Network not Phone) charges associated with the account, that would mean that there is at least some incentive to upgrade services in rural areas

    If you have a Suresignal or a Boostbox (Voda or O2 other suppliers exist) then you have a pseudo 3G connection using a picocell and your own broadband, but at least you have a signal, so, in places where there is minimum 2Mb broadband, the networks should be persuaded (forced) to give out the picocells free of charge, they should also allow the registration of any (same Network) mobile the contract owner wants ( usually fiends or family who pay their own way) irrespective of whether they are PAYG or Contract

    1. YorksinOaks

      Re: A possible alternative to Roaming

      "so, in places where there is minimum 2Mb broadband, the networks should be persuaded (forced) to give out the picocells free of charge, they should also allow the registration of any (same Network) mobile the contract owner wants ( usually fiends or family who pay their own way) irrespective of whether they are PAYG or Contract"

      Hey, I have a car. I should be able to drive it anywhere I want, and if there is no road, then someone should build one for me.

      All "National Roaming" does is cause your phone to constantly hunt for the best signal so you have no battery power from mid-afternoon. There would be a short-term gain while you can roam onto any network, then the gains will stop and the drawbacks begin. If roaming traffic swamps a site, it takes months to get capacity expanded, probably with planning delays for new antennas and maybe a site rebuild. Meanwhile all the customers of the operator who put the site there and the roamers have poor service.

      No-one will build a new site (with planning delays of 18 months while all the locals protest, bumping up costs) at a cost of £30-80K, only to see their competitors immediately reap the coverage benefits. How do they compete for your business then, apart from a race to the bottom on price, and the associated unwillingness (inability?) to invest in improvements.

      1. Flywheel

        Re: How do they compete for your business

        Simple! The incoming government needs to scrap all these little MNOs with their dog-in-a-manger attitude towards customers and build British National Mobile; then you'd only have one enormous network to connect to!

        It would work for the Tories (if they get in) because they'd have all the Telcos bidding for a share of the revenue. It would work for Labour because it's a Socialist thing to do.

  6. Meerkatjie

    I don't know the full details but in New Zealand the original public (now private) telecom company has about 97% population coverage and the nearest competitor has about the same. The smaller providers tend to have roaming deals with either of those networks so will have masts and what-not in certain major cities and then you fall into local roaming once you leave those cities. From what I can tell the cost of the calls don't change when you go into roaming.

    1. Alan Brown Silver badge

      "In New Zealand the original public (now private) telecom company has about 97% population coverage and the nearest competitor has about the same."

      And for 20 years they used incompatible standards ((D)AMPS vs GSM, then CDMA vs GSM/3G, etc) and different bands. Things have only started converging in the last few years.

      An outfit like the National Grid could do quite well out of leasing out spots on its masts, but that comes with its own set of politics.

  7. simmondp

    Mixing "cell (call) handover" with "roaming"

    Let's be clear, when no signal is available from my operator my phone will make call using any operator on the 999/112 number - and I believe even if no SIM is actually present?

    Once you have started the call with a roaming operator then all cell handover will need to be done with that operator - big deal I can live with that restriction.

    Simply mandate roaming; and Offcom can ensure that your provider pays a sensible surcharge to the roaming provider (at no additional cost to the user) - so when the usage gets too high in a particular area your provider has the ROI to upgrade, in-fill or provide new infrastructure in that area.

    Market forces should take care of the rest!

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like