back to article Ofcom is to get powers to fine mobe providers for crap service

Communications provider Ofcom has gained powers to fine mobile operators up to £2m if they fail to comply with coverage obligations under their spectrum licence. The new penalties will be introduced under the 150-page Digital Economy Bill, which significantly boost the regulator's powers. The Bill granted the regulator powers …

  1. Oor Nonny-Muss
    Boffin

    Fine?

    So - OFCOM fines $MOBE_OP (stop laughing at the risible idea that OFCOM will actually do anything of the sort, they're a regulator so they don't actually do anything that they're supposed to) for poor performance that is probably more or less impossible to definitively establish.

    Subsequently $MOBE_OP's profits are depressed so they put up my contract price to recover the "lost profit" presumably?

    Remind me who is being served here.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Fine?

      Its about time @ofcom prevented any network data charges been made where Data is attempted over poor slow connections - i.e. 2G/Edge between mobile and mast.

      Would have the effect of forcing any old 2G legacy data networks to be upgraded to 3G / 4G before charges can be applied to data transfers. And prevent Networks showing 2G data coverage as a means of masking their lack of 3G / 4G coverage in rural areas.

      @ofcom its about time you faced up to the fact that 2G/Edge Data transfers between mast and mobile are all but useless and if thats what the network operator is still giving, at least prevent them charging for shit service.

      But then I'm expecting @ofcom to be thinking outside the box, so its not going to happen.

      1. Neil 44

        Re: Fine?

        Trouble is, there are are now lots of M2M services (like energy - gas, electric, heat etc meters) out there that are dependent on the 2G service.

        Lots were installed before there was much 3G (and no 4G!)...

        Many are privately owned, so there's no "utility company" to foot the bill for replacing them...

        I think we are tied to 2G existing for quite a while yet...

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Fine?

          Mobile operators have the IMEI number of the Featurephone/Smartphone - easy to filter Billing 'free 2G' to consumer/business Smartphones. And no, in no shape or form is 2GB relevant (or should have charges applied) in 2016, its absolutely useless, and is a red flag to show Mobile Operators haven't invested in certain (many rural) areas.

          O2 - I'm looking at you especially.

      2. anthonyhegedus Silver badge

        Re: Fine?

        2G does have a purpose. It's good enough for notifications to be sent through to mobiles. So for example, I'll get an email notification, or facebook notification, etc. But of course having received the notification, I can't actually go and read the entire email, or go into facebook, because 2G is all but useless in reality.

        We need to take the bull by the horns here and reuse most of the 2G frequencies for 4G. I am assuming that 4G will have the same workable range as 2G if it's using the same frequency. Unfortunately there are still a good many legacy devices that require 2G so we can't just turn it off.

      3. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: Fine?

        "Its about time @ofcom"

        Downvoted for not realising this isn't Twatter and the missing apostrophe.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Dr Syntax...

          Thanks, for making it feel more like Twatter.

    2. Commswonk

      Re: Fine?

      Remind me who is being served here.

      A perfectly fair point, but this problem is hardly unique to the relationship between the Ofcom, the telcos and their customers. Exactly the same problem arises with Ofgem / energy companies / customers, and Ofwat / supply companies / customers and so on. If (say) a building company is heavily fined for a major H & S failure the money it forks out can only come from what it has made from building and selling houses, so the next development may have a few corners cut without any corresponding drop in the "prices from" figure.

      Ultimately it is the end user who finishes up paying; always.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Fine?

        Exactly the same problem arises with Ofgem / energy companies / customers,

        That is the case, but the outcomes vary dramatically. So Ofcom have done diddly squat for consumers for a very long while. Ofwat have done a pretty good job of regulating the asset-based water business to keep costs under control whilst delivering a decent service. Ofgem on the other hand have become a rabid dog, forever running round snarling, growling and fining energy companies (something approaching £290m in the last five or so years, all paid by you). It wields undue influence with the sub-par policy makers at DECC, and between them they have come up with complex, expensive programmes that add millions of quid a year to customer bills (FiT, Green Deal, etc). It comes up with regular "market reviews" that always have a bad outcome, from the original bankrupting of British Energy, through to the more recent ill fated "Retail Market Review" that decided that you, the public, were too stupid to be offered more than four tariffs (and much of that is now having to be backed out following a long winded and expensive CMA enquiry, again all at your expense). it claims to be in favour of markets, whilst always trying to oppose their functioning, for the simple reason that Ofgem has a preconceived view of what energy consumers ought to be buying, and that's very different from what you and I mostly want.

        The really interesting thing is that the potential Ofcom fines are capped at £20k a day - so for a year's continued "offending" less than £7.5m That's more example of incompetent law making and regulation, because we're talking about small change to the big players. Vodafone have an operating profit around £1.4bn from their UK business, I think they must be laughing into their champagne at such trivial fines. If, on the other hand, you were a an MVNO with a handful of customers (and reliant on an MNO for most of your service quality), then that money matters.

        So, BAU in the world of telecoms: Big players get away scot free, regulator toothless and useless.

  2. Arthur the cat Silver badge

    "in the Bill is a legal right to fast broadband"

    The bill overview fact sheet on the government web site says

    "give every household a legal right to request fast broadband connection"

    which isn't exactly the same thing. I can request a supermodel to have sex with me but I'm more likely to get a punch in the mouth than sex.

    1. adam payne

      Re: "in the Bill is a legal right to fast broadband"

      Depends on their definition of fast broadband.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "in the Bill is a legal right to fast broadband"

        The current definition sits firmly and comfortably, as though BT themselves wrote it, so it fits in with the mediocre plans of FTTC over copper.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      a punch in the mouth

      So, an improvement on TalkTalk customer service, by several orders of magnitude.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Go get 'em watchsloth.

    Go one boy, savage them, go o... what are you doing?

    Why are you going to sleep?

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