Reply to post:

£150m, three years... TWO base stations. You guessed it


Is it me or are there soooo many things wrong with this project.

A. Surely if there is only 1 operator this is still a not spot and the project should encourage a bit of sharing. I.e. share it, well subsidise you with money from the others OR we will fine a disporportially big fine. Your choice.

B. 2g is ridiculous and 3g is the *minimum*. Data is equally important as voice these days

C. The operators should have been forced to each stump up 1/5 of the cost not the gov. (EE getting the honours of 2/5 for their merger and 4g head start) - can't be accused of gov subsidy.

I'm starting to get right hacked off with private business that essentially has a protected market (I.e. barriers to new entrants so high that new competitors unlikely) not covering areas of 'uneconomic value'. If you provide public service (gas/electric/phone/internet/water etc) then you should have to cover the poor pickings as well as the rich ones. While I accept that there may be marginally higher charge for the service it would probably be in reality marginal.

Don't even get me started on the electricity companies, first we build the power stations and this morning we are about to spend 11 billion on smart meters. You'll be telling me my next smart phone will come from the gov from taxes but I'll pay the operators for the service and they get to keep all the profit.

....I need a lie down.....

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

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019