MSE News: Government to boost mobile coverage

zagfles

robt wrote: »

£150 million is loose change... keep it in perspective.

Yes it's amusing seeing people getting so wound up about such a trivial amount:). The govt spend well over a billion every day.

diamonds

NFH wrote: »

Maybe they're using the huge amount of money that the Treasury received from the auction of mobile spectrums.

that 20 billion didnt even cover UK debts before 3 launched as the first 3G operater ! it however made a interest only payment for a year !!

2sides2everystory

robt wrote: »

£150 million is loose change... keep it in perspective.

In your dreams. What a strange thing to say about a government deciding to subsidise mobile phone networks who are ripping off UK customers constantly.

YOU keep it in perspective robt, and be sure you can discern right from wrong.

zagfles

2sides2everystory wrote: »

In your dreams. What a strange thing to say about a government deciding to subsidise mobile phone networks who are ripping off UK customers constantly.

YOU keep it in perspective robt, and be sure you can discern right from wrong.

It's not "subsiding mobile networks", it's subsiding coverage in areas where it's not commercially benefical for the mobile networks to invest due to low population density. Areas that would otherwise not get coverage.

Even if you don't live in such an area you might be grateful of having a signal if you get into trouble eg breakdown when travelling in such an area.

grumbler

2sides2everystory wrote: »

... mobile phone networks who are ripping off UK customers constantly.

I think this is a wrong thing to say. They are just normal businesses, not super-profitable.
They have never ripped me off. In fact, my family have never paid a penny for mobile services that we have been receiving in UK for years. This is just an ugly business model allowing the active customers to benefit from the slack customers being ripped off. This model is typical for UK and can be found in other areas like energy supply, insurance, banking, railways etc.

zagfles

grumbler wrote: »

I think this is a wrong thing to say. They are just normal businesses, not super-profitable.
They have never ripped me off. In fact, my family have never paid a penny for mobile services that we have been receiving in UK for years. This is just an ugly business model allowing the active customers to benefit from the slack customers being ripped off. This model is typical for UK and can be found in other areas like energy supply, insurance, banking, railways etc.

Agreed, although mobile companies seem to take it to a new level - as in recent threads charging 250x the price just for crossing a border...

In other areas like insurance and banking customers have some comeback, eg PPI mis-selling, endowments.

It seems if you're a mug who took out PPI without realising or bought an endowment you have a claim, but if some mobile shop misled you about a contract you're stuffed...

tifo

OneADay wrote: »

Can't see why the whiners are complaining about this

Because mobile phone companies are private companies that make a profit for their shareholders and not their customers.

We don't pay our taxes to subsidise commercial companies.

grumbler

tifo wrote: »

Because mobile phone companies are private companies that make a profit for their shareholders and not their customers.

We don't pay our taxes to subsidise commercial companies.

Small businesses

• are private,
• make profit not for their customers,
• are commercial companies.

However, they receive massive financial support from the government.

tifo

grumbler wrote: »

Small businesses

• are private,
• make profit not for their customers,
• are commercial companies.

However, they receive massive financial support from the government.

you're saying mobile phone companies (the 5 that there are) are SMALL companies?

there's a difference between helping small companies and large corporations.

and what are banks? SMALL companies?

robt_2

tifo wrote: »

you're saying mobile phone companies (the 5 that there are) are SMALL companies? have you looked at their financial records?

grumbler did not say they were small.