MSE News: Government to boost mobile coverage

zagfles

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.

So no trains then...

2sides2everystory

zagfles wrote: »

So no trains then...

Hmmm ... the country needs a way to get to work zagfles!

I think here is a better idea that costs taxpayers nothing and gains favour for the government. The government should insist that the mobile companies who cannot offer proper coverage in the areas in question should immediately provide mobile contracts completely free to all resident personal and business customers in those areas but with automatic roaming enabled so the phone hunts on to any network that works.

Then we'd see how fast that lot got themselves sorted out

zagfles

2sides2everystory wrote: »

Hmmm ... the country needs a way to get to work zagfles!

Err... yes, I was taking the p out of the comment above that "We don't pay our taxes to subsidise commercial companies"

I think here is a better idea that costs taxpayers nothing and gains favour for the government. The government should insist that the mobile companies who cannot offer proper coverage in the areas in question should immediately provide mobile contracts completely free to all resident personal and business customers in those areas but with automatic roaming enabled so the phone hunts on to any network that works.

Then we'd see how fast that lot got themselves sorted out

Except that the areas in question probably have no mobile coverage whatsoever, so there is no "network that works". So this would cost the networks nothing and solve nothing.

2sides2everystory

Yes I realised you were mickey-taking but it was an interesting point - we need certain infrastructure for the good of the country but when we license infrastructure and the licensee takes shortcuts to profit and fails to provide a full service then they need to be reminded who is boss.

I think the black/white suggestion that there are areas with adequate coverage and areas with no coverage suggesting nothing in between is rather too convenient and is of course not a true picture of the problem.

The reality is that different networks have different penetration into difficult areas. In one location I know, I can get Vodafone signal strength on GSM between 16% and 25%, which is the best I am likely to see, but I cannot get Virgin (T mobile?) above 16% and often it is less and unusable. I can just about get a signal strong enough to get out on 3 mobile if I walk about a bit, same with Orange and O2 but those last 3 are probably almost as unreliable as T-mobile in that location.

In that case, the local Vodafone mast should allow roaming by customers of the other four networks. They would have to pay Vodafone for the privilege. This might in turn cause capacity problems making the area "unreliable" and that is why I say that ANY network's customers residing in the area should be given free contracts.

Market forces would soon sort it out after that and any bordering "no network" areas would also benefit as they came into coverage of one or more networks.

Why the taxpayer should have to pay is beyond me - it clearly is just some cosy deal that the government has made.