News - Digital switchover complete, 800Mhz available with T&Cs

[Funkstar]

Sorry, should clarify: my plan entailed Ofcom (or similar) to deploy the infrastructure, charging the networks to use it. This way we could see excellent coverage of the whole of the UK at a lower cost than currently, where each provider sets up their own mast.

This isn't nearly the problem it was even a year or two ago. Orange and T-Mobile o longer have their own networks, it's all EE now. Vodafone and O2 have also signed an agreement which means they will be sharing masts and transmitters, although they haven't merged, their infrastructure costs going forward will be a lot less. So that's really just two qhysical networks in the UK, everyone else just piggy backs on those.

Unlike the move to 3G, 4G will be a much simpler roll out. The vast majority of sites are now 3G and a lot of these can be upgraded to 4G with simple component change outs. Deploying 3G required extensive re-engineering of their networks and infrastructure. Some of the most modern bits of network hardware might just need some new software as it will have been built with LTE in mind.

[watercooled]

Edit: OK had to re-check some stuff I wasn't sure about.

As I understand it, Vodafone and O2 are sharing physical base structures i.e. masts and presumably cabinets/ducts/etc which should drastically lower setup costs, although they're still operating their own independent networks.

EE, as a merger between Orange and T-Mobile, are in the process of fully merging everything; air interface, spectrum, transit, equipment, etc.

However, there's also Three. AFAIK they're partnered with EE with MBNL to share UMTS infrastruture, including RAN, while remaining independent companies. However, I'm not sure how their relationship carries over to LTE, as Three have been complaining (Like O2/Vodafone) about EE being able to re-purpose the 1800MHz band, and are planning to buy some of that 1800MHz spectrum from EE.

[miniyazz]

So you essentially have a state-sponsored monopoly running the air interface and transit networks? Might seem like a nice idea, but it wouldn't mean better coverage or lower prices in reality, far from it.

This isn't nearly the problem it was even a year or two ago. Orange and T-Mobile o longer have their own networks, it's all EE now. Vodafone and O2 have also signed an agreement which means they will be sharing masts and transmitters, although they haven't merged, their infrastructure costs going forward will be a lot less. So that's really just two qhysical networks in the UK, everyone else just piggy backs on those.

Unlike the move to 3G, 4G will be a much simpler roll out. The vast majority of sites are now 3G and a lot of these can be upgraded to 4G with simple component change outs. Deploying 3G required extensive re-engineering of their networks and infrastructure. Some of the most modern bits of network hardware might just need some new software as it will have been built with LTE in mind.

That's true, what with the recent mergers networks are already consolidating. Still, it doesn't help anyone to have two networks covering essentially the same area when one will do.
Some things are better state-sponsored. A not-for-profit group set up by the government with public funding but independent from the government, to establish a network covering the whole of the UK, would IMO have been an excellent project had it been set up from the early-mid 90s (when mobile networks were becoming established). Once established it would no longer require public funding and would maintain and upgrade its network from the sale of bandwidth to the telecom providers, and would be able to provide this service for a cost lower than any individual network could do by itself. It could also have a remit to provide coverage to the entirety of the UK rather than economically viable areas, which is really all that happens at the moment.

The government seems to be trying to do a similar thing with broadband at the moment using BT, with limited success: BT of course being a private company with a responsibility to shareholders).

[watercooled]

But then you remove all redundancy, lose half the bandwidth in a given area, and leave maintenance to the government who would likely give it a very low priority as they'd get their license money regardless. Unless it was made illegal, it's very likely private companies would still prefer to take care of their own network, buying decent equipment and maintaining it properly. I see no real-world advantage to a state-run mobile network in the UK.

BT are in somewhat of a monopolistic position in the broadband market, and look what a disaster that's turned out to be. Most places are still stuck with ADSL so realistically <10Mbps in most places, and let's be honest, they've hardly been on-schedule with the FTTC rollout. Some progress was made when LLU was allowed, at least you didn't have to rely on BT's awful, unreliable, over-subscribed core network; the only real incentive they had to upgrade was when they had LLU competition, and that was only allowed because law demanded it. If anything, we're moving further and further away from a monopoly; BT have had to open most of their infrastructure up to other networks so rollout of their own equipment to customers costs far less, and so encourages it.

If you want an even worse example of a monopoly, look at KCom in Hull...

[James@OVIC]

iPhone users aren't the sort to worry about penetration.

How very true!! :-P

[miniyazz]

But then you remove all redundancy, lose half the bandwidth in a given area, and leave maintenance to the government who would likely give it a very low priority as they'd get their license money regardless. Unless it was made illegal, it's very likely private companies would still prefer to take care of their own network, buying decent equipment and maintaining it properly. I see no real-world advantage to a state-run mobile network in the UK.

BT are in somewhat of a monopolistic position in the broadband market, and look what a disaster that's turned out to be. Most places are still stuck with ADSL so realistically <10Mbps in most places, and let's be honest, they've hardly been on-schedule with the FTTC rollout. Some progress was made when LLU was allowed, at least you didn't have to rely on BT's awful, unreliable, over-subscribed core network; the only real incentive they had to upgrade was when they had LLU competition, and that was only allowed because law demanded it. If anything, we're moving further and further away from a monopoly; BT have had to open most of their infrastructure up to other networks so rollout of their own equipment to customers costs far less, and so encourages it.

If you want an even worse example of a monopoly, look at KCom in Hull...

There's already no redundancy (e.g. if on O2 you can't use T-mobile's network) except for emergency calls. Yes, you could argue that halving the effective bandwidth could be a problem, but I don't think it would be in reality. It wouldn't be government-maintained, it would be an independent group with a remit to create a good nationwide service and no financial incentive (unlike telecom companies) to skimp on capacity in cities due to being not-for-profit. As telecom companies are businesses, I very much doubt they would wish to create their own network of base stations when they could piggyback on one all-encompassing network at a fraction of the cost, with better range. There's already plenty of companies with this business model - Virgin Mobile, Giff Gaff, Chitter Chatter, Tesco Mobile to name but a few.

The broadband situation is a much more difficult one. Not only does the company charged with rolling out superfast broadband have a responsibility to shareholders, and is therefore unable to provide the service to non-economically viable areas unless government money is specifically earmarked for it, but it is much harder (and, I believe, more expensive) to set up the infrastructure - much of which requires digging up roads.
Mobile networks on the other hand is something which would really benefit from a single 'master' network, both in terms of cost and coverage.

We are currently in the ridiculous situation whereby a foreign sim card can be used in this country by roaming on any network - whichever has best signal. This means that visitors to the country will often find they have signal whereas those with UK sims will not, because they are locked to a network and cannot roam on any available network. Switching to one larger and cheaper to maintain (compared to two smaller, separate networks) would solve this.

[watercooled]

In theory, yes.

But I don't know of any company that works that effectively in practice. With the government in charge of the purse strings, and with no financial incentive to make much of an effort, you'd have the minimum possible amount spent, subject to constant cuts, and the potential to charge telecom providers extortionate amounts to piggyback with no competition.

Again, if you want an great (terrible) example of a telecom monopoly, look at kcom/karoo. No good comes of monopolies for consumers, however you disguise them.

BT were state-sponsored to provide decent broadband to rural areas, among others, with the likes of Infinity. Great lot of good that did!

[miniyazz]

Maybe I'm too much of an idealist here