Ofcom explains the not in the not-spot
It's money, not NIMBYs, that stops us calling
Steps to Take Before Choosing a Business Continuity Partner
Ofcom has been taking a long, hard look at why some areas of the country don't have mobile coverage, and reached the shock conclusion that it's 'cos no one lives there.
Not that the regulator jumped straight to such a decision. First it commissioned a 61-page report from PA (pdf) to examine the issues around not-spots, and then published its own 70-page analysis, which concludes that operators aren't building out 2G coverage anymore and that they only build 3G networks where there are customers to use them.
That might sound obvious, it certainly does to us. But Ofcom's analysis spends many pages running through alternative reasons, such as an inability to get planning permission for new masts, or operators' focus, before concluding that it is population that drives operators to build out networks.

There's not a lot of people up here, and not a lot of money either.
Ofcom reckons 97 per cent of the UK population has 2G network coverage, which covers 91 per cent of the country. Only 76 per cent of the country has 3G coverage, though 87 per cent of the population still have at least one operator providing outdoor 3G coverage.
Along with the new analysis, the regulator has provided some recommendations for consumers: check coverage before you buy, check the returns policy, and consider a femtocell. The latter option is, of course, depending on the customer having decent (fixed) broadband which is a shame as ADSL range often coincides with lack of cellular coverage.
But an operator's base station costs around £60,000 to build, and sometimes twice that, then there's around £15,000 a year in rent and maintenance. Even a little microcell can cost £45,000 plus a couple of grand in annual maintenance, so customers have to make a lot of calls to make that worthwhile. Such costs are higher in the remote regions where back-haul is more of a problem, reinforcing the problem.
And it's not a problem that Ofcom can solve - the regulator has no remit to force operators to build out. It can encourage network sharing as 3 and Everything Everywhere are doing, but only encourage, not mandate. O2 and Vodafone still claim to be working on shared air conditioning, and power supplies, which should cut costs slightly, but only where they both want additional coverage.
The only thing the regulator can do is make the provision of national coverage part of a licence obligation. That's hard to do retrospectively, but Ofcom will be selling off Digital Dividend licences next year and will soon be consulting on whether they should carry a coverage obligation. The public balked at paying 50 pence a month to provide wired broadband to the countryside, a national-coverage obligation would be much the same thing - resulting in urban wireless users subsidising rural coverage - but might be an easier pill to swallow if only 'cos they'll be able to use it on their days off. ®
COMMENTS
Indeed!
Ironically it's when you're trundling up those wonderful single track roads, through glorious scenery of the north-west coast of Scotland, you get a problem with your motor and the only thing you can see for 10 miles is a small shack being used as a wind break by some sheep, that's when you could really do with a mobile signal!
Making provision of national coverage part of a licence obligation
Ofcom already did this with the 3G licences, requiring 80% population coverage by a certain date, which O2 missed and was threatened with a hefty fine. Just a shame that Ofcom stopped at 80%.
"make the provision of national coverage part of a licence obligation. "
"make the provision of licenced coverage part of a licence obligation. "
Why not indeed.
If the provision of coverage as per the granted licence within some reasonable time was actually required as part of the privilege of retaining the licence, the UK might actually have a nationwide set of proper fixed wireless access broadband networks by now.
Even if we didn't have such a set of networks, at least the licences wouldn't still all be in PCCW's hands, so if anyone else did want to have a go, they'd be able to apply for a licence.
Ofcon. What are they for, exactly?
If the same logic - deliver the service as per the licence obligation, or lose the licence - also applied to commercial radio, we wouldn't have identical Heart FM stations replacing the former "local" commercial stations from one end of the country to the other. But Ofcon don't seem to be able to cope with the concept of enforcing licence conditions else revoking the licence.
Ofcon certainly don't seem to be able to cope with the concept that there's little strategic value in having many competing broadband networks in some profitable places whilst a barely-regulated monopolist is left to service (or ignore) the less profitable ones. Same goes for mobile networks too, except there's no single monopolist.
Ofcon. What are they for, exactly?

IT infrastructure monitoring strategies
Requirements Checklist for Choosing a Cloud Backup and Recovery Service Provider
Data control in the cloud
Cloud based data management
Agentless Backup is Not a Myth