Consultation Response

Transcription

1 Consultation Response Tackling Partial Not-Spots in Mobile Phone Coverage Department for Culture, Media and Sport Consultation Date: 26 Introduction 1. The CLA represents over 33,000 members in England and Wales who and manage over half of the rural land in England and Wales and run over 300 different types of rural business. All of these businesses will have a direct interest in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport s (DCMS) consultation on resolving the difficulties relating to mobile phone coverage. 2. As one of the leading national rural organisations we have been campaigning for a number of years for far wider and more effective mobile phone coverage for all those who live and work in rural areas. 3. We welcome this consultation as both timely and relevant particularly given the emergence of new mobile technologies that are soon to be rolled out to rural areas, such as 4G. 4. Our response directly addresses the options put forward in the consultation document by reference to the questions put. The options 5. We recognise that four options have been put forward, these being: Do nothing and retain the status quo; Addressing coverage through infrastructure sharing; Multi-Operator Mobile Virtual Network Operator; and, National Roaming. Q1: Do you agree that there is a need to improve the coverage of voice and text services in partial not-spots and that the Government should seek to extend such coverage? 6. The CLA s unequivocal answer is yes but this should also apply to data communications. We do not believe that option 1 above do nothing and retain the status quo is relevant in today s society. We have already seen that the continuation of the rural-urban digital divide in fixed broadband services is simply leading to rural businesses being uncompetitive with their urban counterparts, leading to a reduction in the value the rural economy can play in acting as a dynamic force for the whole of the UK economy. To this end, we believe that it is vital that Government fully addresses the problems associated with poor mobile phone coverage and agrees a solution with the industry that is both practicable and effective. Page 1 of 6

2 Addressing coverage through infrastructure sharing 7. The CLA accepts the premise that it is preferable that there is a consensual approach to the issue of extending mobile phone coverage. It is in the interests of all that a voluntary agreement is reached which is equitable. 8. However, we would support, if necessary, a more prescriptive, legislative route if no agreement can be found. What is important, as far as rural businesses are concerned, is a realistic solution to the current problems. Q2: To what extent are sharing arrangements scaleable beyond the simplest sites that could be shared? 9. The CLA recognises the commercial logic behind the option to extend mast and infrastructure sharing. Indeed, infrastructure sharing provides significant advantages as set out in the consultation: the provision of 3G and 4G data services; and a seamless service with call handover. 10. The provision of data services is extremely important within the context of the flexibility needed in extending broadband coverage. At present, the provision of data services via the mobile phone network in rural areas is extremely poor. This is a considerable concern as rural businesses need to be able to use mobile broadband far more now than in the past in order to remain competitive. 11. We are of the view that it is necessary for the planning authorities to be as flexible as possible with regard to site sharing. We also recognise that certain contractual arrangements between mobile network operators and landlords will need to be revised in the light of infrastructure sharing. We believe that landlords will be open to negotiate terms for site sharing in return for an adequate level of compensation. Q3: Would the draft direction to Ofcom at Annex A be effective in requiring sharing at all sites where there would exist potential coverage benefit? 12. As we have said above, we would very much prefer agreement between government and the industry rather than going down the legislative route. We accept the overall premise of the Government s proposals is to extend mobile phone coverage. However, it is important to stress that this must not be achieved to the detriment of landowners. We believe that consideration needs to be given to situations where there may be perfectly valid reasons why a landowner may not agree to site sharing. In addition, the introduction of any legislation should not alter existing commercial agreements between the Mobile Network Operator and the landowner. As such, we would encourage the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to discuss with landowner representative groups areas where this may be the case. Page 2 of 6

3 Q4: To what extent would the costings referenced in paragraph 54 be generally applicable to all sites at which sharing may be required by the coverage obligation? 13. The CLA generally accepts the calculations made under paragraph 54 and the impact assessment as to the cost per site in the event of site sharing. However, we are somewhat concerned by the reference to where MNOs may try and recoup their costs. Although it is not stated as such, the inference is that MNOs will also seek to reduce their costs by trying to reduce the rent paid to landowners on which the mast sits. 14. Any government inference that suggests a reduction in rental income is unacceptable. The CLA is of the view that the market should dictate the rent offered where site sharing takes place. We are not of the view that there should be a regulated price but we are firmly opposed to a position where landowners are pressurised by MNOs to agree site sharing simply because of a Government commitment to try and extend mobile coverage. Q5: To what extent do you consider mast sharing will achieve sufficient improvements in tackling partial not-spots? 15. As we have said above, we are fully supportive of policy changes that will result in better mobile phone coverage. This is vital both to the social well being of rural communities as as to the efficient running of a rural business. 16. But we are concerned that no emphasis has been given to data services and this appears to be a missing component of an overall solution. 17. However, this is one option out of a possible 3 practical solutions put forward and all options have to be considered carefully. Multi-Operator Mobile Virtual Network Operators (MO-MVNOs) 18. The CLA read with interest the statement in the consultation under paragraph 57 that such offerings (the MO-MVNO model) have not been made more widely available to UK consumers. We believe this to be a key point. 19. It is clear that the market is new and certainly has not, to a large degree, been taken up by the consumer. It should be stressed at this point that one of the key fundamentals of the success of mobile telephony has been its rapid take up by the consumer. 20. It may very well be the case that, in time, consumers will see the advantages of this model and this option will go some way in reducing partial not-spots. However, there is no definitive evidence that this will be the case. 21. Indeed, paragraphs 65 and 66, setting out the benefits and risks of this option, suggests that the risks outweigh the benefits by some margin. We therefore do not believe that, at the present time, this is a viable option and is unlikely to meet the Government s objectives. Page 3 of 6

4 National Roaming 22. It is clear from the consultation that putting in place a national roaming network is not the preferred option of the mobile network operators. According to the MNOs there are a number of technical difficulties, including consumer issues, battery life and the potential loss of data. The CLA recognises the magnitude of these concerns. 23. However, the CLA is of the view that a national roaming network can actually fulfil the objective of removing partial not-spots. Q9: Do you consider that national roaming should be implemented in the UK? Please give your reasons. 24. The CLA has two policy objectives with regard to telecommunications: firstly, to ensure universal coverage; and secondly, to protect the interests of landowners. Clearly, if a national roaming network can be put in place and be seen to work, this is certainly in the interests of the consumer. It also meets, to a large extent, the principle of universal coverage. 25. With regard to the costs of a national roaming network increasing as a result of an increase in rental costs, there is no evidence given that this will be the case. The current system for the negotiation of rents is based on a formula set out under the Electronic Communications Code. We has stated very clearly in our submission to the ongoing proposals to amend the Code that landowners should not be disadvantaged by the commercial interests of large multinational telecommunications companies when it comes to either the renegotiation of rent or the calculation of rent for a new site. Q14: To what extent are agreements between landlords or wireless infrastructure providers and MNOs a limiting factor in pursuing passive infrastructure sharing, multioperators MVNOs, or national roaming? 26. We do not believe that the negotiation of agreements between landowners and MNOs to be a limiting factor. The mobile phone market, unlike that for fixed broadband communications, has been in place for a number of years. Certainly, it has seen significant development and change to the benefit of consumers and MNOs. 27. The Mobile Infrastructure Project (MIP) run by Arqiva on behalf of DCMS is a very good example of how flexibility in approach can actually reward all parties in the market place. Following negotiations with Arqiva, the CLA and the NFU have agreed that, in future negotiations regarding the level of rents, the basis has to be the market rather than a fixed and regulated price. We believe this to be fair and equitable. 28. What we do not believe to be fair and equitable is a situation where MNOs seek to reduce rents where there is no evidence. In the event of a MNO seeking to share a mast with another operator, it is commercial reality that this MNO will have to pay a rent, albeit at a lower level. This is standard commercial practice. Page 4 of 6

5 29. There is no compunction on the part of the landowner, and neither should there be, to enter into a contract with a Mobile Network Operator to erect a mast. In the event that the MNO wishes to place a mast on a landowner s holding, such a decision is firmly based on the commercial return the MNO would anticipate and forecast. This means that when the MNO begins negotiations with the landowner to agree a rental price the state of the market is an undeniable factor. Of course, it is possible that negotiations will be hard but the end result has to be fair and equitable for both parties. 30. The CLA will not accept a situation where a MNO attempts to apply pressure on a landowner to reduce the potential rent on the basis that the mast is perceived to be vital to the community interest. Whilst we agree that increased mobile phone coverage is integral to the rural economy, this does not mean that commercial and market reality should be forsaken. Conclusion 31. The current position with mobile phone coverage is untenable and we support the in recognising that this problem has to be resolved. The lack of suitable telecommunications infrastructure is damaging both to rural social inclusion as well as to the profitability of rural business. At present, the rural-urban digital divide is widening to the detriment of all who live and work in rural communities. As such, a solution has to be found that is both practicable and effective. 32. The CLA believes there are merits in both infrastructure sharing and a national roaming network but there are costs as well. In terms of infrastructure sharing, the extension of data service provision will increase in importance. The rollout of 4G underlines this point. 33. We would prefer there to be agreement between the Government and Mobile Network Operators to be voluntary rather than through regulation. However, any agreement should not disadvantage landowners who are key to site provision and have the long term interest at heart. We believe that there needs to be a dialogue between Government and landowner representatives so that the needs of landowners can be understood. 34. However, Government attempts to increase mobile phone coverage must not imply a reduction in the rent paid to the landowner. Such an inference is inequitable and could very well lead to the unintended consequence of landowners refusing permission for site sharing or indeed, new mast provision which would be regrettable. 35. In principle, we can see the logic behind a proposal for a national roaming network. Although there are a number of technical issues, as outlined by the MNOs, that need to be resolved, a national roaming network would be the preferred solution. 36. However, before Government makes a final decision on which option should be pursued, we believe that it is vital for there to be constructive and purposeful discussions with the industry, affected stakeholders and the Government in order to come to a voluntary agreement rather than going in the direction of a regulatory route. Page 5 of 6

6 For further information please contact: Dr Charles Trotman Senior Rural Business & Economist Adviser CLA, 16 Belgrave Square London SW1X 8PQ Tel: Fax: CLA reference (for internal use only): A Page 6 of 6