Rural mobile coverage: secondary policy priority

clohamon

Minister O'Brien explains priorities for spectrum allocation during Eamon Ryan's time.

"The Multi-Band Spectrum Award 2 (MBSA2) was a significant radio spectrum award process run by ComReg which, in early 2023, led to the award of long term (20 years) spectrum rights suitable for providing new mobile broadband services and increasing network capacity.  Significant coverage obligations apply under these licences and the conditions around coverage were the subject of some discussion between my officials and ComReg with a key focus on delivering improved coverage to population centres rather than solely focusing on geographical coverage. "

Can't remember ComReg volunteering this information prior to the spectrum award.

The Cush

Geographic coverage vs. population coverage was discussed prior to the auction consultation process, I mentioned it in a thread back in 2017.

Mr. Gerry Fahy: ... As was mentioned earlier by my colleagues, the real coverage is the 700 MHz band. That is used today for broadcast services and broadcasts well into valleys and through buildings. That would be the classic coverage spectrum. There is a big debate to be had with all stakeholders as to whether we need to move away from the population expression of coverage towards a geographic expression of coverage. ComReg is completely open minded on that issue.

Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment debate - Tuesday, 23 May 2017

In the end Comreg decided on population coverage route for the auction

Proposal to focus on population coverage

8.23 ComReg proposed to adopt proposals as set out in Section 8.4.4 A of Document 19/59R that a coverage obligation should primarily focus on targeting population coverage.

ComReg 20/122 Multi Band Spectrum Award - Response to Consultation and Decision

clohamon

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123416368#Comment_123416368

I think there's a difference between where you incentivise deployment ('delivery') and how the overall obligations are defined, let alone tested in a meaningful way or even policed.

There are obvious incentives for ComReg to stick with population as the measure. Precisely because it doesn't require coverage in any defined area, and for ComReg to be accountable for in any area. The 'specific locations' in the licences are overwhelmingly in population centres already or at concentration points such as visitor attractions or transport hubs/stops.

And the less money MNOs need to spend on extending their networks the more money that's available to pay spectrum fees, and the higher the bids.

IIRC, ComReg's high cost argument was premised on 3Mb/s data at cell edge. IMO most people would be happy with ubiquitous voice and text.

In relation to a 'debate with stakeholders', IMO private discussions between ComReg and the Department outside the statutory framework are a problem. The Department could easily have given a direction and published it. That's politics I guess.

The Cush

In relation to a 'debate with stakeholders', IMO private discussions between ComReg and the Department outside the statutory framework are a problem. The Department could easily have given a direction and published it. That's politics I guess.

I assume the preliminary discussions were between all the stakeholders, not just Comreg and the Dept, but industry too, was necessary to put a framework in place prior to the big auction consultation, even then I remember the whole consultation process taking years followed by legal delays.

The powers that be were never going to put any onerous coverage obligations on the networks considering it can be difficult to get a mast up in a rural area. Two mobile masts in my rural area didn't happen because of objections, one of which would've provided coverage to us. Now our house is covered by a mast about 8.5 kms away requiring a mobile repeater to provide indoor coverage. There are a few masts closer but topography means we've no coverage from them.

The regulator's decision probably provided the easiest path to a successful auction conclusion and decent return for the exchequer.

What's next? The 800/900/1800 MHz licences expire mid 2030 and the 3.6 GHz licences 2032. Will coverage obligation requirements pop up again?

clohamon

I'm noticing 20-50 base-station locations in small rural Local Authorities that don't have any planning permission - mostly exempted development, rooftops, street-pole solutions, ESB HT pylons, etc.

In relation to ComReg's motives I don't think anything should be assumed.

Its ballooning costs incentivise it to maximise spectrum fees. Whereas it used to return c.€50M/yr to the State just on surplus annual spectrum usage fees, these days it barely breaks even.

AFAIK the Government is supposed to convey its objectives, including spectrum allocation, via the Act (S.13). It's hard to tell at what point ComReg and govt. had their discussions or what arguments they brought to the table. It's odd that the Department would acknowledge it now for little reason. Except perhaps to pin responsibility for poor coverage on Eamon Ryan who is now safely out of the way and can't defend himself.

As for 2030, I expect the whole process will be as rotten as ever.

The Cush

Unfortunately for our rural area it's all mobile masts and cabinets, there isn't anything else tall enough to mount an antenna on, same probably for most rural areas.

Hadn't seen the Comreg income/expenditure forecast previously. At least they're in the black and the don't have to be supported from the exchequer and out of that you have your revenue returns.

Of course the state was due a lump sum of approx. €166m following the auction, with a further €280m due in SUF over the duration of the licences.

Looking at exchequer income for 2023 & 2024 Comreg transferred €149m in 2023 with a further €20m estimated in 2024.

clohamon

Here's a few in Roscommon.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZZWAuhAthfoJ2bCH8

https://maps.app.goo.gl/LT1SMoizq6H8L98N9

https://maps.app.goo.gl/KDcQu57LuoEhetth8

https://maps.app.goo.gl/hsn25Bce9jDspdK7A

The Cush

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123419066#Comment_123419066

I don't deny what you say, but around my area it has to be a mast and people like to object, even the local church isn't tall enough if it was allowed.

In my local village there's two 18m and one 24m mast, none able to serve us. One of the failed applications would have covered us but it wasn't to be.

I know masts up to 12m are exempt from planning but no operator has gone that route here, maybe not tall enough to justify cost vs. coverage.