Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Rural mobile coverage: secondary policy priority

  • 03-05-2025 11:45AM
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,877 ✭✭✭


    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.



Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 16,199 ✭✭✭✭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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,877 ✭✭✭clohamon


    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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 16,199 ✭✭✭✭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?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,877 ✭✭✭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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 16,199 ✭✭✭✭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.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 16,199 ✭✭✭✭The Cush


    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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,877 ✭✭✭clohamon


    Brian Stanley TD asks about phone services. New Minister has views.

    Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)

    419. To ask the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment if his Department will look into the issues around very poor broadband and phone services in rural parts of Laois, particularly in Errill and Rathdowney; the stage that the National Broadband Programme is at for this region; and if he will make a statement on the matter. 

    Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick County, Fine Gael)

    Phone service is primarily a matter for mobile network operators, operating on a commercial basis in a liberalised market, regulated by the Commission for Communications Regulation (ComReg). ComReg is statutorily independent in the exercise of its functions in accordance with section 11 of the Communications Regulation Act 2002.

    Not sure if this is loose language or it indicates a shift in thinking.

    Post edited by clohamon on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 16,199 ✭✭✭✭The Cush


    This was the regular line from the previous Dept/Minister, basically no difference, for example

    The roll-out of infrastructure for mobile telecommunications services in Ireland is primarily a matter for mobile network operators, operating on a commercial basis in a liberalised market, regulated by the Commission for Communications Regulation (ComReg). ComReg is statutorily independent in the exercise of its functions in accordance with section 11 of the Communications Regulation Act 2002.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,877 ✭✭✭clohamon


    I took it to imply that all phone service was now primarily a matter for mobile networks, rather than just mobile service.

    You can see from the previous ComReg Action plan that Voice-only USO AFL (At a Fixed Location) seems to have run into the sand. I couldn't find a relevant Information Notice — (the published Eircom QoS stats are non-binding).

    Screenshot 2025-07-08 at 07.57.33.png

    The new ComReg plan has no mention of USO AFL either.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 16,199 ✭✭✭✭The Cush


    You could be right, it did occur to me when reading the reply. Generally these type of questions refer to mobile coverage.

    The Comreg action says completed in Q4 24, how was it completed? Awaiting an opinion from the Dept.?

    Current position from Comreg

    Following several public consultations, ComReg established that fixed voice communications services cannot be ensured commercially in the State, therefore there is not a Universal Service Provider in Ireland.

    ComReg communicated this decision to the Minister and requested his opinion as to whether other potential public policy tools can or cannot ensure access to voice communications services in the State. ComReg may issue a separate response to the consultation and a decision on the other preliminary views consulted, depending on the Minister’s opinion.

    Currently, there are no Universal Service Obligations covered under Regulation 72(1) of the Code Regulations.

    Universal Service | Commission for Communications Regulation

    S.I. No. 444/2022 - European Union (Electronic Communications Code) Regulations 2022

    Availability of universal service and designation

    72.(1) Where the Regulator establishes, taking into account the results, where available, of the geographical survey conducted in accordance with Regulation 100 and any additional evidence it deems necessary, that the availability at a fixed location of adequate broadband or of voice communications services cannot be ensured under normal commercial circumstances in the State or different parts of it, and the Minister is of the opinion that other potential public policy tools cannot ensure access to adequate broadband or to voice communications services in the State or any part of it as identified by the Regulator, then the Regulator may make a designation under paragraph (3) to impose appropriate universal service obligations to meet all reasonable requests by those end-users for accessing such services.

    Post edited by The Cush on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,877 ✭✭✭clohamon


    After a consultation (see link below), the Department replied that it had no policy tools to deliver Voice-USO AFL. So, back to ComReg, which, according to its 2024-2025 Action Plan, was going to issue an Information Notice (see screenshot above), which I can't find.

    https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-culture-communications-and-sport/consultations/consultation-on-availability-of-voice-communications-services-at-a-fixed-location-vfl-existence-of-potential-public-policy-tools/

    btw, all the replies to the consultation disagreed with DECC's analysis, for various reasons.

    Post edited by clohamon on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 16,199 ✭✭✭✭The Cush


    Did they publish a response to the consultation, not available in that link.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 16,199 ✭✭✭✭The Cush


    So, back to this PQ, is the Dept indicating VFL no longer falls under a USO and is now down to the availability of a mobile signal at a fixed location?

    Another nail in the coffin of the copper landline, especially in rural areas. Strange alright that Comreg hasn't published that Information Notice. Also no mention of voice or USO in their Strategy Statement for the next 2 years.

    We got rid of our landline 3 years ago this month primarily due to the introduction of the CPI+3% annual increase combined with the regular outages due to line faults, and installed a multiband repeater that gave us indoor mobile calls and data



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,877 ✭✭✭clohamon


    It could be just a slightly loose answer to a PQ. Or it could be interpreted as a dig at ComReg for having created this situation and implying that it's their job to sort it out.

    I think the original point of the Minister's opinion on Public Policy Tools was to give ComReg a justification to reinstate the VFL USO. That would mean some choices to be made by Eircom – either, go to court, or submit to the VFL USO and endure the copper maintenance costs, or voluntarily swap out the copper for fibre. If they chose the third option they'd come up against the Copper Switch-Off decision and be forced to ensure 100% FTTP per exchange area. I suspect that's what ComReg was aiming for.

    It may be that ComReg have gone silent because the Minister's opinion is not litigation-proof; for all the reasons set out in the replies to the consultation. eg IMO, DECC's response to ALTO's Starlink proposal is hopeless……. and out of date.

    btw, a viable indoor mobile signal, or mobile + repeater, used to be an acceptable VFL solution. IIRC a fixed line solution only had an excess cost cap if it was a necessary last resort.



Advertisement