Ben's Talk3G Blog

The most infuriating thing about mobile networks is the lack of them.

Being stuck without coverage, or usable coverage, is infuriating. So why isn't coverage better?

Well, there are going to be many reasons, including MNOs needing to maximise the return on their investment and so running networks that cover based on population density and not geographic availability.

But the one I'm singling out is the complete lack of a competitive environment for improving coverage, an area that OFCOM has spectacularly failed in asserting its authority.

Currently, the only way to experience another network's coverage is to switch networks. This can be a costly and time-consuming process, particularly if you're in a contract, and due to the non-standardised way in which MNOs construct their coverage maps there's no guarantee that switching will yield the customer any improvement.

So how do we introduce competition for coverage?

Well, the UK still has at least three discrete networks. T-Mobile and Three have MBNL, but I'm going to bundle Orange in with that as the lines between T-Mobile and Orange are becoming increasingly blurred. Then there's O2 and Vodafone. Funnily enough, these latter two also appear to have weaker infrastructure for 3G, but we mustn't be misled into believing that consolidation is the best outcome for the customer. It isn't. A single infrastructure builder would put us in a similar situation as we have for landlines, where Openreach are allowed to take an unlimited amount of time (9 months and counting) to run a hair of fibre. It just doesn't work, competition is king.

What I propose is that we allow UK mobile subscribers to roam on competing networks, just like roaming abroad. When we draw cash, we often use the machines of other banks without incurring a cost ourselves. But our bank incurs a cost, a penalty for their customer using a machine on the wider network rather than one of their own machines. This, I believe, acts as an incentive for banks to keep cash machines numerous and well stocked.

Where the cash point analogy is relatively simple, the network roaming one is infinitely not-so.

On the one hand we could make roaming free to the customer, and force the MNOs to bill roaming customers as if they're on the home network. This is a massive incentive for network build-out, both in ensuring that strong networks are available in the same places as competitor ones, and in encouraging coverage of areas lacking it in the hope of raising additional revenues as other subscribers roam. But it does, however, open the door to unlimited costs and I believe that's an unreasonable burden. It could be somewhat mitigated by regulating the fees MNOs are allowed to charge each other for domestic roaming to very low levels, but then that also removes a lot of the incentive for build-out.

Another option would be to allow the market to establish how to deal with these domestic roamers. Perhaps MNOs will themselves try to lure roamers onto their networks. Or, more likely, perhaps each network will erect extremely costly barriers to try and prevent subscribers from 'escaping'. I don't think it'd be unreasonable to charge roaming subscribers 'out of bundle' prices, and perhaps offer additional 'roaming' bundles to allow those who roam out of necessity better value. The best way to see if this approach could work would be to try it; probably with some loose regulatory controls on the prices the MNOs can charge each other.

Other precautions would need to be enacted to prevent bill shock where unintended roaming could end up costing the customer money where they'd have rather had no service. I'd suggest an initial text the first time roaming happens, detailing charges and allowing an opt-out. But, if opt-out takes place, there must then be clear instructions for opting back in, along with periodic re-checks of the opt-out status to ensure customers aren't simply put off from domestic roaming and end up never being able to easily participate again in the future when it may be in their best interests to do so.

One outcome seems guaranteed to me. Customers spending extended periods roamed on competing networks are likely to switch to them. That's a big incentive that's built-in, and finally establishes a clear-as-day link between network quality and customer loyalty.

So is mandating domestic roaming a good idea? In my opinion, the benefits of allowing the UK's mass of mobile subscribers access to the entirety of its mobile infrastructure means it's worth a try.