UK Govt's Expensive Mobile Coverage Project Builds Just 8 Masts In 4 Years

An anonymous reader points out a dismal report at The Register on a project intended by the UK government to connect lots of internet have-nots, but which has so far not accomplished as much as hoped. The Mobile Infrastructure Project is intended to provide last-mile connectivity, but the project has languished, and fallen short of its promises. This year, Department for Culture, Media and Sport has managed to erect only six masts, which can serve about 200 homes apiece. Originally more than 575 sites had been commissioned, following the publication of the “no coverage” database by watchdog Ofcom. At the rate seen so far of four masts a year it will take over 140 years to complete the £150m Mobile Infrastructure Project. The original deadline was to to have all the sites equipped and live by the end of 2015. However, that deadline was extended to March 2016 to "ensure that benefits of the program are maximized."

Comments

Despite all evidence

[perryizgr8]

Despite evidence like this which speaks volumes about government intervention in what is a free-market area of expertise, we still have so many people clamoring for the government to offer all kinds of services like healthcare, telephone, internet, etc.

Re:Despite all evidence

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

It certainly sounds like they fucked this project up pretty vigorously(if nothing else, even if it is amazingly difficult for some reason, failing to identify that ahead of time is bad); but there is one important aspect you fail to note: The project's objective was to provide coverage to areas that private operators were not providing coverage to. Exactly what mixture of 'potential customers too poor'/'topography ensures lousy RF propagation'/'planning permission, rights of way, and fights with the neighbors will be a march through hell' caused private operators to ignore these areas is unknown, at least from this article; but for one reason or another providing cell coverage was an area of utter disinterest and/or inability for the private sector in these areas.

That's a pretty major distinction: walking in on something that the private sector is doing vigorously and competently and deciding that we need a Ministry of Whatever is folly. Coming into a situation that the private sector is unable or unwilling to address and doing something about it is what 'the public sector' is all about.

There is room for debate about what counts as 'unable or unwilling', and when we should do something vs. just let them suck it up; but 'do what the private sector won't or can't' is essentially the mission statement of even libertarian governments(they just interpret that as a pretty small number of things).

Re:Despite all evidence

[trout007]

Of course companies fail. That is the entire point to a free market and why it works. The free market optimizes the problem of who gets to control resources. If a company fails to generate profits that means it is using more resources than the customers give it. It then goes out of business and the resources are freed up to more profitable companies to make use of.

Government is the exact opposite. If a department does its job well and actually reduces a problem its budget stagnates. If it does a very poor job it claims it needs more resources and is typically given them. It also intervenes in the markets when a company is politically connected and "too big to fail". The market determines a company is wasting resources and it needs to go out of business. The government taxes the profitable companies and gives it to the bankrupt ones as a bailout.

Re:Despite all evidence

[trout007]

There is a cost/benefit analysis you need to do before you live anywhere. A city has lots of access to goods and services but is expensive. The middle of nowhere is beautiful and peaceful but you miss the benefits of society. But if you vote for the right politician you can have both by forcing other people to subsidize your costs of living in the middle of nowhere.

Re:Despite all evidence

[trout007]

So can I build a house in the middle of the Antarctic and get others to pay for my power and cell phone?

Re:Despite all evidence

[trout007]

Only if you consider the Central Banks abort to flood the market with cheap money inflating bubbles a part of the free market.

Yes, Minister

[3.14159265]

These two series of documentaries are necessary if you wish to understand the politics of government and public service:
Yes, Minister and Yes, Primer Minister.

Re: A problem with spending unearned money?

[mattwarden]

Orgs that don't have to worry where next year's operating income will come from will never be as motivated to hit timelines as orgs that have to build and sell things in order to continue to exist. Nonprofits with endowments or steady donation commitments, government funded science or other orgs, and government agencies all fall into this category.

Correct your story, then come back with it.

[Fragnet]

4 years isn't much time to give it. In the UK you need something called planning permission before you erect a mast. It's very hard to get, especially in rural areas.

TL;DR version

[Mr_Silver]

UK network operators are castigated by the UK Government for not building out mobile coverage in rural areas.

Network Operators respond by pointing out that they don't because of the difficulty in finding locations to provide the required coverage, local planning applications, the availability of power and problems with site access.

UK Government says "amateurs, we can do it better than you" so sets up project to do just that.

Project spectacularly fails to achieve anything and sheepishly admits that the reasons for its failure are due to the difficulty in finding locations to provide the required coverage, local planning applications, the availability of power and problems with site access.