In reply to a post by pluralist:

I suggest you know I am well aware of that. However the Openreach CEO is concerned purely with his own balance sheet and P & L

Unless Openreach have issued share capital of their own and councillors own that the share price of BT Group as a whole is concerned with group-wide revenues and profits, not any one business unit. Money shuffling around the group doesn't increase profit, only revenue and expense.

Ignoring any other impacts of it being there it's actually better for the group's P&L to have Three pay them for a mast rather than EE so be pretty silly of councillors that are BT shareholders to block Three masts. Also be an appalling use of taxpayer money as they'd lose the appeals every time, and Three are very willing to appeal..

Edited by XGS_Is_On (Sun 08-Jan-23 22:25:24)

In reply to a post by XGS_Is_On:

they're the only ones serious about 5G.

Well they are the owners of the bulk of spectrum (140 MHz) in the n78 band at over 3 GHz which has less propogation than spectrum owned by Vodafone at 900 MHz or EE at 1800 MHz for example. Other operators are likely to use their existing spectrum assets at lower frequency to deploy 5G. As previously, there is no longer a connection between frequency and transmission technology, its limited by the hardware the operators have installed and their backhaul capacity. (Also some are additionally engaged in removing Huawei hardware which is causing a drop in 5G coverage in some areas that had coverage. This should self correct over time).

Three’s owners (CK Hutchison Holdings) are reported to be concerned that after 20 years and significant investment, the ARPU and subscriber numbers are low. Probably this ‘massive growth’ in their own masts is a last ditch attempt to grow the customer base.

See also the indicated talks with Vodafone, so far only indicated. No CMA referral etc.

Edited by jchamier (Sun 08-Jan-23 22:11:13)

In reply to a post by pluralist:

I think I'm right is saying that as far as Openreach accounts are concerned it would need to charge EE something nor hugely removed from what it charges other providers, so not a significant detrimental effect on its notional profit.

My understanding of the undertaking BT Group made to Ofcom was that there would be ‘structural separation’ so Openreach is required to charge all telecommunications operators the same. If you think/know otherwise, Ofcom would be interested to know. Its why they are not “BT Openreach” but just Openreach…. At arms length from the rest of group.

However money they make (and I read they make good profits) is sent back to the group board, and group board is consulted on investment decisions, but not operational decisions.

In reply to a post by jchamier:

Mobile masts are strange things in planning, basically the ONLY two things councils can object on are height and size of the street furniture. So many councils go back and forth with the network operators until the operator meets the councils requirement or moves is slightly.

Yeah they're learning hard into this:

1. By virtue of scale, design and siting it is considered that the proposed mast together with the associated ancillary equipment would introduce a prominent and obtrustive feature within the street scene in an elevated position when viewed across the adjacent open land which would appear at odds in context to the appearance of the area resulting in significant detrimental mpacts and contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, Core Strategy Policy CS10 and Local Development Framework DPD Policy D9.

In this case an appeal was won after the mast was reduced in size from 20m to 15m and the mast is now sited.

In reply to a post by XGS_Is_On:

In this case an appeal was won after the mast was reduced in size from 20m to 15m and the mast is now sited.

Lot of councillors would like masts to be hidden in trees (some trees can get to 15m) but the downside is the signal is attenuated in the leafy months, and even worse if its raining (wet leaves). Hence the push to taller mass recently.

I gather as frequencies increased this problem gets worse, similarly the higher freqencies are less good at penetrating buildings, either office blocks or domestic homes. And many modern build domestic homes have metal foil backed insulation which attenuates almost any signal. (Which is why the networks mostly all now offer WiFi calling, assuming you have home broadband with WiFi !!).

Looks as though the council in question have a lot of independent councillors, too. I would be shocked if they weren't extremely hostile to masts and, indeed, development in general in their historic cathedral city.

Can't see there being anything untoward. Three will probably appeal, they may reduce the mast height if feasible, and going by the usual pattern of these things will probably win.

In reply to a post by XGS_Is_On:

Can't see there being anything untoward. Three will probably appeal, they may reduce the mast height if feasible, and going by the usual pattern of these things will probably win.

Yes a lower mast provides coverage that currently there is no mast.

Three are making some strange decisions though, around here they have not upgraded their (~15+ year old) mast that has slow 4G (40 Mbps) but they are adding these new poles around the town, which means nobody in my part of the housing estate is with Three, as EE (on the same mast) is giving 200+ Mbps on 4G and didn't collapse during Covid.

Just bizarre decision... surely cheaper to upgrade existing first?

I think you misunderstood what I was saying, as you seem to be less accurate in correcting me than what I actually posted. But it's quite late and I shall be out most of what is now today so need to keep this very short.

You know far more than I about the technology. I am less sure you understand the commercial aspects wrt Openreach charges to customers plus BT Group book-keeping and internal accounting. (As opposed to the overall group accounts).

The Group accounts filing with Companies House is 215 pages. Openreach accounts tell us nothing useful in this context.

I need to go to bed ! Maybe more tonight or Tuesday.

I seen Telford Council approved 5G mast in Telford by the factory sites, behind the trees and nearby the railway line.

Stafford Park 18 - https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Stericycle+(SRCL...

Halesfield 2 - https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.6441103,-2.4220014...

Telford International Centre bus stop - https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.6734953,-2.4427275...

This onewhich is not really that far away in is not so tall, but have been there for a while, I think it is O2.
I don't think our council will be in power after the local elections this year, I think people will vote the snobs Tory party back in sadly, but then again this lot have been a waste of time as well. I am going to vote for my cat. so once the Tories get back in they will allow everything to go ahead.