From BBC Magazine:
The Welsh village of Staylittle can be found to the west of Newtown in Powys. It's an isolated place - the nearest market town is almost eight miles away. "Staylittle, which has remained outside the perimeter of progress and stayed little, is miles from anywhere," complained a reporter in the Times in 1965. Fifty years might have passed since then but the village's communications are still tenuous.
It has no mobile reception. And because of this, most people in Staylittle have to rely on their landlines to stay in touch with people. But a fortnight ago, the villagers were cut off. Ten days later, Staylittle was still waiting for the problem to be fixed. The main conduit of communication is one working landline in the Post Office.
Yes, the UK is more compact than either the US or Australia, but I imagine it's still frustrating to be as cut off as the people here are.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday September 05 2015, @06:37PM
This is not really going to change anytime soon.
Yes it is. Sooner than you think.
Both in the UK and the US, there are projects in place to bring cell service to the very last corners of the nation.
Why?
Because its cheaper than land lines to build and maintain. Even when you factor in the cost of the tower and a microwave back-haul link, it ends up being way cheaper. In places where the government owns the networks, a cell tower can be thrown up for around 200,000. (governments give themselves land leases, permits, etc).
In a city it can be much more.
In rural areas it can be very cheap, you can rent a tiny corner of a farmer's field (and the needed space is getting smaller all the time with the use of mono-pole towers) for a couple thousand a year. In many rural areas out west, they just us microwave links for back-haul, and hang that all on the same tower.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Saturday September 05 2015, @10:25PM
Both in the UK and the US, there are projects in place to bring cell service to the very last corners of the nation. Why? Because its cheaper than land lines to build and maintain.
But no-one is compelling them to bring a service there at all, and if they don't it is cheaper still. According to Thatcherism, it has to be left to market forces
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday September 05 2015, @10:36PM
Nobody compelling them.....
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2015/02/ofcom-tweak-commits-mobile-operators-90-uk-landmass-coverage.html [ispreview.co.uk]
As expected Ofcom has started to put the recent coverage agreement between Mobile Network Operators (MNO) and the Government into practice by introducing a new licence variation(s) that commits Three UK, EE, O2 and Vodafone to provide voice coverage across 90% of the United Kingdom’s landmass by the end of 2017.
http://www.threemediacentre.co.uk/news/2015/pr_23-4-15_network.aspx [threemediacentre.co.uk]
https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2013/07/31/gbp150-million-set-aside-for-mobile-coverage-enhancement-project-in-the-uk/ [telegeography.com]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/shopping-and-consumer-news/11801457/Revealed-is-your-mobile-provider-lying-about-its-phone-coverage.html [telegraph.co.uk]
I think you protest too much.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.