B1365 - The Cellular Communication Infrastructure Bill 2018 (Second Reading)

Watch
This discussion is closed.
DayneD89
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
B1365 - The Cellular Communication Infrastructure Bill 2018 (Second Reading), TSR Labour Party


The Cellular Communication Infrastructure Bill 2018

An Act to invest in and nationalise the United Kingdom's’ communication infrastructure

BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's most excellent Majesty, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

1) For the purposes of this Act:
(a) Communications Infrastructure: Relates to infrastructure used for cellular communication i.e. the provision of mobile broadband and mobile telecommunications.
(b) Core Network Operators: The current infrastructure owners of Cellular Communication: EE (BT plc), o2 (Telefónica UK Limited), Three (CK Hutchison Holdings) and Vodafone (Vodafone Group plc)
(c) Core Infrastructure Groupings: The groupings between the Core Network Operators that jointly manage infrastructure, at present: O2 and Vodafone (through Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Limited [CTIL]), in addition to EE and Three (through Mobile Broadband Network Limited [MBNL]).
(d) Existing Mobile Virtual Network Operators (MVNOs): Current tenants of the infrastructure provided through MBNL and CTI.
(e) Network Operators: Both Core Network Operators and MVNOs OFCOM - the Office of Communications: The UK’s Telecommunications Regulator

2. Infrastructure Nationalisation
(a) The UK Government shall compulsory purchase MBNL and CTIL by the end of Tax Year 2018/2019.
(b) These shall be completed at the asset value + 10% for the companies.
(b) (b) i) In the instance of MBNL, this shall be £397 million.
(b) (b) ii) In the instance of CTIL, this shall be £1.5 billion.

3. Future Operation
(a) A government directly owned company shall be set-up to merge the assets of both of these companies and maintain them while providing at least the same standard of capacity and coverage of the 2G Networks, 3G Networks (until 2025 upon which they shall be switched off) and the 4G Networks.
(b) This company will lease space to both existing core network operators and existing mobile virtual network operators.
(c) The new company will set basic rates for the use of Phone Calls, Texts and MBs of data as per Schedule 1.
(b) (b) i) Schedule 1 may be amended by the relevant Secretary of State at anytime.
(b) (b) ii) Existing Core Network Operators and Existing Mobile Virtual Networks will receive additional discounts of 10% of cost until 2025.
(b) (b) iii) This shall not apply to new MVNOs not set-up prior to the implementation of this act.

4. Infrastructure Upgrades
(a) The Government through the new directly owned company shall invest to ensure that the existing 4G network reaches at least 99% of the UK Population.
(b) The government shall seek to invest via the new directly owned company on a 5G network as soon as a reasonable commercial standard is decided upon.
(c) This infrastructure must cover all major UK Towns and Cities (population >60,000) 2 years after the launch of the network.
(c) This is estimated at present to cost around £50 billion.
(d) The rates for usage of this network must be set at a commercially acceptable level, that will ensure a 100% return of investment for the company.

5. Rural Broadband Approaches
(a) The Broadband Delivery UK (BDUK) shall be retasked to ensure that rural internet coverage is directed through high-speed cellular options.
(b) Local Residents can petition BDUK and the new infrastructure company to ensure that access to +10mb/s cellular internet coverage is extended to rural areas not currently covered by superfast broadband.

6. Short Title, Commencement and Extent
(a) This Act extends to the United Kingdom.
(b) This Act may be cited as the Cellular Communication Infrastructure Bill, 2018
(c) The Act will come into force upon Royal Assent.


Appendix 1: Tarrifs Schedule
The Secretary of State shall set the base rates at which the new government backed company may charge networks.
Upon Royal Assent, these shall be no more than:
  • 0.3p per minute of phone calls.
  • 0.4p per text sent
  • 0.57p per megabyte of data

These amounts shall be decreased should they be purchased at bulk. These amounts are commercially sensitive and will be negotiated privately between the SoS, the Infrastructure company and the phone networks.


Notes
We are in a ridiculous situation in the United Kingdom, where mobile networks are run in effect through 2 infrastructure bodies (that cover 4 main networks and countless Virtual Network Operators) that often have doubled infrastructure at double the cost without actually making an profit. This results in increased costs for the consumer, and a worse, fragmented service for us all.

A 2017 survey of 1400 businesses found that 70% of owners businesses were hampered by mobile notspots that prevented their ability to perform basic functions and make UK business less competitive than needs be. (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...-a7729726.html) Combined with individual users suffering from being able to use a phone network at home, but not at work and vice-versa, and it is clear that our existing mobile telecommunications infrastructure is struggling to truly cope with what we require in 21st century Britain.

The Cellular Communications Bill 2018 proposes a semi-nationalisation of the infrastructure focused cellular telecommunications businesses: Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Limited, and Mobile Broadband Network Limited. This will be done by paying for the value of the infrastructure currently in place, along with an amount to cover above and beyond any profits these companies make. Please note that neither company is regarded as profit making, and as a result a buyout that includes an additional 10% of value is likely to be accepted. This will be made compulsory should it be rejected under the terms of the Bill.

This then makes a government owned, directly owned company responsible for running the United Kingdom's Cellular telecommunications infrastructure, while leasing capacity out to any commercially owned mobile network who wishes to provide services and coverage in the United Kingdom. Such a structure is similar to the successful running of Network Rail: a government directly owned company that manages the railway infrastructure and leases railway usage to private operators under a franchising system.

Such a move will also enable the United Kingdom to finally provide super-fast broadband to all via the Cellular networks in rural areas. At present, the majority of networks offer mobile broadband packages for homes, albeit in a manner that is not advertised well and has poor uptake. By scrapping the rural fixed-line broadband approach and instead moving to cellular provision, the goals of super-fast broadband for the majority of the United Kingdom shall be finally met.

Assets of MBNL as of 2016 are valued at £361 million - see: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/c...filing-history
Assets of CTIL as of 2016 are valued at £1.3 billion - see: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/c...filing-history


Changes made for second reading
– The commitment to 5G expansion has been amended to focus more on 4G for the time being, with 5G in major towns and cities once a commercially viable standard has been obtained.
– A fuller notes section has been added.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 year ago
#2
The favouring of 4G over 5G for universal expansion will be far more practical, whilst still providing an internet connection that is more than sufficient for the majority of users.

Aye.
0
username280380
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 year ago
#3
I'm pleased to commend this bill to the house as a party bill. I hope the changes make this more realistic and palletable for you all.
0
Saunders16
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 year ago
#4
No, and I encourage all to join me in voting against this. The changes do not matter because this goes against how reform should be achieved; taking away regulation is the way to go rather than increasing the government's presence in this area.
0
CountBrandenburg
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 year ago
#5
Still won’t be winning over my vote on this...
0
username280380
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 year ago
#6
(Original post by Saunders16)
No, and I encourage all to join me in voting against this. The changes do not matter because this goes against how reform should be achieved; taking away regulation is the way to go rather than increasing the government's presence in this area.
(Original post by CountBrandenburg)
Still won’t be winning over my vote on this...
I mean these two responses don't surprise me.

Taking away regulation will not work. America's fragmented and quite frankly awful infrastructure is testament to that. I do not trust these companies to do the best job possible for consumers without government intervention. Without OFCOM all four would be a joke.
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 year ago
#7
(Original post by Afcwimbledon2)
I mean these two responses don't surprise me.

Taking away regulation will not work. America's fragmented and quite frankly awful infrastructure is testament to that. I do not trust these companies to do the best job possible for consumers without government intervention. Without OFCOM all four would be a joke.
It mostly comes down to ideology here; I don't think you're going to convince us that nationalisation of infrastructure is the way to go.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 year ago
#8
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
It mostly comes down to ideology here; I don't think you're going to convince us that nationalisation of infrastructure is the way to go.
But most infrastructure is nationalised now. The roads, national grid, (water should be). All this is is stopp8ng duplication of effort at the expense of the consumer and will lead to better more efficient coverage across the country.

Also, if you have ever seen a telephone mast you’ll know what an area they take up for security. By having just under half the masts we do now we free up more space and land for productivity and grow8ng the economy.
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 year ago
#9
(Original post by Aph)
But most infrastructure is nationalised now. The roads, national grid, (water should be). All this is is stopp8ng duplication of effort at the expense of the consumer and will lead to better more efficient coverage across the country.

Also, if you have ever seen a telephone mast you’ll know what an area they take up for security. By having just under half the masts we do now we free up more space and land for productivity and grow8ng the economy.
I'd estimate masts take up around a 10m square. The one I stood near the other day was just in an open green space near a rugby pitch, so that land was already put to a purpose not related to economic activity. If that mast wasn't there then no more land would be used to grow the economy due to its absence.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 year ago
#10
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
I'd estimate masts take up around a 10m square. The one I stood near the other day was just in an open green space near a rugby pitch, so that land was already put to a purpose not related to economic activity. If that mast wasn't there then no more land would be used to grow the economy due to its absence.
Masts near me are fenced off, have about 2500m^2 off limits at least. You are talking about mobile masts right?
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 year ago
#11
(Original post by Aph)
Masts near me are fenced off, have about 2500m^2 off limits at least. You are talking about mobile masts right?
Yes, that's certainly what it looked like. Are you thinking of electricity pylons? Because that would make a lot more sense.
0
username280380
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 year ago
#12
Aph - it depends on the location. You can get alot on the top of FM transmitters etc, or just attached to buildings. Either way its duplication that isn't needed.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 year ago
#13
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
Yes, that's certainly what it looked like. Are you thinking of electricity pylons? Because that would make a lot more sense.
Yes, definitely not electricity being up at the top of a hill
(Original post by Afcwimbledon2)
Aph - it depends on the location. You can get alot on the top of FM transmitters etc, or just attached to buildings. Either way its duplication that isn't needed.
Indeed.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 year ago
#14
None of the problems have been fixed, it remains nationalisation for the sake of nationalisation
0
robc2
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 year ago
#15
No, thanks
0
Mr T 999
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 year ago
#16
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
It mostly comes down to ideology here; I don't think you're going to convince us that nationalisation of infrastructure is the way to go.
Using ideology to oppose nationalisation is silly. You need to give reasons way you oppose nationalisation.
0
Mr T 999
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 year ago
#17
Mr Speaker

The problem from the first bill remains although I do appreciate the more detailed notes. I do not think this bill offers any viable solution that the private sector cannot do. It's nationalisation for the sake of it. Still a Nay from me.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 year ago
#18
(Original post by mr T 999)
Mr Speaker

The problem from the first bill remains although I do appreciate the more detailed notes. I do not think this bill offers any viable solution that the private sector cannot do. It's nationalisation for the sake of it. Still a Nay from me.
where the state can do things cheaper and more efficiently than the private sector surely it should?
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 year ago
#19
Mr Speaker,

A pile of excrement embellished with a cherry on top, is still a pile of excrement.
0
username280380
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#20
Report 1 year ago
#20
(Original post by Connor27)
Mr Speaker,

A pile of excrement embellished with a cherry on top, is still a pile of excrement.
Mr Speaker,

Would the secretary of statement like to make a comment on the bill or is he busy talking about his SOI still?
1
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

With HE fairs postponed, would a virtual HE fair be useful?

Yes (102)
61.45%
No (64)
38.55%

Watched Threads

View All