MP Blames Poor London Mobile Signals on “near-monopoly” of O2, EE and Vodafone
The Conservative MP for Tonbridge, Tom Tugendhat, has accused mobile and broadband operators EE, O2 and Vodafone (Vodafone and Three UK) of delivering mobile signals in parts of London that are “worse” than he got in Kabul ten years ago and of operating a “near monopoly“, which he said meant they had “no incentive to improve“.
The very public rant, which was spread across X’s social media pages (here, here and here), appears to have started after the MP found himself in Dulwich, which he said is “one of the more expensive areas of London“, and yet he ended up “getting worse mobile phone reception that I did in Kabul a decade ago“. Tugendhat added that he pays for two contracts via O2 and EE, but complained that “neither is reliable, so I can’t work“.
“Mobile phones are useless in vast areas of Britain and have got worse. You can never work on a train, unlike in France. But we’re spending £4.5 billion in bike lanes and crossings,” said the disgruntled minister. The O2 and EE support feeds promptly responded to express their sorrow at the poor experience he’d had, with O2 (Virgin Media) noting that the “signal can sometimes be affected even when coverage looks strong, for example, by local mast work, temporary faults, or congestion in busy areas.”
Advertisement
However, Tugendhat was having none of that and promptly fired back, first with a fiery response to O2’s support agent: “Don’t pretend this is temporary. This is universal. It’s constant. I’ve spoken to your teams about it in Kent for years and you do nothing. The signal has got worse, but your prices have gone up. O2 is the worst for signal.” The sentiment is no doubt one that many consumers are likely to share.
In the second reply Tugendhat rebutted EE’s (BT) offer to look into the matter further: “You don’t need to look into this further. I’ve spoken to your teams and you now operate a near monopoly alongside O2 and Vodafone. So you have no incentive to improve. You are effectively just a rentier company on the back of the British people.”
Is London mobile really that bad
A number of studies have indicated that mobile network performance in the UK’s capital city may lag behind others in the UK and Europe (here, here and here). But experiences do vary as mobile speeds remain a difficult thing to study, not least because end-users are always moving through different areas (indoor, outdoor and underground), using different devices with different capabilities and the surrounding environment is ever changeable (weather, trees, buildings etc.). All of this can impact signal quality and that’s before we consider any differences in network (backhaul) capacity or spectrum usage between locations.
According to the very latest data from Ookla (Speedtest.net), London is ranked a lowly 88th in the world for mobile broadband performance in cities, achieving a median average download speed of 108Mbps, uploads of 11Mbps and a network latency time of 24ms (milliseconds). By comparison, the fastest city is Al-Rayyan in Qatar, which sees downloads of 665Mbps, uploads of 34Mbps and latency times of 19ms.
Advertisement
The UK’s relatively poor situation tends to reflect a combination of issues, such as the previous government’s U-turn to ban Huawei, which caused a significant and costly delay to network deployments – particularly 5G. Mobile operators have also faced restrictions when it comes to upgrading existing masts to 5G and deploying new ones, although recent rule changes may improve the planning process a bit.
Mobile operator O2 (Virgin Media) last week similarly complained (here) that “outdated planning rules” in London had forced them to switch off “dozens of mobile sites” (not all at once), which they say often leaves busy areas “blighted by poor quality mobile coverage” (i.e. operators are “forced” to remove kit faster than they can replace it).
Speaking of the government, both the past and present governments have had a tendency to set some rather easy population-based coverage targets for the latest services (instead of tougher geographic ones), which means they mostly end up relying on commercial investment to do the job for them. The current government, for its part, retains an ambition “for all populated areas” to have access to 5GSA (5G+) based mobile broadband by 2030.
The Shared Rural Network (SRN) project and Scotland’s 4G Infill Programme (S4GI) are rare exceptions to the above rule, but neither was intended to help coverage in cities, where we expect private investment to always be the driving force. Suffice to say that while Tugendhat’s individual experiences in London are anecdotal, his very vocal complaints do hold some credible merit and can’t simply be dismissed as a politician playing politics. The catch is that the MP’s own party was effectively in power between 2015 and 2024, thus holding a chunk of responsibility for today’s situation.
Advertisement
However, the MP’s suggestion that EE, O2 and Vodafone hold a “near monopoly” appears to be less credible, since those three are very much strong and often bitter commercial competitors in the UK market – frequently engaging in competition disputes, legal challenges over spectrum ownership and battling over infrastructure delivery.
On the other hand, there is a lot more mast sharing that takes place today between operators (partly driven by a desire for cost savings and the SRN programme), although each operator still tends to maintain their own independent radio kit etc. Quite a few of those mast sharing agreements also take place alongside independent or semi-independent wireless infrastructure firms, such as Cellnex UK, so they’re not as relevant to this debate.
Mark is a professional technology writer, IT consultant and computer engineer from Dorset (England), he also founded ISPreview in 1999 and enjoys analysing the latest telecoms and broadband developments. Find me on X (Twitter), Mastodon, Facebook, BlueSky, Threads.net and Linkedin.
Advertisement
Leave a Reply
Privacy Notice: Please note that news comments are anonymous, which means that we do NOT require you to enter any real personal details to post a message and display names can be almost anything you like (provided they do not contain offensive language or impersonate a real person's legal name). By clicking to submit a post you agree to storing your entries for comment content, display name, IP and email in our database, for as long as the post remains live.
Only the submitted name and comment will be displayed in public, while the rest will be kept private (we will never share this outside of ISPreview, regardless of whether the data is real or fake). This comment system uses submitted IP, email and website address data to spot abuse and spammers. All data is transferred via an encrypted (https secure) session.
Weird that someone who was in both Liz Truss’s and Rishi Sunak’s Cabinets as Security Minister, who could have done something about the “outdated planning rules” for National Security whilst being in a position of National Importance to the Infrastructure of the United Kingdom, did nothing and now complains about an issue a competent Labour Security Minister will deal with.
This. Wait till he finds out how much his party spent on HS2.
You must be joking or living in another reality when you say competent Labour minister! The last 20 or so years including under them we have consistently been behind other nations with respect to our mobile and broadband infrastructure versus some on the continent let alone compared to East Asia.
In urban areas all masts should just be blanket allowed via PD rights. I cannot understand why this hasn’t already been done.
Especially in a city like London where tall buildings go up all the time, it’s baffling that there have to be proper planning applications for sites at all when most of them sit on top of buildings.
Tugendhat was a governing MP for the best part of a decade and did nothing about planning laws blocking new mobile masts. He should be apologising for his government’s inaction and subsequent consequences not throwing a tantrum.
I live in Ireland now just over the border, the coverage is pretty good and 5g speeds leave the UK(Northern Ireland) wanting. The biggest difference I’ve notice is how masts are built, the ones in the south are much taller than the UK and so coverage is vastly better as a result.
If only there was a fourth mobile network provider….
He’s a bit confused, what does bike lane spend have to do with mobile phone signal? If he’s advocating for public subsidy to get reliable coverage in Dulwich then he should make that argument, though people would be entitled to ask what a decade of his party in government achieved.
The MNO leaders will be spitting tacks at the ill informed comments from Tom Tugendhat.
Taking the London Borough of Richmond as an example, more than 90% of Three’s planning applications have been rejected. The area has little or no 5G coverage from all 3 operators solely because the council refuses permissions.
The networks waste £50-£150k in preparatory costs for applications to then be rejected, with many of the refusals requesting the networks locate masts “elsewhere” / outside of the areas where coverage is actually needed.
It’s the same pattern across the country – with the combination of incompetence of planning officers and NIMBY locals making it impossible to build the required infrastructure for contiguous coverage and wasting a huge amount of time and money in the process.
Monopoly – the “mono” meaning one of course. Three providers does not make a monopoly, and there is plenty of competition between them. Or is he saying that they are operating as a cartel – a very serious allegation to make.
The problem is how providers are allowed to put up masts. An issue they have all raised, and it’s on MPs to do something about. Yet in 12 years of Conservative rule, nothing was done.
And yes, places like Kabul will have better infrastructure because it’s quicker than putting in fibre to each home, permission to put up a mast is much easier and cities are generally less dense and lower rise than here.
How many shared mast operators are there/will there be going forward?
I can think of 2, so still not a monopoly
“But we’re spending £4.5 billion on bike lanes and crossings, said the disgruntled minister.”
The last thing I want is taxpayers money being used to improve private businesses mobile operators are.
Why not? The government could invest in mast infrastructure and charge the operators for their use.
Point is, something needs to be done as the current situation is untenable. It’s not just an irritation, we are SERIOUSLY lacking in decent and ubiquitous data coverage. Poor signal strength, poor coverage, severe congestion.
The current MNOs are not doing what they are supposed to and needs serious intervention/legislation to force them to do better. And councils must not be allowed to block planning permissions for new masts. And we need taller masts.
As it stands, unfit for purpose, simple as that.
Not much the MNOs can do when councils are allowed to block every proposal. I read today another replacement mast blocked in Bradford – MNO have offered them two different sites. As Gig says above they should be included under permitted development. The nimbys need to be stopped.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crr8dyz0l48o
Near monopoly?
If only they could get planning permission approved for a near monopole.
As we know, perception is reality, and I have to agree that living and working in London, coverage, and more importantly, throughput, is patchy. Yet when visiting other European cities and rural locations, access and speed always appears better.
Travelling on suburban rail services in London connectivity is very poor.
I’m sure there are many reasons including planning, and we show how poor we are at joined up thinking.
Having lived in Dulwich for 20 years, I can confirm the signal is poor to non-existent and it’s not temporary at all. It was a hot doorstep issue in the recent local elections – canvassers from outside the area couldn’t believe their mobiles weren’t connecting. WiFi calling is required indoors.
Several proposals for new masts over the last 10 years have floundered through a combination of NIMBYism, planning restrictions, and Telco’s being inflexible on requirements (choose your story).
I don’t see it improving in the near future unfortunately, and I don’t think this is uniquely bad for central London – see also Richmond in the comment above.
Dulwich… Richmond… I’m beginning to see a pattern.
So poor signal is only a problem when it affects London?
and politicians
O2 never intend to improve because they’re not in it for the “vanity metrics”.
EE is known for monopoly areas, though have not been often known for congestion but still happens there and then.
VF and 3 merger have actually resulted in reduction in EE monopoly areas as they’ve merged sites with 3 mostly and have upgraded a few 3G only sites last minute. This results in an increase in areas supporting 3 mobile operators leaving only O2 further back.
Here’s some advice to the MP: your affiliated political party had 14 years to sort it, O2 is just as much use as a cat flap in an elephant house, You claim mobile bills on expenses so it’s not like you really paid for it. Partially disagree on your monopoly comment, there is monopoly areas on all operators but in general, it’s O2 actively not intending to upgrade so much and 3’s tits up investment in 5G resulting in a merge to avoid bankruptcy. You’re never going to get signal on a train, even on a main line. And yes, I agree on the UK’s MNO state.