UKH

A proposal to erect a mobile phone mast between Liathach and Beinn Dearg has been strongly criticised by local residents and outdoor groups. This is just one of a barrage of plans for new masts across the Highlands, prompting fears for some of the country's most-valued wild and scenic landscapes. Driving the development rush is the UK Government's Shared Rural Network initiative.

Read more

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Wanton vandalism simply for the sake of making money

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

See also this statement from the John Muir Trust

https://www.johnmuirtrust.org/whats-new/news/1595-coalition-asks-uk-governm...

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Look, if you want to provide connectivity to rural areas, such as roads, then you need backhaul connectivity - in simple terms you have to connect the base station (technical term for the equipment in the cabinet at the base of the mast) to the rest of the network.

There is no cable laid to these places, so you need to use a radio signal - microwave. And microwave is line of sight only, so you have to put your masts in places where they can see each other to pass signals along in a series of hops.

So, either you put masts in weird seeming places with good line of sight to reach other masts and get connectivity. Or you put them next to roads, in valleys, where youu need many more of them

In reply to gooberman-hill:

But I suppose the point is any of this needed in places where no one lives? It sounds a bit of a thoughtless box ticking exercise based on nothing but the need to meet poorly thought out coverage targets, If many of these proposed masts had actual benefits to rural communities I don't think there would be much discussion.

In reply to gooberman-hill:

There is a map on page 10 of this document showing the area:

https://wam.highland.gov.uk/wam/files/76B9939F5D864C85E09ED2733072C77D/pdf/...

To quote:

So this is not backhaul infrastructure: it's explicitly about providing coverage within the uninhabited ellipse on that map.

You can decide whether or not you think that is a worthwhile aim, but to suggest that "look, sometimes you simply have to aggressively roll out 4G infrastructure" seems a bit of a stretch...

In reply to th5th:

The site is down right now so i cant view the document.

Part of my point is that sometimes the two requirements go hand in hand. It might be convenient to provide coverage to some remote bit of road,  but the unstated requirement may well be backhaul provision between other base stations.

Additionally, providing a basic level of coverage along roads is likely to meet coverage targets for emergency services.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

"A joint statement drawn up by a coalition of Scottish outdoor and conservation organisations has set out five demands to improve the SRN programme:

...Insist the operators share mast infrastructure, rather than building adjacent masts"

​​​​​​This is redundant. The whole point of the Shared Rural Network is that all 4 networks share the same infrastructure.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

You have to question the need for some of the more remote locations to have the infrastructure bulldozed in, when alternatives already exist

https://www.starlink.com/map

now showing coverage for the Highlands and Islands 

In reply to UKC/UKH News: reposted from the other thread.

You’d expect these mast proposals to be front and centre of Mountaineering Scotlands web page and mobile web front, calling for everyone to write objects.

What have they got on their home page; buy some beanies, winter skills, Mountain accident survey, membership and It’s up to us campaign.

Masts are buried in the ‘News’ section and the request to write is in paragraph eight!

No banner, no call to action ‘war cry’ just droll text.…..

Once again when the membership need them to take a strong and vocal stance against government policy they are failing us.

The ‘It’s up to us’ slogan appears to sum it up, only MCofS weren’t taking about paths, and they were talking about us having to campaign without thier leadership.

write to your MSP and MPs folks!

In reply to ScraggyGoat:

Also with checking the links in the original thread;

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/hill_talk/phone_mast_application_torridon...
 

applications also for Glen Affric, including at Strawberry cottage, Iron Lodge, Ben Alder Lodge, the head of Loch Mullardoch, On the side of the South Shiel ridge and presumably many more to come…

In reply to gooberman-hill:

If you want connectivity along roads, surely it is better to put the masts alongside roads, and not in remote corries with no roads and no line of sight to roads? 

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

As always on these threads: can we please stop pretending that anywhere in the UK is "wild". It's far from it, and instead represents a deforested and actively farmed landscape.

In reply to ianstevens:

As always on these threads, someone comes along and complains about the term "wild land" when it is a perfectly sensible and understood term in the context.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

By the time these sites are approved, the capabilities are satellite networks will have surpassed it. Already, SpaceX Starlink (coming to the states in 2024: https://www.t-mobile.com/news/un-carrier/t-mobile-takes-coverage-above-and-...) and AST SpaceMobile (https://ast-science.com/2023/06/21/ast-spacemobile-confirms-4g-capabilities...) are demonstrating 4G connectivity from low earth orbit satellites to a standard, unmodified, mobile phone. It won't be ultra-high bandwidth but will more than serve the needs of someone needing a network connection in the wild which is the primary goal of this UK Government vision. They'll also negate the need to provide backhaul fibre for a mobile site in low-usage areas as the cell tower can just connect back over a satellite link.

A case of regulations with a good idea (give internet coverage to most of the country) moving slower than technological advances.

In reply to mcquain2:

 Not sure Starlink is suitable for internet connectivity in remote areas given the £500ish installation costs and £75 per month, (double the cost of 4G) for the average user.

Not sure about satellites currently being the solution for providing backhaul for mobile infrastructure either.

In reply to mcquain2:

There are allo national security issues. Would you want your communication infrastructure run by a foreign national who could switch it off at a whim, like he is reported to have done in partsof the Ukraine.

In reply to mcquain2:

Quite.  Satellite backhall is a ting now too

https://www.hughes.com/what-we-offer/digital-divide-solutions/cellular-back...

Disappointed to see the “emergency coverage” up thread as lower generation technology with much larger range and so lower mast requirements is sufficient for that.

In reply to gooberman-hill:

In my view your comments have taken many different selectively chosen angles to promote 4g masts on hills, including:

• Conflating backhall and end user connectivity
• Ignoring other backhall approaches such as emerging sattelite systems (eg Hughes corp) and roadside fibre 
• Ignoring emerging sattelite to end user links
• Evidence free claims that other options for backhaul - once you acknowledge them - are less secure to enemy action.  I’m going to park this as there’s lots to be said but this isn’t the thread.  I’ll note Hughes is not owned by China and that you’ll find plenty of Huawei kit in the UK
• Implying that 4g hill masts are needed for roadside emergency connectivity, where far fewer lower generation masts can cover the same strips of land with their increased range / lower bandwidth tradeoff which is sufficient for emergency connectivity.

It’s the sort of misrepresentation I’d expect to see from an engaged consultant if I wandered along to an actual public meeting etc.  presumably I’m my usual paranoid self and it’s but a passing coincidence.

In reply to gooberman-hill:

Do you think your current internet connection is owned by the UK government once it leaves your local provider? most/all of them are big foreign multinationals that could do the exact same. This is a false argument. I get where you're coming from, but the Ukraine situation is nuanced as it was never allowed there before the war - they activated and stuck themselves into a very unique/interesting situation.

In reply to Ridge:

Backhaul is used for some mobile infra already (I work in the industry), and Starlink is viable for those who can afford it right now. Give it time, the price can only go one way....

In reply to wintertree:

This is true but not for much longer with the rate that Huawei equipment is being removed from the network.

The SRN is installing LTE800. What is the lower generation technology that could provide a greater range than this?

In reply to SDM:

Still lots of scope for denial of service from the bad guys the other poster cites.  Mask based backhaul is very drone vulnerable compared to fibre for example.

Do you mean that the 4G masts will be running at the lower frequency of 800 MHz rather than the higher frequencies often used in urban areas?  If so I will accept my comment as irrelevant to these masts.

In reply to wintertree:

Yes, the frequencies used will be: 800 Mhz, 900MHz, 1800MHz and 2100MHz.

It's pretty standard these days for urban areas to have 700/800/900 too, other than sites with older structures that would be too expensive to bother upgrading.

In reply to wintertree:

Can I just make something clear. I am not a consultant engaged by the mobile phone operator. I have absolutely no involvement with them. I have worked in the mobile phone industry - but not for almost 15 years. My last job in the industry was working for the GSMA on the Green Power for mobile programme - advising on a pilot programme to power mobile phone masts with wind and solar power.

To answer your points directly:

• I am not conflating backhaul and user connectivity. You need the backhaul to link masts together, to provide the connection from the base station to the switch. The point I was making was simply that the mast site may be primarily determined by line-of-sight microwave backhaul requirements, even if the public case is claimed as user connectivity.
• I have no doubt that satellite based backhaul is possible - however the idea of placing critical national infrastructure under the control of a foreign entity who can easily switch it off remotely is unwise. hence (as other posters have noted) the move away from Huawei, ZTE and other chinese infrastructure manufacturers. UK based landline or microwave backhaul is much harder to switch off remotely as the UK Gov could (in extremis) simply nationalise the network at a stroke of a pen. If the backhaul is satellite based, and controlled from another part of the world, this isn't going to happen. And Elon Musk has history of switching Starlink off to parts of the Ukraine.
• Satellite to end user is beginning to become available - but realistically I have no understanding of the probable implementation timescales. I would note that people have lost a lot of money in the past on satellite mobile - when I worked at Motorola in the early 2000s it was a significant factor in their decline  
• Roadside fibre is expensive. These masts are not going to make anyone any money. They will lose the operators money, and I would be very surprised if they were not subsidised by either National or devolved government. So they will be looking at the cheapest possible options. Microwave backhaul is as cheap as it gets.

It may have sounded like I am wholly in favour of the proposals. I'm pretty neutral on them, and I do have some concerns. Frankly, I'm not bothered by the presence of masts. As others have pointed out, the Scottish glens are man-made landscapes - realistically no less than the alps (just without good weather and ski lifts). What does concern me is that the proposal is seemingly for diesel generator powered sites - this strikes me as wholly inappropriate. Wind / battery or wind / solar battery would seem much more appropriate for these locations - there is no pollution and no noise from generators running. Additionally, the need for access will be much less frequent. Probably annually for maintenance. 

In reply to gooberman-hill:

Thanks for the reply. 

> critical national infrastructure

You seem to ignore the possibility of the U.K. owning sattelites.  We build many you know.  Land or space our CNI requires third party components and has physical vulnerabilities.  Just repeating “CNI” and assuming ground based is better is naive at best.   Satellites are a lot harder to take out than masts; Ofcom have documented hundreds of attacks on terrestrial masts from conspiracy theorists weaponised over 5g nonsense.  You seem to be arbitrarily taking a one sided view aligned to masts.

Edit: here’s a link - masts are a very obvious target for both people and UAVs.  If China attack, I’d expect a massive unexpected wave of UAVs out of a container ship or two, and nowhere in the UK is that far from the sea… I’ve seen no rational case made that masts are better than satellites in terms of vulnerability, rather the opppiste to date…

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/220002/attacks-on-the-...

> Satellite to end user is beginning to become available - but realistically I have no understanding of the probable implementation timescales.

I have it in my pocket now, in a limited capacity.  That limited capacity is all that’s needed to address the “emergency communications” angle.  So, I don’t think wider timescales are long…  Other services with more capacity are being trialled already. You seem to be arbitrarily taking a one sided view aligned to masts.

Is that the case when you have to build access tracks up through highland blanket bog, and install, fuel and maintain generators in those remote locations?  Certainly not the cheapest if you factor in environment damage.

Pull the other one.  There’s going to be some juicy contracts for the access tracks to be made, for sites to be prepared and for the kit to be installed.  They may be run at a loss, but there will be juicy contracts to service the sites.  There’s plenty of money to be made here, and i wouldn’t be surprised to find some vested interests in the civil engineering and systems integration world  as a result.  I wonder what the contracts for all these masts will be worth?

In reply to UKC/UKH News: You could run in roadside fibre at the same time as you bury all the power cables to make them weatherproof.  But neither will happen as the cost is too high unless it was a government policy to force this.  There are also capacity, futureproofing issues, so doing it cheap isn't cheap in the long run

Satellites enter the equation when they exist.  Again that is a matter of national policy as for a small group of remote users to pay for this themselves will never happen 

In reply to wintertree:

Thanks for your reply. To a certain extent you are right - CNI by it's nature is vulnerable to attack. Where possible you certainly want to ensure multiple routes to ensure resilience.

I think you are missing the point about satellite mobile phone systems. Yes, they are available, and they have been for at least 20 years. But here's the problem. Satellites are very expensive to put into orbit, and the bandwidth is limited. Anywhere with any sort of reasonable population is much more cheaply served by terrestrial cellular systems - so satellite mobile is essentially a solution for places where no-one lives (which is why they have not taken off previously). 

Yes, the UK can build satellites, but the lead time on building satellite systems is very long. If you want satellite mobile, you need low earth orbit to minimize the power consumption. And to run that you need a constellation of satellites like Starlink - which then gives you whole earth coverage.

I do know something about the economics of building and maintaining cellular sites. Two points - firstly the margins are not nearly as good as you would imagine. The site is likely to be shared infrastructure, and a minimal cellular configuration (either a single omni carrier, or a 1/1/1 tri-sector) as the capacity requirements will be minimal. The cellular infrastructure is minimal - the site preparation is likely to be the biggest cost, followed by the mast. This work will be competitively tendered, most likely across multiple sites. There is no deep expertise required for the basic site preparation, so the cost element will dominate the tender. Maintenance contracts are typically awarded across multiple sites - and the highlands of Scotland are difficult to access - so the per-site price will not be lucrative in the context of a larger maintenance contract (eg the whole of Scotland)

The one area of site construction that would potentially command a higher margin would be the design and implementation of a renewable power system on the site. This is likely to be bespoke work (I used to do this sort of thing myself). As I said in my previous post, I would not favour diesel generators for this type of site. If diesels were necessary, then a diesel-battery system (running diesels to charge batteries) would be the way forward, as it would maximise site efficiency while minimizing pollution (hydrocarbon and noise). 

In reply to gooberman-hill:

I think the cost of satellites is changing dramatically and what was true 3 years ago is no longer predictive, unlike the last few decades.  Everything has changed in terms of possibilities with falcon 9 and Starlink, and everything is going to change again with Starship.  Other customers are in talks to buy a private network based on Starlink designs.  Other providers are trialling direct space-to-mobile phone links.  Now SpaceX have proven reusable launch is possible in practice, the pace of innovation is ramping up with many other rocket designs.  The world is changing and for backhaul now and remote area 4g service soon, satellites change everything. 

> I would not favour diesel generators for this type of site. If diesels were necessary, then a diesel-battery system (running diesels to charge batteries) would be the way forward, as it would maximise site efficiency while minimizing pollution (hydrocarbon and noise). 

Totally agree on a hybrid power system.  I wonder how well solar/wind/battery would work though? These are some of the harshest environments in the UK and also northernmost where solar craps out in winter combined with periods of low wind.  A generator is a necessity I suspect and at that point trucking in fuel is probably cheaper than installing wind and solar and maintaining them, given that an access track has to be build regardless?

The access roads and site builds might be low margin, but do you really stand by a claim no money would be made on them?  Likewise service contracts.

In reply to wintertree:

I can't talk in detail about the money side - I have a fairly detailed understanding from my work.  I dont work in telecoms, but i do work in infrastructure management. I don't want to comment as much of what I know is under NDA.

What I can say (which is widely known) is that running a mobile phone network is not a high margin business. The operators try to distinguish themselves as brands, playing on being media organisations. They are keen not to be seen as bit pipes, which is where they are all heading. Cellular connectivity is a commodity, so it is very much a high volume low margin business. That impacts the downstream suppliers - so while yes, everyone will make a bit of money, it won't be fat contracts.

On your point about whether wind / solar is viable, I think my worry might be more a concern about whether a suitably robust wind turbine could be sourced. I recall an incident with a wind turbine in a remote location  catching fire. When we enquired about the wind strength we were told they were unsure, as the anemometer had torn itself apart at 180km/hr!

Overall I think the only reason that the operators are proposing this is because the government is making them. If it had been commercially viable it would have been done years ago.

In reply to gooberman-hill:

I thought I had been clear.  I’ve not talked about the profitability of running the network.  I disagreed with you saying there’s no money to be made on account of the construction of the tracks and the construction and commissioning of the masts and electronics, which will be performed by sub contractors on a for-profit basis.

I agree with your take that the commoditisation of bandwidth means it’s a race to the bottom for operators in terms of profit margins, and given the low usage of these specific masts it’s clear they won’t make money for the service providers sharing them.  They will however help the network operators meet regulatory targets with fiscal consequences.  But, as I’m sure I’ve been clear, the construction of the access tracks and the site installation will be done by contractors, and those don’t tend to work without profit.  I’ve mentioned the contracts for the tracks three times now and each time you’ve replied on the telephony side only.   Plenty of money is going to be made setting this up, just not by the network firms.

Yes, as I said these are some of the most external environments.  The combination of lack of sun and wind in certain winter conditions necessitates a generator, at which point…

As for anemometers in extreme environments, should have used an ultrasonic device with no (unprotected) moving parts.  

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I get better 4g and phone signal there and in most of scotland than I do in my house in central Lancashire regardless of then having a new mast haha 

In reply to Madmax245:

Serious point there: we have plenty of areas of poor signal in built-up places across the UK. Places where people actually live, work, and would benefit from better coverage. There are also plenty of households and businesses not being connected to fibre broadband. Both of these ought to be the priorities (I speak as someone with semi-4G-coverage in my house, in a not-remote Highland village. Give us proper 4G and we might be able to do better than our unreliable and glacially slow 8-9mbps copper phone wire internet connection. Better still get us broadband AND 4G)

On the other hand no users stand to gain much from new masts in the most remote glens. Do you want to stream movies in your tent? Or go on Facebook while winter climbing? No, me neither. Are rescue teams asking for new masts in National Parks and designated Wild Land and National Scenic Areas? Don't think so.

The blanket 95% landmass coverage is an absurdity because it is leading to a rush of phone mast proposals in places that don't need them and will be seriously compromised by new tracks and infrastructure, while seemingly failing to address the actual substantial issue of poor connectivity in urban and inhabited areas.

I'm also a bit baffled by talk on this thread of national security. Nobody lives, and pretty much nobody works in the places that conservationists and hill-fans are worried about here. Is 4G connectivity on the north side of Liathach a national security requirement? Obviously we want control of our own network, but from a security perspective does that network need to extend to every inaccessible corner of every hill in the Highlands?

In reply to wintertree:

Down here they deliver remote masts by helicopter and T.com run them on bio-methanol fuel cells refuelled every 9 months or so. It's not difficult.

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

I think I might be more supportive of some of the proposals if it were not that fact that it seems impossible to understand why some of these locations have been selected. The Torridon proposal seems utterly bizarre - bounded by hills in all directions apart from  small SW window, with no line of sight to any other likely mast in any direction other than down the glen towards Torridon House and the car park. Similarly with the Mullardoch proposal, which would be bounded in all directions other than south to more empty hills. 

It would be instructive to see how all these masts are supposed to connect to provide the back haul connectivity which has been suggested on this and other related threads. 

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

At some point within some of our lifetimes, I feel it might become impossible to have a true adventure. You know, one where you're actually on your own and you can't just pick the phone up in moments of stress or isolation? That is a sad thought.

In reply to tehmarks:

But presumably not sad enough to consider just not taking your phone with you?

In reply to wintertree:

I think you missed my point

The services required to build out new base stations are not high-skill services (apologies to any bulldozer drivers on this thread) - so the tenders will be driven by pricing, which pushes the margin down. Most of the cost will be the people - so for a subcontractor there will be little margin on top of the wages of the necessary staff (bulldozer drivers, PM etc).

And the anemometer - it was 15 years ago!

In reply to Stuart Williams:

Which seems a lot like the "well you could just not clip the bolt" argument about sticking bolts in the vicinity of established bold trad routes.

In reply to Harry Jarvis:

The Torridon application doesn't make any reference to backhaul connectivity. I think backhaul connectivity was suggested by a UKC poster who was struggling to think of any other reason why they might put masts up dead-end glens out of sight from human habitation.

The developer's (WHP Telecoms) given reason for putting a mast up that glen is that people who visit that glen "suffer from no mobile connectivity due to characteristics of the local topography". 

https:/wam.highland.gov.uk/wam/files/76B9939F5D864C85E09ED2733072C77D/pdf/23_04138_FUL-INDUSTRY_SITE_SPECIFIC_SUPPLEMENTARY_INFORMATION-3180487.pdf

In reply to tehmarks:

Well, if you don’t clip the bolt when trad climbing then the option to clip it remains there if you change your mind. If you don’t carry a phone then you don’t have the option of using it on the hill.

Pretending you are alone without hope of rescue while carrying a smartphone in your pocket - I’d say that’s more akin to bolts on a trad route.

Nothing against carrying a phone, and not saying I think we need connectivity everywhere. Just observing that your true adventure remains within your grasp should you want it. (meant as a lighthearted observation, not an argument in favour of the masts.)

In reply to tehmarks:

There’s always caving.

In reply to Myr:

Every time I try following the link I get "this site is unavailable at this time"

Does anyone else have this problem?

In reply to gooberman-hill:

Suspect the document download link was dynamically generated and no longer works. This would get you to the application but you'd still have to find the specific document Myr was trying to link.

https://wam.highland.gov.uk/wam/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=S057RWIHJZZ00&...

In reply to gooberman-hill:

Sorry - it's the "INDUSTRY SITE SPECIFIC SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION" document for the application.

In reply to jimtitt:

They're bound to end up changing to helicopter access for some of the most remote sites in the UK shared rural network. They'll abandon the access tracks on cost grounds.

In reply to Myr:

Thanks for the link to the technical info. A couple of things jumped out:

Page 6.

An existing ATV Track is viable for construction without the introduction of a new track or extensive repair of the existing ATV track. As such, it is proposed that the build be aided by helicopter to reduce environmental impact to the track. If any works are deemed to be required relating to access, the requisite separate planning permissions will be secured for the track prior to works. 

Also, the plans and technical info further down show 2 MW dishes facing SW /NE and a VSAT link. So the site is a backhaul link site.

In reply to gooberman-hill:

What is it linking? SW is, as I've said before, is in the direction of the road at Torridon House, and NE is further up the corrie. What onwards link is possible in the NE direction? 

In reply to gooberman-hill:

But there is no existing ATV track, something that has been pointed out by several local residents in their planning response (not expecting you to have gone through all these). There's a stalkers/walkers path, unsuited to vehicular access.

This is one of the things that makes me wonder if it is a speculative application made from a distant desk with a map of coverage holes, but little knowledge of what's actually on the ground.

Another thing leading me to wonder that is the choice of location in the first place; it really is the height of crass insensitivity to propose something like this in the heart of arguably the UK's finest mountain range.

Then there's the question of who actually needs it here - not that local residents appear to have been consulted on this fundamental point.

The company involved has yet to respond to questions.

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

In many ways the creation of tracks is one of the most intrusive and destructive aspects of these developments. They change the access and are visually extremely intrusive. One can see there is not much sanction available one the track is created / improved. It will just become an irreversible part of the landscape.

The tower seems unnecessary and difficult to make a case for beyond a tick box, although in itself is less intrusive. If this is legislation driven then that needs changing urgently.

(fwiw this seems very different from the Langdale proposal)

In reply to HardenClimber:

Quite.  Same as some of the grouse related developments here in the north pennies, the tracks really scar the landscape.

But, what a juicy contract for a civil engineering firm if a track needs building, no?  Given the kind of landscape and accessibility, it's not a trivial project.  Interesting to look at an exchange up-thread suggesting there's some falsehoods in the documentation on the state of not-actually-real tracks.