UKH

As per the previous discussion on Glen Lui there is now another application for Coire MhicNobaill, Torridon. That's the glen between Beinn Dearg and Liathach.

4km of bulldozed track, a 25m high mast, and a diesel generator.

Is it just me or are these proposal absolutley idiotic? I believe there are now applications for three more in Glen Affric.

https://wam.highland.gov.uk/wam/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&...

In reply to GForce1:

Can I check if the best way to raise a concern is to create an account and leave a comment?  Or wil there be a better publicised public consultation? 

In reply to GForce1:

Don't know if it came up in other thread but probably part of new ESN

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-emergency-services-mobile-co...

In reply to GForce1:

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 GForce1:

On the BBC a couple of days ago 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyj2ww73w17o

In reply to J72:

I believe that is the correct way to object.

In reply to GForce1:

More on this here: https://www.ukhillwalking.com/news/2023/11/4g_onslaught_threatens_highland_...

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

Thanks Dan for the article.

The concerning thing is there is no way to keep track of what is being proposed. At the very least there should be a list of all the proposed masts for the public to view.

Building remote masts in locations that nobdy will use, powered by constantly running diesel generators. It sounds like an April fools joke.

Attadale:

https://wam.highland.gov.uk/wam/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=S09DOIIHKBR00&...

Glen Affric, Strawberry Cottage:

https://wam.highland.gov.uk/wam/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=S09DOIIHKBR00&...

Ben Alder Lodge:

https://wam.highland.gov.uk/wam/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=RKPNMCIHFHY00&...

Iron Lodge:

https://wam.highland.gov.uk/wam/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=RZY42UIHJQV00&...

This one is high in the corrie below Creag a' Mhaim, South Glen Sheil Ridge:

https://wam.highland.gov.uk/wam/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=S0B5MGIHKG000&...

In reply to GForce1:

This is a Shared Rural Network (SRN) base station and can therefore be expected to host three or four Main Network Operators (MNO). It looks like there could be some Scottish government 4G Infill (S4GI) money involved as well. 

Ofcom has finally realised that the population model of mobile coverage is not sufficient. This is largely about public safety and although its nice for everyone to be able to post to UKC or to Whatapp jokes to their mates while sitting watching telly at home, it is not at home where they really need their mobile phones the most. The flat tyre on the deserted road, the chest pain while walking the dog or the broken ankle in a high corrie are when they need it most and neither the population model nor the ESN model are good enough. 

The industry has had the choice of coming up with a way of filling in the notspots and providing more coverage in rural locations or getting fined BIG bucks by Ofcom. To solve that problem they created SRN. ScotGov have the same concerns and Scotland hosts the UK's biggest notspots (Affric and Knoydart) so S4GI has similar aims although not all S4GI activity involves multiple MNO at a base station. 

Here and elsewhere there has been some criticism of Mountaineering Scotland. Looking at the purposes of Mountaineering Scotland in its articles, the first one is basically representing the interests of mountaineers and the second one is about SAFETY. Then there is stuff about representation, clubs and ethos, and then access and only then conservation. So if safety, access and conservation come in that order in their articles then expecting them to object to facilities that promote public safety is not reasonable. 

Let me be very clear. These SRN, S4GI and ESN expansions of 4G coverage (plus 2G for the foreseeable future) do improve public safety. 
- They allow people who have made the mistake of relying on online mapping to get away with it more often (and yes, there's a whole new thread's worth in that subject!). 
- Reduction in Well Intentioned False Alarms (WIFA) caused by people not being able to phone home on schedule.
- The coverage you had that enabled you to call home and boast about making it to the summit is now available in the corrie where you break your ankle on the descent.
- ANY mobile coverage, regardless of which MNO it is, provides 999 roaming, potentially with an AML data stream, for everyone. 
- The MRT coming to get you can more easily: 
 -- call you back
 -- use SARLOC/Phonefind to locate you 
 -- contact the local police sergeant's desk to call upon additional teams or helicopters
 -- use the resources of members still at home or work doing callout, SARLOC/Phonefind, tracking, weather and co-ordination
 -- communicate with hospital emergency departments from the incident site
 -- link communication systems across wide areas
 

Scotland will continue to be one of the safest places in the world. 

I refuse to live in a museum. 

In reply to Jim Fraser:

Reminds me of the "improvers" who thought it a great idea to build a road into Coiruisg.  I suppose a road up Coire Mhic Nobuil will be a great "museum" piece to more enlightened folk a few years hence.

In reply to Jim Fraser:

RRe: the “emergency call” angle.  Technology is moving fast.  I can now send an emergency message via satellite text messaging from my mobile phone.  No special hardware or subscription required. The level of satellite-mobile connectivity is just getting started.  We’re about to repeat the re-triangulation of Great Britain - build all this physical stuff that’s obsoleted by satellites before it’s finished.  Except this time it comes with access tracks. 

Edit: turns out I can also share my location via satellite with friends and family.  I doubt it’ll be long before I can text them directly via sattelite…

Tell you what though, the access roads to the masts will improve public safety as people can use the better surface and not have to navigate to get up…

In reply to wintertree:

I would pretty well guarantee these access roads would just encourage the "idiot tourists" who don't know what they're doing in the mountains to get even further in the sh1t  and much quicker. Plus if they're not blocked off they'll do it in cars that will then end up in the ditch when they discover that such roads aren't serviced by gritting lorries on a regular basis.

In reply to GForce1: An interesting article on it here and links to another https://parkswatchscotland.co.uk/2023/11/19/unacceptable-telecommunication-...

In reply to Neil Morrison:

If the masts will be installed anyway for ESN, is it not worth having civilian networks available too, allowing recreational hill users to use for the same infrastructure install?

In reply to Jim Fraser:

How we did we ever survive without them.

In reply to Naechi: I don’t think the issue is with the premise of better coverage more the location of some of them. Apparently locals are also critical of some of the chosen locations though I’m unclear on why.

In reply to Neil Morrison:

Perhaps due to the inability of signals to pass through Liathach?  (or Beinn Dearg)

In reply to Neil Morrison:

Thanks I will keep track of that.

https://wam.highland.gov.uk/wam/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=S2H0C8IHGKJ00&...

I had posted the Loch Mullardoch application above. Looking in detail they plan to form a track high up the hillside (750m). There are next to no meaningful drawings of this track but I can imagine what it will end up looking like.....

I can't image the cost, let alone the damage, caused by this is in anyway justifiable. I appreciate the top of the loch is already a bit of a mess (awful never properly finished hydro schemes), but this takes things to a compeltely different level.

In reply to GForce1:

I see that there is a mistake in that application.  The Location Plan shows the mast only a short distance above the Mullardoch dam (which would be acceptable), however the actual site is 2.4km up into the hills to the north at an altitude of about 700m, making it unacceptable in my opinion.

In reply to wintertree:

The resilience of satellites is grossly over-estimated. Anyone who tried using Globalstar during the 'dark times' 10 or 15 years ago understands this. 

I fully expect that we are moving toward a backlash against the debris field that is Starlink and similar systems. Utilisation of the entire LEO environment may need to re-imagined.

Satellite system do not do native SMS but need an email gateway at both operators for two-way comms because text comms with satellite systems are all email-based. Email gateways exist at the satellite operator's side but not always at the mobile operator. At north american network operators they still have email gateways but british MNO have been progressively closing these down and I am not sure if there are any left. As we move toward IP landline and GMS mobile is completely superseded by LTE, the interface between satellite and terrestrial systems will have to change accordingly.

In reply to Naechi:

The ESN, SRN & S4GI expansions are each done on a different basis. ESN is rolled out anywhere that you might expect a fire engine, ambulance or police car to turn up, plus an ESN-Air facility for connection with air assets. So that means all business and residential addresses plus public roads and a certain distance from them. EE have a contract with the Home Office to provide this service (and yes, its years late). The SRN model is as I described above. 

The presence of an ESN base station will normally mean that ordinary EE customers also have normal network access and ALL mobile users have access for 999/112 calls (999 roaming: call 999/112, c/w AML, but cannot be called back). It is said that public access to ESN base stations will be dependent upon the backhaul capacity from that base station back to the network. What that means for 999/112 calling and roaming is not entirely clear to me but why would you not provide a priority for that even at the site of a major incident with 101 coppers all trying to order pizza and chips?

The presence of a SRN base station will normally mean full service for ALL operators whether that is provided by SRN or a combination of ESN and SRN.

In reply to Jim Fraser:

Agreed. Comms should and are a question of national security, we've already seen Musk block the use of starlink at times in Ukraine because he didn't like it's specific use. We should place no reliance on another operators infrastructure that we can't have full control over.

Plus as you say there's more and more stuff going up there. Sooner rather than later, one will fail and break apart, explode, be hit by a meteor etc.. and there could be so much debris flying around there we render that region unusable. 

In reply to ScraggyGoat:

Surveys seem to be about all MS do on any issue. Their sole purpose seems to be turning out the same glossy magazine every quarter.

In reply to Grahame N:

There was an error highlighted in the other thread re existence of an atv track.

Notable that these errors are in the direction of reduced impact. Perhaps just cock up, but if not caught once the infrastructure is in it won't be removed.

In reply to GForce1:

Are we talking about a gravel land-rover type track? I could just about live with the mast but a track like that would fundamentally alter the look and feel of the place.

In reply to DaveHK:

If the first part of that answer is what you think then you're showing your own gross ignorance rather than any shortcoming in Mountaineering Scotland: even five minutes research would have disabused you of that notion.
As for the second part you'll be relieved to learn (as you obviously haven't actually read the magazine) that after almost 10 years as editor of 'the same glossy magazine every quarter' I retired last year. Since then MScot have acquired a very capable new editor and done a complete redesign of the magazine to celebrate its 100th edition of a much-loved - according to surveys! - benefit of membership.

You may well not have enjoyed a magazine whose content was almost entirely written by your fellow members, and I can live with your disdain for my work, but your claim about Mountaineering Scotland's lack of action is utter nonsense. A rather empty clever dick remark.

In reply to OMR:

I'm sorry to have upset you, I should have realised that there are good people working hard at MS and my comment belittles their work so I apologise for that.

In reply to DaveHK:

No worries Dave. As I said, I'm retired, which gives me too much time to practice being a tetchy old git.

In reply to DaveHK:

The ATVs are narrower than a car and have tracks not wheels, they are used when a route is too narrow or difficult for a 4x4. An ATV access track should be narrower than for road vehicles (I haven't seen the proposed design) but the construction is likely to be similar.

In reply to SDM:

The Industry Site Specific Supplementary Information document on the planning portal has a photograph of the track (Fig 4), which is quite clearly not suitable for either an ATV or a 4x4, and those of use who are familiar with the area would attest to the fact that the existing path is fine as a footpath, but would not accommodate either tracked or wheeled vehicles (other than bikes). 

In addition, the same document shows the proposed location to be some distance to the north of the existing footpath, so some further access route would be required for the final approach to the proposed location. 

In reply to Jim Fraser:

The resilience of satellites is extremely high.  The issue is more a limited number of ground stations.  More ground stations are being built and satellite satellite links are emerging to reduce the impact of a lost ground station by allowing messages to ride a laser beam from one satellite out of the ground-station dead zone over to another with a working ground station.  SpaceX are I expect going to make a killing by offering this across the Atlantic to commodity traders given its lower latency than glass sub-sea fibres.

Ways of managing the LEO environment are being re-imagined.   Also, the emergency satellite SMS system in my pocket (my phone) doesn't use a giant (V)LEO constellation, it uses a much, much smaller constellation at higher altitude.  

They don't currently do native SMS but that is being trialled.  I think it has occurred to the people launching satellites and spending large on LEO-Mobile phone connectivity that people would like integration.  

There's a choice - do you build a parallel infrastructure of masts and access roads for very rare usage in some of the most remote areas, or do you use the infrastructure that is being built out in space?  You're arguing the it's not all-the-way there yet in space, but the same is true about terrestrial masts.

The gateway for the satellite emergency SMS in my pocket is operated by Apple and works in many countries including the UK.

Regardless, I'm not sure what the wider point you are making is with the large paragraph you gave on gateways?  Any message hops between dozens of different pieces of kit, changing medium and/or format many times along the way.  So, satellites do this differently to masts.  So does my terrestrial wired internet connection.  From my perspective all that matter is "how reliably is my message going to get through?".  As long as it's sufficiently reliable, it can work how it wants, right?

Edit: The other thing I wanted to ask you on - you're vehemently against mobile phones for navigation, yet you're very pro enabling them to work for messaging for the same people, in the same locations.  Either a mobile phone is good enough or it isn't, right?  The arguments against their use for navigation all stack up as arguments against their use as an emergency comms device for a rescue.  What am I missing?

In reply to ExiledScot:

I'm not happy with the rise of the CNI argument with regards some of these masts.

A group of walkers stranded in a remote location is not, has not been and will not be a critical matter of national security.  Hence, a mast whose only apparent purposes are to let these people browse the internet, phone home and call for help is not, has not been and will not be a matter of national security.  Hence this Torridon mast is in no way CNI, as  national security does not come in to play.

The UK can and does build and pay for the launch of its own satellites, and we can buy satellites from other manufacturers.  We place reliance on sub-sea fibre optical cables and that doesn't give us full control over them (Russia has been surveying sub-sea cables in Europe over the last couple of years and then the Chinese vessel Newew Polar Bear appears to have dragged its anchor through one along with a gas pipeline...)

Mitigations - ground and space based - are being actively worked on, but if it happens too soon, it's a problem.  This is an excellent argument for restoring LORAN systems, for ensuring civil and military aviation has fallbacks to work without GNSS, for ensuring the crucial communications within the UK and between nations have terrestrial solutions etc.  I fail to see it how contributes to the case for a mask in the Toridons however.  I'd far rather that money went on improving the resilience of actual CNI.  I drive past a couple of major sub-stations twice a week they're woefully unprotected.  Giant open air targets just waiting for a drone or two.  If we have a global space outage we're going to have bigger problems than finding lost walkers etc.  

Sorry; rambling.  The point is there's a lot of scope drift going on here IMO unwarranted over CNI.  Direct comms with lost walkers in the most remote parts of the UK should be on the "nice to have" list, not the "critical" list, and IMO that means the emerging mobile phone > orbit links are "good enough".    

I would also point out that being terrestrial is no defence against damage.   Several sub-sea fibre optical cables were damaged this year when the Chines ship New New Polar Bear dragged its anchor over them.  

In reply to GForce1:

From what I gather the planning application has been withdrawn for the Torridon mast - update from Highland council to all petitioners this morning.

In reply to wintertree:

Thanks for mentioning this - very interesting.  I had no idea it existed (and indeed doesn't exist on my old iPhone 12!).

In reply to SNC:

It’ll be on your next model.

LA Search and Rescue have positive things to say

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/satellite-sos-game-changer-says-114155955...

It’s very early days for satellite <> phone service.

In reply to GForce1:

I've just had an email from Highland Council: the application has been withdrawn.

In reply to GForce1:

But will probably be back in a more refined form (from an application point of view) with 'improved' arguments.

In reply to HardenClimber:

Perhaps, or perhaps it has been withdrawn because of the large number of objections. There are still other equally contentious proposals in the system which for some reason, have attracted fewer objections. For example, the one close to Iron Lodge.

In reply to GForce1:

Maybe not in the same league as Torridon, but an application has been made for a 25m high mast in Glen Almond (at a height of 770m) near me in Perthshire.  I've lodged an objection.

https://planningapps.pkc.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?k...

Parkwatches take on the planning debacle, in essence these applications are likely to be resubmitted in a never ending cycle, till approved.

https://parkswatchscotland.co.uk/2023/12/13/unacceptable-telecommunications...

This is why fighting at planning level is only one front and we need to lobby MP/MSPs to the point they think they may be looking for alternative employment, so they change the policy goal-posts. 

So it would be good if this was co ordinated and engendered, but hey Mountaineering Scot from their web page , social media feeds still think selling beanies is more important……than running an effective campaign.

In reply to Grahame N:

Good Lord, what on earth is the purpose of that one!? I've walked and cycled along Glen Almond from Newton Bridge many times (most recently yesterday!), and have been over the hills on the north of the glen often enough. There is nothing there, save the ATV tracks servicing the grouse butts. It is as barren and desolate a place as I've seen south of the Great Glen. 

In reply to wintertree:

iPhone 14 is minimum requirement - £699. Not exactly a low bar to entry

In reply to sandrow:

It’s a new technology.  Do you think it’s going to get more or less available with time?

My point is that the direction of travel of satellite <> mobile links is evident.

Look a few years ahead and “wilderness masts” are going to look a bit pointless for low probability emergency use.

In reply to wintertree:

It's not just emergency use - just basic connectivity. Satellite is never going to be cheaper because it's not in the nature of tech companies to be charitable. Remote communities need access to low cost internet as much as they need access to water and electricity.

In reply to sandrow:

I didn’t reply at the time as I had nothing to add that wouldn’t take us round in circles.  I was specifically replying to another poster who was pushing the “emergency use” argument.  But as for remote communities, they are not best served by inaccessible masts on high terrain with fragile energy supply arrangements.  

Anyhow, time has move on and we now have satellites in orbit that can serve mobile phones directly through normal phone hardware, reaching more than just high end handsets.  

https://www.theverge.com/2023/10/12/23914081/spacex-starlink-direct-to-cell...

Coming online for SMS this year, data next year.  This stuff is far closer than most people seem to think, and this is just the beginning.  The use cases for some of these “wilderness masts” is rapidly fading.

In reply to GForce1:

I can see both sides here.

People expect good phone reception in tricky signal areas. 

People dislike the infrastructure that provides good phone reception in tricky signal areas.

In reply to sandrow:

I don't think this is disputed on this thread.

As I see it, the issue here is purely around the small subset of masts that are situated well away from local communities (and for which the geographical distance from residential areas is sometimes cited as evidence of their low impact).

It is possible to be completely behind the drive to provide remote communities with low-cost internet, and also be completely against remotely-situated diesel-powered masts that degrade the local environment while providing negligible benefit to nearby communities.

In reply to wintertree:

Globalstar is LEO and doesn't come North of Birmingham. In flat places or at sea, it will be fine, but the further North you go from 52N and the closer you are to North-facing slopes the more likely you are to find the limits of this constellation. 

I use satellite phones and other satellite technology regularly. People should realise that satellites are not black magic. Their resilience is questionable. They are expensive, not least because they require constant programme of replacement. They are vulnerable to space weather. The 40 year time slot in which we have routinely used them is an insignificant microscopic blip in the history of our solar system and a quite limited guide to the safety of artificial satellites. 

Mobile networks are also reliant on satellite systems since, increasingly, the base stations rely on satellite backhaul to connect to networks. A base station I was at a couple of days ago that is only a few hundred metres from a trunk road uses this technology. 

In reply to Jim Fraser:

My point remains - as you quoted - that the direction of travel is clear.  See my later post - VLEO to conventional handset SMS coming this year - https://www.theverge.com/2023/10/12/23914081/spacex-starlink-direct-to-cell...

The first comms satellite was launched 62 years ago.  Cellular telephony has a 45 year by history.  Both are pretty new technologies. 

Yup, so why add supporting and refuelling remote hardware to wilderness masts when the first VLEO > bog standard cellphone service is due to start this year?  At this point you’re just adding weakness.  The larger number and shorter dwell times of VLEO also brings more robustness against point failure, with each set of satellites having on orbit spares to allow gaps to be rapidly closed, with those gaps not impacting fixed ground locations for very long.

In terms of expense, I doubt all this money would be getting thrown in to VLEO without a business case?  Much of that business case seems to be that it’s cheaper and so more profitable than fixed infrastructure in low and ultra-low population density areas.

I’m all for CNI having redundant routes including physical/terrestrial ones but given people will soon be able to text and then call using VLEO constellations I just can’t stack up the case for fixed “wilderness masts”.

Edit: some sort of doomsday space scenario could happen, but the loss of wilderness mobile service would be the least of our problems.  There’re far better ways to spend resource to prepare for that scenario - which quite a few people feel is inevitable.  

In reply to wintertree:

In 2123, nobody will be fretting about climate change or nuclear war but about mismanagement of orbital realms. 

In reply to Harry Jarvis:

Perth & Kinross Council have just informed me that for this mast 'Prior Approval is not Required', which means that they do not object and the mast can be constructed.  The Delegated Report includes a sentence "The introduction of key telecommunication infrastructure would be advantageous to hillwalkers et al which must also be considered as beneficial".   I despair!

In reply to GForce1:

Not living in Scotland I am feeling like what I think is irrelevant, although I am not keen from the ‘wilderness’ being Interrupted point of view, I also understand people want these services to be available. The diesel genny is a bit old school though, surely a mix of wind and solar to power would sit better?