UKH

From Torridon to the Cairngorms, planning authorities face a flood of applications to build hundreds of new 4G masts in Scotland's wildest and most scenic places. Costing taxpayers half a billion pounds, the Shared Rural Network rollout is state-sponsored environmental vandalism, says David Craig. What's the 'thinking' behind it? And can it be stopped? 

Read more

But how will we use the rockfax app without a signal 😉

As always, if you want to talk about "state sponsored environmental vandalism" you should focus on upland "management" rather than phone masts. 

Of course if you can excuse the ecological dessert that the highlands have become, but are offended by a metal pole, carry on.

To add for clarity: I'd rather we had functional, natural ecosystems and no phone masts. To me the former is much more critical, and I find it strange that is so often overlooked in this argument. 

It's not an either-or is it Ian? We cover environmental questions a lot, and that very much includes land management. Here are some opinion pieces, just for starters (a lot more coverage is in news etc)

Lynx reintroduction: https://www.ukhillwalking.com/articles/opinions/is_a_lynx_reintroduction_li...

Wild land under threat: https://www.ukhillwalking.com/articles/opinions/scotlands_wild_land_is_unde...

Grouse moors: https://www.ukhillwalking.com/articles/opinions/its_time_to_end_burning_on_...

I'm not sure if you've used the app before, but you don't need signal in order for it to work. Yes, you have to download the areas in advance, but not doing so would be akin to forgetting your printed guidebook in years gone by, and if you do forget then there's always wifi (and there isn't always a shop to buy a new guide in).

A convenient (for the governments) side effect is that these kinds of schemes transfer large quantities of wealth from the state (i.e. us) to private corporations whilst allowing them to claim they are doing good. Not that I would accuse either government of having an agenda other than the wellbeing of the population ...

Resident populations are not the only concern, the rail network does pass through Wild Land Areas and there is an extensive road network in other locations without habitation.

Telcos (even with state aid) have no desire to have high build and maintenance costs. 

Masts are sited, in part, to minimise access difficulties; generally making use of existing ATV/Quad tracks. They generally do not site them on hill tops as a more careful look at the map included in the article will reveal. Personally, I find modern masts pretty low profile.

Many masts will have diesel generators as a backup but they primarily run on battery arrays feed by solar arrays and a wind turbine.

Finally, the article both rails against the imposition of masts in wild places AND opines that all people going into Wild Land [Areas] should carry a personal locator beacon. The precise quote is, “could (should)”. So, against state interference but also paternalistic. Perhaps the author should pick just one fight at a time?

Some of the masts in the plan are not sited to minimise access issues. It has certainly been the case that some of the planning applications have been dishonest when describing access via existing tracks - the application for a mast in Torridon described access via an existing ATV track, when regular users know that no such ATV track exists, and the supporting documentation itself shows a single width footpath. 

That they are not sited on hill tops makes them less useful, since it reduces the possible coverage they offer. 

There are good grounds for improving mobile phone access in the Highlands, but the current proposals are a botched compilation which do not address the real needs of local users and do not make allowances for the special nature of the suggested locations. 

I've written to my MP and MSP regarding this, and thought I'd provide the email I sent as a template in case anyone wanted to do the same but doesn't fancy spending their lunchbreak thinking up another synonym for 'ruin'. 

Dear INSERT NAME OF MP OR MSP

 I write to you today regarding the mast sites proposed as part of the Shared Rural Network. At present 274 publicly-funded mast sites are proposed for the Scottish Highlands. These are to address the existence of 'not-spots', i.e. areas that have no 4g connectivity.

https://srn.org.uk/about/srn-tns-site-locations/

The issue is that many of these areas are totally empty of roads, dwellings and permanent residents. They are the wildest and most remote parts of our landscape and should be preserved as such. Many of these proposed masts (and the associated infrastructure) would be located within national parks and protected environments. Several of the proposed sites are erroneously described as being accessible on existing ATV tracks where no such track exists. 

As part of the demographic identified as the chief benefactor of the connectivity that these masts would allow, please tell SRN that we neither need nor want it. My emergency communication needs are provided for by my personal locator beacon. With regards to those of my fellow mountaineers who do not carry PLBs; this, being without signal and connectivity, is what they have chosen, and an integral part of why they have chosen to go to these places. Remote workers are almost always required by their employers insurance to carry PLBs. 

The argument that these masts will increase safety in the Scottish mountains does not merit the huge cost. Most hillwalkers carry personal locator beacons these days, and satellite-based communication systems are rapidly being incorporated into smartphones. Do we want to invest £500m in infrastructure that will be rendered obsolete within ten years? For perspective, a PLB costs £275 and lasts for six years before the battery needs changed. 

The tracks required to install these masts, the diesel-powered generators required to run them and the masts themselves will have a huge visual impact on some of the least-touched landscapes in the UK; landscapes that draw tourists from around the world. 

Please hold the bodies looking at the placement of these masts to account, and ask them why masts are being considered to bring 4g connectivity to uninhabited, rarely-visited glens.

Please note that this is not a blanket objection to all proposed mast sites. Many of these masts will likely improve connectivity for poorly-served parts of the highlands. I ask you to ensure that SNR have a robust case for each mast, and that public money is not spent on providing internet connectivity for uninhabited glens, lochs and hillsides. 

Best regards,

 YOUR NAME

Include the fact that you are a constituent of theirs, your phone number and full address including postcode. 

I think the other consideration would be: 'How would the Emergency Services use their 4G-reliant communications* without a signal', which might be an overlooked factor in this discussion.

*When it eventually happens, as it's already several years late.

That's a trifle worrying.

You could always write a letter to your MP or MSP - but then that's not possible for someone who lives in Copenhagen !

I'm not sure the author understands fully the meaning of the word 'disaster'. 

Additionally, and I appreciate I may be in a considerable minority in these risk-averse days, I'm dead set against reliance on anything other than your own knowledge, skills and experience to get you out of trouble should things take a wrong turn.  PLBs and comprehensive mobile phone coverage are no substitute and yes, I appreciate that this may, for many, remove a safety net they want to have.

My attitude is that we'll lose something if we stop our wild places being risky.  If everything goes wrong, you put yourself in a situation where it might happen so if it does, in the first instance it's up to you to get yourself out of it.  Not by phoning someone or activating a PLB, by dint of your own effort.

But as I say, I'm aware that my attitudes may not be shared.  That doesn't make them wrong though.

T.

I'm registered as an overseas voter in my pre-emigration constituency thanks, as is my right. And I still take an interest in UK affairs, as I am still very vulnerable to being dumped back into the UK against my wishes thanks to the fact that I only managed to get out post-withdrawal agreement. But I doubt writing to a tory Yorkshire MP will really help the situation in Scotland? So to answer your question, I very much could write to my MP. Which I have done. About upland grouse estates and mismanged moorland. In his constituency. 

edit: Spelling

No for sure it's not, and my issue is less with your article specifically (which I found very informative and interesting btw), rather with the single-focus of such campaigning. Ultimately I'd like to see energy directed into all of these issue together - to properly restore/rewild/your term of choice the Scottish, and UK, uplands to what they could be. 

Write to any MPs who have constituencies in Scotland that you visit. It isn’t just their job to look after the locals, but all the issues that’ll affect locals and that includes things like tourism. Tell them you’ll be reluctant to keep visiting, and it’s in their constituents interests that you do. 

You are correct, I have not used the app. Many reasons for this, prefer a guide book, would rather lose/damage a relatively cheap book than an expensive phone.etc.

It does amuse me to see a web based business arguing against capability, truckers against motorways.

Ridge's comments re emergency services are very pertinent here.

I’m not entirely sure why your response is directed at my post. I don’t think you’ve written anything which contradicts my post.

You highlight “local users” - an odd phrase for a currently nonexistent service - who do you suggest forms this group?

Finally, as noted, there is a planning process; there to consider the particulars of each application, including to “make allowances for the special nature of the suggested locations”.

The precise quote is: "[PBLs] could (should) be mandatory for anyone working in remote areas". Clearly he does not mean all users. Infact, as far as I can tell the author is not at all opposed to state 'interference' as you call it being in favour of the Scottish 4G Infill program. Just opposed to the way that the SRN is being implimented.

For what it's worth (as somebody who lives in the Highlands) I oppose the SRN. Not because I'm a nimby and can't stand a pylon spoiling my view, but that it seems very poor value for money for the taxpayer. Highland residents often feel that the highlands don't get their fair share of investment, but most seem to support other projects eg the long proposed new Belford Hospital in Fort William, or the A82 upgrade.

They won't be needed for long, if they even get installed in time to be useful. This is just round the corner and is only the first. Maybe the government will see sense before much gets done.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/10/spacex-details-starlink-for-phones-...

I guess that also means sad times for Tony Buckley; some day you'll unfortunately have a signal for emergency calls wherever you are, masts or no masts.

Err, actually the author goes on in that para, “local [PLB] rental sites could be provided to service occasional users and visitors.”

> it seems very poor value for money for the taxpayer

A one-off £500m investment is a drop in the ocean, for context the January 2014 NI reduction cost the Treasury £9,000M per year. To suggest “poor value for money”, one would first have to define one’s “values”.

Just thought I would flag your original comment as it takes the quotation out of context and heavily implies the author is arguing that all users should carry PBLs which is incorrect.

For us in the Highland economy £500m is actually quite a lot of money that I would rather not see spent on pointless masts dotted around random bits of bog. However I've not heard from any users who actually work in these areas on this forum. I would be interested to hear the view of MRT members, stalkers etc. 

I'd assumed that was the case given that you were incorrect. 

That's great, I like guidebooks too - and it's why we continue to publish both digital and print (and long may that last).

Yes, we're a web based business, but do I think people need to be on our website all the time - absolutely not. 

I'm not really sure where you stand on the matter, are you for or against, or just contrarian?

When (not if, sadly) that day comes, the world will have got just a bit less wild, and I shall feel that loss.

I can always leave my phone behind, of course.

T.

I don't think my quote was as "out of context" as the author implying operators running diesel generators in remote locations non-stop and needing regular refuelling, but its a fair opinion to hold. The whole para on PLB is rather bizarre.

The Gov's £500M is spread across the four nations; though I'd imagine a good chunk is in Scotland (including the operators it is actually £1B, so could well be £500M to enable the "developments" in Scotland). Highland Council's net budget is £712M so your comment on the size of the investment is fair, though the value that is gained depends on how one defines "value", so "pointless"-ness is in the eye of the beholder.

I also agree with you that it would be interesting to have wider input, from the groups you mention but also from rural land and business owners, etc.

I'm a Highlands-based freelance ecologist who works all over the place in remote upland areas - Nairnshire forests yesterday, hills south of Loch Ness today, near Achnasheen tomorrow and a Caithness wind farm on Friday, to give an example. I don't think the proposed benefits of the SRN programme outweigh it's significant costs, as outlined in David Craig's article, and have written to my MP accordingly. 

I actually find EE phone signal is really good and covers most of the places I work, and I always carry a SPOT emergency locator with me just in case the worst happens. It's not uncommon to see that carrying a SPOT device or similar is requested by clients in their Risk Assessments.

As for stalkers, I imagine you'd get a range of views, but they seem to have been able to carry out their jobs fine with the current amount of phone coverage. Given the size of Highland estates I imagine each new mast will only boost signal in the area covered by one or two stalkers so it's not exactly value for money. The land owner might be keen though, as they'll be getting paid to host the masts on their land.

I'd be interested to hear what mountaineering instructors and guides think of it all. I'd be very surprised if most of them didn't already carry PLBs.

It's quite funny reading hill/phone discussions then checking in on chat about my other main interest, chess, where there are severe penalties for anyone caught having a live phone turned on during a game - instant loss of the game and also a potential ban if it was shown to be used for cheating rather than just an accidental call from the spouse asking what food there was back home for tea. (I've seen that happen in a team cup final and it affected the final result.) Different world.

For the record I'm basically with Tony on this - I have a rudimentary mobile, just phone and text, which always goes up the hill with me in case of emergency, but I don't have a smartphone and that's the last thing I fancy on a hill outing. It's now become completely commonplace to see folk get to the top of a hill and start doing internet stuff (and/or taking selfies), rather than indulging in the basic traditional pleasure of sitting down to eat lunch while looking at the view.

Oh for the days when the Masses looked for the Blackpool Tower.

How on earth did hillgoers used to cope without phones?

God, they were bloody 'ard in them days. 

It is perhaps not a coincidence that the planning applications which have attracted a large number of adverse comments have all been withdrawn - the one at Luibeg, the one in Torridon, two in Glen Affric. I would draw the conclusion that, if you object to these proposals, the best way to proceed is to lodge objections to the planning applications when they appear. At the moment there are still applications in the system for a mast in upper Glen Nevis and one between the head of Loch Mullardoch and Iron Lodge.                                                                                                                    

Which costs? Environmental, social, economic? What's the opportunity cost? Do you realistically think this money would be spent in this area if not via SRN?

The question is not how SRN may benefit people to do what they currently do but: what could SRN facilitate them to do beyond current limitations.

Yes, land owners have a vested interest, like everyone else. But, presumably, it is frequently the land owners who provide (some) jobs/work (sometimes for ecologists?) in the local area...

I think the focus on PLBs is a nonsense, it is a secondary "purpose". The benefits in the "safety" domain are more likely around facilitating the (4G based) Emergency Services Network.

Completely agree; the purpose of the planning process.

I didn't think I needed to re-write David Craig's article to describe the costs.

Is it? What do you think bringing 4G to these areas is going allow that can't be done already? 

Ok, in that case give the landowners whatever they want... That's not really an argument is it.

If it's not to improve safety, what is it for? What use is 4G in the remotest part of Glen Affric if not to call in a rescue? So I can do Wordle and post on Instagram while ignoring the view.

Whilst from the search point of view I ought to approve of such developments I just can't. Leave a bit of space for full fat life.

The article does an appalling disservice to valid "costs". The costs the author lists are: "spiritual", "environmental" and "[economic] cost" - all done cursorily giving basically zero basis for this belief, except with regard to the "spiritual". BUT, I am intrigued by what you consider to be the costs, not the author.

The ability to work (collaboratively) on the train between Glasgow and Fort William. Low cost real-time remote monitoring. I am no entrepreneur but I am sure others have novel ideas with potential economic benefits.

Not at all what I wrote, just that we all have a vested interest. Not just the landowners (or hillwalkers).

There is nothing permanent except change.

Have you looked at the map of where the proposed masts are? Do you know anything about the area and understand just how remote a great many of these locations are? We're not talking about the ability to remote work for the vast majority of these, as nobody will ever conceivably be doing this. As an example, the 3 proposed masts covering the area south of Altnabreac station on the Far North Line - the Morvern area. Or the 4 to the south east of Loch Naver. Masts in these and other similarly remote areas will provide coverage only for the shooting lodges in these areas and for MRT. 

Have you read my posts?

People will remote work where there is the opportunity to remote work. See my (and others) previous comments re: the planning process, if you object to specific sites for particular reasons.

So, could we surmise that - in your professional opinion - SRN is beneficial? Any particular reasons?

Yes, I have. And no, they won't remote work where there are no dwellings or shelter of any description. 

It has been brought to my attention that my (now moderated/removed) posts caused offence. I apologise for any offence caused.

The substance of those posts was that dwellings and [permanent] shelter are manifestly not a necessity for "remote work" (by which I include, e.g., "field work"). It was my suspicion that you also believe this but perhaps not or perhaps we misunderstood one another.

That’s enough UKC for one day

But the question still stands. What new work in these very remote areas, including 'fieldwork', is 4G going to allow? 

Given the financial and environmental (and yes, emotional) impact of these new masts, this is going to have to some very necessary or beneficial work.

I think, as Will suggests, enough for one day. Even the Devil's advocate needs rest. Referring to my previous posts:

I've given specific examples of "opportunities". I've also highlighted that there is, in all probability, no opportunity cost lost as there is no real alternative opportunity by which this money would be "invested". I have not seen particularly strong evidence of environmental (ecological as opposed to social/emotional) damage, though please share your insight as a professional in this area. Finally, the planning process does consider proposals on a case-by-case basis.

'Change' is all too often just a consequence of ...

... there is nothing permanent except greed and stupidity.

A better investment would be to ensure that populated areas are better served by mobile services. This would be of much more direct benefit to local users, residents and visitors alike. 

Agree totally with the sentiments in your letter but one section that caught my eye was the claim that most hillwalkers now carry a PLB. Is there data out there on their ubiquity? If so it's a truth that's sneaked up and surprised me a bit.

They managed for years with walkie-talkies. Seemed to work pretty well.

Great until a solar storm or EMP from a nuclear detonation in space wipes them out, or Elon decides to switch them off.

Great but please, please keep the guidebooks usable. The current trend for coffee table guidebooks is beautiful but unfit for purpose.

Increased capacity leads to increased revenue.

Undecided/contrarian, the article is very one sided as these things often are. There are future consequences which can be anticipated. Everything is becoming more and more web reliant and a lack of capability in rural areas may hinder emergency service response. It is always easy to put forward a nicey nicey enviro case which will gather sympathy easily. Reality also has to be considered. On the whole, we are visitors rather than residents, we have an influence but it is and should be of less value than those who live, work and serve the area.

The argument is reminiscent of the early days of mobile phones. There was a big hoo har about their use in the hills and how awful it was/was going to be. I doubt the complainants would have refused a call on their behalf if injured. Nowadays, it is seen as negligent not to carry a phone in the hills.

Had a wee trip to the Lakes last autumn and enjoyed the novelty of sensible sized guidebooks!

Here's the catch though: the larger guidebook size is what sells. Over the years we've published a variety of smaller sized guidebooks, including the Peak District Pokketz guides and the North Wales Classics, and they are - without doubt - our poorest performing guidebooks. If people bought them we'd make them, but people don't - so we don't. If only there were a small handheld device you could use that has all this information on that's lighter than a guidebook...

So what you're saying is that by building more masts in the Highlands we'll make more money? If so, you might want to think that one through, because we're not. Don't get me wrong, someone will, but it's not us...

The only people who stand to make anything out of increasing connectivity in random remote bogs are the companies being paid to install the gubbins (and who helped write the policy)

It could be quite a boon to those wanting to charge for parking,

It's been mentioned a couple of times in this thread but mostly overlooked. Many of these transmitters aren't specifically of use for the public. They are a replacement for the existing AIRWAVE Emergency Response Network that is being phased out by the government (a failed phasing out that is way over schedule and budget already). 

These transmitters will likely be steamrollered through as I can't see the UK going back to the Motorolla system which they consider too expensive - and going back to the Motorola AIRWAVE system is the only way these transmitters (or at least a substantial number of the remote ones) will be stopped. 

Here's some background

https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2023/03/nao-criticise-huge-delays-to-...

https://www.theregister.com/2015/01/08/airwave_tetra_switch_off_gov_service...

Europe have just extended the TETRA system (the foundation of AIRWAVE) it seems and have it failover to 4G/5G if more network is needed but hence can have 4G holes without majorly affecting service. 

https://www.intelligentcio.com/eu/2023/10/30/danish-government-extends-nati...

I'm finding it hard to identify what proportion of masts are ERN related and what are SRN related. 
 

The frcc/cc guides sell, in both appropriate and inappropriate format.

Perhaps an unfair question but as a climber, not an employee, which would you rather carry up to the east buttress, the pocket sized definitive guide or a large format bumper fun book?

I am still not convinced by apps having lost guides to the sea, down gullys, off ledges, etc. A few 10s of guidebook Vs 100s of phone where the cash loss can be minor in comparison with the data loss.

More masts will not mean less income, that is for sure. I am writing this taking in the view from Barrots, Monsant with good signal

The greatest visual impact is from the wind turbines, not the phone masts.

I'm conscious that we're having a separate discussion here, so maybe it's worth us splitting and creating a new one if we continue to go back and forth.

Both the CC and FRCC have moved towards larger formats in recent years, presumably for the reasons outlined within my previous post. If they felt that their older, smaller style guides were what people wanted - and what they were buying - then I suspect they'd have stuck with that, but they didn't. 

These days I'd use the App, although I never thought I'd say that, because I - much like you - am a big fan of guidebooks (obsessively so). It genuinely took me by surprise when I found myself leaving my guidebook at home, because I never thought that day would come.

Prior to both the app's development (and being employed by UKC/Rockfax) I did a variety of different things depending on the area I was visiting. Ordinarily I'd carry the guidebook with me to the base of the crag, then take a photo of the topo and description of the route I was intending to do using a compact camera and carry, then carry that up with me instead of the book itself. This seemed like a lighter approach, with the added benefit of being able to take photos along the way.

It's a risk, I don't deny that, but how often will it actually happen? Infrequently, I'd imagine. I've lost a few wires over the years, but most were lost whilst I was in extremis, not at a belay (which is where you're going to be reading the guidebook from most of the time).

It won't mean less, but neither will it mean more - or at least not for us. 

Yes an unintended consequence (probably) is that we will see Highland Council roll out car parking charges to nearly all lay-bys and car-parks across the region, with no core hours so as to catch both day time users and van stop-overs. Others probably will follow; initially the forestry commission whom are already expanding their charging, and then landowners and crofting grazing committees. All with cashless transactions enabled by ubiquitous 4G. Charging infrastructure will range from full parking meters to a QR code on a post.

Interestingly I was on Skye briefly at the w/e and stopped at a popular spot. The car park was full but the Ring-go app was saying it was quiet; so a lot of tourists are obviously chancing it and not paying.

A phone may well only be dropped very occasionally, but, with our whole lives increasingly on our phones, if it is dropped, it can be a far greater inconvenience than dropping a guidebook or a piece of gear. I wouldn't want to be using one in many climbing situations. Mind you, having said that, many people use a phone as a climbing camera without a second thought! 

And yes, I'm aware that the counterargument might be that if the rest of our lives are on our phones, then why not climbing guides too.

Years ago, long before boolder and free roaming, I bought an utterly crap and ludicrously cheap 7" android tablet and copied the whole of bleau.info onto it for our font trips. It was as well as, not instead of the books, but significantly lighter than any of them. You could always do that if you want something droppable but lightweight.

This I agree with.

Sadly most people view the Highlands as 'wild' where in fact its a intensely grazed area which does not represent what wild would have been there prior to large scale human intervention.

I find the same with the lakes, it's bleak and in no way wild. But upland farming is subsidised by the state and prevents the UK areas being wild limiting natural eco systems. Phone masts are unsightly sure. But so it miles and miles of treeless hills which once would have been actually wild.

In the USA they have a nifty line of mobile masts disguised as trees and cactii, pity all the trees have been cut down in Scotland!

There are one or two of those that I am aware of - yes, even in Scotland, but as trees, not cactii

We have them in the UK too. They get used occasionally at sites where a traditional mast is deemed too unsightly.

But they have a number of drawbacks: 

1) They look a bit rubbish; they don't look at all like a natural tree, more like a 5 year old child's drawing of a tree.

2) Due to ICNIRP, they have to either be significantly taller than the surrounding trees, or have to be positioned a long way from the nearest trees. So they stick out like a sore thumb.

3) They are quite limited in terms of the technology they can support. They are expensive, and not very upgradeable. I'm not 100% on this, but I don't think you could support the technologies required for the SRN using any of the existing approved designs.

4) They are made out of GRP, as were most of the 3G and 4G custom shrouds that are used to hide antennas on rooftops etc. GRP was fine for 4G, but it's useless for 5G. At 3500mHz, the loss of signal when passing through GRP is huge so GRP is almost impossible to get approved for new/upgraded sites with 5G. There are alternative materials that would do a similar job (probably at a higher price) without the 5G signal loss, but to the best of my knowledge, no new materials/designs have been approved yet for use on the UK networks.