That is an enormously good point. It is a matter of bewildering complexity. Ofcom is over-layering four different models dependent on masts, terrain, topography and thickness of walls, and the reality is, as the hon. Gentleman says, that 90% of the time for 95% of the people is probably an overestimate of what we are currently getting.
Nevertheless, Ofcom states in its consultation document that it can see no benefits from extending the coverage further. In fact, it states on page 67 that the costs would outweigh the benefits. Why? Because it is worried about losing money in the auction—nobody knows how much—and is worried that when it tries to sell the radio spectrum, which it owns, to the mobile telephone companies and asks them to increase their coverage obligation from 95% to 98% these companies might pay less in the auction. Indeed, they may. It stands to reason they would pay less, but probably not as much less as Ofcom fears.
Rural Broadband and Mobile Coverage
Proceeding contribution from
Rory Stewart
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Thursday, 19 May 2011.
It occurred during Backbench debate on Rural Broadband and Mobile Coverage.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
528 c558 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 16:22:37 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_744537
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_744537
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_744537