Why is mobile coverage so bad in and around Dulwich Village?

[Rockets]

Does anyone know who blocks the attempts of mobile companies to provide decent coverage - so frustrating for anyone who lives, works or visits the area that it is a mobile deadspot.

[malumbu]

Expect it is Dulwich Estates, they don't allow cashpoints and no doubt don't like mobile phone masts, there is one camouflaged in Belair Park

[ArchieCarlos]

10 hours ago, Rockets said:

Does anyone know who blocks the attempts of mobile companies to provide decent coverage - so frustrating for anyone who lives, works or visits the area that it is a mobile deadspot.

I'm glad you mentioned it, it's unfathomably bad and patchy. I've tried switching from EE to Three to Vodafone to Giffgaff (O2's network) and they were all crap, I ended up going back to EE and I'm still 'delighted' when I can get 2 bars of reception out of 4. 

It also seems like mobile phone companies aren't really seeing the problem. While EE and Vodafone admit their 5G is a little patchy, they claim to have perfect 4G coverage in the area (screenshots below). I wonder if there's a good way to report this issue to network providers?

[vladi]

Several applications have been submitted for the erection of a new cell phone masts over the years. All have been objected to by a vocal minority and so we all have to suffer very poor reception. So until the Nimbys relent, it isn't going to improve.

In fact, for those on 5g it will get worse as the 5G signal is less capable than 4G in terms of penetrating walls of houses. 

[Penguin68]

You should also note that local topology (hills and valleys)  causes problems where line-of-site is an issue (as it is with microwave transmission). You need more masts for a given area to give good coverage where there are hills. More needs for masts give more opportunity for nimbyists to complain.

Add to this exaggerated and false health complaints and fears about microwave radiation, particularly as regards closeness to schools and you get unnecessary blocking.  Microwaves are a health concern for those actually working on towers, but the whole point about cell technology is that by using a lot of (micro) cells you can allow the microwave radiation to attenuate very quickly away from the masts, offering virtually no health concerns to anyone not actually working on a tower.

Additionally, for 5G transmission you need many more masts than for 4G to achieve necessary coverage and speed. And these are not cheap.

I should add that each cell only has a limited channel capacity - the more demand the more likely that, for those travelling, there won't be capacity in the 'next' cell - so coverage appears patchy even where the cell operator believes that it offers coverage in that area. Even though the cells are served by high capacity fibre connexions and switched through IP, demand will still cause service availability dips.

Edited August 22 by Penguin68

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

12 hours ago, Rockets said:

Does anyone know who blocks the attempts of mobile companies to provide decent coverage

No-one.

The mobile companies think the coverage is fine (see the maps below). It's an expensive area (rent is higher) with low population density (fewer customers will be supported). Throwing a bunch of money at a problem that they think doesn't exist to make a small number of people happy isn't a priority for them.

People object to mobile phone masts all the time, often because they're worried about the 5G woke mind virus. The mere existence of objections doesn't stop them getting installed.

[bigmacca1]

Bizarrely one of the areas I find the signal disappears is around Hornimans park, right on the ridge of the hill? 

I am led to believe one of the higher points ?

[vladi]

18 minutes ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

No-one.

The mobile companies think the coverage is fine (see the maps below). It's an expensive area (rent is higher) with low population density (fewer customers will be supported). Throwing a bunch of money at a problem that they think doesn't exist to make a small number of people happy isn't a priority for them.

People object to mobile phone masts all the time, often because they're worried about the 5G woke mind virus. The mere existence of objections doesn't stop them getting installed.

If you believe your hypothesis is valid, pray tell why the operators keep on submitting Planning Applications for the masts?

Here's the latest application to get refused

23/AP/3268 | Prior Approval notification for proposed base station, installation of a 20-metre high monopole supporting 6no. antennas and 1no. 300mm transmission dish, the installation of 3no. equipment cabinets and ancillary development on east side of Dulwich Village (opposite its junction with Turney Road). | Land At Dulwich Village (Opposite Its Junction With Turney Road) London SE21 7BN (southwark.gov.uk)

and another...

21/AP/2121 | Prior approval notification for the installation of an 18.0m Phase 8 Monopole C/W wrapround Cabinet at base and associated ancillary works. | Dulwich Common Dulwich London SE21 7ER (southwark.gov.uk)

[Penguin68]

59 minutes ago, bigmacca1 said:

Bizarrely one of the areas I find the signal disappears is around Hornimans park, right on the ridge of the hill? 

I am led to believe one of the higher points ?

If the tower you are relying on is lower than you, then you may still not have line of sight to the transmitter, the microwave beams are still directional. They tend to beam out and down, and not up, for obvious reasons. 

[Spartacus]

1 hour ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

People object to mobile phone masts all the time, often because they're worried about the 5G woke mind virus. The mere existence of objections doesn't stop them getting installed.

Obviously they don't know the proven benefits of tin foil hats 

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

3 hours ago, vladi said:

If you believe your hypothesis is valid, pray tell why the operators keep on submitting Planning Applications for the masts?

2 applications in 3 years: a 3 year old application for a site on the South Circular (half a mile away from Dulwich Village) and a 1 year old application for a 20m mast above a medieval graveyard. That's not screaming "telcos are desperately trying to fix this problem, keeping making applications, and keep getting knocked back by unreasonable Dulwich Village NIMBYs"! 

16 hours ago, malumbu said:

Expect it is Dulwich Estates

As an aside, it looks like Dulwich Estate has set up some kind of free public WiFi network at the shops.

[the_hermit]

One at the top of Dog Kennel Hill is currently being objected to as well.  Mainly by Camberwell Grove residents on the other side of the hill who don't have a coverage issue.

[Rockets]

It's madness that coverage is so poor in parts of Dulwich, especially the Village, and I am not buying it's because the networks don't want it. The fact that all operators have poor coverage in the area suggests it is more than just a decision on their part.

If you look at Cellmapper.net you can see thetr is a big gap of masts once you go west of Lordship Lane.

 

I wonder whether any of the local councillors could help lobby to resolve the situation as many people I speak to are fed-up with the situation.

[Suggsy]

What have the Dulwich Village Councillors done in this regard - supported recent applications or not? 

[Rockets]

It is surely something they would get behind - it seems ludicrous that in this modern age when so many people rely on mobile phones that there is such a gap in coverage in Dulwich Village.

[the_hermit]

I wrote on another thread I couldn't get through to an emergency helpline reliably last year so had to run half a mile up dkh from the grove hill road side to get a signal (Vodafone - might have been ok with other operators).  Good luck to disabled or old people doing that...

[malumbu]

One reason not to live in the village then.  I was in Devon recently and apauling signal there too.  So not planning to move there either 

[Rockets]

Dulwich Village residents can sleep well tonight knowing that, despite having a keen interest in everything that happens there, Malumbu has no intention to move into the area/borough….;-)

[James Barber]

Until last April I worked for two mobile operators for eight years.

The applications made by operators that I've seen recently in Southwark, including Dulwich, breached the guidelines they agreed with the government in a number of ways - "Code of Practice for Wireless Network Development in England". 

For example the scheme proposed in the centre of Dulwich Village breached this code in several obvious ways - not consulting the nearby school, proposed in the area of a listed monument. It would also have required the junction to be partially closed whenever maintenance was required. It was also just very poorly designed engineering. Being placed amongst trees the cell site would give impaired coverage. Every 3-5 years they would seek to have the trees severely cut back. So an expensive site to operate to boot. 

Plenty of places they could seek new masts that comply with the rules the mobile operators agreed with the government AND economic to maintain.

The operators have avenues to liaise with the council about council property to his cell sites. Such sites tend to be tall giving excellent coverage. But they are more fiddly to organise. 

[Suggsy]

Thanks James. 

[the_hermit]

Plenty of places they could seek new masts that comply with the rules the mobile operators agreed with the government AND economic to maintain.

 

Hmmm every planning objection ever says this... so why do they never get built?!

 

[vladi]

@James Barber
Your contribution to the issue is greatly appreciated as you are in a unique position of having been Southwark councillor and also having worked with mobile operators.
That said, do you have any suggestions as to where a new cell mast could be located which would alleviate the problem and which would satisfy the Council Planners and the other main stakeholders?

 

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

On 23/08/2024 at 22:57, Rockets said:

The fact that all operators have poor coverage in the area...

...is contradicted by the operators' own coverage maps.

[Rockets]

But not their customers who try to access their networks.

 

I really thing this is something councillors should be getting involved with as everyone is frustrated by it - a compromise needs to be found.

[vladi]

My suggested locations for the site of a new cell phone mast are circled red on the map below. These locations are on high spots overlooking DV and so would give a strong signal over the current not-spots.

The company that owns mot of the masts in the UK pays about £10,000 to £30,000 a year to owners of buildings who agree to have a mst installed. In recent years, both JAGS and Alleyns have benefited form planning applications being approved for new buildings and extensions.  I would contend that any future planning applications from these schools be subject to their agreement on having a mast erected - either on a building or somewhere else on their grounds. By so doing these schools would be giving widespread support to the community.
Furthermore, the revenue they would earn from having a mast would offset the adverse effects of VAT being imposed on their fees.