Dear reader, how could a newspaper help you out here, amid the sharp decline in EMT mobile phone coverage?
Editorial: state agency «unaware» who must protect consumer, market
Please note that the article is more than five years old and belongs to our archive. We do not update the content of the archives, so it may be necessary to consult newer sources.
EMT insists coverage is OK and if anything could be blamed for poor call quality, that would be those modern smartphones with wide screens and tiny antennae (the very gadgets they advertise and sell). In today’s Postimees, a competitor of EMT describes the situation from his own angle.
Our reporters talked to the Technical Surveillance Authority, which firstly has provided the frequency licences, for big money; and secondly should – judging by the name, at least – be able to assess and measure technical aspects (of mobile telephony).
We were expecting an impartial and qualified estimate. Turns out, it is «difficult» for the agency «to comment the topic» and they «lack detailed overview»… True, these are excerpts from answers to specific questions regarding if and how coverage is impacted by EMT partially using the existing 3G network equipment for building 4G – as admitted by EMT itself, yesterday.
Let us recall that only a day before, Technical Surveillance Authority expressed its agreement to criticism at Postimees’ claims of old type network equipment having been used to build the new. This, supposedly, was mere speculations. The above is not splitting hairs; rather, we are providing an overview of some circumstances leading us to doubt whether the surveyor, as the name would imply, is doing its job.
As also confirmed by our online comments, people complain of mobile coverage suffering starting this summer – from when EMT G4 was proclaimed. With the company taking pointing at problems as hate speech and a state agency unable to say anything, what must we consumers do?
Or what should we think of a company being awarded, according to the very promises of fulfilled technical requirements and speed of creating network, a G4 frequency licence for €1m, while another company pays an auction price of €5m for the same kind of document? From here, we are lead to ask pointed questions about fairness of business environment and consumer protection.
Cheaper issuance of primary frequency licence on basis of technical conditions and speed of execution only is, indeed, explained by the need to stop companies from buying up licences just to block the arrival of new technology – booking a space, not building a network. But surely this is not helped by the issuing authority checking the fulfilment of conditions in such a casual and superficial manner; and, when people point at shortcomings, all they do is shrug shoulders.
High time for the agency to give up general apologia of EMT and say point blank what they intend to do now – first, to objectively assess the situation, and, secondly, to adequately react. If mistakes have been made in protecting state and consumer interests, these have to be honestly admitted, not getting all entangled in self-defence.