It is now estimated that 83% of UK legislation emanate from the EU and no matter what UK politicians say on a subject makes no difference - they have been neutered; EU law takes precedence over UK law.

From The Times  [page 40 in the paper copy]
September 10, 2007

QUOTE start......
Brussels may let BT hang up on public call boxes
Elizabeth Judge, Telecoms Correspondent

Britain’s 60,000 public payphones are under threat because of plans by Brussels to review the law under which BT funds and maintains them.
Under an historic agreement put in place at the time of its 1984 privatisation, BT is responsible for providing and maintaining call boxes around the country - even where it does not make money out of them.

The committment is one of several so-called universal service obligations (USOs) that fall on the group as the country’s main telecoms provider.
Now the European Commission has announced plans to review the system amid lobbying that provision of services such as payphones is no longer relevant in the age of mobile phones and other new technologies.

Related Links
BT seeks variable pricing to save the endangered kiosk
BT in cash-and-calls deal with HSBC

The Commission is to publish a Green Paper on the issue aimed at launching a “wide-ranging debate” on all parts of universal service. The move could see USOs scrapped altogether.
There is, the Commission says, a need for a “fundamental reflection on the role and concept of universal service in the 21st century . . .”

The USO was aimed at ensuring that all citizens had access to basic telephone services at an affordable price. Alongside payphones, services such as directory enquiries, special call tariffs for low-income users and itemised billing are included.

However, funding for these services varies between countries. While BT retains sole responsibility for the cost of all USOs in the UK, in some other European countries the cost is met by a levy on all operators.
BT has lobbied for some time for a review. As mobile phone uptake has surged, it argues that payphones no longer provide the vital service that they once did. Virtually no customer, it says, now relies on public payphones as the primary means of making calls. More than one third of its payphones are unprofitable. Nearly 12,000 of them, it says, take less than £100 a year. Sales from its payphones division have declined by nearly 50 per cent in the past three years.

BT has argued for mobile phone operators to share the cost of the provision and upkeep of the call boxes. The group also points out that it competes with commercial call box providers, which can cherrypick the most profitable locations and are not obliged to provide access around the country.

...... QUOTE END

Source: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/telecoms/article2419266.ece

~ Edited by Dave: Link to source added

kk wrote on Sep 10^th, 2007 at 7:42am:

BT has lobbied for some time for a review. As mobile phone uptake has surged, it argues that payphones no longer provide the vital service that they once did.

What happens if you forget to take your mobile with you or the battery runs out though?  Flag down a passing motorist and hope they aren't a psychopath or a rapist I suppose? :o
       

a

:o
It's a bit of a sad state of affairs that you feel you must hope that a person isn't a psychopath or rapist. I think the odds are very much in your favour there.

But yes, I agree if it was part of their obligation for privatisation and profiteering then it should remain so. BT are a shower of sh1ites in my opinion and take whatever opportunity is given them to stick the hand in.

What about the vast tracts of the UK where there is NO mobile phone signal?   We live in a village less than 50 miles from London but only have VERY limited mobile phone signal via Orange (ie occasionally you get make/receive a call in some rooms in the house, sometimes even moving the phone from dialling to the ear loses signal).  For other networks, there is no coverage at all unless people walk approx 250 yds up the road (not always practicable or desirable eg if injured or reporting a crime).   Neighbouring villages are in an even worse position with no signal from ANY network.  For example, one village has had to abandon any plans for flood alerts by mobile (following severe flooding in June)
because nowhere has any signal (and, geographically this village covers a large area, the post round is over 20 miles!)   My son cannot get good, reliable mobile signal in Cambridge!

These sort of possible cuts make me furious.  Inhabitants of any area outside major cities (which obviously doesn't include Cambridge!) is excluded from any relaible service for anything.  Off message, we have lousy radio reception (and even that is made worse by breakthrough from Stansted Airport Control Tower), can't get most stations including BBC.  Our digital television aerial is on a huge mast and even then digital TV is totally unreliable yet there are NO plans to improve any of these services.   (And we don't have gas!)

There needs to be a concerted campaign to ensure that ALL citizens, wherever they live, have a right to basic services, including telephone, radio & TV! (Oh, aren't these all some responsibility of OFCOM??!!)

Barbara wrote on Sep 12^th, 2007 at 5:45pm:

What about the vast tracts of the UK where there is NO mobile phone signal?   We live in a village less than 50 miles from London but only have VERY limited mobile phone signal via Orange (ie occasionally you get make/receive a call in some rooms in the house, sometimes even moving the phone from dialling to the ear loses signal).  For other networks, there is no coverage at all unless people walk approx 250 yds up the road (not always practicable or desirable eg if injured or reporting a crime).   Neighbouring villages are in an even worse position with no signal from ANY network.  For example, one village has had to abandon any plans for flood alerts by mobile (following severe flooding in June) because nowhere has any signal (and, geographically this village covers a large area, the post round is over 20 miles!)   My son cannot get good, reliable mobile signal in Cambridge! These sort of possible cuts make me furious.  Inhabitants of any area outside major cities (which obviously doesn't include Cambridge!) is excluded from any relaible service for anything.  Off message, we have lousy radio reception (and even that is made worse by breakthrough from Stansted Airport Control Tower), can't get most stations including BBC.  Our digital television aerial is on a huge mast and even then digital TV is totally unreliable yet there are NO plans to improve any of these services.   (And we don't have gas!) There needs to be a concerted campaign to ensure that ALL citizens, wherever they live, have a right to basic services, including telephone, radio & TV! (Oh, aren't these all some responsibility of OFCOM??!!)

I guess the reason you can't get a good signal is because every time a mobile company wants to put a mast up there are howls of protest. People don't want a mast outside their front door. You can not have it both ways.

Thanks Sherbert, that doesn't make MY point about lack of signal any less valid, indeed it reinforces the case for retaining phone boxes!   Also, is unlikely to be the whole case in respect of the city of Cambridge.   The fact remains there are many areas where the landscape also interferes with signal.

The original post highlights two issues:

First:  That an attempt is under way to allow BT to pull out of universal public pay phone provision.

Second: The decision about BT pay phones is to be made by the EU and not us; as the EU now has, in the jargon, competence in telecommunications.

Those interested in the workings of the Brussels machine, will be interested to note that the bureaucrats in Brussels, while attempting to tell us what to do, can’t even run their own country.  A post in “The Brussels Journal” foretells the disintegration of Belgium  http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2433  It may be difficult to complain to them by phone.

Barbara wrote on Sep 13^th, 2007 at 10:30am:

Thanks Sherbert, that doesn't make MY point about lack of signal any less valid, indeed it reinforces the case for retaining phone boxes!   Also, is unlikely to be the whole case in respect of the city of Cambridge.   The fact remains there are many areas where the landscape also interferes with signal.

The problem with the phone boxes is that they are un profitable. No business will run a  system at a loss. The fact of the matter is that they are not used enough. I believe in this country mobile companies wont share masts. (This is what I am told and assume that this is true.) If like in other countries they did, I guess we would not get any 'black spots'. I had a friend who went to the Swiss Alps and had five bars on his mobile whilst in the mountains and was able to make a call! So the answer is to get the mobile companies to share their equipment oops just seen a pig fly past my window! :)

Speaking at an ITU conference in West Africa a couple of years ago I learned that mast sharing is viewed as sensible by many operators. Those without masts can buy access; those with masts can sell access. Result - happy suppliers and served customers.
Grow up UK.

There are loads of co-located mobile phone transmitters in the UK, and have been for years.

That article is about Belgium, not the EU.

It is BT who are lobbying very strongly for this, and there's no reason to suppose that the outcome would differ whoever it will be that makes the decision.