The Shared Rural Network: Successes, Failings, and the Impact on Landlords

The UK’s Shared Rural Network (SRN) was heralded as a game-changer in closing the digital divide, promising better mobile coverage in remote areas. While it has delivered some improvements, the reality is more complex, with significant shortcomings that continue to undermine its success. Among those feeling the strain are landlords hosting telecom infrastructure, many of whom are being paid a pittance for their role in enabling connectivity.

The Purpose of the SRN and Amendments to the Telecommunications Code

The SRN was launched as a collaboration between mobile network operators (MNOs) and the UK government, designed to expand mobile coverage into areas that were previously considered commercially unviable. It was underpinned by changes to the Electronic Communications Code (ECC), which was amended to make it easier and cheaper for operators to install and maintain equipment on private land. The government’s justification for these changes was that they would facilitate rollout in rural and hard-to-reach locations, ensuring mobile networks could be extended without excessive costs acting as a barrier.

However, these amendments have come at a significant cost to landlords. The revised Code has effectively slashed the payments received by landowners who host telecom masts. While these landlords are fundamental to the expansion of mobile networks, many are receiving vastly reduced rents compared to what they would have been entitled to under previous agreements. This has led to frustration and legal battles, as landlords feel they are being strong-armed into accepting unfair compensation for their contribution to national connectivity.

Government Subsidy and the Ongoing Funding Issue

Despite the amendments to the Code being designed to facilitate cheaper and faster rollout, the government has still had to inject a staggering £500 million into the SRN to ensure progress. This raises serious questions about the effectiveness of the policy changes: if making site access cheaper for MNOs was supposed to make rural coverage more viable, why has such a substantial subsidy been necessary?

Even more concerning is the reality that this funding may not be sufficient to complete the job. The easiest-to-reach locations have seen improved connectivity, but the hardest-to-reach areas—the very places that needed this initiative the most—are still at risk of being left out. The money is running out, and without further investment, large swathes of the UK could remain digital blackspots.

The Inequality of Network Access Persists

The fundamental aim of the SRN was to reduce inequality in network access, but with funding stretched and some locations still unlikely to receive coverage, the divide between the “haves” and “have-nots” remains stark. While urban areas and more commercially viable rural locations benefit from improved connectivity, those in the most remote areas continue to struggle with unreliable or non-existent service. This has serious implications for residents and businesses in these areas, impacting everything from emergency services access to economic development.

Conclusion: A System That Fails the Very People It Relies On

The Shared Rural Network was meant to be a solution to digital exclusion, but its flaws are increasingly evident. The amendments to the Telecommunications Code have helped reduce costs for operators, but at the expense of landlords, who are receiving minimal compensation for their role in the network’s expansion. Even with government intervention, the funding shortfall means the hardest-to-reach areas remain in limbo, continuing the cycle of inequality in mobile connectivity.

For the UK to truly bridge the digital divide, a more balanced approach is needed—one that fairly compensates landowners, ensures sufficient funding for full rollout, and genuinely prioritises the needs of those in the most underserved areas. Without these changes, the SRN risks being yet another well-intentioned initiative that fails to deliver on its promises.