VodafoneThree has committed £11bn to upgrade masts, while the UK’s mobile coverage remains worse than any of the 27 EU member states and every other member of the G7, according to a recent report by Which? based on data from Opensignal. That’s the hard edge of the story: a country told to sprint into an AI future while its networks lag, its planning system drags, and the people who use the service are left to absorb the consequences.
The Network as Command Structure
Senior industry executives say the UK risks becoming a laggard in the global AI race because crucial telecoms upgrades are falling behind rival nations. The infrastructure race around AI has centred on building datacentres and securing the huge water and energy supplies needed to cool them and provide the computational power to train and run AI models. Now the same system wants broadband and mobile networks to carry an immense volume of AI-related traffic produced by consumers and businesses. The message is blunt. The digital economy gets bigger, and ordinary people are expected to make the network work.
The UK has already dealt with its “previously embarrassing status” of having one of the slowest broadband speeds in Europe, as BT’s Openreach and other service providers cover the country with full-fibre connections. But efforts to upgrade 5G mobile networks are not keeping pace. The result is a familiar one: the state and its corporate partners celebrate progress in one area while the basic infrastructure underneath remains patchy, expensive, and controlled from above.
Which? says the UK ranks 57th globally for network performance, 70th for download speeds and 55th for the reliable quality needed for video calls, streaming and gaming. Those numbers matter because they show what the glossy language of “competitiveness” hides. The system is not being built for people’s needs. It’s being built to keep capital moving.
Planning Delays, Private Demands
Andrea Donà, networks director at VodafoneThree, said: “If with the technology and services we use today [networks] are sub-optimal, imagine when you add mass AI usage and other associated activities.” He added: “I would go further. I am embarrassed today at the level of quality of our network[s]. The UK is worthy of what EE, O2 and VodafoneThree can offer, but we need reform.”
Donà compared the strain on networks to signal loss at a big public event, naming a gig at Wembley, the British grand prix at Silverstone, or a rugby international at Twickenham. “What we see now only with a mass aggregation of people is a proxy, an indication of the things that will come,” he said. “That [one-off] experience will be constant because of the additional capacity [consumers] will need in an AI world.”
Another senior telecoms executive said the issue of AI and connectivity is still “nascent”, but will become a “national competitiveness issue” in the same way the slow rollout of full-fibre broadband did. “Things are going to change massively with the next wave of devices, in two or three years when AI is integrated into everything,” he said. “AI companies, and governments, don’t think about networks, but they will when they hold them back.”
That’s the real architecture here. AI companies, governments, and mobile operators all speak the language of inevitability, while the public gets told to accept the bottlenecks and pay for the upgrades.
The State Helps, the State Hinders
The industry says it is being held back by planning delays. Donà said VodafoneThree is not trying to build more sites in its case; it is actually reducing its nationwide network of masts by 30%. About 96% of the upgrades it needs to make are on existing sites, but more than half of those will require some form of planning permission, which companies say can be a lengthy and bureaucratic process.
Donà framed planning reform as a cheap growth fix. “Andy Burnham has his agenda on growth,” he said. “Our infrastructure is here to help the government and UK economy. Planning reform is the lowest possible cost growth policy – it doesn’t require any government money. It could be a great first 100 days-win for the new prime minister.”
That line says plenty. The network is treated as a tool for the government and the UK economy, not as a public service shaped by public need. The corporate demand is for faster permission, fewer obstacles, and a smoother route through the bureaucracy. The people living under the masts, using the service, and dealing with the costs don’t get a vote in the same way.
Mobile operators also argue that despite their networks being classified as critical national infrastructure, alongside datacentres and energy and water systems, they do not receive the reliefs the government has offered those sectors in areas such as business rates and energy. So the operators want the state to recognise their importance, cut the red tape, and hand over the benefits. The public gets the bill, the firms get the relief, and the whole thing is sold as national progress.
The AI race, as described by the people running it, is not a neutral technological sprint. It is a contest over infrastructure, permissions, and control. The masts go up, the datacentres draw power and water, and the networks are expected to absorb the load. The rest of us are told to call that modernisation.