@Bow_Don wrote:
Thanks for the helpful reply. As stated in my post though, both my personal and work phone as well as partners phone all show phone signal and 4/5G but despite this, the internet is either painfully slow or doesn't load at all.
That's exactly the point I addressed in my first post.
Not sure what you mean by "phone signal in the area is.... generally better than 4G/5G". Both 2G, 4G & 5G are radio technologies that are used to provide what some might call signal coverage. You also refer to your area being a "deadzone for signal" which suggests further misunderstanding of what your phone's signal bars are measuring.
Perhaps another way of explaining the concept is this - imagine the coverage at Twickenham Stadium, which has an internal antenna system. For the vast majority of the year, this equipment is providing coverage for a small number of users, thus the voice & data traffic is minimal. Excellent data speeds are achievable. On matchday, the exact same coverage is available but there are upto 82000 users in the stadium - thus the capacity is put to full use and, whilst mobile data is still usable (I speak from experience), it's not going to achieve the same speeds as on a mid-summers weekday.
The village of Pilton in Somerset is another similar case - once a week two years out of 3, the village hosts the Glastonbury Festival... with huge demands on capacity.
Regarding resubmitted planning permission, networks generally tend to have a good idea of where poor coverage areas are, and/or where additional capacity is needed. But they won't just keep on resubmitting "in-case" a subsequent attempt is accepted - the process isn't cheap and there's not endless budget!
And to put it bluntly, local residents groups and suchlike can often be quite organised and methodical in opposing planning applications for new-builds. If you're keen for new infrastructure to be built, I would suggest you direct your efforts to write in support of the applications that they will likely be objecting to.
