Request ID: FOI-3678-2324 Date published: 12 February 2024
You asked
F/o from 3360-2324
Dear Sara,
Thanks for your reply and the additional information you've provided.
Since my request exceeds the cost limit under FOI, I'll try to reduce its scope.
Would it be possible to search for emails From 1 July 2023 to present that involved @boldyn.com or @baicommunications.com and contained all of the words 'interference', '5G' and either 'elizabeth' or 'crossrail'? I'm not familiar with what your search system will allow you to search by in terms of combining multiple search terms together, so please let me know if this isn't possible.
We answered
TfL Ref: 3678-2324
Thank you for your follow on request from ref 3360-2324, received by Transport for London (TfL) on 18 January 2024 asking for information about the Elizabeth line mobile phone coverage. Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy. You asked: On the TfL mobile coverage map, it states that coverage on the Elizabeth line will be 4G only, while other lines will gain 5G coverage. Could you please provide me redacted copies of all emails between TfL employees from 1 July 2023 to present that involved @boldyn.com or @baicommunications.com and contained all of the words 'interference', '5G' and either 'elizabeth' or 'crossrail'? I'm not familiar with what your search system will allow you to search by in terms of combining multiple search terms together, so please let me know if this isn't possible.
Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy.
With regards to 5G on the Elizabeth line the end goal is to have 4G and 5G deployed fully in both stations and tunnels on the Elizabeth line. In the short term to facilitate early delivery we will initially deploy 4G in the stations and 4G and 5G in the tunnels – this will be subject to further testing in both stations and tunnels . Tunnel testing has yet to be completed, although we don’t anticipate any issues from the intermodulation studies that we have already completed. We obviously take the testing aspect of delivery very seriously. The tunnel 5G coverage will inevitably also leak into the station to provide some coverage there too.
For efficiencies’ sake, as far as possible, we are using the already installed infrastructure to provide cellular coverage. We are also using the maximum number of frequencies to help the Mobile Network Operators (MNOs) provide the best possible service. For the tunnels we are only using the existing antenna system (leaky feeders in the tunnels). The rest of the infrastructure is new build and therefore we are using the same approach as we are for the London Underground. This allows us to provide the same service as with the London Underground with both 4G and 5G available.
In the stations we are also initially using the existing station antenna system. It differs slightly for the two types of station, in LU managed stations the infrastructure is shared with all other systems, whereas in Rail for London (RfL) managed stations there are two antenna systems with a slightly different configuration of systems deployed. We repeat the testing on each. However, the major obstacle is that the existing infrastructure does not support the higher frequencies that the MNOs require for their 5G coverage. This is the reason that we are not initially deploying 5G in the stations . To overcome this issue, we would need to install the same small-form low power radios that we have installed in the LU stations . Although this seems straightforward the design of the Elizabeth line stations makes running cables difficult. In the light of this challenge, we decided that early coverage with 4G was a sensible way forward with a longer term aspiration to ins tall the 5G radios at a later date. We will rerun the testing before these new radios are turned on during passenger hours of course.
I can confirm we do hold some of the information you require. However, to provide the information you have requested would provide a significant burden to our resources and therefore we are not obliged to provide this information in accordance with section 14 of the FOI Act.
We carried out two separate searches which was necessary to enable us to use all the search terms you requested. Across the two searches there were around 160 hits and, whilst there was some duplication, there were also a number of attachments and documents caught in the searches which we would need to also review, along with checking if we need to consider applying one or more of the exemptions from disclosure under the FOI Act. Therefore, due to the wide scope of your request and the resources required to answer in full, we are refusing your request under section 14 of the FOI Act.
Our principal duty is to provide an effective transport service for London and we consider that answering this request would represent a disproportionate effort. It would be a significant distraction from our work managing the TfL network, requiring re-allocation of already limited resources and placing an unacceptable burden on a small number of personnel. We do wish to clarify that whilst we consider that your request falls under section 14(1) of the FOI Act, this does not reflect a conclusion that it has been your intention to deliberately place an undue burden on our resources.
On the specific application of section 14(1) we have been steered by the ICO guidance on the use of that exemption that can be found on its website here:
You will note that this guidance includes the following advice to public authorities:
“Section 14(1) may be used in a variety of circumstances where a request, or its impact on a public authority, cannot be justified. Whilst public authorities should think carefully before refusing a request as vexatious they should not regard section 14(1) as something which is only to be applied in the most extreme circumstances”;
“Sometimes a request may be so patently unreasonable or objectionable that it will obviously be vexatious….In cases where the issue is not clear-cut, the key question to ask is whether the request is likely to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress…This will usually be a matter of objectively judging the evidence of the impact on the authority and weighing this against any evidence about the purpose and value of the request”;
“The public authority may take into account the context and history of the request, where this is relevant”;
“The information Commissioner recognises that dealing with unreasonable requests can place a strain on resources and get in the way of delivering mainstream services or answering legitimate requests.”
“Section 14(1) is designed to protect public authorities by allowing them to refuse any request which have the potential to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress”.
“…the concepts of ‘proportionality’ and ‘justification’ are central to any consideration of whether a request is vexatious”;
The guidance includes some specific indicators to help public authorities judge whether or not a case should be considered vexatious. This includes the following:
“Burden on the authority: the effort required to meet the request will be so grossly oppressive in terms of the strain on time and resources, that the authority cannot reasonably be expected to comply, no matter how legitimate the subject matter or valid the intentions of the requester”;
“Frequent or overlapping requests: the requester submits frequent correspondence about the same issue or sends in new requests before the public authority has had an opportunity to address their earlier enquiries”.
“Disproportionate effort: the matter being pursued by the requester is relatively trivial and the authority would have to extend a disproportionate amount of resources in order to meet the request.”
If you would like to re-submit a more focused, specific request then we will, of course, consider it.
Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to appeal.
Yours sincerely
Sara Thomas FOI Case Management Team General Counsel Transport for London
