Page 74 - Trends in Telecommunication Reform 2016

It is a shift from granting access to sharing costs 2.2.2 Network sharing in the fixed sector
and risks. It involves industry cooperation rather
than heavy-handed regulatory oversight. It focuses In the fixed sector, governments will see some
on dynamic efficiency being driven from the active advantages equivalent to those in the mobile
layer and retail competition rather than in the market, but there are other attractive features, as
passive layer. And the logic of network sharing well:
and co-investment will only improve over time,
as the costs of passive infrastructure deployment • New sources of investment: Co-investment
(construction materials, labour, land, etc.) increase arrangements enable or facilitate funding
while the costs of active infrastructure decline. from new sources such as utilities, local
governments or infrastructure funds
Governments around the world are encouraging – for example, the sharing between
sharing arrangements. For example, as a telecommunication companies and utilities
component of its Digital Agenda, the EU in Switzerland. These non-traditional players
Commission has specifically endorsed fixed benefit from partnering with operators (and
network sharing, stating: "To foster the vice versa). Non-traditional players usually
deployment of NGA and to encourage market have access to financing, valuable existing
investment in open and competitive markets, the infrastructure or other assets they can bring
Commission will adopt a NGA Recommendation to the table. Operators, for their part, can
based on the principles that co-investments and contribute skills, capabilities, infrastructure
risk-sharing mechanisms should be promoted" . and capital.
1
• Industry co-operation: Co-investment is a
2.2.1 Network sharing in the mobile sector "big tent" approach, in which industry players
negotiate and co-operate in deployment and
In the mobile sector, the main advantages of operation of the shared infrastructure. In
network sharing to governments are: the absence of anti-competitive concerns, a
consensus-based outcome is usually superior
• Provision of services in higher-cost areas: to a regulated outcome.
By reducing costs and sharing demand risks,
network sharing encourages mobile operators • Lessening of market power: To the extent
to provide services in the higher-cost, low- that an incumbent operator is a party to
ARPU areas where the business case for the co-investment arrangement, it can
building a new network does not stack up. result in a lessening of market power, with a
corresponding reduction in regulatory burdens
• Planning and environmental efficiencies: for the regulator and for industry.
Avoiding duplicate infrastructure, through
sharing, is often important for planning
and environmental reasons. Tall towers are 2.2.3 Third party access
an eyesore, and communities are resisting
a proliferation of new, above-ground Governments will often prefer, and sometimes
infrastructure. There may also be limited require, open-access arrangements as part of
capacity or planning restrictions on roof-top network sharing or co-investment agreements.
sites in urban areas. However, governments should consider a nuanced
approach to this issue. If sharing operators
• Consumer benefits: As a result of sharing, are willing to assume potentially substantial
there may be lower overall costs for individual construction risks and demand risks to invest in
operators. Combined with a competitive retail new broadband infrastructure, then a case can
market, this should lead to price reductions be made for governments to take a broader view
and better value for money for consumers. of open-access mandates. Section 2.4.3 discusses
regulatory certainty as a key prerequisite for
encouraging network sharing and co-investment.

56 Trends in Telecommunication Reform 2016