responsibility and does not have to manage the infrastructure, minimizing its exposure to risk. The private company, meanwhile, benefits from owning the infrastructure with only minimal government interference. This approach can also be seen as the simplest of the PPP models, as it does not require creating overly complex PPP business structures.There are disadvantages to this approach, though. Governments have little influence or control over the network design and roll-out strategy, despite funding the network build. The social benefit of the infrastructure may be limited, because private operators may focus more on financial returns than on social investment.To make the investment case more appealing for operators in commercially unviable areas, the government may provide a grant to partially subsidize the cost of building the infrastructure. In return for the subsidy, the government would expect a significant financial contribution from the network operator. The government might also apply strict controls, including setting roll-out deadlines and network quality and take-up targets. In Europe, mandated \"claw-back\" rules for state aid prevent the network operator from making excessive profits. Setting controls and requirements ensures that the network operator has a strong financial incentive to construct the network to the required technical standards. In addition, network operators strive to achieve the take-up targets by stimulating demand and setting reasonable wholesale prices. Much of the operational risk, therefore, lies with the network operator.This approach assumes that the operator is able to build a high-speed broadband network and is prepared to operate it on a wholesale basis, with open and non-discriminatory access. Even with no direct ownership, governments must monitor and oversee operations in order to achieve an effective outcome from this approach. A private DBO is unlikely to make use of state assets in preference to using and building its own assets. Two examples of private DBOs are set out in greater detail below. Case study: Mobile Infrastructure Project (MIP), UK This case study was chosen because it approached the problem of mobile \"not-spots\" from a very unique perspective: funding the build-out of passive mobile infrastructure in a very tightly regulated UK market. The UK Government initiated the MIP in 2011 in order to improve mobile coverage in remote and rural areas with little or no mobile coverage. In some areas of the UK, it may not be cost-effective for mobile operators to provide coverage, as the low subscriber numbers and density do not justify investment in mobile infrastructure. These areas, referred to as \"not-spots,\" are the primary focus for MIP.8 Trends in Telecommunication Reform 2016 Table 1.2: Key characteristics of investment approaches Investment approach Funding source Deployment and operations of infrastructure Ownership of infrastructure Case study Private DBO Public and private sectors Private sector Private sector •Mobile Infrastructure Project (MIP), UK •National Broadband Scheme (NBS), Ireland Public outsourcing Public sector Private sector Public sector •National ICT Broadband Backbone (NICTBB), Tanzania •Johannesburg Broadband Network Project (JBNP), South Africa Joint Venture Public and private sectors Public and private sectors Public and private sectors •Metroweb, Italy Public DBO Public sector Public and private sectors Public sector • Qatar National Broadband Network (QNBN), Qatar Source: Analysys Mason, 2015