It is a shift from granting access to sharing costs and risks. It involves industry cooperation rather than heavy-handed regulatory oversight. It focuses on dynamic efficiency being driven from the active layer and retail competition rather than in the passive layer. And the logic of network sharing and co-investment will only improve over time, as the costs of passive infrastructure deployment (construction materials, labour, land, etc.) increase while the costs of active infrastructure decline.Governments around the world are encouraging sharing arrangements. For example, as a component of its Digital Agenda, the EU Commission has specifically endorsed fixed network sharing, stating: \"To foster the deployment of NGA and to encourage market investment in open and competitive markets, the Commission will adopt a NGA Recommendation based on the principles that co-investments and risk-sharing mechanisms should be promoted\"1.2.2.1 Network sharing in the mobile sector In the mobile sector, the main advantages of network sharing to governments are:• Provision of services in higher-cost areas: By reducing costs and sharing demand risks, network sharing encourages mobile operators to provide services in the higher-cost, low-ARPU areas where the business case for building a new network does not stack up.• Planning and environmental efficiencies: Avoiding duplicate infrastructure, through sharing, is often important for planning and environmental reasons. Tall towers are an eyesore, and communities are resisting a proliferation of new, above-ground infrastructure. There may also be limited capacity or planning restrictions on roof-top sites in urban areas.• Consumer benefits: As a result of sharing, there may be lower overall costs for individual operators. Combined with a competitive retail market, this should lead to price reductions and better value for money for consumers.2.2.2 Network sharing in the fixed sector In the fixed sector, governments will see some advantages equivalent to those in the mobile market, but there are other attractive features, as well:• New sources of investment: Co-investment arrangements enable or facilitate funding from new sources such as utilities, local governments or infrastructure funds – for example, the sharing between telecommunication companies and utilities in Switzerland. These non-traditional players benefit from partnering with operators (and vice versa). Non-traditional players usually have access to financing, valuable existing infrastructure or other assets they can bring to the table. Operators, for their part, can contribute skills, capabilities, infrastructure and capital. • Industry co-operation: Co-investment is a \"big tent\" approach, in which industry players negotiate and co-operate in deployment and operation of the shared infrastructure. In the absence of anti-competitive concerns, a consensus-based outcome is usually superior to a regulated outcome.• Lessening of market power: To the extent that an incumbent operator is a party to the co-investment arrangement, it can result in a lessening of market power, with a corresponding reduction in regulatory burdens for the regulator and for industry. 2.2.3 Third party access Governments will often prefer, and sometimes require, open-access arrangements as part of network sharing or co-investment agreements. However, governments should consider a nuanced approach to this issue. If sharing operators are willing to assume potentially substantial construction risks and demand risks to invest in new broadband infrastructure, then a case can be made for governments to take a broader view 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