for sharing operators and potential service-based competitors. If this remains a concern for regulators, they could require (and provide upfront regulatory certainty about) provisioning of sufficient capacity for services-based competitors.2.6.4 Service-Level Agreement (SLA) performance In the absence of infrastructure competition to drive efficiencies, there will be a requirement for SLA-driven performance to incentivize the shared network to perform. Depending on the effectiveness of the SLA regime, this can be effective in ensuring efficient operation of the network. Commercial models for sharing The main commercial models for network sharing and co-investment are joint ventures and long-term co-operation agreements, often known as IRU access.Joint ventures – Joint ventures are a common structure adopted for network sharing (usually incorporated, sometimes unincorporated). Normally, the joint venture owns, operates and maintains the joint network. In these circumstances, sharing operators contribute financial and human resources to the joint venture, although some aspects may be outsourced to third-party vendors. Sometimes it is only an asset-owning joint venture, or the JV may acquire assets from one or both sharing partners to form the basis of the new network. Indefeasible rights of use (IRUs) – IRUs have been a feature of the telecommunication industry for many years, particularly for long-haul transmission and undersea cables. Legally, IRUs give a party the right to use network infrastructure (such as dark fibre), a certain amount of capacity (including transmission), or a network facility (such as ducts) for most of the life of the asset. IRU arrangements are often valid for about 25-30 years and are normally non-renewable. As well as access to the main infrastructure, an IRU will usually also allow access to ancillary infrastructure, such as manholes and cabinets where duct access is provided, as well as colocation and access to splicing/junction nodes. An IRU may be seen as a form of co-investment or network sharing. Seen as an up-front guarantee of access, the IRU effectively gives an operator a share of the infrastructure, which it shares with the grantor of the IRU and any other IRU holders. IRUs have been a particular feature of the French FTTH projects. They can also arise in mobile network sharing arrangements.2.7 Alternatives to Network Sharing What are the alternatives to network sharing/co-investment? This section explores other ways for governments to promote efficiency in deploying broadband infrastructure.2.7.1 Geographic splitting Geographic splitting allows one operator to simply provide wholesale network services to another operator – including national roaming or MVNO services – in return for the same services being provided to it in another geographic region. Operator A would build, own and operate the network in Region A, allowing Operator B to use its network there. In return, Operator A would get the same rights to use Operator B’s network in Region B. This sort of arrangement can be applied in relation to fixed networks, as well as mobile ones. In Geneva, Switzerland, for example, the utility SIG operates an access network in the Geneva metro area, while Swisscom operates an access network in the centre city. Both SIG and Swisscom grant each other dark fibre access, allocating the roll-out cost 60 per cent to Swisscom and 40 per cent to SIG17.In the fixed network context, there are instances of one partner building the access or \"last-mile\" segment of a network, with another partner building the backhaul segment. In Switzerland, the utility usually builds the terminating segment (OTO-CP) and Swisscom builds the feeder and backhaul network (CP-ODF), providing collocation. The partners exchange IRUs to access each other’s infrastructure18.2.7.2 Third-party outsourcing Another alternative to network sharing is third-party outsourcing, in which the sharing operators 64 Trends in Telecommunication Reform 2016