time. This way, multiple users can \"share\" access to the spectrum while minimizing interference to others. The best near-term opportunities for deploying spectrum sharing may be in those bands with substantial government uses. Some of these bands may be suitable for mobile broadband, but clearing these government users from the spectrum cannot be done in a reasonable timeframe. In Europe, the 2.3 GHz band is being considered for spectrum sharing between government and commercial users19. In the United States, the FCC is considering shared access to the 3.5 GHz band for use by small cells20.2.9 Learnings/recommendations Achieving \"further and faster\" broadband coverage is a key issue for most governments around the world. One of the options available to governments is to encourage network sharing or co-investment, which will bring a range of benefits for governments. Little or no investment may be required from government to make it happen, and the results could include speedier deployment, cost savings passed on to consumers, and a reduced ongoing regulatory burden.It is undoubtedly a challenge, however, for operators to create, implement and maintain a successful network sharing or co-investment arrangement. It is often difficult to explain clearly why potential sharing arrangements do not work out, and the parties are commonly loathe to detail in public the problems they encountered. Nevertheless, given all the benefits available to operators, it is somewhat surprising that sharing does not occur more frequently.It is clearly more difficult to achieve co-investment in fixed networks, where there is less infrastructure competition than in mobile markets. This is an area where government incentives, including in-kind contributions, could bring about breakthroughs. There may be particular merit in governments (including through utilities) co-venturing with telecommunication operators to facilitate the rapid roll-out of fixed broadband networks.66 Trends in Telecommunication Reform 2016