Deploying remote coverage requires power. Delivering power helps meet other service coverage targets. The two go hand-in-hand. Should regulatory remits be extended to ensure that complementary goals are addressed in combination rather than in parallel?
It’s easy to view the problem of delivering connectivity in isolation. Organisations, such as the GSMA and TIP tend to focus on the basic need to deliver mobile telephony and broadband services to rural communities. However, there are often incidental benefits that can accrue when building infrastructure, as we noted during the discussion on TIP Summit. One simple example is the deployment of local sources of power when building cell towers.
In this case, the stimulus for providing new sources of power is that deployment of a tower site. Once deployed, the surplus power can be used for other purposes, such as lighting or for charging devices. Such activities benefit the local community and also help regulators meet coverage goals.
But in many countries, there are also parallel goals for deploying other forms of infrastructure, such as power – but which is driven by other regulatory agencies. Meeting one target can help meet another in a virtuous circle.
In this context, it seems there is reasonable scope for greater collaboration between regulators – as the deployment of connectivity, supported by self-contained electricity sources can help meet a wide range of goals, spanning coverage, education, power supply, and so on. Should regulators collaborate more intensively to meet mutually complementary goals?
It’s a serious question. We’d love to know what you think. Is there a case for regulators combining or expanding their remits in pursuit of national objectives? Let us know!
