Network sharing can be controversial. Some objections are valid – but these do not undermine the fundamental role that sharing has to play in extending coverage and delivering connectivity.
Network sharing has attracted many objections and it’s not hard to see why, as a recent article makes clear. In this case, an operator that has invested in deploying infrastructure where its competitors have not has argued that opening access reduces the competitive advantage it has struggled to achieve. That’s not unreasonable. Networks cost money and operators should expect to make returns from investments.
However, this is not an argument against network sharing in general but rather one about how to share in the case where one stakeholder has taken a risk with some investments. We would tend to agree. If there is no coverage at all, network sharing should be a measure that is considered. It’s the simplest way to incentivise collaboration and to extend coverage in an equitable manner.
But, by agreeing appropriate onboarding fees that are differentiated from regular wholesale agreements, this kind of deadlock can be broken in a fair way. It’s true that network sharing has some complexities but that doesn’t undermine the fact that it has a fundamental role to play in unlocking connectivity. As such, it’s important to really understand the detail behind such stories and to consider sharing objectives from a broad perspective.
At WTL, we are working closely with regulators to ensure that sharing concepts are clearly understood. We’d welcome your input so we can continue to refine our message.
Have your say. Get in touch to discuss sharing models!
