In contrast, due to the density of economies, urban areas may be able to support multiple competing infrastructures without an NSA, and a preference for full infrastructure competition tends to prevail among regulators. This distinction between urban and rural is illustrated in Figure 2. Passive sharing is generally considered to have limited negative effects on competition – only the physical location of each (shared) site is the same, and operators can differentiate coverage by providing additional independent sites and differentiate services through the use of different „active“ devices and different radio spectrum.7 Among the parts of the NSA, it can continue to provide for a margin of differentiation at the service level, which could avoid concerns about limited competition. Even with a shared network, operators may differ, for example, in price and product (e.g. B in terms of the size of the data packet or special offers) and by the quality of service across different core networks that are usually outside the NSA. In addition, the link between physical networks and the ability to differentiate end-user services in order to compete in retail (and wholesale) markets is likely to weaken due to developments made possible by new technologies. As explained in the box below, new generations of mobile technology will allow for greater room for differentiation, even within a common network infrastructure. BeREC`s guidelines and the findings of the European Commission`s recent investigations on NSAs in Italy and the Czech Republic5 indicate that competition concerns related to NSAs are generally linked to opportunities for improved coordination and exchange of information between participants, as well as to negative effects on competition on networks. reducing operators` investment incentives and competitiveness at network level.
The theory is that if a first-come advantage is eliminated (provided that all the benefits of network upgrades can also be obtained from the other sharing party or parties), incentives and the ability to invest and innovate or differentiate networks can be reduced. First, active components only need to be purchased once through shared network sites, unlike each MNO separately in the case of passive sharing (or standalone networks). This reduces capital expenditure. Third, by avoiding the need to create unshared sites, active sharing can reduce the number of sites that work between sharing parties. This can reduce operating VOLTAGES, e.B. for maintenance and power supply, associated with grid operation compared to passive release. According to the provisions of the law, new entrants can lease network infrastructure built or used by their competitors. Traditionally, telecommunications development has shown economies of scale, and telecom operator spending has been dominated by significant investments in technology and infrastructure. Since these investments are fixed, unrecoverable and irreversible, they represent a high risk factor. Infrastructure maintenance and modernization further increases this risk. For example, fixed-line operators are migrating to next-generation networks after most mobile network operators have already deployed third-generation (3G) infrastructure.
Therefore, sharing infrastructure can significantly reduce the risk of entry and development. However, this dichotomy is an oversimplification, based on a vision of infrastructure that is already outdated – and will be even more so in a 5G world. Some regulators encourage the sharing of mobile operators` infrastructure because they believe that society can reap regulatory and social benefits. Great social benefits flow directly from the economic benefits, where mobile operators can pass on the costs saved in pricing to the customer. In addition, infrastructure sharing can help reduce energy consumption and radio emissions from networks. Table 1: Comparison of infrastructure sharing (technology) forms 6 European Commission (2019), „Antitrust: Commission sends statement of objections to O2 CZ, CETIN and T-Mobile CZ for their network sharing agreement“, press release, 7 August. A good example of the Tower Company is edotco, owned by the Asian telecommunications group with six subsidiaries (Axiata Group). It offers end-to-end solutions in tower services, tower rental, co-locations, custom construction, energy, transportation and operation and maintenance (O&M).
As of August 2017, edotco operates and manages a regional portfolio of more than 26,000 towers in the main markets of Malaysia, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Sri Lanka and Pakistan, with 18,461 towers operated directly by edotco and another 8,100 towers managed through a range of services. With its business model of building and leasing passive infrastructure such as towers, edotco allows operators to share the infrastructure from the deployment phase. .