6.5.1. Policy reasons for supporting mobile network sharing

This section sets out various policy reasons for supporting mobile network sharing. These policy reasons fall into three broad categories: environmental and public health considerations; the facilitation of network deployment; and upgrading technology from 2G (GSM) to 3G (IMT 2000) and beyond. Each of these categories is discussed below.

Environmental and public health considerations

People generally view wireless communication masts and antennas as negative additions to the landscape. Local communities may object to the construction of new sites because of the visual impact or environmental considerations. Also, residents may fear public exposure to electromagnetic fields around masts and antennas. [1] Site sharing can limit such concerns and potential negative effects, since it limits the number of sites while achieving the required coverage. [2] Another beneficial aspect of site sharing is the amount of energy that can be saved when operators share electrical power, which is often in limited supply in developing countries. [3]

While sharing reduces the number of sites marking the landscape, it can also have adverse impacts. Because antennas generally have to be separated from each other by a minimum distance in order to avoid interference, mast sharing usually requires taller (and more visually disruptive) masts. Local planning authorities actually may prefer several small towers to one large one. More discrete (or disguised) structures reduce visual intrusion, but cannot support more than one operator’s antenna.

Facilitating network deployment

Civil engineering costs can mount up when the number of building sites is relatively high in a mobile network roll-out. Moreover, operators often run into practical difficulties in acquiring and developing adequate sites, obtaining the appropriate regulatory licences, and overcoming public opposition to mobile towers.

Site sharing allows operators to reduce their capital and operating expenditures, bypass nettlesome planning and regulatory hassles, and avoid potential environmental pitfalls. In short, site sharing can speed up network deployment and make it less expensive. Lower site-development costs can pay dividends when they result in networks covering larger areas, increasing the likelihood of bringing wireless services to sparsely populated rural areas – and at more affordable prices.

Upgrading technology from 2G to 3G

Infrastructure sharing can ease the transition from “second-generation” (2G) to “third-generation” (3G) mobile networks, by allowing operators to collocate new 3G equipment on their existing towers and masts. This can help cut costs, even though 3G networks commonly require significantly more sites. In the European Union, for example, 2G networks were deployed in the 900 megahertz (MHz) spectrum band, while 3G licenses were assigned in the 1900-2100 MHz band. Because spectrum generally has a shorter range at higher frequencies, 3G networks require more base stations (and therefore more sites) – a significant transition expense for 2G operators. However, if those 2G operators can collocate 3G equipment on their existing 2G towers, they can enjoy significant savings as a result.

End Notes

[1] Current scientific evidence indicates that exposure to radiofrequency fields, such as those emitted by mobile phones and antennas, is unlikely to have negative health effects. In response to health concerns raised by certain communities, the World Health Organization (WHO) established a project to assess the scientific evidence of possible health effects of electromagnetic fields. See www.who.int/peh-emf/en/index.html. The International Commission for Non-ionizing Radiation Protection (www.icnirp.de) has established guidelines for the maximum level of radiofrequency levels in areas of public access from antennas and for users of mobile handsets.

[2] This principle is established in the European Union Directive [Framework directive], consideration 23: “Facility sharing can be of benefit for town planning, public health or environmental reasons, and should be encouraged by national regulatory authorities on the basis of voluntary agreements. In cases where undertakings are deprived of access to viable alternatives, compulsory facility or property sharing may be appropriate. It covers inter alia: physical collocation and duct, building, mast, antenna or antenna system sharing. Compulsory facility or property sharing should be imposed on undertakings only after full public consultation.”

[3] Today’s standard 3G equipment consumes about 4,000 KWh of Grey energy per year per node, which corresponds to 2.5 tons of CO2, or the equivalent need of 120 trees per node to compensate for the environmental effect. In a developing country with no or little alternative Green energy, network sharing can significantly reduce the environmental impact.