There are several variations of site sharing arrangements. In terms of access, there are three basic types of site-sharing arrangements:
- Unilateral – One operator agrees to provide access to its facilities to another operator;
- Bilateral – Two operators agree to provide mutual access to facilities; or
- Multilateral – Several operators agree on access terms.
Other variations include the number of sites involved in the arrangement: such agreements may pertain to just one site, or they could provide a framework for access at multiple sites in a certain geographic region. Bilateral agreements for regional site sharing may be particularly appealing for operators from an economic point of view. Sharing passive infrastructure in certain regions enables operators to broaden service coverage over a larger geographical area, which is particularly attractive for operators subject to geographical coverage obligations. Regional site sharing allows operators to save capital and operating expenditures and provides an alternative to roaming arrangements.[1] Regulators should be careful, however, to head off collusion between operators, especially in highly concentrated markets and where incumbent or dominant operators are negotiating bilateral sharing deals.
| Standard terms and conditions in site sharing agreements |
| Objective of the agreement |
| Obligations of both parties |
| Term of the agreement |
| Applicable tariffs |
| Billing conditions |
| Service description |
| Implementation and coordination |
| Access to facilities and cooperation |
| Operations and maintenance |
| Subletting conditions (such as no subletting without the consent of the facility owner) |
| Term and termination |
| Penalties |
| Liability |
| Confidentiality |
| Representations and warranties |
| Amendments to agreement |
| Force majeure |
| Governing law and jurisdiction |
| Source : Camila Borba Lefèvre, Mobile Network Sharing, at: www.itu.int/ITU-D/treg/Events/Seminars/GSR/GSR08/papers.html. |
Most site-sharing agreements do not restrict competition between operators because operators generally retain independent control of their respective networks and services. As a result, operators maintain different services and business plans, concentrating on their different market niches. Full competition is assured where operators retain independent control over their radio planning and the freedom to add sites, including non-shared sites. In that way, operators are free to increase their network capacity and coverage. Better coverage and capacity can be a competitive advantage, allowing operators to distinguish themselves based on the quality, capacity and range of their networks. It is therefore important that site-sharing agreements do not contain exclusivity clauses that would prohibit operators from concluding similar deals with other parties.
Site sharing arrangements that fulfill these conditions are not likely to restrict competition among operators. [2] In fact, site-sharing agreements may have a positive impact on competition, since the savings achieved may be passed on to consumers, increasing quality of service and decreasing prices.
Finally, it is important to ensure that exchanges of information between site-sharing competitors are limited to information strictly necessary for this purpose, such as technical information and location data for particular sites. Additional exchanges of confidential information should be avoided in order to protect customers’ proprietary rights and privacy.
End Notes
[1] National roaming concerns a situation where the cooperating operators do not share any network elements as such but simply use each other’s networks to provide services to their own customers. National roaming arrangements allow the roaming operator to rely completely on the infrastructure of the operator providing national roaming, instead of building its own infrastructure in the roaming area. According to certain competition authorities, national roaming agreements may restrict competition between the roaming operators.
[2] This was the opinion of the European Commission when it judged the site sharing arrangement for 3G mobile communications between T-Mobile Deutschland and 02 Germany: Commission Decision of 16 July 2003, Case COMP/38.36.