consultation paper on_regulations_for_infrastructure_sharing in_telecommunications_industry

Consultation paper no. 1 of 2014

CONSULTATION PAPER ON INFRASTRUCTURE

SHARING FRAMEWORK.

October 2014

1 | P a g e Consultation paper on Regulations for Infrastructure Sharing in Telecommunications Industry - 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER SUBJECT PAGE NO.

1 INFRASTRUCTURE SHARING: AN

INTRODUCTION

5

2 FORMS OF INFRASTRUCTURE SHARING 8

3 INFRASTRUCTURE SHARING POLICY

OPTIONS AND TRENDS

18

4 PROPOSED APPROACH FOR

INFRASTRUCTURE SHARING IN ZIMBABWE

26

5 LICENSING AND REGULATORY ISSUES 30

6 GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR

INFRASTRUCTURE SHARING

36

Annex A LIST OF CONSULTATION QUESTIONS ON

INFRASTRUCTURE SHARING FRAMEWORK

40


PREFACE

The Postal and Telecommunications Regulatory Authority of Zimbabwe (POTRAZ) has

the responsibility under the Postal and Telecommunications Act 2001 to ensure access

to reliable, reasonably priced and modern telecommunication services to the greatest

number of people as far as practicable. The past five years have witnessed rapid

growth in telecommunications industry as evidenced by the mobile penetration ratio of

106.4% as at first quarter 2014 and broadband penetration of 43.1%. Operators

continue to invest rapidly in order to keep abreast with changes in technology trends

and consumer needs. Large investments in 3G networks, 4G and other Next

Generation Networks (NGN) are being undertaken by Fixed and Mobile Operators alike.

However revenues from these investments are still some time away, and are also being

threatened by new over -the –top (OTT) services that are riding on these networks.

Increasing or maintaining the remarkable growth of the ICT sector calls for the

construction of infrastructure requiring significant investment. Such investment

requirements mean that operators can only realise gains from the investments by

charging high tariffs. This can be self-defeating as consumers may end up not affording

the services thereby rendering the investments unviable. This calls for strategies that

ensure the optimum utilization of existing and new infrastructure.

The Zimbabwe Agenda for Sustainable Social and Economic Transformation

(ZIMASSET) blueprint has identified infrastructure and utilities as one of the critical

clusters that shall spur economic growth for the country. In the spirit of ensuring the

success of the ZIMASSET, it has become pertinent for the country to come up with a

framework that facilitates the maximum utilization of utility assets without necessarily

duplicating infrastructure where existing infrastructure can be shared and utilised at

much lower costs.

To this end, and recognizing the fact that access to affordable broadband services has

become a key driver of a country’s competitiveness and economic growth, POTRAZ

has identified infrastructure sharing based on a model of open access as the panacea

to most challenges currently being faced in the ICT sector. It is envisioned that an


infrastructure framework based on an open access model, will go a long way towards

the attainment of universal access to broadband and other ICT services on a reliable

basis and at affordable prices in line with technological developments.

It is in this vein that POTRAZ has come up with this consultation paper on Infrastructure

sharing aimed at soliciting the views of concerned stakeholders on forms and

modalities of such a framework. In case of any clarification/information, please contact

Mrs. Hilda Mutseyekwa. Stakeholders are requested to send their comments and views

on the various issues addressed in the consultation paper by 30 November 2014 to:

The Director General

POTRAZ

Block A

Emerald Business Park

30 The Chase

P.O. Box MP843

Mt Pleasant

Harare


CHAPTER 1: INFRASTRUCTURE SHARING: AN OVERVIEW.

1.1 WHAT IS INFRASTRUCTURE SHARING?

In general, the term infrastructure sharing refers to the sharing of basic physical

structures, services and other resources necessary for the operation and functioning of

telecommunication networks. The main reason for infrastructure sharing is to maximize

the use of existing and future network facilities aimed at reducing unnecessary

infrastructure duplication thereby saving on both capital and operating expenditures for

operators.

1.2 STAKEHOLDER BENEFITS OF INFRASTRUCTURE SHARING

From studies that were done in other countries, a range of benefits accrue to the ICT

stakeholders if infrastructure sharing is implemented. Some of the benefits are listed

below:

Benefits to Operators: Infrastructure sharing provides opportunities for

significant reduction in investments or capital expenditure. Industry sources cite

that passive infrastructure sharing can potentially yield overall cost savings as

much as between 15% and 30%, with clear cost savings on yearly site capital

expenditure of up to 60% (notably due to less investment duplications) in addition

to significant savings in operational expenditure (mainly costs of renting the sites,

site maintenance, personnel and power, air conditioning and fuel expenses). For

new operators, sharing provides a significant opportunity to reduce time to the

market in as much as it is a reduction in market entry barriers.

Benefits to Consumers: Infrastructure sharing benefit consumers by

increasing the availability of telephony service, accelerating the pace of network

rollout, increasing consumer choice and reducing the cost of services.

Increased Competition Benefits: Infrastructure sharing may stimulate

competition by lowering the entry barriers for new entrants thus increasing the

possibility of new players coming into the sector. One of the main impediments to

market entry in the sector is the cost of network deployment. Sharing allows

operators to enter the market at a much lower cost than what they would

encounter if they were required to construct their own network infrastructure.


Sharing also helps to overcome barriers to competition such as the control of

bottleneck facilities by dominant operators.

For dominant operators, there will be a shift from coverage competition to service

based competition. As operators focus attention and resources towards service

provision, the consumers also benefit immensely from increased service choice,

quality of service and prices.

Risk reduction: With infrastructure sharing, risk is spread across all sharing

parties thus a substantial risk reduction is achieved. A reduction in risk has a

strong bearing on cost of capital.

Environmental benefits: Site and mast sharing can substantially reduce the total

number of masts in a given geographical area. Sharing power and air

conditioning equipment will also substantially reduce the total power consumed at

a site, thereby reducing utility as well as pollution mitigation/reduction costs.

Regulatory benefits: Universal service is one of the key objectives of POTRAZ.

Infrastructure sharing can help expand services for the reach of all including to

seemingly uneconomical areas such as rural areas and resettlement areas where

people are sparsely populated and average revenue per user (ARPU) levels are

low. This has an important policy dimension in that it can meaningfully speed up

universal access to services at a much lower cost thereby reducing the required

Universal Service Fund (USF) levy which comes as an additional cost to

consumers.

Optimal usage of scarce finite resources: Another important aspect of network

sharing from the regulator’s perspective is the optimal usage of scarce national

resources, such as spectrum resources and rights of way. The sharing of rights

of way leads to a significant reductions in the cost of civil works on one hand, and

makes the planning and management of servitudes easier on the other.

Question 1: Do you agree with the above general views on benefits of

infrastructure sharing which the Authority buys into? If not please provide

reasons.


1.3 FACTORS THAT INHIBIT INFRASTRUCTURE SHARING

Studies have shown that while infrastructure sharing has picked momentum in both

developed and developing countries, a number of impediments still exist particularly in

the emerging markets. Some of the factors that inhibit infrastructure sharing are listed

below.

Coverage as a competitive tool: Operators who perceive coverage as their

competitive tool are less likely to go into voluntary sharing. To stem this inhibitor

there may be need for regulatory intervention in the form of mandates or sharing

guidelines.

Monopolistic tendencies among big players: Often big players in the market

have access to strategic sites and rights of way. Denying new entrants or small

operators’ access to such resources tends to slow down new entrants network

deployments. Regulatory authorities may find it necessary to provide direction

when such monopolistic behaviour is detected.

Operator Asymmetry: Operators may fail to enter into infrastructure sharing

agreement due to difference in technology and site quality.

Personnel issues: In cases where a joint venture company is created personnel

issues such as labour laws, staff resistance and transformational issues may

impede progress on establishing sharing agreements.

Asset management Model: Without a properly crafted asset management

model, infrastructure sharing may fail to take off. All legal and commercial issues

about the jointly owned or shared assets need to be comprehensively covered.

Regulatory Regime: Regulations in place may not allow infrastructure sharing.

Question 2:

a. Do you agree with the above views on factors that may inhibit

Infrastructure sharing? If not please provide reasons.

b. In your view which of the above factors are possible impediments to

infrastructure sharing in Zimbabwe and how best can they be addressed?


CHAPTER 2: FORMS OF INFRASTRUCTURE SHARING

2.1 INTRODUCTION

Infrastructure sharing can take a number of forms based on the degree of sharing that

is permissible depending on the existing licensing and regulatory frameworks as well as

national priorities. In broad terms, infrastructure sharing can be based on the passive

elements of a telecommunications network which is often referred to as “Passive

infrastructure sharing” or can be based on the active elements also referred to as

“Active infrastructure sharing”. The table below illustrates the passive and active

elements of a telecommunication network.

Passive Components Active Components

1. Sites

2. Towers

3. Shelter and support cabinet

4. Electrical supply

5. Air-conditioning equipment

6. Diesel/electric generator

7. Easements and roads

8. Premises

9. Access road

10.Ducts

11.Dark fiber

12.Rights of way

13.Civil and engineering works

1. Base station

2. Microwave radio equipment

3. Switches

4. Antennas

5. Transceivers


2.2 PASSIVE INFRASTRUCTURE SHARING

Passive infrastructure sharing entails the sharing of non-electronic infrastructure

facilities. It includes sharing of physical sites, buildings, shelters, towers / masts, electric

power supply and battery backup, grounding / earthing, air conditioning, security

arrangement, poles, ducts, trenches, right of way. There are many forms of passive

infrastructure sharing options available to operators for implementation. These include

mast sharing and site sharing as illustrated below:

2.2.1 Site Sharing/Collocation

Under site sharing /co-location arrangements, operators share the premises on which

their facilities are installed. Each operator builds their own infrastructure including

masts, antennae, cabinets, generators and feeder cables. The savings on operational

expenditure from the collocation variant of site sharing are derived from site rentals,

security, rights of way, road construction, and power supply to the site and civil works.

This is the simplest mode of site sharing with minimal chances of disputes between

service providers and ease of exit from sharing the arrangement for operators.

Implementation of site sharing may sometimes pose challenges in cases where

property rights of existing sites are unresolved. This may in some cases be exacerbated


in situations where the legal framework is not sufficiently robust to allow firms to have

confidence in the enforceability of contracts and agreements signed between them and

where there is a general lack of confidence in the legal system.

2.2.2 Tower Sharing

Tower or mast sharing is a more advanced and more cooperative form of site sharing.

Under a basic tower sharing arrangement operators use the same tower to mount their

antennae. However each will build their own equipment cabinets and will install their

own access infrastructure including the BTS, air conditioning and backup power supply

as well as backhaul equipment. Tower sharing requires consideration of load bearing

capacity of the tower, azimuth angle of different service providers, tilt of the antenna,

and height of the antennae before implementing the agreements.

In cases where service providers sharing a tower have the same azimuth orientation

requirement, there is bound to be a technical limitation. The height of the antenna

mounting and tilt of the antenna are also very important parameters.

While new towers can be built taking into consideration the ultimate load bearing

capacity required, some of the existing towers may not have been designed to cater for

the combined load of antennae of service providers sharing the tower resulting in

unsuitability of such towers for sharing.

The feasible number of antennae per tower is also a limitation. For example, in cases

where operators are using different technologies requiring different antennae systems,

the number of antennae required may make it impossible for one tower to

accommodate several operators. This means that infrastructure has to be designed

keeping in view the ultimate requirement including those of other service providers

interested in sharing the infrastructure. Tower has to be designed for higher load

bearing capacity and base space requirement among others. All this will change the

tower specifications, which will have direct impact on selection of sites as well as the

foundation for erection of such towers.

2.2.3 Comprehensive site sharing


Tapera Kazembe, 10/07/14,

The Technology System Standards usually deal with this issue, such that interference usually does not occur. Different Technologies, cosited may interfere, but such combinations are rare in Zimbabwe, eg UHF TV vs GSM.


The case of Operator determined rooftop site sharing cannot arise in Zimbabwe, in that the Building Owner determines who goes on to their roof.

A much deeper form of site sharing is when operators share the full set of passive

infrastructure at the cell site. This form of sharing is often referred to as comprehensive

site sharing. Under this arrangement operators share all passive site elements

including civil engineering works, tower, shelter, air conditioning, cable trays and

standby batteries or generators.

2.2.4 Passive Backhaul Sharing

The backhaul is often referred to as the black hole in telecommunications as it is

responsible for a significant percentage of network total costs. As traffic processed by

the base stations increases most networks in Zimbabwe are turning to optic fibre as the

backhaul connecting the BTS back to the BSC and on the other lap the BSC back to the

MSC. The backhaul offers great opportunities of savings through infrastructure sharing.

This section discusses various options available to operators for creating synergies in

this area.

2.2.5 Rights of Way

In telecommunications, Rights- of-way refers to the easements, or strips of land that

operators get usually along public roads for installation of their equipment. Rights-of-

way are a scarce resource thus it is not practicable for all operators to have such a

resource along the same route. Operators are normally required to pay for rights of way

to the owners of rights of way who may be municipal authorities, rural district councils,

provincial councils, and any other government authority like railway companies. These

bodies often apply very different rules and procedures to obtaining rights of way. The

processes for obtaining these rights may be very slow and not always subject to clear

procedures. This creates a lack of transparency for potential investors and has the

overall effect of slowing down plans that might otherwise be implemented relatively

quickly.

Time taken in digging up roads to lay network equipment usually add significantly to the

chaos and disruption of the process, particularly in urban areas if rights of way are

granted randomly. Also, if each operator has to buy rights of way separately, the total

cost may become horrendous. If rights of way are shared, operators will share the

rentals or acquisition costs thereby reducing costs.

2.2.6 Duct Sharing


A more advanced sharing model in the backhaul section is the sharing of ducts. Under

this arrangement operators use the same duct to run their cables. They may also

choose to share manhole along the route and power supply at repeater points. Duct

access or duct sharing can reduce or eliminate this capital cost which in essence is a

huge barrier of entry to Greenfields.

Many commercial and operational models are available for the sharing of ducts and

other passive elements within the backhaul section of the network. Commercial

models of duct sharing include:

a. Shared investment at the time of survey, procurement, dig and ducting. The

backhaul project is managed as a joint venture.

b. Expression of interest at the time of dig followed by duct purchase or lease. The

relationship is mainly a master/ slave arrangement.

c. Duct purchase or lease after dig.

d. Sharing of operational costs.

Operational models of sharing include:

a. Joint or shared network planning

b. Unrestricted access to manholes and equipment rooms

c. Managed access to manholes and equipment rooms.

2.2.7 Tower Companies

Infrastructure provision by tower management companies is emerging as the most

popular form of infrastructure sharing. This involves the construction or acquisition of

infrastructure by one company which is then leased to other operators on a wholesale

basis. The main reason why this model is gaining popularity is increasing competition

amongst various operators which makes mutual sharing and joint construction of

network facilities is the cheaper way to roll out services. It is difficult to conclude and

manage due to conflict of interest and suspicion among operators. The model also

enables quicker and cheaper service roll out for competing operators.

Three main business models are turning out to be the most commonly used in setting

up of tower companies. The most common model is where an individual operator


owning a site or other network resources provides access to the use of its site and

network resources to other operators. This type of model is mostly applicable for the

sharing of existing infrastructure.

The second model entails a consortium of operators jointly building a site or a network

that is jointly shared. This is mostly applicable for infrastructures to be built in the future.

The third model entails independent Telecommunications infrastructure network

facilities companies constructing infrastructure for lease to network service providers.

This is increasingly becoming the most popular mode of sharing particularly in countries

that have adopted converged licensing frameworks.”

Question 3: a. Do you agree with the description of the above forms of

passive infrastructure sharing?

b. Are there any other forms of passive sharing that are possible between

operators? If any give details.

2.3.0 ACTIVE INFRASTRUCTURE SHARING

Active infrastructure sharing is a deeper form of infrastructure sharing where operators

share active elements of the network. It includes sharing of Base Transceiver Station

(BTS) / Node B; spectrum; antenna; feeder cable; microwave radio equipment; billing

platform; switching centres; routers; Base Station Controller (BSC) / Radio Network

Controller (RNC); optical fibre / wired access and backbone transmission network. The

issues involved in relation to active sharing are more complex and sharing

arrangements are often difficult to exit as compared to passive infrastructure sharing.

2.3.1 Radio Access Network (RAN) Sharing

RAN sharing entails the sharing of radio access network equipment which includes

antenna, feeder cable and transmission equipment. In simple terms, it is the sharing of

the hardware portion of the RAN with separate management of the logical part

(software) and use of frequencies. Under such sharing arrangements, two logically

distinct base stations/ Nodes share one physical unit. Each operator remains in control



RAN describes all elements that include BSC/RNC, Microwave / Fibre links between BSC and BTS and BTS/Node B. Since all these are listed in the paragraph, RAN is therefore a repetition of what has been listed.

of their equipment and spectrum resources assigned to them. The Core Network is not

shared in this model.

In the case of 2G technology, multiple operators can share all site equipment except

transceivers. Accordingly, each shared base station will have two sets of transceivers,

one using operator Xps frequencies and another one using operator of arties will also

share feeders, antennas, and other ancillary and transmission equipment.

In general, RAN sharing arrangements are technically complex to implement as

operators may find it difficult to negotiate on issues to do with hardware upgrades of the

network to add capacity or functionality as the requirements of the service providers

sharing the network may differ.

RAN sharing may have adverse effects on quality of service (QoS) due to reduction of

the signal strength. This may result in poor coverage and may reduce signal strength to

such an extent that fulfilment of quality of service parameters may not be possible in

some pockets.

2.3.2 Common back-haul sharing

Common back-haul sharing will be very useful in rural environment where traffic from

BTS to BSC is very low. A common RF or Optical fibre medium can be utilized. This will

reduce cost and maintenance efforts. Exit from such sharing arrangements can easily


be provided if it is warranted at a later phase due to increase in traffic or other

administrative reasons.

2.3.3 Spectrum Sharing

Spectrum sharing entails the simultaneous usage of a specific radio frequency band in

a specific geographical area by a number of separate licensed operators enabled

through mechanisms other than traditional multiple- and random-access techniques.

Subscribers are able to access the services of their respective operators through all the

frequencies that are shared in the access network. In essence, this means merging

spectral ranges from different spectrum owners into a common pool without requiring

any changes to the actual licensed system.

The goal of spectrum pooling is to enhance spectral efficiency by overlaying a new

mobile radio system on an existing one without requiring any changes to the actual

licensed system. However, this may call for a completely new way of spectrum

allocation.

In some cases of spectrum sharing, an operator can lease a part of its spectrum to

another operator on commercial terms. This mechanism is common in the US, Europe,

Singapore and Australia.

Sharing or pooling of spectrum is the most complex form of active sharing. Unless

service providers have very close association/coordination, such models cannot be

successful. Ensuring quality of service and other parameters may be very difficult. Such

models do not provide an easy exit path in case of disputes arising between service

providers. From a regulatory perspective, it is generally viewed that spectrum sharing

reduces competition.

2.3.4 Core Network Sharing / MVNO

It entails sharing of the core network where capacity exists in an existing operator’s

core transmission ring, switching centre and core network logical platforms.


Core network sharing may pose technical limitations with regards to the technology

platform of the operator and the standards employed by the equipment vendor. This

likely to be the case with 2G networks and GPRS which traditionally have been

specified and designed on a circuit switched architecture and are not as flexible as 3G

networks which are more flexible for interworking with other IP-based systems.

2.3.5 Mobile Virtual Network Operators (MVNOs)

Generally, core network sharing is the model sharing which facilitates the operation of

mobile virtual networks (MVNs). Under such arrangements, the mobile virtual operator

(MVNO) does not have its own infrastructure but rides on another operator’s network to

provide services using its own subscriber database and survives on buying minutes in

bulk from the network operator and using its own brand to sell the minutes to

subscribers.

The MVNO model is the most cost saving infrastructure sharing model. However, it

should be noted that the deeper the sharing the more complicated the relationship

becomes and the more concerned the regulator should be with regards to competition

issues.

2.3.6 Geographical Splitting/ Network Sharing

This occurs where a network infrastructure is created expressly for the purpose of

sharing resources. For example, in Sweden 70% of the country is covered by a shared

network built as a joint venture between Telenor Sweden (originally Vodafone Sweden)

and HI3G (Hutcheson Investor). When a user is in one of the main cities his calls are


carried by the native network infrastructure of Telenor or HI3G while outside the cities

his call roams onto the shared network provided by 3GIS.

2.3.7 National Roaming

Under National roaming arrangements subscribers of two competing networks within

the same country are allowed to roam onto a host network if the home network is not

present in a particular location. Under such arrangements, operators can compensate

for lack of presence and offer users contiguous coverage and service using the same

handset and SIM. This is particularly useful in areas of low subscriber density,

particularly remote underserved areas where investment in a dedicated site by each

operator may not be viable.

Question 4:

a. In your opinion, should active infrastructure sharing be encouraged? Give

reasons for your answer.

b. Given the various forms of active infrastructure sharing described above,

which ones do you think are most suitable for the Zimbabwean case.

Please provide reasons for your choice. You are free to suggest a hybrid of

various forms of sharing.

c. In your view, do you consider the option to licence Mobile Virtual Network

Operators (MVNOs) as a viable option to encourage active infrastructure

sharing in Zimbabwe?

d. What other modes of active infrastructure sharing will be useful in the

Zimbabwean scenario? Suggest actions which you feel necessary to

encourage such sharing.


CHAPTER 3: INFRASTRUCTURE SHARING POLICY OPTIONS AND

TRENDS

3.0 INTRODUCTION

A regulator may decide to mandate, encourage and approve infrastructure sharing

arrangements. Such regulatory decisions are usually made after analysing the

competitive impact of sharing in line with national priorities and good regulatory

principles such as transparency, efficiency, non-discrimination and independence.

3.1 Mandatory Infrastructure Sharing.

Mandatory infrastructure sharing is commonly applied on passive sharing of sites, poles

and masts. In general, mandatory site sharing is mainly triggered by the limited

availability land suitable for setting up masts as well as environmental considerations.

Other considerations for mandatory site sharing include the need to cut capex and opex

with a view to reduce end-user charges as well as speeding up network roll outs

thereby increasing competition. Passive infrastructure sharing is normally considered

not to materially affect competition because operators retain control over their own

networks.

Initially, site and mast sharing was only mandated in a limited number of countries, such

as Cyprus, India (limited to Delhi and Mumbai) and Norway (limited to incumbent

operator Telenor offering co-location). Of late, mandatory passive infrastructure sharing

has spread to Asia, Africa and Latin America.

In China, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) and the State-

owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission (SASAC) have issued a

notice requiring all telecom infrastructure enterprises that include China Telecom, China

Mobile, and China Unicom – to implement sharing and joint construction for all towers

and pole lines, as well as sharing and joint construction for base station equipment and

transmission lines. In addition, exclusive lease agreements for third-party facilities are

not allowed and penalties are applied on operators who are found in violation of the

new rules. A national workgroup for the joint construction and sharing of telecom


infrastructure facilities, headed by the MIIT and SASAC, and with participation from the

telecom industry, has been set up to oversee and mediate in the joint construction and

use of national telecom infrastructure, and to make decisions on major projects.

In Hong Kong the regulator is empowered to direct the cooperation and coordination

among the licensees to share network infrastructure taking into consideration factors

such as bottleneck facility, duplication of network resources. The regulator may also

make Determinations on terms and conditions of the shared use of facility should

operators fail to reach an agreement. Many countries in Asia are following India’s lead

in considering the benefits of mobile infrastructure sharing, including Bangladesh,

Bhutan, Nepal and Pakistan.

In the USA, the Telecommunications Act 1996 contains requirements for collocation

which fall under the section on Interconnection which mandates all carriers to provide

access to poles, ducts, conduits and rights-of-way to competing carriers on a first come

first served non- discriminatory manner.

In the Latin American region, Ecuador introduced mandatory site sharing in December

2009. In Trinidad and Tobago, the regulator has mandated collocation where it is

technically feasible. Any new site constructions have to be approved by the regulator.

Some countries in Europe also mandate collocation and site sharing.

In Switzerland, Swiss operators are obliged to share sites and masts wherever such

capacity exists, and there are no legal or economic reasons inhibiting such sharing. In

Denmark, sharing of sites and masts is mandated and is overseen by the

municipalities. In France passive infrastructure sharing is mandated by law since 2006.

All mobile operators are obliged to share facilities when they roll-out new sites and have

to accept reasonable access requests. In 2008, France also mandated active sharing of

the 3G networks of all the operators in most rural areas. In Finland an obligation to

lease radio masts or sites may be imposed on dominant operators.

In Saudi Arabia, bylaws mandate collocation to be provided where economically

feasible. The operators negotiate the charges for collocation and the regulator only

intervenes in cases where there are disputes.


3.2 Site Sharing Mandatory Upon Request

In New Zealand mobile site sharing is mandatory upon request. However, service

seekers and service providers are free to set their own pricing arrangements for

collocation. The Commerce Commission released a “Standard Terms Determination”

(STD) in 2008 aimed at providing service seekers and service providers with

appropriate incentives to make efficient use of mobile network resources for the long-

term benefit of consumers. The Commission identified three aspects of the STD in

particular, that it considered could stimulate more rapid collocation of mobile network

transmission and reception equipment:

o the standard type site solution process;

o the ability for service seekers to make multi-site applications; and

o the Service Level capacity limit for each service provider of ten

applications per access seeker per five day working period.

Since 2001, joint guidelines have been produced by OPTA, the NCA and the ministry in

the Netherlands on joint construction and sharing of UMTS network elements. Mobile

licences do not allow for sharing of core networks. Operators are obliged to allow site

and mast sharing upon reasonable request.

3.3 Infrastructure sharing encouraged by licensing regimes

In some instances, infrastructure sharing is indirectly instituted by regulators through

the licensing processes and licence categories. For example In Malaysia, network

facility sharing is one of the criteria used in evaluation of licence applications.

The converged licensing frameworks which vertically separate licence categories on a

technology neutral basis have also in a way facilitated infrastructure sharing.

Converged licensing frameworks have resulted in the emergency of Tower companies

which are proliferating across the world. Such companies are active in several

countries, including in India, Brazil and Mexico and North America. These include,

American Tower, Crown Castle, Global Tower Partners and SBA Communications.

Closer home, a case in point is that of Kenya where the Kenyan government recently

put forward a plan to offer the management of the band (up to 190MHz of spectrum,

which is suitable for high-speed mobile data services) to an independent company in

order to create an open access wholesale Network. The aim is to promote cost-effective


use of the 2.6GHz band whereby operators will be able to buy from the company, and

bundle it into packages and products that they would sell to end users.

In Portugal, infrastructure sharing has been part of the analysis criteria used in a public

bid based on proponents’ characteristics (beauty contest). Together with the provisions

from other applicable Portuguese regulation, the more recent Decree no.123/2009

(specific regime that governs the construction, access to and set up of communications

networks and infrastructures) also conveys a legal incentive to the infrastructure

sharing.

3.4 Infrastructure Sharing Voluntary with Regulatory Safeguards

In majority of cases, regulators intervene in voluntary infrastructure sharing by putting

safeguards in place largely aimed at mitigating any anti competition concerns. The

nature of the safeguards depends on the type of infrastructure that is being shared and

the extent to which sharing is permitted or encouraged rather than being mandated.

Examples of safeguards include:

• Capacity being sold on a first-come, first-served basis.

• Operators being required to log all infrastructure sharing activities and the logs

to be made available to the regulator, if requested.

• Regulator acting as a negotiator to move along commercial negotiations.

In most countries such as Hong Kong, Singapore, where infrastructure sharing is not

generally mandated and each operator allowed to build or lease the use of the

infrastructure that it requires, there are provisions that the regulator may direct

operators to share infrastructure where it is deemed to be in the public interest. Other

considerations such as whether the facility is a bottleneck facility or not; the cost of

duplication and whether the facility is critical in the supply of competitive services by

other operators are taken into account.

In Sweden, under the current 3G licensing framework, network infrastructure sharing is

allowed as long as each service provider has 30% of the population covered with its

own infrastructure and the remaining 70% can be shared. Active infrastructure sharing

is permitted as long as operators retain full control and independence over their

frequencies. In Norway there is a similar arrangement, which set minimum coverage


requirements as a condition for infrastructure sharing. Active sharing is permitted on

condition that operators retain logical control over their networks and spectrum.

Regulators are allowing active sharing arrangements on condition that operators meet their

coverage obligations. In Finland, service providers are allowed to share 3G networks

from April 2004, although each license holder must still have their own network covering

35% of the population. In Ireland, infrastructure sharing is only allowed where each

service provider has established a 3G-radio access network infrastructure capable of

serving at least 20% of the population-using infrastructure, which is wholly under the

control or ownership of that operator.

In Brazil, the National Telecommunications Agency (ANATEL) has set rules, conditions

and standards for sharing of ducts, conduits, poles, towers and rights of way and also

prescribed a methodology for actual calculation of infrastructure costs.

3.5 Sharing Not Permitted for Facilities Providing Same Services

In the USA, under the Telecommunications Act 1996, Infrastructure Sharing is

permitted only in cases, where the service provider who is sharing another service

provider’s facilities uses them only for services that do not compete with the provider of

the infrastructure. The USA does not have specific regulations on infrastructure sharing

except for the sharing of poles. The regulator has been called upon to scrutinize any

issues on a case-by-case basis several infrastructure sharing joint ventures between

various mobile service providers aimed at assessing their impact on competition.

Also in Singapore, an operator is not required to ‘‘share’’ the use of any infrastructure

that it controls with its competitors. Each operator is expected to build or lease the use

of the infrastructure that it requires. However, the regulator may mandate infrastructure

sharing where it deems certain infrastructure as Critical Support Infrastructure, or where

it concludes that sharing is in the public interest.

3.6 Sharing Permitted on Condition of Full Control and

Independence Of Networks

In Germany, infrastructure sharing of wireless sites, masts, antennas, cables,

combiners and cabinets is allowed provided that full legal control of the networks and


competitive independence remains intact.

Similarly, in the Netherlands, a coordinated approach involving the Netherlands

Competition Authority, the telecommunications Regulator (OPTA) and Ministry of

Transport, Public Networks and Water management authorizes operators to jointly

collaborate in deploying 3G networks on the condition that such arrangements are not

detrimental to competition between service providers. For competition reasons, joint

use of frequencies and core network sharing is restricted.

In Pakistan, different networks in Pakistan can share most of the infrastructure: masts,

antennae, power supplies, housing, transmission routes including Node B and Radio

Network Controllers except for the intelligent control of frequency resources.

In Jordan, Telecommunications Regulatory Commission (TRC) of Jordan intervenes by

investigating and coming up with determinations in instances where the requesting

service provider and the other service provider fail to reach and issue.

3.7 Voluntary Infrastructure Sharing

In the Middle East, site sharing becoming more common, with agreements signed in

recent years by operators in Kuwait, Qatar and the UAE. In Ireland, 3G MNOs have

signed a code of practice for site sharing. The Code provides guidance on a common

site sharing framework for all 3G operators active in Ireland.

3.8 Active Sharing Becoming Popular

The common practice across the globe is that active infrastructure sharing is happening

through voluntary mutual agreements reached between service providers. Since 2009,

many new larger sharing deals in terms of network size, scope and number of

subscribers involved were signed across the globe. A large number of network sharing

deals, ranging from cash-generating tower sharing to highly complex RAN-sharing

agreements. Shared infrastructure companies are emerging as key strategic partners to

service providers as operators realize that network coverage is not a sustainable

distinctive competency.


RAN sharing, has generally been permitted by regulators, provided that operators’

coverage requirements are met. RAN sharing is generally considered as having no

negative impact on competition. This is largely the case in Europe where RAN sharing

agreements have been stitched up in Spain, UK and Italy between T-Mobile and

Hutchison; Wind and Hutchison respectively.

In the UK, the current trend is towards large-scale network sharing rather than ad -hoc

arrangements. Regulatory pressure to cover the entire population by 2012 has seen

operators such as Vodafone and O2 planning to pool their networks. T-Mobile and 3

have also signed deals on network sharing. All companies will continue to compete

under their own brand names. It is expected that by putting together their networks they

would enable faster roll out of mobile broadband into more rural areas and also allow

them to reduce the 51,000 base stations dotted across the country by eliminating

duplication. Currently there are three bilateral network sharing deals between T-Mobile

and H3G, Vodafone and Orange, and Vodafone and O2.

In France, a RAN sharing agreement was signed by the four MNOs in July 2010).

In Spain, there is an agreement between Orange and Vodafone for full 3G RAN sharing

in small towns with less than 25000 inhabitants, since 2006.

3.9 Spectrum Sharing Generally Not Permitted

International experience indicates that spectrum pooling has not been permitted in any

country so far. The reason being that if service providers are permitted to pool or share

the spectrum then the group can get added advantage in deployment of services.

Generally, in most EU countries, each mobile operator must use its own frequencies to

deploy the radio access network, and in this sense frequency sharing is not allowed or

subject to limitations. In most countries, spectrum rights are linked to the obligation for

licensees to roll-out nationwide infrastructure. In the Netherlands, France, spectrum

sharing is not permitted as collaboration is limited to the joint construction and use of

the 3G network infrastructures such as masts, aerials and network operation. Joint use

of frequencies and core networks is not allowed. In Germany, the regulator stated that

each 3G licence holder would be required to build its own network, each of which

needed to ensure its `competitive independence’ during the lifetime of the license,

though permitting passive sharing. This means that service providers would not be


allowed to share backbone facilities such as switching centres even though they could

share network elements such as masts and antennas.

3.10 network sharing permitted subject to fulfilment of certain coverage

conditions.

In several countries, network sharing arrangements are permitted on condition of

fulfilment of certain coverage conditions. Such pioneering network-sharing agreements

led to support for RAN sharing being incorporated within the 3GPP standards for HSPA

and LTE. Examples where such arrangements are operational include Sweden where

network infrastructure sharing is allowed under the present 3G licensing regime as long

as each service providers has 30% of the population covered with its own infrastructure,

the 70% remaining being sharable. Similarly, in Denmark, a licensee is required to

meet certain coverage obligations for the deployment of 2G and 3G network, having full

control of the respective core network and Radio Access Network (RAN).

3.11 Core Network Sharing

Core network sharing is in its infancy and although commercial proposals have been

discussed, there are limited examples of this occurring in practice. Whilst such

agreements may lead to greater efficiency, through economies of scale effects,

regulators are mainly concerned about the impact of decreasing wholesale competition.

However, provided that the retail mobile market remains competitive then there may be

limited opportunities for vertically integrated mobile network operators to leverage any

increase in wholesale market power into the retail market. Therefore the competitive

harm to consumers may be minimal compared to the efficiency gains.

National roaming has in some cases been mandated and in others encouraged,

in particular at the early stages of 3G roll-out and in peripheral areas, while it has

also been identified as a potential threat to competition in a limited number of

cases.

• MVNO access, where commercially negotiated has been considered to facilitate

competition, and in some cases it has been mandated where operators have

been found to have market power


CHAPTER 4: PROPOSED APPROACH TO INFRASTRUCTURE

SHARING IN ZIMBABWE.

4.1 THE STATUS OF INFRASTRUCTURE SHARING IN ZIMBABWE

Infrastructure sharing in Zimbabwe is regulated by Statutory Instrument 28 of 2001 on

Interconnection Guidelines that empowers POTRAZ to issue guidelines to the licensees

and service providers relating to infrastructure sharing. Currently infrastructure sharing

is not mandatory in Zimbabwe as it is left to commercial negotiation between operators.

This has resulted in a scenario where infrastructure sharing is minimal in Zimbabwe.

From a study that was done by POTRAZ it was observed that currently the most

commonly shared infrastructure among operators is passive infrastructure in the form of

towers, Equipment rooms and Power supply. The study also revealed that only 13.4%

of the total telecommunications passive infrastructure is shared. It was also revealed

that none of the operators are sharing active infrastructure or backhaul elements.

Question 5

Do you agree with the above analysis on the status of infrastructure sharing in

Zimbabwe? If not, give reasons and statistics to prove otherwise.

4.2. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The above state of affairs is testified by the multiplicity of towers and ducting belonging

to different operators which are built at the inconvenience of the public in terms of the

civil works and the harm to the environment that come with construction of such

infrastructure. This depicts unnecessary duplication of infrastructure which can easily

and economically be shared and reduces costs of providing services.

The above situation is further corroborated by findings of the recently concluded cost

studies for telecommunication services which identified infrastructure duplication and

the high cost of procuring telecommunication equipment in Zimbabwe as major

contributors to high cost of service provision.



There is a possibility of usage of Municipal Tower Lights being raised as a case of Tower Sharing

Notwithstanding the above, many masts are being put on the roof tops of the buildings.

The locations of such masts are decided based on the Radio Frequency coverage map.

The suitability of the building and strength to support such loads are not properly

checked- a situation which may result in damages and risk to human life living near

such installations especially in the rainy season and windy weather.

Government, through its various arms such as the Environmental Protection Agency

(EMA); Ministry of Transport and Infrastructural Development and local authorities

including chiefs in rural areas are also involved in authorizing the construction of

telecommunication infrastructure in their respective areas of jurisdiction. All this is done

in a haphazard manner and increasing the time and cost of doing business for

operators. The end result is that such costs are passed on to the consumer- making

services unaffordable. Therefore there is need for uniform guidelines and coordination

for the construction/installation of telecommunications infrastructure. This should

involve all concerned parties such as municipal/local authorities including chiefs, EMA,

other utility providers such as electricity, railways, roads and POTRAZ.

It is POTRAZ’s considered view that the current infrastructure sharing arrangements as

espoused in SI 28 on interconnection rates have failed to stimulate the desired levels of

infrastructure sharing thereby increasing cost of services and causing harm to the

environment, hence the need to review the existing framework.

Question 6:

Do you agree with the statement of the problem to be addressed with regards to

infrastructure sharing and POTRAZ’s view on the need to review and improve on

the existing framework? If not in agreement, give reasons.

4.3 THE OBJECTIVES OF INFRASTRUCTURE SHARING IN

ZIMBABWE

Considering that building and operating infrastructure is a significant cost for operators

contributing up to 60% in total cost of service provision, POTRAZ view is that network

sharing may provide the panacea to the industry challenges. The goal of network


sharing is to reduce costs associated with rolling out telecommunications networks with

the expected outcome of speeding up service roll out and attainment of universal

access to services. The objectives of coming up with infrastructure sharing guidelines

include:

Ensure that the incidence of unnecessary duplication of infrastructure is

minimized or completely avoided thus making a saving on scarce financial

resources;

Ensure that the economic advantages derivable from the sharing of facilities are

harnessed for the overall benefit of all telecommunications stakeholders;

Protect the environment by reducing the proliferation of infrastructure and

facilities installations or deployment;

Encourage the operators to take public health and safety and the environment

into account when constructing and or deploying infrastructure;

Promote the availability of wide range of high quality, efficient, cost effective and

competitive telecommunication services throughout Zimbabwe by ensuring

optimum utilization of telecommunication resources;

Minimise operators’ expenditure on supporting infrastructures and to free more

funds for investment in core network equipment upgrades and rolling out of

innovative and affordable services.

Promote fair competition through equal access being granted to the Passive

infrastructure of operators especially for bottleneck facilities and wherever

applicable on fair terms.

To reduce both capital and operating expenditures in order to make services

affordable whilst maintaining sustainable levels of profitability in the face of

increasing use of over-the-top (OTT) services which are eating into operators;

revenues.

Question 7:

Do you agree with the Authority’s views regarding the objectives of infrastructure

sharing in Zimbabwe? If not please provide reasons or any additional objectives

that need to be included.

The Authority recognizes that sharing should not only be confined within the boundaries


of the telecommunication industry, but together with other infrastructure industries such

as electricity, water and sewage, roads and Broadcasting as well. In the context of

technological development, joint infrastructure building with other market players and

with other industries should be encouraged, providing for timed, organized opportunities

for access to ducts and conduit (for example, for the joint laying of fiber) to distribute the

cost of civil works among service providers and reduce the inconvenience for traffic in

towns and cities. This will also provide for a positive environmental and aesthetic

impact, in particular by reducing the number of mobile masts and towers as well as

damage to roads.

Question 8

Do you agree with the Authority’s view on the need for infrastructure sharing to

extend to other utility providers such as roads, municipalities, water, electricity

and broadcasting?


CHAPTER 5: LICENSING AND REGULATORY ISSUES

5.1 ROLE OF GOVERNMENT

Government has a key role to play in facilitating the most effective use of infrastructure

assets and in identifying those parts of the country where there are gaps and getting

coverage extended to them. Most highways are owned and run by the Government and

so are the rights-of-way along these roads. This presents an opportunity for government

to foster infrastructure sharing by placing sharing conditions on those who acquire

rights of way. As a condition of approval government can stipulate the minimum size of

duct to be installed and further place heavy taxes and charges on exclusive users.

Central government can also direct local authorities to standardize approval procedures

for rights of way.

These procedural issues at times result in increased costs, delayed investments, higher

roll out time and poor quality of service. Therefore, POTRAZ recommends that

Government needs to streamline the procedures through a national policy supported by

an appropriate legal framework and structures to achieve faster growth of

telecommunication services in the country. As such, it is recommended that

government considers setting up a one- stop- shop infrastructure sharing facility to

facilitate faster and efficient infrastructure sharing among telecommunication operators

and other utility providers. The one-stop-shop facility would facilitate the coordination of

trenching and ducting works between telecommunications service providers as well as

between telecommunications service providers and those of other utilities aimed at

simplifying administrative proceedings and ensure timely response to requests for

infrastructure sharing.


Question 9

Do you agree with POTRAZ view on the need for setting up a one stop shop infrastructure sharing facility aimed at standardising and monitoring infrastructure roll out? If so, how can this be crafted and who should be responsible. If not in agreement, kindly give reasons thereof.

5.2 ROLE OF POTRAZ

POTRAZ as the regulatory body for the telecommunications sector has the overall role

of enforcing the infrastructure sharing framework. For mandatory infrastructure sharing,

the Authority shall analyse and approve all agreements among operators.

The Authority shall maintain a database of all telecommunication sites and equipment

installations in the country to facilitate infrastructure sharing. The database shall contain

information on existing infrastructure as well as future infrastructure installations that

can be available for sharing.

The Authority shall use its mandate to further the opportunities for infrastructure

sharing, provided there is no risk of the lessening of competition. In particular, the

Authority will take action to:

Identify areas that require mandatory infrastructure sharing.

Encourage redevelopment of existing facilities amenable to infrastructure sharing

to increase their capacity.

Advise local and regional authorities on the adoption of schemes which would

encourage the sharing of infrastructure.

Support the development of the capability among operators to deal with issues of

infrastructure sharing in a competent way.

Question 10

Are you in agreement with the above cited roles of POTRAZ in facilitating

infrastructure sharing? If not in agreement, what do you think needs to be

included or excluded from the roles highlighted above?

The Authority may order the discontinuation of an infrastructure sharing arrangement

subject to the following conditions:



The agreements are currently not the problem. The problem is in approving requests for sharing. Applications are made and Owners decline without having to give reason, or on the grounds that they plan to use the space in future ( which plans you cannot prove or disprove )

Where it determines that an infrastructure sharing arrangement is inconsistent

with the scope and terms and conditions of relevant Licence(s) and/or

Identifies a risk of lessening of competition as a consequence of such

infrastructure sharing.

Question 11

Are you in agreement with the conditions under which POTRAZ may order the

discontinuation of an infrastructure sharing arrangement? You may suggest

other conditions.

5.3 Licensee Rights and Obligations for Facility Sharing

All Licensees shall furnish the Authority detailed information on infrastructures available

for sharing with other operators. The list shall be updated on a quarterly basis. All

licensees shall have to fulfil all of their individual obligations including but not limited to

rollout obligations as contained in their individual licences irrespective of infrastructure

sharing agreements with other operators.

5.4 Optical Fibre Networks

The Authority’s view is that Licensees shall jointly develop, build, maintain and operate

new infrastructure for providing telecommunication services to subscribers. Licensees

will not be permitted to build optical/wired backbone transmission networks in areas

where similar networks owned by other licensees are already available for sharing.

Incumbent operators should take necessary measures to augment the capacity of

existing optical /wired backbone transmission network for sharing.

Licensees shall jointly develop, build, maintain and operate optical/wired backbone

transmission network if such networks are not existing / not available for sharing from

the existing infrastructures in a particular zone/area. However, an individual licensee

may build optical /wired backbone transmission network with the permission of the

Authority.

Licensees shall be obliged to provide open access to bottleneck facilities, at both

national and international levels including internet connectivity through colocation and

connectivity to submarine cable landing stations and internet exchange points.


5.5 Co-location/Site Sharing

Licensees shall collaborate in negotiating co-location agreement issues relating to site

access, security access, damage insurance and compensation, and fair rate. Where

there are disputes, the areas of contention shall be identified and referred to the

Authority for resolution in an agreed defined period before a decision is made on a

particular application.

Licensees shall co-operate with each other to construct a new tower as per these

Guidelines for joint usage. Notwithstanding the above, the following factors may inhibit

or delay co-location:

i) Lack of structural capacity to support weights, orientation, heights and wind

loads from additional equipment.

ii) Lack of ground space to accommodate shelter for base stations and other

equipment.

5.6 Tower sharing

Tower sharing shall be mandatory for all new towers where possible, such that any

operator who wishes to construct a new tower must first establish that it is not

technically or practically feasible to share an existing tower and that the costs of

upgrading the existing tower exceed that of building a new tower.

Mandatory tower sharing may be done through joint development of new infrastructure

where possible or through licensees whose licence scope permits them to build

infrastructure.

Licensees shall, and in consultation with the Authority, where necessary ensure the

use of approved existing sites for the development of new installations. A person who

intends to construct a tower must demonstrate that all reasonable steps have been

taken to investigate tower sharing before applying to the permitting agencies to

construct a new tower within a specified radius of the proposed site.

Where tower heights are shorter, a smaller search radius can be used as follows:

i) Two towers above 46m, a radius of 400m shall apply; and

ii) Two towers below 46m towers, a radius of 300m shall apply.


Where either of the above is not technically feasible, a written documentation in the

form of a co-location statement, which indicates the reason why co-location is not

possible, shall be supplied by the site owner within five (5) working days to the

applicant. The applicant shall submit the co-location statement to the Authority on

application for a new site.

Licensees shall collaborate in negotiating co-location agreement issues relating to site

access; security access; damage insurance and compensation as well as chargeable

rates. Where there are disputes, the areas of contention shall be identified and referred

to the Authority for resolution in an agreed defined period before a decision is made on

a particular application.

The owner(s) of a tower shall provide information to the Authority to maintain a

database of towers that are available for collocation. Where an existing tower is

incapable of supporting co-location, the option of decommissioning the old tower and

the erection of a new one capable of accommodating other antennas may be

considered.

Where an old tower is decommissioned to erect a new stronger one capable of

accommodating other operators’ the new operators shall be liable for the cost of the

new tower on an incremental cost basis.

5.7. Ducts and rights of way

Ducts and rights of way shall be shared for installations that serve a similar purpose,

which allows for optimal use and shall be offered on a first-come first served basis

subject to commercial agreements under fair pricing conditions.

5.8. Comprehensive/ Deep Passive Site Sharing

Deep site sharing shall be mandatory in rural areas unless exempted by the Authority.

In Zimbabwe this is already in practice whereby funds from the Universal Service fund

are being used to build towers which are shared by operators.


5.9. Common back-haul sharing

Common back-haul sharing will be mandatory in rural areas where traffic from BTS to

BSC is deemed very low and a common RF or Optical fibre medium can be utilized.

This will reduce cost and maintenance efforts. Exit from such sharing arrangements

shall be permissible wherever it is proven that it is warranted at a later phase due to

increase in traffic or other administrative reasons.

5.10. Active Sharing

Active RAN sharing and Node B sharing shall be optional and encouraged only in

cases where it does not compromise competition through collusive behaviour among

operators.

Question 12

Given the proposed approaches to infrastructure sharing, do you agree with

POTRAZ view to make site/tower, backhaul, duct sharing mandatory in both

rural and urban areas; Deep passive site sharing mandatory in rural areas and

Active RAN sharing optional to operators? If not in agreement, please give

reasons.


CHAPTER 6

GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE

SHARING

6.0 Agreements on Infrastructure Sharing

All licensees shall provide capacity on its infrastructure to other operators on a non-

discriminatory “first come, first served” basis.

Licensees shall enter into an agreement for sharing infrastructure.

In case of any dispute regarding the tariff and charges the decision of the Authority

shall be final and binding upon the parties. Any agreements to be executed shall be

submitted to the Authority for approval within 15(fifteen) days from the date of

agreement.

Question 13

Do you agree with the need for licensees to enter into formal infrastructure

sharing agreements and the cited conditions under which sharing agreements

shall be arranged? If not in agreement give reasons and cite alternative/additional

conditions.

6.1 Procedure for Infrastructure Sharing:

Infrastructure Seeker shall submit request to Infrastructure provider expressing the

interest of sharing infrastructure. Infrastructure Provider shall enter into negotiation with

other operators to share the infrastructure. An operator shall provide capacity on its

infrastructure to other operators on a “first-come, first served” basis, determined in

accordance with the order in which it receives requests for infrastructure sharing. An

operator shall reserve the right to refuse an application for infrastructure sharing on

grounds of;

(a) Insufficient capacity

(b) Safety, reliability, incompatibility of facilities


Request for Infrastructure Sharing by the Infrastructure Seeker to the Infrastructure

Providers and the approval / rejection of the request by the Infrastructure Provider must

be in writing. Any agreements to be executed shall be submitted to the Authority for

approval within 15(fifteen) days from the date of agreement. All negotiations for

Infrastructure Sharing must be done in utmost good faith. The Infrastructure Provider

shall not:

(a) Obstruct, delay negotiations in resolving disputes.

(b) Refuse to provide information relevant to an agreement including information

necessary to identify the facility needed.

(c) Refuse to designate proper representative to expedite negotiation.

Infrastructure Providers shall reserve the right to refuse an application for infrastructure

sharing on grounds of insufficient capacity. Infrastructure Providers have the right to

reserve not more than 50% (fifty percent) of spare capacity for new towers or

infrastructure.

The period to respond (either acceptance or rejection) by the Infrastructure Provider to

any request for Infrastructure Sharing shall be 4 (four) weeks and the time frame for

negotiation of an Infrastructure Sharing Agreement shall be 6 (six) weeks from the date

of receiving the request. If no response is received within 4 (four) weeks of request, the

Infrastructure Seeker shall refer the matter to the Authority and the Authority shall take

necessary steps.

Question 14

Do you agree with the above proposed procedure for infrastructure sharing, the

cited conditions for refusal to share infrastructure and the expected time frame

within which a request and negotiations for infrastructure sharing must be

responded to and concluded? If not in agreement give reasons and alternative

suggestions.

In the event of any differences or disputes between the Infrastructure Provider and

Infrastructure Seeker and failure to resolve the differences or disputes amicably among

themselves, aggrieved party shall refer the matter to the Authority for resolution of the

same. The decision of the Authority in that regard will be final and binding.



This is incredibly difficult for existing infrastructure. For new Infrastructure, we could make it mandatory that an Operator which wants to build, writes to all other Operators to indicate their requirements and after giving those requirements to the Design Engineer, writes back to all others indicating to them the share of the cost / incremental cost that they have to bear if they want to be part of the project and the timelines for providing the funds.

Question 15

Do you agree with the above cited dispute resolution mechanism for

infrastructure sharing disputes? If you do not agree give reasons and alternative

suggestions.

6.2 Infrastructure Sharing charges and Costs

Prices for infrastructure sharing shall be non-discriminatory, reasonable, and based on

the actual costs incurred by the owner of the facility. Determination of the costs

underlying prices should be transparent and neutral and should be incorporated in the

infrastructure sharing agreement for the Authority`s approval.

Tariff and charges for Infrastructure Sharing shall be on an incremental cost basis. In

essence, the annual cost of sharing should not exceed an equal fraction of the

annualised cost of owning and operating a similar facility.

Question 16

Do you agree with the above cited pricing principles for infrastructure sharing? If

you do not agree give reasons and alternative suggestions.

6.3. Standardization

To facilitate improved co-ordination and compatibility of equipment, parties to an

infrastructure sharing arrangement should endeavour to develop and employ standard

procedures for provision and operations under the arrangement. Parties should not

install incompatible equipment which may cause interference to other parties’

equipment or impede usage of space allocated to them.

The standard procedures to be developed by parties under the arrangement will be in

the areas of:

(a) Maintenance

(b) Fault clearance

(c) Access at the facility

(d) Emergency


(e) Cleaning

(f) Safety

(g) Security

(h) Labelling of cables and equipment with owner’s name

Parties are also to ensure that standardized professional installation procedures are

followed.

Question 17

Do you agree with the need for standard procedures and the above cited areas

where such procedural standards should be maintained? If not in agreement,

give reasons and alternative suggestions.

6.4. Dispute Resolution

The Authority has the power to intervene to resolve any dispute pertaining to

infrastructure/site sharing at the request of either party and to impose sharing

arrangements between operators after consultation with the parties. Where there are

disputes arising out of infrastructure / site sharing, the areas of contention shall be

identified and referred to the Authority for resolution.

The power of the Authority to intervene in disputes shall include the right to request for

and receive all such necessary information as may be required to reach a decision. The

Authority shall establish within five (5) working days, a dispute resolution process in

accordance with provisions of the Act. The decision of the Authority which shall be

final, save for the right of appeal to a court of competent jurisdiction will be notified to

the parties and published.

Question 18

Do you agree with the role and powers given the Authority in infrastructure

sharing dispute resolution? If you do not agree give reasons and alternative

suggestions.


ANNEX A: LIST OF CONSULTATION QUESTIONS ON INFRASTRUCTURE SHARING FRAMEWORK

Questions Responses from Stakeholders Position of the Regulator (POTRAZ)

Question 1 Do you agree with the general views which the Authority buys into regarding the benefits that may be realised if Infrastructure is shared in Zimbabwe? If not please provide reasons.

ResponsesQuestion 2 a. Do you agree with the above views on

factors that may inhibit Infrastructure sharing? If not please provide reasons.

b. In your view which of the above factors are possible impediments to infrastructure sharing in Zimbabwe and how best can they be addressed?

ResponsesQuestion 3 Issues for consultation:

a. Do you agree with the description of the

above forms of passive infrastructure

sharing?

b. Are there any other forms of passive

sharing that are possible between

operators? If any give more

ResponsesQuestion 4 c. In your opinion, should active infrastructure

sharing be encouraged? Give reasons for your

answer.

d. Given the various forms of active infrastructure

sharing described above, which ones do you

think are most suitable for the Zimbabwean

case. Please provide reasons for your choice.

You are free to suggest a hybrid of various

forms of sharing.

c. In your view, do you consider the option to

licence Mobile Virtual Network Operators

(MVNOs) as a viable option to encourage active


infrastructure sharing in Zimbabwe?

d. What other modes of active infrastructure sharing will be useful in the Zimbabwean scenario? Suggest actions which you feel necessary to encourage such sharing.

ResponsesQuestion 5 Do you agree with the above analysis on the

status of infrastructure sharing in Zimbabwe? If not, give reasons and statistics to prove otherwise.

ResponsesQuestion 6 Do you agree with the statement of the problem to

be addressed with regards to infrastructure sharing and POTRAZ’s view on the need to review and improve on the existing framework? If not in agreement, give reasons.

ResponsesQuestion 7 Do you agree with the Authority’s views regarding

the objectives of infrastructure sharing in Zimbabwe? If not please provide reasons or any additional objectives that need to be included.

ResponsesQuestion 8 Do you agree with the Authority’s view on the

need for infrastructure sharing to extend to other utility providers such as roads, municipalities, water, electricity and broadcasting?

ResponsesQuestion 9 Do you agree with POTRAZ view on the need for

setting up a one stop shop infrastructure sharing facility aimed at standardising and monitoring infrastructure roll out? If so, how can this be crafted and who should be responsible. If not in agreement, kindly give reasons thereof.

ResponsesQuestion 10 Are you in agreement with the above cited roles of

POTRAZ in facilitating infrastructure sharing? If

not in agreement, what do you think needs to be

included or excluded from the roles highlighted

above?

ResponsesQuestion 11 Are you in agreement with the conditions under

which POTRAZ may order the discontinuation of an infrastructure sharing arrangement? You may suggest other conditions.

Responses


Question 12 Given the proposed approaches to infrastructure sharing, do you agree with POTRAZ view to make site/tower, backhaul, duct sharing mandatory in both rural and urban areas; Deep passive site sharing mandatory in rural areas and Active RAN sharing optional to operators? If not in agreement, please give reasons.

ResponsesQuestion 13 Do you agree with the need for licensees to enter

into formal infrastructure sharing agreements and the cited conditions under which sharing agreements shall be arranged? If not in agreement give reasons and cite alternative/additional conditions.

ResponsesQuestion 14 Do you agree with the above proposed procedure

for infrastructure sharing, the cited conditions for refusal to share infrastructure and the expected time frame within which a request and negotiations for infrastructure sharing must be responded to and concluded? If not in agreement give reasons and alternative suggestions.

ResponsesQuestion 15 Do you agree with the above cited dispute

resolution mechanism for infrastructure sharing disputes? If you do not agree give reasons and alternative suggestions.

ResponsesQuestion 16 Do you agree with the above cited pricing

principles for infrastructure sharing? If you do not agree give reasons and alternative suggestions.

ResponsesQuestion 17 Do you agree with the need for standard

procedures and the above cited areas where such procedural standards should be maintained? If not in agreement, give reasons and alternative suggestions.

ResponsesQuestion 18 Do you agree with the role and powers given the

Authority in infrastructure sharing dispute resolution? If you do not agree give reasons and alternative suggestions.

Responses


consultation paper on_regulations_for_infrastructure_sharing in_telecommunications_industry

Government & Nonprofit

existing infrastructure

infrastructure framework

new infrastructure

term infrastructure

g e consultation paper

telecommunications industry

g networks

ict services