If your mother is like mine, she probably told you to share when you were a child. Sharing is a good thing, at least in the eyes of most moms around the world.
Some mobile operators are about to discover what it is like to share their third-generation (3G) networks. On the surface, the idea sounds logical.
Carriers are in debt, so sharing will help them save money. There are numerous concerns about the environment and the possible health effects of radio frequency on the world’s population, so sharing will help reduce the number of masts and base stations needed to be built. Operators need to turn 3G profits quickly, so sharing will help boost coverage and service availability timeframes.
I doubt the picture will turn out quite as rosy as carriers such as British Telecommunications and Deutsche Telekom are painting it. The wireless industry has never been known for playing fair. And aren’t BT and DT staunch rivals? I may be skeptical, but I would not be eager to align so closely with a competitor, particularly in important and lucrative markets like Germany and the United Kingdom.
Of course, the carriers will not be sharing their entire networks-only the sites, towers and antennas-and only in major urban areas. Other sharing agreements, such as the one among Europolitan, Hi3G and Orange in Sweden, include sharing networks only in less-populated areas. The carriers will build their own separate infrastructure in urban areas. So they will share, but only certain toys.
The operators are quick to note that even though they are sharing, competition will not be affected. They will still compete with one another and will have separate service offerings, marketing plans and pricing schemes. So they will share their big, expensive toys, but not their small, more emotionally packed toys.
Just like two boys fighting over the largest ball on a playground, I can envision disagreements and perhaps even lawsuits ahead for mobile carriers with shared networks. There is always that chance competitive information could be compromised. And if one carrier has more success with its 3G service than another, won’t it all come back to blaming the successful carrier for not playing fairly?
And then there are the vendors-the toy makers, if you will. Several have publicly stated sharing 3G networks will not harm their businesses and they are quite thrilled to see the alliances because they will help speed up 3G service uptake. But realistically, fewer toys will be purchased because fewer toys will be needed, which can only mean less profits for the toy companies.
Times are definitely strange on the mobile playing field, and tough times breed tough decisions. So perhaps in the short term, sharing is a good way to appease the financial community and shareholders. But long term, when 3G services are in full swing, will two competing carriers really want to share, especially if profits are affected? Who will be there to remind us that sharing is a good thing then?
