4 ms·
You mandate that anyone who puts up a tower has to sell physical space and connectivity for base stations of competitors on those same towers at a fair price.
by gspr 4y ago
You mandate that anyone who puts up a tower has to sell physical space and connectivity for base stations of competitors on those same towers at a fair price.
Charging to recoup the cost of the infrastructure = ok.
Charging more to force competitors out or to build their own, wholly redundant, towers = illegal.
- scarface74 4y agoWhat’s a “fair price”?
- gspr 4y agoLike I wrote: covering the cost of establishing and maintaining the tower. It's essentially a matter of declaring that the towers themselves, and the infrastructure that connect and power them, are not to be a profit maker for anyone. Can be made a condition during spectrum allocation, for example. There's still plenty of other areas for providers to distinguish themselves. And there's still an incentive to increase coverage. The only coverage increase incentive lost is the incentive of becoming a local monopoly. Good riddance, I say.
- scarface74 4y agoNo private business is going to invest just to have its upside limited.
- gspr 4y agoIt's not its only upside. They're already required to make sure the tower doesn't fall in someone's head. That cuts into profit. But they still do it.
- immibis 4y agoHow many base stations can you reasonably fit on a tower, how many redundant networks (even without redundant towers) can the market support? Let's say... 3 or 4?