Interesting findings. Is it possible that the reduced investment in towers would have happened whether or not interoperability was implemented? As mentioned, the cost of operating towers is high and variable. It would make sense for operators to divest their ownership of towers, as has been the case in recent years, to concentrate on the more profitable areas of business i.e. mobile money and its use cases.
I also struggle to understand why operators would have a higher incentive to grow their network into rural areas if there was no interoperability. If the operators are getting sufficient profits in urban areas, there would be little incentive to expand into rural areas. We see this very easily with agents and bank branches that concentrate in the more profitable urban areas. It may actually be dynamic rivalry from an entrant that may spur incumbents to expand into untouched areas rather than lack of interoperability. I think the mechanism through which you see this happening is not quite clear.
Interesting findings. Is it possible that the reduced investment in towers would have happened whether or not interoperability was implemented? As mentioned, the cost of operating towers is high and variable. It would make sense for operators to divest their ownership of towers, as has been the case in recent years, to concentrate on the more profitable areas of business i.e. mobile money and its use cases.
I also struggle to understand why operators would have a higher incentive to grow their network into rural areas if there was no interoperability. If the operators are getting sufficient profits in urban areas, there would be little incentive to expand into rural areas. We see this very easily with agents and bank branches that concentrate in the more profitable urban areas. It may actually be dynamic rivalry from an entrant that may spur incumbents to expand into untouched areas rather than lack of interoperability. I think the mechanism through which you see this happening is not quite clear.