As the Catalyzing Access to ICTs in Africa (CATIA) program comes to an end this August, the issue of infrastructure needs to be debated with the priority it deserves. Catalyzing access has a lot to do with availability of the required infrastructure. Indeed CATIA through its several components tries to address this issue although ultimately the deployment remains in the hands of the telecom operators for both the Internet and telephone services. It is for the above observations that CIPESA recounts the state of infrastructure in Africa below.

The matter of why nearly all telecommunication companies in Africa are unwilling to share infrastructure with other operators has puzzled many observers and international telecommunications operators. In many countries, infrastructure sharing is the norm even for companies that are engaged in direct and heated competition.

Among the policy challenges identified by the ITU’s Telecom Africa 2004 summit was how to encourage infrastructure sharing among the continent’s telecom services providers.

In Africa, it is common to find three similar masts belonging to three different operators, all crammed in the same 200 square metre area. It is equally common to find different telecom operators digging up roads in cities and along highways, each laying infrastructure similar to that of the other companies. The trend was the same from the days when telecom companies had to lay copper cables, to the present where they are laying fiber-optic systems across major cities in most African countries. Whereas there is the argument of different operators using different suppliers in their value chains as a source of competitive advantage, if they shared infrastructure they could use the savings to enhance their service profit chains. This would allow them to maintain their good employees, add value to their services and therefore increase customer satisfaction and loyalty that would lead to growth in subscription base and profit. But again it is said that in Europe when a neighbor acquires a nice car, you would aim to get one as well and in good faith. In Africa when a neighbor builds a good house, one would want it burnt down so you both remain poor.

A senior manager in South Africa-headquartered Mobile Telephones Network says the lack of an infrastructure-sharing culture in Africa is a hindrance to the dispersion of services across the continent, and also contributes to the high prices consumers have to pay to access telecom services in Africa. This culture, according to many operators, is more perverse in Africa than perhaps in any other part of the world, yet it would seem to make more sense on the continent with the least developed infrastructure and with people with the lowest income levels.

Across several African countries with hilly mountainous terrains, masts of different telecom companies dot hill after hill, which proves very expensive for the operators to roll out services. Yet they each continue investing in duplicating each other’s infrastructure.

It becomes imperative therefore to investigate why telecos in Africa are unwilling to share their infrastructure. Among the reasons that have been cited by some operators are that system specifications used are different, so sharing would not be easy. Another is that some operators deploy systems of inferior quality, so others that deem to have superior systems do not wish to share these with others so that they maintain a competitive advantage. Infrastructure sharing has also been discouraged in instances where a dominant or monopolistic player establishes a wide network and then new competitors are licensed. The former monopolistic players are in this case reluctant to share infrastructure with the new entrants.

A few questions therefore need to be asked about what needs to be done to encourage infrastructure sharing. Among issues to bear in mind are what role regulatory authorities play in this regard, as well as what the possible benefits of sharing infrastructure would be for the telecom companies. Examples of countries where competitors are sharing infrastructure, and where regulatory authorities enforce infrastructure sharing would go a long way in convincing African players to share their infrastructure too.

The waste of the minimal resources by operators has ensured that Africa’s infrastructure indices remain insignificant and the desire for universal access aimed at addressing the underserved far from being achieved.

Some lessons can be picked from the model employed by Stokab, the fiber-optic cable owned by the City of Stockholm in Sweden. The Stokab project was based on the view that the provision of an enormous broadband capacity would enable the city to position itself at the forefront of the telecommunications revolution. In addition, Stockholm did not want multiple competitors digging up its streets time and time again. This was the same reason advanced for monopoly of utilities namely water, electricity and telecommunication in the early days. The City of Stockholm also recognized it would be far cheaper and more practical for operators to lease Stokab fiber, rather than each building their own backbone network. The Stokab network is utilizing existing systems of subways, water and electricity pipes, sewer lines and ducts in the city for laying cables. Excavation and construction are carried out only when there are no existing ducts available. The Stokab model, which both regulators and telecom operators in Africa need to study, provides lessons on the benefits of sharing infrastructure among a wide category of operators.

Would the removal of regulatory barriers to entry lead to infrastructure sharing by at least a couple of operators in the country?

Should national policies insist that there should be no duplication of infrastructure to encourage operators to minimize waste and deploy in under served areas?