Reply to post:

Three UK says its 5G plans are under threat if tower merger with Euro giant Cellnex is blocked

willyslick

From my point of view, carriers divesting their towers makes perfect sense.

For discussion: does every carrier really need to have their own physical towers or can the increasing virtualization of the mobile infrastructure enable multiple carriers to share the physical towers while remaining securely separated from one another?? Or put another way: does each tower site need three separate infrastructures (assuming 3 main carriers), or does it make more sense for a third party to own it and share the common infrastructure among the three carriers?

It seems to me the carriers are happy to get rid of the bother of locating and managing these real estate transactions for towers (often in the face of both reasonable and unreasonable resident's resistance) and the tower specialists have built a business model on squeezing the maximum usage from any given tower site. To me this looks like a win-win situation. Thoughts?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022