Analyzing the Economic Effect of Mobile Network Sharing in Korea

ETRI Journal

关键词: MVNO;    national roaming;    core network sharing;    RAN sharing;    mast sharing;    site sharing;    economic effect;    Mobile network sharing;   

Others  :  1186362
DOI  :  10.4218/etrij.12.0111.0471

【 摘 要 】

As mobile markets in most developed countries are rapidly coming close to saturation, it is increasingly challenging to cover the cost of providing the network, as revenues are not growing. This has driven mobile operators, thus far mostly involved in facility-based competition, to turn their attention to network sharing. There exist various types of mobile network sharing (MNS), from passive to active sharing. In this paper, we propose a model, based on the supply-demand model, for evaluating the economic effects of using six types of MNS. Our study measures the economic effects of employing these six types of MNS, using actual WiBro-related data. Considering lower service price and expenditure reduction, the total economic effect from a year’s worth of MNS use is estimated to be between 513 million and 689 million USD, which is equal to three to four percent of the annual revenue of Korean mobile operators. The results of this study will be used to support the establishment of a WiBro MNS policy. In addition, the results can be used as a basic model for developing various network sharing models.

   

【 参考文献 】

• [1]I.W. Seo, D.H. Lee, and B.W. Kim, “Market Efficiency Analysis between Facility-Based and Service-Based Competition,” ETRI J., vol. 30, no. 4, Aug. 2008, pp. 587-596.
• [2]C. Park, S.S. Han, and W. Seok, “Mobile Telecommunications Market Regulations and Carrier Performance: The Korean Case,” ETRI J., vol. 32, no. 1, Feb. 2010, pp. 129-138.
• [3]GSMA, “Mobile Infrastructure Sharing,” 2010.
• [4]North Stream, “Network Sharing: Savings and Competitive Effects,” Sept. 2001.
• [5]IDATE, “Mobile Network Outsourcing & Sharing: The End of Network-Centricity?,” June 2009.
• [6]R. Chaudbury and C. Terfloth, “The Rise of Network Sharing: Risks and Rewards for Telecom Operators,” Oliver Wyman, 2007.
• [7]O. Foros, B. Hansen, and J.Y. Sand, “Demand-Side Spillovers and Semi-Collusion in the Mobile Communications Market,” Discussion Paper, Telenor R&D Project, 2001.
• [8]Siemens, “3G Infrastructure Sharing: The Siemens Perspective,” 2001.
• [9]T. Norman and C. Viola, “Transform the Economics of Your Wireless Business with Infrastructure Sharing,” Analysis Mason, Apr. 2010.
• [10]B.W. Kim and S.H. Seol, “Economic Analysis of the Introduction of the MVNO System and Its Major Implications for Optimal Policy Decisions in Korea,” Telecommun. Policy, vol. 31, no. 5, June 2007, pp. 290-304.
• [11]D.H. Shin, “MVNO Services: Policy Implications for Promoting MVNO Diffusion,” Telecommun. Policy, vol. 34, no. 10, Nov. 2010, pp. 616-632.
• [12]A. Barrett and N.N. Jackson, “Network Planning Consideration for Network Sharing in UMTS,” Proc. 3G Mobile Commun. Technol. Conf., May 2002, pp. 17-21.
• [13]D.L. Alexander, W. Kern, and J. Neill, “Valuing the Consumption Benefits from Professional Sports Franchises,” J. Urban Economics, vol. 48, no. 2, Sept. 2000, pp. 321-337.
• [14]Y. Woo, K. Kim, and J. Yoo, “Cost Accounting Methods for IP-Based Telecommunications Services,” Korea Inf. Commun. Society, Jeju, Korea, June 2010.
• [15]J. Lee, D.H. Lee, and C.Y. Jung, “Asymmetric Regulation of Mobile Access Charges and Consumer Welfare with Price Regulation,” ETRI J., vol. 32, no. 3, June 2010, pp. 447-456.
• [16]Y. Song et al., “A Hybrid Bass-Markov Demand Forecasting Model for Dual-Type Device-Based Service: The Case of WiBro Service in Korea,” Technol. Forecasting Social Change, in progress.
• [17]Korea Communications Commission, “Business Plan of Korean Operator B,” Internal Policy Report.