POTRAZ should construct the base stations which can be shared esp in rural and non profitable areas using the monies they levy operators. In the current POTRAZ proposal they should explain the following:
(1) who is proposing this, is it government through POTRAZ, is it the operators, is it consumers (2) How is existing infrastructure brought into the equation, considering that they don't have the same capital infrastructure in terms of quantity, quality (different suppliers of equipment), different appetite to provide services - others have electricity back up (3) Who will maintain the shared infrastructure - considering the moral hazard due to information asymmetric (especially where some networks cannot even pay interconnection fees) (4) what is the impact of sharing infrastructure against the status quo in terms of future investment and product portfolio growth and innovation. In civilized societies, policy or bill impact studies before such potentially destructive actions are undertaken to assess the impact of ideas (have done some).
I think it is important for Biggie not to get jealous and demand a free ride to Zion. Private shareholders have invested their monies (and this is not good news at all). If sharing is beneficial as intimated by the POTRAZ dude, private economic actors are the best to initiate the sharing process in the pursuit of profit (this is the normal way) than a third party (who has no penny invested and wont feel the loss if things go awry). This can be through bilateral agreements between operators.
This forced concoction of remedial medicine may actually turn up to be a poison in the well.
Just thinking Aloud