Telecommunications Challenges in Developing Countries : Asymmetric Interconnection Charges for Rural Areas
This report addresses the important issue of interconnection, the application and enforcement of which is widely recognized to be key to effective liberalization strategy, or often a key reason for failure. Nowhere is this more critical than in the...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Format: | Publication |
Language: | English en_US |
Published: |
Washington, DC: World Bank
2013
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2004/02/3100907/telecommunications-challenges-developing-countries-asymmetric-interconnection-charges-rural-areas http://hdl.handle.net/10986/15031 |
Summary: | This report addresses the important
issue of interconnection, the application and enforcement of
which is widely recognized to be key to effective
liberalization strategy, or often a key reason for failure.
Nowhere is this more critical than in the area of rural
telecommunications, where network costs are known to be high
and where the traditional consensus has been that services
cannot be rolled out without subsidies. In a liberalizing
environment, the issue becomes even more critical. Rural
areas must be better connected, but subsidies-even
best-practice explicit subsidies applied in a so-called
smart way-cannot cover all of the areas that will remain
without service unless better means of incentivizing
investment are explored. This report investigates an
approach to rural telecommunications investment that would
seek to bridge most of the so-called rural "access
gap" by revising the network interconnection regime,
such that operators serving high cost areas would receive
higher call termination fees. The new regime would be built
on geographically de-averaged termination charges, to be
more indicative of network cost differences between urban
and rural networks. The new system could change the business
model for rural networks, harnessing the potential for
incoming call revenues to shoulder much more of the
investment feasibility than currently allowed. It is argued
that the rural access gap could be bridged largely by more
efficient pricing, thus reducing the need for subsidies,
leaving only the most remote and challenging areas in need
of financial support. |
---|