The Telecom Industry “Dis-configured” into “a Conjoint Optimal Space”; Who Takes the Ideals of the Incentive? For a very long time I desired and finally here in prospect. The Uganda Communications Commission (UCC) coming up with the infrastructure sharing guidelines for telecom companies in Uganda is a space or resource optimizing and far long awaited. According to Patrick Mwesigwa, the UCC director for technology and licensing this is aimed at bringing more order in telecom development in the country because the guidelines will require telecom companies to share infrastructure wherever it is feasible”. They will apply to things like ducts for cables and masts and other passive infrastructure,” he adds. Albeit any difficulties or opportunities in prospect, the fundamental principle by UCC to issue guidelines for sharing infrastructure by major players in the industry is an initiative I will reckon with. First, from a consumer point of view, one notices that the last 15 years or so of the telecommunications industry in Uganda have registered tremendous shift as is seen with the evolving dynamism and innovativeness amongst players in rendering services to their customers beyond the initial Voice services and now to; data and other products like the mobile money service. “Except” for MTN, UTL that have sustained brand names for some time; for the last six or seven years, new players penetrated the market and for others, it was re-branding, dating and changing business faces. In 2008 for example, Celtel Uganda changed brand name to Zain and then to Airtel and until recently, when Airtel and Warid Telecom negotiated the long awaited “marital marriage” earlier this year. This increase and dynamism in the sector has widened opportunities to consumers and also revenue to government. I remember in 2009, the undersea fiber optic network excited the telecom companies and they started setting up infrastructure in most of the urban and country side independently. In fact as you could have also noticed in most parts of the country; there has been a lot of investment in the telecom infrastructure installations by the major players in spite of the mis-cordination especially from 2007 as each entity competed for the market and space to install infrastructure. Government also fell suite “without” regulation and “joined” the competition for same space to install infrastructure like; water mains and sewer lines. Not once or twice when I observed a government organ excavating part of a road to install a road related infrastructure; and at the same or later time, another utility or telecom company digs at the same spot. This costs not only colossal sums of money to individual companies and government; but also has serious implications to the urban and rural space/environments. For the road users and other publics, the effects could be related to the psychological stress, dirt road surface, interruptions on pedestrian road side movements, accidents to those driving/transiting and the clogging of drainage lines. In some situations it has caused evacuations of people and demolition of property as the players scramble for space. Beyond the proposed UCC guidelines, mapping out and earmarking of suitable space and locations for the various infrastructural installations in the whole country would be appropriate in enabling harmonization among actors and stakeholders. It is interesting to follow the guidelines for the deployment of communications towers for the Government of Ghana, 2010 and that of the Government of India, 2013 and also the 2011 sixteen paged document on infrastructure sharing in telecommunications by KPMG. There could be a few lessons to learn for Uganda. The standards in both countries; Ghana and Andhra, India require the telecom companies in the submission of application documents to authorities in order to obtain a permit, to among others present; “location plans, site plans, a block plan showing the position of the tower and ancillary facilities with the mandatory setbacks or dimensions indicated. The block plan must also show all existing or proposed structures within the plot. It should show evidence of ownership of the property and/or the property on which the structure is to be installed or a written consent of the owner. It must show evidence of neighborhood (adjoining structures) and consultations conducted in the immediate area where the tower is to be mounted and the evidence certified by the local authority. It should also show the structural integrity report certified by a Civil or Structural Engineer in cases where the tower is to be mounted on an existing structure”. From Ghana’s and India’s experience, one notes that the prerequisite to coordinate and harmonize the various sectors and multi-stakeholders efforts in establishment and management of shared telecom infrastructure will be key for the success of the sharing plan in Uganda. There certainly will be challenges ahead just as there could be opportunities as well for Uganda. That in spite; out of the other challenges, Uganda does not have an integrated and comprehensive national, regional and district physical development plans that would embed the “telecom utility installation master plans”. Integration of the infrastructure sharing plan in a strategic way with land use planning will be a key driver for a sustained sharing plan. While recognizing efforts by the ministry of lands, housing and urban development in causing preparation of urban plans, most of the urban centers in Uganda still remain without comprehensive and integrated urban and local physical development plans to enable urban development regulation including telecom infrastructure installations. Also to stimulate the potential overlay of “an integrated telecom utility installation master plan” to the physical development plans necessary for the sustained telecom sector. Quite often the telecom companies have implemented major infrastructure projects in many urban areas and in the rural side without due consideration of the existing local and urban physical development plans in some towns. Now with the whole country declared a planning area by section 3 of the physical planning act, 2010, the infrastructure sharing guidelines must point out clearly the need for the telecom companies to consult with local authorities on land use planning matters to avoid unsustainable location of infrastructures. There is evidence of prime land especially the hill tops or ecologically sensitive areas that would be suitable tourism sites just to mention but have gone to telecom facility installation. Almost in every town, you will notice “all” raised hill tops clothed with masts. In some unsustainable instances, facility installations are with in human settlement areas and this could be health threatening to the inhabitants. Whether the installations follow the already settled areas or the people follow the facilities; that for now is shelved. With the telecom industry looming dis-configuration into an ideal conjoint optimal space, the hope is that the incentives with this development will be lucrative and sustainable across all stakeholder groups. What is your say? Written by; Moses Banduga
Posted on: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 09:07:07 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015