The impact of tower sales on Australia’s mobile coverage | Report

This title suggests that obstacles related to mobile tower access could be constraining the expansion of mobile coverage in regional areas.

mobile phone,wifi

According to the final report of the Regional Mobile Infrastructure Inquiry by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) found that the sale of mobile towers by major operators to specialized tower companies has altered the industry’s landscape and created obstacles for extending coverage in rural areas. They noted that access to mobile towers has emerged as a potential constraint in the expansion of regional mobile coverage in Australia. As a result, the existing regulatory framework for tower access is no longer suitable, the report concluded.

The ACCC was commissioned by the Australian Government to investigate access to towers and infrastructure used for mobile services in regional areas. The inquiry assessed various factors influencing the incentives of mobile network operators (Telstra, Optus, and TPG Telecom) to invest in expanding or enhancing mobile coverage.

Key findings

The Commission has found that maintaining and gaining market share is a key driver for mobile network operators to expand coverage in regional areas, but the sale of mobile towers by the three major mobile network operators to large specialist tower companies has created commercial barriers to expanding coverage in rural areas. This trend of network densification, where wireless carriers focus their deployment spending in heavily utilized urban and suburban areas, makes them less likely to invest in expanding coverage into unserved and underserved rural areas

The report outlines 20 key findings related to tower access, regulatory procedures, consumer experiences, and the feasibility of temporary mobile roaming during natural disasters. It highlights that improving mobile coverage often involves mobile network operators either constructing new towers or co-locating their equipment on existing towers owned by other parties, with co-location being a more cost-effective option for these operators.