adminBefore 2009, owning a cellphone line was a status symbol which could only be afforded by a connected few. Many remember how winding queues used to form outside mobile telephone company offices with some sleeping in the open each time a rumour spread that lines would be released.
Workers at mobile telephone companies made a killing from selling the lines at exorbitant prices, at times the equivalent of $100.
Following the introduction of the multiple currencies, cellphone companies have made massive investments which have made it easy for anyone to acquire a line. Prices fell to as low as $2 with one network giving lines virtually for free as airtime equivalent to the purchase price is loaded in the Sim card. It seems there are more lines now on the market than there are takers.
In a story carried in Chronicle yesterday, the Postal and Telecommunications Regulatory Authority of Zimbabwe said there were about nine million mobile phone subscribers in the country, giving a tele-density of 72 percent.
A decade ago, there were only 314 000 subscribers and the country ranked among the lowest in terms of tele-density.
The massive growth in mobile telephony in the country can only augur well for economic growth as communication is key to economic development.
However, for the economic growth to be sustainable, the development of the communications sector must be nationally representative.
While we commend the growth in the mobile telecommunications sector, we are concerned at the skewed expansion. Most of the subscribers are in urban areas. Few base stations have been set up deep in rural areas. The only people in rural areas who can claim to have access to reliable network coverage are those who live in corridors along major highways or near well established growth points.
The majority of people in rural areas are being discriminated against when it comes to access to communications yet according to Potraz director general Engineer Charles Sibanda, mobile phone licence holders are supposed to cover the whole country.
The three mobile telephone networks in the country have said the cost of setting up a base station was the major hindrance in achieving 100 percent national coverage.
We believe that this is where the sharing of resources should come into play. Why should the three networks compete to put three base stations at the same place? Potraz must devise a viable strategy for the cellphone companies to share infrastructure in remote areas not yet serviced by service providers without losing their competitive advantage.
The suggestion has been put up before and we would like to believe that it is technically feasible, but because of commercial rivalry, it seems the companies are not keen on it.
If Potraz cannot force the companies to share base stations, the authority must consider building base stations in remote areas from funds it receives under the Universal Fund and lease the infrastructure to mobile telephone networks. Incentives could also be introduced for networks that build telephone infrastructure in rural and under-served areas so as to narrow the digital divide while at the same time widening our capacity to improve our people’s access to information to assist them improve their standards of living. People in rural areas, who make the majority of the population, must not be denied their right to communication just because they live in remote areas.
Online Reporter