As the infrastructure sharing taxonomy described above indicates, infrastructure sharing agreements can take many forms. This means that the pros and cons of sharing infrastructure may vary and the overall effects and/or forecasts may not be accurate. Table 1: Comparison of Infrastructure Sharing Forms (Technology) As for site release, MORAN and MOCN can be implemented by site and allow for strategic differentiation. However, the operation of network equipment must be shared (or, at the very least, problems must be shared with participants) and, therefore, increases the complexity of sharing versus site sharing. The potential for cost reduction is greater than site sharing. The central network saves more costs, but it is difficult to exploit and differentiate strategically. It is important to note that network sharing has not been popular and few cases have been suspected. This paper considers the sharing of basic networks as a complete theoretical picture of infrastructure sharing. As has been said in previous literature, the benefits and costs of sharing infrastructure depend on the types of infrastructure sharing agreements. Sharing agreements can be categorized according to shared technology unit, commercial ownership and geographic distribution.
While it is true that in the United States, mobile operators have been largely reluctant to use global agreements on network and infrastructure sharing, there is a precedent for a number of partnerships. MVNOs like TracFone and Consumer Cellular z.B. are essentially coming back to reader networks such as Verizon and AT-T because they don`t have their own spectrum or infrastructure. In addition, spectrum owners such as King Street Wireless and Cook Inlet have authorized their U.S. cellular or VoiceStream range to support wider network deployments through these players. (This could be the model that Dish Network will end up using for its huge mid-band spectre troupe.) Ottendorfer said network-sharing agreements can be successful where the objectives and business strategies of the two partners are broadly aligned. However, he stated that such partnerships can quickly disintegrate if one carrier has significantly more customers or more network traffic than the other. The various stages of liberalization in the global developed and emerging telecommunications markets mean that a number of infrastructure sharing models will continue to exist. In emerging countries, new entrants can adopt well-established models, both passive and active, and use them in networking and initial deployment, reducing time and costs of entering the market and taking a step forward towards future network demonstration. In developed markets, the historical concern for active sharing and deeper sharing models is diminishing and operators are more open to innovation in trade and market expansion of new technologies.
Figure 3: Business Classification/Common Infrastructure Ownership Another example of public-private partnership is the communications and transportation sector of Mexico`s national infrastructure program. In the new phase from 2014, the Mexican government intends to set up a national large LTE infrastructure for mobile operators. While the plan is still in progress, the Altin consortium was selected as the last bidder in November 2016. The second perspective is whether ownership and/or operation of the infrastructure are separated from one region to another. For example, operators may already have national coverage and be able to share the operation/ownership of their infrastructure. On the other hand, operators can use green grasslands and each operator can be responsible for different regions to provide and operate infrastructure.  Ericsson, 2012, « Successful Network Sharing: a structured approach to Network Sharing – how to benefit while maintaining competitive advantage »