16 Rev2b NGA Opinion Supplementary doc - IRG

ERG (07) 16rev2b NGA Opinion Supplementary Doc 15 / 69
same for fibre networks as they compete with other infrastructures (Telefónica, similar
DTAG). The Consultation Document has not taken account of the emerging nature of these
new networks but rather carries over regulation of legacy network without proving the need
for regulation.
Another argument raised against an inclusion of fibre in Market 11 is that end-user fibre lines
still lack visibility and that the topology of fibre access networks could differ significantly from
legacy PSTN access networks (Alactel-Lucent).
It is argued that there is no evidence that fibre access networks constitute enduring economic
bottlenecks. Therefore, in order to avoid an inappropriate extension of regulation, an
analysis should be conducted in the first place, to find out if and where there are such bottlenecks
(DTAG).
Another view on this aspect is taken by another incumbent (TDC), arguing that fibre may
enable to deliver services that cannot be delivered by other infrastructure (including VDSL).
In that case, fibre will constitute a bottleneck regardless if delivered by the incumbent or
other operators since the deployment of a second network is unlikely thus potentially foreclosing
the market.
Although one incumbent (BT) generally supports a technologically neutral approach to market
definition, implying that fibre should be included in assessing SMP or bottlenecks in Market
11, it believes that “technology, operational, and proportionality considerations” applied to
realistic PON and DWDM systems will generally preclude fibre or wavelength unbundling.
Another incumbent (France Telecom) holds a differentiated view. According to this, FttH
should remain out of the scope of Market 11, whereas FttC and FttB are covered by this
market. In case of VDSL deployment at the cabinet, or building sub-loop unbundling (with
associated resources) and Bitstream access offers must be defined and priced so that the
viability of LLU operators is not negatively affected.
More generally, some comments (Corning, ETP) point out that NGA challenge market definitions,
and in particular the definition of the local loop, more fundamentally. This is due to the
fact that aggregation may occur at different points from today. These comments suggest defining
the local loop as the dedicated line up to the first aggregation point.
On the other hand, there are many comments explicitly supporting the inclusion of fibre in
Market 11 (Arcor, AFORST, BREKO, ECTA, EuroISPA, IfKom, ISPA, QSC, Silver Server,
Tele2, Telecom e.V., WIND). They call for a technology neutral definition of the Market 11,
including also fibre or hybrid solutions. Thus, the Recommendation should be adjusted to
include fibre. Such technology neutral approach to Market 11 “should already be possible
under the existing Framework”, according to one comment (ECTA).
According to one comment, any modification of Market 11 should in no way mean that unbundling
of metallic local loop is no longer an obligation. Therefore, NRAs should adopt decisions
under the current Framework to avoid that VDSL roll-outs of incumbents put an end to
LLU and Bitstream.
In one comment it is considered “extremely useful” that a definition of ancillary service is provided
in Market 11 (and Market 12) (WIND). Thus, the definition of Market 11 needs to be
completed with a detailed description of wholesale services (such as sub-loop unbundling,
collocation services, backhauling, and duct access) to be provided by the incumbent to comply
with the general obligations. The ERG is encouraged to verify whether the traditional
Markets 11 (and 12) are viable in the NGA scenario and to carry out the necessary adaptations,
both from the technical and regulatory perspectives (EuroISPA). An unbundled optical
fibre is deemed necessary not only for the development of the market but also for “regulatory