16 Rev2b NGA Opinion Supplementary doc - IRG

ERG (07) 16rev2b NGA Opinion Supplementary Doc 3 / 69
Question Chapter 1: Do you agree with the general approach?
Consultation Comments
Very broadly there were slightly more comments that supported the approach of the ERG
than comments criticizing it. Whereas competitors welcomed the paper, mainly the incumbents
hold the opposite view.
Supportive: Arcor, BREKO, C&W, Comptel, ECTA, EuroISPA, Fastweb, Ifkom, ONI, Platform
Telecom Operators & Service Providers, QSC, Riegelmayer, Silver Server, Tele2, WIND
These supportive statements range from stating that the ERG took the “right approach” (Sonaecom),
to “potential barriers were found out perfectly” (Silver Server), or to “congratulating
for tackling the regulatory challenges” (Comptel). Based on a “correct” description of the
network and the required equipment the solutions and conclusions proposed by the ERG are
considered “adequately fitting the problems” (Arcor). Others express agreement to the proposed
revisions of the Recommendation on Relevant Markets (EuroISPA) or “largely share”
(WIND), or are even “unanimously support” (QSC) the conclusions. More generally, one
comment speaks of a “high quality Consultation Document” (Tele2).
Some comments see “proper ex-ante regulation of access condition to incumbents’ NGA
network important for maintaining a level-playing field (ONI, similar e.g. WIND).
According to the comment of a stakeholder group the current Regulatory Framework is “fundamentally
sound” and the fundamental principles remain valid in an NGA context. However,
a need for focus on enforcement and consistency in application throughout the EU is called
for (EuroISPA).
It seems remarkable that even an incumbent was rather consenting when answering this
question (TDC). It welcomes a technology neutral approach to the analysis of possible bottlenecks
in access infrastructure, therefore considering the inclusion of fibre as proposed by
the ERG appropriate (see ad 4.2.1 below).
Critical: BT, Colt, DTAG, ETNO, ETP, FT, OTE, KPN, PT, TI, Telefónica
The critics argue that the ERG “fails to ask whether regulation is necessary” (DTAG, similar
BT) or miss further discussion on when remedies are appropriate (Telefónica). They consider
the document to be based on the assumption that current unbundling obligations of
incumbent operators need to be mirrored in the NGN situation” (KPN, similar other incumbents
and ETNO). One comment evaluates the approach as sending the “wrong message”
that all obligations will be applied making the document a “general overview of all the possible
regulatory measures that NRAs are working on in different Member States” (Telefónica).
More specifically, a comment refers to the difficulties of implementing some of the proposed
remedies and considers a cost/benefit analysis for new measures appropriate (Telefónica).
The critics stress that NGA networks are new and differ largely from legacy networks which
“cannot be regulated as legacy networks (TI). Thus, the starting point for the regulatory
analysis should be a “hands-off” approach to avoid such mechanical transition of measures
to NGNs (Telefónica). Such new investments require a regulatory focus on equal conditions
for investment by reducing entry barriers and a technologically neutral view of market development.
According to one comment, only the passive infrastructure is not replicable. Therefore, the
regulatory focus should be on passive (e.g. ducts, poles) rather than active infrastructure
(Alcatel-Lucent).