Regulatory keystones of the deployment of high speed ...Regulatory keystones of the deployment of high speed electronic communications networks in Greece Olga S. Nodarou Legal Expert

Regulatory keystones of the

deployment of high speed

electronic communications

networks in Greece

Olga S. Nodarou

Legal Expert Head of Legal Department of EETT

ISS on Regulation of Local Public Services 2017 - Turin School of Local Regulation

EC targets on NGA deployment

EC has set ambitious targets regarding broadband coverage:

• 2013 to 2020:

“Europe needs download rates of 30 Mbps for all of its citizens and at least

50% of European households subscribing to internet connections above

100 Mbps by 2020”

• By 2025

“ …Finally, all European households (rural or urban) should have

access to Internet download speeds of at least 100 Mbps, with a

possibility of upgrade to Gigabit speeds.”

European Commission Connectivity package "Connectivity for a

Competitive Digital Single Market - Towards a European Gigabit Society",

COM(2016) 587 final, 14 September 2016

2 ISS on Regulation of Local Public Services 2017 - Turin School of Local Regulation

Measuring the performance of broadband markets

Factors Quantified Targets

proposed by the EC

Main Indicators

proposed by the EC

Penetration of

broadband services

Policy Initiatives (DAE

2020, Connected Continent

package, etc.)

DESI (Digital Economy

and Society Index)

Competition

General references in the

framework

Affordability

General references in the

framework

NGA coverage and

investments



package, etc.)

DESI

NGA take-up



package, etc.)

Some of the DESI

parameters relate


DESI ratings for Greece: not particularly encouraging…


1. Connectivity [25%]

Fixed BB coverage

Fixed BBFi Take up

Mobile BB Rake up

Spectrum

NGA coverage

Subscriptions to fast BB

Fixed BB price

2. Human Capital [25%]

Internet users

Basic Digital Skills

ICT specialists

STEM graduates

4. Integration of Digital technology [20%]

Electronic Information sharing

RFID

Social Media

E-invoices

Cloud services

SMEs selling online

E-commerce turnover

Selling online cross border

5. Digital Public Services [15%]

e-Government users

Pre-filled forms

On-line service completion

Open data

Medical data exchange

e-prescription

3. Use of Internet [15%]

News

Music, video & Games

Video on Demand

IPTV

Video Calls

Social Networks

Banking

Shopping

European Indicators:

DESI (Digital Economy and Society Index)


Broadband markets and connectivity in Greece

Snapshot prior to EETT’s market analysis of 2016

Access infrastructure :

The only access network infrastructure for the provision of broadband services was

(and still is) the incumbent’s (OTE) copper access network:

• OTE since 2012 has been upgrading its network by deploying an FTTC

architecture

• The alternative operators (OLOs) provide retail services mainly over LLU

• OLOs have been offering retail VDSL services either from the LEX or via a VULA-

type virtual product offered by OTE (VPU)

• There is only limited deployment of other technologies/architectures (mainly

FTTH) in the access network in specific areas

• ADSL is still the main technology used by the consumers

• At the end of 2016 the penetration of VDSL was still very low (<10%)

The main characteristic of the NGA network in Greece was asymmetry


Performance of broadband markets in Greece (1/3):

The Greek retail broadband market

2.4642.560

2.6892.797

2.9133.027

3.1563.331

3.4273.521

3.617

0

1.000

2.000

3.000

4.000Δ

εκ-2011

Ιουν-2012

Δεκ-2012

Ιουν-2013

Δεκ-2013

Ιουν-2014

Δεκ-2014

Ιουν-2015

Δεκ-2015

Ιουν-2016

Δεκ-2016

Αρ

ιθμ

ός ε

υρ

υζω

νικ

ών γ

ρα

μμ

ών (χ

ιλιά

δες

)

Εξέλιξη ευρυζωνικών γραμμών

Πηγή: ΕΕΤΤ, βάσει στοιχείων των αδειοδοτημένων Source: EETT

Evolution of broadband lines

Num

be

r o

f b

roa

db

an

d li

ne

s (

tho

usa

nd

s)


Performance of broadband markets in Greece (2/3):

ADSL is still the main technology used!

ADSL lines VDSL lines

Broadband access lines

Alternative Operators


Performance of broadband markets in Greece (2/2)

2%

10%

80%

8%

2 Mbps 2-10 Mbps 10-30 Mbps >=30 Mbps


Fixed

broadband

access

speeds (by

nominal BB

speed) - end

of 2016

Bundling : Only 3,5 % of the broadband connections are not part of a bundle

BUT

during the first 6 months of 2017 a significant uptake for VDSL connections is

observed...

Relation of the wholesale and retail markets

of the draft measure for markets 3a and 3b

Wholesale Local Access Market (WLA)

Wholesale

Central Access

Market (WCA)

Retail Broadband

Market

Retail Access to

the Public

Telephone

Network Market


Wholesale Local Access Market:

Definition, Analysis (1)

• According to EETT’s assessment, the WLA market includes both

copper and fiber optics access networks

• The geographical scope of the market is national

• The incumbent’s market share is approx. 100%

• There are high barriers to entry, especially due to the sunk costs of

the deployment of a new access network

• There is no countervailing buyer’s power due to the lack of alternative

infrastructure

• In many cases, the incumbent has adopted practices that harm the

competition

• EETT reached the initial conclusion that OTE (the incumbent) holds a

SMP (Significant Market Power) position in the local access

market



Remedies (1/3)

Access obligations :

• Full access to Local Loops

• Access to virtual wholesale products (Virtual Partial Unbundling, VPU,

VPU Light)

• Backhaul services

• Access to essential facilities including collocation

• Introduction of Vectoring (or any other NGA technology (FttB/FttH))

• Full access to local sub-loops (in areas where vectoring is not

implemented)

• Access to technical interfaces and protocols

• Access to passive infrastructure (ducts, sub-ducts, manholes, etc.)

• Service Level Agreements (SLAs)



Remedies (2/3)

• Non-discrimination obligations:

According to the Greek Telecom Law 4070/2012 and the NGA

Recommendation:

Non discrimination at a technical level among the OLOs and between

OTE’s retail arm and the OLOs

Non discrimination regarding pricing: ex-ante control of OTE’s retail

offers

According to the Non-Discrimination Recommendation:

Imposition of Equivalence of output (EoO)

Technical replicability



Remedies (3/3)

• Obligation of accounting separation

• Obligations of price control and cost accounting:

Implementation of a bottom-up model by EETT for determining the

monthly and the connection fees and use of OTE’s bottom-up models for

backhaul services and essential facilities

Not to engage in margin squeeze between wholesale and retail prices

(complementary to the relative Non-Discrimination obligation)

• Transparency obligations:

Publication of a Reference Unbundled Offer

Publication of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

In advance notification by OTE on significant changes in its network


Regulation of Deployment of NGA networks

through Wholesale Local Access Market in Greece

What is different in our case?

• EETT recently (end of 2016) introduced a new procedure in order to

regulate the deployment of NGA access networks.

• EETT took into account:

• The asymmetry in favor of OTE regarding the deployment of NGA at

that point in time

• OTE’s declared intention to upgrade its VDSL network to vectoring

• The lack of other than the copper physical media in the access

network

• The OLO’s intention to invest in the access network

• The OLO’s intention to roll-out fiber up to the end-user


Key points of the procedure (1/3)

• An allocation procedure for areas/LEXs has been consulted and proposed

concerning NGA deployment. Areas are allocated initially to OTE and then

“bidding” OLOs mainly based on NGA rollout parameters

• There is a FIRST allocation procedure, separated in three phases (A,B & C),

followed by an ANNUAL procedure

• The first allocation procedure aims at lifting the asymmetry in the access

network, while the annual procedure is fully symmetrical

• As a first step (phase A) OTE is given the opportunity to deploy VDSL

vectoring, or any other NGA technology providing access lines with capacity

greater that 100 Mbps, to the areas (LEXs) that OTE has deployed FTTC at a

percentage greater that 80%. In this phase, OTE may finish any “Work In

Progress” deployment within 8 months.

• At the second phase (phase B) of the first allocation, the alternative operators

may request areas in order to deploy NGA networks in LEXs that have not been

already allocated to OTE during phase A



• In case an OLO intends to deploy NGA in an outdoor cabinet that OTE or

another OLO has already deployed VDSL, the former is obliged to choose a

technology compatible with VDSL

The first allocation is concluded with a symmetrical third phase (phase C), in

which both OTE and the OLOs may request LEXs for deploying NGA

In this phase the allocation threshold is further reduced to the deployment of

NGA in at least 30% of the outdoor cabinets of the LEX

At this point, unallocated outdoor cabinets in LEX’s that have been allocated

during the first allocation procedure, may be requested

If an operator, at any point in time, submits enough evidence that it is possible to

implement Multi-operator Vectoring, the operator that has deployed vectoring

is obliged to cooperate in order to implement a mutually acceptable scheme



• EETT’s measure aims at:

• Preserving the already made investments

• Giving space to all market players in order to implement viable

business plans in any technology

• Fostering innovation in the access network


The procedure fully supports

technological neutrality…

“it is not picking the winners in the

competition between technologies”

Allocation of areas following the WLA market

analysis decision

Phase 1

OTE applies for LEX’s in which it has

already deployed VDSL in more than

80% of the outdoor cabinets. OTE is

given 8 months to conclude any WIPs.

OLOs apply for unallocated LEX’s, in

which they intend to deploy NGA

network in more than 50% of the

outdoor cabinets. They are obliged to

deploy a VDSL compatible

technology in case OTE or any other

OLO has already deployed VDSL. At

the same time, the operator that has

deployed VDSL cannot upgrade its

VDSL cabinets to vectoring.

OTE and the OLOs apply for

unallocated LEX’s in which they intend

to deploy NGA network in more than

30% of the outdoor cabinets

26 months

31 months

Phase 3

Phase 2

ΟΤΕ and the OLOs apply for LEX’s

without any coverage threshold. In

this allocation procedure, they may

request for the free parts of the LEX’s

that have been already allocated

during the first allocation.

12 months

FIRST

ALLOCATION

ANNUAL

ALLOCATION

28 months


Allocation prerequisites and initial

conditions…

• Timely availability of detailed information of OTE’s access network

• Offering of the wholesale product VLU (a VULA type of service) from

the operator that implements vectoring or any other

technology/architecture at the access network- Wholesale obligation

• No technical restriction on the ADSL services (usage of appropriate

masks)

• Exclusion of all outdoor cabinets in an area of about 500 m around

OTE’s LEX. In this area vectoring will not be provided (all operators

offer VDSL services from the LEX)


Expected status of the access network

according to allocation phases A & B in 2019

131.521 3% 108.739

3%

2.136.739 48%

2.053.067 46%

Expected Status of the Access Network by the end of 2019 according to the allocation statements of the

operators

FTTH Vectoring G.Fast Vectoring None


Useful Remarks…


• The idea of LEX areas being allocated to “bidding” operators and not only

the incumbent is the outcome of a lengthy technical cooperation between

EETT and all of the operators including the incumbent (about two years

of technical and market discussions)

• Wholesale obligation for all of the “bidders” (symmetrical):

– Availability of the wholesale product VLU (a VULA type of service)

from the operator that implements vectoring or any other

technology/architecture at the access network

• Vivid example of promoting technology neutrality in practice (vectoring,

G.Fast, FttH)

Towards a more Cost Efficient network deployment …

Broadband Cost Reduction Directive (1/5)


Directive 2014/61/EU of the EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of

15 May 2014 on measures to reduce the cost of deploying high-speed electronic

communications networks:

• aims at facilitating and incentivizing the roll-out of high speed electronic

communications networks by:

• promoting the joint use of existing physical infrastructure and

• enabling a more efficient deployment of new physical infrastructure so that

such networks can be rolled out at lower cost

Member States were required to adopt and publish the laws, regulations and administrative

provisions necessary to comply with the BCRD by 1 January 2016 and to apply those

measures from 1 July 2016

Towards a more cost efficient network deployment …


BCRD in particular contains rules with regard to:

• Access to existing physical infrastructure (e.g. ducts, poles

and masts) including those belonging to energy and other

utilities, for operators willing to deploy high speed broadband

networks.

• Faster, simpler and more transparent permit-granting

procedure

• Equipment to new buildings and major renovations with high-

speed physical infrastructures and access to in-building

infrastructure.

• 24 ISS on Regulation of Local Public Services 2017 - Turin School of Local Regulation



• Efficient coordination of civil works

• Tasks for a national dispute settlement body (DSB)

• A single information point (SIP) including information

regarding permit-granting procedures

NRA may be involved in the implementation of the BCRD in the

role of the DSB and/or the SIP




BCRD defines the following tasks of the DSB, which is the National

Dispute Settling Body with regard to:

• access to existing physical infrastructure (Art. 3.4 and 3.5);

• transparency concerning physical infrastructure (Art. 4.6);

• coordination of civil works (Art. 5.3 and 5.4);

• transparency concerning planned civil works (Art. 6.4); and

• access to in-building physical infrastructure (Art. 9.3).




BCRD defines tasks of the SIP with regard to the following

topics:

• transparency concerning physical infrastructure (Art. 4);

• transparency concerning planned civil works (Art. 6); and

• permit-granting procedure (Art. 7).


Broadband Cost Reduction Directive

Challenges of DSB implementation

DSB

In the 7 countries, out of the 28 EU, in which the NRA already

resolved disputes with a binding decision, the topics of the most

difficult challenge the NRAs were faced with were:

-“setting the price for access to existing physical infrastructure”

(Art. 3) (4 countries)

- “refusal of access to existing physical infrastructure” (Art. 3)

(2 countries)

- “setting the price for coordination of civil works” (Art. 5) (1

country) and

- “relation between BCRD and national law” (1 country)


Broadband Cost Reduction Directive

Challenges of SIP implementation

SIP

• The topics of the most difficult challenge the NRAs were

faced with were:

– “information which has to be provided to the SIP” (4 countries) and

– “increase the use of the SIP” and “critical infrastructure” each in only

one country.

Source: “Implementation of the Broadband Cost Reduction Directive”, BEREC (CN (17),

August 2017



Law 4463/2017

Directive 2014/61/EU has been implemented into Greek legislation by Law 4463/2017 OJ 42/A/30.3.2017, as amended by 4487/2017, art. 49

A central point of the Law, is the procedures relating to the submission of request for the granting of Rights of way/use.

Furthermore, the new Law, provides explicitly, that for any disputes arising from the application of the Law on Cost-Reduction, EETT will be the competent national body to resolve such disputes.

Namely, in the case of any disagreement arising between various bodies/legal entities, in the context of the law, any such body/entity may submit a written request to the EETT asking for EETT’s intervention for the purposes of resolving the dispute pursuant to ΕΕΤΤ’s existing ‘Dispute Resolution Procedure’ provided for in Article 34 of Law 4070/2012 “The Electronic Communications Act”.



Law 4463/2017, as amended by 4487/2017, art. 49

According to Law 4463/2017, ΕΕΤΤ is the National Dispute Settlement body for any dispute regarding:

Access to existing physical infrastructure

Transparency of existing physical infrastructure

Negotiation of an agreement to coordinate civil work

Access to information regarding civil coordination

Access to in-building physical infrastructure or to the building access point

Refusal of rights of way

EETT also:

issues a Regulation regarding the fees payed for issuing and use of rights of way

Defines the fee payed by any party filling a dispute resolution petition before

EETT regarding access to existing physical infrastructure as well as coordination

of civil work



Concluding Remarks…

• So far there has not been any relevant procedure before EETT…

• In EU level it seems that the electronic communications network

operators either reach in nearly all requests an agreement with the

infrastructure provider without the need to involve the DSB or they do not

have interest in their rights laid down in the BCRD to get access to

existing physical infrastructure, coordinate civil works and get access to

in-building physical infrastructure (or do not know that they have these

rights).

The BCRD is still in an initial phase and therefore its use by electronic

communications network operators may further increase in the future.


Thank you for your attention!

Any questions?

Documents

Regulatory keystones of the deployment of high speed ...Regulatory keystones of the deployment of high speed electronic communications networks in Greece Olga S. Nodarou Legal Expert