Source: http://docplayer.net/1203527-Contribution-by-coop-italia.html
Timestamp: 2018-04-25 18:38:52
Document Index: 139603239

Matched Legal Cases: ['art. 3', 'Art. 2', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 4', 'art. 2', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 3', 'art. 3']

Contribution by Coop Italia *** - PDF
Download "Contribution by Coop Italia ***"
1 BEREC GUIDELINES ON THE SEPARATE SALE OF REGULATED RETAIL ROAMING SERVICES AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SEPARATE SALE OF REGULATED RETAIL ROAMING SERVICES UNDER ARTICLE 4 & 5 OF THE ROAMING REGULATION A CONSULTATION Contribution by Coop Italia *** GENERAL QUESTIONS Time for implementation of the decoupling method (Guideline 1) BEREC has discussed the timing of the provision of the decoupling solutions and whether there is any scope for implementing the decoupling solutions in a different timeframe than 1 July Pursuant to Article 4 of the Regulation the separate sale of roaming services (including access to local data roaming services) have to be provisioned from 1 July BEREC is aware of the complexity of implementing the decoupling solutions and understands that the burden may be high particularly when operators face no wholesale access requests. As the Regulation does not set out a time frame for implementation, BEREC considers a period of 4 months after receipt of an access request to be reasonable. This is in line with the time frame set out for processing wholesale access requests pursuant to Article 3(5) of the Regulation. Q1: Do you consider that a period of 4 months is sufficient for MNOs as well as for ARPs to prepare the functionalities for decoupling in order to allow ARPs to provide retail roaming services on 1st of July 2014? If your answer is no, please specify what period should be sufficient and provide justification why the period should be longer. Pursuant to the Roaming Regulation ( RR ) and to the Implementation Act ( IA ) decoupling functions (intending the adjustment/upgrading of networks and facilities necessary to implement the separate sale of roaming) must be supplied, in concrete, only by operators owning and controlling the related networks and facilities. Therefore, only MNOs, i.e. operators owning and controlling mobile infrastructures and spectrum (i.e. terrestrial mobile networks) are obliged to prepare the functionalities for decoupling and therefore to give access to the necessary interfaces. Notwithstanding the above, should an MVNO 1 provides decoupling functionalities (limitedly to the networks and facilities under its control, when it is the case), the implementation period of 4 months does not appear sufficient for MVNO to (i) agree the decoupling solution, (ii) sign the decoupling access agreement, (iii) prepare 1 Coop Italia intends to use the term MVNOs in a general way, covering any kind of operators falling within this category and without distinctions based on the degree of infrastructures (full, light, hybrid MVNOs, resellers ecc.).
2 all the necessary functionalities and (iv) complete all the necessary preliminary tests in order to allow an ARP to provide separate retail roaming services. The minimum period to be considered for MVNOs is in our opinion at least 6 months before the due date of July st. Standardization and documentation (Guideline 3) BEREC considers that interfaces necessary for decoupling should be based on common standards developed and used by generally recognized standardization organizations as well as on the output of the stakeholder forum, where the standardization organizations also take part. Any relevant reference documents developed by market participants may be applied as long as they are free of charge for any potential access seeker and there are no limitations in their use. Such documents shall be in line with the provisions set out in the Regulation and the Implementing Act. Q2: Is there any additional provision to be considered regarding the use of standards, reference documents and access to documentation by access seekers? We agree in principle with the position of Berec, which should also precise that any forum, organization or platform where such documents are discussed and agreed should be open and accessible freely and at no costs by all stakeholders. Authorization regime (Guideline 4) BEREC believes the authorization regime for ARPs to be the same as the one for any other ECS provider and no EU licence is required. ARPs should follow any notification procedures defined by the Member States where the service is contracted. Q3: Do you have any concerning the authorization regime for the ARP? A system of multiple authorizations, reflecting the current status of the European framework, could result in a barrier to entry for new entrants operators and MVNOs. Berec should therefore address this issue with the European Commission in order to find sustainable and pro-competitive solutions, even in the frame of new legislative proposals. Fraud management and M2M services (Guidelines 7,8) With regard to fraud management, BEREC is of the opinion that the DP and the ARP are responsible for taking any necessary measure to avoid fraud and the misuse of roaming services. Those measures should comply with legal obligations or should be in accordance with normal commercial practice. On M2M services, BEREC considers that the regulation on separate sale of services applies also for M2M services based on a public communication network as defined in Article 2(d) of the Framework Directive (Directive EU 2002/21).
3 Q4: Is there any additional issue that should be considered in the BEREC guidelines for interception and data retention, fraud management and M2M services? It must be precised that this responsibility lies with the hosting MNO. In fact, even in the case of a MVNO acting as domestic provider ( DSP ), all the necessary measures to avoid fraud and the misuse of roaming services are handled by the hosting MNO, i.e. the sole operator controlling all the roaming traffic and the relationship with the visited network. QUESTIONS ON LOCAL DATA ROAMING SERVICES Provision of local data roaming services by third operators (Guideline 10) The Regulation and the Implementing Act do not include an obligation for visited networks to supply the necessary wholesale services to ARPs to provide local data roaming services. On the other hand there is no legal obstacle which would prohibit visited networks from settling wholesale agreements with MVNO and resellers. BEREC expects stakeholders do so. Q6: Do you consider that there is any provision in the regulation supporting obligations for MNOs to provide wholesale services to other stakeholders for allowing them to provide local data roaming services? If so, please provide your justification based on the regulation. In order to clarify this question, one should distinguish the supply of wholesale roaming access and supply of decoupling functionalities respectively. Pursuant to art. 3 of the Roaming Regulation ( RR ), in combination with its Art. 2,2, o and p, any MNO is obliged to supply wholesale roaming access to ARPs, i.e. to undertakings wishing to provide regulated retail roaming services. The notion of MNO under article 3 is wide and general and it does not exclude specific categories of operators. Therefore, visited networks are caught by such provision and are subject to related obligations. Should Berec maintain that Art. 3 RR does not apply to visited networks, even when the request is brought by an MVNO wishing to provide regulated retail roaming services, then Coop Italia would expect a clear and comprehensive legal justification for that. Because of the above assumptions, any ARP, including MVNOs, has the right to ask access to visited network/mnos with the purpose to provide regulated data roaming services to incoming customers in a scenario involving local-break-out ( LBO ). On the other side, domestic providers may not refuse MVNOs to serve their customers with regulated roaming services, as recognized by Art. 4 RR whereby: Neither domestic or roaming providers shall prevent customers from accessing regulated data roaming services provided directly on a visited network by an alternative roaming
4 provider. In fact, the ARP definition contained by art. 2,2,c of the RR include MNO and MVNOs without distinction ( alternative roaming provider means a roaming provider different from the domestic provider). As to the decoupling functionalities and related obligations, they concern in principle DSPs and ARPs. However, due to the complexities of this scenario (DSP + visited network + MVNO) a technical involvement from the visited network is also necessary. According to Coop Italia, such involvement is not technical but merely commercial and consists in ancillary activities to be normally comprised within the wholesale roaming access obligations. Such ancillary services, therefore, cannot be considered as decoupling obligations (only applicable to DSPs and ARPs), but Berec could eventually evaluate whether the visited network should cooperate with DSP and ARPs to allow them to effect LBO vis-à-vis MVNOs. Coop Italia is aware that there are uncertainties and diverging opinions about the ambit of application of access and decoupling functionalities in the scenario when an MVNO is using the connectivity of a visited network to intercept incoming customers from other DSPs and ARPs. In Coop Italia s opinion, Berec should seek the interpretation that better reflects the scope of the RR, i.e. increasing competition in order to structurally address the tariffs roaming issue within the European Union. This solution should therefore avoid the creation of an asymmetric regime (i) discriminating MVNOs, who as known - have given a great boost to all markets they entered in by reducing prices and increasing customers penetration and innovation, and (ii) permitting MNOs to continue restrict competition, In light of the above, Berec should recognize the obligation for MNOs/visited networks to provide connectivity and ancillary services allowing MVNOs to serve incoming customers in a LBO scenario, as a matter fully covered by Art. 3 RR. QUESTIONS ON SINGLE IMSI Reasonable requests (Guideline 27) According to Article 5(1) of the Regulation domestic providers have to meet all reasonable requests with regard to access to decoupling functionalities where the purpose is to offer separate regulated retail roaming services. The same principle is set out in Article 3 of the Regulation, where MNOs have to meet reasonable access requests with regard to wholesale roaming access. In its Guidelines on Article 3 BEREC has set out a general rule on how reasonable requests are to be interpreted. It states that any request which does not require deployment of an undue level of resources would be considered as reasonable. In order to be consistent, it makes sense for this principle to be applicable also when processing access requests in connection with decoupling. It follows that requests for decoupling which are not intended to providing regulated roaming services are not covered by Article 4 and 5 of the Regulation, the Implementing Act or by these Guidelines.
5 Q15: Is there any reason justifying a different approach for the separate sale of roaming services than for wholesale roaming access pursuant to Article 3? If so, please provide a justification. Berec should precise that the supply of decoupling functionalities only concerns operators owning and controlling related networks and facilities, i.e. only MNOs. RR and IA specify that only DSP operating a terrestrial public mobile communication network (or part of it) shall provide the necessary technical elements that would allow the resale of retail roaming services. It follows that a MVNO, which does not have the necessary network elements for allowing decoupling, but instead relies on a host MNO to enable decoupling, has no obligation to supply decoupling functionalities. The costs of the implementation activity should merely lie on the obliged entity. Refusal of requests of decoupling (Guideline 28) As set out in its Guidelines on Article 3, BEREC is concerned about the potential for reasonable requests to be refused on spurious grounds such as delaying market entry. Similar to refusing reasonable wholesale access requests, refusal of requests for decoupling could obstruct competition in the roaming market and counter the idea of establishing more competition. For the same reasons set out in its Article 3 Guidelines, this guideline is attempting to minimise the scope for the use of tactics to delay or impede market entry. BEREC would welcome advice on how this risk could be reduced further. Q16: Do you agree with BEREC s general approach to refusal of requests? Do you have any specific suggestions on how the guidance in this area could be strengthened so as to deter refusals on spurious grounds while not constraining the right of ARPs on the basis of careful objective justification? We agree with BEREC s general approach to refusal of requests. No suggestions have to be reported. However, is should be clarified that MVNOs, when acting as DSPs, are not subject to wholesale roaming access obligations (Art. 3 RR) and must comply with decoupling obligations only if they own and control related networks or facilities. MVNOs and Resellers being domestic providers (Guideline 32) BEREC understands that stakeholders discussed the question whether the obligation for decoupling also includes MVNOs and resellers. Article 4(1) of the Regulation sets out that domestic providers shall enable access to decoupling. In this regard, BEREC considers that domestic providers can be MNOs as well as MVNOs, resellers or any other undertaking offering retail mobile services in the customer s home country.
6 For decoupling to work it is clear that the necessary decoupling functionalities are to be provided. In such cases where the domestic provider is technically not able to meet the decoupling request, the necessary functionalities are to be supplied by the hosting network, which is capable of doing so. Naturally this is the provider located further upstream in the value chain. Q20: Do you agree with the obligation for domestic providers and host operators stated in the guidelines? If not, please explain. Berec should clarify that, pursuant to Art. 3 RR, MVNOs are not subject to provide resale roaming access. The wording of the GL 32 should therefore be drafted accordingly. No costs should be charged on MVNO by MNOs unless specific services are required by the former and prices are mutually agreed. Fair and reasonable prices and non discrimination (Guidelines 44, 45) BEREC sets out general principles which it considers to be sufficient to allow parties negotiating in good faith to reach reasonable agreements, as laying down detailed guidance covering the meaning of fair and reasonable charges risks being over-prescriptive. This follows the principle laid down in BEREC s Guidelines on Article 3. The non discrimination principle applies to decoupled services as well. It follows that all terms and conditions must be equivalent to those that the domestic provider grants itself. In this regard Guideline 47 makes reference to certain services. Q27. Should BEREC consider additional rules beyond normal commercial practices for the separate sale of roaming services or do you consider any reason to apply different rules for decoupling functionalities than for wholesale roaming access pursuant to Article 3 of the Regulation? The principle of fair and reasonable price should be applied according to the national prices adopted in the member states for services comparable to those under consultation (e.g. termination of incoming calls) in order to comply with non discrimination. Moreover, to comply with non discrimination principle, the wholesale conditions applied to MVNOs shall allow them to replicate the MNO offer maintaining an adequate margin (at least equal to the difference set by the Regulation between the wholesale prices and the retail ones). Further questions Q28. Do you consider that the Guidelines should cover additional issues or should any of the draft guidelines be further developed? We believe that the Guidelines should address the following areas and issues: - claryfing the distinction between wholesale roaming access and access to decoupling functionalities in general;
7 - clarifying that MVNOs are not subject to wholesale roaming access obligations, anytime and also when this matter emerges in decoupling scenarios; - claryfing the role of visited networks in LBOs scenario, while confirming that art. 3 RR applies to them also in this case; Q29. Do you have any other comments on the draft Guidelines? Position of Coop Italia With regard to GG 38, it is should be precised, for the sake of clarity, that the notion of domestic providers operating a terrestrial public mobile communication network does not include MVNO. With regard to decoupling in general, Berec should consider that decoupling investments may constitute a huge issue for MVNOs, especially small ones and new entrants. Unless there is a clear obligation, which subsists only when a MVNOs is owning segments of networks useful to implement the separate sale of roaming, then no costs of upgrade or adjustemnt should be charged on MVNOs.
COMPETITION AT LAST? AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF CURRENT MOBILE DATA ROAMING REGULATIONS IN EUROPE Research in Progress Herrmann, Philipp, University of Paderborn, Paderborn, Germany, philipp.herrmann@wiwi.uni-paderborn.de