Transcript Presentation

Regulation between Evolution
and Revolution: approaching NGNs
([email protected])
What rules for IP-enabled NGNs?
ITU Geneva 23-24 March 2006
©Ofcom
Disclaimer
• The views of the speaker do not represent those of the European Commission
or of the ERG as such.
©Ofcom
Outline of presentation
– ERG and NGN
– Regulatory challenges
– Other elements in the NGN scenario
– Conclusions
©Ofcom
3
• The European Regulators Group (ERG) was established in July
2002. Its members are the Heads of the National Regulatory
Authorities (NRAs) for electronic communications and networks
from thirty three European countries. These comprise the
twenty five EU Member States, the four EFTA states
(Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) and the four
EU Accession/ Candidate States (Bulgaria,Romania, Turkey
and Croatia). The European Commission attends and
participates in meetings of the ERG.
• The ERG was set up as a forum for advising and assisting the
Commission in the electronic communications field. It allows
cooperation between the NRAs and the Commission in a
transparent manner and serves as a body for reflection, debate
and advice on the implementation of the electronic
communications framework as required by Article 7(2) of the
Framework Directive (2002/21/EC).
©Ofcom
NGN definition
• As a working definition of Next Generation Networks, ERG
takes the definition from ITU-T, i.e. :
• NGN is a packet based architecture fostering the
provisioning of existing and new/emerging services
through a loosely coupled, open and converged
communications infrastructure
©Ofcom
ERG's activity on NGN
• Work already undertaken in 2004-5
• Work Programme 2006:
– Deliverable: ERG Common Position on principles for IP interconnection
Deadline: Q4 2006
Public consultation
– Deliverable: ERG Common Position on regulatory principles for NGN
Deadline: Q4 2006
Public consultation
• ERG Submission in response to the European Commission “Call for input”
©Ofcom
NGN: evolution or revolution?
•
•
•
•
•
Mithology # 1: everything changes
Mithology # 2 : everything changes, very fast
Mithology # 3 : generalized cost reduction
Mithology # 4 : single IP platform = more interoperability
Mithology # 5 : NGN changes more significant than
NGS(ervices)
• Can we say that evolution wins over revolution?
©Ofcom
7
Timeline for NGN in Europe
• Telecom Italia currently most advanced operator in Europe in terms of core
(transport) modernization
• Significant developments in :
– Belgium, France, Slovak Republic, Spain, Poland and others (GER)
– UK – more ambitious changes will probably take place in the longer run
2000
TI begins
replacement core
network
©Ofcom
2002
Development of
backbones
including MNOs
2004
Backbone
completed in
several
countries
2009
2006
Substantial
development in
access
networks
Most EU
incumbents will
have core network
replaced
8
The three main regulatory challenges from NGN
• I – Fitness of EC relevant markets list to
deal with technological change and network
/ service convergence
• II - Access remains crucial element in
competition
• III – Interoperability and internal market
issues
©Ofcom
Other factors adding to complexity
• Regulatory culture: internet model ≠ telco model
• Regulatory culture: limited “content/media regulation culture” in
several “telecom” NRAs
• Stickyness of regulation
• Technical complexity (layers, protocols, blurring of access/core
borders, different (=non typical) actors in value chain, billing)
• Market evolution: cable operators and fixed incumbents buying
MNOs; MNOs “voice minded” on data / roaming traffic
• Growing importance of P2P (peer-to-peer) networks
©Ofcom
Old word vs New world
• Interconnection
(transit/termination)
Cost orientation
•
• Price caps
• NRA discretionality on
numbers, frequency use
• Emergency services
• Peer to peer
•
(centralized/distributed) and
transit
Bundled offers (services +
bandwidth + content +
mobility)
• Price squeezes
• Nomadicity, unlicensed
bands, spectrum trading
©Ofcom
Regulatory challenges /1
• Existing EC markets list still fit to cope with changes?
• Ensure consistent market analysis_definition (VOB, VDSL,
etc.) across MS
• Need to understand how technological change affect
CAPEX, OPEX in cost oriented or price control regulation
• Need to evaluate if SMPs' operators cost reductions are
to be passed on to altnets and end-users
©Ofcom
Relevant market list – possible changes??
• WHOLESALE:
– The current list was based on
• The development of ADSL2+,
the (PSTN) fixed network, not
on the new technologies now
being deployed.
satellite, VoB, Wimax might entail
definitional problems in the
Broadband market which could
affect markets 11, 12, 16 and 18.
• RETAIL:
– Markets 1-6 are based on PTN
• All markets are potentially subject
• EMERGING MARKETS
CONCEPT:
– Probably needs reworking
©Ofcom
to change
Regulatory challenges / 2
• Access (= copper, metallic line) remains key to competition in
near future
ULL, Bitstream access, WIFI, WIBRO
•
• ULL deployment largely depends on price (squeeze) AND
SLAs, co-location (NGN further reduces need for physical
space and number of co-location stations)
• No access regulation holidays, but discussion on sunset
clauses, risk adjustment (real option theory)
©Ofcom
Regulatory challenges / 3
• Interoperability
– Existing definition (Framework Directive) too flexible
– Single market attribute should be reinforced
– Recital 30 FD: “Standardisation should remain primarily a market-driven
process. However there may still be situations where it is appropriate to
require compliance with specified standards at Community level to ensure
interoperability in the single market”.
– Concrete risk of proliferation of walled gardens (some OEMs
may favour open platforms, other will defend legacy and
installed base; NOs will in general favour walled gardens)
©Ofcom
Technology neutrality
• Also spells “network neutrality”
• Risks of walled garden at IMS (IP Multimedia Subsystem) level
• USO directive to be adjusted in this regard (“fixed location”)
©Ofcom
Conclusions (from the ERG submission to the EC)
Communications markets are undergoing significant technological
transition towards NGNs, converged and IP based services. In the
near future IP services will be seamlessly provided through various
networks. In addition, the bundling of services as well as the provision
of cross-border services will increase. Technological developments will
also dilute divisions between traditional platforms such as
broadcasting and telecommunications where ‘triple’ and ‘quadruple’
play products are becoming increasingly prevalent. While these
developments may undoubtedly give rise to new regulatory
challenges, they may also fuel the expectation that lighter touch
regulation will be possible in traditional areas of regulatory oversight.
In recognition of these developments the Framework review needs to
guarantee appropriate flexibility to enable regulators to address the
issue of convergence particularly as such changes will not take place
in all European markets at the same time. As convergence becomes a
reality, the Recommendation on Relevant Markets and the Framework
©Ofcom
in general need to be technology neutral.