In response to the consultation on the regulatory approach to Next Generation Access Networks, and with respect to the RUO, the following comments were received by interested parties 1:
(a) It is essential to have reliable information on the access network, including on the number of loops in a given exchange and respective coverage area, as well as the type of services which may be offered in the same exchange 2 so that operators can make an assessment of the investment risk;
(b) It is imperative that the unbundling of non-active loops is conducted in such a way as to minimize disruption to customers, whereby (i) the technicians of two operators can be called out at the same time and (ii) the unbundling of the loop at the exchange be carried out prior to customer intervention, to that the PT technicians can carry out a full test of the loop when they are with the customers;
(c) The unbundling of active loops must not exceed the time offered by PTC at retail level, whereby the time for unbundling needs to be reduced to 3 days;
(d) Mechanisms need to be created to correct situations where loops are unbundled without portability, or vice versa;
(e) With the launch of IP-TV offers 3 and the spread of Ethernet solutions to the enterprise market, the RUO needs to be made more robust with regard to available levels of service, whereas there is clear discrimination in the RUO with respect to the internal offer provided to the retail services of Grupo PT 4;
(f) Compensation for non-compliance with levels of quality of service should act as a deterrent;
(g) Artificial barriers to the use of own resources should be removed and the passage of beneficiary optical fibre should be allowed in order to connect co-located equipment to the beneficiary's network, as should the installation of the co-located operators' own internal cables;
(h) PTC should install, at its own expense, where ''remote attendance points'' do not have space for co-location, a cabinet within a radius of 30 meters, for which co-located operators shall pay rent but shall not incur costs of installation;
(i) It is essential to ensure that the rules governing access to the exchange by technical staff enable malfunctions in co-located equipment to be repaired within a maximum of 2.5 hours, in order to ensure repair deadlines which are consistent with the practices of PTC, especially in the leased circuits market;
(j) The price charged for the test loop (necessary to assess the feasibility of supporting additional services such as IP-TV) should be significantly reduced;
(k) More information should be provided for all remote units, and there should be greater transparency with respect to the concepts and definitions of information provided (e.g. attendance point, main distribution frame, street cabinet, remote unit, exchange area) allowing the information to be processed properly - in particular the points of the PTC network should be classified only as access points or points without access, and there should be specific information about each of these points (location, number of associated loops, related geographical numbering, characteristics of the copper pair and co-location conditions);
(l) Prior notice of a minimum of 5 years should be required in the event that PTC intends to close an MDF, given the impact that this action has on the business of an operator;
(m) The condition whereby compensation for failure to comply with the objectives should is subject to the provision of demand forecasts by beneficiaries should be removed;
(n) Where new attendance points are established, PTC should:
a. Size them so that they are able to support the space required for the installation of equipment of operators co-located in the exchange of origin;
b. Ensure there is space in the duct (or, alternatively, dark fibre) connecting the attendance point to the exchange of origin.
1 Presented in summary form. The full responses can be found at Comments from Interested Partieshttps://www.anacom.pt/render.jsp?contentId=598666&showComments=1.
2 Penetration of services single, double and triple-play.
3 One of the OSPs states be inconceivable, for example, that a television service only guarantees the repair of a malfunction within 10 working hours (meaning that the repair of a malfunction occurring on a Friday night is only guaranteed on the following Tuesday).
4 As an example, after contacting the technical support service of Meo, one OSP reports that, according to PTC, the target is to repair within 48 hours, although this may increase when there is a backlog of requests (referring to 48 consecutive hours, there is discrimination in the RUO, since operators whose services are supported by the RUO are only able to guarantee repairs according to a deadline based on working hours, while PTC guarantees repairs according to a deadline based on consecutive hours).
