as decided by the Independent Regulators Group 18 October 2001



Principles of implementation and best practice regarding LLU

as decided by the Independent Regulators Group 18 October 2001

and amended in May 2002

1DWLRQDO5HJXODWRU\$XWKRULWLHV15$VLPSOHPHQWWKHUHJXODWRU\IUDPHZRUNODLGGRZQLQ(8DQG

QDWLRQDOODZ7KHVHSULQFLSOHVRILPSOHPHQWDWLRQDQGEHVWSUDFWLFH3,%VKDYHEHHQGHYLVHGE\WKH

,5*WRDVVLVWLQWKHSURFHVVRIKDUPRQLVLQJLPSOHPHQWDWLRQLQ,5*PHPEHUVWDWHV7KH15$VDUH

FRPPLWWHGWRLPSOHPHQWWKHVHSULQFLSOHVZKHUHYHUSRVVLEOH

&RQVLGHUDWLRQV

Regarding Local Loop Unbundling (LLU), the Independent Regulators Group (IRG) has considered the following:

a) IRG welcomes the Regulation (EC) No 2887 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on unbundled access to the local loop (LLU) and believes this to be an appropriate instrument to rapidly deliver the desired results;

b) IRG is committed to contribute to a successful implementation of the Regulation, working together with the Commission and all other interested parties;

c) IRG wants to ensure a fast-track introduction and maximum availability of unbundled access to the local loop on appropriate terms within the framework of the Regulation and national legislation;

d) IRG wishes to follow up on the initiatives of the European Commission and wants to achieve before mentioned goals by formulating Principles of Implementation and Best Practice (PIBs) e) PIBs are accepted by IRG as its common understanding on the generally accepted best

practice regarding LLU;

f) IRG has formulated PIBs on the basis of the minimum list of items to be included in the Reference Offer and regards the PIBs as an essential minimum set which might be expanded by individual NRAs at their own discretion;

g) Driving principles when formulating PIBs are:

- 1RQGLVFULPLQDWLRQ between the beneficiary and the notified operator regarding use of the local loop: The notified operator should be prohibited from showing undue preference to, or exercising undue discrimination against, any particular operator in relation to the provision of any of the services necessary to access the local loop;

- 7UDQVSDUHQF\: Terms, conditions and prices for these services should be sufficiently transparent to enable operators to assure themselves of the notified operator’s compliance with the above principle;

- Favouring the GHYHORSPHQWRIFRPSHWLWLRQ: The notified operator should provide a number of

services essential for LLU;

h) IRG intends to remain developing and reviewing PIBs on LLU in the future, with a yearly review on relevance and consistency.

6WUXFWXUH

The regulation on unbundled access to the local loop states that “Notified operators shall publish from 31 December 2000, and keep updated, a reference offer for unbundled access to their local loops and related facilities, which shall include at least the items listed in the annex.” IRG has formulated Principles of Implementation and Best Practice (PIBs) for topics mentioned in the annex to the Regulation, also explaining why these principles are regarded to be relevant. The following paper is structured according to the annex to the Regulation. The paragraphs used are the same as mentioned in the annex to the regulation. The paper presents the understanding and interpretation of the minimum set of the regulation. It is not intended to comment on the reference offer, but to clarify and specify the IRG interpretation of the minimum set ¹ .

1H[WVWHSV

The PIBs have been developed at the end of 2000 and updated in 2001. IRG is committed to further development and evaluation of PIBs as LLU implementation progresses and new practical experience is gained. Interested parties will be informed via the IRG web site on future developments.



1 If headings have no additional text, IRG has regarded it not as a priority to give a further interpretation to the text of the

regulation

$ &RQGLWLRQVIRUXQEXQGOHGDFFHVVWRWKHORFDOORRS

 $1HWZRUNHOHPHQWVWRZKLFKDFFHVVLVRIIHUHG

Four groups of services have been identified as a minimum set of services required to enable full and shared access to the local loop:

• Metallic Path Facilities ²

• Collocation services (discussed in B) - Collocation facilities in the following forms:

- Physical collocation

- Distant or adjacent collocation

- Virtual or managed collocation

- Hand-over Distribution Frame (HDF) , including the street cabinet where this is relevant to sub- loops

- Tie Cables

- Internal Tie Cable - External Tie Cable

- Beneficiary’s External Tie Cable Pull-Through Service - Transmission and backhaul Services

- Power

- Air conditioning/chilling/heating (as relevant) - Access to collocation space

- Equipment moving assistance (where lifting/hosting apparatus is needed)

ANNEX 1 defines the above services and shows the configurations that can be used to connect the end user to the HDF in either the notified operator’s collocation space or beneficiaries premises.

• Interface to Operational Support Systems e.g. provisioning, ordering, fault resolution, maintenance etc (discussed in C)

• Provision of information (e.g. network information) (discussed in A, B, C and D) PIB:

1. All the above mentioned services should be provided as a minimum set of services.

$,QIRUPDWLRQFRQFHUQLQJWKHORFDWLRQVRISK\VLFDODFFHVVVLWHVDYDLODELOLW\RIORFDOORRSVLQVSHFLILF

SDUWVRIWKHDFFHVVQHWZRUN

Provision of network information and information concerning the locations of physical access sites is a key element of the LLU product portfolio. This general information should be sufficient to enable beneficiaries to make technical and commercial judgements on the same basis as the notified operator, although it should not include confidential commercial information on customers in the notified operator’ s possession. This information needs to be updated regularly to reflect changes in the availability of services and increased knowledge of network capabilities. The beneficiary should have information before, during and following the signing of an agreement on LLU. An beneficiary should be provided with, on request, an adequate, timely , updated list of information (preferably electronically), during and after the negotiations with the notified operator (more details on this information included in annex 2).

Notified operators should inform the NRA of any change in the Reference Offer. Notified operators should make available this information together with a table of changed sections to any beneficiary upon publication of a revised Reference Offer. Furthermore, on request of the NRA, the notified operator should make available all information needed to supervise the non-discriminatory treatment of all operators and the effect on competition. This report on the ongoing LLU-process may include among others:

• sites where LLU is effectively available

• sites where LLU is in use and number of operators per site

• number of "unbundled" local loops and "shared" local loops per site

• number of notified operator' s new lines and "shared" lines

• pending requests for sites and for lines

 3,%

2. On request, the beneficiaries should have sufficient information for informing their business case.

3. Sufficiently detailed information should be provided (at the latest) at the beginning of the negotiation with the notified operator, possibly subject to conclusion of a confidentiality agreement. This may be subject to a service level agreement, and should in general be provided free of charge.

4. After conclusion of the agreement for access to a specific MDF, the beneficiary should have access to any relevant information for operating lines from that MDF.

5. The NRA should have access to all relevant information received by the beneficiaries and all other relevant information from all operators - both beneficiaries and the notified operator. The information should be made available upon request and provided in a timely manner.

 

 



$  7HFKQLFDO FRQGLWLRQV UHODWHG WR DFFHVV DQG XVH RI ORFDO ORRSV LQFOXGLQJ WKH WHFKQLFDO

FKDUDFWHULVWLFVRIWKHWZLVWHGPHWDOOLFSDLULQWKHORFDOORRS

Technical conditions resulting in usage restrictions are dealt with in the next paragraph. Loop characteristics are included as relevant information in Annex 2. Moreover, the notified operator should supply the beneficiary requesting a specific loop with any line test information in its possession. It is expected that the result of a line quality test from the exchange will be available in most cases.

 $2UGHULQJDQGSURYLVLRQLQJSURFHGXUHVVHUYLFHOHYHODJUHHPHQWVDQGXVDJHUHVWULFWLRQV

6HUYLFH/HYHO$JUHHPHQW

Performance Management is a tool to control the agreed quality of level of the processes between the interfacing parties. Quality in this respect has to cover elements of correctness as well as timeliness.

The term Service Level Agreement is rather confusing. In practice the term can both refer to an individual service level that is agreed upon, and the formal agreement that comprise a whole set of these individual service levels. The term Service Level Agreement (SLA) is used only to indicate individual service levels corresponding with particular Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).

A KPI identifies one critical success factor within a particular interface process. An individual SLA pins down the corresponding KPI on a certain value. While the KPI itself does not incorporate any norm, being merely a unity of measurement, the SLA states as accurately and clearly as possible which boundaries the actual measured performance should be in.

Annex 3 defines a coherent set of KPIs and corresponding SLAs for the process of Ordering and Provisioning of Local Loops.

3,%

6. Ordering and provisioning procedures should follow the general principles of transparency and non-discrimination. Furthermore, requested services should be provisioned within a reasonable period of time, defined in the Reference Unbundling Offer ³ . This should be subject to a service level agreement containing KPIs, reporting obligations and sanctions in case of under- performance (including the right of beneficiaries to claim damages ⁴ ), the specifics of which to be decided nationally. In the case that a requested service is refused, the notified operator should give in due time sufficiently detailed reason for the refusal, so as to enable the beneficiary to adapt his plan of access accordingly. Any refusal should be subject to the stipulations of article 3 par. 2 of the Regulation 2887/2000 ⁵ .



3 According to the Annex of Regulation 2887/2000, (par. D, 1), lead times for responding to requests for supply of services and facilities, as well as Service Level Agreements, should be included IN the published Reference Offer for Unbundled Access to the Local Loop.

4 According to Regulation 2887/2000 (point 10 of Preamble), the beneficiary should be entitled to

8VDJHUHVWULFWLRQ

Usage restrictions may follow from in-cable spectral management (and where relevant in-pair). In- cable spectral management is concerned with the allowable pollution on other uses of the access network. The development of spectral management may not lead to delays for introduction of LLU.

Development of in-cable spectral management might take place in a latter phase, as introduction of LLU will not impose an immediate threat to network integrity, because of the limited broadband penetration at the start.

The notified operator should consult beneficiaries when developing a spectral management plan. If agreement cannot be reached within a reasonable period of time the NRA might force/take a decision.

To keep interference on other users in a cable within acceptable levels, in-cable (and where relevant, in-pair) spectral management may lead to limitations on systems used, system reach, cable fill, system performance or power spectral density ⁶ . These limitations should be equally applied to all beneficiaries including the notified operator.

The development of new techniques and systems is progressing rapidly. International bodies like ETSI and ANSI are continuously working on new standards in this area. Therefore, in-cable spectral management ( and where relevant in-pair) should be flexible and facilitate the introduction of new systems. These procedures worked out by the Member States should allow a speedy acceptance of systems (newly) recognised by international standardisation and compatible with existing masks allowed according to the agreed spectral management plan. Non-internationally standardised systems could be subjected to a more intensive procedure, including testing the effect on other systems.

In most countries some existing services are delivered with systems that might not comply with existing in- cable spectral management (and where relevant in-pair spectral management). Many notified operators argue that existing services must be guaranteed. This claim should not be automatically accepted.

3,%

7. In-cable spectral management (and where relevant in-pair spectral management) may not lead to a delay of introduction of LLU.

8. Development of in-cable spectral management (plan) is a joint responsibility of beneficiaries (including the notified operator). The notified operator should consult beneficiaries when developing a spectral management plan. NRAs may facilitate the discussion and may take decisions if beneficiaries cannot reach agreement within a reasonable period of time.

9. Limitations as a result of in cable spectral management must apply equally to all beneficiaries including the notified operator.

10. In-cable spectral management should include clear procedures for allowing new systems/masks.

11. Existing deployment should not automatically be given protective status.





relating to technical feasibility or the need to maintain network integrity determined on the basis of objective criteria.

6 See also ETP recommendations on LLU: provisioning and O&M issues, June 2000

%&ROORFDWLRQVHUYLFHV

%,QIRUPDWLRQRQWKHQRWLILHGRSHUDWRU¶VUHOHYDQWVLWHV

In annex 2, information on the notified operator’ s relevant sites is specified under information on request. When receiving a request for information included in annex 2, the notified operator should reply as soon as possible without any unnecessary delay. This may be subject to a service level agreement.

3,%

12. The information provided by a notified operator on a request for information according to annex 2, should be provided without any unnecessary delay, possibly subject to a service level agreement, and should include as full information as possible.

 %&ROORFDWLRQRSWLRQVDWWKHVLWHVLQGLFDWHGXQGHUSRLQW%

The provision of collocation facilities can be seen as one of the most vexed issues surrounding the implementation of LLU. The detailed implementation of collocation products will determine whether or not new entry barriers are created, or further competition is established in the access market.

There is a need to establish a wide range of collocation products thereby enabling the beneficiaries to implement their business plans relatively free of the provision of services by the notified operator.

The variety of products will also allow the development of competition in the wholesale market for collocation products and services bringing competitive pressure on the availability and prices set by the notified operator. It should be ensured that existing arrangements for the hand-off of traffic are enhanced by new collocation products and services and not compromised.

3,%

13. Negotiation and contracts should be used to cover the provision of collocation space and other issues such as access and liability.

14. There should be at least three forms of collocation products, physical, distant (or adjacent) and, where appropriate, managed (or virtual) collocation.

15. The provision of collocation products should not impair the provision or development for existing products for the hand over of traffic between networks, for example existing interconnection arrangements.

%(TXLSPHQWFKDUDFWHULVWLFVUHVWULFWLRQVLIDQ\RQHTXLSPHQWWKDWFDQEHFROORFDWHG

Local loop unbundling (LLU) means that the alternative operator can rent the local loop, and will consequently choose its preferred (xDSL) systems to deliver services. As some xDSL systems are not compatible, it is generally accepted that significant use of broadband techniques in the access network may increase the potential for interference (cross talk). The choice of systems might be limited on the basis of in-cable spectral management, as discussed under A 4 usage restrictions.



%  6HFXULW\ LVVXHV PHDVXUHV SXW LQ SODFH E\ QRWLILHG RSHUDWRUV WR HQVXUH WKH VHFXULW\ RI WKHLU

ORFDWLRQV

Processes between beneficiaries and the notified operator should be clear in terms of accreditation of staff, contractors, liability for health and safety etc. It should be ensured that the product definitions of collocation space do not by definition add additional costs and constraints to the provision of services as seen by the beneficiaries, e.g. the definition of useable space as being within the equipment room necessarily adds complexities in terms of access and security although may reduce issues in terms of building services.

3,%

16. The definition and provision of collocation products should not create complexities in other areas, such as access and security, health and safety.

%$FFHVVFRQGLWLRQVIRUVWDIIRIFRPSHWLWLYHRSHUDWRUV

The notified operator should endeavour to provide unescorted access options to the collocation facilities located in its MDF Sites (or equivalent distribution point closer to the customer premises).

However, there may be special circumstances where such access cannot be provided, in which case the notified operator should provide escorted access services that meet reasonable demand (including access at short notice to repair faults).

 3,%

17. The notified operator should endeavour to provide unescorted access options to the collocation facilities that meet reasonable demand.

 %6DIHW\VWDQGDUGV

Technical standards surrounding collocation should ensure safe operation without allowing ‘gold plating’ of collocation spaces by the notified operator via high demands on equipment or building services.

3,%

18. Technical standards surrounding collocation space should be set in terms of a minimum requirement acceptable to beneficiaries and that conforms to appropriate legalisation, such as health and safety.

%5XOHVIRUWKHDOORFDWLRQRIVSDFHZKHUHFROORFDWLRQVSDFHLVOLPLWHG

The allocation of limited collocation space will be very contentious as well as the initial rollout of the

exchanges capable of housing collocation equipment. There may be a situation in some exchanges

whereby some beneficiaries will not gain access to the facilities they demand. The industry needs to

devise an allocation method which is inclusive of the needs of all operators. The efficient use of

collocation space should be ensured ,amongst others, by encouraging collaboration between

beneficiaries in the initial phase of the product rollout. Secondary trading still needs to be reviewed as

there might be problems with windfall profits or legal issues.

3,%

19. Preferably collocation space should be allocated on the basis of a clearly defined set of principles, agreed by the industry subject to a “use or lose clause”. The allocation system needs to take into account the diverse needs of users and beneficiaries and be acceptable for the NRA.

20. The sharing of collocation space should be possible. 

 %&RQGLWLRQVIRUEHQHILFLDULHVWRLQVSHFWWKHORFDWLRQVDWZKLFKSK\VLFDOFROORFDWLRQLVDYDLODEOHRU

VLWHVZKHUHFROORFDWLRQKDVEHHQUHIXVHGRQJURXQGVRIODFNRIFDSDFLW\



The definition of useable space will be contentious but should at a minimum exclude all redundant and obsolete equipment. This principle recognises that the burden of proof in terms of the non-availability should fall on the notified operator and not on the beneficiary.

 3,%

21. Burden of proof of the unavailability of space, including the MDF, should fall on the notified operator.

&,QIRUPDWLRQV\VWHPV

 &  &RQGLWLRQV IRU DFFHVV WR QRWLILHG RSHUDWRU¶V RSHUDWLRQDO VXSSRUW V\VWHPV 266 LQIRUPDWLRQ

V\VWHPVRUGDWDEDVHVIRUSUHRUGHULQJSURYLVLRQLQJRUGHULQJPDLQWHQDQFHDQGUHSDLUUHTXHVWV

DQGELOOLQJ

The notified operator should make available access to its OSS for ordering, maintenance and repair, and billing purposes as these represent ancillary services necessary for the use of the services listed in annex 1. Access to the notified operator’ s OSS should be granted to all beneficiaries on fair and non- discriminatory terms. In order to permit access, the notified operator will provide technical specifications concerning an interface between its own and the beneficiaries’ information systems.

Maintenance and quality objectives of cables should be the same, whether the cable is used exclusively by the notified operator or shared with other beneficiaries. All changes in the network affecting the products and service of beneficiaries sharing the unbundled local loop should be notified in advance making it possible to the beneficiary to react.

The physical line as offered in the LLU context remains under the ownership and responsibility of the notified operator. Notified operators should inform on an equal basis end users and other beneficiaries about maintenance issues and not in advance to end users.

A minimum level of performance (service level) should define a maximum repair time applied by the

notified operator. If the notified operator offers special performance to end users (VIPs) beneficiaries

must also be able to make use of these special conditions. These different levels of service could be

negotiated between the notified operator and beneficiaries.

Each operator should be required to inform its end users connected by an LLU of the fault handling procedure and the demarcation points or limitations of responsibilities for the offered services.

3,%

22. Access to the notified operator’ s OSS where necessary for LLU purposes, should be granted to all beneficiaries on fair and non-discriminatory terms.

23. Maintenance, provisioning, ordering and repair of unbundled local loops should follow the non- discrimination principle.

24. The end user should be made aware of clear processes for fault handling.

&(OHFWURQLF2UGHULQJ6\VWHPV

Introducing electronic interfaces between the notified operator and beneficiaries for processing local loop orders is generally an appropriate way of reducing the time required to collect and process orders and of increasing the accuracy of the procedure, compared with a paper-based – e.g. fax – ordering system. An electronic interface may thus also lead to a reduction in the connection charge. The interface may also be adapted to provide access to notified operator’ s operational support systems (OSS), information systems or databases for pre-ordering, provisioning, maintenance and repair requests and billing. Also, the interface may be adapted to enable the beneficiary to request an adequate, timely, updated list of information as mentioned in annex 2.

Electronic Ordering Systems is used in this context to mean a whole number of ordering systems ranging from, at its simplest, emails of structured form to an Internet-based process or an electronic data exchange (e.g. EDI).

The decision to introduce an electronic ordering system, and if so of which form, shall depend on whether the benefits (i.e. increase of accuracy, reducing time, cost reduction) to be gained outweigh the costs of its implementation. The decision must take into consideration the quantity of orders to be processed via the interface and the possibility to adapt the system for other purposes (i.e. access to OSS, information systems of databases and the exchange of information).

According to the circumstances concerned it may be sensible to maintain a parallel fax ordering system to serve the needs of appropriate beneficiaries or for periods of system breakdown.

Agreement on the introduction and the nature of the electronic interface and on technical and operational details is required between the operators concerned. It is in the nature of an "interface"

that it can function only if defined and installed by the users on both sides. Hence an interface cannot be defined or amended by one side only. No operator should prevent the introduction within a reasonable timeframe. The NRA has the possibility to resolve conflicts if no agreement could be reached.

To provide the notified operator with an incentive to implement electronic ordering systems within a

reasonable timeframe the NRA shall consider to use the lower anticipated costs of the electronic

system as the efficient costs of the ordering process, even if the system is not yet implemented. This is

only applicable where delayed implementation is caused by the notified operator.

3,%

25. The decision whether to implement an electronic ordering system and of which form should be based on a transparent and objective analysis of the costs and benefits for doing so.

26. An electronic interface should be installed for submitting and processing local loop orders as far as this serves to increase efficiency. The interface could be of many forms. This interface should preferably also perform additional functions, such as processing fault reports.

27. The development and introduction of an electronic interface should be undertaken jointly by the notified operator and beneficiaries. No operator should prevent the introduction within a reasonable timeframe. NRAs have the option to resolve conflicts where no agreement could be reached.

28. Amendment of the interface specification should be made only with the general agreement of

operators or, in the absence of such agreement, following explicit authorisation from the NRA on

the basis of objective justification. The costs arising from any such amendment should be shared

equitably between the parties, taking into account the relative benefits each will derive from it and

following the principles of cost orientation.

'6XSSO\&RQGLWLRQV

 '  /HDGWLPH IRU UHVSRQGLQJ WR UHTXHVWV IRU VXSSO\ RI VHUYLFHV DQG IDFLOLWLHV VHUYLFH OHYHO

DJUHHPHQWVIDXOWUHVROXWLRQHVFDODWLRQSURFHGXUHVDQGTXDOLW\RIVHUYLFHSDUDPHWHUV



As discussed in A4, requested products and services should be provisioned within a reasonable period of time. This should be the subject of a service level agreement. Nevertheless there may be circumstances in which external factors may delay the provisioning process, and that there may also be exceptional cases which lead to longer provision times. In these circumstances the notified operator would be expected to give timely and reasonable justification for the delay to the requesting beneficiary, together with a binding date by which the service will be provided. It should be recognised that for the provision of services to end users the time frames adopted for provisioning of individual wholesale LLU products are interdependent. The timely provisioning of a wholesale service is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for market development.

Furthermore, it should be ensured that, for example the terms and conditions established for access to collocation sites for repair faults are not worse than the service level agreement (SLA) given to an end user.

3,%

29. If circumstances lead to delays in provisioning of services, the notified operator should give a valid justification and a binding date by which the service will be provided.

30. Individual wholesale LLU services should be provided in a reasonable time period in conjunction with the full range of LLU products and services.

31. In terms of quality of services the SLAs offered in the wholesale market should not worsen the SLAs offered in the retail market.

32. The services offered by the notified operator should be offered on a non-discriminatory basis both in terms of service definitions, quality and prices.

 '  6WDQGDUG FRQWUDFWWHUPV LQFOXGLQJ ZKHUH DSSURSULDWH FRPSHQVDWLRQ SURYLGHG IRUIDLOXUH WR

PHHWOHDGWLPHV

<Intentionally left blank>

'3ULFHVRUSULFLQJIRUPXODHIRUHDFKIHDWXUHIXQFWLRQDQGIDFLOLW\OLVWHGDERYH

The price– the sound economic signal – should provide the basis for a make or buy decision for

beneficiaries. Therefore, only costs of efficient service provisioning should be taken into account. Of

course common and joint costs have to be catered for and appropriate cost of capital has to be taken

into account. The principle on cost-orientation prevails that costs are only to be recovered once. Also

the principle for cost-orientation should be applied to all LLU services and products. Care must be

taken in order that the accounting approach adopted is not misleading, or create distortions in the

market for example because it depends on accounting rules for the valuation of ducts, trenches, copper

and buildings.

3,%

33. The principle of cost orientation prevails.

34. Costs are only to be recovered once.

'3ULFHVRUSULFLQJIRUPXODHIRUOLQHVKDULQJ

The above mentioned principles fully apply for line sharing, also. The costs of the line as described in ' could be most easily attributed fully to the voice band. Alternatively these line costs can be split between the voice band and the non-voice band in a way that up to 50% of the line costs are attributed to the non-voice band. In this case there is a need to re-investigate monthly line rentals charged to the end user. It must be ensured that costs of the notified operator are only recovered once, taking into account payments by beneficiaries and end users. NRAs should also investigate margin squeezes between line sharing prices and notified operators’ end user prices for comparable products (in particular the DSL service).

 3,%

35. If the costs of a line are not attributed fully to the voice band, there is a need to re-investigate monthly line rentals charged to the end user.

 '0RQWKO\UHQWDOIHHIRUWKH//8

The general principle of cost orientation should apply when dealing with the monthly rent for the LLU. No costing methodology is prescribed, but an international benchmark for all LLU services will be developed and updated. The benchmark may either include monthly rental fees for end user line- rental or other revenues, although where the end user line-rental is reported under cost this may make a direct comparison with the monthly rental fee for the LLU difficult. This benchmark is not intended as a margin squeeze test.

Geographic averaging of the rental fee may not reflect the underlying cost in a specific wire area (MDF area). But on a nation-wide averaged basis they give the right incentive for sustainable competition. Therefore averaged line rentals are the preferred approach for pricing the LLU, if good reasons are provided and all implications considered there is also scope for de-averaged loop rates.

The preferred approach for calculating the one-off costs involved by line testing, and handing over the loop to the beneficiary’ s distribution frame is an average per-line basis.

3,%

36. Geographically averaged rentals are the preferred approach for pricing LLU.

37. The preferred approach for calculating the one-off costs involved by line testing, and handing over the loop to the beneficiary’ s distribution frame is an average per-line basis.

 



'&ROORFDWLRQFRVWV

Up front collocation costs incurred for setting up collocation facilities might vary largely with the situation at the different sites. The notified operator should be allowed to pass on the costs incurred for the additional (construction and adaptation) work needed to beneficiary.

It is furthermore advisable that the beneficiary can check the costs of the proposed construction work beforehand. Therefore the notified operator should give a formal, detailed, offer which can be checked by the beneficiary in order to ensure that the costs of setting up collocation are minimised. The burden of proof of cost- orientation should be on the notified operator as in standard business practice.

Bearing in mind that regulation is a substitute for non- fully competitive markets there is no need to regulate in areas where a competitive market already exists. As in most member states a market exists for renting space a preferred approach is to set the monthly rates at a market price level. Of course the notified operator has to apply these same „transfer prices“ internally, as otherwise cross-subsidisation might occur, which eventually results in a prize-squeeze. Where no reliable data (index) for rentals are available a non-discriminatory pricing mechanism has to be set up.

3,%

38. Up front collocation costs might be passed on the to beneficiary, but the burden of proof of cost orientation is on the notified operator as in standard business practice.

39. Beneficiaries should be able to choose the preferred type of collocation on economic grounds.

40. Market price level is the preferred approach for setting monthly rental charges for collocation space on a non-discriminatory and efficient basis.

'0LVFHOODQHRXVFRVWV

3,%

41. Costs of agreed in-cable spectral management should be shared by all involved beneficiaries (including the notified operator) on a non-discriminatory and efficient basis.

42. The costs of MDF extension, as long as on a non-discriminatory and efficient basis , might also be shared by all involved beneficiaries (including the notified operator).

'1RQ5HYHUVLELOLW\RIDFFHVVJUDQWHGWRORFDOORRSV

The reference offer for unbundled access to the local loop and related facilities should not provide for the notified operator to limit the time of lease of the local loop. Also, the notified operator cannot, once access is given to a beneficiary, take back the local loop unless for reasons of network integrity or of violation of conditions included in the reference offer (including refusal to pay). Access can be terminated only if the end-user wishes or in a case of breach of contract. Therefore the notified operator’ s universal service obligations, such as the requirement to establish a USO-subscription for another end-user, cannot justify a withdrawal of the unbundled loop from the beneficiary.

In such a situation the notified operator will have to install new infrastructure in order to meet his universal service obligations and this new infrastructure can not be regarded as having been installed

“specifically to meet beneficiaries’ requests” according to art. 3.2. and recital (9) of the Regulation.

3,%

43. The notified operator may not limit access to the local loop to a particular time period.

44. Notified operators shall not terminate an unbundled local loop to fulfil an Universal Service

Obligation.

$11(; /LVWRIVHUYLFHVWREHSURYLGHG

 0HWDOOLF3DWK)DFLOLWLHV

Provision and maintenance of a metallic twisted pair extending between the end user Network terminating Point (NTP) and the serving Main Distribution Frame (MDF) or equivalent distribution point closer to the user premises. It includes any metallic pair that can be provisioned in accordance with a minimum set of technical standards. The unbundled local loop does not necessarily have to be the existing customer‘s telephone line, spare pairs can be used, where a connection is or can be made available. More in general, the beneficiary should be able to request and be supplied with a loop, even when this requires the establishment of a new local loop within the existing infrastructure.

&ROORFDWLRQVHUYLFH

In order for an beneficiary to provide service over an unbundled loop, a collocation facility will be needed. Moreover there are a number of other services needed to support collocation and these will vary depending on the form of collocation an beneficiary chooses to adopt.

i) Collocation beneficiaries should have the option to choose from at least three different forms of collocation:

(a) 3K\VLFDOFROORFDWLRQwhere an beneficiary can request space to locate its equipment within the notified operator local Main Distribution Frame (MDF) site or equivalent distribution point closer to the user premises, either in the building containing the MDF or in other space that could be made available in the site (such as adjacent buildings, car parks or warehouses).

This space can be fitted and operated in an area within a notified operator’ s exchange where the notified operator could or does house its own equipment, without a permanent barrier between them (co-mingling) or be shared with other beneficiaries or be in a separate room, depending on the requirements of the requesting beneficiary and the availability of suitable space.

E 'LVWDQWRUDGMDFHQWFROORFDWLRQ- where an beneficiary can choose to use its own premises and connect to the notified operator’ s local MDF site or equivalent distribution point closer to the user premises 

(c) 0DQDJHG RU YLUWXDO FROORFDWLRQ - where the notified operator houses, owns and runs equipment located in its premises at the MDF site or equivalent distribution point closer to the user premises on behalf of the beneficiary.

ii) Hand-over Distribution Frame (HDF) – A HDF will be needed to terminate the tie cables which extend the local loop from the MDF or equivalent distribution point closer to the user premises to the beneficiaries’ collocation space. The beneficiaries should be given the possibility to choose either to self provide the HDF or to request the notified operator to supply it.

iii) Tie Cables - Tie cables, consisting of metallic twisted pairs, should be provided between the MDF

and the HDF. When the beneficiary is physically co-located with the notified operator the tie

cable will remain inside the notified operator’ s building (internal). Whereas, when the beneficiary

is employing distant or adjacent collocation the tie cables will need to connect the MDF site and

the beneficiary’ s premises. In this case the beneficiary will need a tie cable which runs inside the

notified operator’ s building (internal) and a tie cable that runs outside the notified operator’ s

building (external).

Therefore the notified operator should supply:

a) ,QWHUQDO7LH&DEOHProvision, including testing, termination and maintenance of a metallic twisted pair between the MDF and the HDF (if the beneficiary is physically co-locating) or between the MDF and the notified operator’ s joint in cable chamber (if the beneficiary is employing distant or adjacent collocation).

b) ([WHUQDO7LH&DEOH - Provision, including testing, termination and maintenance of a metallic twisted pair between the notified operator’ s joint in cable chamber and the HDF in the beneficiary’ s Distant Collocation space (if the beneficiary is employing distant or adjacent collocation). The beneficiaries should have the option to self provide the external tie-cable.

iv) Beneficiary’ s External Tie Cable Pull-Through Service – The beneficiaries who wish to employ distant or adjacent collocation should have to option of self-providing the external tie cable. In this case the notified operator should provide a cable pull through service from a defined Footway Box adjacent to the MDF Site or equivalent distribution point closer to the user premises, so that the beneficiary’ s cable can be drawn into the MDF site or equivalent distribution point closer to the user premises and subsequently connected to the MDF, either directly or by the use of internal extensions. This service should include co-operative end to end metallic circuit testing and labelling.

v) Power – For physical collocation the beneficiaries should have the choice of being supplied power by the notified operator or arranging their own power feed from a power company. If the notified operator is to provide the power then the beneficiaries will need to negotiate whether this will be AC and/or DC and whether it is generator and/or battery backed-up. Where achievable, options should be available in cost efficient and reasonable increments.

vi) Air conditioning/chilling/heating as relevant. Options should be available in cost efficient and reasonable increments.

vii) Access to collocation space at MDF site - the notified operator should endeavour to provide unescorted access options to the collocation facilities located in its MDF Sites or equivalent distribution point closer to the user premises. However, there may be special circumstances where such access cannot be provided, in which case the notified operator should provided escorted access services that meet reasonable demand (including access at short notice to repair faults).

viii) Equipment moving assistance - where lifting/hosting apparatus is needed.

7UDQVPLVVLRQDQGEDFNKDXO6HUYLFHV

The beneficiaries will need to connect the equipment in their collocation space to their core networks (a process referred to as backhaul). Backhaul describes the link that is used to connect an access site and the connection point within the beneficiary’ s network or the connection of one access site and another access site. The beneficiaries should be able to either request backhaul from the notified operator at all adequate ranges of bandwidth requested or to provide their own backhaul. In the latter case, the notified operator should provide a pull-through and routing service to enable the beneficiaries fibre to reach its collocation space. The notified operator should also provide access to its duct space.

The beneficiaries may also wish to choose an alternative supplier to the notified operator for backhaul

(including the possibility of sharing backhaul with an alternative supplier) and, if this supplier co-

locates in the same site, they should be able to make the connection within the collocation site. In this

Figure 1 shows the configurations that can be used to connect the end user to the HDF in either the Operator collocation space or own premises.

)LJXUH6FKHPDWLF'LDJUDPRIVRPHRIWKHVHUYLFHV



6KDUHGDFFHVV

I . Definition

Shared access to the local loop means the provision to an beneficiary of access to the local loop or local sub loop of the notified operator, authorising the use of the non-voice band frequency spectrum of the twisted metallic pair; the local loop continues to be used by the notified operator to provide to his customer access ⁸ to the telephone service to the public.

This means that the narrowband traffic (voice telephony) and broadband traffic are combined at the customer end using a splitter, transported together through the local loop, and separated again beyond the MDF using a second splitter. The narrowband traffic is then routed to the notified operator’ s exchange while the broadband traffic is bundled using a DSLAM and routed separately to the beneficiary.



8 The telephone service to the public itself can be provided by the notified operator or alternative operators by carrier pre- selection or call-by-call procedures.

End User Site

Access seeker Premises

Access seeker Premises NTP

Local Loop

N. O. MDF Site

Cable Chamber MDF

HDF HDF

HDF

Colo Space Internal (1)

Tie Cable

Internal (2) Tie Cables

N.O. Supplied External) Tie Cable

Access seeker Supplied

External Tie Cable

Joints

,,. Details of implementing shared access

In order to supply shared access, the notified operator and the beneficiaries need to agree arrangements for splitting the line into two parts:

• one containing the frequencies necessary to provide voice telephony, over which the notified operator keeps to provide access to the voice telephony service to the public, which can be, according to national circumstances the PSTN and/or the ISDN band; and

• one containing all the remaining – higher - frequencies, which is leased to the beneficiary to provide data services.

Even though they employ different frequencies, the simultaneous provision of data and voice services on a same loop can generate interference. Therefore splitters are needed at each end of the loop, (one at the notified operator’ s exchange and in most cases one at the customer’ s premises) to separate the loop into two independent channels and thus avoid interference between the signals of the services on each channel. It depends on the definition of the voice band due to national circumstances and in some states on the particular line (PSTN or ISDN) which kind of splitters are necessary.

Shared access can be implemented in a number of different ways. The basic possible technical configuration (Option 1) is that the notified operator uses its own splitters to separate the frequencies for voice telephony and those for higher-bandwidth services, and then leases to the beneficiary the higher frequency portion of the loop.

One basic alternative (Option 2) is that the beneficiary uses its own splitters to separate the frequencies and hands back to the notified operator the frequencies for voice telephony.

If, based on objective information about the terms and conditions of the options, no agreement between the beneficiaries and the notified operator can be reached, the choice of the technical configurations available should be defined by the NRA. The availability of choice between alternative options might create pressure on delivery times and/or on prices.

Ultimately, the beneficiary should be free to choose, where different configurations are available.

The notified operator may not specify that only he himself should be permitted to install the customer end splitter or any other necessary technical equipment. Should the customer end splitter and other necessary technical equipment not be provided by the notified operator, he may require that such equipment should comply with the applicable conformity provisions and that the beneficiary should avoid impermissible interference.

The reference offer for unbundled access to local loops and related facilities must at least include the elements relevant to shared access as contained in the Annex to the Regulation on LLU.

The reference offer for unbundled access to their local loops and related facilities provided by the

notified operator must at least enable the beneficiary to provide to his own end customers an xDSL

offer corresponding to the offer provided to end customers by the notified operator. However,

beneficiaries also must be free to define and offer a differing service (see also B7).

The notified operator must incorporate in the reference offer for unbundled access to its local loops and related facilities, the required specifications of all the interfaces for the splitters and DSLAM.

Such specifications may not impose higher requirements on the beneficiary than the specifications of the interfaces as used by the notified operator in providing his own xDSL applications. In order to avoid interference in his network, the notified operator is entitled, if on the basis of objective justification, to require that the beneficiary should comply with such specifications as long as the interfaces have not been fully standardised by international bodies like ETSI and ANSI. After full standardisation, the notified operator may only require compliance with the applicable standards of international bodies like ETSI and ANSI.

The reference offer for unbundled access to their local loops (including line sharing) and related facilities provided by the notified operator may specify that equipment used directly or indirectly by the beneficiary and whose interfaces have not been fully standardised by international bodies like ETSI and ANSI must be replaced by the beneficiary should they not comply with subsequent standards from international bodies like ETSI and ANSI and should there consequently be demonstrable degradation or risk of degradation to network integrity, network security or service interoperability.

The shared access service provided by the notified operator to a beneficiary should be terminated when the end-user cancels the voice telephony services provided by the notified operator. A potential minimum duration of the existing voice telephony contract applies. The notified operator should inform the beneficiary without undue delay about the end-users cancellation.

The shared access service should be seamlessly converted in to a full unbundling service on demand of the end-user and if the beneficiary agrees to the conversion and fulfils the necessary requirements to provide such a service.

 

$11(; ,1)250$7,21 

 ,QIRUPDWLRQRQUHTXHVW

The basic information on the cabling system could cover:

- list and/or map of MDFs ⁹ including:

- postcode coverage or postcode to MDF mapping, or equivalent - total number of usable loops and number of loops in use - Data on known disturbers per MDF and per cable

- line length distribution per MDF (weighted average distribution)

- general information concerning cable characteristics including typical type and quality of cable (e.g. diameter, results from quality tests that have been conducted, number of lines, technical interference control and spectral management plan)

- Statistical information about the network, e.g. loop characteristics - standard spectrum masks and/or list of approved systems

- availability of collocation space and type ¹⁰ - power availability

- MDF space availability

- collocation features available (air conditioning, uninterruptable power supply, security, …) - (yes/no list, no details required at this stage)

,QIRUPDWLRQGXULQJWKHQHJRWLDWLRQVFRXOGFRYHU

E'HWDLOHGLQIRUPDWLRQRQWKHFDEOLQJV\VWHP

- latest update of information

- in addition per MDF where the beneficiary wants to have access:

- location (physical address information) associated with the MDFs and the name of the associated local switch and/or number ranges associated with MDFs (whatever is nationally relevant)

- exact user coverage of each MDF if a unique mapping to postcodes or streets is not possible (e.g.

overlapping MDF regions)

- detailed information concerning loop characteristics, any known limitations or incompatibilities - results of any xDSL tests

- any foreseeable limitations on space for MDF-extensions

- detailed description of procedures and conditions relating to LLU

F 0')DFFHVV

- Type of access proposed by notified operator, either - directly on the MDF, or

- in-house on HDF ¹¹ (distance, cable type and size (number of pairs)) or - outside (remote) on HDF (distance, cable type and size (number of pairs)) - cable entry points and capacity available



9 MDF is used as generic term for the most far copper distributor seen from the user site; it is not relevant whether the MDF

is close to a switch, a remote concentrator (RDLU) or Optical Network Unit (ONU).

G &ROORFDWLRQ

- availability of collocation space and type, detailed drawings if space has to be set-up by the beneficiaries

- collocation features available (air conditioning, uninterruptable power supply, security, …), technical constraints, terms and conditions of use

- access conditions to the facilities

H5HIHUHQFH2IIHU

- a site-specific costs, terms or conditions

,QIRUPDWLRQWREHSURYLGHGDIWHUFRQFOXVLRQRIWKHDJUHHPHQWIRUDFFHVVWRDVSHFLILF0')FRXOG

FRYHU

- Any foreseeable changes to the above mentioned items should be announced at the latest 6 months before the change will occur. Changes involving civil work should be announced even earlier, with respect of locally relevant authorisation procedures and delays for undertaking such civil work.

- Unforeseeable changes should be notified immediately as the need for the change occurs.

- On request: Line-Quality test results of a specified local loop serving an identified subscriber. If

no test has been done so far on that line, the notified operator should make the test and provide the

result. Costs may be charged to the beneficiary.

$11(; .H\3HUIRUPDQFH,QGLFDWRUV.3,V6HUYLFH/HYHO$JUHHPHQWV6/$V

 2UGHULQJDQG3URYLVLRQLQJRI/RFDO/RRSVDQG&RORFDWLRQVSDFH

In this annex an overview is given of a coherent set of KPIs and the corresponding SLAs for the process of ordering and provisioning of Local Loops. Together these KPIs and corresponding SLAs form the basis of the Formal Service Agreement for this process. The SLAs are not completely displayed in this overview: for example sanctions or other actions to be taken when the agreed service levels are not met are left out in order to have a more comprehensive overview. In a glossary at the end of this annex, the terms that are used to describe the KPIs are defined.

The following set is recommendable:

.3,

7LWOH   7LPHO\UHVSRQVHRQ/RFDO/RRSUHTXHVW

Interface Process: Ordering; the notified operator replies to the access seeker on a request for a Local Loop. The reply can either be ‘accepted’ or ‘rejected’ .

Purpose: The purpose of this KPI is to ensure that a request from an access seeker is dealt with in a timely manner by the notified operator.

Definition: The response time is defined as the number of working days from application date to response date. On the response date a request is either rejected or accepted. In the case of acceptance the request becomes an order. The response time is set at ‘X’ working days. The Performance Level is defined as the percentage of all requests with a response within the response time.

Formula: ( ™UHTXHVWV^UHVSRQVHGDWH– application date) ”;`™UHTXHVWV[

SLA 1: The above results in the following definition: In more than ‘Y’ % the response time will be within ‘X’ working days. The values for Y and X are to be defined nationally.

.3,

7LWOH   4XDOLW\RI/RFDO/RRSUHTXHVW

Interface Process: Ordering; the access seeker applies for a Local Loop through a request that meets the criteria of correctness and completeness.

Purpose: The purpose of this KPI is to ensure that the number of invalid requests of an access seeker will not exceed a predetermined level.

Definition: A request will have to meet the criteria of correctness and completeness. A prerequisite is do define these criteria unambiguously (special attention is required to define the source of each information item of a request). The Performance Level is defined as the percentage of all requests that are invalid.

Formula: ( ™UHMHFWHGLQYDOLGUHTXHVWV™UHTXHVWV[

SLA 2: In less than ‘Y’ % the requests of an access seeker are invalid. The value for Y

is to be defined nationally.

.3,

7LWOH 4XDOLW\RI$FFHSWDQFH3URFHVV

Interface Process: Ordering; the notified operator only rejects requests that do not meet the criteria of correctness and completeness.

Purpose: The purpose of this KPI is to ensure that the number of incorrect rejections by the notified operator (i.e. rejection of valid requests), does not exceed a predetermined level.

Definition: Similar as for KPI 2, the quality criteria of a request need to be defined unambiguously. The Performance Level is defined as the percentage of all requests that is rejected incorrectly.

Formula: ( ™LQFRUUHFWO\UHMHFWHGUHTXHVWV™UHMHFWHGUHTXHVWV[

SLA 3: In less than ‘Y’ %, valid requests are rejected by the notified operator. The value for Y is to be defined on a national level.

 .3,

7LWOH 'HOLYHU\7LPH

Interface Process: Provisioning; on acceptance of a request the notified operator commits to provide service on a particular date. This committed delivery date does not exceed the norm for Delivery Time.

Purpose: The purpose of this KPI is to ensure that the notified operator commits to provide service to an access seeker within a predetermined Delivery Time norm. Based on this norm the access seeker can plan its own activities.

Definition: Delivery Time is defined as follows: the committed date will be EITHER equal to the date the access seeker has stated as earliest date service is required (desired date or ‘required by’ date), OR, the committed date will be within ‘X’

working days from application date. The value for X is called the Delivery Time norm. The Performance Level is defined as the percentage of all orders of which the committed delivery date meets either the ‘required by’ date or the delivery time norm.

Formula: ( ™ DFFHSWHG UHTXHVWV ^FRPPLWWHG GHOLYHU\ GDWH ZLWKLQ WKH 'HOLYHU\ 7LPH

norm} / ™DFFHSWHGUHTXHVWV[

SLA 4: In more than ‘Y’ % of all provisions, the notified operator commits to provide service on the ‘required by’ date or within ‘X’ working days from application date. The values for Y and X are to be defined on a national level.

.3,

7LWOH 'HOLYHU\3UHFLVLRQ

Interface Process: Provisioning; once the notified operator has committed to provide service on a particular date it is imperative that the appointment is kept.

Purpose: The purpose of this KPI is to ensure that actual delivery will take place as committed, irrespective of whether or not the committed date is within the delivery time norm (KPI 4). This KPI measures to what extend the notified operator is able to keep the appointments in order to limit the level of disturbance in the access seeker’ s process.

Definition: Delivery Precision is defined as actual delivery on the committed date.

Formula: ( ™FRUUHFWO\Gelivered orders { delivery date = committed delivery date } /

™RUGHUV^FRPPLWWHGGHOLYHU\GDWHZLWKLQWKHPHDVXUHGSHULRG`[

SLA 5: In more than ‘Y’ % of all provisions, the notified operator provides a working

service on the committed date. The value for Y is to be defined on a national

level.

1RWHWKDW.3,VDQGPDNHDIXQGDPHQWDOGLVWLQFWLRQEHWZHHQRQWKHRQHKDQGWKHDELOLW\WRSODQ

RUGHUVZLWKLQDFHUWDLQQRUPDQGRQWKHRWKHUKDQGWKHUHOLDELOLW\RIWKDWSODQQLQJ

 7KHH[SHULHQFHLVWKDWDFFHVVVHHNHUVZDQWWRSULRULWLVHUHOLDELOLW\DERYHOHDGWLPH

.3,

7LWOH   7LPHO\UHFWLILFDWLRQRIIDLOHGSURYLVLRQ

Interface Process: Provisioning; when an appointment has been missed, as yet service will have to be provided.

Purpose: The purpose of this KPI is to ensure that failed provisions are dealt with in a timely manner by the notified operator, in order to limit the impact of the already caused disturbance in the access seeker’ s process.

Definition: Timely rectification of failed provision is defined as the number of working days between the date the notified operator is notified by the access seeker about the failed provision, and the date a working service is delivered. The rectification time is set at ‘X’ working days. The Performance Level is defined as the percentage of all failed provisions that are rectified within the set rectification time.

Formula: Determine the difference between the date the notified operator is notified by the access seeker about the failed provision (t 1 ) and the date a working service is delivered (t 2 ) within the determined period of time:

( ™  >UHFWLILHG IDLOHG SURYLVLRQV ^W ² – t 1 ) ” ; `@  ™  >UHFWLILHG IDLOHG

provisions]) x 100%

SLA 6: In more than ‘Y’ % of all failed provisions the notified operator rectifies the failed provision within ‘X’ working days. The values for Y and X are to be defined on a national level.

 1RWLILHGRSHUDWRUVZLOODUJXHWKDWDSUHUHTXLVLWHIRUPHHWLQJWKHSHUIRUPDQFHOHYHOVRI.3,VLVWRKDYH

LQVLJKW LQ WKH YROXPHV WKDW WKH DFFHVV VHHNHUV DUH SODQQLQJ WR RUGHU 7KLV PHDQV WKDW, LI VWULFW

SHUIRUPDQFH OHYHOV WRJHWKHU ZLWK DVVRFLDWHG SHQDOWLHV DUH LPSRVHG RQ QRWLILHG RSHUDWRUV DFFHVV

VHHNHUVVKRXOGEHDVNHGWRSURYLGHDIRUHFDVWXSRQZKLFKWKHQRWLILHGRSHUDWRUPXVWJXDUDQWHHWRPHHW

WKHSHUIRUPDQFHOHYHOV

 )RUHFDVWLQJDVVXFKFRXOGWKHQEHFRQVLGHUHGDQLQWHJUDOSDUWRID6HUYLFH/HYHO$JUHHPHQW.3,V

DQGIRFXVRQWKHSURFHVVRIIRUHFDVWLQJ

.3,

7LWOH 7LPHO\GHOLYHU\RI)RUHFDVW

Interface Process: Forecasting; before a particular date, the access seeker will have to deliver an estimation of the number of orders that he is expecting to place in a certain time period when a threshold (subject to national decision) is surpassed.  Purpose: The purpose of this KPI is to allow the notified operator to anticipate on

expected order volumes in a timely manner in order to arrange sufficient resources to meet performance levels as set in KPIs.

Definition: This KPI does not define how the method and structure of forecasting has to

be. This is a matter that can only be worked out between notified operator and

access seekers on a national level. Timely delivery of forecast is defined as

delivering the forecast of period ‘X’ on the start date of ‘X’ minus ‘Y’ , (e.g.

SLA 7: To be filled on a national level.

.3,

7LWOH 4XDOLW\RIIRUHFDVW

Interface Process: Forecasting; at the end of a reporting period the forecast figures are compared with the actual figures (i.e. number of Local Loops ordered) to determine whether the deviation is within accepted boundaries.

Purpose: The purpose of this KPI is to measure the accuracy of the forecast in order to determine the consequence of a substantial higher or lower actual order volume than was estimated.

Definition: Quality of forecast is measured at the end of a reporting period and is defined as the actual order numbers to be within a bandwidth of the forecast numbers.

If the actual numbers overstep the limits, either downwards or upwards, a consequence will be put into effect. A structure for assessing the forecast, the bandwidth and the consequences are all elements that need to be worked out between notified operator and access seekers on a national level.

SLA 8: To be filled on a national level.

*ORVVDU\$QQH[

5HTXHVWV Requests for Local Loop by Access Seeker to Notified Operator.

$FFHSWHG5HTXHVWV Requests that have been accepted by the Notified Operator.

5HVSRQVH'DWH Date on which Notified Operator notifies Access Seeker whether a Request is either accepted or rejected.

$SSOLFDWLRQ'DWH Date on which the Request is sent.

5HMHFWHG ,QYDOLG 5HTXHVWV Requests that don’ t meet the agreed criteria of correctness and completeness, and are therefore rejected by Notified Operator.

5HMHFWHG5HTXHVWV Request that are rejected by Notified Operator.

,QFRUUHFWO\5HMHFWHG5HTXHVWV Requests that are rejected by Notified Operator, although they meet the agreed criteria of correctness and completeness Accepted Requests.

&RPPLWWHG'HOLYHU\'DWH Date to which the Notified Operator has committed itself to deliver to the Access Seeker.

&RUUHFWO\'HOLYHUHG2UGHUV Orders for Local Loop by Access Seeker to Notified Operator for which a working service has been provided.

'HOLYHU\'DWH The on which a requested service is delivered to the Access Seeker.

0HDVXUHG3HULRG The time interval over which the performance has been measured.

)DLOHG3URYLVLRQV Provisions of requested services that have not resulted in a working service on Committed Delivery Date.

5HFWLILHG)DLOHG3URYLVLRQV Failed Provisions that have been rectified by Notified Operator after correct notification by Access Seeker.

&RUUHFWO\1RWLILHG)DLOHG3URYLVLRQV Provisions of requested services that have not resulted in a

working service on Committed Delivery Date, and of which

Access Seeker has correctly been notified by Notified

Operator.