Mobile network sharing:

Transcription

1 Mobile network sharing: facilitating deployment of mobile broadband EaPeReg Workshop on Broadband Development Chisinau April 6-7, 2017 Veronica Bocarova Cullen International

2 introduction infrastructure sharing national roaming cases & regulatory approaches

3 Infrastructure sharing and national roaming Legal basis Commercial agreement Law Licence Remedy host MNO willing to increase network usage (under-utilised network) mutual roaming or network sharing to complement coverage symmetrical, applies to all operators policy goals: efficient use of resources, coverage, environment, emergency services implementation of policy goal: new market entry, coverage and rollout (roaming and/or network sharing provisions) telecom: SMP obligations on market 15/2003 (roaming) antitrust: remedy in M&As or restrictive agreements 3

4 Infrastructure sharing 4

5 Passive infrastructure sharing Sites and masts Source: Vodafone 5

6 Active infrastructure sharing Radio access network (with/without spectrum) MORAN (Multi Operator Radio Access Network) dedicated frequiencies MOCN (Multi Operator Core Network) shared (pooled) frequiencies Source: Vodafone 6

7 Why infrastructure sharing? Cost savings RAN: 25-40% in CapEx 20-30% in OpEx Passive: 10-15% in both CapEx and OpEx Source: Vodafone 7

8 Why infrastructure sharing? Other considerations To facilitate rollout and expand coverage into underserved rural areas. Less likely to occur on commercial basis in the markets where coverage is seen as key differentiator To increase coverage and provide additional capacity in densely populated urban areas where it is difficult to acquire new sites Investments into independent infrastructure companies (tower business) has become popular in some countries either owned by third parties or jointly owned by MNOs 8

9 National roaming 9

10 National roaming An agreement among operators to use each other s networks to provide services in geographic areas where they have no coverage (possible even within the licensed areas) Occurs between MNOs (usually direct competitors) in the same country Operators do not share any network elements as such but use each other s network to provide services to their customers Enables a mobile subscriber to automatically make and receive voice calls, send and receive data, or access other services when travelling outside the coverage area of the home network, by using a visited network 10

11 Why national roaming? To enable a new entrant offering a national service within a limited period while it is still rolling out its own national network To ensure national coverage in case of fragmented regional licences To facilitate coverage of rural or remote areas To ensure uninterrupted network access in emergency situations 11

12 Why national roaming? Facilitating market entry New entrant network not (yet) national coverage 2G roam on 2G complement 3G roam on 2G/3G fall back 3G roam on 3G complement 4G roam on 2G/3G fall back 12

13 EU regulatory approach Focus on passive sharing NRAs shall be able to impose the sharing of facilities or property, including buildings, entries to buildings, building wiring, masts, antennae, towers and other supporting constructions, ducts, conduits, manholes, cabinets Article 12(1) Framework Directive 2002/21/EC 13

14 EU regulatory approach 2003 Passive site sharing and national roaming, (possibly extending to RAN in Germany) First, and so far only, completed assessment by the European Commission under Article 101 TFEU In Germany and the UK 14

15 EU regulatory approach Passive sharing Does not restrict competition under art TFEU 2003 Sharing of basic network infrastructure only (such as masts, power supply, racking and cooling) 15

16 EU regulatory approach National roaming European Commission Does restrict competition by effect Coverage, roll-out, prices and quality of service Especially in urban areas where good opportunities for the rollout of competitive networks 2003 Can be temporary exempted under art TFEU Promotes market entry, better and quicker 3G services and increasing retail competition Differentiated between urban and rural areas Exemption for a start-up period until O2 had set up its own network in Germany 16

17 EU regulatory approach National roaming EU General Court 2006 O2 appealed Commission s analysis of the effect of national roaming agreement on competition flawed No restriction of competition EU General Court agreed Commission had not properly assessed the extent to which the agreement was necessary for O2 to enter the market (the counterfactual) Dependence of O2 on T-Mobile designed to be temporary May actually increase competition by letting a small MNO compete with a large one 17

18 Towards active sharing RAN only Country MNOs What is shared? AT, BE All Antennae and repeaters in tunnels and metro FR Free Mobile & Orange 3G RAN sharing, 3G/2G and 3G/3G roaming in small towns and rural areas Bouygues & SFR 2G/3G/4G RAN in rural areas (57% population) CZ O2 & T-Mobile 2G/3G/4G RAN (ex. Prague and Brno) GR Vodafone & Wind Hellas 2G/3G RAN ES Orange & Vodafone 3G RAN in small towns and rural areas PL T-Mobile & Orange 2G/3G RAN RO RCS&RDS & Vodafone 4G RAN + national roaming Orange & Telekom Romania UK EE & H3G 3G RAN Vodafone & O2 4G RAN + national roaming 2G/3G/4G RAN 18

19 Towards active sharing RAN + spectrum Country MNOs What is shared? DK Telia & Telenor 2G/3G/4G RAN + 800MHz/1800MHz FI DNA & Telia 2G/3G/4G RAN + 800MHz blocks (50% territory) HU Telenor & Magyar Telekom 4G RAN MHz lease (ex. Budapest) SE Telia & Tele2 3G RAN + 2GHz spectrum Telenor & Hi3G Telenor & Tele2 3G RAN 2G/4G RAN + 800MHz/900MHz/1800MHz/2.6GHz PL T-Mobile & Orange 4G RAN + 900/1800 MHz lease 19

20 Towards active sharing RAN + spectrum % 50% 3G RAN sharing with spectrum pooling Nr 1 and 2 (out of 4 MNOs) in the retail market Telia left without UMTS licence in 2002 SUNAB JV approved by the NCA in March

21 Towards active sharing RAN + spectrum % 50% 2G/4G RAN sharing with spectrum pooling Nr 2 and 3 (out of 4 MNOs) in the retail market Joint spectrum in 800 MHz, 900 MHz, 1800 MHz and 2.6 GHz Net4Mobility JV approved by the NCA in September

22 Towards active sharing RAN + spectrum 2012 RAN sharing with 4G spectrum pooling Nr 3 and 2 (out of 4 MNOs) in the retail market Nr 3 and 1 (out of 3 MNOs) in the wholesale market Covers the whole Danish territory; Joint spectrum ownership in 800 MHz and 1800 MHz bands 22

23 Facilitating rural coverage RAN + spectrum 2015 RAN sharing with spectrum pooling Nr 2 and 3 (out of 3) in the retail market Joint venture in Eastern and Northern Finland covering 50% of territory and 15% of population Combine 800MHz frequency blocks to offer faster 4G connections and more capacity to their customers in the area Will not share the intelligent part of the (core) network where services and customer data are defined 23

24 Facilitating rural coverage Rural coverage: from 2G to 3G 2006: the French government launches programme zone blanche to facilitate 2G coverage in rural areas where operators had no coverage Coverage of 99% of the French population by the end of 2007, covering more than 3,000 rural communities - either through site sharing or roaming National roaming stands for coverage of 1.2% of the population 2010: the French MNOs commit to share network infrastructure to enhance 3G coverage in rural areas by : white areas still affect 0.1 % population for 2G and 1% for 3G, and cover 1.5 % territory to be covered by end 2016 (2G) and mid-2017 (3G) Requirement to notify network sharing agreements to ARCEP

25 2013 GUIDELINES Network sharing Market power needs to be assessed Target area sparsely populated Any type of sharing is not prohibited a priori But spectrum pooling to be examined very carefully Target area densely populated Passive site sharing: OK Active RAN sharing with spectrum pooling: strong reservations Other active RAN sharing: information exchange must be controlled and in any case limited 25

26 2013 GUIDELINES National roaming The NCA should pay particular attention to duration. Close supervision and monitoring of these agreements are necessary, since it is not necessarily in the interest of either the guest or the host operator to terminate a national roaming agreement 26

27 French NRA implements these principles in own guidelines 2016 (NRA) Since August 2015, ARCEP has the power to amend network sharing agreements and also has jurisdiction over dispute resolution ARCEP requested mobile network operators to align their agreements to its guidelines by June 15,

28 Phase-out of national roaming by (NRA) Action taken by the MNOs after ARCEP s guidance 28

29 What s next? EC telecom framework review proposals When attaching conditions to individual rights of use for radio spectrum, competent authorities may authorise the sharing of passive or active infrastructure, or of radio spectrum, as well as commercial roaming access agreements, or the joint roll-out of infrastructures for the provision of services or networks which rely on the use of radio spectrum, in particular with a view to ensuring effective and efficient use of radio spectrum or promoting coverage. Conditions attached to the rights of use shall not prevent the sharing of radio spectrum. Implementation by undertakings of conditions attached pursuant to this paragraph shall remain subject to competition law. Article 47(2) draft Electronic Communications Code 29

30 Infrastructure sharing and roaming Summary Regulated access to infrastructure sharing and roaming is used as a tool to support infrastructure based competition Regulators tend to encourage or even mandate national roaming at early stages of network roll-out or in rural areas However roaming is usually not seen as a long-term solution: typically does not count towards roll-out obligations and allowed for a limited time period and/or with a limited geographic scope 30 Cullen International SA

31 Infrastructure sharing and roaming Summary Infrastructure sharing is usually commercially driven rather than imposed by regulators Passive infrastructure sharing is encouraged and permitted, or sometimes even mandated: environmental and efficiency benefits and limited competition impact Active RAN sharing is permitted as long as MNOs maintain separate logical networks and the impact on network competition is assessed to be neutral Competition rules apply to national roaming agreements and RAN sharing with pooled spectrum 31 Cullen International SA

32 32