Top Banner

of 174

01_benchmark - US and Netherlands

Jun 04, 2018

Download

Documents

eyoung9
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
  • 8/13/2019 01_benchmark - US and Netherlands

    1/174

    TELECOMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE AND

    SERVICES IN THE NETHERLANDS

    A benchmark study for the Dutch Ministry of Transport, Public Works and

    Water Management, Directorate-General for Telecommunications and Post

  • 8/13/2019 01_benchmark - US and Netherlands

    2/174

    TELECOMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES

    IN THE NETHERLANDS

    A benchmark study for the Dutch Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water

    Management, Directorate-General for Telecommunications and Post

    Frans van den Dool, Verdonck, Klooster & Associates

    Chris Lewis, the Yankee Group Europe

    Peter Horsten, Verdonck, Klooster & Associates

    7 December 2000

    Status Final

    Version 1.0

    Copyright 2000 Verdonck, Klooster & Associates B.V. and the Yankee Group Europe.

  • 8/13/2019 01_benchmark - US and Netherlands

    3/174

    Final

    Telecommunications infrastructure and services in The Netherlands

    Benchmark study ii

    Contents

    Presented Graphs v

    Presented Tables vii

    Summary and conclusions 1

    The challenge 1

    Scope of the study 1

    The ambitions of the Cabinet are partly reached 2

    Role Played by the Government 2

    Recommendations 6

    Samenvatting en conclusies 9

    De uitdaging 9

    Afbakening van de studie 9

    De ambitie van het Kabinet wordt ten dele bereikt 10

    Rol van de overheid 11

    Aanbevelingen 15

    1 Introduction 19

    1.1 Rationale 19

    1.2 This report 19

    1.3 Disclaimer 20

    2 Fixed Telephony 21

    2.1 Introduction 21

    2.2 Services 21

    2.3 Innovation 32

    2.4 Competition 34

    2.5 Infrastructure 36

    2.6 Regulatory Implications 36

    3 Mobile telephony 39

    3.1 Introduction 39

    3.2 Mobile Voice Services 40

    3.3 SMS and WAP Services 48

    3.4 Innovation 54

    3.5 Competition 58

    3.6 Infrastructure 62

    3.7 Regulatory Implications 62

  • 8/13/2019 01_benchmark - US and Netherlands

    4/174

    Final

    Telecommunications infrastructure and services in The Netherlands

    Benchmark study iii

    4 The Internet 65

    4.1 Introduction 65

    4.2 Services 66

    4.3 Innovation 72

    4.4 Competition 74

    4.5 Infrastructure 76

    4.6 Regulatory Implications 77

    5 Leased lines and access networks 79

    5.1 Introduction 79

    5.2 Leased line services 79

    5.3 Access services 82

    5.4 Innovation 88

    5.5 Competition and Infrastructure 91

    5.6 Regulatory implications 92

    6 Television and Radio 95

    6.1 Introduction 95

    6.2 Services 95

    6.3 Innovation 97

    6.4 Competition 98

    6.5 Infrastructure 99

    6.6 Regulatory Implications 100

    7 Convergence 103

    7.1 The Advent of the Multi-Service Infrastructure 103

    7.2 Converging industries 104

    7.3 Early convergence manifestations 107

    7.4 Regulatory implications 108

    8 Country comparisons 113

    8.1 Introduction 113

    8.2 Services 1138.3 Level of innovation 115

    8.4 Competition 121

    8.5 Infrastructure 126

    8.6 Regulatory aspects 127

    8.7 Lessons to be learned, important aspects for the regulator 130

  • 8/13/2019 01_benchmark - US and Netherlands

    5/174

    Final

    Telecommunications infrastructure and services in The Netherlands

    Benchmark study iv

    A Country profiles 133

    A.1 The Netherlands 133

    A.2 France 137

    A.3 Germany 141

    A.4 Sweden 145

    A.5 UK 148

    A.6 United States 153

    B Methodology 160

    B.1 Currency 160

    B.2 General Demographics 161

    B.3 Fixed Telephony 161

    B.4 Fixed-to-mobile price comparisons 162

    B.5 Mobile telephony 162

    B.6 Pricing baskets 162

    B.7 SMS messages costing 162

    B.8 The Internet 162

    B.9 Pricing baskets 162

    B.10 Herfindahl-Hirschman Index 162

    B.11 Reallocated Generic Top Level domain names 163

    B.12 Leased lines and data services 163

    B.13 TV and Radio 163

    B.14 Convergence 163

    B.15 Country Comparisons 163

    C Glossary 164

    D Data set 166

  • 8/13/2019 01_benchmark - US and Netherlands

    6/174

    Final

    Telecommunications infrastructure and services in The Netherlands

    Benchmark study v

    Presented Graphs

    Figure 0-1: Innovation index overview (VKA, 2000).................................................................................... 3

    Figure 0-2: Competitive index (VKA, 2000)................................................................................................. 4Figure 2-1: Changes in yearly costs for different usage profiles (OPTA, 2000)......................................24

    Figure 2-2: National PSTN basket for residential customers, based on incumbent tariffs (OPTA, 2000)

    .................................................................................................................................................. 24

    Figure 2-3: National PSTN basket for business customers, based on incumbents tariffs (OPTA, 2000)

    .................................................................................................................................................. 25

    Figure 2-4: Price development (OPTA, 2000)........................................................................................... 25

    Figure 2-5: Fixed to mobile prices for 3 mins at differing times (Tarifica, November 2000) ................... 27

    Figure 2-6: Residential fixed telephony total access channels/household, including PSTN lines, cable

    lines and ISDN channels (YGE, 2000)................................................................................... 28

    Figure 2-7: Business fixed telephony access channels/employee, including analogue (PSTN) lines,

    and ISDN (in terms of channels) (YGE, 2000).......................................................................28

    Figure 2-8: Terminating costs per call peak tariff, incumbent's network (Analysys, 2000)..................30

    Figure 2-9: Terminating costs per minute peak tariff, incumbent's network (Analysys, 2000)............31

    Figure 2-10: Best case scenario for calculating the price gap (OPTA, 2000) ........................................... 32

    Figure 2-11: Worst case scenario for calculating the price gap (OPTA, 2000)......................................... 32

    Figure 2-12: Incumbents market shares, PSTN and ISDN, % of market revenue, end 1999 (IDC, 2000)

    .................................................................................................................................................. 35

    Figure 2-13: Active service providers (1999) compared to resellers (EU, YGE, 2000) ............................ 35

    Figure 3-1: Western European cellular market forecast (YGE, 2000).....................................................39

    Figure 3-2: Customer Satisfaction with Mobile Phone Service, by Region (YGE, 2000) .......................41

    Figure 3-3: Customer Satisfaction with Telecommunications Services (YGE, 2000) ............................. 41

    Figure 3-4: Factors Influencing Choice of Service Provider (YGE, 2000)............................................... 42

    Figure 3-5: Mobile Services Retail Price Comparison for European Countries (YGE, 2000).................43

    Figure 3-6: Mobile penetration in subscribers/inhabitants (YGE, June 2000)......................................... 46

    Figure 3-7: Amount of business subscriptions per country (YGE, June 2000) ....................................... 47

    Figure 3-8: Mobile Service Average Revenue per User (average for 1999, YGE, 2000).......................47

    Figure 3-9: SMS Price Comparison in between the benchmark countries (YGE, September 2000)..... 49

    Figure 3-10: SMS usage among Benelux mobile phone users and the average for Europe as a whole

    (YGE, 2000) ............................................................................................................................. 50

    Figure 3-11: WAP Penetration in relation to total subscriptions (YGE, June 2000).................................. 52

    Figure 3-12: Mobile Operator Market Share Distribution (YGE, mid 2000)...............................................59

    Figure 3-13: Percentage of customers who churned last year (YGE, 2000 estimate).............................. 60

    Figure 3-14: Proportionate subscribers in domestic and Foreign market (YGE, 2000)............................61

    Figure 4-1: Number of Domains per 1000 People (Zook, University of Calofornia, January 2000)....... 67

    Figure 4-2: Internet costs per country for different consumer profiles (OECD Local Access Pricing and

    E-Commerce Report, July 2000) ............................................................................................ 68

    Figure 4-3: Internet costs per country for different business profiles (Teligen Study: International

    Benchmarking Study of Telecommunication Services, May 2000 and YGE 2000)............. 69

    Figure 4-4: Residential Household Internet Access Penetration Rate (YGE, 1999)............................... 70

  • 8/13/2019 01_benchmark - US and Netherlands

    7/174

    Final

    Telecommunications infrastructure and services in The Netherlands

    Benchmark study vi

    Figure 4-5: The number of 64 kilobit per second leased line equivalents per thousand employees

    (YGE, 2000) ............................................................................................................................. 72

    Figure 4-6: The number of secure servers per million inhabitants (OECD Local Access Pricing and E-

    commerce Report, July 2000)................................................................................................. 73

    Figure 4-7: The EIU e-business readiness ranking (ebusinessforum.com, May 2000).......................... 73

    Figure 4-8: The number of reallocated generic top level domain names as a percentage of the number

    of country domains plus the number of reallocated top level domain names (OECD Local

    Access Pricing and E-commerce Report, July 2000) ............................................................74

    Figure 4-9: The Herfindahl-Hirschman index for the Internet service provider dial-up Internet access

    markets calculated using Internet service providers with a market share of 5% or more

    (YGE, 2000) ............................................................................................................................. 75

    Figure 4-10: The forecast Internet access method for households in 2001 .............................................. 76

    Figure 5-1: Price for 2Mbit/s leased lines for 100km, in Euros (YGE, 2000)........................................... 81

    Figure 5-2: Number of 64 kbps equivalents per 1,000 employees, October 2000 (YGE)......................81

    Figure 5-3: Unbundled access prices in Euros per month (YGE, 2000).................................................. 83

    Figure 5-4: Residential Penetration of Cable Modems (Subscriptions/Total Households)

    (YGE, end 1999) ...................................................................................................................... 84

    Figure 5-5: Penetration of Residential ADSL (Subscriptions/Total Households) in Year-end 1999 ...... 85

    Figure 5-6: Residential ISDN Penetration, ISDN channels/Total Households (YGE, Year end 1999).. 87

    Figure 5-7: Percentage of fibre kilometres owned by competition to the incumbent (YGE, 2000) ........ 92

    Figure 6-1: Average spend per customer in Euros per month (Baskerville: Western European TV,

    December 1999) ...................................................................................................................... 96

    Figure 6-2: Number of TV sets per household per country (YGE, 2000) ................................................ 96

    Figure 6-3: Number of digital CATV subscriptions related to the total CATV number (YGE, 2000).... 100

    Figure 7-1: Multi-service suppliers (YGE, 2000)..................................................................................... 105

    Figure 7-2: The deconstruction of the former PTTs (YGE, 2000).......................................................... 107

    Figure 7-3: The future progression of bandwidth usage (YGE, 2000)................................................... 109

    Figure 7-4: Balancing the dominant players against the new entrants (YGE, 2000)............................ 110

    Figure 8-1: Price ranking for the Netherlands (VKA, 2000).................................................................... 114

    Figure 8-2: Availability ranking for the Netherlands (VKA, 2000)........................................................... 115

    Figure 8-3: Fixed telephony innovation index (VKA, 2000).................................................................... 116

    Figure 8-4: Mobile innovation index (VKA, 2000) ................................................................................... 117

    Figure 8-5: Internet innovation index (VKA, 2000).................................................................................. 118

    Figure 8-6: Leased line innovation index (VKA, 2000) ........................................................................... 119Figure 8-7: TV and radio innovation index (VKA, 2000)......................................................................... 120

    Figure 8-8: Overview innovation index (VKA, 2000)............................................................................... 121

    Figure 8-9: Competitive index .................................................................................................................. 123

    Figure 8-10: Combined market shares of the incumbents (YGE, 2000).................................................. 124

    Figure 8-11: Incumbents shares held by the private sector (YGE, 2000)................................................ 125

    Figure 8-12: Estimated investment levels for the Dutch market (OPTA, 2000) ...................................... 125

  • 8/13/2019 01_benchmark - US and Netherlands

    8/174

    Final

    Telecommunications infrastructure and services in The Netherlands

    Benchmark study vii

    Presented Tables

    Table 2-1: Examples of US quality statistics (FCC Service Quality Report, 1998)................................21

    Table 2-2: Example of BT Operator services quality statistics (BT Agency Operator Statistics webpage www.btinterconnect.com/qos/opqual.htm)....................................................................22

    Table 2-3: Overview of KPN quality statistics in percentages (KPN, 2000)........................................... 23

    Table 2-4: US Access services provided to carriers - switched access; a sample of statistics available

    (FCC Service Quality Report, 1998)....................................................................................... 29

    Table 2-5: Indicators for innovation (YGE, 2000) .................................................................................... 34

    Table 3-1: Indication of the influence of roaming costs (YGE, 2000).....................................................44

    Table 3-2: Summary of Mobile Service Innovations and Leading Countries (YGE, 2000) ................... 57

    Table 4-1: Average Ping Time in Milliseconds for Internet Traffic from Selected Regions to Selected

    Countries, October 2000 (The PingER Project, Stanford University) ................................... 67

    Table 4-2: The Key Drivers For US Internet Growth (YGE, 2000).......................................................... 71

    Table 4-3: Market Share of ISPs (Number of Subscribers) (YGE, October 2000) ................................75

    Table 5-1: Leased circuits lead times, October 2000 (YGE)................................................................... 80

    Table 5-2: Homes passed for 2-way infrastructure month (Baskerville: Western European TV,

    December 1999) ...................................................................................................................... 85

    Table 5-3: Status of WLL licensing (YGE, 2000)..................................................................................... 90

    Table 6-1: Penetration of CATV and satellite services (Vecai Study: Broadband Monitor, Cable &

    Satellite Yearbook, 2000) ........................................................................................................ 97

    Table 6-2: Number of suppliers offering innovative services (YGE, October 2000) ..............................97

    Table 6-3: Number of competitive operators (YGE, 1999)...................................................................... 99

    Table 8-1: Fixed telephony innovation indicators (VKA, 2000)............................................................. 116

    Table 8-2: Mobile telephony innovation indicators (VKA, 2000)........................................................... 117

    Table 8-3: Internet services innovation indicators (VKA, 2000)............................................................ 118

    Table 8-4: Leased Lines services innovation indicators (VKA, 2000) .................................................. 119

    Table 8-5: Television and radio innovation indicators (VKA, 2000)...................................................... 120

    Table 8-6: Level of competition indicators per service (VKA, 2000)..................................................... 122

  • 8/13/2019 01_benchmark - US and Netherlands

    9/174

    Final

    Telecommunications infrastructure and services in The Netherlands

    Benchmark study

    1

    Summary and conclusions

    The challenge

    The Dutch government has set herself the objective to develop the 'ICT-environment' as well as

    possible. Therefore, the underlying (tele)communications infrastructure which should facilitate this

    objective is one of the five pillars the government has defined. The Ministry of Transport, Public

    Works and Water Management has been challenged to let an affordable, accessible and reliable

    telecommunications infrastructure develop. To keep up with the development of this infrastructure

    and to observe possible bottlenecks the Ministry has commissioned a benchmark study.

    This report presents the results of the benchmark study conducted in the year 2000 and reviews the

    situation of the (tele) communications services and infrastructure in the Netherlands compared with

    the following benchmark countries: France, Germany, Sweden, the United Kingdom (UK), and the

    United States (US). A number of comparisons are based on 1999 data, because more recent

    comparable data was not available at the publishing date of the report.

    Scope of the study

    In the benchmark study the telecommunications situation in the Netherlands is compared with five

    benchmark countries. The objectives set in the white paper "The Digital Delta" are evaluated.

    These objectives are:

    1. The cabinet seeks to ensure a first-class, affordable, accessibleand reliable

    (tele)communications infrastructure.

    2. The role to be played by the government here is to encourage innovation and investmentinthe telecommunications infrastructure by:

    a) assuring competitionin the telecommunications market;

    b) allocating frequency spaceefficiently; and

    c) safeguarding the technical reliabilityof the telecommunications infrastructure.

    The scope of this benchmark study, however, is somewhat broader than infrastructure alone. Now,

    one year after publishing "The Digital Delta" we can see that infrastructure can not be treated on its

    own any longer. Today, it is becoming increasingly important to study the services using the

    infrastructure. For a very long time a service was more or less linked with one kind of infrastructure,

    but that is no longer the fact anymore. Telephony can be delivered via fixed and mobileinfrastructures, but also using cable TV networks. In the near future also IP-telephony will become

    mainstream according to the opinion of the authors. TV and radio do no longer depend on the

    traditional ether and cable TV networks. Again the introduction of IP-technology, i.e. the Internet,

    has created a new distribution channel for these signals.

    Another reason to broaden the scope of the study is the fact that infrastructures are used for

    different service mixes in different countries so it is difficult to compare them in an effective way on

    this aspect alone. In our view, a better starting point is an evaluation of the telecommunication

    services that are provided to customers, and in the evaluation take into account the various

    infrastructures that are used to support these services.

  • 8/13/2019 01_benchmark - US and Netherlands

    10/174

    Final

    Telecommunications infrastructure and services in The Netherlands

    Benchmark study

    2

    This document presents the findings and conclusions of the benchmark study of

    telecommunications infrastructure and services in the Netherlands for the Dutch Ministry of

    Transport, Public Works and Water Management, Directorate-General for Telecommunications and

    Post, conducted in joined effort by the Yankee Group Europe (YGE) and Verdonck, Klooster &

    Associates (VKA).

    The findings and conclusions are primarily the opinion of the authors of this report and do not

    necessarily represent the opinion of the Ministry.

    The ambitions of the Cabinet are partly reached

    First class and reliable infrastructure

    There is very little systematic monitoring of quality of service indicators by the different countries,

    and this makes it hard to monitor the effective achievement of universal access and affordability.

    Also in the Netherlands there is no regular publication of independently verified indicators. It is clearthat such a publication would improve both competition and consumer choice.

    Affordability

    From the information provided in the report, we can conclude that the Netherlands compares

    favourably with the other countries, except for leased line services. For this latter service the

    Netherlands is the most expensive of all the countries considered.

    Accessibility

    Accessibility is determined by the extent that a service is available in the market. Except for

    television and radio, which have a very good availability because of the ubiquitous cable TV (CATV)

    networks, the Netherlands score in the middle range for most services when compared to the other

    countries. For leased line services the comparison is less favourable. This is probably partly caused

    by the high prices that have to be paid for these services, but also because of long delivery times

    and limited competition in this area. Although in the Netherlands there is a growing number of

    suppliers with a national infrastructure of their own, it is still difficult for them to reach the end user

    with their own network.

    Role Played by the Government

    Innovation and Investment

    Germany and Sweden are good performers with respect to innovation with the exception of leased

    lines for Sweden. The Netherlands is weaker than most in three areas: fixed telephony, television

    and radio and leased lines. The common denominators for the low performance in these areas are

    the late licensing (WLL1, DAB

    2and DTT

    3) and the late and inadequate introduction of local loop

    unbundling (LLU)

    1Wireless Local Loop

    2Digital Audio Broadcast3Digital Terrestrial Transmission for Television

  • 8/13/2019 01_benchmark - US and Netherlands

    11/174

    Final

    Telecommunications infrastructure and services in The Netherlands

    Benchmark study

    3

    0102030405060

    708090

    100

    Nethe

    rland

    s

    Fran

    ce

    Germ

    any

    Swed

    en UK

    USA

    Fixed telephonyinnovation index

    Mobile telephony

    innovation indexInternet InnovationIndex

    Leased linesinnovation index

    Television and radioinnovation index

    Figure 0-1: Innovation index overview (VKA, 2000)

    For the different service categories the following conclusions can be drawn:

    In general innovation in fixed telephony is not very high; it is a mature market and the

    performance of the countries does not differ very much. The most important aspects are new

    service packages and tariff structures that have been given a high weighting. The Netherlands

    is not performing as well as the other countries. This is primarily caused by the relatively late

    introduction of these new features and late regulatory measures.

    The market for mobile is very dynamic. Some governments such as the U.K., Germany and the

    Netherlands have been fast to react to the new possibilities for 3G. In the first two countries this

    has also led to an early introduction of GPRS (General Packet Radio Service) technology. The

    Netherlands is performing well because of speedy introduction of number portability, UMTSlicensing and a relatively high penetration of mobile phones.

    The Internet is of course an exciting domain for the development of new services. However,

    because of the open and international character of the Internet, services are less and less

    country specific and are, therefore, not a distinguishing factor for indicating differences in

    innovation. This trend is amplified by the concentration and internationalisation of ISP's world-

    wide. In Europe, The Netherlands, Sweden and Germany are performing well because of the

    high Internet penetration and relatively high uptake of DSL4. The new services identified do not

    seem to vary much between the different countries.

    Leased lines are not very exciting in terms of innovation. The introduction of new services,

    which would be a key indicator for innovation, is not occurring on the supply side. Nearly all

    new service developments, with respect to bandwidth services, are occurring in the IP domain.

    The Netherlands and Sweden are bad performers primarily because of the lack of WLL

    licenses and relatively low bandwidth usage per employee. In the Netherlands this may be

    caused by the high cost of bandwidth.

    The Netherlands score very low for television and radio services. This is partly because

    licensing for DAB and DTT is taking a long time, and partly because new services are difficult

    to introduce, because of the low costs for numerous TV and radio channels of good (technical)

    quality.

    4Digital Subscriber Line: a new transmission technology for the local loop to enable high speed digital

    transmission

  • 8/13/2019 01_benchmark - US and Netherlands

    12/174

    Final

    Telecommunications infrastructure and services in The Netherlands

    Benchmark study

    4

    In the authors view, stimulating new entrants to deploy new infrastructure is the best way to

    increase innovation. Early licensing of frequencies stimulates the deployment of infrastructure and

    hence leads to improvement of the competitive and innovation situation. By further increasing the

    spectrum available for telecommunication services the level of innovation can be built upon.

    No comparable data on investment levels are available for the different countries. There is,

    however, some indication about the investment growth in the Netherlands. This seems to indicate

    that with the increasing competition there is also a considerable increase in investments is taking

    place.

    Assuring competition

    The competition for fixed telephony does not differ very much in the countries considered as is

    shown in the figure below. The markets are becoming more similar as the Netherlands, Germanyand France are catching up with early stimulators of competition, the UK and Sweden.

    The authors conclude that competition is limited in all countries. The incumbents still retain a large

    share of the market. In the Netherlands and Sweden the low "price gap", the difference between

    retail and interconnection tariffs, may be partly responsible for limiting the competition for national

    telephony. A comparison with the US is difficult to make because of the differences per state. But

    also there is a limited competition on the state level. International and national telephony is a highly

    competitive market, dominated by three suppliers. At the moment these suppliers are losing even

    more market share because of an increasing (price) competition.

    0

    20

    40

    60

    80

    100

    120

    Neth

    erlan

    ds

    Fran

    ce

    Ger

    man

    y

    Swed

    en UK

    USA

    Fixed telephony

    Mobile telephony

    Leased Lines

    Internet

    Figure 0-2: Competitive index (VKA, 2000)

    Also in mobile the markets are not that very different. Competition is strongest in the UK. In the tariff

    comparisons the Netherlands show the best performance, closely followed by Sweden and the UK.

    The authors observe that it will not be long before competition is no longer determined at the

    national level. Especially the mobile operators are transforming into pan-European and even world

    wide players. A limited number of major players will dominate this market. From the comparison

  • 8/13/2019 01_benchmark - US and Netherlands

    13/174

    Final

    Telecommunications infrastructure and services in The Netherlands

    Benchmark study

    5

    with those players it is clear that KPN Mobile will have a modest position on the European and

    world wide level.

    For Internet services there is a considerable difference between the countries. The US is the best

    performer with respect to competition. The U.K. is following the U.S. at some distance with the

    other countries even further behind. In the Netherlands, Germany and France competition is still

    limited because of the large market shares of the incumbents KPN (Het Net, Planet Internet,

    XS4ALL), France Telecom (Wanadoo) and Deutsche telecom (T-online).

    For leased lines the situation in the benchmark countries differs significantly. Sweden is a good

    performer on both price ranking and availability of competitive fibre. All other countries are

    performing badly on both elements, with the Netherlands scoring very negatively on leased line

    pricing.

    In the authors view, early licensing, in particular, is stimulating the development of both competition

    and innovation. Encouraging new entrants to deploy new infrastructure is another measure that can

    be used to accomplish development in these areas. This is clearly illustrated by the market situation

    in the mobile environment where in the Netherlands five competing infrastructures have been

    deployed.

    For the residential area, however, it is not reasonable to expect that new entrants will deploy a new

    local network to offer fixed services. Cable TV networks are a viable alternative local infrastructure,

    in particular where they are not owned or controlled by the incumbent. The Netherlands was earlier

    than most other countries to separate CATV activities from the incumbents service offering. In the

    Netherlands cable television penetration is as high as that of the voice telephony network, and

    voice telephony via cable is actually being offered, be it on a limited scale. It has proven difficult

    however to offer voice telephony via the cable in a cost-effective way.

    The introduction of Carrier Select and Carrier Preselect has not resulted in extensive new

    investments in infrastructure in the Netherlands. Most service providers connect to the KPN

    network at the double tandem (national) level. The effects of a price squeeze (low margin between

    interconnect and retail tariffs), especially for interconnection at the local and single tandem level,

    may be partly to blame for this. The price gap in the Netherlands is low compared with other

    countries as price levels have been decreasing considerably the last two years. Finally, Local LoopUnbundling (LLU) may be a good way to increase investments in competition in infrastructure and

    services. However, fair pricing and conditions for collocation are crucial for the success of this new

    access arrangement.

    Besides tight control on pricing for interconnection and LLU, we would suggest that pressure on

    retail prices by OPTA could be relieved to make it more attractive for new players to come into the

    market.

    In the business market there is already a level of competition, especially for bandwidth services

    larger than 2 Mbit/s. Competing infrastructures are available from a number of players. However,

    the competitive situation in the Netherlands as a whole is not developing favourably, with thehighest prices of all benchmark countries. There are areas where competition is virtually non-

  • 8/13/2019 01_benchmark - US and Netherlands

    14/174

    Final

    Telecommunications infrastructure and services in The Netherlands

    Benchmark study

    6

    existent and waiting times of over a year regularly occur. This is very much dependent on the

    dominance of KPN Telecom in the last mile. In our opinion, the creation of more competition should

    be given priority.

    Allocating frequency space efficiently

    Although fairly early with the licensing of UMTS frequencies, the Netherlands has lagged behind in

    other licensing areas (WLL, DAB and DTT). The authors view the delay in licensing as a restraint

    on the market and would suggest action to speed up the process.

    Safeguarding the technical reliability

    Except for the "Nationale Noodnet" no special measures have been taken by government to

    safeguard the technical reliability. A policy paper has been published, but this does not contain any

    concrete measures.

    Recommendations

    Quality

    To increase the insight in the quality of the telecommunications service levels in the Netherlands we

    advice stimulating self-regulation by service providers and user organisations. In the authors

    opinion this is the most effective way for regulators to increase transparency in the market.

    However, in case of failure to install a quality monitoring and reporting facility, it is recommended

    that OPTA forces at least the dominant players to publish their performance.

    Pricing

    Pricing will be a difficult area to regulate. The traditional cost-based pricing rules currently imposed

    on incumbent suppliers will need to be re-adjusted to cover the anticipated developments in voice

    services, such as flat rate tariffing and the inclusion of voice in a package of other services. This will

    be a problem throughout Europe and will need to involve parties at EU-level.

    Pricing and conditions for Local Loop Unbundling are critical. At present, pricing is causing

    controversy between NRA's and incumbent operators in most countries. Prices still seem to be on

    the high side. To stimulate competition at local level and deployment of infrastructure, a strict price

    control is imperative.

    The price gap in the Netherlands is low compared with other countries. The effects of a price

    squeeze (low margin between interconnect and retail tariffs), especially for interconnection at the

    local and single tandem level, may be inhibiting interconnection on these levels and, therefore,

    introducing a barrier for infrastructure development. We would suggest that OPTA could relieve

    pressure on prices to make it more attractive for new players to come into the market.

    Stimulate infrastructure development

    According to the Telecommunications Act every public telecommunications operator has digging

    rights to lay cables in the ground. However, in practice, in many city areas there are severelimitations, long waiting times and cost penalties to actually deploy physical infrastructure. Also in

  • 8/13/2019 01_benchmark - US and Netherlands

    15/174

    Final

    Telecommunications infrastructure and services in The Netherlands

    Benchmark study

    7

    specific areas there are inhibitors for new entrants to establish telecom sites, such as unfavourable

    local tax conditions and shortages in electricity supply. In our view, local authorities should be

    called to account when local regulations are not consistent with national policies and regulations. A

    further investigation into the limitations operators are facing and how they can be improved, is

    recommended. A further recommendation to the Dutch Ministry is that alternative carriers should be

    encouraged, possibly by tax incentives, to continue to compete in fibre kilometres and not become

    complacent. Also the national and local government can stimulate competitive fibre infrastructures

    by own initiatives like digging tubes if ground works are taking place or stimulation of fibre projects

    with multiple operators.

    Licensing WLL frequencies and stimulating their use are important in increasing competition. Also

    the licensing for DAB and DTT has been delayed and should come into effect as soon as possible.

    Stimulating innovation

    In the authors view stimulating new entrants to deploy new infrastructure is the best way to

    increase innovation. Also in this respect early licensing is an important instrument. By further

    increasing the spectrum available for telecommunication services the level of innovation can also

    be improved.

    Leave mobile market alone

    As both innovation and competition are developing well in the mobile services market a low level of

    intervention in this market is recommended. However, it is important to keep a watch on the

    developments, and a review of possible anti-competitive behaviour is still necessary, in view of the

    large market shares of the two dominant players in the market.

    Convergence

    The existing framework for regulating the different industries of telecommunications, broadcasting

    and even general commercial activities, will have to be brought under a single, or certainly

    integrated, regulatory umbrella. Since this convergence is a relatively recent development, no

    country has achieved a truly integrated regulatory framework. However, within the European

    Commission discussion about the future regulatory framework of electronic communications is

    already taking place. If a fully integrated framework is not developed, it will leave significant

    confusion. For example, Voice over IP could escape regulation, since many of its proponents will

    not come under the telephony regulation.

    NRA competence

    In general, competition is developing in the right direction be it at a slow pace. Given the dominance

    of the incumbents and the dependence of new entrants on the incumbents infrastructure we think

    that it is too early to hand over jurisdiction to a generic supervisor. There are many examples in the

    different countries considered where the incumbent is not co-operating in creating the desirable

    level of competition. Furthermore, new entrants are faced with high costs for use of the incumbents

    infrastructure, and vigilance is necessary from a regulatory authority that can act as a countervailing

    power for the incumbents knowledge surplus over the new entrants.

    In view of the success in the U.K., it might be worth considering increasing the competencies of

  • 8/13/2019 01_benchmark - US and Netherlands

    16/174

    Final

    Telecommunications infrastructure and services in The Netherlands

    Benchmark study

    8

    OPTA. At present, OPTA can only act after a complaint is filed by a market party, a lengthy and

    costly process for the company involved. The effectiveness of the NRA is improved if, like OFTEL in

    the U.K., it is allowed to act pro-actively.

    However, in the authors view this should be embedded in a framework where the tasks and

    responsibilities of OPTA have been clearly defined. To get a better alignment of short term and long

    term objectives for the development of the telecommunications market, a closer collaboration

    between DGTP and OPTA is necessary. This will become feasible when the involvement of the

    state in KPN is cut back to a much lower level.

    Dealing with the increasing internationalisation of players

    For all service categories we expect an increasing concentration and internationalisation. Also

    multi-national companies will increasingly make deals on a corporate level. This makes it more and

    more difficult to consider the telecommunications situation on a national level. This developmentcalls for an increased co-operation between NRAs. The "high level" group of NRAs could play a

    role in advising the European Commission. The European Commission provides the regulatory

    framework and formulates the questions for the "high level" group when appropriate.

    Safeguarding the technical reliability

    Society is becoming increasingly dependent on telecommunications services and facilities. That is

    why it is crucial for telecommunications services to function with a high level of reliability and

    security. Some countries have taken measures to ensure continuity in transmission networks and

    the networks and services of important telecom operators. In our view, a good first step to come to

    a more co-ordinated approach in the Netherlands is to start consultations between DGTP andinfrastructure providers to stimulate and align continuity planning as suggested in the Nacotel policy

    paper5.

    5Nationaal Continu teitsplan Telecommunicatie, Version 1.0, August 2000

  • 8/13/2019 01_benchmark - US and Netherlands

    17/174

    Final

    Telecommunications infrastructure and services in The Netherlands

    Benchmark study

    9

    Samenvatting en conclusies

    De uitdaging

    De Nederlandse overheid heeft zich tot doel gesteld om het 'ICT-landschap' in Nederland zo goed

    mogelijk te ontwikkelen. De onderliggende (tele)communicatie-infrastructuur die dit mogelijk moet

    maken is daartoe n van de vijf hoofdpijlers die de overheid heeft gedefinieerd. Het Ministerie van

    Verkeer en Waterstaat heeft de uitdaging toebedeeld gekregen om een betaalbare, toegankelijke

    en betrouwbare telecommunicatie-infrastructuur te doen ontstaan. Om de ontwikkeling van deze

    infrastructuur te kunnen volgen en eventuele knelpunten te signaleren heeft het Ministerie van

    Verkeer & Waterstaat een benchmarkstudie uit laten voeren.

    Het voorliggende rapport beschrijft de bevindingen van deze benchmarkstudie uitgevoerd in het

    jaar 2000 waarin de telecommunicatie-ontwikkelingen in Nederland vergeleken zijn met de

    ontwikkelingen in Duitsland, Frankrijk, het Verenigd Koninkrijk, de Verenigde Staten en Zweden.

    Een aantal vergelijkingen is gebaseerd op informatie uit 1999, omdat actuelere informatie (nog) niet

    beschikbaar was op het moment van publiceren.

    Afbakening van de studie

    In deze benchmarkstudie is de telecommunicatiesituatie in Nederland vergeleken met vijf

    benchmarklanden. De doelstellingen uit "De Digitale Delta"6zijn hierbij gevalueerd. Deze

    doelstellingen zijn:

    1. Het is de ambitie van het Kabinet om een eersteklas, betaalbare, toegankelijkeen

    betrouwbare(tele)communicatie-infrastructuur te realiseren.2. De rol van de overheid hierbij is:

    a) Het stimuleren van innovatie, concurrentie en investeringenin de (tele)communicatie-

    infrastructuur.

    b) Het efficint alloceren van frequentieruimte.

    c) Het bewaken van de technische betrouwbaarheidvan de (tele)communicatie-

    infrastructuur.

    Deze benchmarkstudie heeft zich echter niet uitsluitend beperkt tot de infrastructuur. Nu, ruim een

    jaar na het verschijnen van "De Digitale Delta" valt te constateren dat de infrastructuur niet langer

    alles bepalend is. In toenemende mate wordt het ook van belang om de diensten die over dediverse infrastructuren worden geleverd apart te bestuderen. Lange tijd was een dienst vast

    verbonden met een infrastructuur, maar inmiddels is dit een achterhaald feit. Telefonie wordt

    geleverd via vaste en mobiele infrastructuren, maar inmiddels ook via kabel TV (CATV) netwerken.

    In de nabije toekomst wordt ook IP-telefonie7naar de verwachting van de auteurs gemeengoed. TV

    en radio zijn ook niet langer gebonden aan de traditionele ether- en kabelnetwerken. Ook hier blijkt

    6Brief van de Ministers van Economische Zaken, Grote Steden- en Integratiebeleid en Justitie en de

    Staatssecretarissen van Verkeer en Waterstaat, Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschappen en Financin van 1

    juli 1999, Kamerstukken II, 26 643, nr. 17IP is het Internet Protocol. Overigens wordt met IP-telefonie niet bedoeld dat telefonie via het openbare

    Internet op korte termijn mogelijk is. Hier wordt met name gedoeld op 'besloten' IP-netwerken.

  • 8/13/2019 01_benchmark - US and Netherlands

    18/174

    Final

    Telecommunications infrastructure and services in The Netherlands

    Benchmark study

    10

    de introductie van IP-technologie, in de vorm van het Internet, een nieuw transportkanaal voor deze

    signalen mogelijk te maken.

    Een andere reden dat de studie zich niet tot uitsluitend de infrastructuur heeft beperkt is het feit dat

    in de diverse landen de diverse infrastructuren gebruikt worden voor diverse samenstellingen van

    diensten. Hierdoor is het moeilijk om ze op een goede wijze voor dit enkele aspect met elkaar te

    vergelijken.

    Dit rapport geeft de bevindingen en conclusies weer van de benchmarkstudie van de

    telecommunicatie-infrastructuur en diensten in Nederland. Dit onderzoek is door the Yankee

    Group Europe (YGE) en Verdonck, Klooster & Associates (VKA) uitgevoerd in opdracht van het

    Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, Directoraat Generaal Telecommunicatie en Post.

    De bevindingen en conclusies zoals verwoord in dit rapport zijn primair de opinie van de schrijvers

    en representeren niet per definitie de mening van het Ministerie.

    De ambitie van het Kabinet wordt ten dele bereikt

    Eersteklas en betrouwbare infrastructuur

    De kwaliteit van de infrastructuur en de diensten is vrijwel onvergelijkbaar tussen de

    benchmarklanden. In zeer beperkte mate wordt er systematisch gerapporteerd over de kwaliteit in

    de diverse landen. Dit maakt het tevens gecompliceerder om te onderzoeken of de doelstellingen

    voor toegankelijkheid en betaalbaarheid worden bereikt. Ook in Nederland is geen reguliere

    rapportage beschikbaar met onafhankelijk geverifieerde indicatoren. Het is duidelijk dat een

    dergelijke rapportage de concurrentie en consumenten keuze zou kunnen bevorderen.

    Betaalbaarheid

    Uit de benchmarkstudie blijkt dat Nederland voor wat betreft de kosten goed uit de vergelijking met

    de andere landen komt. Dit geldt voor alle diensten, behalve voor vaste verbindingen. Hiervoor is

    Nederland namelijk het duurste land.

    Toegankelijkheid

    De toegankelijkheid is bepaald aan de hand van de mate waarin diensten in de markt verkrijgbaar

    zijn. Behalve voor televisie en radio, die zeer toegankelijk zijn door de overal aanwezige CATV

    netwerken, scoort Nederland gemiddeld vergeleken met de andere landen. Opnieuw is de situatie

    voor vaste verbindingen het slechtst, mogelijk onder andere vanwege de hoge kosten, maar vooral

    ook door de lange levertijden en de beperkte concurrentie op dit terrein. Hoewel er in Nederland in

    toenemende mate partijen zijn met een eigen landelijke infrastructuur, lukt het deze partijen (nog)

    niet om de eindgebruiker ook via het eigen netwerk te bereiken.

  • 8/13/2019 01_benchmark - US and Netherlands

    19/174

    Final

    Telecommunications infrastructure and services in The Netherlands

    Benchmark study

    11

    Rol van de overheid

    Innovatie en investeringen

    Duitsland en Zweden presteren goed ten aanzien van de innovatie, met uitzondering van de dienstvaste verbindingen in Zweden. Nederland presteert hier minder dan de overige benchmarklanden

    voor vaste telefonie, televisie en radio en vaste verbindingen. Een overeenkomstige verklaring voor

    deze slechte prestatie is het laat vrijgeven van frequenties (WLL8, DAB

    9en DTT

    10) en de late en de

    beperkte introductie van ontbundelde toegang (ULL11

    ).

    01020304050

    60708090

    100

    Nethe

    rland

    s

    Fran

    ce

    Germ

    any

    Swed

    en UK

    USA

    Fixed telephonyinnovation index

    Mobile telephonyinnovation index

    Internet InnovationIndex

    Leased linesinnovation index

    Television and radioinnovation index

    Figuur 0-1: Overzicht van de innovatie-index (VKA, 2000)

    Voor de diverse service categorien kunnen de volgende conclusies worden getrokken:

    Over het algemeen is de innovatie voor vaste telefonie beperkt; het is een volwassen markt en

    de prestaties van de landen liggen redelijk dicht bij elkaar. De belangrijkste vernieuwingen zijn

    nieuwe 'gebundelde' dienstenpakketten en tariefstructuren. Nederland presteert hier slechter

    dan de meeste andere benchmarklanden vanwege de relatief late introductie van dergelijke

    vernieuwingen en verlate regelgeving.

    De mobiele communicatie markt is erg dynamisch. Enkele overheden zoals in Duitsland, het

    Verenigd Koninkrijk en Nederland hebben snel gereageerd op de nieuwe mogelijkheden van

    3G, de derde generatie van mobiele communicatie. In de eerste twee landen heeft dit er onder

    meer toe geleid dat GPRS-technologie12

    snel is ge ntroduceerd. Nederland presteert hier onder

    andere goed door de snelle introductie van nummer portabiliteit, het uitgeven van UMTS-

    licenties en de relatief hoge penetratie van mobiele telefoons.

    Het Internet is vanzelfsprekend een spannende omgeving voor de ontwikkeling van nieuwe

    diensten. Vanwege het open en internationale karakter van het Internet zijn diensten echter

    steeds minder landen specifiek. Hierdoor is het geen onderscheidende factor meer waarmee

    8Wireless Local Loop

    9Digital Audio Broadcast

    10Digital Terrestrial Transmission for Television

    11Unbundled Local Loop: ontbundelde toegang, waardoor concurrenten van de voormalige PTT toegang krijgt

    tot de koperdraad die de gebruiker met de wijkcentrale verbindt.12

    General Packet Radio Service

  • 8/13/2019 01_benchmark - US and Netherlands

    20/174

    Final

    Telecommunications infrastructure and services in The Netherlands

    Benchmark study

    12

    verschillen in innovatie kunnen worden aangegeven. Deze trend wordt versterkt door de

    wereldwijde concentratie en internationalisatie van Internet Service Providers (ISPs). In Europa

    presteren met name Nederalnd, Zweden en Duitsland erg goed vanwege de hoge Internet

    penetratie en de relatief snelle toename van DSL-technologie13

    .

    De diensten voor vaste verbindingen blijken weinig innovatief. Vrijwel alle nieuwe

    ontwikkelingen betreffende bandbreedte diensten vinden plaats in het IP-domein. Aan de

    aanbiederszijde ontstaan dus geen nieuwe diensten voor vaste verbindingen, terwijl dit wel de

    belangrijkste indicator voor innovatie is. Nederland en Zweden presteren, met name door het

    ontbreken van WLL-licenties en het relatief lage verbruik van bandbreedte per medewerker,

    slecht op dit punt. In Nederland kan dit veroorzaakt worden door de hoge kosten voor en de

    beperkte beschikbaarheid van vaste verbindingen.

    Nederland presteert slecht op het gebied van televisie en radio diensten. Deels wordt dit

    veroorzaakt door het feit dat de uitgifte van licenties voor DAB en DTT lang duurt. Ook wordt dit

    veroorzaakt door het feit dat nieuwe diensten moeilijk ge ntroduceerd kunnen worden door de

    extreem lage kosten voor een groot aantal TV- en radiokanalen met een goede (technische)

    kwaliteit.

    Volgens de auteurs is het stimuleren van de uitrol van nieuwe infrastructuren door nieuwe

    aanbieders de beste manier om de innovatiekracht in Nederland toe te laten nemen. Vroegtijdige

    uitgifte van frequentie licenties stimuleert de ontwikkeling van alternatieve infrastructuren en dat

    leidt tot verbetering van de concurrentie positie en innovativiteit. Door het beschikbare spectrum

    voor telecommunicatiediensten verder uit te breiden kan het innovatie niveau verder worden

    verbeterd.

    Helaas hebben de auteurs geconstateerd dat er geen vergelijkbare (recente) informatie

    voorhanden is om het investeringsniveau in de diverse landen te vergelijken. Wel is er informatie

    beschikbaar voor de Nederlandse markt, waaruit blijkt dat de toenemende concurrentie ook leidt tot

    een aanzienlijke toename van de investeringen in telecommunicatie-infrastructuren en -diensten.

    Stimuleren van concurrentie

    Het verschil ten aanzien van de concurrentie voor vaste telefonie tussen de benchmarklanden is

    beperkt, zoals ook blijkt uit onderstaande figuur. In feite worden de markten in de diverse landen

    meer en meer vergelijkbaar omdat Nederland, Duitsland en Frankrijk de voorlopers, het Verenigd

    Koninkrijk en Zweden, in beginnen te halen. Wel merken de auteurs op dat in alle landen deconcurrentie feitelijk erg beperkt is. De voormalige PTTs hebben in alle landen nog het grootste

    gedeelte van het telefonieverkeer in handen. In Nederland en Zweden lijkt met name de beperkte

    'price gap', het verschil tussen het retail- en interconnectietarief, de concurrentie voor het nationale

    telefonieverkeer te beperken. Een vergelijking met de Verenigde Staten op dit punt is moeilijk te

    maken vanwege de grote verschillen tussen de staten. Hoewel ook hier valt te constateren dat de

    'nationale' telecommarkt (binnen een staat) beperkt concurrerend is. Met name de communicatie

    internationaal en tussen de staten onderling kan worden gezien als een sterk concurrerende markt

    13Digital Subscriber Line: Het toepassen van een nieuwe technologie waardoor de telefoonlijn ook geschikt

    wordt gemaakt voor (breedbandig) datatransport.

  • 8/13/2019 01_benchmark - US and Netherlands

    21/174

    Final

    Telecommunications infrastructure and services in The Netherlands

    Benchmark study

    13

    die wordt gedomineerd door drie partijen. Momenteel zijn deze partijen echter marktaandeel aan

    het verliezen door een sterk toenemende (prijs)concurrentie.

    0

    20

    40

    60

    80

    100

    120

    NetherlandsFrance Germany Sweden

    UK USA

    Fixed telephony

    Mobile telephony

    Leased Lines

    Internet

    Figuur 0-2: Concurrentie-index (VKA, 2000)

    Ook de mobiele communicatiemarkten verschillen niet veel meer. De concurrentie is het sterkst in

    het Verenigd Koninkrijk. Kijkend naar de tarieven is Nederland het meest concurrerend, op korte

    afstand gevolgd door Zweden en het Verenigd Koninkrijk. De auteurs merken op dat het niet lang

    meer zal duren voordat de concurrentie niet meer op nationale schaal zal worden bepaald. Juist de

    mobiele operators krijgen door fusies en overnames in hoog tempo een pan-Europees en zelfs

    internationaal karakter. Een beperkt aantal grote spelers gaat deze markt domineren. Uit eenvergelijking met deze spelers blijkt dat KPN Mobiel een bescheiden positie heeft op Europees en

    wereldniveau.

    Een groot verschil tussen de diverse landen valt waar te nemen voor wat betreft Internet diensten.

    Hier presteren de Verenigde Staten duidelijk beter dan de andere benchmarklanden. Op enige

    afstand volgt het Verenigd Koninkrijk en de andere landen volgen op nog grotere afstand. In

    Nederland, Duitsland en Frankrijk is de concurrentie nog steeds beperkt door het grote aandeel van

    de voormalige PTTs KPN (Het Net, Planet Internet, XS4ALL), France Telecom (Wanadoo) en

    Deutsche Telecom (T-Online).

    De concurrentie voor leased lines verschilt behoorlijk in de diverse benchmarklanden. Zweden

    presteert erg goed zowel op het gebied van prijs als voor de beschikbaarheid van concurrerende

    glasvezelinfrastructuren. De overige landen presteren voor beide punten erg slecht, waarbij

    Nederland er met name ten aanzien van prijs erg negatief uitspringt.

    Naar de mening van de auteurs stimuleert met name het vroegtijdig beschikbaar stellen van

    licenties zowel de concurrentie als de innovatie. Het stimuleren van nieuwe toetreders om een

    nieuwe infrastructuur aan te leggen is een middel om ontwikkelingen op deze terreinen te

    realiseren. Dit blijkt duidelijk uit de markt situatie voor mobiele communicatie waarvoor in Nederland

    vijf concurrerende infrastructuren zijn aangelegd.

  • 8/13/2019 01_benchmark - US and Netherlands

    22/174

    Final

    Telecommunications infrastructure and services in The Netherlands

    Benchmark study

    14

    Voor de residentile markt valt redelijkerwijs echter niet te verwachten dat nieuwe toetreders een

    nieuw lokaal netwerk aan gaan leggen voor het bieden van 'vaste' diensten. Kabel TV netwerken

    vormen redelijkerwijs een alternatieve infrastructuur, vooral wanneer de voormalige PTT deze niet

    bezit of beheerst. Nederland heeft eerder dan andere landen de kabel TV activiteiten afgescheiden

    van het dienstenportfolio van KPN. Daarnaast is de kabelpenetratie in Nederland vrijwel net zo

    hoog als de telefoniepenetratie. Inmiddels wordt kabeltelefonie op beperkte schaal geboden, maar

    in de praktijk is gebleken dat het moeizaam is om via de kabel op een kosten effectieve manier

    telefonie aan te bieden.

    De introductie van Carrier Select (CS) en Carrier Preselect (CPS) hebben niet geleid tot grote

    investeringen in infrastructuur in Nederland. Blijkbaar kiezen nieuwe toetreders vooralsnog voor het

    eenvoudige model van interconnectie op nationaal niveau en gebruiken de infrastructuur van KPN

    voor het afhandelen van het nationale verkeer. Het merendeel van de aanbieders interconnecteert

    met het KPN-netwerk op nationaal niveau. Het effect van de price squeeze (lage marge tussen het

    interconnectie- en retailtarief) op met name het locale of 'single tandem' niveau, kan hiervoor deels

    een verklaring zijn. Dit verschil is namelijk erg klein in Nederland in vergelijking met de

    benchmarklanden, omdat de retailtarieven zo sterk zijn gedaald. Voor de aanbieders betekent dit

    dus een steeds kleiner wordende marge. Tenslotte zou de ontbundeling van de local loop een

    goede manier kunnen zijn om de concurrerende investeringen in infrastructuren en diensten te

    stimuleren. Voor het succes van deze nieuwe toegangsmogelijkhied is het echter wel van belang

    dat de tarieven en condities voor collocatie redelijk zijn. Tevens is nauwlettend toezicht op de

    prijzen voor interconnectie en LLU gewenst, waarbij de auteurs voorstellen dat OPTA niet langer

    streeft om de retailprijzen te verlagen, zodat het aantrekkelijker wordt voor nieuwe toetreders tot de

    telecommunicatiemarkt.

    Binnen de zakelijke markt is in toenemende mate sprake van concurrentie, met name voor

    bandbreedte diensten boven 2 Mbit/s. Concurrerende infrastructuren zijn beschikbaar. De

    concurrentie positie in Nederland ontwikkelt zich echter niet goed, met name gezien de hoge

    tarieven ten opzichte van de benchmarklanden. Er zijn gebieden waar feitelijk geen concurrentie is

    en levertijden van meer dan een jaar zijn veelvoorkomend. Volgens de auteurs wordt dit in

    belangrijke mate veroorzaakt door de dominantie van KPN voor wat betreft de locale netwerken

    (last mile). Het creren van meer concurrentie op dit terrein moet volgens de auteurs hoge prioriteit

    worden gegeven.

    Het efficint alloceren van frequentieruimte

    Hoewel Nederland relatief snel was met het uitgeven van de UMTS-frequenties, loopt Nederland

    achter bij de uitgifte van andere licenties (WLL, DAB en DTT). De auteurs zien deze vertraagde

    uitgifte als een belemmering voor de markt en stellen dan ook voor om dit proces te versnellen.

    Het bewaken van de technische infrastructuur

    Behalve het "Nationale Noodnet" zijn er in Nederland geen speciale maatregelen genomen door de

    overheid om de technische betrouwbaarheid van de infrastructuur te garanderen. Een beleidsnotitie

    over dit onderwerp is gepubliceerd maar dit bevat geen enkele concrete indicator.

  • 8/13/2019 01_benchmark - US and Netherlands

    23/174

    Final

    Telecommunications infrastructure and services in The Netherlands

    Benchmark study

    15

    Aanbevelingen

    Kwaliteit

    Om de kwaliteit van de telecommunicatiedienstverlening in Nederland beter inzichtelijk te maken,adviseren wij om aan te sturen op zelfregulering door de markt. Dit zien de auteurs als de meest

    effectieve manier voor de regelgever om de markttransparantie te verhogen. Echter, in het geval dit

    niet tot het gewenste kwaliteitsregistratie en rapportage systeem mocht leiden, dan adviseren wij

    dat OPTA ten minste de aanmerkelijk marktpartijen dwingt om informatie over hun prestaties te

    publiceren.

    Prijs

    De tariefstelling van de diensten is een moeilijk terrein voor regulering. De traditionele regels voor

    kostengeorinteerde tarieven zoals deze nu op worden gelegd aan de voormalige PTT's zullen

    moeten worden aangepast aan de hedendaagse ontwikkelingen als flat rate tarifering en het

    bundelen van telefonie met toegevoegde waarde diensten. Overigens zal dit een probleem worden

    binnen heel Europa en daarom zullen partijen op EU-niveau hierbij betrokken moeten worden.

    De tarieven en voorwaarden voor ontbundelde toegang zijn kritische voorwaarden voor

    concurrentie. Op dit moment veroorzaakt deze tarifering in de meeste landen discussie tussen de

    toezichthouder en de voormalige PTT's. De prijzen lijken nog steeds aan de hoge kant te zijn. Om

    de concurrentie op lokaal niveau te stimuleren tezamen met een verdere ontwikkeling van

    infrastructuren, is een strikte prijscontrole noodzakelijk.

    De zogenaamde 'price gap' is in Nederland erg laag vergeleken met andere landen. Het effect van

    een 'price squeeze', met name voor interconnectie op lokaal en single tandem niveau, kan

    interconnectie op dit niveau belemmerd worden. Daardoor vormt dit een barrire voor infrastructuur

    ontwikkeling. De auteurs adviseren OPTA om de minder druk uit te oefenen op het verlagen van de

    retailprijzen, zodat het aantrekkelijker wordt voor nieuwe toetreders tot de markt.

    Stimuleer infrastructuur ontwikkeling

    Op basis van de Telecommunicatiewet heeft iedere publieke telecommunicatie operator het recht

    om kabelinfrastructuur aan te leggen. Echter, in de praktijk blijkt dat er in diverse stedelijke

    gebieden forse belemmeringen, lange wachttijden voor graafvergunningen en hoge kosten zijn

    voordat een netwerk kan worden aangelegd. Ook zijn er in specifieke gebieden belemmeringen

    voor toetreders om een telecom site te realiseren, zoals bijvoorbeeld locale onroerend goed

    belastingen en tekorten in de energievoorziening. Naar onze mening dienen locale autoriteiten er

    op aan te worden gesproken als zij niet voldoen aan nationale beleidsuitgangspunten en

    regelgeving. De auteurs adviseren een nader onderzoek uit te voeren naar de beperkingen die

    operators ervaren en hoe deze situatie verbeterd kan worden. Tevens adviseren de auteurs om

    concurrerende aanbieders te stimuleren, wellicht met belastingvoordelen, om te blijven concurreren

    middels eigen (glasvezel)infrastructuren. Ook kan door de nationale en lokale overheden

    overwogen worden om zelf het initiatief te nemen om de juiste voorwaarden te scheppen voor

    concurrerende operators, die het aanleggen van glasvezelverbindingen aanzienlijk voordeliger

  • 8/13/2019 01_benchmark - US and Netherlands

    24/174

    Final

    Telecommunications infrastructure and services in The Netherlands

    Benchmark study

    16

    kunnen maken, hierbij valt te denken aan het leggen van buizen op trajecten waar

    grondwerkzaamheden plaatsvinden of het stimuleren van 'samenleg' projecten.

    Het uitgeven van WLL frequenties en het stimuleren van het gebruik hiervan is naar de mening van

    de auteurs erg belangrijk voor een toename van de concurrentie. Ook de uitgifte van DAB- en DTT-

    licenties is vertraagd en het advies is om deze uitgifte zo snel mogelijk te laten plaatsvinden.

    Stimuleren van innovatie

    Naar de mening van de auteurs is het stimuleren van de uitrol van infrastructuren door nieuwe

    toetreders de beste methode om de innovatie te stimuleren. Ook hierbij is dus het vroeg uitgeven

    van licenties een belangrijk instrument. Het beschikbaar stellen van nieuwe frequentieruimte

    (spectrum) kan daarbij nog een extra stimulans zijn.

    Laat de mobiele markt losOmdat zowel de innovatie als de concurrentie zich goed ontwikkelen binnen de mobiele sector,

    adviseren de auteurs zeer beperkt in te grijpen in deze markt. Wel blijft het belangrijk om de

    ontwikkelingen te volgen en evaluatie van mogelijk concurrentie beperkend gedrag blijft

    noodzakelijk, zeker gezien de grote marktaandelen van de twee dominante spelers.

    Convergentie

    Het bestaande kader waarop regelgeving voor de diverse (tele)communicatie- en

    omroepindustrien en zelfs algemene commercile activiteiten gebaseerd is, zal onder een enkele

    of minimaal een meer ge ntegreerde regelgevende 'paraplu' gebracht moeten worden. Omdat

    convergentie nog maar een relatief nieuwe ontwikkeling is, heeft nog geen enkel benchmarkland

    een echt volledig ge ntegreerd regelgevend kader. Binnen de Europese Commissie vindt echter al

    wel een discussie plaats over een toekomstig regelgevend kader voor elektronische communicatie.

    Als een volledig ge ntegreerd kader niet wordt ontwikkeld, dan zal dit resulteren in aanzienlijke

    verwarring. Voice over IP zou in een dergelijk geval de huidige regelgeving ontlopen omdat dit niet

    onder de telefonie regelgeving valt.

    Competentie van de toezichthouder

    Over het algemeen ontwikkelt de concurrentie zich in de goede richting al gaat het in bepaalde

    gevallen wel langzaam. Gegeven de dominantie van de voormalige PTT's en de afhankelijkheid

    van de infrastructuur van deze voormalige PTT's voor nieuwe toetreders zijn de auteurs van

    mening dat het te vroeg is om het toezicht op de telecommunicatie markt over te dragen aan een

    meer algemene toezichthouder. Er zijn vele voorbeelden in de verschillende landen waarbij de

    voormalige PTT niet meewerkt aan het realiseren van het gewenste concurrentie niveau.

    Daarnaast worden nieuwe toetreders geconfronteerd met hoge kosten om de infrastructuur van de

    voormalige PTT te gebruiken. Tevens is de oplettendheid van een regelgevende autoriteit gewenst

    die als gelijkwaardige tegenspeler van de goed ge nformeerde voormalige PTT kan dienen.

    Vanwege het succes in het Verenigd Koninkrijk valt te overwegen om de bevoegdheden van OPTA

    toe te laten nemen. Momenteel kan OPTA alleen acteren na het indienen van een klacht door een

    marktpartij; een langdurig en kostbaar proces voor de betrokken partij. De effectiviteit van de

  • 8/13/2019 01_benchmark - US and Netherlands

    25/174

    Final

    Telecommunications infrastructure and services in The Netherlands

    Benchmark study

    17

    toezichthouder neemt toe als het is toegestaan om pro-actief te handelen, zoals OFTEL in het

    Verenigd Koninkrijk kan doen. Naar de mening van de auteurs moet deze uitbreiding van de

    bevoegdheden wel worden ondergebracht in een kader waarbinnen de taken en

    verantwoordelijkheden van OPTA duidelijk zijn gedefinieerd. Om een betere afstemming te

    realiseren tussen de korte en lange termijn doelstellingen ten aanzien van de ontwikkeling van de

    telecommunicatiemarkt, is een hechtere samenwerking tussen OPTA en DGTP noodzakelijk. Dit

    wordt mogelijk als de betrokkenheid van de overheid in KPN is teruggebracht tot een lager niveau.

    Toenemende internationalisatie van aanbieders

    Voor alle dienstencategorien verwachten wij een toenemende concentratie en internationalisatie.

    Daarbij zullen multi-nationals in toenemende mate overeenkomsten afsluiten op internationaal

    niveau. Hierdoor wordt het steeds moeilijker om de telecommunicatie op nationaal niveau te

    beoordelen. Deze ontwikkeling vraagt om een intensievere samenwerking tussen de diverse

    nationale toezichthouders. De 'koplopers' van de toezichthouders zouden een rol kunnen vervullenals adviseur van de Europese Commissie. De Europese Commissie levert het regelgevend kader

    en formuleert vragen voor de 'koploper' groep indien van toepassing.

    Bewaken van de technische betrouwbaarheid

    De maatschappij wordt in toenemende mate afhankelijke van telecommunicatiediensten en

    faciliteiten. Daarom is het zo belangrijk dat telecommunicatiediensten geleverd worden met een

    hoge mate van betrouwbaarheid en veiligheid. Enkele landen hebben maatregelen genomen om de

    continu teit van infrastructuren en diensten van belangrijke telecommunicatie operators te

    garanderen. In de optiek van de auteurs zou een consultatie van de infrastructuur aanbieders door

    DGTP eerste goede stap zijn om tot een meer gecordineerde aanpak in Nederland te komen. Opdeze wijze kan de continu teit van de infrastructuren worden gestimuleerd en onderling afgestemd

    worden, zoals is voorgesteld in het Nacotel beleidsdocument14

    .

    14

    Nationaal Continu teitsplan Telecommunicatie, Versie 1.0, augustus 2000

  • 8/13/2019 01_benchmark - US and Netherlands

    26/174

    Final

    Telecommunications infrastructure and services in The Netherlands

    Benchmark study

    18

  • 8/13/2019 01_benchmark - US and Netherlands

    27/174

    Final

    Telecommunications infrastructure and services in The Netherlands

    Benchmark study

    19

    1 Introduction

    1.1 Rationale

    In the Netherlands the cabinet wishes to establish a sound base for the further development of the

    Netherlands into a "digital delta". In a white paper called "The Digital Delta"15

    the

    (tele)communications infrastructure is considered important as a basis for the further development of

    the information society:

    Specifically the cabinet seeks to ensure a first-class, affordable, accessible and reliable

    (tele)communications infrastructure. The role to be played by the government here is to encourage

    innovation and investment in the telecommunications infrastructure by assuring competition on the

    telecommunications market, by allocating frequency space efficiently, and by safeguarding the

    technical reliability of the telecommunications infrastructure.

    At the time of writing the position of the Netherlands was considered favourable because of the

    degree of liberalisation on the (tele)communications market and the opportunities offered by the

    relatively dense national cabling system. An item of concern, however, was the fact that the rate at

    which the capacity of the infrastructure was being expanded was lagging behind the rate at which

    capacity demand among business and private users was increasing, above all due to the explosive

    growth of the Internet - 100% a year in this country - and mobile traffic. At the same time the

    potentials of the cable were still under-utilized.

    One of the actions and activities of the cabinet announced in "The Digital Delta" was a periodical

    benchmark of (tele)communications (services and) infrastructure, the first benchmark to be

    conducted in 2000.

    1.2 This report

    This report presents the results of the benchmark study conducted in the year 2000 and reviews the

    situation of the (tele)communications services and infrastructure in the Netherlands compared with

    the following benchmark countries: France, Germany, Sweden, the United Kingdom (UK), and the

    United States (US). The research was undertaken at the request of the Dutch Ministry of Transport,

    Public Works and Water Management, Directorate-General for Telecommunications and Post.

    In the report the key indicators for the progress of telecoms services and infrastructure in theNetherlands are identified and compared with the benchmark countries, and hence, what action can

    be taken by the Dutch Ministry to provide an optimum environment for the economy to flourish.

    15

    The White Paper The Dutch Digital Delta, The Netherlands On-Line is a joint publication by the following

    Dutch Ministries: the Ministry of Economic Affairs, the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, the Ministry

    of Finance, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, and the Ministry of Transport,

    Public Works and Water Management. Published June 1999.

  • 8/13/2019 01_benchmark - US and Netherlands

    28/174

    Final

    Telecommunications infrastructure and services in The Netherlands

    Benchmark study

    20

    The report follows a sequence of major service and infrastructure issues. Starting with telephony,

    divided into fixed telephony and mobile telephony chapters, then the Internet (which is both a

    service and an IP infrastructure), followed by data services (including leased lines and broadband

    access) and broadcast media (TV and radio) are discussed. The report is then completed with two

    chapters covering wider horizons: the implications of converging service combinations on different

    infrastructures, and a comparison of overall country markets.

    The key conclusions and recommendations are illustrated by graphical data within the body of the

    report but a mass of accompanying benchmark indicators are available to the Ministry as an

    Appendix. In addition, the Appendix includes individual country profiles for each of the benchmark

    countries as well as the Netherlands, the methodology and a glossary.

    1.3 DisclaimerThe statements expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not represent the position of

    The Dutch Ministry in any way.

  • 8/13/2019 01_benchmark - US and Netherlands

    29/174

    Final

    Telecommunications infrastructure and services in The Netherlands

    Benchmark study

    21

    2 Fixed Telephony

    2.1 Introduction

    In general, in terms of quality, price and availability of fixed telephony services, the Netherlands

    compares favourably with the benchmark countries in this study. However our conclusion is that with

    the exception of international telephony, none of the countries considered have a really competitive

    market for fixed telephony. Stimulating alternative access arrangements like Wireless Local Loop

    and creating better conditions for the utilisation of Local Loop Unbundling (LLU) and Carrier

    Preselect (CPS) are recommended as ways for improving the competition. Local Loop Unbundling is

    possibly the most contentious area, where the Netherlands is not alone in having to overcome

    operator conflicts.The issue of quality is possibly the least well covered since like most of Europe,

    there are few indicators in the Netherlands. The recommendation is to set up a public register of

    quality benchmarks and performance results of all the Dutch operators.

    In pricing, the Netherlands would appear to be leading most of the benchmark countries at the

    moment, but in this highly competitive area, vigilance must be maintained. It is recommended that,

    looking ahead to the anticipated convergence and flattening of current price rates, there should be

    considerable thought and discussions with operators in order to keep up with developments.

    As for availability, the single most significant issue to stimulate the provision of services is probably

    competition and this in turn will be greatly assisted by unbundling the local loop.

    2.2 Services

    2.2.1 Retail market

    Quality

    In most European countries very little information is available about the quality levels, and what is

    revealed is typically not recent, nor consistent, nor comparable between countries. Even in the US,

    which has an elaborate reporting system for performance indicators, the latest information at the

    time of writing is for 1998 (from the FCC Service Quality Report 1998), see Table 2-1. In the UK,

    some information is made available for fixed telephony, by some operators, e.g. BT publishes

    performance indicators for its Operator and Emergency calls, see Table 2-2. Germany has specified

    quality indicators but it only started collecting them from the beginning of this year (2000).

    Company Ameritech Bell

    Atlantic

    BellSouth SBC US West Sprint GTE

    Initial Trouble Reports per

    Thousand Lines

    216.9 172.6 286.5 189.8 196.0 240.7 201.9

    Residence Complaints per Mill.

    Residence Access Lines

    182.5 201.9 144.3 52.1 722.4 125.1 131.3

    Business Complaints per Mill.

    Business Access Lines

    73.1 69.8 40.9 18.6 338.8 59.2 127.6

    Table 2-1: Examples of US quality statistics (FCC Service Quality Report, 1998)

  • 8/13/2019 01_benchmark - US and Netherlands

    30/174

    Final

    Telecommunications infrastructure and services in The Netherlands

    Benchmark study

    22

    Service Q1 (apr 99-jun 99) Q2 (jul 99 Sep 99)

    Apr May Jun July Aug Sep

    Operator Assistance

    calls answered in 15

    seconds

    92.10% 87.94% 88.15% 90.75% 91.53% ---

    Emergency calls

    answered in 5 seconds

    96.03% 96.71% 94.73% 95.25% 95.97% ----

    Table 2-2: Example of BT Operator services quality statistics (BT Agency Operator Statistics

    web page www.btinterconnect.com/qos/opqual.htm)

    The quality statistics of KPN as shown in Table 2-3 lead to the conclusion that the quality perception

    of the customers is decreasing. On the other hand other research shows that customers in the

    Netherlands value quality of service as high. This is underpinned by customer surveys (Telecom

    Monitor) and hence the provision of quality indicators could be a stimulation to usage and

    competition.

    The authors would suggest that stimulating self-regulation by service providers and user

    organisations is the most effective way for regulators to increase transparency in the market.

    However in case of failure to install a quality monitoring and reporting facility it is

    recommended that OPTA forces at least the dominant players to publish their performance.

    The necessary regulation is already in place because Art. 27 BOHT forces the dominant

    players and all the other suppliers (active for 18 months already) of public fixed telephony to

    report on a yearly basis. The parameters, definitions and measure methods are defined in

    ONP 98/10EG.

  • 8/13/2019 01_benchmark - US and Netherlands

    31/174

    Final

    Telecommunications infrastructure and services in The Netherlands

    Benchmark study

    23

    QUALITY 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

    Customer satisfaction with the

    provision of products and services

    Private customers 91 92 88 90 84 84

    Business customers 87 82 73 74 66 54

    Customer satisfaction with the way fault

    reports are handled

    Private customers 91 93 95 94 89 84

    Business customers 92 90 93 92 90 85

    Customer satisfaction with the way

    faults are cleared

    Private customers 86 88 94 90 91 89

    Business customers 83 84 87 86 89 85

    Customer satisfaction with the way

    complaints are handled

    69 82 83 80 75 71

    Customer satisfaction with service for

    telephone subscribers

    Handling of applications for exchange lines 95 96 94 95 93 91

    Provision of exchange lines 91 92 88 90 83 86

    Handling of fault reports 90 93 95 93 90 84

    Fault clearance 86 87 93 88 91 90

    Performance of directory enquiries

    (0900-8008)

    Availability 96 94 95 96 94 97

    Average waiting time (in seconds) 20 24 13 13 10 16

    Friendliness of operators 99 99 99 99 99 99

    Table 2-3: Overview of KPN quality statistics in percentages (KPN, 2000)

    Price

    In the Netherlands prices have been decreasing for some time now. In Figure 2-1 this trend is

    visualised for callers with different usage patterns. It shows that with the exception of a caller with a

    low usage patterns both in 1999 and in 2000 telephony has become cheaper. The heavy user and

    small businesses are taking advantage the most of this development. The low usage caller is paying

    more than 2 years ago, but is better of in 2000 compared to 1999.

  • 8/13/2019 01_benchmark - US and Netherlands

    32/174

    Final

    Telecommunications infrastructure and services in The Netherlands

    Benchmark study

    24

    0

    500

    1000

    1500

    2000

    2500

    3000

    3500

    Low

    usag

    eca

    ller

    A

    vera

    geusa

    gecalle

    r

    High

    usu

    gecalle

    r

    Intern

    etus

    er

    Small

    bus

    iness

    Euros/ye

    ar

    1-1-981-1-99

    1-1-00

    Figure 2-1: Changes in yearly costs for different usage profiles (OPTA, 2000)

    Compared to other countries The Netherlands has low tariffs; it is the second lowest after Sweden,

    but the Netherlands is a small and densely populated country so cost levels for the operators are

    relatively low (Figure 2-2 and Figure 2-3,). For businesses however tariffs have been increasing in

    the Netherlands. The reasons are partly that corporate discounts have decreased (an OPTA ruling),

    and VAT has been increased. In France and Germany the effects of increasing competition are

    visibly resulting in a (slight) decrease of price levels.

    0,0

    100,0

    200,0

    300,0

    400,0

    500,0

    600,0

    Neth

    erlandFr

    ance

    Germ

    anSw

    ede UKUSA

    Euro

    1996

    1998 3.Q.

    1999 4.Q.

    Figure 2-2: National PSTN basket for residential customers, based on incumbent tariffs

    (OPTA, 2000)

  • 8/13/2019 01_benchmark - US and Netherlands

    33/174

    Final

    Telecommunications infrastructure and services in The Netherlands

    Benchmark study

    25

    0,0200,0400,0600,0800,0

    1.000,01.200,01.400,0

    Neth

    erla

    nd

    Fran

    ce

    Ger

    man

    y

    Swed

    eU.

    K.

    U.S.

    A.

    1996

    1998 3.Q.

    1999 4.Q.

    Figure 2-3: National PSTN basket for business customers, based on incumbents tariffs

    (OPTA, 2000)

    In Europe, tariffs are converging and simplifying while differences between countries have been

    decreasing in the past two years. The markets in the various countries, with the exception of the US,

    are becoming more similar as the Netherlands, Germany and France are catching up with early

    stimulators of competition, the UK and Sweden. This is also illustrated by Figure 2-4 that clearly

    indicates that tariff levels are converging.

    0,0

    50,0

    100,0

    150,0

    200,0

    250,0

    300,0

    350,0

    400,0

    450,0

    1996 1998 3.Q. 1999 4.Q.

    Netherlands

    Germany

    France

    UK

    Sweden

    Figure 2-4: Price development (OPTA, 2000)

    Pricing appears to be an increasingly competitive area, driven by the incumbent operators

    desperately trying to stay ahead of the new and aggressive competitors, with new schemes and

    innovative bundles of services being announced almost daily. In parallel, the traditional divisions

    between peak and off-peak and between business and consumer usage patterns are being erodedby the Internet, by mobiles, and by bundling a certain level of time for voice calls as part of the

  • 8/13/2019 01_benchmark - US and Netherlands

    34/174

    Final

    Telecommunications infrastructure and services in The Netherlands

    Benchmark study

    26

    monthly service charges. The result of the move to simplified and bundled pricing is that there

    is a loss of transparency for the user (i.e. the user cannot compare different carriers so

    easily!).

    Incorporating low-end Value Added Voice Services (VAVS) into the basic package is a tactic now

    adopted by France Telecom, which has just announced a restructuring of its residential subscription

    offering. This has been raised by 0,61/month but now includes last number redial, call waiting,

    three-way calling, voice mail, call barring and bill verification. The operator is clearly not expecting to

    generate direct revenues from its VAVS bundle, but is taking pre-emptive steps to secure its

    subscriber base before local loop unbundling starts to impact on the residential market.

    France Telecom and other incumbents are aware that once competitive local operators are able to

    access their customers directly there will follow a sharp fall in prices for access and call charges.

    Offering free value-added services will likely become an increasingly common tactic and the

    disappearance of charges for basic VAVS seems inevitable. While their main competition has come

    from the more expensive mobile operators, established telcos have remained in a position to charge

    users for services, which can be implemented at negligible cost. We can soon expect others to

    follow FT with the introduction of free VAS as a means of winning and retaining customers.

    There remains room for substantial growth in non-basic value-added voice services, although it is

    not certain how readily consumers will respond to these higher priced, more advanced offerings.

    Options such as call forwarding and personal numbering services are more likely to appeal to the

    business market, which tends to be more responsive to added functionality as well as being less

    price sensitive. However, the revenue-generating potential of these services even amongst

    professional users has yet to be proven.

    Hence, a price convergence is expected and it is recommended that this is planned for, in

    discussions with the leading operators in The Netherlands. For the operator billing is also

    increasingly becoming a dominant cost factor in itself. This in itself suggests further changes in tariff

    structures, such as more distance-independent tariffs (as now introduced in Sweden), and the

    emergence of free local calls. Local calls in US, which appear free to users since the charges are

    included in a fixed