Public Consultation on BEREC GUIDELINES ON ROAMING … · Firstly, TMN would like to express its...

Public Consultation

on

BEREC GUIDELINES ON ROAMING REGULATION (EU) No 531/2012

(THIRD ROAMING REGULATION)

Articles 4 and 5 on Separate Sale of Roaming Services

Submissions by TMN

stoilis

Typewritten Text

stoilis

Typewritten Text

stoilis

Typewritten Text

BEREC ref. N BoR PC01 (13) 11

BEREC GUIDELINES ON ROAMING REGULATION (EU) No 531/2012A


Articles 4 and 5 on Separate Sale of Roaming ServicesSubmissions by

Introduction

This document contains the Telecom) to BEREC’s questionnaireregulated retail roaming services and the implementation of separate sale of regulated retroaming services, under article

Firstly, TMN would like to express its appreciation forelaboration of these guidelinessubject -, and its openness to seek from stakeholders their thoughts on the matter. Nevertheless, we consider this issurrounds the introduction of structural measures in the third version of the Roaming Regulation (RRIII), in particular in what concerns the obligation to decouple roaming services.

Despite the intentions underlying the imposition of such obligation, namely assuring competition and enhancing customer welfare, our experience of the process makes us question whether the necessary assessment on technical feasibility and operational and financial requirements was comprehensive enough to conclude that this is the right path tsuch goals.

The fact we face today is that the date for the commercial launch of decoupling, 1 July 2014, was settled in RRIII, and is known since 30 June 2012, but the ambiguity surrounding the matter makes it impossible for operators to take the necessimplementation. Both the EC and BEREC recognized this fact, and the industry was informed it would be provided with specific guidance on how to proceed in face of the large investments necessary to implement the solutions foreseereliable demand estimates exist).

One year later, operators still struggle to figure out how to move on, equipped only with the Implementing Regulation from the UE (No 1203/2012, of 14 December 2012), which seems insufficient to inform the urgent decisions that are required. The present consultation is illustrative of the need for clarification and guidance and is a move in the right directionone essential question is its allow a deeper discussion of the difficulties

Despite all the difficulties, TMN is of RRIII. Notwithstanding, TMN appreciates the the implementation of Articles 4 & 5.

As a final introductory note, TMN must related initiatives, both from the European Parliament and the European Commission.

The Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) committee discussed on May 29entitled “A roaming-free Europe in 2015” where it calls for concrete measures to be

Public Consultation on BEREC GUIDELINES ON ROAMING REGULATION (EU) No 531/2012

Articles 4 and 5 on Separate Sale of Roaming Services Submissions by TMN

Public Consultation on

BEREC GUIDELINES ON ROAMING REGULATION (EU) No 531/2012(THIRD ROAMING REGULATION)

Articles 4 and 5 on Separate Sale of Roaming Services Submissions by TMN – Telecomunicações Móveis Nacionais, S.A.

This document contains the answers and comments of TMN (a subsidiary of uestionnaire relating to the guidelines on the separate sale of

regulated retail roaming services and the implementation of separate sale of regulated retarticles 4 & 5 of the Roaming Regulation (decoupling)

would like to express its appreciation for both the effort of BEREC on the elaboration of these guidelines - given the serious and urgent need for clarification on the

, and its openness to seek from stakeholders their thoughts on the matter. this is not enough to offset the environment of uncertainty

introduction of structural measures in the third version of the Roaming Regulation (RRIII), in particular in what concerns the obligation to decouple roaming services.

Despite the intentions underlying the imposition of such obligation, namely assuring petition and enhancing customer welfare, our experience of the process makes us

question whether the necessary assessment on technical feasibility and operational and financial requirements was comprehensive enough to conclude that this is the right path t

The fact we face today is that the date for the commercial launch of decoupling, 1 July 2014, was settled in RRIII, and is known since 30 June 2012, but the ambiguity surrounding the matter makes it impossible for operators to take the necessary actions for its timely implementation. Both the EC and BEREC recognized this fact, and the industry was informed it would be provided with specific guidance on how to proceed in face of the large investments necessary to implement the solutions foreseen in RRIII (and for which not even reliable demand estimates exist).

One year later, operators still struggle to figure out how to move on, equipped only with the Implementing Regulation from the UE (No 1203/2012, of 14 December 2012), which seems

cient to inform the urgent decisions that are required. The present consultation is illustrative of the need for clarification and guidance and is a move in the right direction

its timing, as it should have had already taken placeallow a deeper discussion of the difficulties on practical aspects faced by operators.

Despite all the difficulties, TMN is endeavouring its best efforts to comply with the demands . Notwithstanding, TMN appreciates the opportunity to express its views concerning

the implementation of Articles 4 & 5.

As a final introductory note, TMN must reference two recent and preoccupying roaming , both from the European Parliament and the European Commission.

e Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) committee discussed on May 29 free Europe in 2015” where it calls for concrete measures to be

2/13


Telecomunicações Móveis Nacionais, S.A.

a subsidiary of Portugal the guidelines on the separate sale of

regulated retail roaming services and the implementation of separate sale of regulated retail (decoupling).

of BEREC on the given the serious and urgent need for clarification on the

, and its openness to seek from stakeholders their thoughts on the matter. of uncertainty that

introduction of structural measures in the third version of the Roaming Regulation (RRIII), in particular in what concerns the obligation to decouple roaming services.

Despite the intentions underlying the imposition of such obligation, namely assuring petition and enhancing customer welfare, our experience of the process makes us

question whether the necessary assessment on technical feasibility and operational and financial requirements was comprehensive enough to conclude that this is the right path to

The fact we face today is that the date for the commercial launch of decoupling, 1 July 2014, was settled in RRIII, and is known since 30 June 2012, but the ambiguity surrounding the

ary actions for its timely implementation. Both the EC and BEREC recognized this fact, and the industry was informed it would be provided with specific guidance on how to proceed in face of the large

n in RRIII (and for which not even

One year later, operators still struggle to figure out how to move on, equipped only with the Implementing Regulation from the UE (No 1203/2012, of 14 December 2012), which seems

cient to inform the urgent decisions that are required. The present consultation is illustrative of the need for clarification and guidance and is a move in the right direction, but

place, in order to on practical aspects faced by operators.

its best efforts to comply with the demands opportunity to express its views concerning

two recent and preoccupying roaming , both from the European Parliament and the European Commission.

a draft resolution free Europe in 2015” where it calls for concrete measures to be


presented by the EC and approved before the end of the current parliamentary term (2014), in order to abolish international mobile roaming tariffs by 2015.

On the following day (30 May) the EC Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) Committee, in which Ms. Kroesstated her wish to end mobile roaming costs in Europe and expressed the belief that it would be possible to do so with a legislative package deliverable

TMN has a very negative view of both these initiatives as they are dregulatory certainty that the sector (and the EU as whole) needs to fuel investments.

It should be recalled that the current Roaming perspective. It expires on 30 June 2022 and a revision is scheduled for June 2016. On that date, an assessment is to be made on whether the structural measures to be implemented in 2014 were successful or not, and if any corrective action is needed. Operators are presentlworking – by which we mean, allocating significant investments and resources framework. If Ms. Kroes and ITRE intentions are to succeed, that the European regulatory credibility, with severe prospects.

In this scenario, spending hundreds of thousands (even millions) of Euros to put in place the necessary technical solutions, in particular Single IMSI, is questionable and seems illogical. Such investments should be postpdirections can be pointed on the future of roaming services. The resource on LBO alone would address one of the main issues surrounding roaming data services -, and is relatively easy to put into operation.

TMN hopes these contributions may help BEREC refine its guidelines concerning the decoupling of roaming services. In face of the recent initiatives referred above, TMN also expects BEREC to act, within its powers of an adregulatory certainty regarding the roaming regulation.



presented by the EC and approved before the end of the current parliamentary term (2014), in order to abolish international mobile roaming tariffs by 2015.

May) the EC Vice-President, Neelie Kroes, made a speech Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) Committee, in which Ms. Kroesstated her wish to end mobile roaming costs in Europe and expressed the belief that it would be possible to do so with a legislative package deliverable “around Easter 2014.”

TMN has a very negative view of both these initiatives as they are detrimental to the regulatory certainty that the sector (and the EU as whole) needs to fuel investments.

It should be recalled that the current Roaming Regulation has a long-termexpires on 30 June 2022 and a revision is scheduled for June 2016. On that

date, an assessment is to be made on whether the structural measures to be implemented in 2014 were successful or not, and if any corrective action is needed. Operators are presentl

by which we mean, allocating significant investments and resources framework. If Ms. Kroes and ITRE intentions are to succeed, that shall represent a fatal blow in the European regulatory credibility, with severe long-term consequences in the investments

In this scenario, spending hundreds of thousands (even millions) of Euros to put in place the necessary technical solutions, in particular Single IMSI, is questionable and seems illogical. Such investments should be postponed until a final intention is settled and concrete directions can be pointed on the future of roaming services. The resource on LBO alone would address one of the main issues surrounding roaming - the supposedly high price of

tively easy to put into operation.

TMN hopes these contributions may help BEREC refine its guidelines concerning the decoupling of roaming services. In face of the recent initiatives referred above, TMN also expects BEREC to act, within its powers of an advisory body, and help to restore the regulatory certainty regarding the roaming regulation.

3/13

presented by the EC and approved before the end of the current parliamentary term (April

made a speech to the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) Committee, in which Ms. Kroes vigorously stated her wish to end mobile roaming costs in Europe and expressed the belief that it would

“around Easter 2014.”

etrimental to the regulatory certainty that the sector (and the EU as whole) needs to fuel investments.

term design and expires on 30 June 2022 and a revision is scheduled for June 2016. On that

date, an assessment is to be made on whether the structural measures to be implemented in 2014 were successful or not, and if any corrective action is needed. Operators are presently

by which we mean, allocating significant investments and resources - under this represent a fatal blow in nces in the investments

In this scenario, spending hundreds of thousands (even millions) of Euros to put in place the necessary technical solutions, in particular Single IMSI, is questionable and seems illogical.

oned until a final intention is settled and concrete directions can be pointed on the future of roaming services. The resource on LBO alone

the supposedly high price of

TMN hopes these contributions may help BEREC refine its guidelines concerning the decoupling of roaming services. In face of the recent initiatives referred above, TMN also

visory body, and help to restore the


BEREC GUIDELINES ON THE SEPARATE SALE OF REGULATED RETAIL ROAMING SERVICES AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SEPARATE SALE OF REGULATED RETAIL ROAMING SERVICES UNDER AR

GENERAL QUESTIONS

Time for implementation of the decoupling method (Guideline 1)

Q1: Do you consider that a period of 4 months is sufficient for MNOs as well as for ARPs to prepare the functionalities for decoupling in order to allow ARPs to provide retail roaming services on 1st of July 2014? If your answer is no, please specify what perjustification why the period should be longer.

According to Article 4 of the Roaming Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 531/2012, or RRIII), domestic providers shall enable their customers to access regulated roaming servicprovided by any alternative roaming provider, on 1st of July 2014. In that view, TMN is endeavouring its best efforts and concentrating its work to comply with such a demand.

Nevertheless, we are facing serious constraints in this implementation, given stake:

• No final specifications or detailed requirements are in place yet regarding the implementation of decoupling, in order to assist in the deployment of a definitive technical solution;

• The large investments necessary and the subsequent required platforms and software call for a well informed and careful analysis, which make the decision process abnormally time consuming;

• All this is aggravated by the lack of any projection concerning the demand for the service, which makes it virtually impossible to construct a solid business case.

Given all this, TMN takes this opportunity to express its concerns regarding this process.

TMN considers that MNOs should only have the obligation to make the necessary investments regarding decoupling after receiving a firm order from an ARP, and sharing the risk between the two of them (via a reasonable compensation payable to the MNO in case of lack of demand), instead of forcing the implementationguarantees and basically as “sunk cost”.

In any case, we estimate that the period of 4 months proposed in Guideline 1 may not be enough, taking into account that the acquisition of a new platform implies launching of an RFQ procedure with all that it requianalyzing responses, negotiating and selecting a supplier), integrating the selected solution within DSP network and deploying it with one or more requesting ARP.

Since this will be also the first deplwill take considerably longer since there will probably be several problems related to protocol interpretations between all parties involved.



BEREC GUIDELINES ON THE SEPARATE SALE OF REGULATED RETAIL ROAMING SERVICES AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SEPARATE SALE OF REGULATED RETAIL ROAMING SERVICES UNDER ARTICLE 4 & 5 OF THE ROAMING REGULATION

CONSULTATION

implementation of the decoupling method (Guideline 1)

Do you consider that a period of 4 months is sufficient for MNOs as well as for ARPs to prepare the functionalities for decoupling in order to allow ARPs to provide retail roaming services on 1st of July 2014? If your answer is no, please specify what period should be sufficient and provide justification why the period should be longer.

According to Article 4 of the Roaming Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 531/2012, or RRIII), domestic providers shall enable their customers to access regulated roaming servicprovided by any alternative roaming provider, on 1st of July 2014. In that view, TMN is endeavouring its best efforts and concentrating its work to comply with such a demand.

Nevertheless, we are facing serious constraints in this implementation, given

No final specifications or detailed requirements are in place yet regarding the implementation of decoupling, in order to assist in the deployment of a definitive

The large investments necessary and the subsequent maintenance costs related to required platforms and software call for a well informed and careful analysis, which make the decision process abnormally time consuming;

All this is aggravated by the lack of any projection concerning the demand for the ce, which makes it virtually impossible to construct a solid business case.


TMN considers that MNOs should only have the obligation to make the necessary regarding decoupling after receiving a firm order from an ARP, and sharing the

risk between the two of them (via a reasonable compensation payable to the MNO in case of lack of demand), instead of forcing the implementation by 1st of July 2014, with no guarantees and basically as “sunk cost”.

In any case, we estimate that the period of 4 months proposed in Guideline 1 may not be enough, taking into account that the acquisition of a new platform implies launching of an RFQ procedure with all that it requires (elaborating a RFQ, making it known to the market, analyzing responses, negotiating and selecting a supplier), integrating the selected solution within DSP network and deploying it with one or more requesting ARP.

Since this will be also the first deployment, debugging all interface issues and solving them will take considerably longer since there will probably be several problems related to protocol interpretations between all parties involved.

4/13

BEREC GUIDELINES ON THE SEPARATE SALE OF REGULATED RETAIL ROAMING SERVICES AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SEPARATE SALE OF REGULATED RETAIL

TICLE 4 & 5 OF THE ROAMING REGULATION – A

Do you consider that a period of 4 months is sufficient for MNOs as well as for ARPs to prepare the functionalities for decoupling in order to allow ARPs to provide retail roaming services on 1st

iod should be sufficient and provide

According to Article 4 of the Roaming Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 531/2012, or RRIII), domestic providers shall enable their customers to access regulated roaming services provided by any alternative roaming provider, on 1st of July 2014. In that view, TMN is endeavouring its best efforts and concentrating its work to comply with such a demand.

Nevertheless, we are facing serious constraints in this implementation, given all that is at

No final specifications or detailed requirements are in place yet regarding the implementation of decoupling, in order to assist in the deployment of a definitive

maintenance costs related to required platforms and software call for a well informed and careful analysis, which

All this is aggravated by the lack of any projection concerning the demand for the ce, which makes it virtually impossible to construct a solid business case.


TMN considers that MNOs should only have the obligation to make the necessary regarding decoupling after receiving a firm order from an ARP, and sharing the

risk between the two of them (via a reasonable compensation payable to the MNO in case of of July 2014, with no

In any case, we estimate that the period of 4 months proposed in Guideline 1 may not be enough, taking into account that the acquisition of a new platform implies launching of an

res (elaborating a RFQ, making it known to the market, analyzing responses, negotiating and selecting a supplier), integrating the selected solution

oyment, debugging all interface issues and solving them will take considerably longer since there will probably be several problems related to


For the reasons above mentioned, TMN considers that a perappropriate than the 4 months proposed by BEREC.

Standardization and documentation (Guideline 3)

Q2: Is there any additional provision to be considered regarding the use of standards, reference documents and access to documentation by access seekers?

No.

Authorization regime (Guideline 4)

Q3: Do you have any concerning the authorization regime for the ARP?

No, given that ARP’s are subject to general authorization rules for provision of ECS.

Fraud management and M2M services (Guidelines 7,8)

Q4: Is there any additional issue that should be considered in the BEREC guidelines for interception and data retention, fraud management and M2M services?

It is our firm belief that decoupling should not apply to M2M services. These services rely on specific applications, usually supported in proprietary managed connectivity platforms, which are contracted by customers as a global service, thus rendering the use of decoupling disproportionate.

In what concerns the authorisation mechanisms applied to Single Iconsiders that it may resort, for example, to a code based authorisation sent by the DSP to a subscriber, a check based on personal attributes of the subscriber or even adcommunication between DSP and a subscriber. The subscriber hathe DSP so that the DSP can check that it is genuine and the subscriber is eligible for service. In order to better perform these procedures, the subscriber has to be a natural person, and not a machine.

It is our understanding that fraud management is the responsibility of the ARP, in the case of decoupled roaming services. For that purpose the ARP shall use all relevant information provided by the DSP and, in case of suspected fraudulent usage, the ARP shall restrict the usage of regulated roaming services via online interfaces or bar regulated roaming services for the subscriber with other means. Nevertheless, the DSP may Management Procedures in place and mightsubscribers if they fulfil DSP’s fraud prevention criteria. In that case, although the DSP acted upon the subscriber, fraud pertaining to decoupled roaming services is still the responsibility of the ARP.

Guidelines 7 and 8 do not specifically address the mattersWe would like BEREC to clarify how it envisages this issue under the RRIII and how the



For the reasons above mentioned, TMN considers that a period of 6 months is more appropriate than the 4 months proposed by BEREC.

Standardization and documentation (Guideline 3)

Is there any additional provision to be considered regarding the use of standards, reference documents and access to documentation by access seekers?

Authorization regime (Guideline 4)

Do you have any concerning the authorization regime for the ARP?


Fraud management and M2M services (Guidelines 7,8)

Is there any additional issue that should be considered in the BEREC guidelines for interception and data retention, fraud management and M2M services?

that decoupling should not apply to M2M services. These services rely on c applications, usually supported in proprietary managed connectivity platforms,

which are contracted by customers as a global service, thus rendering the use of decoupling

In what concerns the authorisation mechanisms applied to Single IMSI processes, TMN considers that it may resort, for example, to a code based authorisation sent by the DSP to a subscriber, a check based on personal attributes of the subscriber or even adcommunication between DSP and a subscriber. The subscriber has to answer a request from the DSP so that the DSP can check that it is genuine and the subscriber is eligible for service. In order to better perform these procedures, the subscriber has to be a natural person, and

hat fraud management is the responsibility of the ARP, in the case of decoupled roaming services. For that purpose the ARP shall use all relevant information provided by the DSP and, in case of suspected fraudulent usage, the ARP shall restrict the

f regulated roaming services via online interfaces or bar regulated roaming services for the subscriber with other means. Nevertheless, the DSP may put its current Fraud Management Procedures in place and might suspend roaming services of the ARP

bers if they fulfil DSP’s fraud prevention criteria. In that case, although the DSP acted upon the subscriber, fraud pertaining to decoupled roaming services is still the responsibility

Guidelines 7 and 8 do not specifically address the matters of interception and data retention. We would like BEREC to clarify how it envisages this issue under the RRIII and how the

5/13

iod of 6 months is more

Is there any additional provision to be considered regarding the use of standards, reference


Is there any additional issue that should be considered in the BEREC guidelines for

that decoupling should not apply to M2M services. These services rely on c applications, usually supported in proprietary managed connectivity platforms,

which are contracted by customers as a global service, thus rendering the use of decoupling

MSI processes, TMN considers that it may resort, for example, to a code based authorisation sent by the DSP to a subscriber, a check based on personal attributes of the subscriber or even ad-hoc

s to answer a request from the DSP so that the DSP can check that it is genuine and the subscriber is eligible for service. In order to better perform these procedures, the subscriber has to be a natural person, and

hat fraud management is the responsibility of the ARP, in the case of decoupled roaming services. For that purpose the ARP shall use all relevant information provided by the DSP and, in case of suspected fraudulent usage, the ARP shall restrict the

f regulated roaming services via online interfaces or bar regulated roaming services its current Fraud

roaming services of the ARP bers if they fulfil DSP’s fraud prevention criteria. In that case, although the DSP acted

upon the subscriber, fraud pertaining to decoupled roaming services is still the responsibility

of interception and data retention. We would like BEREC to clarify how it envisages this issue under the RRIII and how the


Guidelines apply or should apply to such subject matters, in particular when an ARP is not an MNO.

QUESTIONS ON LOCAL DATA ROAMING

Customers’ right to return to the default roaming mode (Guideline 9)

Q5: Do you consider that the fallback from ARP providing local data roaming services to the previous roaming provider needs more clarification? Is there any additional issue thatshould take into account in the guidelines regarding the switching process from local data roaming services to traditional roaming and the rights of the customers when using local data roaming services?

It should be made clear that the responsibilitmode relies on the ARP, regardless of any additional measure put in place by the DSP. Some sort of control mechanism should be in place in order to monitor and guarantee that the ARP sends the required notifications to the DSP when the client connects and disconnects data roaming services provided on LBO.

In this regard, it is worth noting that Recital (32) of the RRIII sets out that customers should be able to easily switch roaming providers and that under asolution to be implemented should allow consumers to easily and quickly switch. In addition, in general terms, under Directive 2009/136/CE, customers should be able to switch providers without legal, technical or practicmentioned provisions justify imposing to the ARP the responsibility for adopting all necessary measures to ensure a swift return of the customer to the DSP, and within the shortest period technically feasible, in order to prevent the customer from being unnecessarily deprived of the DSPs roaming services.

TMN is also of the opinion that in its guidelines BEREC pertaining to consumer switching within the use of roundue activation or deactivation of an ARP’s service. In fact,of some Member-States that there might exist some situations of abuse whenever customer switch is at stake, BEREC should adthe context of roaming services.

In this regard, a mechanism be implemented in what concerns porting by them or on their behalf. with ARPs, proportionate and adequatewell as to the DSP, due to possible loss of revenue)customer was unduly, or unwillingly, switched to an ARP.

Without prejudice to the possibility of compensations, we believe that is also important, whenever possible – i.e., whenever there is a validly established agreement beand the ARP -, that the DSP has some form request that does not stem from a valid consent of the customer to use the ARPs service. A possible form to exercise said control would be to impose the the DSP copies of either the contracts or specific forms signed by customers, which allows the DSP to confirm that a valid consent to switch to ARP’s services was issued by the customer.



Guidelines apply or should apply to such subject matters, in particular when an ARP is not an

QUESTIONS ON LOCAL DATA ROAMING SERVICES

Customers’ right to return to the default roaming mode (Guideline 9)

Do you consider that the fallback from ARP providing local data roaming services to the previous roaming provider needs more clarification? Is there any additional issue thatshould take into account in the guidelines regarding the switching process from local data roaming services to traditional roaming and the rights of the customers when using local data

It should be made clear that the responsibility to return the customer to the default roaming mode relies on the ARP, regardless of any additional measure put in place by the DSP. Some sort of control mechanism should be in place in order to monitor and guarantee that the ARP

cations to the DSP when the client connects and disconnects data roaming services provided on LBO.

In this regard, it is worth noting that Recital (32) of the RRIII sets out that customers should be able to easily switch roaming providers and that under article 5, paragraph 3 the technical solution to be implemented should allow consumers to easily and quickly switch. In addition, in general terms, under Directive 2009/136/CE, customers should be able to switch providers without legal, technical or practical constraints. Hence, it is TMN’s opinion that the above mentioned provisions justify imposing to the ARP the responsibility for adopting all necessary measures to ensure a swift return of the customer to the DSP, and within the

y feasible, in order to prevent the customer from being unnecessarily deprived of the DSPs roaming services.

TMN is also of the opinion that in its guidelines BEREC should address another relevant issue pertaining to consumer switching within the use of roaming services: compensations for undue activation or deactivation of an ARP’s service. In fact, recalling that it is the experience

States that there might exist some situations of abuse whenever customer switch is at stake, BEREC should adopt a guideline useful in order to prevent said abuses in the context of roaming services.

similar to the one stemming from Directive 2009/136/CEin what concerns compensations on behalf of user in case of abuse of or on their behalf. Hence, a DSP should be able to establish,

, proportionate and adequate sanctions to be paid by the ARP tothe DSP, due to possible loss of revenue) whenever there is evidence that a

customer was unduly, or unwillingly, switched to an ARP.

Without prejudice to the possibility of compensations, we believe that is also important, i.e., whenever there is a validly established agreement be

, that the DSP has some form to control whether the ARP is request that does not stem from a valid consent of the customer to use the ARPs service. A possible form to exercise said control would be to impose the ARP the obligation to send to the DSP copies of either the contracts or specific forms signed by customers, which allows the DSP to confirm that a valid consent to switch to ARP’s services was issued by the

6/13

Guidelines apply or should apply to such subject matters, in particular when an ARP is not an

Do you consider that the fallback from ARP providing local data roaming services to the previous roaming provider needs more clarification? Is there any additional issue that BEREC should take into account in the guidelines regarding the switching process from local data roaming services to traditional roaming and the rights of the customers when using local data

y to return the customer to the default roaming mode relies on the ARP, regardless of any additional measure put in place by the DSP. Some sort of control mechanism should be in place in order to monitor and guarantee that the ARP

cations to the DSP when the client connects and disconnects data

In this regard, it is worth noting that Recital (32) of the RRIII sets out that customers should rticle 5, paragraph 3 the technical

solution to be implemented should allow consumers to easily and quickly switch. In addition, in general terms, under Directive 2009/136/CE, customers should be able to switch providers

s opinion that the above mentioned provisions justify imposing to the ARP the responsibility for adopting all necessary measures to ensure a swift return of the customer to the DSP, and within the

y feasible, in order to prevent the customer from being

should address another relevant issue aming services: compensations for recalling that it is the experience

States that there might exist some situations of abuse whenever customer opt a guideline useful in order to prevent said abuses in

Directive 2009/136/CE could in case of abuse of

establish, in agreements to be paid by the ARP to customers (as

never there is evidence that a

Without prejudice to the possibility of compensations, we believe that is also important, i.e., whenever there is a validly established agreement between the DSP

the ARP is submitting a request that does not stem from a valid consent of the customer to use the ARPs service. A

ARP the obligation to send to the DSP copies of either the contracts or specific forms signed by customers, which allows the DSP to confirm that a valid consent to switch to ARP’s services was issued by the


Provision of local data roaming service

Q6: Do you consider that there is any provision in the regulation supporting obligations for MNOs to provide wholesale services to other stakeholders for allowing them to provide local data roaming services? If so, please provide your justification based on the regulation.

We find no such evidence.

Local data roaming services outside the EEA and use of universal Accenon-EEA roamers (Guidelines 11, 12)

Q7: Do you consider that the guidelines should data roaming services outside the EEA or by non EEA customers? (Please, consider in your response that the roaming regulation does not apply to non EEA operators)

No.

Universal APN in HLR (Guideline 14)

Q8: Do you consider that there is a technical constraint pointing a different model for allowing by default the use of the Universal APN? If so, please explain.

No.

Barring and blocking ARPs providing local data roaming services (Guideline 15)

Q9: Do you consider that the BEREC guidelines should consider any additional exception for barring and/or blocking? If so, please explain and justify the compliance of the proposal with the regulation.

TMN considers that in addition to the reasons pointable to bar and/or block ARP services in any situation where an ARP does not comply with the contracted terms and conditions, as well as in case of suspicion of fraudulent activities.

Furthermore, BEREC should clarify that in situatioare suspended and the mobile service is, therefore, suspended or deactivated, the MNO shall bar ARPs from providing services to said customers, until the MNOs mobile service is fully reactivated.

Pursuant to our suggestion in respect of proof of the customers’ consent to switch providers made in our reply to Q5. above, TMN is of the view that whenever an ARP does not succeed in making proof of said consent, the DSP should bar ARP services.

Traffic steering (Guideline 16)



Provision of local data roaming services by third operators (Guideline 10)

Do you consider that there is any provision in the regulation supporting obligations for MNOs to provide wholesale services to other stakeholders for allowing them to provide local data

please provide your justification based on the regulation.

Local data roaming services outside the EEA and use of universal AccesEEA roamers (Guidelines 11, 12)

Do you consider that the guidelines should address any additional issues about using local data roaming services outside the EEA or by non EEA customers? (Please, consider in your response that the roaming regulation does not apply to non EEA operators)

Universal APN in HLR (Guideline 14)

Do you consider that there is a technical constraint pointing a different model for allowing by default the use of the Universal APN? If so, please explain.


consider that the BEREC guidelines should consider any additional exception for barring and/or blocking? If so, please explain and justify the compliance of the proposal with the

TMN considers that in addition to the reasons pointed out in Guideline 15 MNOs should be able to bar and/or block ARP services in any situation where an ARP does not comply with the contracted terms and conditions, as well as in case of suspicion of fraudulent activities.

Furthermore, BEREC should clarify that in situations where customers’ contractare suspended and the mobile service is, therefore, suspended or deactivated, the MNO shall bar ARPs from providing services to said customers, until the MNOs mobile service is fully

uggestion in respect of proof of the customers’ consent to switch providers made in our reply to Q5. above, TMN is of the view that whenever an ARP does not succeed in making proof of said consent, the DSP should bar ARP services.

ine 16)

7/13

s by third operators (Guideline 10)

Do you consider that there is any provision in the regulation supporting obligations for MNOs to provide wholesale services to other stakeholders for allowing them to provide local data

please provide your justification based on the regulation.

ss Point Name by

address any additional issues about using local data roaming services outside the EEA or by non EEA customers? (Please, consider in your

Do you consider that there is a technical constraint pointing a different model for allowing by


consider that the BEREC guidelines should consider any additional exception for barring and/or blocking? If so, please explain and justify the compliance of the proposal with the

ine 15 MNOs should be able to bar and/or block ARP services in any situation where an ARP does not comply with the contracted terms and conditions, as well as in case of suspicion of fraudulent activities.

ns where customers’ contracts with the DSP are suspended and the mobile service is, therefore, suspended or deactivated, the MNO shall bar ARPs from providing services to said customers, until the MNOs mobile service is fully

uggestion in respect of proof of the customers’ consent to switch providers made in our reply to Q5. above, TMN is of the view that whenever an ARP does not succeed


Q10: Should BEREC consider any other issue about traffic steering? Please describe and justify the need according to the regulation.

TMN considers that traffic steering should be allowed in what refers to M2M traffic, in case it is considered that this type of traffic is eligible for decoupling.

Manual selection of networks and automatic reconfiguration of the terminal (Guidelines 17, 18)

Q11: Is there any additional issue or obligation to be considered in the guidelines about manual selection of networks in the terminal and about rights for donor roaming providers to perform automatic restoration?

We agree that the DSP shall have the rightnot be confused with the obligation of the LBO provider to assure the the default roaming mode, when the c

Additionally, we consider that DSPs should be allowed to reconfigure the customer’s handset upon any of the exceptions identified in Guideline 15.

Restoration of APNs by local data access providers (Guideline 21)

Q12: Do you consider that ARPs providing local data roaming services are to take any other responsibilities regarding the restoration of APNs? If so, please provide justification based on thregulation.

No.

Local data access notification to donor roaming providers (Guideline 23)

Q13: Do you consider that it is necessary to use a real time interface between ARPs providing local data roaming services and donor roaming providers for switching barring?

Yes, we consider that it is necessary to use a real time interface.

QUESTIONS ON SINGLE IMSI

Termination of Single-IMSI roaming (Guideline 25)

Q14: Do you agree with the fallback model stated in the guideline? Are there issues BEREC should take into account with regard to the process described in the Guideline?



Should BEREC consider any other issue about traffic steering? Please describe and justify the need according to the regulation.

TMN considers that traffic steering should be allowed in what refers to M2M traffic, in case it this type of traffic is eligible for decoupling.

Manual selection of networks and automatic reconfiguration of the terminal

Is there any additional issue or obligation to be considered in the guidelines about manual etworks in the terminal and about rights for donor roaming providers to perform

shall have the right to perform automatic restoration, but it should not be confused with the obligation of the LBO provider to assure the automatic return to the default roaming mode, when the customer ceases using LBO (Guideline 9).

Additionally, we consider that DSPs should be allowed to reconfigure the customer’s handset upon any of the exceptions identified in Guideline 15.

Restoration of APNs by local data access providers (Guideline 21)

Do you consider that ARPs providing local data roaming services are to take any other responsibilities regarding the restoration of APNs? If so, please provide justification based on th


Do you consider that it is necessary to use a real time interface between ARPs providing local data roaming services and donor roaming providers for switching off steering and selected

Yes, we consider that it is necessary to use a real time interface.

QUESTIONS ON SINGLE IMSI

IMSI roaming (Guideline 25)

Do you agree with the fallback model stated in the guideline? Are there issues BEREC should take into account with regard to the process described in the Guideline?

8/13

Should BEREC consider any other issue about traffic steering? Please describe and justify the

TMN considers that traffic steering should be allowed in what refers to M2M traffic, in case it

Manual selection of networks and automatic reconfiguration of the terminal

Is there any additional issue or obligation to be considered in the guidelines about manual etworks in the terminal and about rights for donor roaming providers to perform

to perform automatic restoration, but it should automatic return to

mer ceases using LBO (Guideline 9).

Additionally, we consider that DSPs should be allowed to reconfigure the customer’s

Do you consider that ARPs providing local data roaming services are to take any other responsibilities regarding the restoration of APNs? If so, please provide justification based on the


Do you consider that it is necessary to use a real time interface between ARPs providing off steering and selected

Do you agree with the fallback model stated in the guideline? Are there any additional issues BEREC should take into account with regard to the process described in the Guideline?


Some issues may be raised on this matter. As an example, please assume a subscriber establishes a roaming agreement for roaming services with ARP1 faccording to following figure:

Later on, the same subscriber establishes an agreement with ARP2 for [T2, T3[ interval.

At T2, during normal ARP2 service activation process, DSP will send a DeprovisionCompletion message to ARP1.

At T3, DSP will receive an Unsubscription Request message from ARP2.

What we consider is not clear enough in the recommendations is whether ARP1 subscription will reactivate implicitly in DSP at T3 just because of ARP2 subscrip

Thus:

1. At T3 will ARP1 subscription become reactivated in DSP without DSP requiring any interaction with the subscriber?

Please note that in the meanwhile subscriber may have terminated the roaming agreement with ARP1 without DSP having no knowledge of

2. In case the recommendation is envisaging ARP1 subscription to message, if any, should DSP send to ARP1 at T3?

Reasonable requests (Guideline 27)

Q15: Is there any reason justifying a different approach for the separate sale of roaming services than for wholesale roaming access pursuant to Article 3? If so, please provide a

We cannot but once again point out that MNOs should not have to provide services to ARPs which they do not provide to their own customers (for example, if an MNO does not support an online interface for MMS event charging on roaming then it soffer that interface to an ARP).

Additionally, tighter restrictions have to apply regarding warranties of payment, as it is far more difficult to receive payments from a net payer party of a foreign country.

Refusal of requests of decoupling (Guideline 28)

Q16: Do you agree with BEREC’s general approach to refusal of requests? Do you have any specific suggestions on how the guidance in this area could be strengthened so as to deter



Some issues may be raised on this matter. As an example, please assume a subscriber establishes a roaming agreement for roaming services with ARP1 for an interval [T1, T4[, according to following figure:


At T2, during normal ARP2 service activation process, DSP will send a DeprovisionCompletion message to ARP1.

At T3, DSP will receive an Unsubscription Request message from ARP2.

What we consider is not clear enough in the recommendations is whether ARP1 subscription will reactivate implicitly in DSP at T3 just because of ARP2 subscription will be

1. At T3 will ARP1 subscription become reactivated in DSP without DSP requiring any interaction with the subscriber?

Please note that in the meanwhile subscriber may have terminated the roaming agreement with ARP1 without DSP having no knowledge of that fact.

2. In case the recommendation is envisaging ARP1 subscription to be reactivated at T3, what ld DSP send to ARP1 at T3?

Reasonable requests (Guideline 27)

Is there any reason justifying a different approach for the separate sale of roaming services than for wholesale roaming access pursuant to Article 3? If so, please provide a justification.

We cannot but once again point out that MNOs should not have to provide services to ARPs which they do not provide to their own customers (for example, if an MNO does not support

online interface for MMS event charging on roaming then it should nooffer that interface to an ARP).


decoupling (Guideline 28)

Do you agree with BEREC’s general approach to refusal of requests? Do you have any specific suggestions on how the guidance in this area could be strengthened so as to deter

9/13

Some issues may be raised on this matter. As an example, please assume a subscriber or an interval [T1, T4[,


At T2, during normal ARP2 service activation process, DSP will send a Deprovision

What we consider is not clear enough in the recommendations is whether ARP1 subscription will be deactivated.

1. At T3 will ARP1 subscription become reactivated in DSP without DSP requiring any

Please note that in the meanwhile subscriber may have terminated the roaming agreement

reactivated at T3, what

Is there any reason justifying a different approach for the separate sale of roaming services justification.

We cannot but once again point out that MNOs should not have to provide services to ARPs which they do not provide to their own customers (for example, if an MNO does not support

ot be obligated to


Do you agree with BEREC’s general approach to refusal of requests? Do you have any specific suggestions on how the guidance in this area could be strengthened so as to deter


refusals on spurious grounds while not objective justification?

We understand “commercial information” to be information concerning the characteristics of the retail offer the ARP intends to provide based on the domestic provider wholesale

The domestic provider should be allowed to seek other type of information on the ARP, such as financial solvency, risk of non payment, management & technical capacity, fraudulent activities, and whether ARPs have the necessary authorizations to prov

Prioritisation of requests (Guideline 29)

Q17: Do you agree with BEREC’s approach to prioritisation of requests?

We agree prioritization must be nonidentical. However, if distinct ARPs provided by the MNO, and, accordingly, different types of developments and/or implementation requirements are required, then different prioritisation rules may have to apply, when justifiable.

Timing issues for requests after 1 July 2014 (Guideline 30)

Q18: Do you consider that the time limits are reasonable? If not, please explain and justify why?

We believe that 1 month to provide a draft contract, after the ARP has provided all required information, is reasonable.

However, the time required to implement the decoupling solution depends on the requirements of the ARP and corresponding services to be provided by the MNO, and thus should be able to take up to 6 months.

Bundling of services (Guideline 31)

Q19: Do you agree with BEREC’s approach on wholesale bundled offers?

TMN does not agree with BEREC's approach. In fact, if an MNO does not provide wholesale bundled offers, it should not be obliged to develop these types of offers just to anwould imply unjustifiable system developments and costs.

MVNOs and Resellers being domestic providers (Guideline 32)

Q20: Do you agree with the obligation for domestic providers and host operators stated in the guidelines? If not, please explain.



refusals on spurious grounds while not constraining the right of ARPs on the basis of careful

We understand “commercial information” to be information concerning the characteristics of the retail offer the ARP intends to provide based on the domestic provider wholesale

The domestic provider should be allowed to seek other type of information on the ARP, such as financial solvency, risk of non payment, management & technical capacity, fraudulent activities, and whether ARPs have the necessary authorizations to provide the services.

Prioritisation of requests (Guideline 29)

Do you agree with BEREC’s approach to prioritisation of requests?

We agree prioritization must be non-discriminatory, provided the ARPs requirements are identical. However, if distinct ARPs have different requirements regarding the services to be provided by the MNO, and, accordingly, different types of developments and/or implementation requirements are required, then different prioritisation rules may have to

Timing issues for requests after 1 July 2014 (Guideline 30)

Do you consider that the time limits are reasonable? If not, please explain and justify why?

We believe that 1 month to provide a draft contract, after the ARP has provided all required

However, the time required to implement the decoupling solution depends on the requirements of the ARP and corresponding services to be provided by the MNO, and thus should be able to take up to 6 months.

(Guideline 31)

Do you agree with BEREC’s approach on wholesale bundled offers?

TMN does not agree with BEREC's approach. In fact, if an MNO does not provide wholesale bundled offers, it should not be obliged to develop these types of offers just to anwould imply unjustifiable system developments and costs.

MVNOs and Resellers being domestic providers (Guideline 32)

Do you agree with the obligation for domestic providers and host operators stated in the explain.

10/13

constraining the right of ARPs on the basis of careful

We understand “commercial information” to be information concerning the characteristics of the retail offer the ARP intends to provide based on the domestic provider wholesale offer.

The domestic provider should be allowed to seek other type of information on the ARP, such as financial solvency, risk of non payment, management & technical capacity, fraudulent

ide the services.

discriminatory, provided the ARPs requirements are have different requirements regarding the services to be

provided by the MNO, and, accordingly, different types of developments and/or implementation requirements are required, then different prioritisation rules may have to

Do you consider that the time limits are reasonable? If not, please explain and justify why?

We believe that 1 month to provide a draft contract, after the ARP has provided all required

However, the time required to implement the decoupling solution depends on the requirements of the ARP and corresponding services to be provided by the MNO, and thus

TMN does not agree with BEREC's approach. In fact, if an MNO does not provide wholesale bundled offers, it should not be obliged to develop these types of offers just to an ARP, as it

Do you agree with the obligation for domestic providers and host operators stated in the


We agree that the obligations apply to any domestic provider (“MNOs, MVNOs, resellers, or any other entities offering retail mobile services in the customer’s home country”), as long as their host operators are able to provide the required serviceshould not be obliged to provide services that they don't provide to their own customers.

Required information (Guidelines 33, 34, 35)

Q21: Do you agree with the suggested level of information required from access seekers? Iany reason why this level of information may either not be necessary, or may be inadequate?

Yes, we agree.

Customer profile (Guideline 36)

Q22: Do you agree with BEREC’s approach regarding the customer profile? If not, please provide a justification based on the regulation. If you have any proposal or comments on issues to consider in the guidelines about interfaces between ARPs and domestic providers for prepaid or postpaid services, please include this in your response.

We agree with BEREC’s apprbetween ARPs and the domestic provider is already supported within the domestic provider environment; in other words, as long the same profile level for a specific roaming service is provided to domestic provider own customers.

For example, if an MNO does not support an online interface for SMS charging on roaming then it shouldn't be obligated to offer that interface to an ARP.

Functionalities to be provided free of charge by domestic providers

Q23: Should BEREC consider additional functionalities to be provided for free? If yes, please explain?

TMN considers that all functionalities that involve costs to be incurred by the MNO should be chargeable.

Termination of incoming and out

Q24: Do you agree with BEREC’s approach for termination of incoming calls and outgoing SMS? (If not, please explain and justify)

Yes, we agree.



We agree that the obligations apply to any domestic provider (“MNOs, MVNOs, resellers, or any other entities offering retail mobile services in the customer’s home country”), as long as their host operators are able to provide the required services. However, the host operators should not be obliged to provide services that they don't provide to their own customers.

Required information (Guidelines 33, 34, 35)

Do you agree with the suggested level of information required from access seekers? Iany reason why this level of information may either not be necessary, or may be inadequate?

Customer profile (Guideline 36)

Do you agree with BEREC’s approach regarding the customer profile? If not, please provide on based on the regulation. If you have any proposal or comments on issues to

consider in the guidelines about interfaces between ARPs and domestic providers for prepaid or postpaid services, please include this in your response.

We agree with BEREC’s approach regarding the customer profile, as long between ARPs and the domestic provider is already supported within the domestic provider environment; in other words, as long the same profile level for a specific roaming service is

domestic provider own customers.

MNO does not support an online interface for SMS charging on roaming then it shouldn't be obligated to offer that interface to an ARP.

Functionalities to be provided free of charge by domestic providers (Guideline 37)

Should BEREC consider additional functionalities to be provided for free? If yes, please

TMN considers that all functionalities that involve costs to be incurred by the MNO should be

Termination of incoming and outgoing SMS (Guideline 39)

Do you agree with BEREC’s approach for termination of incoming calls and outgoing SMS? (If not, please explain and justify)

11/13

We agree that the obligations apply to any domestic provider (“MNOs, MVNOs, resellers, or any other entities offering retail mobile services in the customer’s home country”), as long as

s. However, the host operators should not be obliged to provide services that they don't provide to their own customers.

Do you agree with the suggested level of information required from access seekers? Is there any reason why this level of information may either not be necessary, or may be inadequate?

Do you agree with BEREC’s approach regarding the customer profile? If not, please provide on based on the regulation. If you have any proposal or comments on issues to

consider in the guidelines about interfaces between ARPs and domestic providers for prepaid or

long as the interface between ARPs and the domestic provider is already supported within the domestic provider environment; in other words, as long the same profile level for a specific roaming service is

MNO does not support an online interface for SMS charging on roaming

(Guideline 37)

Should BEREC consider additional functionalities to be provided for free? If yes, please

TMN considers that all functionalities that involve costs to be incurred by the MNO should be

Do you agree with BEREC’s approach for termination of incoming calls and outgoing SMS?


Extra-EEA services to customers roaming in the EEA and special rate services 41, 42)

Q25: Do you agree with BEREC’s approach on roaming outside the EEA and on special rate services? (If not, please explain and justify)

TMN does not agree with BEREC’s approach regarding roaming outside the EEA and special rate services. In fact, it is our firm beliewhen justifiable), an ARP to offer these type of calls to the MNO's customers and that such allowance and applicable conditions should be subject to totally free bilateral agr

On the other hand, it has to be taken into account that these types of calls are, with high probability, more subject to fraud and/or non payment problems, and thus require additional cost elements to be taken into account when developing their pr

It must also be stressed that wholesale caps do not apply to most of these calls, so we do not understand why BEREC states that "domestic providers are to apply the prices that shall not exceed the wholesale caps.”

Loss of service when switching do

Q26: Is there any additional issue to be considered about switching of domestic provider by customers?

No.

Fair and reasonable prices and non discrimination (Guidelines 44, 45)

Q27: Should BEREC consider additional rules separate sale of roaming services or do you consider any reason to apply different rules for decoupling functionalities than for wholesale roaming access pursuant to Article 3 of the Regulation?

Please refer to our answers to questions 15 and 25. TMN access to seekers requesting decoupling functionalities involves a higher risk of fraud and bad debt that have to be taken into account.

Further questions

Q28: Do you consider that the draft guidelines be further developed?

In this regard, TMN considers that BEREC’s document is lacking guidelines in what concerns handling customers’ complaints or requests important issue to address, since the subscriber is at a given moment using services provided by different entities under different contracts.



EEA services to customers roaming in the EEA and special rate services

Do you agree with BEREC’s approach on roaming outside the EEA and on special rate services? (If not, please explain and justify)

TMN does not agree with BEREC’s approach regarding roaming outside the EEA and special n fact, it is our firm belief that it should be up to the MNO to allow (or not,

when justifiable), an ARP to offer these type of calls to the MNO's customers and that such allowance and applicable conditions should be subject to totally free bilateral agr

On the other hand, it has to be taken into account that these types of calls are, with high probability, more subject to fraud and/or non payment problems, and thus require additional cost elements to be taken into account when developing their pr

It must also be stressed that wholesale caps do not apply to most of these calls, so we do not understand why BEREC states that "domestic providers are to apply the prices that shall not

Loss of service when switching domestic provider (Guideline 46)

Is there any additional issue to be considered about switching of domestic provider by

Fair and reasonable prices and non discrimination (Guidelines 44, 45)

Should BEREC consider additional rules beyond normal commercial practices for the separate sale of roaming services or do you consider any reason to apply different rules for decoupling functionalities than for wholesale roaming access pursuant to Article 3 of the

r answers to questions 15 and 25. TMN is of the opinionaccess to seekers requesting decoupling functionalities involves a higher risk of fraud and bad debt that have to be taken into account.

Do you consider that the Guidelines should cover additional issues or should any of the draft guidelines be further developed?

In this regard, TMN considers that BEREC’s document is lacking guidelines in what concerns handling customers’ complaints or requests for information. We believe this to be an important issue to address, since the subscriber is at a given moment using services provided by different entities under different contracts.

12/13

EEA services to customers roaming in the EEA and special rate services (Guideline

Do you agree with BEREC’s approach on roaming outside the EEA and on special rate

TMN does not agree with BEREC’s approach regarding roaming outside the EEA and special that it should be up to the MNO to allow (or not,

when justifiable), an ARP to offer these type of calls to the MNO's customers and that such allowance and applicable conditions should be subject to totally free bilateral agreements.

On the other hand, it has to be taken into account that these types of calls are, with high probability, more subject to fraud and/or non payment problems, and thus require additional cost elements to be taken into account when developing their pricing.

It must also be stressed that wholesale caps do not apply to most of these calls, so we do not understand why BEREC states that "domestic providers are to apply the prices that shall not

Is there any additional issue to be considered about switching of domestic provider by

beyond normal commercial practices for the separate sale of roaming services or do you consider any reason to apply different rules for decoupling functionalities than for wholesale roaming access pursuant to Article 3 of the

is of the opinion that granting access to seekers requesting decoupling functionalities involves a higher risk of fraud and

Guidelines should cover additional issues or should any of the

In this regard, TMN considers that BEREC’s document is lacking guidelines in what concerns e believe this to be an

important issue to address, since the subscriber is at a given moment using services provided


For example, if a subscriber is using Local Data provided via Universal APN by ARP1, regulated voice and SMS provided by ARP2, and unregulated traffic provided by DSP, should he contact directly the entity responsible for each service? Or should the subscriber have a single contact point which has the responsibility to forward correct entity?

Q29: Do you have any other comments on the draft Guidelines?

TMN has the following additional comments regarding other Guidelines which are not mentioned in the questionnaire:

Guideline 5: requests have to be made by the ARP itself.

Requests made by enablers or aggregators on behalf of ARPs should not be accepted, given that all obligations and responsibilities must be accurately defined, which requires a direct interaction between the parties.

It should also be stressed that, accordisupport an obligation for ARPs providing local data roaming services to offer any other stakeholder decoupling functionalities for using local data roaming services (as for example, resellers or MVNOs offering local data roaming services supported by the visited network)”.

Guideline 20: according to this guideline continue providing all the roaming services it normally offers to its customers, roaming services when a customer has subscribed to local data roaming servicesin the original).

In practice, the user may connect (for example, manually) to specific APNs for well defined services, such as WAP or Corporate VPNs. from voice or SMS) but do not overlap with “regular” data service provided by the chosen by the customer, which relies on the Universal APN “EUinternet”.

TMNs considers that the donor roaming servi“data” services supported on APNs different from the Universal APN, when a subscribes the services of a LBO

Guideline 43: This is only acceptable in case the MNO provides the services to its own customers;

Guideline 47: Roaming agreements are obligation to guarantee SLA to ARPs.



For example, if a subscriber is using Local Data provided via Universal APN by ARP1, gulated voice and SMS provided by ARP2, and unregulated traffic provided by DSP, should

he contact directly the entity responsible for each service? Or should the subscriber have a single contact point which has the responsibility to forward subscribers

Do you have any other comments on the draft Guidelines?

TMN has the following additional comments regarding other Guidelines which are not mentioned in the questionnaire:

requests have to be made by the ARP itself.

Requests made by enablers or aggregators on behalf of ARPs should not be accepted, given that all obligations and responsibilities must be accurately defined, which requires a direct interaction between the parties.

It should also be stressed that, according to Guideline 10, “there is no legal justification to support an obligation for ARPs providing local data roaming services to offer any other stakeholder decoupling functionalities for using local data roaming services (as for example,

offering local data roaming services supported by the visited network)”.

according to this guideline “the donor roaming service provider is obliged to continue providing all the roaming services it normally offers to its customers,

services when a customer has subscribed to local data roaming services

In practice, the user may connect (for example, manually) to specific APNs for well defined services, such as WAP or Corporate VPNs. These services may be classified as data (

voice or SMS) but do not overlap with “regular” data service provided by the chosen by the customer, which relies on the Universal APN “EUinternet”.

TMNs considers that the donor roaming service provider would still be allowed to provide “data” services supported on APNs different from the Universal APN, when a subscribes the services of a LBO-ARP.

This is only acceptable in case the MNO provides the services to its own

Roaming agreements are Best Effort based, so TMN cannot agree with the obligation to guarantee SLA to ARPs.

13/13

For example, if a subscriber is using Local Data provided via Universal APN by ARP1, gulated voice and SMS provided by ARP2, and unregulated traffic provided by DSP, should

he contact directly the entity responsible for each service? Or should the subscriber have a s’ requests to the

TMN has the following additional comments regarding other Guidelines which are not

Requests made by enablers or aggregators on behalf of ARPs should not be accepted, given that all obligations and responsibilities must be accurately defined, which requires a direct

“there is no legal justification to support an obligation for ARPs providing local data roaming services to offer any other stakeholder decoupling functionalities for using local data roaming services (as for example,

offering local data roaming services supported by the visited network)”.

he donor roaming service provider is obliged to continue providing all the roaming services it normally offers to its customers, except for data

services when a customer has subscribed to local data roaming services.” (no underline

In practice, the user may connect (for example, manually) to specific APNs for well defined These services may be classified as data (distinct

voice or SMS) but do not overlap with “regular” data service provided by the LBO-ARP

ce provider would still be allowed to provide “data” services supported on APNs different from the Universal APN, when a customer

This is only acceptable in case the MNO provides the services to its own

, so TMN cannot agree with the

Public Consultation on BEREC GUIDELINES ON ROAMING … · Firstly, TMN would like to express its...

Documents

Transcript of Public Consultation on BEREC GUIDELINES ON ROAMING … · Firstly, TMN would like to express its...