Ms. Sarah Müller Phone: +49 221 91611536 Fax: +49 221 91614824 e-Mail: Sarah.Mueller@detecon.com

1. We make ICT strategies work
Regulatory conditions
In-house FTTH access

2. Illustration of FTTH in-house access
For the purpose of the present analysis, “in-house FTTH access” refers to the network
portion from the Distribution Point (DP) to the Optical Telecommunications Outlet (OTO).
©Detecon
FTTHACCESSREGULATION.PPTX
– 2 –
MPoP
Core
network
Concen
tration
network
Feeder segment Drop segment
Drop fiber cable
Limit of
private property
Distribution Point
(DP)
Access
network
IP Ethernet (ATM) FTTH architecture (P2P or P2MP )
OTO
OTO
OTO
FD
BEP
In-house segment
Home cablingIn-house cabling
Drop
cabling
Vertical
drop
Home installation
 BEP: Building Entry Point
 FD: Floor Distributor
 MPoP: Metropolitan Point of
Presence
 OTO: Optical Telecoms
Outlet
= FTTH in-house access

3. The regulatory train for FTTH in-house access is in motion worldwide
In-house wiring is one of the key bottlenecks restricting FTTH deployment. Thus NRAs
increasingly regulate sharing of in-house infrastructure to promote competition.
©Detecon
– 3 –
FTTHACCESSREGULATION.PPTX
Australien
Neuseeland
ARCEP
 2009-2010
 Multi-fiber
 Mandatory
 Symmetry Decree-
Law
 2009
 Multi-fiber
 Mandatory
 Symmetry
CMT
 2009
 Single or multi
 Mandatory
 Symmetry
House
market
 1999
 BCP Program
 Voluntary
 Multi-fiber
TKG
 2011
 Symmetry
 Power for NRA
 Unspecified
ACM
 2010 decision
 Unbundled fiber
 Mandatory
 Asymmetry
Swiss-
com
 2008
 Multi-fiber
 Voluntary
 Symmetry
HAKOM
 2009
 Unbundled fiber
 Mandated
 Asymmetry

4. Main regulatory fields of action towards FTTH in-house deployment
In order to facilitate FTTH in-house deployment, regulatory measures essentially
address estate/building owners and network operators.
©Detecon
– 4 –
FTTHACCESSREGULATION.PPTX
Main regulatory
fields of action for
improved FTTH in-house
deployment
 Access to network operators
 Balance of rights between owner and tenant
 Access of competitor
to already existing
infrastructure of
network operator
 Access of competitor
to newly deployed
infrastructure of
network operator
 Access of operator to private estate and building
 Access of operator to existing infrastructure
 Access of operator to newly created infrastructure
 Mandatory standards
for ducting systems
via building laws
Cross-cutting
fields of action
4
Owner vs. tenant
of building
1
Network
Operator vs.
Competitor
2
Owner vs.
Network
Operator
3
 Mandatory
standards for cables
via building laws

5. Key challenges related to in-house FTTH access
Essential regulatory area of concern regarding FTTH access is to mitigate investment
risks without disturbing the level of competition on the market.
©Detecon
– 5 –
FTTHACCESSREGULATION.PPTX
Prerequisites for FTTH access Key challenges
Increases delay and costs
of deployment
Increases delay and costs
of deployment
Required consent of
estate and building owner
Civil engineering is a key
barrier to replicability
Unclear property right
over building or estate
Imposed conditions by
estate and building owner
Existing exclusivity
requirements on owners
Delay or delay of
deployment and lack of
investment security
Delay or delay of
deployment and lack of
investment security
Product portfolio and
marketing affected
Product portfolio and
marketing affected
No connection of tenants
willing to connect
No connection of tenants
willing to connect
Higher retail prices
complicate success
Higher retail prices
complicate success
Concerns on economic
viability of FTTH access
Concerns on economic
viability of FTTH access
In-house cabling ≈ 43%
of total NGA CAPEX
Risk of de facto monopoly
by “first moving operator”
Risk of de facto monopoly
by “first moving operator”
Access to buildings and in-house wiring
Drop segment deployment
on private estate
House introduction of drop
cabling
Use of existing in-house
cabling or new deployment

6. Strategic options for regulating in-house FTTH access
Multi-fiber approach, single fiber unbundling and bitstream access are three prominent
and complementary strategic options for competitive in-house FTTH access.
©Detecon
– 6 –
FTTHACCESSREGULATION.PPTX
Single fiber FTTH approach
(“unbundled access”)
Single fiber FTTH approach
(“unbundled access”)
One single fiber line is deployed from
the Distribution Point to each end-user
premises
(access-based competition)
Multiple fiber FTTH
approach
Multiple fiber FTTH
approach
Several fibers are deployed from the
Distribution Point to each end-user
premises
(infrastructure-based competition)
 Complicates cooperation models
 Only one operator can reach the
end-user’s home
 High sunk investments required
 Higher barrier to entry
 Increased penetration risks for non
SMP operators
 Only up to 4 operators reach users
Bitstream accessBitstream access
Access to customers via active
electronic interfaces at all nodes of the
concentration/core network
(service-based competition)
 Proven long track record in Europe
 Lower market entry risk and CAPEX
 Number of competitors is
determined by the market
 Can be implemented wherever fiber
rollout is economically viable
 Fiber replicability at lower costs
 Facilitates a cooperation model
 Secures freedom of choice for user
 Several operators reach the end-
user’s home in parallel
 Deepest level of end-to-end control
 Lowest market entry risk and
CAPEX
 Access at all network nodes of the
concentration and core network
 DSLAM, Ethernet or IP Bitstream
 No infrastructure control by access
seeker
 Limited product and price
innovation and differentiation
 Wholesale operator manages
connections
The 3 options are not mutually exclusive, but rather complementary
Description
Pros
Cons

7. Key success factors for in-house FTTH access
Regulatory measures must target owners of real estate and buildings as well as “first
moving operators” in order to secure speedy and cost effective in-house FTTH access.
©Detecon
– 7 –
FTTHACCESSREGULATION.PPTX
Obligation towards operators Obligation towards competitors
 Tolerate drop segment
deployment on private estate
 Provide access to drop cabling
lines and infrastructures
 Tolerate house introduction of
drop cabling
FTTH access
independent from
private owner’s consent
Shared use of FTTH access
infrastructure mitigates
bottlenecks towards effective
competition
 Tolerate use of existing in-house
cabling or new deployment
Provisions on financials:
Who bears costs of FTTH
infrastructure deployment and
what can be included in the
access pricing?
Provisions on financials:
Who bears costs of FTTH
infrastructure deployment and
what can be included in the
access pricing?
 Provide access to existing
physical infrastructure
 Provide Information on all
buildings connected
 Provide information to existing
physical infrastructure
 Implement network topology that
enables infrastructure sharing
Obligation towards building owner
 Agreement on modalities for
FTTH access deployment

8. Regulatory options chosen by countries: The example of “multi-fiber approaches”
Albeit slightly different, the multi-fiber approaches implemented in France, Switzerland
and by the EU Commission are the most prominent cases for multi-fiber FTTH access.
©Detecon
– 8 –
FTTHACCESSREGULATION.PPTX
Multi-fiber
options for
in-house
FTTH access
Owner Main features of the approachNature of the approach
Mandatory approach
(symmetry)
Mandatory approach
(symmetry)
Voluntary approach of private
sector (facilitated by NRA)
Voluntary approach of private
sector (facilitated by NRA)
Voluntary approach,
possible mandatory for SMP
in the drop cable segment
(asymmetry)
Voluntary approach,
possible mandatory for SMP
in the drop cable segment
(asymmetry)
Source
NGA
recommendation
(2010)
Legislation and
Decisions
(2009-2010)
„Fibre suisse”
model
(2008)
 Agreement between operator and owner
 In-house network up to Distribution Point
 No financial compensation to owner
 Operator installs up to 4 fiber lines per
building and bears costs of installation
 Access by other operators upon demand
 Access point outside private properties
 Mutual agreement between competitors
 Invest installs 4 fibers per home
 Access point is outside private properties
 Option for sharing also feeder segment
 Swisscom responsible for drop segment
 Owner is responsible for in-house wiring
 Applies only with regard to SMP operators
 Mandated access to the drop segment
 Voluntary deployment of multiple fiber
lines in the access network (+ in-house)
 Where legally possible under national law,
mandatory deployment of multiple fibers
 NRA sets location of distribution point

9. Single fiber
option for in-
house FTTH
access
Owner Main features of the approachNature of the approach
Mandatory approach
“unbundled fiber”
(asymmetry)
Mandatory approach
“unbundled fiber”
(asymmetry)
Source
SMP regulation
in market n°4
(2010)
 First moving operator and competitor
share FTTH access infrastructure
 Infrastructure use on an unbundled basis
 Asymmetric SMP regulation with
Reggefiber as SMP for FTTH access
 Mandated open access to passive fiber
 Access point is at the Optical Distribution
Frame (ODF) “ODF access”
 Collocation services and backhaul access
 Price caps on unbundling rates
 Transparency obligation (Reference Offer)
 Operational and functional separation of
passive infrastructure provider
“Reggefiber FTTH” from active operator
and service provider “KPN”
Mandatory approach
“unbundled fiber”
(asymmetry)
Mandatory approach
“unbundled fiber”
(asymmetry)
 Obligation for incumbent
 Access to fiber-based local loop (P2P)
 Reference offer for unbundled access to
LL and related facilities
 Publish conditions, time limits and prices
SMP regulation
in market n°4
Regulatory options chosen by countries: The “single-fiber approach” in the Netherlands
The unbundled fiber approaches in the Netherlands and Croatia are based on
asymmetric regulation by NRA as a result of analysis of market n°4.
©Detecon
– 9 –
FTTHACCESSREGULATION.PPTX

10. Why Detecon
Having Detecon as partner means securing compliance of FTTH access deployment
with regulatory conditions while avoiding mistakes made by other players.
©Detecon
– 10 –
FTTHACCESSREGULATION.PPTX
Client BenefitDetecon Leverage
Holistic
Team of experts
from all disciplines
Practical
Real-world solutions
instead of “theory”
Impact
Solutions with lasting
value
Customized
International
experience adapted
 A dedicated project team brings together all regulatory,
technical, commercial and financial expertise and
experience related to FTTH access deployment in
accordance with Client’s business strategy
 Based on sound regulatory strategy, Detecon’s solutions
have been implemented in practice for many Clients
worldwide
 Tangible solutions ready for implementation
 Integration of in-house FTTH access within Client’s
overall FTTH rollout strategy
 Understanding of FTTH access challenges from NRA’s
and operator’s perspective and staff involvement
 Full understanding of Client’s reality of business and local
market challenges
 Project team knows Client’s business environment
 Presence with a local office in Client’s region of operation
 Regulatory bottlenecks of FTTH
access are mitigated in the light of
Client’s operational FTTH business
imperatives
 Benefit from hands-on strategic
expertise while avoiding mistakes made
by other operators worldwide
 Coherence of regulatory approach to
FTTH access with overall strategy
 Ownership of Client’s staff over
regulatory solution
 Regulatory solutions designed for
FTTH access are relevant to Client’s
actual business needs

11. Selected References
The Client leverages Detecon’s lessons learned from similar assignments in regulatory
strategy for FTTH in-house access, thus avoiding mistakes made in other countries.
©Detecon
– 11 –
FTTHACCESSREGULATION.PPTX
Client Reference Case
UAE
Germany
UAE
Slovak Republic
Turkey
NGA Bitstream strategy
Etisalat has been imposed regulatory remedies for the provision of bitstream access based on fiber
infrastructure. Detecon developed the BSA strategy and optimized the technical infrastructure setup.
Development of FTTX cooperation models
Detecon defined complimentary FTTx rollout strategies and developed regulation friendly cooperation models
with competitors to facilitate CAPEX efficient rollout.
NGA BSA, ULL, dark fiber reference offer
Detecon developed a successful, optimal and sustainable access regime that enabled the operator (“du) to
grow its customer base while protecting its current revenues.
Development of Reference Bitstream Access Offer
Defined wholesale reference broadband access portfolio and setup a regulatory negotiation strategy based on
state of the art costing and pricing strategies
BSA, LLU regulatory scenarios for Turk Telekom
Benchmarking of tariff regulation regime and regulatory decisions in selected EU member states.
Recommendations for Turk Telecom on rebalancing and retail tariff regulation. In-house cabling strategy

12. Your Contact Persons
©Detecon
– 12 –
FTTHACCESSREGULATION.PPTX
Pic
Dr. iur. Albert Njoume Ekango
Phone: +49 221 91611536
Mobile: +49 160 475 80 58
Fax: +49 221 91614824
e-Mail: Albert.NjoumeEkango@detecon.com
Pic
Dr. Arnulf Heuermann
Phone: +49 221 91611550
Mobile: +49 171 225 42 17
Fax: +49 221 91614630
e-Mail: Arnulf.Heuermann@detecon.com