Decreto 43/2008: regulación especifíca

ARCEP has never published any QoS policy document. ARCEP’s objectives with regards to QoS are set in the law (see above).

However, in the context of the net neutrality debate, ARCEP has published a report in 2012 which details its objective, in particular with regard to QoS monitoring56. In this report and with regards to QoS:

 ARCEP reminds that Internet access QoS monitoring is its key objectives57;

 ARCEP considers that measuring and publishing QoS parameters is sufficient in a transparent and competitive retail market58;

 This concerns both fixed Internet access and mobile Internet access;

 ARCEP indicates it is important to differentiate what is the responsibility of operators and exogenous factors;

 ARCEP does not intend to use its ability to set minimum QoS parameters. It states that it will do so only if important (long or regular) malfunctions appear.

In parallel, ARCEP has taken several decisions in relation to QoS in the past few years.

56 _{Rapport au Parlement et au Gouvernement sur la neutralité de l’internet, september 2012} 57_{« L’objectif est d’assurer un suivi de la qualité du service d’accès à l’internet dont bénéficient} les utilisateurs finals, dans un contexte de croissance des volumes de trafic échangés, de développement de nouveaux services (services spécialisés notamment) ou encore de mise en place de pratiques de gestion de trafic ».

58

« Sur un marché de détail concurrentiel et suffisamment transparent, une telle information conduit alors à augmenter l’incitation pour les opérateurs à maintenir un niveau de qualité suffisant. »

Page 116 / 262

In 2008, ARCEP took a decision on fixed networks QoS (access and calls excluding Internet access)59. In this decision, ARCEP indicated the key principles used to set the related QoS framework:

 Measures should be comparable;

 Measures should be sincere and objectives. This should be achieved by using KPI and measurements methods which are issued by standardisation bodies and by certifying measurement systems;

 The cost associated to measures should be proportionate. This should provide also a better readability for consumers.

In 2009, ARCEP took a decision on number portability60. This decision::

 States that QoS must be identical for calls to ported and non ported numbers;

 Sets QoS targets in addition to legal targets already existing;

 Specifies that this can evolve over time.

In 2013, ARCEP took a decision which respct to fixed network QoS (calls and Internet but excluding access which is still regulated through the 2008 decision). In this decision, ARCEP describes:

 Its objectives with respect to Internet access. ARCEP’s objectives are to better inform customers in order to improve competition and better inform ARCEP itself to make sure the market works well. If this is not the case ARCEP can decide to set minimum quality of service levels;

 ARCEP’s Internet access KPI must be:

o Comparable. To be comparable, measures must be conducted on clearly identified residential offers (homogeneous offers must be compared together), in a performing technical environment;

59

Décision n° 2008-1362

60

Page 117 / 262

o Representatives: from a geographic point of view but also from the point of view of the diversity of access technologies. To make sure measures are representatives, ARCEP intends to conduct its own independent measures;

o Sincere, i.e. conducting in normal circumstances;

o Objectives. To be objectives, indicators must be clearly defined like for example IETF’s indicators.

 Internet access published indicators must be intelligible. This should be done by producing a comparison between operators and by allowing customers to identify the type of access they use.

 Measures must be transparent. Operators’ measures must be certified. Independent experts and customer associations are associated in the technical committee.

 ARCEP intends to set a common reference framework for measures which is defined in a technical committee which includes operators, customer associations, independent experts

 ARCEP’s proposed updates to the fixed network calls QoS regulatory framework.

It is to be noted that there is no similar decision related to mobile QoS despite the fact that ARCEP conducts regular measures since 1997. However, in November 2012, ARCEP published a report which reviewed in details all issues related to mobile QoS and mobile coverage (this is conducted every 3 years by ARCEP). In addition to an analysis of mobile QoS and mobile coverage in France, ARCEP describes the objectives of measuring this in this document. These objectives are mainly to control coverage requirements as set out in mobile licences but also to assist local authorities and the government to deploy mobile networks in very rural areas, to better inform consumers. ARCEP concludes this report by proposing recommendations to make operators’ coverage maps more robust, to build a reference framework to measure mobile Internet coverage

Regularly, ARCEP conducts market analyses in relation to wholesale markets (broadband, leased lines, voice, etc.). In this context, ARCEP requires SMP

Page 118 / 262

operators to publish KPI that enable to compare the QoS provided to the SMP operators’ retail arm and the QoS provided to alternative operators. SMP broadcast operators do not have to publish any KPI.

QoS is also monitored in France for universal service providers. Designated universal service providers have to meet minimum level of QoS. However, these are set by the Ministry of Economy, after public consultation and not by ARCEP.

ARCEP’s approach to regulate QoS does not rely on targets. ARCEP is only monitoring QoS and is of the view that competition will bring the best level of QoS to customers. Setting minimum QoS levels is seen as the ultimate regulatory tool.

Until now, if KPIs show a low level of QoS or show a discriminatory behaviour, ARCEP holds meeting with stakeholders to improve the situation. If discussions show that a new KPI should be defined then a new KPI can be defined.

To define KPI and measurement frameworks, ARCEP holds regular meetings (every months or less) with operators, independent experts and customer associations.

An example of ARCEP’s pragmatic approach is the recent press release published on its website which states that one operator’s advertisements on maximum speed it offers are inaccurate61.