|
1. |
Comment
There was a comment on Regulation 8 to the effect that the quality of
Service meeting convened in Lagos by the Commission at its Zonal
Office at Bankole Oki Street, on April 25, 2006, Mobile
operators had pointed out to the Commission that it would not be
feasible to have separate reporting areas as proposed by the
Commission due to the technical limitations of the equipment
deployed by operators across their network. Mobile operators
noted that the equipment utilized are only capable of providing
a single national figure, which records the specific parameter
across the entire network.
Operators proposed systems based measurement/reports based on the
network architecture and equipment of the Licensee/Operator’s
and bearing in mind the coverage provided for in the operator’s
specific License.
|
| |
Response
QoS Key Performance Indicators (KPI) vary across regions and it
is necessary for a regulator to have the picture of each region
and how the operators are performing on the QoS indicators.
Equipment deployed by operators must be capable of poling
regional KPI statistics from regional switches. These are some
of the capabilities that are evaluated during equipment Type
Approval
|
|
2. |
Comment
An
operator expressed concern that the requirement to publish
measurement within two months from the end of a Reporting Period
in regulation 10 (d) is a duplication of a similar obligation
placed on the Commission in Regulation 11. A requirement that
both Licensees and the Commission publish the same measurement
at the same time will lead to confusion in the minds of
end-users and the public at large. Operator recommended that
Regulation 10 (d) be deleted.
|
| |
Response
There is no duplication in these paragraphs in Regulation 10 and
11. The Licensee’s publication is different from that of the
Commission. The Commission shall publish the data supplied by
all the operators together to give a comparative perspective for
the benefit of the end-user, whereas publication by an operator
will be confined to its own network.
|
|
3. |
Comment
While operators welcome the publication of Quality of Service
information for the education of the end-user, and for the
purpose of Network Quality Assurance by operators/Licensees,
there should be caution in the publication of the wholesale
version of the Reports submitted by Licensees.
|
| |
Response
The primary purpose for publishing QoS information is to provide
end-users timely, relevant, accessible, accurate and comparable
information that would enable them make informed decisions. The
information to be published by the Commission is not whole sale
information but the Commission will extract and publish the
information in line with the provisions of Regulation 2 of the
draft Regulations.
|
|
4. |
Comment
An operator expressed concern that the release of above information may
unduly put an operator/Licensee at a disadvantage, and may
defeat the purpose of using QoS information as a platform for
the promotion of investment and innovation in the provision of
telecommunications services and invariably stifling competition.
|
| |
Response
Same as in
comment above.
|
|
5. |
Comment
In the interest of transparency and fairness, inclusion of the
following sub-provisions is recommended:
a.
Prior to publication due notice should be given to Licensees of
reasons for rejecting any explanation for not meeting targets
b.
The objectives criteria to be used in evaluating the
appropriateness of other information provided by Licensees.
|
| |
Response
Regulation 13 already provides factors to be considered in
approving explanatory remarks.
|
|
6. |
Comment
A comment was made to the effect that it runs counter to the era
of light handed regulation and co-regulatory spirit of Quality
of Service Regulations to penalize a Licensee for failing to
meet targets set by the regulatory authority. For this reason
operators have always advocated the establishment of minimum
thresholds for Licensees to uphold as opposed to targets to be
met; invariably over time as networks grow and stabilize these
thresholds can be increased to provide a higher grade of service
for end-users.
|
| |
Response
The Commission believes in light handed and participatory
regulation. This is why we have always consulted widely in
making regulations. Once we have consulted and the industry has
agreed to the thresholds, it behoves on operators to meet the
threshold and acts of non-compliance will be sanctioned.
These
targets are the minimum required of grade of service demanded by
the Commission and Licensees are encouraged to exceed these
targets
|
|
7. |
Comment
There was a comment on regulation 15 (d) that network equipment and
systems are subject to downtimes which affect systems stability,
and the reliability of measurement taken at such material times.
Accordingly, it was proposed that where a Licensee is to be
sanctioned on this ground, it must be as a result of a
deliberate attempt to misinform and mis-lead the Commission.
|
| |
Response
The Commission notes that downtimes do occur. However,
measurement is not expected to be taken during downtime. Any
planned downtime by a Licensee is expected to be widely
published.
|
|
8. |
Comment
Without prejudice to the Commission’s statutory authority to
conduct investigations/inspection, it was recommended that the
Commission send notices to affected Licensees prior to the
commencement of any investigation in order to ensure that such
Licensee is informed in a timely manner and to forestall any
unwarranted embarrassment of either of the parties. A 14 day
notice from the Commission to any affected Licensee was
proposed.
|
| |
Response
The procedure for conducting investigation is stated in the
Nigerian Communications Act, 2003 and the Commission will abide
by it in conducting investigation.
|
|
9. |
Comment
The discretionary element in Regulation 16 gives cause for much
concern. The phrase in issue is ambiguous and liable to
misconstruction, mis-application and could be subject to
subjective measurement. It is believed that in keeping with the
need for regulatory certainty, any sanctions imposed under the
Regulations should be stated in a clear and unambiguous
language.
|
| |
Response
The Commission has reviewed the implication of this and
accepts to revise the regulation.
|
|
10. |
Comment
It was reiterated that further to deliberations at the QoS
meeting convened in April by the Commission, operators had
expressed preference for the adoption of a co-regulatory regime
where operators were granted the liberty to decide the
measurement methodology, while the Commission in line with its
statutory obligations would provide general oversight.
|
| |
Response
The Commission has severally set up committees made up of staff
of the Commission and operators but such Committees have failed
due to lack of interest resulting in poor attendance by
operating companies of duly convened meetings. The measurement
methodology set up in the draft Regulation is subject to
consultations. The Commission expected operators to specify
alternative measurement methodology in the comments submitted to
it. However we did not receive any submissions to that effect.
|
|
11. |
Comment
It was noted that network statistics measured at the switch
would substantially differ if same were measured on the radio
network, or even at the SMS Centre (SMSC). For each, the same
benchmarks cannot apply and would need to be adjusted
accordingly; otherwise the statistics measured will mean
different things and would not be comparable.
Undoubtedly, comparability of statistics is therefore an
essential element for any meaningful QoS regime. There is an
urgent need to institute technical and administrative
arrangement that will ensure common measurement methodology
across all operators, that may be changed only by the consensus
of all parties at agreed times, in accordance with duly
established administrative and regulatory provisions. In this
regard, the industry calls for a QoS working group with
membership from the Commission and industry, as an industry
group on QoS.
|
| |
Response
The
Commission notes this view. Industry group should provide a
consensus methodology to the Commission. The Commission would
like to see the framework.
|
|
12. |
Comment
As required by objective 2 (b) of the draft Regulations, it is
imperative that proposed QoS targets (standard) are benchmarked
to take cognizance of the local environment and operating
conditions.
|
| |
Response
The Commission notes this comment. The local operating
conditions were considered in the derivation of the QoS KPI
targets.
|
|
13. |
Comment
The importance of an audit mechanism in any QoS regime cannot be
overemphasized as it serves to validate/certify QoS schemes and
equipment in use by operators. This ensures the credibility of
the entire arrangement and the resulting statistics. While the
draft Regulations is devoid of any audit arrangements, operator
draws attention on the need for consultation to agree
appropriate audit arrangement.
|
| |
Response
Regulation
14 provides that the Commission investigate the measurement
provided by the operators. This is a sufficient audit mechanism
in addition to powers provided under the Act.
|
|
14. |
Comment
For purposes of regulatory certainty and propriety, there is
need for a due process of consultation and rulemaking leading to
the issuance or enactment of rules, regulations guidelines and
determinations etc, by the Commission.
|
| |
Response
The
Commission notes this comment. The development of a rule making
process is going on. However the Commission has always adopted
due process of wide consultations and Public enquiries before
regulations are enacted and also in the development of
Guidelines.
|
|
15. |
Comment
We note and welcome the shift on the part of the Commission from
the ongoing regime of QoS interventions targeted at Mobile
services alone, to a regime of QoS regulations covering the
entire gamut of telecommunication services for both the retail
(end-user) and wholesale (interconnection and transmission) ends
of the market.
|
| |
Response
Operator’s
observation is noted by the Commission. The Commission assures
operators that it would continue to adopt industry best
practices in QoS Regulations. It must however be acknowledged
that over 95% of subscribers in the national network are Mobile
subscribers and therefore emphasis on Mobile QoS is in order
|
|
16. |
Comment
The one-day Public Inquiry planned by the Commission on 25
October 2006 cannot and should not replace more in-depth
consultation with the industry on the subject matter. It is
noted that besides introductory meeting on 15 September 2005
between the Commission, operators and McCarthy Tetrault, the
Consultants appointed by the Commission to develop the said
draft Regulations, no consultations has taken place on this
subject matter.
|
| |
Response
Contrary to operator’s claim that no further QoS consultation
has taken place since the introductory meeting of 15th
September, 2005, a successful QoS forum took place in Lagos on
25th April, 2006. The Commission also published the
draft Regulations on its web-site since July 10, 2006 and
operators were expected to have taken advantage of this and made
their comments.
|
|
17. |
Comment
There is need to strike a fair balance in the QoS regime between
the informational requirements and the burden and cost to the
operators of supplying these. It is noted that the requirements
are considerably burdensome and need to be streamlined in
accordance with principle 4 (a) of the draft Regulations. It is
notable that the mobile market segment and indeed the entire
Nigeria telecommunication industry is highly competitive. This
obviates the need for such arduous QoS requirements. Operator is
convinced that detailed consultation is invaluable for reaching
consensus on the streamlining requirement.
|
| |
Response
In developing the draft Regulations and the measurement
parameters, the Commission took note of the cost of the
implementation by operators and operators are expected to devote
resources to ensure good QoS in the whole country. The
Commission is of the opinion that the cost is not burdensome to
operators, which is why the Commission opted for participation
by the industry to decide these measurement parameters.
These parameters and their thresholds are the minimum, the
Commission expects operators to surpass some of the thresholds.
|
|
18. |
Comment
It is considered that the requirement to report statistics on
certain parameters, for instance, account complaints and
resolved complaints, etc, “regardless of the validity of the
complaint” is unwarranted as it would only serve to entrench a
perception of poor QoS over and above the factual QoS that is
delivered. At best, invalid complaints should be reported as
such.
|
| |
Response
The Commission needs to have a total picture of complaints both
resolved and unresolved to maintain proper records.
|
|
19. |
Comment
With the advent of the Unified License regime, many operators
will begin to provide services other than those they currently
provide.
Expectedly, there will be commencement or start-up challenges to
such service provision. International best practice dictates
that existing operators and the new entrants to any market
segment should be exempted from the QoS standards requirements
within the start-up phase. This is to enable the company
build-out infrastructure to levels that can meet and sustain the
QoS targets specified under the Regulations. A period of 2 years
is internationally acceptable, but given the challenges in the
local operating environment, a 3 year period is recommended,
consistent with the objective of 2 (b) of the draft Regulations.
|
| |
Response
Obligations on Unified License to submit QoS shall be considered
on the nature of the respective service offered by the Operator.
|
|
20. |
Comment
To afford enhanced document management for the benefit of all
concerned parties and the general public during and after the
consultation period, a document trail should be provided on the
document.
|
| |
Response
Comment is noted and will be implemented.
|
|
21. |
Comment
For consistency in the use of the term “Network Termination
Point” in the definition of “Interconnecting Licensee”, it is
recommended that the following clause be appended to the
definition of “Network Termination Point”: “or the point of
interconnection or interface of one network to another”.
|
| |
Response
The Commission notes this comment and the provision of the
regulation will be amended accordingly.
|
|
22. |
Comment
IP should mean the Internet Protocol and not the
Internetwork Protocol as included in the definition.
|
| |
Response
The
Commission notes this comment and the provisions of the
regulation will be amended accordingly
|
|
23. |
Comment
Mean opinion Score (MOS) is a subjective measure that cannot be
independently verifiable. The liberty granted operators to use
either MOS or PESQ would negate the requirement for
comparability of statistics as required by Regulation 4 (b) as
the resulting statistics would be incomparable. A choice needs
to be made of the one methodology, either MOS or PESQ that will
be used. For obvious reasons, each operator cannot be allowed to
choose the listening panel in an MOS test. To ensure the
credibility of an MOS test, a single, duly certified listening
panel is required rather than panels established by each
operator. Detailed consultation is required to agree on the most
appropriate technique, the set-up and relevant certification for
this controlled experiment in order to assure meaningful
measurement and credible statistics.
|
| |
Response
MOS is subjective but there are other technical dimensioning
parameters on a mobile network where there exists a compromise
between capacity and good voice quality (e.g. use of half-Rate
or Full-Rate channels).
The Commission recognizes that three basic families of
techniques exist – MOS, PESQ and E-Model. Operators should agree
on a single consensus technique and report to the Commission
within six weeks.
|
