Pi-Paper-Msa - 9 Sep 2016

Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission
Review of Mandatory Standard

on Access
Public Inquiry Paper
9 September 2016
This Public Inquiry Paper was prepared in fulfilment of sections 55, 61, 104 and 106 of the
Communications and Multimedia Act 1998

MCMC Tower 1, Jalan IMPACT, Cyber 6,
63000 Cyberjaya,
Selangor Darul Ehsan.
Tel: +60 3 86 88 80 00 Fax: +60 3 86 88 10 00
www.mcmc.gov.my
PREFACE
The MCMC invites submissions from industry participants, other interested parties and
members of the public on the questions and issues raised in this Public Inquiry Paper
concerning the Review of Mandatory Standard on Access. In this Public Inquiry Paper,
the MCMC sets out a number of preliminary views. Submissions are welcome on the
preliminary views where comment is specifically sought. Submissions are also welcome
on the rationale and analysis in this Public Inquiry Paper where no specific questions have
been raised. All submissions should be substantiated with reasons and, where
appropriate, evidence or source references. Written submissions, in both hard copy and
electronic form, should be provided to the MCMC in full by 12 noon, 2 November 2016.
Submissions should be addressed to:
The Chairman
MCMC Tower 1, Jalan IMPACT, Cyber 6,
63000 Cyberjaya,
Selangor.
Attention : Ms Janakky Raju

Email : jan@cmc.gov.my
Telephone : +603 8688 8000

Facsimile : +603 8688 1000
In the interest of fostering an informed and robust consultative process, the MCMC
proposes to make submissions received available to interested parties upon request. The
MCMC also reserves the right to publish extracts or entire submissions received. Any
commercially sensitive information should be provided under a separate cover clearly
marked ‘CONFIDENTIAL’. However, for any party who wishes to make a confidential
submission, a “public” version of the submission should also be provided.
ii
CONTENTS
Part A Preliminary 1
Overview 1
Legislative Context 2
Overview of the current MSA 5
Focus areas for MSA review 7
Part B Key themes 9
Overview 9
Access instrument model 9
Transparency 16
Equivalence 19
Limiting anti-competitive conduct 25
Part C Proposed Changes to the MSA 27
Overview of proposed changes 27
Interpretation and introductory sections 28
General principles 29
Part D Operator Access Obligations 33
Reference access offers 33
Reporting and information disclosure 37
Security, insurance requirements and creditworthiness 40
Negotiation obligations 43
Forecasting obligations 51
Ordering and provisioning obligations 55
Network conditioning obligations 70
Point of interface procedures 71
Decommissioning obligations 77
Network change obligations 78
Network facilities access and co-location 80
Billing and settlement obligations 83
Operations and maintenance obligations 88
Technical obligations 92
Term, suspension and termination obligations 95
Churn obligations 101
Legal boilerplate obligations 102
Part E Service Specific Obligations 105
Overview of proposed changes 105
Overview of Service Specific Obligations 105
O&T Services 108
iii
Wholesale Line Rental Service 110
Interconnect Link Service 112
Access to Network Elements 112
Digital Subscriber Line Resale Service 115
HSBB Network Services 116
Transmission Services 123
Infrastructure Sharing 125
Network Co-Location Service 126
Domestic Connectivity to International Services 127
Duct and Manhole Access 128
Digital Terrestrial Broadcasting Multiplexing Service 131
MVNO Access 132
Part F Standard Administration, Compliance and Dispute Resolution 137
Standard administration and compliance 137
Dispute resolution 138
Annexure 1: Indicative timeframe for this Public Inquiry 140
Annexure 2: Consolidated list of questions 141
Annexure 3: Draft MSA 149
iv
ABBREVIATIONS AND GLOSSARY
ACCC Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

AGCOM Authority for Communications Guarantees of Italy
ANE Access to Network Elements
ARD Access Reference Document, which is a document of the terms and
conditions required to be formulated by an Access Provider under the
current MSA
BT British Telecommunications plc
CCA Competition and Consumer Act 2010
BTU Broadband Termination Unit
CLI Calling Line Identification
CMA Communications and Multimedia Act 1998
CNII Critical National Information Infrastructure
CRA Communications Regulatory Authority
DSL Digital Subscriber Line
DTB Digital Terrestrial Broadcasting
EAB Equality of Access Board
EOI Equivalence of Inputs
FTTH Fibre to the Home
HSBB High Speed Broadband Network
IDA Info-Communications Development Authority of Singapore
IPTV Internet Protocol Television
MAFB Malaysian Access Forum Berhad
MCMC Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission
MNO Mobile Network Operator
MNP Mobile Number Portability
MSA Mandatory Standard on Access
The terms of the current MSA are set out across two instruments:
Commission Determination on the Mandatory Standard on Access,
Determination No. 2 of 2005, as varied by Variation to Commission
Determination on the Mandatory Standard on Access (Determination No
2. of 2005), Determination No. 2 of 2009
The Draft MSA proposed by the MCMC is set out in Annexure 3
MSAP Mandatory Standard on Access Pricing
MSAP 2012 Commission Determination on the Mandatory Standard on Access
Pricing, Determination No.1 of 2012
MVNO Mobile Virtual Network Operator
v
MyIX Malaysia Internet Exchange
NGNBN Next Generation National Broadband Network
Ofcom Office of Communications (United Kingdom)
OpCo Operating Companies
PI Paper This Public Inquiry Paper on Review of Mandatory Standard on Access
POI Point of Interconnection
POP Point of Presence
PSTN Public Switched Telephone Network
QoS Quality of Service
RAO Reference Access Offer
RIO Reference Interconnection Offer
SAO Standard Access Obligation
SAU Standard Access Undertaking
SFAA Standard Form Access Agreement
SMP Significant Market Power
Telecom Code of Practice for Competition in the Provision of Telecommunications
Competition Services
Code
UK United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
vi
Part A Preliminary
Overview
Purpose of this Public Inquiry and Public Inquiry Paper
1.1 The purpose of this Public Inquiry and Public Inquiry Paper (PI Paper) is to
solicit views from industry participants, other interested parties and
members of the public to assist the MCMC to determine whether the MCMC’s
current approach to regulating terms of access under the current Mandatory
Standard on Access (MSA) remains appropriate and, therefore, whether the
current MSA should be amended, replaced or withdrawn.
1.2 This PI Paper sets out the MCMC’s preliminary views on these matters. It
invites comments on the MCMC’s preliminary views and specifically seeks
comment on the questions listed throughout this PI Paper (consolidated in
Annexure 2 to this PI Paper for ease of reference).
Consultation Process
1.3 The MCMC acknowledges that regulating terms of access, or forbearance

from regulating terms of access, has long-term consequences: overall
economic implications for industry, financial implications for firms, impacts
on consumers and technological innovation. The MCMC has adopted the
widest possible consultative approach under the Communications and
Multimedia Act 1998 (CMA) in order to obtain maximum industry and public
input. The MCMC’s approach is also designed to promote certainty and
transparency in the exercise of its powers.
1.4 Prior to this PI Paper, the MCMC undertook an information gathering

exercise which included the circulation of an informal questionnaire to
industry about the proposed Public Inquiry in an effort to gauge the
continuing ability of the current MSA to regulate the Malaysian
communications industry. The MCMC has had regard to feedback provided
by industry during this information gathering phase in preparing this PI
Paper.
1.5 The MCMC now invites public submissions on this PI Paper as described in
the Preface to this PI Paper above.
1.6 At the end of the Public Inquiry, the MCMC will:
(a) publish a report setting out its findings in relation to the Public
Inquiry; and
(b) make any determinations arising out of the Public Inquiry, including
a determination to vary, replace or withdraw the current MSA.
1.7 An indicative timeline for this process is set out in Annexure 1 to this PI
Paper.
Review of Mandatory Standard on Access 1

Scope of Public Inquiry
1.8 In conducting this Public Inquiry, the MCMC will be undertaking the following
tasks:
(a) applying a robust and transparent methodology for determining

which new terms of access will be considered for inclusion in the MSA,
and which existing terms of access should be removed or amended;
(b) considering the state of competition in the Malaysian communications

and multimedia industry under the current terms of the MSA, and
making an assessment as to whether there are any potential access
issues that can be addressed by amending the current MSA or
adopting a new access instrument model;
(c) an analysis of the likely market structures and outcomes arising from
amended terms of access under the MSA, in particular whether
amending the terms of access in the MSA or adopting a new access
instrument model would be consistent with the objects of the CMA;
and
(d) making amendments to the MSA to accommodate any changes (i.e.

additions, amendments or removals) in the terms of access arising
from this Public Inquiry.
1.9 In undertaking these tasks, the MCMC will have regard to:
(a) feedback from industry during the information gathering phase

described above; and
(b) the work it recently carried out in its Assessment of Dominance in

Communications Market (including the Market Definition Analysis)
and its Access List Review.
Matters outside scope
1.10 Matters that are outside the scope of this Public Inquiry include:
(a) making determinations on Facilities and Services in the Access List;
(b) making determinations on pricing; and
(c) consideration of exemptions from the Standard Access Obligations

(SAO), which are subject to the grant by the Minister.
Legislative Context
2.1 The CMA governs the communications and multimedia industry in Malaysia
and establishes the regulatory and licensing framework applicable to the
industry.
2.2 Chapter 10 of Part V of the CMA is concerned with the determination of

Mandatory Standards. It contains processes for the MCMC to determine a

Mandatory Standard which is consistent with the objects and terms of the
CMA and any regulatory instruments issued under the CMA.
2.3 The relevant provisions of the CMA for the purposes of this Review of
Mandatory Standard on Access are as follows:
(a) section 55 – the general processes for the MCMC to follow in making
a determination under the CMA, including the requirement for the
MCMC to hold an inquiry;
(b) section 56 – the general processes for the MCMC to follow in

modifying, varying or revoking a determination under the CMA
(which are the same as the processes that apply to the making of a
determination under section 55);
(c) section 58 – the discretion of the MCMC to hold a public inquiry on

any matter which relates to the administration of the CMA, either in
response to a written request from a person or on its own initiative if
the MCMC is satisfied that the matter is of significant interest to the
public or to the industry;
(d) section 60 – the discretion for the MCMC to exercise any of its
investigation and information-gathering powers in Chapters 4 and 5
of the CMA in conducting an inquiry, such as issuing directions to
persons to produce any information or documents that are relevant
to the performance of the MCMC’s powers and functions under the
CMA;
(e) section 61 – the requirement for the inquiry to be public and for the
MCMC to invite and consider submissions from members of the public
relating to the inquiry;
(f) sections 62 and 64 – the discretion of the MCMC to conduct an inquiry

(or parts of an inquiry) in private in certain cases, to direct that
confidential material presented to the inquiry or lodged in
submissions not be disclosed or that its disclosure be restricted;
(g) section 65 – the requirement to publish a report into any inquiry

undertaken under the previous sections of the CMA within 30 days of
the conclusion of the inquiry;
(h) section 104(2) – the MCMC must determine a mandatory standard if

it is subject to a direction from the Minister to determine a mandatory
standard in place of a voluntary industry code;
(i) section 105 – a mandatory standard determined by the MCMC must

be consistent with the objects of the CMA, any relevant instrument
under the CMA or any relevant provisions of the CMA or its subsidiary
legislation and the mandatory standard must specify the class of
licensees who are subject to the mandatory standard; and

(j) section 106 – the MCMC may modify, vary or revoke a mandatory
standard if the MCMC is satisfied that the mandatory standard is no
longer consistent with the matters listed in section 105(1).
2.4 In accordance with section 58(2), a public inquiry will be held as part of this
Review of Mandatory Standard on Access, as the review is of significant
interest to the public or industry. This process accords with international
regulatory best practice.
Objects and national policy objectives
2.5 This Public Inquiry will be conducted in accordance with the objects and
national policy objectives of the CMA. The objects of the CMA are set out in
section 3(1) as follows:
(a) to promote national policy objectives for the communications and

multimedia industry;
(b) to establish a licensing and regulatory framework in support of

national policy objectives for the communications and multimedia
industry;
(c) to establish the powers and functions for the Malaysian

Communications and Multimedia Commission; and
(d) to establish powers and procedures for the administration of [the

CMA].
2.6 The national policy objectives are set out in section 3(2) as follows:
(a) to establish Malaysia as a major global centre and hub for

communications and multimedia information and content services;
(b) to promote a civil society where information-based services will

provide the basis of continuing enhancements to quality of work and
life;
(c) to grow and nurture local information resources and cultural

representation that facilitate the national identity and global
diversity;
(d) to regulate for the long-term benefit of the end user;
(e) to promote a high level of consumer confidence in service delivery

from the industry;
(f) to ensure an equitable provision of affordable services over

ubiquitous national infrastructure;
(g) to create a robust applications environment for end users;
(h) to facilitate the efficient allocation of resources such as skilled labour,

capital, knowledge and natinal assets;

(i) to promote the development of capabilities and skills within
Malaysia's convergence industries; and
(j) to ensure information security and network reliability and integrity.
Overview of the current MSA

Regulatory approach and scope of the current MSA
3.1 The current MSA imposes obligations on Access Providers and Access
Seekers in relation to Facilities and Services contained in the Access List. It
does not extend regulation beyond the Access List. The MSA principally
imposes obligations to facilitate the negotiation of Access Agreements
between an Access Provider and an Access Seeker.
3.2 The current MSA currently does not specify all the actual terms and
conditions that are required to be included in an access agreement. It
instead targets specific areas for regulation, such as disclosure, negotiation
and content obligations, and requires Access Providers and Access Seekers
to reach agreement in relation to those requirements.
3.3 An Access Provider must prepare an Access Reference Document (ARD),

which sets out more detailed terms and conditions of access. Access Seekers
are then left to negotiate an access agreement with the Access Provider that
is based on, and aligns with, the MSA and ARD.
Overview of obligations under the current MSA
3.4 The current MSA contains 3 substantive sections imposing obligations on

Access Providers and Access Seekers:
(a) Disclosure Obligations – Under the Disclosure Obligations in the

MSA, Access Providers must make available certain information to
Access Seekers during negotiation of an Access Agreement. In
particular, an Access Provider must prepare an ARD which principally
contains the terms and conditions of access. Not all of these terms
and conditions are specified in the MSA as discussed above.
(b) Negotiation Obligations – Under the Negotiation Obligations in the

MSA, Access Providers must negotiate with Access Seekers in
accordance with certain requirements concerning timeframes and
process. Given that the MSA does not specify specific terms and
conditions of access, the Negotiation Obligations attempt to limit the
ability of an Access Provider to misuse its stronger position during
negotiations with an Access Seeker by means of regulated
Negotiation Obligations.
(c) Content Obligations – Under the Content Obligations in the MSA,

Access Providers must include terms and conditions in their ARDs and
Access Agreements which are consistent with certain principles and
terms specified in the MSA. These content obligations target a wide

ranging number of areas where Access Providers may otherwise
attempt to undermine the intent of access.
Historical development of the current MSA
3.5 The first Commission Determination on the Mandatory Standard on Access,

Determination No. 2 of 2003 came into force in response to Ministerial
Direction to Determine a Mandatory Standard on Access, Direction No. 2 of
2003.
3.6 In 2005, the MCMC conducted a review of the Access List and the MSA,
which resulted in a series of amendments to address comments received
from stakeholders, as well as the consequential amendments arising from
the review of the Access List.
3.7 In summary, the changes to the MSA in 2005 resulted in:
(a) a “fast track” process for applications and agreements, specifically

applicable for Access Seekers whose requirements for access and
interconnection are relatively simple;
(b) a streamlining of the application and negotiation process for

negotiation of an Access Request;
(c) clarification regarding the binding nature of forecasts, confirmed by

Access Seekers, on those Access Seekers;
(d) clarification regarding the provision of co-location by deemed Access

Providers;
(e) obligations concerning inter-operator Mobile Number Portability

(MNP) support service;
(f) obligations concerning Domestic Connectivity to International

Services;
(g) obligations concerning Internet Interconnection Service;
(h) obligations concerning Digital Terrestrial Broadcasting Multiplexing

Service; and
(i) obligations concerning Access to Network Elements.
3.8 In 2008, the MCMC also combined the review of the Access List and the MSA
in a single inquiry. The MCMC concluded that it had not been presented with
strong evidence requiring major amendments to the MSA. However, the
following changes were made to the MSA by variation in 2009:
(a) introducing obligations relating to Wholesale Line Rental Service;
(b) introducing obligations relating to HSBB Network Services;
(c) encouraging the Malaysia Access Forum Berhad (MAFB) to enhance

efforts towards self-regulation, including developing Quality of

Service parameters and taking an active role in the development of
non-price terms and conditions of access through access codes;
(d) amending the Digital Terrestrial Broadcasting Multiplexing Service to

remove prescriptive bit rate allocation; and
(e) in respect of naked DSL:
(i) enabling Access Seekers to provide naked DSL to their end

users as a retail service offering; and
(ii) prohibiting Access Providers from requiring the end user to

acquire the line rental service at a fee from them, if the Access
Seeker is acquiring the Wholesale Line Rental Service, Full
Access Service, Bitstream Services or Sub-Loop Service.
3.9 The historical development of the MSA provides important context for the
current inquiry. The MCMC will consider its original positions where possible
when determining whether to add, amend or remove terms from the MSA
as part of the current review.
Focus areas for MSA review

Key themes
4.1 Based on the MCMC’s broader assessment of the state of the

communications sector, and the initial stakeholder responses to the informal
questionnaire described above, the MCMC proposes to conduct its review of
the MSA with particular attention to the following key themes:
(a) access instrument model – whether the ARD model in the current
MSA or another access instrument model will best promote the
national policy objectives for the communications and multimedia
industry, including determining the appropriate level of detail of the
MSA and the access instrument;
(b) transparency – what reporting and informational requirements

should apply to operators to enable the MCMC to better monitor
compliance with the MSA;
(c) equivalence – what measures are required to promote equivalence

between an Access Seeker and an Access Provider’s own retail arm
in downstream markets, including in respect of Access Seeker
information requested by and disclosed to an Access Provider; and
(d) limiting anti-competitive conduct – what measures are required

to prevent an Access Provider from lessening competition by
engaging in conduct such as bundling services or setting floors or
ceilings for orders.
4.2 The MCMC also proposes to address other areas in which Access Providers
and Access Seekers have voiced concerns. These include provisions relating
to creditworthiness, physical access and security, quality of service and

grace period for implementation, and service-specific obligations relating to
HSBB Services, Transmission Services, and MVNO Access.
4.3 The above areas are elaborated on in Part B and Part C below with more
detailed proposed variations to the current terms of the MSA set out as draft
mark-up in Annexure 3.
Access List alignment
4.4 The MCMC recently completed a review of the Access List. 1 As part of this
review, several Facilities and Services were added or removed from the
Access List.
4.5 Given that the MSA relates specifically to the Facilities and Services in the
Access List, the MCMC notes that corresponding amendments to the MSA
will be required to align with the updated Access List.
4.6 The following Facilities and Services were removed from the Access List:
(a) HSBB Network Service without QoS; and
(b) Transmission Service (this service was made more modular by

breaking out into two separate transmission services described
below).
4.7 The following Facilities and Services are now included in the Access List:
(a) Trunk Transmission Service;
(b) Duct and Manhole Access;
(c) Layer 3 HSBB Network Service;
(d) End-to-End Transmission Service; and
(e) MVNO Access.
4.8 The proposed variations to the MSA terms set out in Annexure 3 include
changes to align with the above updates in the Access List.
1
See: MCMC, ‘Access List Review – Public Inquiry Report’ (7 August 2015).

Part B Key themes
Overview
5.1 In conducting this review, the MCMC is considering whether any changes to
the current MSA are required to best promote the national policy objectives
for the communications and multimedia industry.
5.2 In particular, the MCMC is considering whether there are any issues with or
deficiencies in the current MSA that may need to be addressed by regulation
and whether any existing provisions no longer require the force of
regulation.
5.3 In order to assist respondents to this Public Inquiry, the MCMC sets out in
this Part B a summary of the key themes that underline many of the changes
it is proposing in its review of the MSA. The key themes are:
(a) access instrument model;
(b) transparency;
(c) equivalence; and
(d) limiting anti-competitive conduct.
5.4 The MCMC considers it important to conduct its review in a manner

consistent with international best practice. The MCMC has therefore
considered the regulatory regimes of other jurisdictions under each of these
key themes and whether a similar approach might be appropriate in the
Malaysian context.
Access instrument model

Summary of proposed approach
6.1 The MCMC considers that the current MSA and ARD model has been
somewhat effective in providing Access Seekers with access to Facilities and
Services in the Access List, but improvements could be made to ensure that
such access is expeditious and efficient.
6.2 In particular, the MCMC understands concerns expressed by Access Seekers

that they are constrained in the negotiation process by the lack of
availability of detailed terms and conditions for Facilities and Services.
6.3 Accordingly, the MCMC has performed an international review of access

instrument models with a view to determining an appropriate alternative to
the ARD model for the Malaysian context.
6.4 In proposing an alternative access instrument model for Malaysia, the MCMC
is mindful of balancing the need to ensure expeditious and efficient access
on clear terms with the risk of adopting an overly-prescriptive approach
which might result in undesirable inflexibility.

6.5 For example, while the MCMC considers it appropriate for certain key terms
of access to be mandated by regulation, the MCMC has not been presented
with a sufficient case to suggest it is necessary to mandate the complete
terms and conditions for access to Facilities or Services in the Access List.
This is particularly the case for certain operational, process and technical
matters which are operator-specific and which may need to change over
time.
6.6 The MCMC’s preliminary view, therefore, is that a Precedent Access

Agreement model (which would involve setting out the complete terms and
conditions for Access Agreements in the MSA, as described in its informal
questionnaire) would not be appropriate at this time.
6.7 Instead, the MCMC proposes the following approach, which involves a
combination of mandatory regulated terms and operator-provided terms:
(a) MSA to include mandatory terms on key rights and

obligations: The MCMC proposes to set out mandatory general and
service-specific terms on key rights and obligations in the MSA.
(b) Access Provider to make Reference Access Offers publicly

available: The MCMC proposes to replace the ARD model in the
current MSA with a new access instrument model. The new access
instrument model would require Access Providers to prepare,
maintain and make publicly available the full set of terms and
conditions on which the Access Provider is prepared to supply
Facilities and Services in the Access List to Access Seekers (an RAO).
The RAO would include the same level of detail as an Access
Agreement and would be capable of being signed as an Access
Agreement. The RAO must be consistent with and not inconsistent
with the rights and obligations set out in the MSA.
6.8 The MCMC considers that the proposed model process will result in greater
efficiencies for Access Seekers and Access Providers, particularly in their
negotiations of Access Agreements, as it:
(a) is likely to reduce the negotiation period required to agree on the

terms and conditions of an Access Agreement; and
(b) provides Access Seekers with an offer that they may sign “as is” to
obtain fast-tracked access to Facilities and Services in the Access List.
6.9 The MCMC is proposing changes throughout the MSA to replace the ARD
model with the newly proposed RAO model (see Annexure 3 to this PI
Paper).
Background
6.10 Throughout this and other reviews, the MCMC has received submissions
from Access Seekers who have experienced difficulty negotiating access
agreements on the basis of the current MSA. The MCMC notes that the

purpose of the MSA is to ensure that all Access Seekers can access available
Facilities and Services.
6.11 The MCMC has requested submissions on whether these difficulties might
be alleviated if the MSA incorporates a Precedent Access Agreement. A
Precedent Access Agreement would set the complete terms and conditions
for Access Agreements as a standard to apply across the industry. Parties
will still be permitted to agree to alternate commercial arrangements outside
of these terms.
6.12 The Precedent Access Agreement model differs from the Reference Access
Offer model because the same Precedent Access Agreement will apply to all
Access Providers.
6.13 The Public Inquiry on Review of Access List and Mandatory Standard of
Access published on 21 December 2008 reviewed the regulatory approach
that should be taken when applying the MSA, and specifically considered
whether the function of the MSA should be to provide guidance for
formulating access agreements or to set mandatory default terms and
conditions. In the Public Inquiry, the MCMC noted that “its overall regulatory
approach would be consistent with the principles of best regulatory
practice.”2
6.14 The MCMC notes that the Precedent Access Agreement model is a departure
from international precedent, in which reference offers and precedent
access agreement are generally only required from dominant access
providers. However, the MCMC has not ruled out the Precedent Access
Agreement model given the nature of competition in Malaysia and existing
issues faced by Access Seekers.
6.15 The MCMC is also open to considering other options that have been
successfully implemented in other countries and could be applicable in
Malaysia.
Legislative background
6.16 The access regime under the CMA requires that an Access Provider provide
access to an Access Seeker who makes a written request for access on
“reasonable terms and conditions”.3
6.17 However, an Access Agreement only falls within the scope of the CMA if it
has been registered with the Commission.4 The registration process is set
out in Chapter 8 and provides that the Commission will register a written
agreement if it is satisfied that the agreement is consistent with the objects
of the Act, any relevant instrument under this Act (i.e. an MSA) and any
relevant provisions of the Act or its subsidiary legislation.
2
SKMM, Public Inquiry Report, Review of Access List and Mandatory Standard on Access, 21 December 2008,
at 2.1, available online at:
http://www.skmm.gov.my/skmmgovmy/files/attachments/53628177PI_Report_21_Dec_08.pdf.
3
CMA, subsection 149(1).
4
CMA, section 150.

6.18 Section 91 of the CMA leaves open the option for the MCMC to significantly
alter the form of access agreements by changing the drafting of the MSA.
Although the MCMC prefers minimal regulatory intervention, in cases where
there is clear evidence that the MSA is not fulfilling its intended purpose,
the MCMC is justified in stepping in.
Overview of current MSA approach
6.19 The current MSA sets out “indicative model terms and conditions concerning
access”5, and does not set out any standard mandatory terms for Access
Agreements. The Commission has explained that this is because it “has been
concerned to avoid adopting an overly-prescriptive approach which might
result in undesirable inflexibility.”6 Under the current framework, Access
Providers publish ARDs that contain high level descriptions of Facilities and
Services on offer to Access Seekers.
6.20 The current MSA is closer to a series of regulatory principles than to a

standard form commercial wholesale contract. It contains mechanisms for
determining terms and conditions in the event that parties are unable to
reach an agreement, including the option of seeking dispute resolution. 7 The
current MSA8 and the CMA9 also contain non-discrimination obligations,
meaning that Access Providers must negotiate and reach agreement with
Access Seekers on a non-discriminatory basis.
6.21 The MCMC has received several submissions that one of the key areas that
is lacking in the current MSA is the fact that there is insufficient detail and
uniformity of product technical specifications and implementation details.
ARDs were generally not seen as an appropriate substitute for this. There is
general consensus that it is not desirable to incorporate an Operations
Manual in a Precedent Access Agreement, as these are better commercially
negotiated between the parties to reflect their particular circumstances.
Similarly, many parties suggested that certain terms including security
provisions are better determined between the parties.
6.22 Submissions also generally acknowledged that the MAFB had not been
successful in developing an access code that meets the MCMC’s
requirements. Nevertheless, despite that, there was limited support for a
Precedent Access Agreement model to be developed by the MCMC.
6.23 The MCMC agrees with Maxis’ submission that the level of detail required in
a Precedent Access Agreement or similar standard form document depends
on the relevant market. Where wholesale access is meant to facilitate
service provision which does not exist in the market, regulators typically
mandate sufficient detail (but not complete) to prevent an abuse of the
process.
5
MSA, subsection 2.2.1.
6
7
8
MSA, subsection 4.1.5 – subsection 4.2 (inclusive).
9
CMA, subsections 149(2).

6.24 The MCMC also accepts that in order to ensure that that it intervenes only
to the extent necessary to achieve its regulatory goals, it may be necessary
to draft service-specific obligations of differing levels of detail for each
facility and service.
6.25 An overview of international precedents for each option is detailed below.
Reference Access Offer model
6.26 Australia has adopted an access instrument model similar to the proposed
RAO model in that it allows nbn to publish a Standard Form Access
Agreement (SFAA) which contains key terms which can be accepted by an
access seeker without variation.
6.27 The process for this is set out in the Competition and Consumer Act 2010
(CCA). Division 2 of Part XIC of the CCA allows nbn to formulate an ‘open
offer’ to supply services in the form of an SFAA. The SFAA does not form
part of the access hierarchy, but may form the basis of an access agreement
that would prevail, to the extent of any inconsistency, over regulated terms.
6.28 Unlike other forms of declaring a service, the Australian Competition and
Consumer Commission (ACCC) does not approve an SFAA. However, the
ACCC does have the option of making a binding rule of conduct or access
determination in relation to a service described in the SFAA. The SFAA must
also comply with the CCA. In addition, parties may still choose to negotiate
an access agreement between themselves.
6.29 There has been some debate in Australia recently about the suitability of
this model, in the context of the Independent Cost-Benefit Analysis Review
on Telecommunications Regulatory Arrangements. Several Access Seekers
expressed concern that the lack of direct ACCC involvement means that
SFAAs are offered on a ‘take it or leave it’ basis.
6.30 Notably, the ACCC itself made a submission expressing its satisfaction with
the SFAA model and explained that allowing different levels of regulatory
involvement may provide flexibility for certain terms to evolve over time as
appropriate. The SFAA obligation can also be seen as providing transparency
and equivalence, and should be considered within a general framework
which currently includes non-discrimination.10
6.31 The Review ultimately concluded that it was satisfied with the SFAA model
and noted that nbn has given the ACCC a Standard Access Undertaking
(SAU) which the ACCC accepted after a public consultation process. The
SAU is binding and the SFAA must comply with its terms. The SAU provides
that the SFAA expires every two years, ensuring that the terms are regularly
subject to review and re-negotiation.11 The SAU also sets out methods for
engaging with industry stakeholders.
10
ACCC, ACCC submission to the Independent Cost Benefit Analysis Review of Regulation Telecommunications
Regulatory Arrangements Paper (s.152EOA Review), 14 April 2014, p. 18.
11
SAU, Schedule 1B, clause 1B.2.

Other models
6.32 In some countries, including the UK, Singapore and New Zealand, an access
instrument model setting out less than the complete terms of access is
adopted.
6.33 The MCMC has given some examples below of countries operating on such
a model.
Qatar
6.34 In Qatar, the Communications Regulatory Authority (CRA) requires

Dominant Service Providers in certain markets to publish non-discriminatory
Reference Offers, which must be approved by the CRA. Service Providers
are required to negotiate and sign new agreements with Access Seekers
based on those Reference Offers. The Reference Offers cover commercial,
technical, operational and procedural aspects of the relationship between
service providers.
6.35 The legislative background to this is Article 25 of the Telecommunications

Law, which provides that the CRA shall determine the rights and obligations
of a Dominant Service Provider, including any requirements relating to the
contents and publication of an interconnection reference offer and access
agreements.12
6.36 Reference Offers are developed by operators with substantial input from the
CRA. The process begins when the CRA issues a Guideline Document for
Reference Offers containing the main bodies of the Reference
Interconnection Offer, Reference Transmission Offer and Reference Passive
Offer for public comment. In the Guideline, the CRA expressed the view that
in asymmetrical markets in which service providers have different
negotiating power, it is appropriate to regulate in order to ensure that the
market functions effectively and even-handedly and that the issue of
Reference Offers furthers CRA’s overarching objective of creating
sustainable competition based on network infrastructure and liberalizing the
telecommunications sector. The CRA concluded that interconnection and
access on fair and efficient terms is an essential requirement for the creation
of an efficient and competitive telecommunications market in Qatar, which
could not be achieved without regulatory intervention.13
6.37 The CRA releases guiding principles that apply to Service Providers and
Dominant Service Providers. All Service Providers are subject to 13 guiding
principles, including an obligation to permit interconnection at any
technically and economically feasible point, and to enter into good faith
negotiations to complete interconnection and access agreements if
requested by other Service Providers. All Dominant Service Providers must
comply with the Service Provider guiding principles plus an additional 10
12
Other relevant sections include Articles 6, 46, 49(2) and 51(2) of the Executive By-Law for Telecommunications
Law 2009.
13
ictQATAR, Explanatory Note & Guidelines for Reference Offers - Draft for Consultation, 12 June 2013, p.4,
available online: http://www.ictqatar.qa/en/file/documents/ictra-20130612-reference-offers-regulatory-
guidelinepdf.

principles. These include ensuring that all interconnection and access
procedures are transparent, fair and non-discriminatory; not unnecessarily
constraining interconnection by technical obstacles or limitations with no
justifiable objective basis; and sharing facilities.
6.38 Operators are then instructed to fill in missing information and return the
proposed Reference Offer to the CRA for consultation. The CRA is permitted
to issue orders which vary the content of the Dominant Service Provider’s
proposed Reference Offer.14
6.39 The MCMC notes that this system involves extensive intervention and
involvement from regulatory authorities, who have wide discretion to refuse
or change terms or conditions that do not comply with the guiding principles.
Singapore
6.40 In Singapore, the Info-Communications Development Authority (IDA)

encourages parties to negotiate interconnection and access agreements
commercially. In the event that the parties are unable to reach an
agreement, the IDA requires dominant licensees to provide interconnection
and access-related services to facilities-based and service-based licensees
under a Reference Interconnection Offer or Reference Access Offer, in
accordance with subsection 6.3.1 of the Code of Practice for Competition in
the Provision of Telecommunication Services in the Republic of Singapore.
6.41 Singaporean RIOs/RAOs are in two parts. The first part governs the process
and procedures through which an Access Seeker may accept the RIO/RAO
and enter an RIO/RAO Agreement with the Access Provider. The second part
sets out the minimum terms and conditions of the agreement.
6.42 As in Qatar, the RIO/RAO process is ostensibly driven by Access Providers

but the IDA is involved at every stage and also conducts public consultations
and seeks industry comments on drafting. The IDA may also submit
‘directed amendments’ on an RIO/RAO in accordance with section 27(1) of
the Telecommunications Act (Chapter 323).
Preliminary comparison
6.43 The MCMC will need to balance the benefits and detriments of implementing
any proposed access instrument model that it seeks to adopt.
6.44 The benefits of an RAO model include that Access Providers and Access
Seekers are provided with absolute certainty about the terms and conditions
of access. Accordingly, the cost of lack of transparency and negotiation (e.g.
time delay) are significantly reduced. An RAO model may also assist Access
Seekers who have faced difficulties negotiating Access Agreements on the
basis of the current MSA to do so.
14
See, for example, the Order of the Communications Regulatory Authority: Approval of Ooredoo Q.S.C.
Reference Interconnection Offer and Reference Transmission Links Offer, 21 May 2015, available online at:
http://www.cra.gov.qa/en/document/reference-offers-ros-orders-and-approved-ros-ooredoo-and-vodafone.

6.45 One challenge of the RAO model, as currently proposed, is that it applies to
all Access Providers. The MCMC is not aware of any jurisdiction that has
applied such a requirement to every Access Provider, regardless of whether
or not they are dominant in the market. The MCMC notes that generally this
model has been applied in asymmetric markets as a deliberate tool to
restrict dominant players and hence give other operators the opportunity to
develop services that are competitive.
6.46 In theory, an access instrument model that requires Access Providers to

publish less than the complete terms and conditions of access would
facilitate downstream differentiation and thus potentially promote
competition and investment. There would however be some disadvantage
(for example, delay) to Access Seekers of not having absolute certainty
about the terms and conditions of access, as the MCMC has found in its
experience with the ARD model.
6.47 A summary of the MCMC’s proposed approach for moving to an RAO model
is provided above. A more detailed overview and discussion of the MCMC’s
proposed changes to the MSA to implement the move to an RAO model is
set out below in Part D. In particular, see 0 for an overview of the higher
level amendments that are required to implement an RAO model and section
16 for a summary of the MCMC’s proposed changes to improve the existing
fast track negotiation process in the MSA.
Transparency
7.1 The MCMC considers that the existing reporting obligations and information-
gathering powers under the current MSA do not sufficiently encourage
operator accountability and compliance with the MSA or provide the MCMC
with sufficient oversight to enable it to determine whether or not it should
exercise its powers.
7.2 The MCMC proposes to strengthen and provide for additional reporting
obligations and information-gathering powers in the MSA to enable the
MCMC to better monitor operators’ compliance with the MSA.
7.3 The MCMC proposes to require operators to notify the MCMC of certain
matters as a matter of course — either, on a regular basis (such as every 6
months) or on the occurrence of certain events (such as when an Access
Provider refuses an Access Request).
7.4 The MCMC also proposes to require additional reporting obligations in

respect of Facilities and Services which the MCMC considers access is likely
to be more contentious—namely, HSBB Network Services, Transmission
Services, Network Co-Location Services, Duct and Manhole Access and
Digital Terrestrial Broadcasting Multiplexing Service.
7.5 The MCMC considers that this approach will increase operator accountability
and encourage compliance with the MSA, whilst ensuring that regulation is
necessary, proportionate and targeted. The MCMC considers that regular

mandatory reporting by operators will generally encourage operators to
treat compliance with the MSA as a continuous, on-going requirement and
to consider whether their proposed conduct is justifiable before engaging in
it.
7.6 The MCMC also considers that this approach will result in a more cooperative
relationship between the MCMC and operators, as it will encourage open and
regular dialogue with the MCMC. It would also provide the MCMC with a level
of oversight over the industry, allowing it to better determine whether or
not it should exercise its powers, without the need for the MCMC to act only
when it suspects a breach of an access obligation.
Transparent negotiations and Access List monitoring
7.7 Some Access Seekers submitted in the Public Inquiry for Access List that
they have had difficulty negotiating access based on the current MSA. The
MCMC notes that in some cases these Access Seekers have not notified the
MCMC of a dispute with the relevant Access Provider over the Access
Provider’s compliance with the standard access obligations under section
149 of the CMA. The process for notifying the MCMC of an access dispute is
clearly set out in section 151 of the CMA.
7.8 The MCMC will not speculate as to the reasons why Access Seekers have
not sought to exercise their right to raise an access dispute under the CMA.
However, the MCMC is concerned that the discrepancy between disputes
raised and issues experienced may significantly reduce the effectiveness of
the access regime. As the MCMC explained in the Public Inquiry Paper on
the Access List, the MCMC is unable to address these issues unless they are
drawn to its attention. Making changes to the Access List will not solve the
problem.
7.9 Despite this, the MCMC is of the view that it is necessary to enhance existing
reporting structures so that the MCMC does not need to rely on Access
Seekers to draw attention to issues that they are encountering.
7.10 As it is currently drafted, the CMA does not state the timeframe or process
that an Access Provider must follow when considering an access request,
however the MSA does cover this in subsection 5.4. The MCMC is reviewing
whether subsection 5.4 needs to be further enhanced to make it mandatory
for operators to report back to the MCMC on the progress of access requests
being considered. This will allow the MCMC to monitor negotiations and
reduce opportunities for engaging in discriminatory practices.
7.11 The MCMC has added drafting which would introduce reporting obligations
at the time an Access Provider responds to the access request (subsection
5.4.7), when the negotiations for an Access Agreement begin (paragraph
5.4.1(a)) and in relation to all refusals of Access Requests (subsection
5.4.19).
7.12 The MCMC has also added drafting which would introduce additional bi-
annual reporting obligations applicable to all operators. These obligations

are set out in a new subsection 5.3.12. A discussion of these additional
reporting obligations is set out in section 14 below.
7.13 The MCMC is considering whether all Access Providers should also be
required to submit annual audited statements of compliance with these
reporting requirements. This would complement the function of the MCMC
to conduct compliance audits under subsection 7.3 of the MSA. See further
discussion below at section 14.
7.14 The aim of this proposal is to increase transparency and compliance to the
access regime and the Access Provider’s accountability, and thereby
enhancing the effectiveness of the regime. The MCMC stresses that
information gathered through the proposed mandatory reporting process
will not necessarily be used by the MCMC to investigate or to enforce
subsection 149(3) of the CMA. The information gathered will only be used
internally by the MCMC. It will not be shared with other Access Seekers or
the public.
Transparency in relation to Access Agreements
7.15 The MCMC has also received submissions from Access Seekers requesting
that there be further transparency surrounding the agreed text of Access
Agreements. Some Access Seekers are concerned that Access Providers
may be offering preferential terms and conditions to certain Access Seekers
or to their own retail operations. This is prohibited under the current MSA
and the CMA.
7.16 Several other countries have adopted practices that increase transparency
which might be helpful in Malaysia. For example, in the United Kingdom,
British Telecom (BT) publishes Internal Reference Offers which specifically
identify the differences between wholesale products sold externally to
Access Seekers and those provided internally to BT’s downstream retail
operations. An Equality of Access Board (EAB) was also established to
monitor, report and advise BT on BT’s compliance with its Undertakings and
Code of Practice, with a focus on providing products on an Equivalence of
Inputs basis.15 Ofcom also receives minutes of the EAB’s meetings and is
informed by the EAB of any non-trivial breaches of the Undertakings, which
are also made public.
7.17 A different solution was adopted in Australia, where section 152BEBA of the
CCA requires nbn to give the ACCC a statement about the differences
between every access agreement that it enters which differs with the
applicable SFAA.
7.18 The MCMC is not currently proposing to implement either of these

requirements, but would be open to receiving submissions from operators
on these matters as part of this Public Inquiry.
15
Section 10 of the consolidated version of the Undertakings given to Ofcom by BT pursuant to the Enterprise
Act 2002, published 20/6/14 and available online:
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/telecoms/policy/bt/Consolidated_Undertakings24.pdf

7.19 A summary of the MCMC’s proposed approach for improving transparency
under the MSA is provided above. A more detailed overview and discussion
of the MCMC’s proposed changes to the MSA to implement this approach is
set out in Part C and Part D below. In particular, refer to:
(a) section 14 which discusses the extended general reporting

obligations that are proposed for inclusion under subsection 5.3.12
of the Draft MSA;
(b) sections 37, 38, 40, 42 and 43, which discuss the MCMC’s proposal
to include new service-specific reporting obligations in respect of the
HSBB Network Services, Transmission Services, Network Co-Location
Services, Duct and Manhole Access and Digital Terrestrial
Broadcasting Multiplexing Service.
The MCMC welcomes operator feedback on its proposed approach for

improving transparency under the MSA.
Equivalence
8.1 The MCMC considers that the existing non-discrimination provisions in the
current MSA are insufficient to the level playing field between Access
Seekers and an Access Provider’s own retail arm that they were intended
to.
8.2 The MCMC proposes to address these inadequacies by raising the non-
discrimination provisions in the MSA to an ‘equivalence of inputs’ standard,
as is common across communications regulatory regimes internationally.
8.3 The MCMC also proposes to expand the scope of information that an Access
Provider may not require an Access Seeker to provide, to preclude the
possibility of such information being used for unfair advantage by the Access
Provider’s own retail arm, but does not otherwise propose to substantially
amend the existing confidentiality or non-permitted information regime.
Overview
8.4 The MCMC has noted the submissions of certain operators, who have
requested that the MCMC introduce the concept of ‘equivalence of inputs’
into the MSA. ‘Equivalence of inputs’ requires that all elements that make
up the service provided by the Access Provider are equal, including the price
charged, processes used and timescales adopted.
8.5 The current MSA does not guarantee this. Instead, subsection 4.1.5 states
that an Access Provider must provide access to Facilities and Services
specified in the Access List that is of at least the same or more favourable
technical standard and quality as that provided on the Access Provider’s
Facilities or Services, on an equitable and non-discriminatory basis.
Subsection 4.1.6 explains that the term ‘non-discriminatory’ requires
comparison of the basis on which a thing is provided by the Access Provider

to the Access Seeker with the basis on which that thing is provided by the
Access Provider to itself and to other Access Seekers who are similarly
situated. The CMA reflects these requirements in subsection 149(2).
8.6 This means that under the current MSA an Access Provider has control over
its internal processes and procedures so long as the Access Seeker is
provided with the service specified in the Access List, and other Access
Seekers and the retail arm of the Access Provider do not receive a service
that is of a higher technical standard or quality. This allows that Access
Provider to offer more favourable terms of access to certain persons. This
approach is sometimes referred to as ‘equivalence of outputs’.
8.7 Several Access Seekers have also raised concerns about the information
that they are obliged to reveal to Access Providers under the MSA.
Frequently, this information is commercially sensitive. Access Seekers are
concerned that vertically integrated Access Providers could use information
gathered by their wholesale business to bestow a competitive advantage on
their downstream retail business. For example, the Access Provider’s retail
arm might become aware that a competitor is intending to expand coverage
in an area because they have applied for access to Transmission Services to
that area.
Regulation of equivalence in other jurisdictions
8.8 There are several different ways to regulate to ensure equivalence.
Singapore
8.9 In Singapore, the IDA regulates equivalence at multiple levels.
8.10 At a high level, operators across the communications sector are broadly
subject to a number of non-discrimination obligations under the Code of
Practice for Competition in the Provision of Telecommunications Services
2012 (Telecom Competition Code).16
8.11 For example, under section 4.2.1.2 of the Telecom Competition Code, a
Dominant Licensee:
(a) must provide Services to customers “at prices, terms and conditions
that are not discriminatory”; and
(b) must not discriminate in favour of itself, an “affiliate”, or any other

related entity in the provision of any Service that it provides under a
tariff.
When assessing whether prices, terms and conditions are discriminatory the
IDA will consider whether the Services in question are comparable. When
different prices, terms or conditions are offered to customers acquiring a
16
IDA, Telecommunications Act (Chapter 323) – Code of Practice for Competition in the Provision of
Telecommunications Services 2005, available online:
https://www.ida.gov.sg/~/media/Files/PCDG/Practice%20Guidelines/TCC/ 2012TCC_wef_2July2014.pdf

Service which appears to be the same, the Service Provider must
demonstrate that the Service offered to each is in fact different.
8.12 Notably, the IDA’s determination of what will constitute discriminatory

behaviour under this provision is “based on objective differences, such as,
but not limited to, variations in the cost of the service provided, variations
in the quantity or quality of service provided or variations in the duration of
the service agreement period”.17
8.13 In addition, more specific requirements are regulated for certain “EOI
Services” in respect of Next Generation National Broadband Network
(NGNBN) interconnection provided by the ‘Operating Companies’ (OpCo).
8.14 Singapore’s Nucleus Connect (the relevant OpCo) must ensure that all
services offered under its licence from the IDA are offered on an Equivalence
of Inputs basis. This includes certain “Mandated Services” which Nucleus
Connect is required to provide, as well as any other services that it may
elect to provide under its Licence.
8.15 Equivalence of Inputs in this context means that Nucleus Connect must:
(a) provide the same service to all other Operators;
(b) deliver that service to the Affiliated Operator and all other Operators
on the same timescales and terms and conditions (including price
and service levels);
(c) deliver that service to the Affiliated Operator and all other Operators
by means of the same systems and processes (including using the
same OSS/BSS Connection Service and Management Information
Systems);
(d) provide the Affiliated Operator and all other Operators with the same
Commercial Information about those assets, services, systems and
processes; and
(e) ensure that all other Operators are able to use the services, systems
and processes that are used by the Affiliated Operator in the same
way and with the same degree of reliability and performance. 18
8.16 The Licence clarifies that “the same” means exactly the same, subject only
to “trivial differences” and “such other difference as may be agreed by IDA
in writing from time to time”.19
17
Ibid at section 4.2.1.2.
18
IDA, Licence to provide facilities-based operations granted by the Info-Communications Development Authority
of Singapore to Nucleus Connect Pte Ltd under section 5 of the Telecommunications Act (Chapter 323) on 30
October 2009, Schedule C (Specific Terms and Conditions), Appendix 1 (Operational Separation Requirements),
1.1(f).
19
Ibid.

8.17 The IDA may also establish a Monitoring Board to monitor and report on
Nucleus Connect’s compliance with its Equivalence of Inputs obligations. 20
United Kingdom
8.18 In the United Kingdom the national broadband and telephone network
operator, Openreach, has given a formal Undertaking to Ofcom that it will
provide access on an ‘Equivalence of Inputs’ basis (product-level
equivalence).21 Openreach is a natural monopoly.
8.19 The Undertakings provide that BT will apply Equivalence of Inputs to certain
specified current and future products.22
8.20 Equivalence of Inputs (or EOI) is defined in the Undertakings:
“Equivalence of Inputs” or “EOI” means that BT provides, in respect of a particular product or

service, the same product or service to all Communications Providers (including BT) on the
same timescales, terms and conditions (including price and service levels) by means of the
same systems and processes, and includes the provision to all Communications Providers
(including BT) of the same Commercial Information about such products, services, systems and
processes. In particular, it includes the use by BT of such systems and processes in the same
way as other Communications Providers and with the same degree of reliability and
performance as experienced by other Communications Providers.
In this context “the same” means exactly the same subject only to:
(a) trivial differences;
(b) such other differences as may be agreed by Ofcom in writing;
(c) differences relating to the following:
(i) credit vetting procedures;
(ii) payment procedures;
(iii) matters of national and crime-related security, physical security, security

required to protect the operational integrity of the network and such other
security requirements as agreed between BT and Ofcom from time to time;
(iv) provisions relating to the termination of a contract; and
(v) contractual provisions relating to requirements for a safe working

environment; or
(d) such other differences as are specified elsewhere in these Undertakings, including
where Commercial Information is provided in accordance with these Undertakings to
any of the nominated individuals, and individuals occupying the roles and functional
areas (and their relevant external advisers, subcontractors and agents) listed in Annex
2.
20
Ibid at 9.1.
21
Section 3 of the consolidated version of the Undertakings given to Ofcom by BT pursuant to the Enterprise Act
2002, published 20/6/14 and available online:
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/telecoms/policy/bt/Consolidated_Undertakings24.pdf
22
Ibid at section 3.1.

8.21 BT gave the original EOI Undertakings in 2005, following Ofcom’s Strategic
Review of Telecommunications.23 The review considered whether equality of
access is best achieved through equivalence of inputs or equivalence of
outcomes. The review’s Final Report concluded that Ofcom’s preferred
approach is equivalence at product level achieved through mandating
equivalence of inputs in markets or parts of the network in which BT has
SMP and which are enduring economic bottlenecks. By contrast, equivalence
of outcomes would have meant that BT had to offer comparable wholesale
products, but could use different internal processes.
Italy
8.22 In Italy, the regulator (AGCOM) has adopted what can be broadly classified
as an ‘Equivalence of Outputs’ model (at the product level), with the
incumbent operator Telecom Italia providing Undertakings to this effect,
effective from 2009. This means that the regulated wholesale products
offered by the incumbent operator to alternative operators are comparable
to products it provides to its retail division in terms of functionality and price,
but may be provided by different systems and processes. 24 Also, the
business and operational support systems may differ. In 2014, AGCOM
noted that this approach had resulted in unsatisfactory performance in
terms of provisioning, delivery and assurance. 25
Methods for implementation through MSA
8.23 Equivalence is particularly important in a country like Malaysia which does

not mandate structural or functional separation between wholesale and
retail arms of telecommunications businesses.
8.24 The MCMC notes that the European Commission has stated that it considers
an Equivalence of Inputs regime is “the surest way to achieve effective
protection from discrimination as access seekers will be able to compete
with the downstream business of the vertically integrated SMP operator
using exactly the same set of regulated wholesale product, at the same
prices and using the same transactional processes. In addition, and contrary
to an Equivalence of Output, Equivalence of Input is better equipped to
deliver transparency and address the problem of information
asymmetries.”26
23
Ofcom Office of Communications, Final statements on the Strategic Review of Telecommunications, and
undertakings in lieu of a reference under the Enterprise Act 2002, 22 September 2005, available online:
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/752417/statement/statement.pdf.
24
Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications, BEREC Guidance on functional separation –
Annex 1 Functional separation in practice: EU experiences, February 2011, page 13, available online:
http://berec.europa.eu/files/documents/bor_10_44Rev1b.pdf.
25
David Gallino, Head of Unit, Equivalence of access, Electronic Communications Networks and Services
Directorate – AGCOM, Equivalence of output in Italy, 29 April 2014 presentation available at:
http://slidegur.com/doc/64772/presentaion-by-agcom.
26
European Commission, Commission Recommendation of 11.9.2013 on consistent non-discrimination
obligations and costing methodologies to promote competition and enhance the broadband investment
environment, Page 4 at (13), available online at: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-
market/en/news/commission-recommendation-consistent-non-discrimination-obligations-and-costing-
methodologies.

8.25 The MCMC agrees that Equivalence of Inputs is preferable and should be
incorporated into the MSA to the extent that it is not already covered by the
non-discrimination obligation.
Confidentiality and non-permitted information
8.26 The MCMC is conscious that the purpose of the MSA may be compromised
if Access Seekers are unwilling to submit Access Requests because they are
worried about confidentiality.
8.27 At the same time, the MCMC understands that Access Providers require
certain types of information in order to assess whether it will be possible to
accommodate an Access Seeker’s request. The current MSA sets out
information that must be included in an Access Request and certain
information that an Access Provider may not request from an Access Seeker.
8.28 The MCMC does not propose to reduce the scope of information that must
be included in an Access Request. However, the MCMC does propose to
prohibit Access Providers from requiring Access Seekers to provide any
more than the minimum information necessary to assess their application.
The MCMC would remind Access Seekers that they may choose to provide
additional information, but an Access Provider will not be entitled to reject
their Access Request if they do not do so.27
8.29 Furthermore, the MSA requires that the Access Seeker sign the Access
Provider’s confidentiality agreement and provide this along with the other
mandatory information that it submits with its Access Request. 28 Each
Access Provider may have their own confidentiality agreement, however the
MSA requires that the agreement is reciprocal and prohibit a party that
receives confidential information from using the information other than as
necessary for the purpose of assessing a request for access.29 This provision
prevents a vertically integrated operator from sharing information between
its wholesale and retail businesses, regardless of whether those businesses
are structurally or functionally separate, or not.
8.30 The MCMC has not received any submissions that the constraints that the
MCMC places on these confidentiality agreements are insufficient or
unsatisfactory. The MCMC has also not received any submissions that Access
Providers are not complying with the MSA requirements regarding the
content of confidentiality agreements.
8.31 At this stage, therefore, the MCMC does not propose any further change to
the confidentiality provisions. Nevertheless, the MCMC has proposed some
amendments with regard to information to be included in the Access
Request and non-permitted information. This is further discussed in section
16.
8.32 The MCMC’s view is that the MSA must strike a balance between ensuring
Access Providers have sufficient information to be able to supply a service
27
See the grounds for rejection set out in section 5.4.11 of the MSA.
28
Paragraph 5.4.6(e) of the MSA.
29
Paragraphs 5.3.8(a) and 5.3.8(d) of the Draft MSA.

at the wholesale level, but without requiring Access Seekers to provide any
additional information that may bestow a competitive advantage to the
Access Provider’s retail arm in the downstream market. The MCMC is of the
view that the Draft MSA currently reflects this position based on the
information currently available to it.
8.33 A summary of the MCMC’s proposed approach for implementing Equivalence

of Inputs under the MSA is provided above. A more detailed overview and
discussion of the MCMC’s proposed changes to the MSA to implement this
approach is set out in Part C and Part D below. In particular, see section 12,
which reviews operator comments on the ‘Equivalence of Inputs’ and sets
out the MCMC’s proposed amendments to strengthen the non-discrimination
provisions under the MSA.
Limiting anti-competitive conduct

9.1 The MCMC considers that the scope of the existing prohibition on bundling
in the current MSA does not adequately address the types of anti-
competitive behaviour that may take place in the Malaysian communications
and multimedia industry.
9.2 The MCMC proposes to further clarify and expand on the existing prohibition
on bundling in the MSA to include other forms of bundling. This includes
bundling within the same service, between services or by setting order floors
or ceilings.
Overview
9.3 During the MCMC’s consultation on the Access List last year, several Access
Seekers expressed concern that Access Providers have been engaging in
potentially anti-competitive behaviour such as bundling wholesale services
in the Access List. The MCMC undertook to address these concerns whilst
reviewing the MSA.
9.4 Forced bundling is already prohibited under subsection 5.13.22 of the MSA
(now subsection 5.19.14 of the Draft MSA), which states that an Access
Provider shall not require an Access Seeker to acquire other facilities or
services from the Access Provider as a condition of providing access to
Facilities or Services under the MSA.
9.5 However, it appears from submissions that Access Providers are seeking to
bundle services in other ways. For instance, some Access Seekers reported
that they had been obliged to acquire Transmission Services along with
Layer 3 HSBB Network Services, as Access Providers were not allowing co-
location at the POI. Access Providers justified this on the basis that those
locations were Critical National Information Infrastructure. Other Access
Seekers have reported that they have been required to maintain high
volumes of orders in order to access discounted rates or other benefits. The
MCMC understands that Access Providers may also be engaging other forms
of anti-competitive conduct, such as imposing a floor or ceiling on the

number of services that an Access Seeker may request, in order to
discourage Access Seekers from taking advantage of their rights under the
Access List.
9.6 The MCMC emphasises that anti-competitive behaviour including forced

bundling of any kind is not permitted. Therefore, in addition to the general
prohibition on bundling under the MSA, the MCMC also proposes to expressly
prohibit an Access Provider from requiring an Access Seeker to purchase
bundled transmission services. This prohibition is now clearly set out in a
new ‘no bundling’ provision under subsection 6.7.8 of the Draft MSA, which
is intended to address Access Seeker concerns in relation to the bundling of
Transmission Services – i.e. where an Access Provider requires an Access
Seeker to purchase Trunk Transmission Service between a pair of technically
feasible network transmission points with a Trunk Transmission Service
between another pair of technically feasible network transmission points.
9.7 The MCMC notes that its view is supported by international best practice.
Forced bundling is a form of anti-competitive conduct which is at odds with
the form and substance of the MSA and the CMA.
9.8 A summary of the MCMC’s proposed approach for addressing anti-

competitive conduct, particularly bundling, under the MSA is provided
above. A more detailed overview and discussion of the MCMC’s proposed
changes to the MSA to implement this approach is set out in Part C and Part
D below. In particular, see section 38, which discusses the MCMC’s proposal
to include a new service-specific prohibition on bundled transmission
services in the MSA.
9.9 The MCMC welcomes feedback from operators on its proposed new ‘no
bundling’ provision and requests that operators identify any other forms of
anti-competitive conduct that they would like to see addressed in the MSA.

Part C Proposed Changes to the MSA
Overview of proposed changes

10.1 Part C to Part F of this PI Paper summarise and explain the material changes
proposed by the MCMC to the substantive provisions of the MSA. As such,
the MCMC notes that not all proposed drafting changes in Annexure 3 are
discussed in this PI Paper. For example, where the mark-up is clear on its
face or where changes are incidental to broader amendments to the MSA.
However, operators are invited to comment on any issues that are not
directly discussed in this PI Paper.
10.2 The current MSA is set out in two instruments: Commission Determination
on the Mandatory Standard on Access, Determination No 2 of 2005 and a
variation to that determination, set out in the Variation to Commission
Determination on the Mandatory Standard on Access (Determination No 2
of 2005), Determination No 2 of 2009. For ease of reference, the Draft MSA
now combines these two determinations into a single instrument, which
forms the base document on which the MCMC’s proposed mark-up is
overlaid in Annexure 3. The matters covered in Part C to Part F follow the
same sequence of provisions found in the Draft MSA.
10.3 The focus of the following parts of this PI Paper is as follows (with Draft MSA
section reference):
(a) Part C: General Principles (section 4 of the Draft MSA)
(b) Part D: Operator Access Obligations (section 5 of the Draft MSA)
(c) Part E: Service Specific Obligations (section 6 of the Draft MSA)
(d) Part F: Standard Administration and Compliance (section 7 of the

Draft MSA)
10.4 Further, note that as part of the 2009 variation, subsections 5.12 and 5.20
were deleted from the 2005 version of the MSA. Subsection 5.22 (Internet
Interconnection Services) is also deleted in the Draft MSA as this service
was removed from the Access List. In order to maintain the existing
numbering for ease of reference during the current review, the MCMC has
inserted placeholder notes in subsections 5.12, 5.20 and 5.22. The MCMC
has taken the same approach where it proposes to relocate the current
subsections of the MSA.30 However, these placeholders will be removed and
the numbering updated in the final version of the MSA that is published
following this Public Inquiry process.
30
The MCMC notes that it proposes to relocate subsection 5.8 (Network Conditioning Obligations) to subsection
6.1 (O&T Services); subsection 5.13 (Network Facilities Access and Co-Location) to subsection 6.9 (Network Co-
Location); subsection 5.21 (Domestic Connectivity to International Services) to subsection 6.10; subsection 5.23
(Digital Terrestrial Broadcasting Service) to subsection 6.12; subsection 5.24 (Access to Network Elements) to
subsection 6.4; subsection 5.25 (Wholesale Line Rental Service) to subsection 6.2; and subsection 5.26 (HSBB
Network Service) to subsection 6.6, as set out in the Draft MSA.

10.5 The focus of this Part C is on the MCMC’s proposed changes to:
(a) the dictionary and other introductory sections of the MSA

(‘Interpretation’ and sections 1 to 3); and
(b) the general principles (section 4).
Interpretation and introductory sections

New Definitions
11.1 The MCMC proposes to include new defined terms in the MSA which would
introduce new concepts including:
(a) “Billing Cycle” – as part of the MCMC’s proposal to introduce service-

specific billing cycles which would be defined in the respective Service
Specific Obligations, as discussed further below at section 24, the
MCMC has included drafting for a new definition of Billing Cycle.
(b) “Notice of Acceptance” – the proposed term means an Access

Provider’s notice to an Access Seeker accepting an Order which must
include the prescribed information under subsection 5.7.13 of the
Draft MSA and is included in the Draft MSA for clarification of those
and other obligations which may depend on the Notice of Acceptance,
such as delivery and activation timeframes.
(c) “Reference Access Offer” - as discussed at section 6 above, the MCMC

proposes to replace Access Reference Documents with Reference
Access Offers. See further discussion at section 13 below.
(d) “Service Specific Obligations” – as part of the MCMC’s proposal to

include service-specific obligations which would sit alongside the
Content Obligations applicable to each type of Facility and Service,
the MCMC has defined Service Specific Obligations.
(e) “Validity Period” – the proposed term means the period of validity of
an Access Provider’s acceptance of an Order as specified in a Notice
of Acceptance and is included in the Draft MSA for clarification of this
and related obligations which may depend on the Validity Period,
such as delivery timeframes.
11.2 The MCMC also proposes to revise the definition of Service Qualification to
clarify that the type of Service Qualification required (i.e. desk and/or field
study, or interrogation of an Access Provider’s Operational Support
Systems) will depend on the type of Facility or Service. The MCMC is
considering whether the MSA should also prescribe the Facilities and
Services which may or may not require an Access Provider to provide post-
Order Service Qualification, and would welcome operator feedback on this
issue.
11.3 The MCMC notes that it has also refined existing definitions and introduced
new definitions to define existing concepts in the Draft MSA, but these

changes do not materially affect the substantive provisions of the MSA and
so have not been listed in this section.
Questions
Question 1: Do you consider any other terms ought to be defined in paragraph 4 of the
Determination?
Question 2: Do you agree with the MCMC’s proposed changes to the Service Qualification
definition? Why or why not? If not, please specify what change you consider is required
and explain why.
General principles
Overview
12.1 In section 8 of Part B above, the MCMC identified equivalence and non-
discrimination as key focus areas to be considered and addressed in the
current MSA review.
Non-discrimination
12.2 The non-discrimination principle is set out in subsection 149(2) of the CMA.
This provision requires an Access Provider to provide access to another
provider that is:
(a) of at least the same or more favourable technical standard and

quality as the technical standard and quality provided on the first
provider’s network facilities or network services; and
(b) on an equitable and non-discriminatory basis.31
12.3 Section 4 of the MSA incorporates, and further elaborates on, the legislated
non-discrimination requirements. In particular, subsection 4.1.6 currently
provides that the term “non-discriminatory” requires comparison of:
(a) the basis on which a thing is provided by the Access Provider to an

Access Seeker; with
(b) the basis on which that thing is provided by the Access Provider to
itself and to other Access Seekers who are similarly situated. 32
12.4 However, despite these regulated non-discrimination requirements, the

MCMC is concerned by continuing reports that Access Providers are
providing certain services on a discriminatory basis. Such complaints were
first raised during the latest Access List Review, and now more recently in
the submissions that were received in response to the informal MSA
questionnaire that was circulated to the industry prior to the current inquiry.
12.5 The MCMC is particularly concerned with the supply of HSBB Network
Services, which was the subject of a high number of submissions from
31
CMA, subsection 149(2).
32

Access Seekers complaining that Access Providers were (among other
things):
(a) failing to provide Access Seekers with the necessary service

qualification or availability information; and
(b) performing installations and activating services or allocating ports on

a discriminatory basis when compared with self-supply.
12.6 The MCMC also notes that complaints of discrimination were also received
in submissions to the recent Access List Review in relation to the Wholesale
Line Rental Service, HSBB Network Service with QoS and Domestic
Connectivity to International Services.33
Equivalence of inputs
12.7 One solution proposed by Astro and Maxis34 to address discriminatory supply
is for the MCMC to more closely regulate the “equivalence of inputs”
concept, particularly in relation to the supply of HSBB Network Services.
12.8 Equivalence of inputs is discussed in detail in section 8 of Part B above, but

essentially the operators submit that the MCMC should require equivalence
of inputs between supplies made by an Access Provider to its own retail arm
and to Access Seekers. They argue that this would promote downstream
competition and improve market outcomes for consumers.
12.9 The MCMC notes that Access Providers are already required to comply with
this principle due to the requirements in section 149 of the CMA discussed
above. However, given the complaints of discrimination made by a number
of Access Seekers (particularly in relation to the supply of the HSBB Network
Service), the MCMC also notes that it proposes to significantly strengthen
the terms of the MSA to require Access Providers to supply access on
equivalent terms, except where minor variations are required to account for
differences between the Access Seeker and other Operators to the extent
unavoidable.
12.10 Similarly, the MCMC also proposes to include a number of new reporting
requirements in the MSA (for example, see the general reporting
requirements proposed under subsection 5.3.12 and the proposed Service
Specific Obligations for HSBB Network Services and Transmission Services
under the new section 6), which will provide for greater transparency and
support the MCMC’s ability to enforce equivalence of inputs by Access
Providers.
MCMC preliminary views
12.11 Based on the extensive operator feedback on the issues of equivalence and
non-discrimination, the MCMC proposes to bolster the non-discrimination
33
MCMC, Access List Review – Public Inquiry Report, 7 August 2015, at paragraphs 4.30, 5.15, 8.47, and 10.37
– 10.38.
34
Maxis raised the ‘equivalence of inputs’ concept in it its submission on the Access List review, but the MCMC
noted that enforcement of equivalence was more an issue for the MSA review (see: ‘Access List Review – Public
Inquiry Report’ at paragraph 8.47).

obligations in the MSA. The proposed changes would be applied both at a
higher level, such as in the way “non-discriminatory” is defined under
section 4 of the MSA, as well as through the inclusion of more detailed
service-specific non-discrimination obligations in the MSA (e.g. in relation
to the HSBB Network Service).
12.12 At a higher level, the MCMC proposes the following changes to the MSA:
Reference Summary of proposed change MCMC rationale
4.1.5(a) Minor edits to directly align with Subsection 149(2) of the CMA provides the
subsection 149(2) of the CMA. basis for the non-discrimination obligations in
the MSA. Thus, the core legislative
requirement should be directly applied.
4.1.6(b) The MCMC proposes to delete the The MCMC notes that Access Providers are
words “who are similarly situated.” already required to comply with the principle
of non-discrimination under section 149 of the
CMA. Therefore, the MCMC proposes to
broadly retain the current meaning of non-
discriminatory, subject to a minor amendment
to broaden the scope of the current meaning
to clarify that an Access Provider should not
discriminate in relation to supply to itself and
any other Access Seekers.
4.4.1 The MCMC proposes to include a new The MCMC received complaints of Access
(new) provision that expressly prohibits Providers seeking to include exclusivity
requiring exclusivity arrangements. clauses in their commercial agreements with
an Access Seeker. For example, a MNO sought
to require an MVNO to seek its approval prior
to the MVNO launching any services with
another MNO. Therefore, the MCMC has now
included a new non-exclusivity provision to
expressly prohibit such behaviour.
4.4.2 The MCMC proposes to include a new The MCMC has become aware of provisions in
(new) provision that expressly prohibits ARDs that prevent resale of a Facility or
preventing resale of a Facility or Service supplied by an Access Provider. The
Service. MCMC believes that such a restriction may
artificially restrict competition and proposes
that the MSA should contain a prohibition
against such a resale restriction.
12.13 For further details on other more specific amendments to the MSA that are
proposed by the MCMC to improve equivalence, refer to the discussions on
(among other things):
(a) the various amendments to the MSA being put forward by the MCMC
to strengthen the terms of the MSA to require Access Providers to
supply access on equivalent terms, such as discussed below at
sections 17 (Forecasting), 18 (Ordering and Provisioning) and Part E
(Service Specific Obligations); and

(b) the new reporting requirements being considered by the MCMC,
which are set out in section 14 (Reporting and Information
Disclosure) and sections 37, 38, 40, 42 and 43 (Service-Specific
Reporting for HSBB Network Services, Transmission Services,
Network Co-Location Service, Duct and Manhole Access and Digital
Terrestrial Broadcasting Multiplexing Service).
12.14 Lastly, the MCMC notes that several respondents raised pricing-related
issues. These issues are outside the scope of this Public Inquiry, but will be
considered as part of a future MSAP review.
Questions
Question 3: Do you agree with the MCMC’s proposal to strengthen the non-discrimination
obligations in the current MSA with obligations of an ‘equivalence of inputs’ standard? Why
or why not? If not, please propose an alternative standard of non-discrimination, list any
jurisdictions which have adopted that standard, and explain why you consider that
standard (and not an ‘equivalence of inputs’ standard) will best promote the national policy
objectives for the communications and multimedia industry.
Question 4: Do you consider any other change is required to the General Principles in
section 4 of the MSA? If so, please specify what change you consider is required and
explain why.

Part D Operator Access Obligations
Reference access offers

Overview
13.1 As discussed above in section 6 of Part B, the MCMC is considering whether

any improvements could be made to the access instrument model in the
MSA to better ensure expeditious and efficient access to Facilities and
Services. The MCMC is mindful that the key objective when making any
detailed changes to terms of the MSA will be striking the right balance
between providing operators with sufficient certainty to facilitate the
negotiation of a fair and reasonable access agreement. The MCMC does not
intend to be overly prescriptive so as to stifle downstream competition by
providing standardised terms of access on the other hand.
13.2 Based on the initial responses to the informal questionnaire, the MCMC
notes that most operators do not prefer the adoption of a Precedent Access
Agreement model in full. Some of the reasons provided to support this
position were as follows:
(a) one operator submitted that self-regulation was preferable and that
the development of a Precedent Access Agreement may lead to
overly prescriptive terms and conditions of providing and provisioning
access, which would unnecessarily limit the flexibility of operators.
Instead, the operator noted that the current approach of the MSA
was sufficient and that, if it was decided that more detailed terms
and conditions were needed, these should be applied for newer
Facilities and Services (manholes and ducts, etc.);
(b) another operator was of the opinion that the imposition of a

Precedent Access Agreement model may be counter-productive to
the industry and that a more flexible set of regulated terms were
needed to cater to the progressive and innovative nature of the
telecommunications and multimedia industry;
(c) one operator submitted that the MSA already provided the necessary
mechanism for regulating the terms and conditions of access,
including dispute resolution procedures in the event of any deadlock
in the negotiation. The operator also noted that, based on its
experience, the registration of access agreements by the MCMC takes
longer than the negotiation of access agreements; and
(d) several operators noted their preference for a voluntary industry

code to address the key terms of access, which would permit the
parties to have greater flexibility when negotiating an Access
Agreement.
13.3 There were some operators who favoured the move to a Precedent Access
Agreement model. For example, one operator submitted that the regulation
of more detailed terms of access were necessary, particularly in relation to

certain services such as access to HSBB Network Services. The operator
noted that a key focus of any Precedent Access Agreement should be to
provide for an ‘Equivalence of Inputs’, which could in turn be monitored
through the publication of more detailed Internal Reference Offers.
However, others considered that they would only support a Precedent
Access Model as a guideline for the industry.
13.4 The MCMC has considered the submissions and does not propose to adopt
a Precedent Access Agreement model. Instead, given that the majority of
operators do not appear to support the full adoption of a Precedent Access
Agreement model, the MCMC proposes to take a more ‘hybrid’ approach to
the access instrument model, by selectively strengthening certain parts of
the MSA, while at the same time leaving a degree of flexibility in other areas
of the MSA that remain effective.
13.5 The key amendment to the MSA to implement this approach is the MCMC’s
proposal to replace the current ARD requirements with new RAO obligations.
As discussed below, the MCMC considers that the adoption of a RAO model
will:
(a) streamline the current processes by allowing an Access Seeker to

request immediate access on the terms and conditions set out in an
Access Provider’s RAO; and
(b) provide greater certainty to industry and improve transparency by

ensuring that all operators and the MCMC can assess an Access
Provider’s compliance with the MSA.
13.6 The MCMC also notes that the use of a reference offer model broadly aligns
with a number of other jurisdictions. For example, the use of industry-wide
codes with regulated Interconnection Offers / Standard Access Obligations
in Singapore and the SFAA model in Australia are similar to the RAO model
being proposed by the MCMC. See section 6 of Part B above for a more
detailed discussion on the approach to access regulation that is taken in
other jurisdictions.
13.7 The MCMC’s preliminary view is that the current ARD requirements should
be replaced by the more prescriptive RAO obligations set out in subsections
5.3.3 to 5.3.6 of the Draft MSA in Annexure 3.
13.8 The majority of feedback from operators so far do not support the full
adoption of a Precedent Access Agreement model. However, the MCMC also
notes that certain areas of the current MSA (e.g. Service Specific Obligations
in relation to access to HSBB Network Services) continue to be the subject
of significant complaints from Access Providers and Access Seekers and that
more detailed terms of access may be required.
13.9 Therefore, the MCMC considers that implementing a stronger RAO model
will provide both Access Seekers and Access Providers with greater certainty
on the key terms and conditions of access, while still providing sufficient

flexibility to allow for commercial negotiation and differentiated downstream
offerings.
13.10 At the moment, the MCMC understands that most Access Providers have a
template or standard offer, which is currently provided to an Access Seeker
following a negotiation request. The MCMC now proposes to require Access
Providers to make their standard terms available as a RAO, which would
operate as a standing offer by the Access Provider to grant access to
Facilities and Services to any Access Seeker on the basis of the RAO.
13.11 The practical effect of this change would be that Access Providers would
need to now include all terms and conditions that the Access Provider will
require in an Access Agreement, and the Access Provider must not refuse
to enter into an Access Agreement with any Access Seeker on the terms of
a RAO, subject to certain limited exceptions (e.g. due to legitimate
creditworthiness concerns).
13.12 The MCMC notes that the move to a RAO model would have a number of
benefits, including:
(a) it would enable an Access Seeker to request immediate access under

a RAO, thereby cutting out the current requirement to negotiate an
Access Agreement based on the terms and conditions of an ARD;
(b) similarly, it would make fast-track negotiation more meaningful as

Access Seekers would now be able to accept a RAO if they wanted
fast access (i.e. rather than negotiating a fast-track agreement
“made in accordance with the Access Provider’s ARD” 35); and
(c) adopting a RAO model would enhance industry certainty and

transparency by ensuring that all Operators and the MCMC can
assess an Access Providers’ compliance with the MSA.
13.13 Importantly, the current flexibility to negotiate new or additional terms

under an Access Agreement would still be available under the MSA. The
MCMC is cognisant that retaining such flexibility is necessary to support
downstream product and service differentiation, which is a key element of
competition.
13.14 The key changes to the MSA that are being proposed to replace the current
ARD requirements with new RAO obligations are as follows:
General All references to “Access Reference The change of terminology to describe the
Document” would be replaced with document that sets out an Access Provider’s
“Reference Access Offer” throughout base terms is intended to clarify that Access
the MSA. Providers must make available these base
terms as a reference offer that is capable of
acceptance by an Access Seeker.
35
Current MSA, paragraph 5.4.19(d).

5.3.3 The existing description of an ARD The RAO would operate as a standing offer by
(formerly would be deleted and replaced with a the Access Provider to grant access to
5.3.2) new description of the basic Facilities and Services to any Access Seeker on
requirements for inclusion in a RAO. the basis of the RAO. The RAO must therefore
Importantly, the MCMC now contain all terms and conditions that the
proposes to specify that a RAO must Access Provider will require in an Access
set out “the full terms and conditions Agreement and the Access Provider must not
on which the Access Provider is refuse to enter into an Access Agreement with
prepared to supply Facilities and any Access Seeker on the terms of a RAO
Services to any other Operator, (subject to limited exceptions, such as due to
including the rates, charging legitimate creditworthiness concerns).
principles and methodologies to be Further, the MCMC considers an Access
applied for Facilities and Services Provider should include detailed information in
and any applicable fees or rebates” its RAO, including a specific provision on rates
(paragraph 5.3.3(a)) as well as POI (e.g. rates, charging principles and
details (paragraph 5.3.3(b)), a copy methodologies that will apply for the relevant
of application forms (paragraph Facilities and Services), details of all available
5.3.3(c)) and a copy of the Access POIs and a copy of application forms and its
Provider’s standard confidentiality confidentiality agreement, which the Access
agreement (paragraph 5.3.3(d)). Seeker will require to properly assess the
The MCMC has also added drafting offer.
for a final paragraph in subsection A note of clarification is proposed under
5.3.3 to clarify that the requirement subsection 5.3.3 to clarify that the
to prepare and maintain a RAO will provisioning of a Facility or Service under an
be without prejudice to any rights Access Agreement would not be affected
and obligations of Access Providers during the period when the RAO has yet to be
and Access Seekers under an Access published.
Agreement.
5.3.4(f), The MCMC proposes to remove the The proposal to remove the obligation for an
(g) and (h) requirement for an Access Provider Access Provider to provide a paper copy of its
to provide its RAO in paper form RAO on request is intended to reduce the
where requested by an Access administrative requirements associated with
Seeker. However, the Access the publication of a RAO. Access Seekers are
Provider would still be required to still able to view the latest version of a RAO on
make its RAO available on the Access the Access Provider’s website.
Provider’s website. The date and However, an Access Provider would now be
version number of the RAO should be required to submit a RAO to the MCMC within
made clear both on the cover and on 10 Business Days of publication on its website.
each page of the document. This new notification requirement is intended
A new requirement is also proposed to improve transparency to enhance the
for Access Providers to provide the MCMC’s ability to monitor and enforce
MCMC with a copy a RAO within 10 compliance with the MSA by Access Providers.
Business Days of being made
available on its website.
5.3.5 and A change is proposed at subsection The new subsection clarifies the process to
5.3.6 5.3.5 of the Draft MSA to clarify that apply when an RAO is proposed to be
(new) an Access Provider must clearly set amended.
out any amendments to its RAO and
provide an amended copy of its RAO
to Access Seekers and the MCMC no

later than 20 Business Days before
those amendments take effect.
Under subsection 5.3.6, on expiry of
the 20-Business Day period, the
Access Provider must update the
RAO on its website and, within a
further 10 Business Days, must
provide the MCMC with a copy of the
amended RAO.
13.15 Amendments are also proposed to subsection 2.2 of the MSA, given that the
nature and application of the terms and conditions of the MSA would change
if the move to a RAO model is adopted.
13.16 For further discussion on the proposed move to a RAO model and the
implications for the negotiation regime (e.g. improved fast track processes)
under subsection 5.4 of the MSA, refer to section 16 of Part D below.
13.17 In addition, the MCMC also proposes to introduce a number of more detailed
Service Specific Obligations, which would support the move to an RAO
model and address some of the ongoing concerns raised by operators in
relation to certain services (e.g. access to HSBB Network Services). Refer
to Part E below for an overview and discussion of the new section 6 for
Service Specific Obligations that the MCMC proposes to include in the MSA.
Questions
Question 5: Do you agree with the MCMC’s view that the ARD model is no longer the
appropriate access instrument model for the Malaysian context? Why or why not? If not,
please explain why you consider retaining the ARD model will best promote the national
policy objectives for the communications and multimedia industry.
Question 6: Do you agree with the MCMC’s proposal to implement an RAO model? Why or
why not? If not, please propose an alternative access instrument model, list any
jurisdictions which have adopted that model, and explain why you consider that model
(and not an RAO model) will best promote the national policy objectives for the
communications and multimedia industry.
Question 7: Do you agree with the MCMC’s proposed RAO model as set out in Annexure 3
(particularly subsections 5.3.3 to 5.3.6)? Why or why not? If not, please specify what
change you consider is required and explain why.
Reporting and information disclosure

Overview
14.1 In section 7 of Part B above, the MCMC identified transparency as a key focus
area to be considered and addressed in the current MSA review.

MCMC Preliminary Views
14.2 The MCMC considers it necessary to include additional reporting and

information disclosure obligations to encourage compliance and transparency
and thereby enable more effective monitoring of compliance and resolution of
issues by the Commission. This would enhance the effectiveness of access
regime.
14.3 In particular, the MCMC considers that the reporting requirements applicable
to operators should be strengthened to enable an appropriate degree of
oversight by the Commission. The MCMC considers that the Commission
should have oversight of particular matters, including any Facilities and
Services not included in their RAOs, key details of any Access Agreements
entered into, expired or terminated, all Facilities and Services supplied, details
of any security required, and any ongoing negotiations and disputes. The
MCMC considers that requiring operators to report on such matters on a
regular six-monthly basis would allow the Commission to have appropriate
degree of oversight of operators’ compliance with the MSA.
14.4 The reporting and information disclosure obligations should apply generally to
ensure a minimum standard of service across all operators at the wholesale
level. This would include certain Service Specific reporting obligations
(discussed below in Part E) and information disclosure obligations such as
regarding refusals of Access Requests and refused requests for physical co-
location.
14.5 In addition, to further strengthen the process even further, the Commission
is considering on requiring an independent audit of reports submitted. The
Commission welcomes views on this.
14.6 The key changes to the MSA that are being proposed to strengthen the current
reporting and information disclosure requirements are as follows:
5.3.12 The MCMC proposes to include new The MCMC proposes to include new reporting
(new) general reporting obligations that all obligations under subsection 5.3.12, which
Access Providers would be required would apply generally for all Access Providers.
to comply with on 1 April and 1 These general reporting requirements would
October each year. also be bolstered by new Service Specific
Obligations to report on specific issues related
to the supply of HSBB Network Service,
Transmission Services, Network Co-Location
Service, Duct and Manhole Access and Digital
Terrestrial Broadcasting Multiplexing Service.
Further details on the service-specific
reporting obligations proposed by the MCMC
are discussed in Part E below.
The MCMC considers that enhanced reporting
by operators of certain matters under the MSA
is required to enhance compliance and prevent
opportunities for discriminatory practices.

5.3.7 Amendments are proposed to clarify The proposed changes to subsection 5.3.7 of
(formerly that, where certain information is not the Draft MSA are intended to clarify that a
5.3.6) included in a RAO, an Access Seeker RAO will contain the key terms and conditions
may request such information and of access, but that other details not included
the Access Provider must make that in the RAO (e.g. supplementary technical and
information available within 10 operational information) may be requested to
Business Days. support an Access Request.
5.4.1 The MCMC proposes to include a new The proposed new paragraph 5.4.1(a) would
obligation which would apply to all require both parties to notify the Commission
Operators to notify the Commission when the negotiations begin.
upon commencing negotiations for
an Access Agreement.
5.4.19 The MCMC proposes to include a new Under the proposed reporting obligation under
(new) general reporting obligation that subsection 5.4.19, which would apply
would apply where an Access generally to all Access Providers, an Access
Provider refuses an Access Request. Provider that refuses an Access Request must
notify the Commission within five (5) Business
Days of that refusal together with an
explanation of its reason for refusal.
The MCMC considers that mandatory reporting
on refusals, together with the limited grounds
for refusal under subsection 5.4.11, is
required to enhance compliance and prevent
opportunities for discriminatory practices.
5.9.4 The MCMC proposes to include new The MCMC proposes to include amendments to
(formerly reporting obligations that would subsection 5.9.4 to require an Access Provider
5.9.5) apply generally to all Operators to to notify the Commission of any lack of space,
notify the Commission where there is including supplementary information as
a lack of space available for physical requested by the Commission.
co-location at a particular location The MCMC considers this information
such that the Access Provider is disclosure is needed to enable the Commission
unable to accommodate all Access to assess whether, in fact, physical co-location
Seekers who have requested access. can be provided and whether the Access
Provider should be required to provide or be
excused from providing physical co-location at
the location.
5.9.9 The MCMC also proposes to include The MCMC proposes that the new subsection
(new) an information disclosure obligation 5.9.9 would apply generally to all Access
where an Access Provider refuses, or Providers who would be required to notify both
proposes to refuse, a request for the Access Seeker and the Commission of:
physical co-location on the basis of (a) the space currently used by the Access
future space requirements of the Provider;
Access Provider and/or Access
(b) the amount of space reserved for the
Seekers.
Access Provider’s future needs;
(c) the space currently occupied by other
Access Seekers;
(d) the space ordered by other Access
Seekers; and

(e) the total amount of space potentially
available but for the uses set out above.
Questions
Question 8: Do you agree with the MCMC’s proposal to introduce new reporting obligations
as set out at subsection 5.3.12 of the Draft MSA? Why or why not? If not, please specify
what change you consider is required and explain why.
Question 9: Do you agree with the MCMC’s proposal to amend the information disclosure
obligations as set out at subsection 5.3.7 of the Draft MSA? Why or why not? If not, please
specify what change you consider is required and explain why.
Question 10: Do you agree the MCMC’s proposed general notification obligations at
subsections 5.4.1, 5.4.19, 5.9.4 and 5.9.9 of the Draft MSA are necessary and
proportionate? Why or why not? If not, please explain why and specify what change you
consider is required.
Security, insurance requirements and

creditworthiness
Overview
15.1 The MCMC received a number of submissions in relation to the security

requirements and creditworthiness information provisions of the MSA. On
the one hand, several Access Providers requested that the MCMC strengthen
the security requirements in the MSA to limit an Access Provider’s liability
in the event of an Access Seeker default.
15.2 At a high level, the MCMC notes that feedback was received in relation to
the following:
(a) an Access Provider requested the ability not to enter into an Access
Agreement with an Access Seeker until the Access Seeker provided
any relevant security sums; and
(b) an Access Provider noted that the ability to request stronger

creditworthiness information (e.g. recent audit financial statements,
a list of corporate affiliates, warranty that an Access Seeker is not
subject to liquidation or debt reduction procedures, etc.) was critical
for the long-term sustainability and stability of the industry.
15.3 On the other hand, the MCMC also received submissions from operators that
argued that the current security and creditworthiness requirements were
either sufficient or cumbersome. One operator viewed that the requirement
to provide a bank guarantee based on an average of three months’ access
charges as cumbersome and should only be imposed when an Access Seeker
defaults without any reason. Several other operators noted that the MSA
already provided Access Providers and Access Seekers with the flexibility to

negotiate the type, terms and amount of the security requirement (e.g. via
bank guarantee, etc.). In several cases, Access Providers noted that they
used this flexibility to waive certain security requirements for long-standing
and reliable customers.
15.4 The MCMC also received comments from operators concerning the
appropriate security amount in the context of an Access Provider’s ability to
terminate an Access Agreement due to an Access Seeker’s failure to pay. In
particular, the primary concern was that termination in these instances was
lengthy (if at all) and, as a result, the Access Provider was often exposed to
significant sums of unpaid money (which was often bad debt). One operator
submitted that, greater flexibility to reduce security sums for the benefit of
Access Seekers should be accompanied by easier termination rights for the
Access Provider, where money is not paid. However, another operator
requested additional flexibility and suggested that Access Providers should
have the ability to require higher security if an Access Seeker was viewed
as being a particularly high security risk.
15.5 The MCMC has proposed amendments to the security requirements under
the MSA, which are intended to address both:
(a) an Access Provider’s need for greater security to limit its exposure to
credit risks presented by a particular Access Seeker; and
(b) the ability of an Access Seeker to request access to a Facility or

Service without the imposition of an unreasonably high security sum
by an Access Provider (which may be designed to, or have the effect
of, denying that Access Seeker access to a Facility or Service).
The MCMC welcomes views from operators on its proposed amendments to

the security requirements under the MSA.
15.6 Lastly, the MCMC notes that only one submission was received in relation to
insurance requirements in the MSA. The relevant operator requested that
subsections 5.3.9 (security requirements), 5.3.10 (insurance requirements)
and 5.3.11 (creditworthiness information) be removed as these
requirements may be commercially negotiated (if necessary) on a case-by-
case basis. Note that the above references are subsections in the Draft MSA.
However, given that only one operator requested that these provisions be
removed, the MCMC does not propose to make these changes.
15.7 Given the range of comments from operators, the MCMC has proposed
changes to the security and credit provisions that seek to strike a balance
between the needs of both Access Providers and Access Seekers.
15.8 The MCMC has not proposed any changes to the insurance requirements in
subsection 5.3.10 of the Draft MSA, but invites feedback on whether the
prescribed comprehensive general liability insurance limit of RM20 million
remains appropriate or whether it ought to be adjusted to reflect any

changes in commercial practice or otherwise.36 Most operators were silent
on insurance issues, which the MCMC has interpreted as the industry being
relatively satisfied with the current insurance requirements in the MSA.
15.9 The MCMC proposes the following amendments to subsections 5.3.9 and
5.3.11 of the MSA:
5.3.9 An Access Provider may only impose The proposed amendments to subsection
(formerly a security requirement on an Access 5.3.9 of the Draft MSA are intended to
5.3.8) Seeker where the Access Provider minimise the risk of an Access Seeker being
determines “acting reasonably” that unable to fulfil its payment obligations to the
the Access Seeker presents a credit detriment of an Access Provider. A high degree
risk and that imposing the security of discretion is still maintained, so that Access
requirement “will materially reduce Providers have flexibility in how they apply
or remove that risk.” security requirements.
In addition, the MCMC proposes to However, the MCMC notes that a
base the determination of any reasonableness requirement is also proposed
security sums on “a commercially to ensure that security requirements are not
reasonable estimate of the charges used to deny access to an Access Seeker. For
that will be incurred” rather than on example, even though the 90-day limit for
the current requirement to limit the calculating security sums would be removed,
calculation of security sums to the the Access Provider should still apply a
estimate of the value of access over commercially reasonable estimate of the
a 90-day period. charges that will be incurred by the Access
However, the MCMC also proposes to Seeker when determining a security sum
expressly clarify that any security based on incurred charges.
requirement that is imposed must Thus, in summary, the MCMC proposes that:
not be designed to, or have the effect (a) an Access Provider may not impose a
of, denying or delaying the Access security requirement, unless the
Seeker access to Facilities and potential Access Seeker presents a credit
Services. risk; and
(b) where a security sum is required, that
sum must be “a commercially reasonable
estimate of the charges that will be
incurred by the Access Seeker.”
These decisions are left to the Access Provider
to determine, but may be subject to review by
the MCMC to ensure that any security sums
are reasonable and are not designed to deny
access to Facilities and Services. The MCMC
notes that operators would also be required to
report details of security required as part of
the new general reporting requirements
applicable to operators. See above discussion
regarding the proposed general reporting
requirements applicable to Operators at
section 14.
36
See subsection 5.3.10 of the Draft MSA.

5.3.11 A corresponding change is proposed As above, the proposed change to the

(formerly to remove the existing 90-day limit creditworthiness requirements in subsection
5.3.10) for estimating the value of financial 5.3.11 of the Draft MSA is intended to
information that may be requested. minimise the risk of an Access Seeker being
Instead, the MCMC now proposes to unable to fulfil its payment obligations to the
base the determination of detriment of an Access Provider. The proposed
creditworthiness on “a commercially change provides further discretion, so that
reasonable estimate of the charges Access Providers have flexibility in how they
that will be incurred by the Access determine any creditworthiness information.
Seeker over the minimum period of However, the MCMC notes that a
access to Facilities and Services in an reasonableness requirement is also proposed
Access Agreement.” to ensure that the request for creditworthiness
information is not used to discriminate against
a particular Access Seeker.
15.10 The MCMC intends to closely monitor the implementation of any

amendments that are ultimately made to the security and creditworthiness
provisions to ensure that these provisions appropriately balance the needs
of both Access Providers and Access Seekers.
Questions
Question 11: Do you agree with the proposed changes to the security and creditworthiness
provisions of the current MSA? Why or why not? If not, please specify what change you
consider is required and explain why.
Negotiation obligations
Overview
16.1 The MSA sets out the Negotiation Obligations in subsection 5.4. These
obligations are intended to broadly regulate the key elements of the
negotiation process where an Access Seeker requests access to Facilities or
Services offered by an Access Provider.
16.2 At a high level, the current negotiation regime under the MSA can be broadly
summarised as follows:
(a) an Access Seeker makes an Access Request, which includes notice of

whether the Access Seeker wants access on the terms set out in an
ARD or would like to begin negotiating an Access Agreement;
(b) the Access Provider then notifies the Access Seeker that it:
(i) is willing to provide access in accordance with an ARD (where

requested);
(ii) is willing to proceed to negotiate an Access Agreement; or
(iii) rejects the Access Request, along with providing reasons for
the rejection; and

(c) where agreed by the parties, the Access Provider and Access Seeker
commence negotiating an Access Agreement (if applicable).
16.3 A fast-track application and agreement process is also available under

subsections 5.4.19 and 5.4.20 of the current MSA. This process is designed
to allow an Access Seeker to request quick access under a fast-track
agreement that is “made in accordance with the Access Provider’s ARD.”
16.4 The MCMC received submissions from operators on certain aspects of the
current Negotiation Obligations in the MSA (e.g. timing). However, the key
changes to subsection 5.4 proposed by the MCMC relate to the proposed
move to a RAO model. The broad reasons for moving to a RAO model are
discussed above (see section 6 and section 13), so the focus of this section
is on the detailed changes to the negotiation regime that would be required
to implement a RAO model. These issues are discussed below.
Timing
16.5 In relation to the timing provisions under subsection 5.4.1, the MCMC
received a submission from a prominent operator who noted that the current
120-day period is suitable for mobile to mobile operators given that the
number of services to be negotiated is limited.
16.6 However, the operator also submitted that the 120-day negotiated period
should not be applicable to all Access Providers as there are Access Providers
who offer all of the services under the Access List. In these cases, the
operator believes that a 6-month or 180-day negotiating period is a more
reasonable timeline to conclude an agreement.
16.7 Another operator requested for flexibility to be applicable to the timing

requirements. Specifically, the operator suggested amending subsection
5.4.1 to state that the parties must conclude negotiations within 120 days
“or as per the mutually agreed period by the parties, from the date of the
draft Access Agreement provided by the [Access Provider] to the [Access
Seeker].”
16.8 Currently, the 120-day negotiating period applies uniformly for all access
negotiations under the MSA. The MCMC also considers that the negotiating
period should not be tailored for particular operators (e.g. shorter
timeframes for mobile to mobile negotiations). By setting a firm timeframe
(with the option to extend), the MCMC notes that both parties are subject
to the same timing obligations. If flexibility is added for the parties to submit
alternative timeframes as proposed, there is a risk that this would remove
all bargaining power granted to the weaker party under the current terms
of the MSA.
16.9 The MCMC considers the current 120-day negotiating period is generally
appropriate, but that a shorter timeframe could reasonably be required
where there is an existing commercial agreement. In the circumstances
where the commercial agreement existed between parties, it may also be
appropriate to permit the Access Seeker to omit certain information which

has already been provided to the Access Provider. The MCMC welcomes
operator feedback on these issues.
16.10 Therefore, the MCMC considers that the current 120-day negotiation period
with an option for extension balances the interests of both Access Seekers
and Access Providers and so it does not support lengthening the prescribed
negotiation period.
16.11 The MCMC also proposes to include additional notice requirements to allow
for greater transparency and passive monitoring by the MCMC to ensure
both parties work together to complete negotiations within a reasonable
timeframe. Note that the parties could still request an extension if there
were valid reasons for any delay in negotiations.
Forecasting and other retail information
16.12 As discussed above at section 8 of Part B, a key focus area of this MSA
review is to ensure that the information requirements in an Access Request
do not inadvertently put an Access Seeker at a competitive disadvantage in
downstream markets.
16.13 One example of this issue is the current obligation to include forecasting
projections in an Access Request. On the one hand, this information helps
an Access Provider assess whether they have the capacity to fulfil the Access
Request. However, the MCMC also notes that such information could be used
by an Access Provider to inform its retail operations to gain a competitive
advantage in downstream markets.
16.14 Therefore, the MCMC proposes to make forecasting a requirement for

ordering and provisioning, but not as a prerequisite for entering into an
Access Agreement.
16.15 Instead, an Access Seeker would only be required to provide “preliminary

information regarding the scale and scope of Facilities and Services that the
Access Seeker expects to acquire from the Access Provider pursuant to the
Access Request.”37 The MCMC considers that this change would support the
objective of ensuring that an Access Request only includes the minimum
information necessary to supply a service at the wholesale level without
including details that may lead to a competitive disadvantage downstream.
16.16 Similarly, the MCMC notes that an operator requested in its submission to
the informal MSA questionnaire that an Access Seeker’s proposed service
launch date be included as required information in an Access Request under
subsection 5.4.6 of the MSA. This information is currently listed as “non-
permitted information” under paragraph 5.4.16(a).
16.17 The MCMC does not propose to make this change. Requiring an Access
Seeker to provide its proposed service launch date in an Access Request
would give the Access Provider key commercial information, which could be
37
Paragraph 5.4.6(f) of the Draft MSA.

used by the Access Provider’s retail arm to gain a competitive advantage in
a downstream market.
Access request and response
16.18 The MCMC is considering adopting a RAO model, which would require
amending the current negotiation process in subsection 5.4. At a high level,
the amended processes would apply as follows:
(a) an Access Seeker makes an Access Request, which includes notice of

whether the Access Seeker would like to:
(i) accept immediate access on the terms set out in a RAO;
(ii) begin negotiation of an Access Agreement by amending an

Access Provider’s RAO; or
(iii) begin negotiation of an Access Agreement on alternative

terms that are different to those offered in a RAO;
(b) the Access Provider then notifies the Access Seeker that it:
(i) is willing to provide access in accordance with a RAO (as

requested);
(ii) is willing to proceed to negotiate an Access Agreement based

on amendments to its RAO or on alternative terms (as
requested); or
(iii) rejects the Access Request and provides reasons for the
rejection; and
(c) where agreed by the parties, the Access Provider and Access Seeker
commence negotiating an Access Agreement based on amendments
to a RAO or on alternative terms (as applicable).
16.19 The key difference with the above negotiation process is that an Access
Seeker would be able to request access on the full terms set out in a RAO,
which the Access Provider would be required to accept once the terms and
conditions of the RAO are published on its website and notified to the MCMC.
Otherwise, the Access Seeker could still request to negotiate an Access
Agreement that is based on amendments to a RAO or on alternative terms.
16.20 The MCMC considers that the proposed amendments to the negotiation
regime under the MSA to incorporate a RAO would help streamline the
current processes and offer Access Seekers the option to request quick
access on the terms and conditions set out in a RAO. In other words, Access
Seekers would no longer have to negotiate an Access Agreement based on
the terms and conditions of an ARD as the RAO would now contain the full
terms on which the Access Provider is willing to offer access to listed
Facilities and Services.
16.21 The MCMC also notes that a further side effect of incorporating a RAO model
into the Negotiation Obligations would enhance industry certainty and

transparency by ensuring that all operators and the MCMC are able to assess
an Access Providers’ compliance with the MSA.
Fast-track application and agreement
16.22 The MCMC received a number of comments on the current fast-track process
under subsections 5.4.20 and 5.4.21 of the Draft MSA. A common concern
raised by operators was despite the availability of the ARD and fast-track
process, Access Seekers preferred to further negotiate the full terms of an
access agreement, hence this limited the benefits of having a fast-track
process in the first place. As a result, there were calls to either overhaul or
remove the fast-track process entirely from the MSA.
16.23 The MCMC acknowledges that the initial objective of improving efficiency
and time savings by providing operators with a fast-track process have been
limited by the requirement to negotiate the full terms and conditions of an
Access Agreement despite an ARD being published by the Access Provider.
However, the MCMC considers that the adoption of a RAO model would make
the current fast-track negotiation process more meaningful as Access
Seekers would now be able to accept the terms and conditions in a RAO if
they wanted fast access.
16.24 Subject to the necessary security being provided in accordance with the
revised security requirements (see subsection 5.3.9 in the Draft MSA), the
key change proposed by the MCMC would be to require the parties to agree
on a fast-track agreement “on the terms of the Access Provider’s published
RAO.” This wording is proposed to replace the current requirement to
prepare an access agreement that is “made in accordance with the Access
Provider’s ARD.” Importantly, this amendment would give Access Seekers
the option to obtain immediate access if they considered the terms and
conditions in a RAO are reasonable.
16.25 The MCMC proposes to amend the Negotiation Obligations under subsection
5.4 of the MSA as follows:
5.4.1 A new requirement is proposed for The MCMC’s proposed amendments to

parties to notify the MCMC when they subsection 5.4.1 are intended to add greater
intend to begin negotiating the terms transparency and accountability to the current
of an Access Agreement. negotiation processes.
Clarification is also proposed to Once the MCMC is notified that negotiations
permit the MCMC to place conditions are set to begin, the MCMC may track the
on any grant of extension of progress of those negotiations and could
negotiations that is made by the actively follow up with the parties, if they
parties after the 120-day period. failed to request an extension at the end of the
120-day period. Further, the MCMC would also
be able to place conditions on any grant of
extension that is issued to the parties (e.g. an
ongoing requirement to provide updates on
negotiations at specified intervals).

While these provisions do not provide for the
MCMC to play an active role in the negotiation
between the parties, the proposed
amendments are designed to allow the MCMC
to monitor the status of negotiations and to
consider intervention, if the parties are unable
to conclude negotiations within 120 days (e.g.
if the MCMC receives a complaint that a party
is not negotiating in good faith).
5.4.2 The MCMC proposes to provide The MCMC considers that the proposed
further detail on the types of conduct changes to subsection 5.4.2 are necessary to
that will be considered “good faith” further clarify what the MCMC considers to be
(e.g. “acting promptly, honestly and “good faith”. These changes are intended to
not perversely, capriciously or make negotiating parties more accountable,
irrationally; and “avoiding the particularly where an Access Provider may
imposition of unreasonable have an incentive to avoid or stall concluding
restrictions or limitations on the an access agreement, if by doing so, it would
provision of access”). favour its own retail arm in a downstream
market.
Therefore, the MCMC notes that the proposed
amendment would also support the
“equivalence of inputs” concept raised by
certain Access Seekers.
5.4.6 The MCMC proposes to provide In line with the broader proposal to move to a
Access Seekers with the option to new RAO model, the MCMC has suggested
accept a RAO, negotiate an Access clarifying that an Access Seeker has 3 options
when making an Access Request:
Agreement based on amendments to
a RAO or negotiate an Access (1) accept an Access Provider’s standard
terms and conditions in a published RAO;
Agreement on entirely new terms.
(2) negotiate an Access Agreement that is
The MCMC proposes to remove the based on amending the terms and
requirement for an Access Seeker to conditions in an Access Provider’s
provide forecasting information. published RAO; or
Instead, the new obligation would be (3) negotiate an Access Agreement on
simply to provide “preliminary completely new terms and conditions.
information regarding the scale and
The MCMC has also proposed changes to more
scope of Facilities and Services that
clearly delineate information that is necessary
the Access Seeker expects to acquire
to support an Access Provider’s ability to
from the Access Provider.”
review an Access Request, versus information
The MCMC also proposes to clarify in that may give an Access Provider’s retail arm
paragraph 5.4.6(l) that Access a competitive advantage in downstream
Provider may only request other markets.
information “for the sole purpose of
Specifically, the MCMC proposes to remove the
providing access to requested
requirement for an Access Provider to include
Facilities and Services.”
its projected forecasting information in an
Access Request and to clarify that any other
information requested by an Access Provider
should only be provided where necessary to be
able to evaluate the Access Provider’s ability
to fulfil the Access Request. The MCMC
considers that these changes would support its
key objective of ensuring that the information

included in an Access Request does not put an
Access Seeker at a competitive disadvantage
in downstream markets.
5.4.7 A corresponding change is proposed The MCMC has proposed a new requirement
to clarify that an Access Seeker may for the Access Provider to provide both the
request to negotiate an Access Access Seeker and the MCMC with a copy of
Agreement by amending a RAO or its response to an Access Request. This
negotiating completely new terms. change is intended to provide greater
The MCMC also proposes to require transparency to the negotiation process by
an Access Provider to provide the allowing the MCMC to monitor the exchange
MCMC with a copy of its response to between Access Seeker and Access Provider.
an Access Request.
5.4.11 The MCMC proposes to amend the The proposed amendments to subsection
acceptable grounds for refusing an 5.4.11 are intended to make it clear that an
Access Request as follows: Access Provider should make every effort to
(a) to clarify that if an Access accept an Access Request, unless the Access
Provider refuses on the ground Provider is unable to fulfil the request in
that it does not offer the accordance with the express grounds for
requested Facility or Service, refusal under the MSA.
the Access Provider must Further, even where an Access Provider does
identify alternative Facilities or not offer the requested Facility or Service, it
Services that it does offer and should still identify any acceptable substitutes
which may be acceptable that may satisfy the Access Seeker’s request.
substitutes; The MCMC proposes to move the limited bases
(b) to clarify that security risk will on which an Access Provider may refuse to
only be an acceptable ground of provide access to ANE (or Digital Subscriber
refusal if such concerns cannot Line Resale Service) at premises served by the
be addressed through a security HSBB Network Services to a new section 6
requirement under the MSA; (Service Specific Obligations) in the Draft
and MSA.
(c) to delete the service-specific
ground for refusal in relation to
Full Access Service, Line
Sharing Service and Sub-loop
Service.
5.4.19 The MCMC proposes to require an The MCMC considers that the inclusion of a
(new) Access Provider to notify (with new obligation to notify if an Access Provider
reasons) within 5 Business Days if refuses an Access Request will ensure that
the Access Provider decides to refuse Access Requests are only rejected where valid
an Access Request. grounds apply under subsection 5.4.11.
5.4.16 The MCMC proposes to clarify that, The changes to subsection 5.4.16 are
although an Access Provider may not proposed to clarify the scope of the
request an Access Seeker’s proposed information that an Access Provider may
service launch date, the Access request to support its ability to review an
Provider may request that the Access Access Request.
Seeker provide any ready-for- An Access Provider may not request an Access
service dates in respect of the Seeker’s proposed service launch date (as
Facilities and Services. requested by one operator) as this information
The MCMC also proposes to include a could be used to give the retail arm of an
broader obligation to prohibit an Access Provider a competitive advantage in a

Access Provider from requiring an downstream market. However, the MCMC
Access Seeker to provide any other understands that some information is
commercially sensitive information necessary for an Access Provider to be able to
which is not strictly necessary for the assess an Access Request. Thus, the MCMC
supply of a requested Facility or proposes to permit an Access Provider to
Service. request ready-for-service dates to have an
indication of when access will be required.
5.4.20 The MCMC proposes to amend the Subject to any security requirements being
(formerly fast-track process to base the terms met, the key change proposed by the MCMC
5.4.19) of a fast-track agreement “on the would be to require the parties to agree on a
terms of the Access Provider’s fast-track agreement “on the terms of the
published RAO.” Access Provider’s published RAO.” This
Where an Access Provider decides to wording would replace the current
refuse a fast-track request, the requirement to prepare an access agreement
MCMC proposes to require that “in accordance with the Access Provider’s
Access Provider to provide both the ARD.” Importantly, this amendment would
Access Seeker and the MCMC with a give Access Seekers the option to obtain
copy of the notice, setting out the immediate access if they were agreeable with
grounds for refusal and the basis on the terms and conditions in a RAO.
which those grounds apply. The requirement to further negotiate the full
The MCMC also proposes to replace terms of an agreement despite the availability
the current RM50,000 security sum of the ARD was a common issue raised by
with a broader obligation to set out a operators in their comments on the current
process for determining any security fast-track process. Thus, the MCMC notes that
sums in accordance with the revised the adoption of a RAO model (along with the
security requirements set out under proposed amendment to subsection 5.4.21)
subsection 5.3.9 of the Draft MSA. should make the current fast-track negotiation
process more meaningful as Access Seekers
would now be able to accept the full terms and
conditions in a RAO if they wanted fast access.
The MCMC also proposes to include a new
obligation for an Access Provider to notify both
the Access Seeker and the MCMC if it wishes
to refuse a fast-track request. The Access
Provider should clearly set out the grounds for
refusal, which the MCMC considers will add
further transparency and accountability to the
fast-track process.
An amendment to the security sums requested
in a fast-track application is also proposed to
address broader operator concerns about the
risks if insufficient security is provided. Thus,
the MCMC proposes to replace the current
RM50,000 security sum with a broader
obligation to set out a process for determining
any security sums in accordance with the
revised security requirements set out under
subsection 5.3.9 of the Draft MSA.
5.4.21 The MCMC proposes to require an The proposed change to require eligibility
(formerly Access Provider to publish on its criteria for making a fast-track application on
5.4.20) website (i.e. rather than in an ARD) an Access Provider’s website rather than its
the criteria on which an Access

Seeker may be eligible for making a ARD would be a consequential amendment to
fast-track application. the broader move to a RAO model.
The MCMC also updated the Facilities The MCMC also amended the list of Facilities
and Services which may be the and/or Services that may be the subject of a
subject of a fast-track application to fast-track application to align with the recent
align with the updated Access List. updates to the Access List. However, the
MCMC is also seeking operator feedback on
whether any additional Facilities or Services
should be added to this list.
Questions
Question 12: Under paragraph 5.4.5(b)i. of the Draft MSA, is the 4-month period to
renegotiate a subsequent agreement still appropriate and what are the typical commercial
practices for renegotiating an access agreement?
Question 13: Are there any particular problems with including the proposed RAO
negotiation process under subsection 5.4 of the Draft MSA?
Question 14: Are there any improvements that can be made to the proposed RAO
negotiation process under subsection 5.4 of the Draft MSA (e.g. to make it faster, to
account for practical difficulties that may arise in the finalisation of an Access Agreement,
etc.)?
Question 15: Should the parties be required to only negotiate the terms and conditions
under a RAO rather than having an option to request negotiation on totally different terms?
(If the answer is “yes”, please explain your concerns with allowing operators to negotiate
on alternative terms.)
Question 16: Are there any other Facilities and/or Services that should be made the
subject of a fast-track application under paragraph 5.4.21(c) in the Draft MSA?
Question 17: Do you agree with the MCMC’s proposed changes to the Negotiation
Obligations set out at subsection 5.4 of the Draft MSA? Why or why not? If not, please
Forecasting obligations
Overview
17.1 Under subsection 5.6 of the MSA, Access Providers have the ability to
request forecasting information from an Access Seeker, which is intended
to assist the Access Provider with network management and capacity
planning. However, the MSA also sets out specific requirements that must
be complied with by both the Access Provider and the Access Seeker to
ensure such information is collected safely and not misused.
17.2 The MCMC received a number of submissions requesting certain aspects of

forecasting obligations (and ordering and provisioning obligations) to be
scaled back in the MSA. The main reason given was that decisions made on

such matters are largely contingent on operational requirements of the
individual party and the specific project. One operator submitted that it
would be more expedient if parties were given sufficient flexibility to decide
between themselves the best form to be employed to meet these
obligations.
17.3 On the other hand, several other operators submitted that forecasting
obligations remain an important component of the MSA and should continue
to be regulated without any amendments. In the absence of a forecast from
the Access Seeker, one operator noted that the Access Provider would only
be able to accommodate the request based on a best-effort basis and parties
would be unlikely to reach consensus on forecasting procedures if the
forecasting obligations were removed from the MSA.
17.4 The MCMC has considered the initial feedback from operators and proposes
to continue regulating the forecasting obligations in the MSA. The provision
of forecast information by an Access Seeker remains necessary to allow an
Access Provider to undertake network planning to ensure sufficient capacity
is available to meet the demands of one or more Access Seekers for a
particular Facility or Service.
17.5 However, the MCMC also recognises the strategic value that having detailed
forecasting information can provide an Access Provider in downstream
markets. Therefore, the MCMC proposed a number of amendments to the
forecasting obligations in the MSA to limit the ability of an Access Provider
to use the forecasting requirements in such a way that it gives the Access
Provider’s retail operations a strategic advantage in downstream markets.
The key changes to subsection 5.6 that are proposed by the MCMC are
discussed in further detail below.
Forecast information
17.6 The MCMC noticed during its review of certain access agreements that some
operators have adopted different forecast periods from those set out in the
current subsection 5.6.5 of the MSA. Several reasons were provided by
operators to explain these differences as follows:
(a) different forecast periods were sometimes required to reflect future

and varying capacity demand and adoption trends, seasonal
behaviour of traffic and to reflect varying level of service maturity
since its go-to-market;
(b) initial forecasts typically required a longer timeframe to enable the

Access Provider to have better capacity planning and to fulfil the
Access Seeker’s requirements over time; and
(c) the frequency to update forecasts required longer timeframes as it

may have an impact on the planned network requirement and
planning.
17.7 The MCMC proposes to include new Service Specific Obligations that would
include detailed forecast requirements for each of the Facilities and Services

under a new section 6 of the Draft MSA. Further, the MCMC proposes to
clarify that the current timing requirements in the MSA are to apply as a
maximum, so that an Access Provider may not require an Access Seeker to
forecast over a longer time period, apply longer intervals in its forecasts or
update its forecasts at a higher frequency than the Access Provider provides
to itself. These changes are intended to support the MCMC’s objective of
improving equivalence between an Access Seeker and an Access Provider’s
own retail arm in downstream markets.
17.8 For further details on the specific forecasting requirements that the MCMC
proposes to apply for each Service Specific Obligation, refer to Part E below.
17.9 The MCMC intends to continue regulating the forecasting obligations in the
MSA. However, in an effort to address preliminary operator feedback and to
further clarify how the existing forecasting provisions are intended to
operate, the MCMC proposes to make the following amendments to
subsection 5.6:
5.6.1 An amendment is proposed to The MCMC considers that the role of

subsection 5.6.1 to clarify that an forecasting in the current access processes is
Access Provider may make an Order unclear. Therefore, the MCMC proposes to
conditional on the provision of expressly clarify that an Access Provider may
forecasting information by an Access make an Order conditional on Access Seeker
Seeker. forecasts, but that the requirement to provide
However, a failure to provide the forecasts may not be used as a
forecasts may not be used as a prerequisite for entering into an Access
condition for not entering into an Agreement by an Access Provider.
Access Agreement with an Access
Seeker.
5.6.2 The MCMC proposes to include a new At the moment, an Access Provider has the
(new) subsection 5.6.2 in the MSA to give discretion whether to provide an Access
an Access Seeker the right to request Seeker with details that the Access Seeker
certain preliminary information from may need to prepare an accurate forecast in
an Access Provider where such relation to a requested Facility or Service. The
information is required by the Access MCMC notes that this discretion may be used
Seeker to be able to provide a to deny an Access Seeker the information that
forecast to the Access Provider. it requires to be able to meet its forecasting
obligations under the MSA.
Therefore, the MCMC proposes to include an
express ability for an Access Seeker to request
preliminary information from an Access
Provider about the availability and capacity of
its Facilities and Services to the extent that
such information is needed to be able to
provide a forecast. This new provision should
assist Access Seekers to meet their
forecasting obligations, as well as improve the
accuracy of forecasts that are provided to an
Access Provider.

5.6.6 The MCMC has proposed a number of The MCMC proposes to include new Service
amendments to clarify that the Specific Obligations that would include
forecast information requirements detailed forecast requirements for each of the
will now be applied on a service- Facilities and Services under a new section 6
specific basis and are intended to of the Draft MSA.
apply as a baseline requirement, but Further, the MCMC proposes to clarify that the
that lesser obligations (e.g. shorter current timing requirements in the MSA are to
time periods) will be permitted apply as a maximum. Hence, an Access
where such obligations align with Provider may not require an Access Seeker to
what the Access Provider provides to forecast over a longer time period, apply
itself. longer intervals in its forecasts or update its
forecasts at a higher frequency than the timing
which the Access Provider provides to itself.
These changes are intended to support the
MCMC’s objective of improving equivalence
between an Access Seeker and an Access
Provider’s own retail arm to facilitate effective
competition in downstream markets.
5.6.7 A new provision is proposed to The MCMC proposes to expressly prohibit an

(new) expressly prohibit an Access Provider Access Provider from requesting an Access
from requesting forecast information Seeker to provide a Forecast that contains
from an Access Seeker where such information which is or would allow the Access
information “is or would allow the Provider to infer the non-permitted
Access Provider to infer any non- information set out in subsection 5.4.16, or
permitted information listed under identifies or would enable the identification of
subsection 5.4.16” or “identifies or Customers or particular Access Seeker
would enable the identification of services.
Customers or particular Access The MCMC considers that this new provision
Seeker services.” would further restrain an Access Provider’s
ability to request forecast information that
may be used by the Access Provider to give its
retail operations a strategic advantage over
the Access Seeker in downstream markets.
5.6.9 The MCMC proposes to clarify how an As discussed above, the MCMC recognises that
Access Provider may use Forecast Forecast Information often contains an Access
Information. Seeker’s sensitive commercial information
The key changes would be to: which would have great strategic value to an
Access Provider’s retail arm if improperly used
(a) specify that Forecast
by the Access Provider.
Information may also be used
for responding to and planning Therefore, the MCMC proposes to introduce a
for Forecasts and any related new ability for the Commission to request a
Orders; and certified copy of any records that detail which
persons within the Access Provider have been
(b) include a new ability for the
provided with an Access Seeker’s Forecast
MCMC to request a certified
Information. Access Providers are already
copy of records that set out who
required to document and keep this
within the Access Provider has
information, so the MCMC’s proposal would
been provided with Forecast
not introduce any additional regulatory burden
Information.
on the Access Provider. However, the
proposed change would allow for greater
transparency to ensure sensitive Forecast

Information is not improperly used by an
Access Provider.
5.6.11 The MCMC proposes to require an Once an Access Provider has reviewed a
Access Provider to make a decision Forecast provided by an Access Seeker, the
as to whether a Forecast is or is not MCMC proposes that the Access Provider
compliant within 5 Business Days. should be required to make a decision in
relation to the compliance of that Forecast
within a standard 5 Business Day period.
Once the Forecast is determined to be
compliant, the Access Provider will then
provisionally accept that Forecast subject to
verification of details.
5.6.16 An amendment is proposed to ensure The MCMC notes that the proposed service-
that where an Access Provider seeks specific forecasting obligations would require
to recover its costs or expenses different forecast periods depending on the
incurred due to its acceptance of a type of service. The proposed amendment to
Forecast that is not met by an Access subsection 5.6.16 would ensure the Access
Seeker, then the Access Provider Provider is only required to mitigate its losses
may do so subject to mitigating its over a period equal to the Forecast period that
losses over a period equal to the included the over-forecasting.
period of the Forecast. The amendment would provide a mitigation
obligation that is more proportionate to the
Access Provider’s ability to recover its costs
and expenses incurred due to the over-
forecasting and greater certainty for Access
Providers regarding the scope of their
mitigation obligation and thereby facilitate
more effective oversight by the MCMC of
Access Providers’ compliance with the
recovery for over-forecasting obligations.
Questions
Question 18: Have any Access Seekers been charged by an Access Provider for over-
forecasting in accordance with subsection 5.6.14 of the current MSA? Do you agree with
the MCMC’s proposed changes to subsection 5.6.16 of the Draft MSA? If not, please explain
why and specify what changes (if any) should be made to this subsection as part of the
present review of the MSA.
Question 19: Do you agree with the MCMC’s proposed changes to the forecasting
obligations set out at subsection 5.6 of the Draft MSA? Why or why not? If not, please
Ordering and provisioning obligations

Overview
18.1 In its informal questionnaire on the MSA, the MCMC asked a number of
questions in relation to the effectiveness of the existing ordering and

provisioning obligations under the MSA. In particular, specific questions
were asked in relation to the following topics:
(a) notice of receipt timeframes (subsection 5.7.6);
(b) indicative delivery times (subsection 5.7.14);
(c) the continuing necessity of the “other uses” provisions (subsection

5.7.21);
(d) cancellation and variation of orders (subsection 5.7.25);
(e) cancellation penalties (subsection 5.7.26); and
(f) late delivery rebates (subsection 5.7.33).
18.2 A more detailed discussion is set out below on the ordering and provisioning
obligations that received the most feedback from operators. However, at a
high level, the MCMC notes that ordering and provisioning are central to an
Access Seeker’s ability to plan for and supply in a downstream market. As
such, it is important for an Access Provider to treat each Access Seeker
(including an Access Provider’s own retail arm) in a non-discriminatory and
equivalent manner to ensure no one Access Seeker is given an advantage
over another. Therefore, the MCMC notes that a number of its proposed
amendments to subsection 5.7 are designed to further incorporate the
‘equivalence of inputs’ concept into the way ordering and provisioning
obligations are applied under the MSA.
Notice of receipt timeframes
18.3 The MCMC asked operators whether the current requirement to provide
notice of receipt within 2 days under subsection 5.7.5 was sufficient for the
Access Provider to determine if capacity was sufficient. Two operators
viewed that 2 days was sufficient.
18.4 A prominent Access Provider submitted that, while 2 business days was
sufficient time for an Access Provider to acknowledge receipt of an order
sent by an Access Seeker, a longer time period was required for the Access
Provider to comply with the requirements in paragraphs 5.7.6(b) and
5.7.6(c). For example, the operator noted that the checking of capacity may
require a site survey to be conducted, which would take longer than 2
business days to complete. Therefore, the Access Provider recommended
that the timeframe for providing an Access Seeker with the information in
paragraphs 5.7.6(b) and 5.7.6(c) be left for commercial negotiation by the
parties.
18.5 Similarly, another Access Provider also submitted that the prescribed 2
business days was insufficient. Instead, the Access Provider recommended
that the notice of receipt timeframes be extended to at least 5 business
days, and double that period during gazetted festive holidays. The Access
Provider noted that the longer timeframe was required because the
determination of capacity sufficiency often required the Access Provider to
conduct (among others) the following checks:

(a) loading capacity checks, which include running tests and analysis to
determine the used and available capacity; and
(b) space availability checks, which include checking with regional teams
to ensure any unused space was not already earmarked for other
purposes.
18.6 One respondent requested that the time period for notice of receipt be
extended to 7 business days, or any longer period as mutually agreed by
the parties. Another respondent commented that in most cases, the
available capacity and timeframe for fulfilment of the order can only be
confirmed after the service qualification process.
18.7 The MCMC notes that there appears to be relatively strong support for
updating the acknowledgement of receipt and notice of receipt timeframes
under the MSA. Therefore, the MCMC proposes to apply a range of
acknowledgement of receipt times that would apply as new Service Specific
Obligations, which are summarised below under Part E of this PI Paper.
18.8 The MCMC considers there to be key differences between the Facilities and
Services covered by the MSA, which will have an effect on an operator’s
ability to assess its capacity and confirm whether it will be able to fulfil an
Order. For example, an order for O&T Services should be easier to confirm
than an order for access to infrastructure, and this difference is now
reflected in the MCMC’s proposed acknowledgement of receipt timeframes
under the Service Specific Obligations. Operator feedback on the
appropriateness of the MCMC’s proposed timing requirements is welcome.
Service qualifications
18.9 Service qualifications can provide valuable strategic commercial

information, which may present a competitive advantage in downstream
markets if an Access Provider provides such information to itself without
also offering that information to an Access Seeker.
18.10 The MCMC notes that the issue of unequal or inconsistent access to service
qualification information was raised by respondents in their feedback to the
MCMC’s informal questionnaire. Similar comments were also raised during
the Public Inquiry on the Access List, in relation to HSBB Network Services.
In particular, access to serviceable addresses that is as accurate as that
obtained by the Access Provider’s own retail unit, was highlighted as
important, and access to information regarding new POIs should also be
made available to the Access Seekers immediately.38
18.11 Therefore, to address these issues, the MCMC proposes to amend the
service qualification provisions to provide operators with the ability to
conduct a service qualification:
(a) Pre-order – the MCMC considers that an Access Seeker should be

provided with service qualification information prior to placing an
38
See MCMC, Access List Review – Public Inquiry Paper, page 86; and Access List Review – Public Inquiry Report,
page 46.

order if such information is made available by an Access Provider to
its own retail arm (for example, for marketing purposes); and
(b) Post-order – the MCMC proposes to continue to apply the existing

service qualification process under subsection 5.7.8 for the period
after an order has been placed by an Access Seeker.
18.12 The MCMC considers that the proposed changes to the service qualification
provisions will help to clarify that an Access Seeker should be provided with
equivalent access to the results of a service qualification as an Access
Provider makes available to its own retail arm. This principle would be
applied at both the pre-order and post-order stages.
18.13 The MCMC is also considering whether post-Order Service Qualification

should be prescribed for certain Facilities and Services rather than relying
on the general process under subsection 5.7.8 for all Facilities and Services.
The MCMC invites operator feedback on this issue.
Indicative delivery times
18.14 In its informal questionnaire on the MSA, the MCMC asked whether
operators thought the indicative delivery times under subsection 5.7.14
remained appropriate. In particular, the MCMC requested feedback on
whether any Facilities and infrastructure required a longer or shorter
timeframe than the current 8 months. Various submissions were received,
which the MCMC considered as part of its review of the indicative delivery
time provisions.
18.15 One operator noted that the indicative delivery times in the MSA should be
amended to take into account delays which are caused by external factors.
For example, any delays in obtaining state authority consent(s) and/or
approvals(s). Where a delay is not attributable to an Access Provider or
Access Seeker, the operator submits that concessions should be made to
exclude such delays from the computation of any other delays that are
caused by the Access Provider or Access Seeker under the current
paragraph 5.7.14(b).
18.16 Further, the operator also submits that the prescribed time frame of 8
months is insufficient. Two examples were provided to support this position:
(a) In-building: this requires longer than 8 months due to potential

complexity of building access and dealings with building owners
and/or authority for approvals. Additionally, as building designs do
vary from one to another, there are circumstances where special
arrangements need to be made to transport equipment and
machinery to the site; and
(b) Ground based towers, monopoles, special structures, and rooftop

structures: in the case of such structures, there are often delays
exceeding 8 months due to delays in obtaining the various
authorising authority’s approval.

18.17 On the other hand, a prominent Access Provider submitted that 8 months
was sufficient for the delivery of new orders, but that such delivery should
only include the following activities:
(a) ordering;
(b) site survey;
(c) equipment delivery;
(d) procurement;
(e) installation;
(f) testing;
(g) integration; and
(h) approval of right-of-way from local authorities.
18.18 Similarly, another operator submitted that, in its own experience, delivery
times tended to be within the 8-month period as follows:
(a) in normal practice, delivery times for new facilities and infrastructure
relevant to the services were about 150 days; and
(b) existing facilities and infrastructure relevant to the services would

normally require less than 30 days.
18.19 One respondent proposed substantive changes to the current table of

indicative delivery times under subsection 5.7.14. More specifically, the
operator proposed specific time frames that would be based on the Facilities
and/or Services, as follows:
Indicative delivery timeframes
All Orders involving the provision of All Orders involving augmentation of

Type of Facilities and/or Services new facilities and infrastructure capacity on existing facilities and
relevant to the Services that are the infrastructure relevant to the
subject of the Order Services that are the subject of the
Order
Transmission type (e.g. End-to-End 3 months 30 days

Transmission, Wholesale Local Leased
Circuit, etc.)
Infrastructure type (e.g. Tower, Duct 6-9 months 30 days

and Manhole Access, Co-location, etc.) (including site acquisition process, site
(Subject to the approval received from survey, preparation of technical proposal
the relevant authorities such as local and submission to local council, and
councils, land owners, etc.) construction)
Point of Interconnect 8 months 3 months

(POI / POP)
Local Access Service Specific Obligations should apply.
HSBB Network Services Service Specific Obligations should apply.

18.20 The MCMC notes that there appears to be relatively strong support for
updating the indicative delivery times under the current subsection 5.7.14.
Therefore, the MCMC proposes to introduce a range of indicative delivery
times that would apply as new Service Specific Obligations. The intention of
this approach is to acknowledge that there are key differences between the
various services covered by the MSA, which in turn will account for
differences in the time in which an operator may supply these services.
18.21 The current table of indicative delivery times in the MSA sets out two order
types, each with a single indicative delivery timeframe, to apply to all
Facilities and Services. The MCMC acknowledged that this could be
confusing, as for some order types only one of those two order types was
relevant and for other order types both were relevant. Further, the MCMC
notes that a reasonable timeframe will differ depending on the particular
Facility or Service in question.
18.22 Therefore, operators will notice that the MCMC now proposes to remove the
one-size-fits-all timeframes by tailoring indicative delivery times for each
Facility or Service. For those Facilities and Services to which only one order
type is relevant, the MCMC sets out a single timeframe. For those Facilities
and Services to which two order types may be relevant (e.g. HSBB Network
Services and Transmission Services), the MCMC sets out two timeframes.
The MCMC also proposes that each of these service specific indicative
delivery timeframes would be subject to any shorter timeframe within which
the Access Provider delivers or activates equivalent Facilities or Services for
itself, as set out under the new paragraph 5.7.13(a)ii. in the Draft MSA,
Annexure 3.
18.23 The MCMC’s proposed indicative delivery times for each Service Specific
Obligation are set out under Part E of this PI Paper. The MCMC welcomes
industry feedback on its proposed indicative delivery times.
18.24 The MCMC notes that the applicable indicative delivery timeframe would
commence upon the date of the Access Seeker’s confirmation of the Order
(where required) or the commencement of the Validity Period of the Access
Provider’s acceptance of the Order (as indicated in the Access Provider’s
notice of acceptance). The MCMC notes that under subsection 5.7.15 in the
MSA, the Access Provider must allow an Access Seeker to confirm its
agreement to proceed within the Validity Period of the Access Provider’s
acceptance of the Order. The MCMC proposes that the parties may agree
that Access Seeker confirmation is not required. The MCMC is considering
whether that should be expressly included as an option in the Draft MSA
and/or whether the Service Specific Obligations should prescribe whether
Access Seeker’s confirmation of Orders is or is not required.
18.25 Lastly, the MCMC notes that a prominent mobile provider submitted that
subsection 5.7.14 should exclude the indicative delivery timeframes for the
provision of access to MVNO service. The provider proposed that indicative
delivery times for access to MVNO services should instead be subject to
commercial negotiation between Access Provider and Access Seeker, which

is necessary considering the complexity and extent of MVNO business
models (e.g. MVNE model, thick MVNO, thin MVNO).
18.26 Except as set out in the Service Specific Obligations below, the MCMC does
not propose to apply all Content Obligations for MVNO Access. However,
Access Seekers would still be bound by the Disclosure Obligations and
Negotiation Obligations under the MSA in relation to MVNO Access. This will
be further discussed below at section 44.
Continuing necessity of the “other uses” provision
18.27 In its review of selected access agreements, the MCMC noticed that some
access agreements have not included subsection 5.7.21. Therefore, the
MCMC requested feedback on whether the “other uses” provision should be
retained in the MSA.
18.28 One respondent noted that, although the management of an Access

Seeker’s reserved capacity is rightfully a matter best handled in an Access
Agreement, its provision in subsection 5.7.21 of the MSA is a good reference
for all parties and should continue to be retained.
18.29 Similarly, the MCMC notes that a prominent Access Provider also supported
the continued inclusion of the “other uses” provision in the MSA, but with
an amendment to state that the provision is “at the Access Provider and
Access Seeker’s option.”
18.30 Given the broad support for maintaining the “other uses” provision, the
MCMC proposes to retain subsection 5.7.21 of the MSA. Further, the MCMC
does not intend to make any amendments to the existing provision,
including to extend the option to apply this provision to both an Access
Provider and Access Seeker as proposed. The MCMC considers that if
capacity is available, and it is technically feasible for an Access Provider to
permit connection with another network service, then the Access Provider
should comply where an Access Seeker exercises its option to request “other
uses.”
Cancellation and variation of orders
18.31 Cancellation and variation of orders are currently applied as a single process
under subsection 5.7.25 of the MSA. The MCMC sought feedback from
operators on whether it would instead be preferable to have separate
cancellation and variation of order processes under the MSA.
18.32 The MCMC notes that it received support for separate cancellation and
variation of order processes from several operators. One reason given was
that an order cancellation has a more adverse impact on an Access Provider
than an order variation, which could be addressed by regulating these two
processes separately.
18.33 The MCMC also notes that it received a request to amend the text in the
existing subsection 5.7.25. In particular, the operator in question submitted

that the present use of the words “…at any time…” may unfairly prejudice
Access Providers and should instead be amended to state:
“An Access Provider shall allow an Access Seeker to cancel or vary

an Order at any time, subject to such early termination provisions
and/or cost reimbursement mechanism as may be applicable under
the relevant Access Agreement (or Master Infrastructure Service
Agreement, as the case may be)” [emphasis added]
18.34 Conversely, the MCMC notes that most other operators were fine with the
existing cancellation and variation of order processes, and did not think it
was necessary to amend or separate these processes.
18.35 The MCMC notes that operators already have the ability to cancel an order
under the MSA, subject to any cancellation charges under subsection 5.7.26
applying. Therefore, the MCMC does not propose to expressly separate
these provisions, but instead proposes to clarify that the cancellation and
variation of orders provision applies subject to the cancellation penalty
provisions under subsection 5.7.26.
Cancellation penalties
18.36 The MCMC has observed that in some access agreements, the Access
Provider would charge a cancellation penalty for the minimum period for the
Facilities and/or Services. The MCMC requested feedback from operators on
the reasons for taking this approach and whether amendments are required
for subsection 5.7.26 of the MSA to align more closely with standard
industry practice.
18.37 Most operators confirmed the practice of charging the minimum period in
the event of cancellation; one operator clarified that there has not been any
cancellation thus far; and three operators commented that subsection
5.7.26 is sufficient and changes may not be needed.
18.38 However, one operator noted that in its standard access agreement, Access
Seekers are contracted for a “lock-in period” (generally for a tenure of 10
years) to allow for the recovery of costs and/or capital expenditure incurred
in constructing the necessary infrastructure for the Access Seeker. Where
the Access Seeker cancels or terminates the access agreement within this
lock-in period, a penalty equivalent to the fee payable for the unutilised
portion of the remainder of the lock-in period will be imposed onto the
Access Seeker as an early cancellation penalty.
18.39 Further, the operator also noted that, although it recognised the need to
cater for cancellation penalties in the MSA, the operator believed that the
current terms in subsection 5.7.26 are unfairly prejudicial to the interests
of Access Providers and should be revised by the MCMC.
18.40 The MCMC considers the proposal to include a 10 year “lock-in period” too
long and in fact, it exceeds the minimum term provided for under subsection
5.17.2. However, the MCMC also considers that the existing cancellation
penalty provision is unclear. Therefore, an update to this provision is set out

in subsection 5.7.26 of the Draft MSA in Annexure 3 to clarify that an Access
Provider may impose a charge of up to the lesser of (i) the sum of costs
necessarily incurred by the Access Provider as a result of the cancellation or
variation and (ii) the sum of charges that would have been payable for the
cancelled or varied Order in the six months immediately following the
cancellation or variation, which amount must then be reduced to the extent
those costs have been or would have been mitigated by the Access Provider
using its “best endeavours” to do so.
Late delivery rebates
18.41 The MCMC received several submissions from operators on the effectiveness
of the existing late delivery rebates, particularly in response to the MCMC’s
request for feedback on whether a cap on late delivery rebates should be
mandated under the MSA.
18.42 The MCMC notes that there was some initial support for the inclusion of a
late delivery rebate cap. One operator noted that a regulated cap would
provide clarity on the maximum financial exposure that could be required
under an access agreement.
18.43 Another operator also supported the proposal to include a cap on late
delivery rebates and proposed a figure, which is not included in this PI Paper
for confidentiality reasons. This figure was based on the premise that delays
are often times caused by external factors and not due to the Access
Provider or the Access Seeker (for example, delays by state authorities or
licensing bodies). The operator also noted that having a cap ensures the
financial sustainability of the Access Provider and Access Seeker and
encourages more certainty in its dealings with each other.
18.44 Similarly, the MCMC also received requests for late delivery rebate caps of:
(a) 5% of the annual charges payable or any other amount mutually

agreed between both parties; and
(b) 10% of annual charges, particularly where required for high impact
Facilities and Services such as HSBB services.
18.45 The MCMC notes that a number of operators have indicated their initial
support for the inclusion of a cap on late delivery in the MSA. As a first step,
the MCMC proposes to require the methodology and unit rates for calculating
late delivery rebates to be set out in an Access Provider’s RAO (see
subsection 5.7.33 of the Draft MSA). The MCMC welcomes feedback on its
proposed approach, including whether operators would prefer a fixed cap
being expressly set out in the MSA.
18.46 After reviewing the initial feedback from operators, the MCMC proposes to
make the following amendments to the ordering and provisioning
obligations under subsection 5.7 of the MSA:

‘Service The MCMC proposes to amend the The MCMC’s proposed clarification of the
Qualification’ ‘Service Qualification’ definition to ‘Service Qualification’ definition is intended to
definition clarify that the manner in which align with the broader changes to the Service
service qualification will be Specific Obligations under the MSA.
conducted will differ depending on In particular, the MCMC notes that the existing
whether it is used in relation to: definition of ‘Service Qualification’, i.e. to
(a) one of the identified Facilities conduct a desk and/or field study, including
or Services under its testing a line, would continue to apply for the
respective Service Specific identified Facility and Service under its
Obligations; or respective Service Specific Obligations.
(b) all other Facilities and However, the definition would include the
Services. interrogation of an Access Provider’s
Operational Support Systems in relation to an
Order or proposed Order for all other Facilities
and Services.
5.7.1 The MCMC proposes to expand the The MCMC’s proposal to permit additional
options for making a point of ordering options is intended to give Access
contact available to take an Access Providers flexibility in the way they accept
Seeker’s orders. The 3 proposed orders from Access Seekers, as well as
ordering mechanisms are as providing alternatives for making the ordering
follows: process more efficient for both parties.
(a) by placing an order with a The MCMC notes that it is common in other
particular contact person; jurisdictions for an Access Provider to offer
(b) by submitting an order to a multiple channels for placing an order. For
generic point of contact, such example, the national broadband network
as an email address that is (nbn), which is the wholesale provider in
regularly monitored by the Australia, offers its customers both a web
Access Provider; or portal and a B2B automated interface for
placing orders.39
(c) by creating an electronic
mechanism for the Importantly, the MCMC notes that nbn
instantaneous placement of permits Access Seekers to place an order via
an order, such as a web portal either its web portal, its B2B platform or both.
or business-to-business nbn is not permitted to require an Access
(“B2B”) gateway. Seeker to invest in technology or systems to
access its B2B interface – such a requirement
could serve as a barrier to smaller operators.
Thus, the MCMC also proposes to expressly
state that an Access Provider “cannot require
the Access Seeker to invest in specialised
technology or systems”, which could otherwise
serve to exclude some Access Seekers from
being able to place an order with the Access
Provider.
5.7.2 The MCMC proposes to restrict the The MCMC understands that Access Providers
information requested by an Access require sufficient details in an order from an
Provider in an order to only those Access Seeker to be able to provision the
details that are required for the order. However, the MCMC also notes that
much of the information included in an order
39
See: http://www.nbnco.com.au/content/dam/nbnco2/documents/sfaa-wba2-product-catalogue-npis-service-
description_20151102.pdf.

Access Provider to confirm its can be sensitive commercial information for
ability to provision the order. the Access Seeker.
Similarly, the MCMC also proposes Therefore, the MCMC has attempted to strike
to note that an Access Provider a balance by permitting an Access Provider to
may not require an Access Seeker request the information it needs to be able to
to submit more information in an provision an order, while also clarifying that an
order than the Access Provider Access Provider may not request any more
requires from itself to be able to information from an Access Seeker than it
provision an order. would require from its own retail arm to
provision to itself.
5.7.4 The MCMC proposes to clarify that The proposed requirement for an Access
in the treatment of Orders and Provider to establish a single queue for all
Service Qualifications, an Access Orders and Service Qualifications in respect of
Provider shall establish a single a particular type of Facility or Service including
queue for all Orders and Service its own, and the additional equivalence
Qualifications for a given type of obligations under the paragraph 5.7.4(b) and
Facility or Service (including its the new paragraph 5.7.4(c), are intended to
own) and give equivalent priority to ensure that Orders and Service Qualifications
all Orders and Service for both Access Seekers and the Access
Qualifications for a given type of Provider’s own retail arm are treated on an
Facility or Service, and ensure such equivalent basis.
treatment complies with the Access
Provider’s queuing policy.
5.7.5 The MCMC proposes to introduce a The MCMC notes that there are key differences
set of acknowledgement of receipt between the services covered by the MSA,
times, which would be set out as which will have an effect on an operator’s
new Service Specific Obligations ability to assess its capacity and confirm
under section 6 of the Draft MSA. whether it will be able to fulfil an Order.
To reflect this change, subsection Therefore, a range of acknowledgement of
5.7.5 would also be amended to receipt times are proposed that would apply as
remove the current 2-Business Day new Service Specific Obligations under section
requirement and instead refer to 6 of the Draft MSA. The proposed times are
the service-specific timeframes summarised below under Part E of this PI
under section 6 of the Draft MSA. Paper.
5.7.8 The MCMC proposes to clarify that The MCMC proposes to provide for the ability
an Access Provider must make to conduct a Service Qualification:
Service Qualifications available to (a) Pre-order – the MCMC considers that an
customers prior to the placement of Access Seeker should be provided with
an Order if such pre-order Service Service Qualification information prior to
Qualifications have been placing an order if such information is
undertaken for a given Facility or made available by an Access Provider to
Service by the Access Provider for itself (for example, for marketing
itself (for example, for marketing purposes); and
purposes).
(b) Post-order – the MCMC’s preliminary
Further, the MCMC also proposes to view is to apply the existing Service
permit post-order Service Qualification process under subsection
Qualifications by an Access 5.7.8 of the MSA after an Order is placed
Provider if such information is by an Access Seeker. This results in
reasonably required by the Access consequential amendments to the
Provider and it is not readily timeframe for notification to the Access
available. An Access Seeker should Seeker under paragraph 5.7.8(b)

be notified that a service (including where further information is
qualification is required in the requested under subsection 5.7.7). As
Notice of Receipt. mentioned above, the MCMC is
considering whether post-Order Service
Qualification should also be prescribed for
certain Facilities and Services rather than
relying on the general process under
subsection 5.7.8 for all Facilities and
Services.
The MCMC notes that Service Qualification can
provide strategic commercial information,
which may present a competitive advantage in
downstream markets, if an Access Provider
provides such information to itself without also
offering that information to an Access Seeker.
For example, a Service Qualification may be
used to inform which areas to target when
marketing retail services.
Thus, the proposed changes are designed to
make it clear that an Access Seeker should be
provided with the results of a Service
Qualification where such information is
provided to an Access Provider’s own retail
arm. This principle should apply in both the
pre- and post-order stages.
5.7.10 Subsection 5.7.10 is amended to The MCMC recognises that in certain cases, in
allow an Access Seeker to withdraw order to be able to comply with an Access
its order without penalty the earlier Seeker’s request for access under the MSA, an
of 14 Business Days after receiving Access Provider may be required to undertake
the results of the Service civil works before it can provision the order.
Qualification or 1 Business Day The MCMC proposes to limit an Access
before civil works begins. Seeker’s ability to withdraw an order without
Where an order would require an penalty if an Access Provider has already
Access Provider to conduct civil invested in civil works to provision the Access
works to provision that order in Seeker’s order. Hence, subsection 5.7.10 has
accordance with the MSA, the been amended to take this into account.
MCMC proposes to limit an Access
Seeker’s ability to withdraw an
order without penalty following a
Service Qualification to 1 Business
Day before the Access Provider
begins those civil works. The
Access Provider must notify the
Access Seeker of the intended date
of commencement of the civil
works in the Notice of Acceptance
under subsection 5.7.13.
5.7.12 The MCMC proposes to clarify that The MCMC considers that the time for
an Access Provider’s acceptance or acceptance or rejection of an order under the
rejection of an order must be within MSA should be applied as new Service Specific
the shorter of: Obligations. A blanket 14-day period as
currently set out in the MSA does not account

(a) a time specified in the new for potential differences between services,
Service Specific Obligations which in turn are likely to lead to differing
under section 6 of the Draft abilities of Access Providers to determine if
MSA; and capacity is available to fulfil an Order.
(b) the time in which the Access Further, the MCMC also proposes to expressly
Provider accepts or rejects require an Access Provider to notify an Access
such orders for itself. Seeker of its intention to accept or reject an
order within “the timeframe within which it
accepts or rejects equivalent orders for itself.”
The MCMC considers this change to be
necessary to support the broader objective of
improving equivalence under the MSA.
5.7.13 The MCMC proposes to clarify that, The MCMC proposes to expressly clarify that
where an Access Seeker’s preferred an Access Provider must not specify a delivery
delivery date cannot be met, an date or activation date for an Access Seeker
Access Provider must provide a that is greater than the time taken by the
delivery date that is no later than Access Provider to deliver the relevant
the shortest of: Facilities or Services to itself. This change is
(a) the new service-specific intended to support the broader objective of
indicative delivery or improving equivalence under the MSA.
activation timeframes under A corresponding change to refer to the Service
section 6 of the Draft MSA; Specific Obligations under section 6 of the
and Draft MSA has also been made to align with
(b) the time taken by the Access the proposal to apply the indicative service
Provider to deliver or activate delivery or activation times on a service-
such Facilities or Services to specific basis.
itself.
5.7.14 The MCMC proposes to replace the The MCMC notes that there appears to be
current table of indicative delivery relatively strong support for updating the
times under subsection 5.7.14 with indicative delivery times under the current
a more detailed set of service- subsection 5.7.14. Therefore, the MCMC
specific indicative delivery proposes to introduce a range of indicative
timeframes in section 6 of the Draft delivery timeframes that would apply as new
MSA. The MCMC also proposes to Service Specific Obligations, which would
amend subsection 5.7.14 to clarify reflect key differences in the time that an
when the indicative delivery operator will tend to take when supplying a
timeframes will commence. particular service in accordance with an Order.
The MCMC’s proposed indicative delivery
timeframes for each Service Specific
Obligation are set out under Part E of this PI
Paper.
Each of these indicative delivery timeframes
would commence from the Access Seeker’s
confirmation of the Order (where such
confirmation is required) and otherwise the
start of the Validity Period.
5.7.17 The MCMC proposes to clarify The MCMC’s proposed amendments under
under paragraphs 5.7.17(f) and (g) paragraphs 5.7.17(f) and (g) are intended to
that an Access Provider may only clarify that an Access Provider should not
claim to have “reasonable grounds” reject an Order, unless other reasonable steps
for rejection where the Access

Provider’s concerns cannot have been taken to address the Access
otherwise be addressed to the Provider’s concern.
Access Provider’s satisfaction, The MCMC considers that the decision to reject
acting reasonably, by other means an order should only be made as a last resort
(e.g. through reasonable security where other reasonable measures are unable
or escorted access requirements). to remedy the relevant ground for rejection.
5.7.20 The MCMC proposes to clarify that The MCMC proposes to clarify that an Access
an Access Provider should only Provider should not require an Access Seeker
require an Access Seeker to to procure additional capacity, unless a failure
procure extra capacity on the to do so would adversely impact the operation
Access Seeker’s side of the network of the Access Provider’s own network. This
where a failure to do so by the clarification is intended to further inform the
Access Seeker would “cause an existing requirement for an Access Provider to
adverse impact on the operation of only make an extra capacity request in “good
the Access Provider’s Network.” faith” and where “reasonably estimated”.
5.7.26 The MCMC proposes to amend the The MCMC considers an appropriate
current paragraph 5.7.26(b) to cancellation or variation penalty to be up to 6
clarify that an Access Provider may months of charges that would have been
impose a cancellation or variation payable for the cancelled or varied Order, but
penalty of up to 6 months of minus any savings that result from the Access
charges that would have been Provider using its “best endeavours” to
payable for the cancelled or varied mitigate costs from accruing in relation to the
Order, if it is lower than costs cancelled or varied order.
necessarily incurred, subject to the
Access Provider using its “best
endeavours” to mitigate any costs.
5.7.28(b) The MCMC proposes to require an The MCMC considers that the inclusion of a
Access Provider to now specify the methodology and unit costs for calculating a
methodology and unit costs for resource charge in a RAO will permit an Access
calculating any resource charges in Seeker to verify the one-off charge for costs
its RAO. incurred by the Access Provider.
5.7.29 The MCMC proposes to clarify that The MCMC’s proposed amendments to
an Access Provider’s queuing policy subsection 5.7.29 are intended to clarify that
must be applied on an equivalent an Access Provider’s queuing policy should be
and non-discriminatory basis for applied in such a way that all Access Seekers’
each Facility or Service that the orders for the “same or similar” Facilities and
Access Provider supplies, in respect Services are treated on an equivalent basis.
of Orders and Service As above, this change is intended to support a
Qualifications. broader objective of ensuring all Access
Seekers are subject to the same terms of
access, which becomes particularly important
where an Access Provider may have a vested
interest in favouring its own retail arm over
other Access Seekers.
5.7.32 The MCMC proposes to require an The MCMC proposes to require an Access
Access Provider to make its Provider to make its Capacity Allocation Policy
Capacity Allocation Policy available available to Access Seekers and the MCMC free
to: of charge. This change is intended to inject
further transparency into the current capacity
allocation processes by permitting Access

(a) each Access Seeker upon Seekers and the MCMC to monitor and assess
entry into an Access the validity of an Access Provider’s claims that
Agreement; and it has insufficient capacity to meet an Access
(b) the MCMC upon the Effective Seeker’s forecasts and/or orders.
Date.
Any amendments to the Capacity
Allocation Policy would also need to
be made available to each Access
Seeker and the MCMC.
5.7.33 The MCMC proposes to require the The MCMC notes that the initial operator
methodology and unit rates for feedback suggests that operators would like to
calculating late delivery rebates to see a cap on late delivery charges added to the
be set out in an Access Provider’s MSA.
RAO. As a first step, the MCMC proposes to require
the methodology and unit rates for calculating
late delivery rebates to be set out in an Access
Provider’s RAO. However, the MCMC welcomes
feedback on its proposed approach.
Questions
Question 20: Under subsection 5.7.5 of the MSA, should exemptions be made for shorter
acknowledgement of receipt times for orders made in relation to Facilities or Services (e.g.
acknowledge receipt of an HSBB Network Services and/or ANE order within 24 hours)?
Question 21: Have Access Seekers experienced any issues with an Access Provider
rejecting an Order on the grounds that the Access Seeker had not obtained the necessary
related agreements from the Access Provider (under paragraph 5.7.17(e) of the MSA)?
Question 22: Where an Access Provider notifies an Access Seeker that a delivery date will
be delayed, is the current 14-day period before an Order can be cancelled without penalty
under paragraph 5.7.24(a)ii. acceptable or should it be made shorter/longer (generally or
for particular Facilities or Services)?
Question 23: Have Access Seekers experienced any issues with the resource charges
under subsection 5.7.28 (e.g. unverifiable or excessive charges)?
Question 24: Do you agree with the MCMC’s proposed changes to the ordering and
provisioning obligations set out at subsection 5.7 of the Draft MSA? Why or why not? If
not, please specify what change you consider is required and explain why.
Question 25: Do you agree the parties should have the option to agree that Access Seeker
confirmation of Orders is not required? Do you consider the Service Specific Obligations
should prescribe whether or not Access Seeker confirmation of Orders is required for each
type of Facility or Service? Why or why not?

Network conditioning obligations
Overview
19.1 The Network Conditioning obligations are set out under subsection 5.8 of
the MSA. For the purposes of the MSA, ‘Network Conditioning’ refers to the
conditioning, equipping and installation of equipment in an Access Provider’s
network to enable the provision of services.
19.2 The MCMC notes that it received only a few comments from operators in
relation to the Network Conditioning obligations. The key comments were
as follows:
(a) One respondent requested that the MCMC remove subsection 5.8.2
(‘Impact of retail commercial arrangements’) from the MSA. The
reason given for this request was because retail arrangements
between operators and their customers are not within the scope of
the MSA; and
(b) The MCMC received a submission from a mobile operator that

requested subsections 5.8.3 to 5.8.6 be excluded from being applied
to the provision of access to MVNO service. Instead, the mobile
operator proposed that these particular Network Conditioning
obligations be left to commercial discussions between Access
Provider and Access Seeker to determine, which was believed to be
necessary considering the complexity and extent of MVNO business
models (e.g. MVNE model, thick MVNO, thin MVNO).
19.3 The MCMC considered the request to remove subsection 5.8.2, but does not
propose to make this change. This is because, although the MSA does not
directly regulate the retail level, a wholesale provider’s ability to influence
retail arrangements does fall within the scope of the MSA. Therefore, the
MCMC proposes to retain subsection 5.8.2 in the MSA.
19.4 Further, in relation to the request to exclude MVNO services from

subsections 5.8.3 to 5.8.6, the MCMC does not propose to apply all of the
Content Obligations for MVNO services, except as set out in the service-
specific obligations. However, Access Seekers would still be bound by the
Disclosure Obligations and Negotiation Obligations under the MSA. This will
be further discussed below at section 44.
19.5 The MCMC’s preliminary view is that the current Network Conditioning
obligations in the MSA continue to operate well and do not require any
substantive changes or updates except for the clarification that the Network
Conditioning obligations are of limited practical relevance to the O&T
Services only. Therefore, the MCMC is considering whether the Network
Conditioning obligations under subsection 5.8 of the MSA should be
relocated to the Service Specific Obligations for O&T Services under
subsection 6.1 of the Draft MSA. Consequential amendments would also be

required to limit the definition of Network Conditioning so that it only applies
to O&T Services.
19.6 This appears to be consistent with industry’s views given that no significant
gaps or issues were raised by operators in response to the MCMC’s informal
questionnaire on the MSA. Therefore, in addition to the changes outlined in
section 19.5 above, the MCMC proposes only to make minor changes, as
follows:
6.1.10 The MCMC proposes to clarify that The MCMC considers it necessary to expressly
(formerly number range activation should be require an Access Provider to provide number
5.8.4) provided within the shorter of: range activation to an Access Seeker within
(a) the time that the Access the same timeframe that the Access Provider
Provider would activate a provides such activation to its own retail arm,
number range for itself; and where the timeframe is shorter than 10
Business Days. Otherwise, the Access Provider
(b) 10 Business Days of being
should activate the number within 10 Business
requested to do so by the
Days of being requested to do so.
Access Seeker.
This amendment is intended to align with the
MCMC’s broader objective of incorporating the
‘equivalence of inputs’ concept into the MSA.
Questions
Question 26: Do you agree with the network conditioning obligations under subsection 5.8
of the MSA are of practical relevance to O&T Services only? Do you agree these obligations
should be relocated to subsection 6.1 (O&T Services)?
Question 27:Do you agree with the MCMC’s preliminary view that the current Network
Conditioning obligations in the MSA continue to operate well and do not require any
substantive changes or updates, other than their relocation to form a part of the Service
Specific Obligations in subsection 6.1 (O&T Services)? If not, please specify what change
you consider is required and explain why.
Question 28: Do you agree with the proposed changes to the number range activation
provision? Why or why not?
Point of interface procedures

Overview
20.1 The MCMC received comments from operators on the scope and operation
of the point of interface procedures in the MSA. In general, the MCMC notes
that the preliminary feedback from industry did not raise significant issues
with the current point of interface procedures, but that some specific issues
and concerns were identified by particular operators.
20.2 At a high level, these issues were in relation to:
(a) point of interface procedures in an access agreement;

(b) the responsibility that a “Deemed Access Provider” has for any sub-
lessees under subsection 5.9.3;
(c) the non-applicability of transit services under subsection 5.9.10; and
(d) the applicability of the point of interface provisions to access to MVNO

services.
Each of these issues are discussed below, along with the MCMC’s preliminary
views.
20.3 After reviewing the current operation of the point of interface procedures,
the MCMC also identified two additional issues that it proposes to address
by amending the MSA:
(a) first, the MCMC has received complaints that physical co-location has
been denied in most cases, or only certain forms of network co-
location (e.g. in-span interconnection) has been provided, so the
MCMC proposes to clarify that physical co-location must be provided,
unless there are valid reasons for refusal; and
(b) second, the MCMC proposes to include new security and Critical
National Information Infrastructure (CNII) provisions that seek to
balance the possible security risks of widely sharing information of
particular points of interface against the need to provide Access
Seekers with sufficient information to be able to make an informed
decision prior to submitting an interconnection request.
Each of these issues are discussed in further detail below.
Point of interface procedures in an Access Agreement
20.4 One operator was of the view that more flexibility should be provided for
parties to negotiate the point of interface procedures under subsections
5.9.2 and 5.9.5 once a request for point for interconnection is made. For
example, the operator noted that in the event that the availability of space
for interconnection is not available, alternative procedures may need to be
considered to achieve a “win-win” solution for both parties. The operator
submitted that there should be options in the MSA that permit the
negotiation of the point of interface provisions in an Access Agreement.
20.5 Another operator proposed adding a new Point of Interface factor under
subsection 5.9.8, with proposed drafting as follows:
“(f) to avoid the single point of failure, the Operators to have at

least two (2) physically separate POI/POP for the voice traffic
interconnection.”
20.6 The MCMC is considering the request for further flexibility in the point of
interface procedure provisions and on the additional point of interface
factors that have been raised by the two operators. The MCMC welcomes
feedback from other operators on these proposals, particularly in relation to
the specific changes that may be made to subsections 5.9.2 and/or 5.9.5 to

implement the first proposal, and to subsection 5.9.8 to implement the
second proposal.
20.7 The MCMC notes one mobile operator submitted that the point of interface
obligations should not apply for access to MVNO services. The operator was
of the view that these clauses are inapplicable given that interconnection is
undertaken by the host MNO, and not the MVNO itself.
20.8 As discussed above, the MCMC does not propose to apply all of the Content
Obligations for MVNO services, except where certain service-specific
obligations would apply. However, Access Seekers would still be bound by
the Disclosure Obligations and Negotiation Obligations under the MSA. This
will be discussed further below at section 44.
“Deemed Access Provider”
20.9 The MCMC notes that it received specific comments on the “Deemed Access
Provider” provisions under subsection 5.9.3 of the MSA. In particular, an
operator wanted the MSA to ensure that a deemed Access Provider was fully
responsible for the acts and omission of its sub-lessee. As such, the operator
proposed to include the following wording in subsection 5.9.3:
“The Access Seeker shall be fully responsible for the acts and
omission[s] of its sub-lessee and shall ensure that its sub-lessee
complies with all the Access Seeker’s obligations with respect to the
Co-Located Space under this Agreement.”
20.10 The MCMC is considering the proposal to clarify that a deemed Access
Provider should remain responsible for the acts and omissions of any sub-
lessees that are co-located at a point of interface. The MCMC welcomes
comments from other operators on this proposal, including in relation to the
specific wording proposed for inclusion in subsection 5.9.3 in the Draft MSA.
Provision of physical co-location
20.11 The MCMC has received complaints that physical co-location has been
denied in certain circumstances, or has only been offered in certain forms
(e.g. in-span interconnection only). While the MSA currently contemplates
that interconnection may be refused in some limited cases (e.g. where there
is a lack of space), the MCMC is concerned that Access Providers are not
using their “best efforts” in all cases to accommodate Access Seeker
physical interconnection requests.
20.12 Therefore, the MCMC proposes to strengthen the existing interconnection

requirements under the MSA to clarify that physical co-location must be
provided at all technically feasible points; and that both the Access Provider
and Access Seeker must offer virtual co-location or in-span interconnection
to other Access Seekers, where there are physical constraints.
20.13 The MCMC also proposes to make it harder for an Access Provider to deny
an interconnection request due to a lack of space under subsection 5.9.4.
At the moment, once an Access Provider uses its “best efforts” to

accommodate all Access Seekers, the Access Provider is excused from
providing physical interconnection if it claims that there is a lack of space at
a particular location. However, the MCMC now proposes to include an
express requirement for an Access Provider to notify the MCMC if it intends
to deny an interconnection request due to a lack of space, and the extent
to which an Access Provider is excused from its interconnection obligations
will be determined by the MCMC.
20.14 The MCMC considers that the proposed changes will limit the ability of an
Access Provider to deny a physical interconnection request by an Access
Seeker on unreasonable or unfair grounds. Further, where an Access
Provider has valid grounds for refusal, the proposed requirement to notify
the MCMC that the Access Provider intends to refuse physical co-location
due to a lack of space should ensure that the Access Provider has used its
“best efforts” to accommodate an Access Seeker’s request before notifying
the MCMC.
Transit services
20.15 An operator submitted an amendment to subsection 5.9.10 to delete the

words “whether directly or in transit” on the basis that the industry does not
currently have transit arrangements due to the potential difficulties in
network management, traffic routing and dispute issues.
20.16 The MCMC notes the view of the operator, but considers that subsection
5.9.10 does not hinder the industry’s current practice and leaves open the
possibility for transit traffic arrangement in the future. Therefore, the MCMC
does not consider any amendment to the subsection is required.
Security and CNII
20.17 The MCMC notes that several operators submitted comments in relation to
the possible security risks associated with publishing certain information and
providing access to secure facilities.
20.18 On one hand, an Access Provider may want to keep the location of a
particular facility confidential on national or other operational security
grounds. Further, the MCMC also notes that where access is provided to a
point of interface within such a facility, the Access Provider may also seek
to bolster the security requirements that the Access Seeker must comply
with when physically accessing that facility. These issues were raised by a
prominent Access Provider who noted the difficulties in providing network
co-location in premises where:
(a) a higher level of security is required due to the national interest, such
as at CNII; and
(b) other premises such as certain cable landing stations and hill stations
where safety and security is of the utmost importance.
20.19 On the other hand, the MCMC is concerned that the failure to provide details
about a point of interface on the grounds of security, or the requirement

that an Access Seeker comply with overly prescriptive and onerous security
requirements may be used to indirectly deny an Access Seeker with physical
interconnection.
20.20 The MCMC proposes to include new security and CNII provisions that seek
to balance the possible security risks of widely sharing information of
particular points of interface against the need to provide Access Seekers
with sufficient information to be able to make an informed decision prior to
submitting an interconnection request. These new provisions would also
include safeguards (e.g. ability to enter into a confidentiality agreement
before disclosing the location of a secure facility) to limit any risks to the
secure facility.
20.21 The MCMC proposes to make the following changes to the point of interface
procedure requirements under subsection 5.9 of the MSA:
5.9.2 and The MCMC proposes to clarify that an The MCMC has received complaints from
5.9.3 Access Provider must publish certain Access Seekers that they have been refused
(formerly point of interface location details on physical co-location, or only offered certain
5.9.2 and its “publicly accessible” website (in forms of network co-location (e.g. in-span
5.9.4) addition to in its RAO under interconnection), by an Access Provider.
paragraph 5.3.3(b) of the Draft To address this issue, the MCMC proposes to
MSA). amend subsections 5.9.2 and 5.9.3 such that
The MCMC also proposes to include under circumstances where there are physical
an express requirement for both the space constraints, both the Access Provider
Access Provider and each Access and each Access Seeker that is granted co-
Seeker that is granted physical co- location rights must offer virtual co-location or
location rights (as deemed Access in-span interconnection to other Access
Provider under subsection 5.9.3) to Seekers at all technically feasible points.
offer virtual co-location or in-span The MCMC emphasises that an Access Provider
interconnection to other Access has an obligation to offer physical co-location
Seekers, in circumstances where to Access Seekers, unless there are valid
there are physical constraints. reasons to deny a request (e.g. due to lack of
space). The proposed changes to subsection
5.9.2 are intended to support these
obligations.
5.9.4 Where an Access Provider denies The MCMC considers that its proposed changes
(formerly request for physical co-location due to subsection 5.9.4 will limit the ability of an
5.9.5) to a lack of space, the MCMC Access Provider to deny physical co-location to
proposes to require the Access only those cases where an Access Provider has
Provider to: used its “best efforts” to optimise the space,
(a) notify the MCMC of the lack of but is still unable to accommodate any further
space; and Access Seekers.
(b) provide any supplemental

information to support the claim
of a lack of space (including
possible inspection by the
MCMC).

The MCMC also proposes that an
Access Provider will be excused from
providing physical co-location due to
a lack of physical space where
agreed to by the MCMC.
5.9.8 An amendment is proposed to clarify The MCMC’s proposed amendment to

(formerly that an Access Provider will only be subsection 5.9.8 is intended to ensure that
5.9.9) required to offer POI and co-location physical co-location is available for Access
in areas “in which the Access Seekers within every Closed Number Area
Provider has network facilities.” across Malaysia. However, a clarification was
The MCMC also proposes to require also added to paragraph 5.9.8(a) to address
Access Providers to offer physical co- an operator’s comment that not all Access
location in at least one location for Providers have a POI in every Closed Number
every Closed Number Area Area.
throughout Malaysia. The MCMC also proposes to maintain the
Additionally, Access Providers may existing ability for an Access Provider to offer
also offer other forms of co-location other forms of co-location at a particular
in relation to a particular location location (e.g. virtual co-location).
(e.g. virtual co-location).
5.9.9 The MCMC proposes to include new The MCMC considers that its proposal to
(new) notification requirements where an require an Access Provider to notify the MCMC
Access Provider proposes to refuse, with supporting details of a refusal of physical
or refuses, a request for physical co- co-location request will ensure that there is
location from an Access Seeker on some transparency in the refusal process. An
the basis of current or future needs. Access Provider should only refuse a request
The Access Provider would be for physical co-location on the basis of current
required to notify the Access Seeker or future needs of the Access Provider itself or
and the MCMC of the space currently of other Access Seekers.
used by the Access Provider, other
Access Seekers, the amount of space
reserved for future needs, the total
space potentially available, etc.
5.9.11 The MCMC proposes to add a new The MCMC proposes to include new provisions
(new) subsection 5.9.11 to deal with in the MSA to address issues raised by
interconnection at secure facilities operators in relation to physical access to
and other CNII. secure facilities and other CNII.
An Access Provider may decline to The MCMC recognises that in certain cases an
publish details on the location of a Access Provider may want to keep the location
Point of Interface or other facilities of a particular Point of Interface or other
for national or operational security Facilities confidential on national or other
reasons. However, the Access operational security grounds. Therefore, the
Provider must still provide: MCMC proposes to limit the provision of such
(a) such details to other operators information to only those Access Seekers that
on request, provided that the agree to enter into a confidentiality agreement
other operator agrees to enter with the Access Provider.
into a confidentiality Further, the MCMC also notes that, where
agreement; and access is provided to a secure Point of
(b) any updates on the location of Interface, the Access Provider may also need
the Point of Interface or other to bolster the security requirements that the
facilities where requested by an Access Seeker must comply with when
accessing that facility. Therefore, the MCMC

operator following any changes proposes to permit an Access Provider to
in location of that Point of establish “reasonable security procedures and
Interface (e.g. introduction, processes” that an Access Seeker must comply
withdrawal or change of with when physically accessing a secure Point
location). of Interface.
The MCMC also proposes to clarify However, the MCMC notes that claims of
that Access Providers may establish security should not be used as a means to limit
reasonable security procedures and an Access Seeker’s ability to enter a Point of
processes where physical access is Interface or other locations. Similarly, the
provided at a secure facility. MCMC notes that an Access Provider must
However, any such security apply security procedures and processes
procedures and processes must: equally for both an Access Seeker and any of
(a) not completely or substantially the Access Provider’s own personnel who
prohibit physical access to a access the Point of Interface or other
Point of Interface or other locations.
location, unless required to do
so by a Government
requirement; and
(b) apply equally for both an Access
Seeker and any of the Access
Provider’s own personnel who
access the relevant Point of
Interface or location.
Questions
Question 29: Have Access Seekers requested access to an alternative Point of Interface
under subsection 5.9.5? If so, what was the outcome of the request (including any reasons
given for rejection and whether the Access Seeker was satisfied by those reasons)?
Question 30: The MCMC is seeking feedback on the use of the Third Party Point of Interface
provisions under subsection 5.9.7 of the Draft MSA – specifically, is it common for an
Access Seeker to nominate a third party for the purposes of interconnection, in what
circumstances would such a nomination be made and are there any improvements that
can be made to the terms of subsection 5.9.7?
Question 31: Do you agree with the MCMC’s proposed changes to the point of interface
procedures set out at subsection 5.9 of the Draft MSA? Why or why not? If not, please
Decommissioning obligations
Overview
21.1 The MCMC notes that no comments were received from operators in relation
to the decommissioning obligations under subsection 5.10 of the MSA.
Presumably, this means that the industry does not have any significant
issues with the current decommissioning regime in the MSA.

21.2 The MCMC has also conducted its own review of the decommissioning
provisions and found that the current processes and procedures continue to
be effective without the need for any significant changes.
21.3 For the above reasons, the MCMC does not propose to make any substantive
amendments or additions to the decommissioning obligations under
subsection 5.10 of the MSA. However, the MCMC would welcome feedback
on the effectiveness of the current decommissioning provisions to confirm
its preliminary position.
21.4 The MCMC does not propose to make any substantive changes to the
decommissioning obligations under subsection 5.10 of the MSA, other than
proposed changes to clarify the operation of the current provisions as
follows:
5.10.1 The MCMC proposes to clarify that an The MCMC notes that its proposed change to
Access Provider must provide as subsection 5.10.1 is intended to clarify the
much notice as possible of any operation of that provision. The proposed
decommissioning, other than as a amendments would not change the
result of a third party landlord’s substantive obligations that currently exist
notice, which notice must be no less under that subsection.
than:
(a) one year’s notice in writing to all
relevant Access Seekers prior to
any decommissioning of a Point
of Interface; or
(b) six months’ notice in writing to
all relevant Access Seekers
prior to the decommissioning of
any Facilities or Services which
rely on the Access Provider’s
use of that site.
Questions
Question 32: Do you agree with the MCMC’s preliminary view that the current
decommissioning obligations in the MSA continue to operate well and do not require any
substantive changes or updates? If not, please specify what change you consider is
required and explain why.
Question 33: Do you agree with the proposed clarification? Why or why not?
Network change obligations

Overview
22.1 The MCMC notes that no comments were received from operators in relation
to the network change obligations under subsection 5.11 of the MSA.

Presumably, this means that the industry does not have any significant
issues with the current network change regime in the MSA.
22.2 The MCMC has also conducted its own review of the network change
provisions and found that the current processes and procedures continue to
be effective without the need for any significant changes.
22.3 For the above reasons, the MCMC does not propose to make any substantive
amendments or additions to the network change obligations under
subsection 5.11 of the MSA. However, the MCMC would welcome feedback
on the effectiveness of the current network change provisions to confirm its
preliminary position.
22.4 The MCMC does not propose to make any substantive changes to the
network change obligations under subsection 5.11 of the MSA, other than a
proposed change to clarify the testing provisions under subsection 5.11.5
as follows:
5.11.5 The MCMC proposes to clarify that The MCMC’s proposed change is intended to
joint testing must be conducted by ensure that a Notifying Party does not conduct
the Notifying Party and Recipient any testing itself, unless notice of such testing
Party “in a timely manner, using its is also provided to the Recipient Party in a
best endeavours to accommodate timely manner and in accordance with any
any timing requested by the timing requested by the Recipient Party, or in
Recipient Party and, in any case, no any case, no less than 20 Business Days.
less than 20 Business Days before The MCMC considers that such a change is
the Notifying Party proposes to effect necessary to ensure that an operator does not
the Relevant Changes.” provide itself with more favourable testing
than is made available to other operators. This
supports the MCMC’s broader objective of
improving equivalence under the MSA.
Questions
Question 34: Have operators either experienced or imposed a relevant change to which
subsection 5.11 applies?
If so, please:
a) describe the network change and any Facilities or Services that were affected;
b) discuss whether the network change processes were followed;
c) discuss how successful network change process was; and
d) discuss any improvements that may be made to the network change processes.

Network facilities access and co-location
Overview
23.1 In its informal questionnaire on the MSA, the MCMC asked operators for
feedback on their experiences with the following provisions:
(a) physical access (subsection 5.13.3);
(b) provision of escorts (subsection 5.13.4); and
(c) absence of escorts (subsections 5.13.5).
23.2 The MCMC received a number of responses on the escort provisions of the
MSA, which are discussed below along with the MCMC’s preliminary views.
Physical access and escorts
feedback on their experiences with the physical access (subsection 5.13.3),
escorts (subsection 5.13.4) and absence of escorts provisions (subsection
5.13.5). The MCMC notes that it received several responses on the physical
access and escort provisions of the MSA.
23.4 Several operators supported the current physical access and escort
provisions in the MSA. For example, one operator recognised that the
requirement to have an escort was feasible and necessary to ensure security
was maintained at network facilities.
23.5 Another operator submitted that it continued to support the current physical
access and escort provisions, but noted that measures were needed to limit
the number of frivolous or vexatious requests to access sites. The operator
recommended that Access Seekers bear the costs associated with escort
services that are provided after initial installation and/or service
commissioning. A second operator also suggested that the MSA should
permit an Access Provider to charge for any escort services that are provided
to an Access Seeker.
23.6 The MCMC seeks views from other operators on whether there is broader
support for including measures (e.g. charges for escort services) to limit
frivolous or vexatious requests to access sites.
23.7 A prominent Access Provider proposed an amendment to subsection 5.13.4

to expressly apply the escort provisions to an Access Seeker’s personnel
(only), as follows:
“5.13.4 Escorts: If an Access Provider determines that it is

necessary to have an escort present when employees or contractors
of the Access Seeker wish to enter onto the Access Provider’s
property, the Access Provider shall…” [emphasis added]
The MCMC agrees with this proposal and has included the proposed
clarification to that provision in the Draft MSA.

23.8 The Access Provider also noted that, based on its experience, the 30-minute
time period to respond to attend at the Access Provider’s property under
paragraph 5.13.4(b) should not apply to unmanned and remote sites. The
Access Provider noted that its current practice at these remote or unmanned
sites was to require the Access Seeker to submit a site entry request to
make an appointment for planned maintenance. For emergencies, the
Access Seeker may make a verbal request to enter the premise, which is
then followed by a written request the next day. In both cases, the Access
Provider submits that the 30-minute time frame is not practical and
increases the cost of the Access Provider in ensuring adequate resources
are available to meet the 30-minute time frame.
23.9 The Access Provider also submitted that the time frame to provide the
required escort should also be differentiated between the Access Seeker’s
critical and non-critical sites (i.e. collector versus cell sites). Furthermore,
due to the difference in site design between mobile and fixed sites, the
operators notes that it can be difficult to comply with the 30-minute time
frame as fixed network operators may not require certain premises (i.e. hill
stations) to be manned whereas mobile operators may design the hill station
sites as their critical sites. With reference to subsection 5.13.5, the operator
submits that there should not be cases where an Access Seeker may
proceed to enter an Access Provider’s property without an escort or without
the Access Provider’s permission.
23.10 The MCMC seeks further views on whether the proposed changes to the
timeframes for providing escort services in certain circumstances (e.g. at
unmanned and remote sites, etc.) are appropriate, or whether operators
consider that making these changes would be too limiting.
23.11 Lastly, another operator acknowledges that the requirements for physical
access, provision of escorts or absence of escorts are essential for facilities
or properties that require tight security. However, the operator submits that
there should be flexibility on access to sites with less security requirements.
For example, if an Access Seeker has obtained a work permit, the contractor
should be allowed to enter the site without an Access Seeker’s employee.
23.12 The MCMC welcomes further views on whether more flexibility should be
introduced into the escort provisions in the MSA, such as at sites with less
security requirements as proposed by one operator.
23.13 The MCMC notes that as a part of its broader proposal to apply a number of
the existing content obligations as Service Specific Obligations under the
MSA, subsection 5.13 would be moved to section 6. Most of the provisions
under subsection 5.13 would be included in subsection 6.9 on Network Co-
Location Service. However, certain subsections would also be included in
subsection 6.8 on Infrastructure Sharing, subsection 6.10 on Domestic
Connectivity to International Services and subsection 6.11 on Duct and
Manhole Access.

23.14 The MCMC has raised below several questions on the current operation and
effectiveness of the network facilities access and co-location provisions
under subsection 6.9 of the MSA. Any operator responses to these questions
will help inform the MCMC’s proposed changes to the substantive provisions
in subsection 6.9.
23.15 As well, in the MCMC’s preliminary view, the following changes to the current
subsection 5.13 should be reflected in the respective Service Specific
Obligations in section 6 in the Draft MSA:
6.9.7 The MCMC proposes to require an The MCMC notes that this change is intended
(formerly Access Provider to consider the to ensure that an Access Seeker’s personnel
5.13.2) position and number of its own are provided with equivalent access, both in
personnel when reviewing whether terms of the credentials and number of those
an Access Seeker’s nominated personnel, to inspect network facilities.
inspectors are reasonable. The MCMC wants to make sure that an Access
Provider does not try to limit the number of
Access Seeker personnel inspecting network
facilities where more favourable access is
provided for the Access Provider’s own
personnel.
6.9.8 The MCMC proposes to amend the The MCMC notes that this change is intended
(formerly subsection to require an Access to ensure that an Access Seeker’s personnel
5.13.3) Provider to allow an Access Seeker, are provided with equivalent access as it
its employees and contractors “to provides to itself, both in terms of hours of
physically access the Access access and process and procedures. The
Provider’s network facilities and the MCMC considers this change is necessary to
Access Seeker’s Equipment, and to ensure an Access Provider does not use
have physical control over the Access processes and procedures to unfairly or
Seeker’s Equipment located at such unreasonably deny access.
network facilities, at equivalent
times and in accordance with
equivalent processes and procedures
as are applicable to itself.”
Furthermore, the Access Provider
must provide access to nationally or
operationally secure sites and may
only put in place reasonable security
procedures and processes.
6.9.20 The MCMC proposes to clarify that an The MCMC notes that it received comments
(formerly Access Provider must provide access during the recent Access List review in relation
5.13.15) to utilities and ancillary services “to to security and road access to remote mobile
the same extent that the Access sites.
Provider does itself.” To address these comments, the MCMC
proposes to amend this subsection to clarify
that access to utilities and ancillary services
must be provided on the same basis that an
Access Provider self-provides such access to
itself. In practice, this would mean that if there
are particular security risks at particular
locations, the Access Provider must protect

any Access Seeker’s co-located equipment to
the extent that the Access Provider protects its
own equipment. Any heightened security
would require agreement by the operators.
6.9.27 The MCMC proposes to include a Security reasons should not be used as a
(new) requirement for an Access Provider reason for denying access to information.
to publish the locations at which Co- Confidential agreements can be used to
Location Services are available. If protect information.
the Access Provider cannot publish
for security reasons, it must make
available the information to Access
Seekers on request subject to a
confidentiality agreement being in
place.
Questions
Question 35: Do Access Seekers find the physical access obligations under subsection
6.9.8 (formerly subsection 5.13.3) helpful and do Access Seekers regularly request access
to an Access Provider’s network facilities under this provision?
Question 36: Do Access Provider’s find it difficult to provide physical access to network
facilities 24 hours a day, 7 days a week under subsection 6.9.8 (formerly subsection
5.13.3)? Are Access Providers generally able to make an escort available for such
inspections when an escort is determined to be necessary in accordance with subsections
6.8.7, 6.9.9, 6.10.10, 6.11.8 (formerly subsection 5.13.4)? Please respond based on the
respective Service Specific Obligations.
Question 37:How do Access Seekers feel about the reservation and allocation of space
provisions under subsections 6.9.12 and 6.9.13 (formerly subsections 5.13.7 and 5.13.8),
including the operation to date of the requirements under subsections 6.9.12 – 6.9.15
(formerly subsections 5.13.7 – 5.13.10)?
Question 38: How is “preparatory work” carried out in practice by Access Seekers (under
subsection 6.9.17 or the former subsection 5.13.12) and Access Providers (under
subsection 6.9.18 or the former subsection 5.13.13)?
Question 39: Are operators getting sufficient access to power, back-up power, etc. under
the existing utilities and ancillary services provisions in subsection 6.9.20 (formerly
subsection 5.13.15)?
Question 40: Have Access Seekers had any issues with maintenance and extending their
network facilities under subsection 6.9.25 (formerly subsection 5.13.19)?
Billing and settlement obligations

Overview
feedback on their experiences with the following provisions:

(a) the time periods and billing processes under subsections 5.14.1
(Invoices), 5.14.3 (Billing cycle) and 5.14.8 (Time for payment);
(b) the withholding of disputed amounts under subsection 5.14.11; and
(c) the provisional billing process under subsection 5.14.17.
The MCMC received a number of responses on these particular billing and

settlement provisions of the MSA, which are discussed below.
24.2 The MCMC’s preliminary view is that the existing billing and settlement
obligations under subsection 5.14 remain largely appropriate. However, the
MCMC is still considering some of the more detailed feedback that has been
submitted by certain operators, which is discussed in further detail below.
Time periods and billing processes
24.3 Subsections 5.14.1, 5.14.3 and 5.14.8 currently provide for invoices to be
issued within 30 days of the billing period on a monthly basis and for
payment to be made within 30 days of the receipt of invoice. In the informal
questionnaire on the MSA, the MCMC asked operators for feedback on their
experiences with the current invoice and billing processes under the MSA.
24.4 One operator noted that it issued its invoices at the end of every month.
This was done to manage cash-flows and to cater to the recent
implementation of GST (prior to which, the operator issued its invoice on a
quarterly basis).
24.5 Another operator noted that for certain Facilities and Services (e.g.
transmission, infrastructure sharing, etc.), an Access Provider and an Access
Seeker will often agree on the one-year invoice in advance for the first year.
However, the billing cycle then changes after the first year to quarterly
invoices in advance for the subsequent years.
24.6 A prominent Access Provider submitted that its issuance of invoices differed
between services based on the nature of the charges – i.e. rental versus
usage based charges. The Access Provider also noted that, where agreed
with an Access Seeker, different billing cycles may be used other than
monthly billing. For example, quarterly billing was used for the following
services:
(a) Bandwidth – transmission; and
(b) Infrastructure sharing.
The Access Provider noted that the rationale for using other billing cycles
was to reduce administration costs of producing monthly billing and to ease
the processing of payment by the Access Seeker.
24.7 As a starting point, the MCMC notes that many operators apply monthly
billing in accordance with subsection 5.14.3. However, the MCMC also
accepts that monthly billing may not be suitable for all types of services.
The words “unless otherwise agreed with the Access Seeker” are intended

to provide some flexibility in the billing cycle frequency that is used for a
particular service, but this may not be sufficient.
24.8 The MCMC is considering whether the current default requirement for
monthly billing should be made more specific. In particular, the MCMC
proposes to apply the billing cycle timeframes as Service Specific
Obligations under a new section 6 of the Draft MSA. The MCMC’s preliminary
view for each Service Specific Obligation are set out in Part E of this PI Paper
below.
Withholding of disputed amounts and billing disputes
24.9 In its review of selected access agreements, the MCMC noted that parties
often did not agree to allow withholding of disputed amounts, even though
the withholding of disputed amounts is permitted under subsection 5.14.11.
Instead, the MCMC noted that if parties were not able to settle a billing
dispute within a longer period (e.g. 90 calendar days), then withholding of
the subsequent disputed invoice would be allowed. Where such
discrepancies were included in an operator’s access agreement, the MCMC
sought feedback from operators on their rationale for doing so.
24.10 To begin, the MCMC notes that several operators confirmed that their
standard practice is to adopt the current withholding of disputed amounts
provisions in an access agreement. However, one operator even submitted
that consideration may be given to not allowing the withholding of disputed
amounts at all under the MSA, although the operator also noted that
imposing no time limit on the withholding of payments would increase the
financial risks of the Access Provider.
24.11 Another operator noted that it is currently in compliance with the

withholding provisions of the MSA, but that it has limited the dispute
resolution period to 30 days. This 30-day period was chosen to coincide with
the operator’s standard monthly billing cycle and the need to reconcile its
GST accounts.
24.12 Similarly, an Access Provider submitted that its standard practice was to
mutually agree with an Access Seeker to fully pay monthly invoices in
dispute. The parties would typically agree to adopt the non-withholding of
payments within a 90-day period after a notice of dispute was issued to
allow for a dispute resolution exercise to take place. This was viewed as
being a more effective way of resolving disputes because it encourages:
(a) the Access Seeker to resolve the dispute speedily (i.e. to claim the
disputed amount); and
(b) the Access Provider to resolve the dispute within the dispute
resolution period (i.e. to avoid withholding of payment for future
invoices by the Access Seeker).
24.13 The Access Provider noted that, if the parties are still not able to settle a
billing dispute within the allotted 90 days, then withholding of the disputed
amount is allowed. Therefore, in order to align with this process, the Access

Provider recommended an amendment to subsection 5.14.11 to disallow
withholding of payment during the dispute resolution period.
24.14 A prominent mobile operator submitted that the current withholding

provisions should be maintained for all Facilities and Services, except for
interconnect traffic. The provider submits that a separate process should be
established for interconnect traffic specifically given that it can take a longer
time to resolve due to the very large amount of data involved and the time
it takes for an Access Provider and Access Seeker to extract and download
the data from their billing systems. For these reasons, the operator suggests
applying a longer 90-day period under paragraph 5.14.11(a) that would
apply for billing disputes in relation to interconnect traffic only.
24.15 Given that several operators have aligned their access agreements with the
MSA, the MCMC does not propose to substantially amend subsection
5.14.11. The MCMC considers that regulating the withholding of disputed
amounts remains an important protection for Access Seekers in case a
dispute arises with an Access Provider. Furthermore, the MCMC notes that
parties may agree to a longer withholding period where accepted by both
parties, which appears to be a common practice in the industry. A minor
amendment has been made to provide this flexibility to the operators.
24.16 In addition, the MCMC also notes that an operator proposed that Access
Seekers be required to notify the Access Provider within 45 days after the
date of receipt of disputed invoice for all the cases stipulated in paragraphs
5.14.12(a), (b) and (c). A 45-day notice period is already required for
disputed amounts in relation to all Facilities and Services, other than in the
case of outgoing and incoming international which are subject to a longer
6-month notice period. The MCMC’s preliminary view is that the longer
notification period remains necessary for paragraph 5.14.12(b) given the
international nature of the service and, as such, no changes are proposed
for the billing disputes provisions at this time.
Provisional billing
24.17 The MCMC sought operator feedback on the provisional billing provisions
under subsection 5.14.17. The MCMC notes that, after requiring that the
provisional invoice be adjusted within a specific timeframe, subsection
5.14.17 does not provide the steps to deal with overpayment or insufficient
payment. Therefore, the MCMC requested operator feedback on whether an
amendment was required to align with the common practice of including a
timeframe of 30 days for reimbursement in an access agreement where the
actual amount is lower than the provisional invoiced amount or payment of
the outstanding amount where it is the reverse and the actual amount is
greater than the provisional invoiced amount.
24.18 The MCMC received several submissions in relation to the provisional billing
provisions. A number of operators noted that they did not practice
provisional billing. However, the MCMC notes that other operators had more
substantive views on possible changes that should be made to the current
provisional billing processes.

24.19 The MCMC notes that three operators proposed broadly similar
amendments, and additions to, subsection 5.14.17 to make the following
changes:
(a) Adjustment Period – include a new concept of “Adjustment Period”,

whereby the actual amount of an invoice should be issued within 60
days after the month in which the relevant charges were incurred or
such other time period as may be agreed in writing (“Adjustment
Period”). If the actual amount is not issued within the Adjustment
Period, the invoiced operator should treat the amount in a provisional
invoice as the actual invoice;
(b) Actual amount higher than provisional amount – if the actual

amount for a particular billing period is higher than the provisional
amount for that billing period, then it is proposed that the invoiced
operator pay in full such difference (free of interest) within 30 days
from the receipt of the actual invoice to the invoicing operator; and
(c) Actual amount lower than provisional amount - if the actual

amount for a particular billing period is lower than the provisional
amount for that billing period, then it is proposed that the invoicing
operator reimburse in full such difference (free of interest) within 30
days from the receipt of the actual invoice to the invoiced operator.
Further, the proposal would also provide that such payment must be
forwarded to the invoiced operator together with the relevant
monthly statement of the actual interconnect usage.
24.20 The MCMC proposes to expand on the current provisional billing provisions
to incorporate the concept of an “Adjustment Period”. The proposed changes
to the current subsection 5.14.17 would set out a mechanism for addressing
circumstances where a provisional bill is higher or lower than the actual
amount owed. The amendments would align with the proposal put forth by
various operators as summarised above. However, the MCMC welcomes
feedback from other operators on the proposed “Adjustment Period”
process.
24.21 Lastly, the MCMC also notes that two operators supported continued use of
the current provisional billing process without any changes. One of the two
operators noted that the current process in the MSA covers all situations in
the event that the parties involved face a billing problem and in the absence
of invoices. The operator also submitted that the current method is quite
clear and covers all circumstances, so no amendments are needed.
24.22 The MCMC’s preliminary view is that the existing billing and settlement
obligations under subsection 5.14 continue to remain appropriate. As
discussed above, the MCMC is still considering some of the more detailed
operator comments, but for now only proposes to make more minor
amendments to subsection 5.14 as follows:

5.14.3 The MCMC is considering to set out The MCMC notes that many operators apply
different billing cycles for the monthly billing in accordance with the current
Facilities and Services under its requirements under the MSA. However, there
respective Service Specific were other operators that apply different
Obligation. billing cycles. Therefore, the MCMC is
considering this proposal as Service Specific
Obligations under a new section 6 of the Draft
MSA and would welcome feedback in the
respective Service Specific Obligation set out
in Part E of this PI Paper below.
5.14.7 The MCMC proposes to clarify that The MCMC’s proposed amendments to
any billing errors must be notified subsection 5.14.7 are intended to make the
“promptly” and the necessary notification and correction of billing errors
adjustments to correct that error more streamlined.
made within 30 days of notification.
5.14.18 The MCMC proposes to include the The MCMC’s proposed inclusion of a new
(new) concept of an “Adjustment Period” in “Adjustment Period” concept in the provisional
relation to provisional Invoices billing process is intended to address
issued under subsection 5.14.17. comments from operators that a mechanism is
The proposed change would set out needed for addressing circumstances where a
a mechanism for addressing provisional bill is higher or lower than the
circumstances where a provisional actual amount owed. The MCMC welcomes
bill is higher or lower than the actual feedback from other operators on the
amount owed. proposed “Adjustment Period” amendments.
Questions
Question 41: Have operators experienced any issues with the set-off practices as set out
under subsection 5.14.10?
Question 42:Do you agree with the MCMC’s proposed changes to the billing and settlement
obligations set out at subsection 5.14 of the Draft MSA? Why or why not? If not, please
Operations and maintenance obligations

Overview
25.1 In its informal questionnaire on the MSA, the MCMC asked operators
whether additional fault types should be added to the target times under
subsection 5.15.13 of the current MSA. Similarly, the MCMC also received
comments on the possible exclusion of MVNO services from the operations
and maintenance obligations under subsection 5.15.13 (Target times) of the
current MSA. The key points of the submissions received are summarised
below, along with the MCMC’s preliminary responses.
25.2 The MCMC notes that it is still reviewing the ‘target times’ under the current
subsection 5.15.13 of the MSA. In particular, the MCMC is considering
whether further examples or alternative fault response and rectification

timeframes should be added to the Service Specific Obligations in section 6
of the Draft MSA. However, no changes are proposed at this time. The MCMC
welcomes feedback from operators on their preferred approach to regulating
the ‘target times’ for fault response and rectification under the MSA.
Fault types subject to regulated target times
25.3 The MCMC received a number of operator submissions on the current list of
fault type examples under subsection 5.15.12 of the MSA. To summarise,
the main points raised by respondents were as follows:
(a) one operator noted that other fault types may be included to align
with the new services that were recently added to the Access List;
(b) another operator submitted that, while it may not be possible to list
all fault types, the severity of the fault types is currently sufficient to
be used as a guide;
(c) an operator proposed a new column entitled “progress update

frequency” the timing of which corresponds with that of the column
“response time”; and
(d) various operators were of the view that the current list of fault types
were sufficient and no other fault types should be included.
25.4 A prominent fixed-line operator also noted that the fault types depend on
the type of service, nature and network elements involved and these can
differ between fixed and mobile network operators. The fault types under
subsection 5.15.12 refer only to interconnect traffic. Therefore, the operator
submitted that all the other fault types have and can be included in the
Operations Manual in order to avoid making subsection 5.15.12 from
becoming too lengthy.
25.5 The MCMC has reviewed the preliminary feedback from operators and is still
considering whether to add further fault type examples. As such, the MCMC
has not proposed any changes to the fault types in the table under
subsection 5.15.12 at this time, but is considering incorporating the
proposal to insert a new column entitled “progress update frequency” as
submitted by one operator, noted above. The MCMC welcomes operator
feedback on the proposed progress update frequency times for each fault
type set out in the table in subsection 5.15.12 of the Draft MSA.
25.6 However, the MCMC wants to reiterate that the fault types listed under the
current subsection 5.15.13 are only examples of possible fault types.
Operators are already required to categorise all fault types by reference to
these priority levels, response and rectification timeframes. This means
that, even if a particular fault type is not listed in the MSA, it will still be
subject to the ‘target times’ corresponding to the relevant priority level for
that fault type as set out under subsection 5.15.12 of the Draft MSA.

Access to MVNO services
25.7 The MCMC notes that an operator requested that MVNO services be excluded
from the obligations under subsection 5.15.13 (Target times) of the current
MSA. Instead, the operator submitted that these two provisions should be
subject to commercial negotiation between an Access Provider and an
Access Seeker given the complexity and extent of MVNO business models
(e.g. MVNE model, thick MVNO, thin MVNO).
25.8 As discussed above, except as set out in the service-specific obligations, the
MCMC does not propose to apply all of the Content Obligations for MVNO
services. However, Access Seekers would still be bound by the Disclosure
Obligations and Negotiation Obligations under the MSA. This approach is
discussed further below at section 44.
25.9 The MCMC is still reviewing whether more extensive amendments should be
made to the current subsection 5.15 of the MSA (e.g. the ‘target times’
under subsection 5.15.13).
25.10 For now, the MCMC proposes to make the following changes to the
operations and maintenance obligations under subsection 5.15 in the Draft
MSA:
5.15.2 The MCMC proposes to require At the moment, operators are only required to
operators in its fault reporting report any faults that relate to a Network,
systems to include an ability to allow Service or Facility in their fault reporting
its Customers to receive fault systems.
updates. The MCMC proposes to extend the current
requirement to also include an ability to
receive fault updates in an operator’s fault
reporting systems. This change is intended to
improve transparency by giving Customers
greater visibility of the status of any faults that
are affecting their service.
5.15.6 The MCMC proposes to add the The MCMC proposes to add clarifying language
words “including for the purpose of to subsection 5.15.6 to further elaborate on
restoring the supply of Facilities and what is included as part of an operator’s
Services (such as Transmission network fault responsibility under the MSA.
Services or HSBB Network Services) The proposed change is intended to clarify
which are used in another Operator’s that, where a fault occurs in an operator’s
Network”. Network, Service or Fault which impacts
another operator, the first operator is
responsible for rectifying the fault and
restoring any reliant services. Further, the
new wording would also capture the key
content from the current subsection 5.15.7,
which the MCMC also proposes to delete
(discussed below).

5.15.7 The MCMC proposes to delete the The MCMC proposes to delete subsection
(Deleted) current subsection 5.15.7 5.15.7 and combine its content with the
(Transmission service faults) and preceding subsection 5.15.6, which also
instead include the key elements of applies more broadly to Facilities and Services
these terms with the preceding other than transmission services.
subsection 5.15.6 (Network fault Importantly, the MCMC notes that the
responsibility). proposed deletion would not change an
operator’s obligation to maintain and repair
transmission services that is used in other
operators’ networks.
5.15.10 The MCMC proposes to clarify that The MCMC proposes to clarify the operation of
(formerly the order of fault priority should be subsection 5.15.10 in relation to “all other
5.15.11) “in the following order:” faults” that do not fall within the classification
(a) where the fault has the highest of the existing fault types under the MSA.
service loss in terms of The MCMC notes that the substantive
impacted customers; obligations would not change. Instead, the
(b) where the fault was previously proposed change is intended to clarify that any
reported and re-occurs; and faults that fall outside the first two limbs must
still be addressed by the operator, but that
(c) “all other faults.”
such faults are of a lower priority than the fault
types under paragraphs 5.15.10(a) and (b).
5.15.12 For now, the MCMC has not proposed The MCMC is considering whether further
(formerly any changes to the fault type examples or alternative fault rectification
5.15.13) examples, response or restoration timelines are required in the Service Specific
timeframes under the current Obligations in section 6 of the MSA.
subsection 5.15.13 but has inserted For clarity, the MCMC also wants to reiterate
a new column dealing with the that the fault types listed under subsection
frequency of progress updates which 5.15.12 of the Draft MSA are examples of
align with the response times possible fault types – all fault types must
required for each service type. already be categorised by reference to these
However, this provision is still under priority levels, response and restoration
review. timeframes.
In the explanatory note to subsection
5.15.12 in the Draft MSA, the MCMC
proposes to clarify that temporary
solutions for restoration may be
provided, as long as the operator
continues to work to achieve
permanent restoration.
5.15.13 The MCMC proposes to clarify that an In line with the MCMC’s broader focus to
(formerly operator must provide “at least the ensure equivalent access between an Access
5.15.14) greater of the time which it notifies Seeker and an operator’s own retail arm, the
its own Customers and ten (10) proposed change to subsection 5.15.13 would
Business Days’ notice.” require an Operator to give the same period of
notice for planned maintenance to an Access
Seeker that the Operator gives for its own
Customers, where it is greater than 10
Business Days. If that is not applicable, then
the Access Provider should provide 10
Business Days’ notice to the Access Seeker.

Questions
Question 43: In relation to the target times under subsection 5.15.12 of the Draft MSA
(formerly subsection 5.15.13), should the MCMC include any Service Specific Obligations
with additional examples or different fault response and restoration times? Do you agree
with the proposed progress update frequency times, as set out under subsection 5.15.12
of the Draft MSA? Why or why not? If not, please specify what change you consider is
Question 44: Would operators support making all response times under subsection
5.15.12 (formerly subsection 5.15.13) within 1 hour?
Technical obligations
Overview
26.1 In its informal questionnaire on the MSA, the MCMC requested operator
feedback on the Quality of Service obligations under the current subsection
5.16.9 of the MSA. In particular, the MCMC sought comments on whether
the network quality parameters which currently only apply for voice calls
should be broadened (e.g. to take into account any technological
advancements or to include new Quality of Service parameters for other
services). The MCMC received a number of submissions, which are
summarised below along with the MCMC’s preliminary responses.
26.2 The MCMC proposes to move certain Technical Obligations from subsection
5.16 to apply as Service Specific Obligations under subsection 6.1 of the
Draft MSA. This proposal is discussed further under Part E of this PI Paper.
26.3 Otherwise, the MCMC’s preliminary view is that most of the remaining
Technical Obligations under subsections 5.16.1 to 5.16.5 are still applicable
and should not require substantive changes.
Quality of Service
26.4 Currently, the Quality of Service obligations in the current subsection 5.16.9
relate specifically to voice calls. The MCMC received a range of comments
from operators on whether the scope of the existing Quality of Service
obligations should be broadened to include other existing or new services.
The MCMC notes that it also received some higher level comments on the
inclusion of service levels in the MSA more generally.
26.5 One operator submitted that flexibility should be applied for the offer of
service levels (such as QoS service levels) based on a customer’s particular
requirements, which should be mutually agreed between both an Access
Provider and an Access Seeker. Thus, the operator submitted that service
levels should not be included in the MSA.
26.6 However, if service levels for Facilities and Services are included in the MSA,
then the operator also submits that:

(a) the cost to comply with the service level should be considered in the
MSAP and/or an Access Provider should be allowed to charge
commercially for any higher service level requirements; and
(b) the offering of the service level should be based on the capability of
an Access Provider to supply that service level.
26.7 Similarly, another operator reiterated the importance of regulating key

service levels such as Quality of Service. The operator noted that an Access
Provider should be required to provide mandated service levels or service
level guarantees, which would allow an Access Seeker itself to provide
guarantees to its end customers. The operator gave the example of end
users’ frustrations that related to coordination issues between an Access
Provider’s unwillingness to address Quality of Service issues (e.g. pixelation
in the context of IPTV services) and the Access Seeker (which may not have
access to equipment to resolve issues).
26.8 Other operators provided more specific feedback on the scope of the Quality
of Service obligations under the MSA. One such operator was of the view
that the MSA should include Quality of Service parameters as per the
Mandatory Standards on QoS for the following services:
(a) PSTN Service;
(b) Public Cellular Service;
(c) Broadband Access Service; and
(d) Digital Leased Line Service.
26.9 This position was broadly supported by other operators, who also expressed
the view that the Quality of Service obligations should not be limited to voice
services, but should be extended to other services as well.
26.10 For example, one mobile provider requested that the MCMC include mobile
broadband (e.g. internet browsing, chat applications, video streaming, etc.)
to the Quality of Service obligations under the MSA, which was required due
to technological advancements and the growing demand for high quality
mobile services. The operator suggested that the relevant Quality of Service
parameters may include throughput for upload and download.40
26.11 Another operator requested a specific amendment to the current ‘Network

Fault’ parameters in the existing Quality of Service table as follows
(proposed changes are italicised / underlined):
40
The operator also noted that the suggested parameters for mobile broadband QoS were provided as an example
only. If QoS for mobile broadband was included in the MSA, the final parameters should be developed in
consultation with the broader industry.

Network Quality % Threshold Remarks
2.2 Network Fault < 3%

Other < 3% Calls that are being successfully connected
through the Network are rejected upon detection
of any technical irregularities.
26.12 The MCMC proposes to move the Quality of Service obligations from the
current subsections 5.16.6 to 5.16.9 to apply as Service Specific Obligations
under a new subsection 6.1 of the Draft MSA. This is proposed as part of a
broader change to move certain technical specifications that are specific to
O&T Services into their own section, as discussed below at section 32.
26.13 For now, the MCMC has not proposed substantive changes to the Quality of
Service obligations, which have been moved to a new subsection 6.1.16 in
the Draft MSA. Consistent with the MCMC’s broader focus on equivalent
access, it is also of the view that Quality of Service obligations should
expressly require equivalence as between QoS provided to Access Providers’
retail arms and Access Seekers. However, given the level of initial interest
in the scope and categorisations in the existing Quality of Service table, the
MCMC is continuing to consider if updates are required for the Quality of
Service obligations. In particular, the MCMC is reviewing whether to expand
the Quality of Service obligations to include other services (e.g. Broadband
Access Service, etc.), which appears to be broadly supported by operators.
26.14 The MCMC welcomes further feedback from the industry on the above
including any particular services that operators would like to see added to
the Quality of Service table in the MSA.
26.15 In addition, the MCMC notes that it also received a request from an operator
to specifically exclude access to MVNO services from the current subsection
5.16.9 (Quality of service). The operator submitted that quality of service
commitments in relation to MVNO services should instead be subjected to
commercial discussions between an Access Provider and an Access Seeker
given the complexity and extent of MVNO business models (e.g. MVNE
model, thick MVNO, thin MVNO).
26.16 As discussed above, except as set out in the Service Specific Obligations,
the MCMC does not propose to apply all of the Content Obligations for MVNO
services. This approach is discussed further below at section 44.
26.17 The MCMC proposes to make the following changes to the Technical
Obligations under subsection 5.16 of the Draft MSA:
5.16.2 The MCMC proposes to clarify that The proposed amendment to subsection
the prevention of technical harm 5.16.2 is intended to clarify that any
provisions should be applied on an “reasonable measures” that are taken by an
equivalent basis as if the operator operator to prevent harm to another

were incorporating new Facilities or operator’s network must be no less robust
Equipment into its own Network. than those taken by the operator in respect of
new Facilities or Equipment that is
incorporated into its own Network.
The MCMC considers that this proposed
clarification supports the broader objective of
improving equivalent access under the MSA.
5.16.6 – The MCMC proposes to move the As part of its broader proposal to apply a
5.16.9 following subsections: number of the existing content obligations as
(moved to (a) subsection 5.16.6 (‘Handover Service Specific Obligations under the MSA,
6.1.13 – principles’); the MCMC proposes to move certain technical
6.1.16) specifications which were specific to O&T
(b) subsection 5.16.7 (‘CLI’);
Services to the Service Specific Obligations
(c) subsection 5.16.8 (‘Dummy under subsection 6.1 of the MSA.
CLIs’); and
See Part E of this PI Paper for further
(d) subsection 5.16.9 (‘Quality of discussion on the proposal to apply certain
service’). Technical Obligations as Service Specific
These provisions would be moved to Obligations.
the relevant Service Specific
Obligations under subsection 6.1 of
the MSA.
Questions
Question 45: Do you agree with the proposed amendments to subsection 5.16.2 of the
Draft MSA? Why or why not?
Question 46: Would operators like to see new services added to the Quality of Service
table and, if so, which Access List services should be added?
Term, suspension and termination obligations

Overview
27.1 In the informal questionnaire on the MSA that was circulated to operators,
the MCMC requested feedback on the term, suspension and termination
obligations under subsection 5.17 of the MSA. In particular, the MCMC asked
operators to comments on:
(a) the termination circumstances under subsection 5.17.3; and
(b) the suspension circumstances under subsection 5.17.5.
27.2 The MCMC also received other comments in relation to:
(a) the terms of supply under subsection 5.17.2; and
(b) the approval provisions under subsection 5.17.6.
27.3 Given the importance of the term, suspension and termination obligations
in the MSA and the high level of operator feedback on specific topics under

subsection 5.17, the MCMC is continuing to consider the degree to which
changes may be required to address the issues raised by operators. The
MCMC has proposed some initial amendments below, but welcomes further
feedback to determine whether further changes are necessary to balance
the interests of Access Providers and Access Seekers under subsection 5.17.
Term of supply
27.4 The MCMC received a request from one operator to include a new minimum
term of supply of 12 months that would apply specifically for Access
Agreements in relation to HSBB Network Services. The proposed minimum
12-month term would apply for access to HSBB Network Services at both
Layer 2 and Layer 3.
27.5 The MCMC is currently reviewing the minimum term of supply provisions
under subsection 5.17.2 to determine whether:
(a) the categorisations in the list of Facilities and Services are clear and
easy to implement;
(b) the minimum term of supply for each category of Facility and Service
is still appropriate; and
(c) any new categories (such as the proposed inclusion of a separate

category for HSBB Network Services) are required.
The MCMC welcomes operator feedback on each of the above issues.
Termination and suspension circumstances
27.6 The MCMC received a number of comments in response to its request for
feedback on the regulated circumstances for termination and suspension of
an Access Agreement under subsections 5.17.3 and 5.17.5 of the MSA.
27.7 One operator proposed specific amendments to the termination and

suspension provisions in the MSA as follows:
(a) under subsection 5.17.3, to include a new paragraph 5.17.3(d) that

permits an Access Provider to terminate an Access Agreement “where
the Access Seeker has failed to pay the outstanding Invoices in
accordance with subsection 5.14”; and
(b) under subsection 5.17.5, to include a new paragraph 5.17.5(g) that

permits an Access Provider to suspend an Access Agreement where
“the Access Seeker has failed to provide the new security amount in
accordance with subsections 5.3.13, 5.19.7 and 5.19.8.”
27.8 A prominent Access Provider raised its concerns with the current operation
of subsections 5.17.3 and 5.17.5. The Access Provider submitted that the
current termination provisions in the MSA are too simplistic and should allow
for the parties to an Access Agreement to commercially negotiate the
termination, suspension and variation provisions.

27.9 On the other hand, the MCMC notes that several other operators also
submitted that they were content with the current termination and
suspension provisions and that no changes were required to the term,
suspension and termination provisions in the MSA. However, one operator
requested that paragraph 5.17.3(a) be expanded to elaborate on (e.g. by
including examples) what constitutes a “material breach” that is sufficient
to trigger termination of an Access Agreement.
27.10 The MCMC is considering the comments received, but its initial view is that
the permitted termination and suspension circumstances in subsections
5.17.3 and 5.17.5 should remain largely in their current form. The MCMC
considers these provisions to be critical protections for Access Seekers and,
as such, does not think that these subsections should be left to commercial
negotiation between an Access Seeker and an Access Provider as proposed
by some operators. However, the MCMC welcomes further operator
comments on possible changes that may be made to achieve a balance
between the interests of Access Seekers and Access Providers under
subsections 5.17.3 and 5.17.5.
27.11 Further, the MCMC also notes that a mobile operator requested that MVNO
services be excluded from subsections 5.17.5 and 5.17.6. The operator
proposed that these provisions be left to commercial discussion between an
Access Provider and an Access Seeker in relation to MVNO services, which
would better ensure the continuity of services as quickly as possible for
downstream customers (e.g. Clixster).
27.12 The MCMC does not share this view. The MCMC considers that the regulated
suspension and termination processes in the MSA are an essential protection
for MVNOs and should not be left to commercial negotiation.
Approval of termination or suspension
27.13 The MCMC received several comments on subsection 5.17.6, which relates
to the MCMC’s ability to review an Access Provider’s request to suspend or
terminate an Access Agreement.
27.14 One operator submitted that Access Providers should not be penalized for
an Access Seeker’s failure to pay under an Access Agreement and the
MCMC’s delay in response. Specifically, the operator noted that its directors
have a fiduciary duty to protect the best interests of the company, which
include limiting the company’s exposure to incur further debts once it is
identified that an Access Seeker will be unable to pay.
27.15 The operator submitted that the current termination provisions in the MSA
are too brief and simplistic. Further, the operator also noted that its
preference would be to amend subsection 5.17.6 to require an Access
Provider to notify the MCMC of its intention to suspend or terminate an
Access Agreement, but not to require the Access Provider to obtain the
MCMC’s approval to terminate or to suspend an Access Seeker’s service. In
particular, the operator requested an ability to suspend or terminate an
Access Agreement within 5 days upon notifying the MCMC, which was

necessary to limit the Access Provider’s exposure in the event that an Access
Seeker is unable to pay its charges.
27.16 Another operator suggested that the approval provisions under subsection
5.17.6 be split into separate processes for review of termination and
suspension requests. The proposed subsections would apply as follows:
(a) Approval for termination – the existing subsection 5.17.6 would

continue to apply, except all references to “suspending or seeking to
materially vary” would be deleted; and
(b) Approval for suspension – a new subsection 5.17.7 would be

inserted, whereby an Access Provider would notify the MCMC of its
intent to suspend an Access Agreement and would be permitted to
proceed with the suspension unless otherwise advised by the MCMC
within 30 days. The key difference under this proposal is that an
Access Provider would be able to implement a suspension of service
after 30 days without waiting for a response from the MCMC.
27.17 An Access Seeker submitted that it strongly supported keeping subsection

5.17.6 in its current form, given the Access Seeker’s recent experience with
an Access Provider changing its service descriptions and then seeking to
terminate for a failure to pay on the resulting increase in charges. To support
this view, the Access Seeker gave an example from its own experience
where an Access Provider changed its interpretation of certain services,
which resulted in exorbitant amounts being included in the Access Seeker’s
next invoice. The Access Seeker then raised a dispute with the Access
Provider and the Access Provider took steps to terminate its Access
Agreement. The Access Seeker noted that the MCMC’s existing ability to
review an Access Provider’s suspension or termination request would help
limit such incidents from happening.
27.18 Another Access Seeker also agreed that termination of an Access Agreement
should only be upon the approval of the Regulator.
27.19 In response to operator comments, the MCMC proposes to amend

subsection 5.17.6 as follows:
(a) provide Access Seeker with the ability to make submissions to the
MCMC in response to an Access Provider’s notice to terminate,
suspend or materially vary an Access Agreement;
(b) clarify that an Access Provider may only terminate, suspend or

materially vary an Access Agreement subject to any time delay or
conditions, which the MCMC may specify (if any); and
(c) require an Access Provider to take all steps practicable to minimise

any disruptions or inconvenience to an Access Seeker’s customers
due to a termination or suspension of an Access Agreement (e.g.
provide an Access Seeker with a reasonable period to make
alternative arrangements).

27.20 The MCMC considers that its proposed amendments to subsection 5.17.6
would streamline the review and approval processes by replacing the
current requirement for an Access Provider to get MCMC approval before it
can terminate, suspend or materially vary an Access Agreement. The
proposed changes would now permit the MCMC to intervene only in those
cases where necessary, which should minimise any delays and possible
debts being accrued by the Access Provider.
27.21 On the other hand, the MCMC also proposes to include a new ability for an
Access Seeker to respond to an Access Provider’s notice, which the MCMC
will consider during its review of that notice. The Access Provider would also
now have an express obligation to minimise any disruption and
inconvenience to an Access Seeker’s customers.
27.22 The MCMC welcomes further comments on the approval provisions under
subsection 5.17.6, including in relation to the MCMC’s proposed
amendments as set out above.
27.23 The MCMC received a number of detailed comments from operators in

relation to the term, suspension and termination obligations in the MSA. The
MCMC is still reviewing these comments, but its preliminary view is to
amend subsection 5.17 as follows:
5.17.3 After being notified by an Access The MCMC would like to clarify that the Access
Provider of its intention to terminate Seeker may remedy a material breach in
an Access Agreement due to a accordance with an Access Provider’s
material breach by the Access termination notice. This is the intent of the
Seeker, the MCMC proposes to clarify current subsection 5.17.3, so the proposed
that the Access Seeker has the ability drafting change is merely to elaborate and
to remedy its breach in accordance clarify the operation of this provision.
with any notice provided by the
Access Provider.
5.17.5 The MCMC accepted the proposal The operator that proposed this change
from an operator and inserted a new highlighted that an Access Provider has limited
paragraph 5.17.5(e): ability to compel an Access Seeker to provide
“where the Access Seeker has failed an additional security amount where there is a
to provide the new security amount material increase to the security risk. The
as required under subsections 5.3.9, MCMC also received comments that the
5.19.7 and 5.19.8.” termination process can be lengthy and
expose the Access Provider to significant
financial risk if the Access Seeker has not
provided adequate security because the
Access Provider may be an unsecured creditor
in relation to unpaid sums. Therefore, the
MCMC is of the view that an Access Provider
should have the right to suspend access to
Facilities and Services under a new paragraph
5.17.5(e) where the Access Seeker has not
provided adequate financial security in cases

where there is a material increase to the
security risk.
5.17.6 The MCMC proposes to amend The MCMC’s proposed amendments are
subsection 5.17.6 as follows: intended to streamline the review and
(a) provide an Access Seeker with approval processes under subsection 5.17.6.
the ability to make submissions Specifically, under the proposed changes, the
to the MCMC in relation to an current requirement for an Access Provider to
Access Provider’s notice to get MCMC approval before it can terminate,
terminate, suspend or suspend or materially vary an Access
materially vary an Access Agreement would be replaced with a more
Agreement; passive review role for the MCMC. The MCMC
(b) clarify that an Access Provider could now only intervene in those cases where
shall only terminate, suspend or deemed necessary, which should minimise any
materially vary an Access delays and possible debts being accrued by
Agreement subject to time the Access Provider (as these were significant
delay or conditions, which the concerns raised by several Access Providers).
MCMC may specify (if any); and However, the MCMC also proposes to include
(c) require an Access Provider to a new ability for an Access Seeker to respond
take all steps practicable to to an Access Provider’s notice, which the
minimise any disruptions or MCMC will consider during its review of that
inconvenience to an Access notice. The Access Provider would also now be
Seeker’s customers due to a required to minimise any disruption and
termination or suspension of an inconvenience to an Access Seeker’s
Access Agreement (e.g. provide customers.
an Access Seeker with a
reasonable period to make
alternative arrangements).
5.17.8 Following the termination or The MCMC recognises that Access Providers
suspension of an Access Agreement, should be able to recover charges that arise
paragraph 5.17.8(b) currently during an applicable minimum contractual
permits an Access Provider to claim period (as described in subsection 5.17.2 of
any charges arising during an the Draft MSA) following a termination or
applicable minimum contractual suspension of an Access Agreement.
period. However, the MCMC would also like to clarify
The MCMC proposes to clarify in that such charges should not be claimed to the
subsection 5.17.8 the intended extent that the Access Provider received cost
scope of these charges, which may savings from no longer having to supply under
only be claimed provided that: the terminated or suspended Access
(a) the charges reflect any cost Agreement.
savings to the Access Provider Further, the MCMC also considers that an
from no longer having to supply Access Provider should take reasonable steps
the terminated or suspended to maximise any costs savings that result from
Facilities or Services to Access no longer having to supply under the
Seeker; and terminated or suspended Access Agreement.
(b) the Access Provider uses This change is intended to limit the charges
reasonable endeavours to that an Access Seeker is required to pay when
mitigate its costs of termination such charges are within the control of the
or suspension and maximises Access Provider.
its cost savings from no longer
having to supply the relevant
Facilities or Services.

Questions
Question 47: Are the terms of supply obligations under subsection 5.17.2 still appropriate
(e.g. are the categorisations in the list of Facilities/Services clear, is each minimum term
of supply still appropriate, etc.)?
Question 48: Do you agree with the MCMC’s proposed changes to the term, suspension
and termination obligations set out at subsection 5.15 of the Draft MSA? Why or why not?
If not, please specify what change you consider is required and explain why.
Churn obligations
Overview
28.1 The MCMC has reviewed the Churn obligations under subsection 5.18 of the
MSA and its preliminary view is that the current Churn provisions remain
applicable. This is supported by the fact that no issues were raised by
operators in relation to the current Churn obligations in their responses to
the MCMC’s informal questionnaire on the MSA.
28.2 As such, the MCMC does not propose to make any substantive changes to
subsection 5.18 other than the minor clarifications proposed below.
However, the MCMC welcomes operator feedback, particularly in relation to
the 2-Business Day timelines under subsections 5.18.3 and 5.18.5 of the
MSA (discussed further below).
Churn timelines
28.3 The MCMC notes that it is still considering whether the following timelines
are appropriate or should be amended:
(a) the requirement for a Releasing Service Provider to advise a Gaining

Service Provider within 2 Business Days if it believes that a Transfer
Request is invalid (subsection 5.18.3); and
(b) the requirement for an Access Service Provider to implement a Churn

within 2 Business Days (subsection 5.18.5).
28.4 Given that these two timelines may accumulate to a total of 4 Business Days
(i.e. an invalid Transfer Request is advised and then the Churn is
implemented), the MCMC is concerned that the current timelines under
subsection 5.18 may be too long and should be shortened.
28.5 The MCMC’s preliminary view is that the Churn obligations under subsection
5.18 in the Draft MSA remain applicable, subject to the following change:

5.18.7 The MCMC proposes to specify that A Churn request will often include detailed and
an Access Service Provider and sensitive information, which could potentially
Releasing Service Provider must not be used by an Access Service Provider or a
use information disclosed in a Churn Releasing Service Provider to gain a
request for marketing activities. commercial advantage.
Therefore, the MCMC proposes to expressly
prohibit such information from being used in
connection with any marketing activities to
limit the ability of an Access Service Provider
or Releasing Service Provider to use
information obtained in a Churn request for its
own benefit.
Questions
Question 49: Are the timelines under subsection 5.18 still appropriate or are the current
requirements to notify an invalid churn and/or implement a churn within 2 Business Days
too short or long?
Legal boilerplate obligations

Overview
29.1 The MCMC has reviewed the Legal Boilerplate Obligations under subsection
5.19 of the MSA and its preliminary view is that the current provisions
should remain largely intact.
29.2 The key changes being considered by the MCMC relate to the security review
and additional security provisions under subsections 5.19.7 and 5.19.8,
respectively. The MCMC notes that these were the only two provisions within
the Legal Boilerplate Obligations that were raised in operator comments.
These changes are discussed further below.
29.3 The MCMC also proposes to move the conditional supply clause from
subsection 5.13.22 of the current MSA to apply as a more general obligation
under the legal boilerplate provisions of the MSA.
Security review
29.4 The MCMC received feedback from an operator on the security review
obligations. The operator proposed to amend subsection 5.19.7 to include
the ability for an operator to review the security requirement where there
are “increases in the volume of the Facilities and/or Services subscribed
from the Access Provider.” The operator submits that this change is
necessary to minimise an Access Provider’s risk of providing additional
Facilities and/or Services to an Access Seeker.
29.5 The MCMC is currently considering the proposal to include an ability to

review security requirements where the volume of an order increases and
would welcome feedback from other operators on this proposal. The MCMC

also notes that a “materiality” threshold may be included if the proposed
amendment is implemented (i.e. permit a security review only where there
is a material increase in supply).
29.6 For now, the MCMC proposes to amend subsection 5.19.7 to clarify that an
operator may vary the amount and type of any security requirements:
(a) a maximum of once in any 12-month period;
(b) if there is a material increase in the credit risk to the Operator due
to changes in the estimate of charges and the Access Seeker’s
creditworthiness; and
(c) if the Operator reasonably determines that the variation will

materially reduce its credit risk.
29.7 The new paragraph (a) is intended to limit the number of security reviews
that an Operator can do in any given year. However, the MCMC also
proposes to expand the types of circumstances that may be considered
when determining if an operator’s exposure to credit risk has increased,
which aligns with the corresponding changes to the security requirements
under subsection 5.3.9 of the Draft MSA. Lastly, the MCMC notes that any
increases in security that are required as part of a security review should be
limited to the amount that is reasonably required to materially reduce or
remove any increases in credit risk faced by the operator.
Additional security
29.8 The same operator also proposed that the additional security provisions
under subsection 5.19.8 be amended as follows:
“If subsection 5.19.7 applies, an Operator may only request

additional or substitute security from another Operator in a manner
consistent with that which would apply if the other Operator was
making a new Access Request under subsection 5.3 or making a new
Order under subsection 5.7” [emphasis added].
29.9 The operator submits that the Access Provider should be allowed to request
additional security if there is an increase in the volume of Facilities and/or
Services that are ordered by the Access Seeker from the Access Provider.
29.10 As above, the MCMC is considering the proposal to include an ability to

request additional or substitute security where the volume of an order
increases. The MCMC would also welcome feedback from other operators on
this proposal.
29.11 The MCMC proposes to make the following changes to the Legal Boilerplate
Obligations under subsection 5.19:

5.19.7 Under the MCMC’s proposal, an The MCMC’s proposed inclusion of a new
operator may only vary the amount paragraph (a) is intended to limit the number
and type of any security of security reviews that an Operator can carry
requirement: out over a 12-month period.
(a) a maximum of once in any 12- The MCMC also proposes to expand the
month period; circumstances that an operator may consider
(b) if there is a material increase in when determining whether its exposure to
the credit risk to the Operator credit risk has increased. This change would
due to changes in the estimate align with the corresponding amendments to
of charges and the Access the security requirements under subsection
Seeker’s creditworthiness; and 5.3.9 (‘Security requirements’) in the Draft
MSA.
(c) if the Operator reasonably
determines that the variation Lastly, the MCMC notes that any increases in
will materially reduce or remove security that are required as part of a security
its credit risk. review should be limited to the amount that is
reasonably required to materially reduce or
remove any increases in credit risk faced by
the operator. In other words, an Access
Provider may only increase a security
requirement to the extent necessary to
address the increased credit risk that it has
become exposed to due to the change in
circumstances described in paragraph
5.19.7(b).
5.19.14 The MCMC proposes to move the The MCMC considers that the conditional
(formerly conditional supply clause from supply prohibitions should be applied as a
5.13.22) subsection 5.13.22 of the current general prohibition and, as such, the MCMC
MSA to apply as a more general proposes to move the existing subsection
obligation under the legal boilerplate 5.13.22 to the legal boilerplate provisions in
provisions of the MSA. the MSA. The MCMC is also concerned to
ensure that Access Providers cannot impose
In addition, the MCMC proposes to minimum and maximum quantities of supply
insert a new paragraph 5.19.14(b) to as a condition of access.
amend the clause to prohibit an
Access Provider requiring an Access
Seeker to acquire any minimum or
maximum quantity of services.
Questions
Question 50: Do operators support the proposal to permit an operator to review and
request additional security if the volume of Facilities and/or Services ordered by an Access
Seeker increases? Why or why not?

Part E Service Specific Obligations
Overview of proposed changes

30.1 The MCMC proposes to create a new section 6 in the MSA for Service Specific
Obligations. The new section would set out more detailed and nuanced
terms that would apply specifically for certain services. The details and
reasons for the MCMC’s proposal are discussed in this Part E.
30.2 When reviewing the Service Specific Obligations in the Draft MSA, note that
the proposed changes in the new section 6 are set out as follows:
(a) all new drafting or amendments to existing terms are set out in mark-
up;
(b) where existing terms were moved from the content obligations under
section 5 to apply as service-specific obligations under the new
section 6, the existing terms are set out in ‘clean’ and are not tracked
in mark-up (although any proposed amendments to those terms are
in mark-up); and
(c) the sequencing of the services has been changed for certain services
(e.g. Domestic Connectivity to International Services) to align with
the broader changes to the logical sequencing and flow of the new
service-specific obligations.
30.3 The MCMC welcomes feedback on its proposal to regulate more detailed
Service Specific Obligations in a new section 6 of the MSA. In particular, the
MCMC notes that operator comments will be critical for informing the
operational details of the proposed service-specific obligations (e.g. forecast
and indicative delivery time frames, etc.).
Overview of Service Specific Obligations

31.1 At the moment, the MSA already contains a number of service-specific terms
under section 5 of the MSA. However, these are described as Content
Obligations that apply specifically for the following services:
(a) Domestic Connectivity to International Services (subsection 5.21);
(b) Internet Interconnection Services (subsection 5.22);
(c) Digital Terrestrial Broadcasting (DTB) Multiplexing Service

(subsection 5.23);
(d) Access to Network Elements (subsection 5.24);
(e) Wholesale Line Rental Service (subsection 5.25); and
(f) HSBB Network Services (subsection 5.26).
31.2 The MCMC now proposes to separate out, and further elaborate on, the
existing service-specific terms in a new section 6 of the MSA. The new

section would also include additional services that MCMC considers should
be subject to more detailed or nuanced terms of access.
31.3 Under the MCMC’s proposal, the new section 6 would cover the services:
(a) O&T Services (subsection 6.1);
(b) Wholesale Line Rental Service (subsection 6.2);
(c) Interconnect Link Service (subsection 6.3);
(d) Access to Network Elements (subsection 6.4);
(e) Digital Subscriber Line Resale Service (subsection 6.5);
(f) HSBB Network Services (subsection 6.6);
(g) Transmission Services (subsection 6.7);
(h) Infrastructure Sharing (subsection 6.8);
(i) Network Co-Location Service (subsection 6.9);
(j) Domestic Connectivity to International Services (subsection 6.10);
(k) Duct and Manhole Access (subsection 6.11);
(l) Digital Terrestrial Broadcasting Multiplexing Service (subsection

6.12); and
(m) MVNO Access (subsection 6.13).
31.4 The MCMC notes that the Service Specific Obligations in relation to Internet
Interconnection Services under subsection 5.22 of the current MSA are not
included in the above list. This aligns with the position in the recent review
of the Access List, which was further supported by operators who noted that
the current Internet Interconnection Service terms were no longer required
as MyIX connectivity was already working well.
31.5 In the informal questionnaire on the MSA that was circulated to operators,
the MCMC requested feedback on the extent to which the MSA should
contain Service Specific Obligations. The MCMC has considered the initial
industry responses and has separately conducted its own review of the
current MSA content obligations. Following this review, the MCMC has
concluded that operators would benefit from a more detailed and tailored
application of certain terms of access.
31.6 The use of broader terms of access that apply across all Facilities and
Services in the Access List is still suitable for most of the Negotiation,
Disclosure and Content obligations in the MSA. However, the MCMC notes
that this approach will not be appropriate in all circumstances. For example,
an order for a new HSBB Network Service can be provisioned in a relatively
short timeframe (irrespective of whether the order relates to a premises
that is already connected to the HSBB Network or not), while indicative

delivery times for Transmission Services can be significantly longer
particularly if new network facilities are required to supply an order.
Therefore, the MCMC has identified a number of cases where possible
discrepancies or nuances between services should be separated out in a new
section and made subject to more detailed Service Specific Obligations.
31.7 The MCMC has identified some common terms of access that the MCMC
considers would benefit from being applied on a service-specific basis. More
specifically, the MCMC proposes to split out the following elements of an
Access Agreement to be applied on a case by case basis to account for the
particular characteristics of each service under the new section 6 of the
MSA:
(a) Forecasts – specific timing requirements are proposed that would

regulate the length of long term forecasts, the intervals of units or
times that must be used in a forecast and the frequency of forecast
updates;
(b) Acknowledgement of receipt – timeframes are proposed for an

Access Provider to acknowledge receipt of an order, which would
differ depending on the service being ordered;
(c) Time for acceptance or rejection – timing and any other service-
specific details relevant for acceptance or rejection of an order (e.g.
with or without service qualification for O&T Service orders) are
proposed that would be tailored by service;
(d) Billing cycle – unless otherwise agreed by the operators, the MCMC
proposes to regulate billing cycle timeframes on a service-specific
basis. However, no changes are proposed at this time and the MCMC
welcomes feedback from Operators on their preferred billing cycle for
Facilities and Services under the MSA; and
(e) Indicative delivery times – the MCMC proposes to apply the

indicative delivery times at a more granular level to account for the
differences between services, which may require shorter or longer
periods to deliver depending on the nature of the service.
31.8 Furthermore, beyond the above common terms of access, the MCMC also
proposes to include other service-specific requirements for certain services.
Some of these additional terms are already set out for particular services in
the current MSA, such as the access to network information requirements
in relation to the Access Network Elements. However, the MCMC also
proposes to move current content obligations to apply for specific services.
For example, the Quality of Service obligations under subsection 5.16.9 of
the current MSA would be moved to the new subsection 6.1.16 to apply
specifically in relation to O&T Services.
31.9 The MCMC also notes that the more detailed and nuanced regulation of
access to telecommunications services is a common approach in other
jurisdictions. For example, in Singapore, the IDA requires Singtel as a
“dominant licensee” to provide interconnection and access related services

to facilities-based and service-based licensees under a Reference
Interconnection Offer (RIO). Singtel’s RIO includes a ‘Main Body’ that sets
out the high level terms that apply across all of the facilities and services
covered by the RIO. However, the more detailed service-specific terms of
access are then set out in separate schedules for each service and facility. 41
31.10 The MCMC has reviewed the approach taken to access regulation in other
similar jurisdictions such as Singapore, which has informed the current
proposal to apply more detailed Service Specific Obligations under the MSA.
31.11 The MCMC welcomes feedback on its proposal to regulate more detailed
Service Specific Obligations in a new section 6 of the MSA. The proposed
timing and other operational details for the Service Specific Obligations have
been developed with reference to current practices in Malaysia, as well as
by reviewing the approach taken in other similar jurisdictions (e.g.
Singapore). However, the MCMC stresses the importance of obtaining
detailed operator insight and practical examples, which will be critical for
informing the operational details of the proposed Service Specific
Obligations (e.g. forecast and indicative delivery times, etc.).
O&T Services
Overview
32.1 As discussed in section 26.4 of this PI Paper, a number of the existing

Technical Obligations under subsection 5.16 would continue to apply as
broader content obligations under the MSA.
32.2 However, as part of its broader proposal to apply a number of the existing
content obligations as service-specific obligations under the MSA, the MCMC
proposes to move the Technical Obligations in subsections 5.16.6 to 5.16.9
of the current MSA to apply as Service Specific Obligations under a new
subsection 6.1 for O&T Services.
Common terms of access
32.3 The MCMC proposes the following service-specific timeframes for the O&T
Services:
41
Singtel’s Reference Interconnection Offer (2012) is available online: https://www.ida.gov.sg/Policies-and-
Regulations/Industry-and-Licensees/Interconnection-and-Access/SingTels-Reference-Interconnection-Offer-
2012.

Reference Topic Proposed timeframe
6.1.2 Forecasts:
(a) Forecasts covering a maximum period (a) 1 year
(b) Intervals or units used in Forecasts (b) 6 months
(c) Frequency of Forecast updates (c) 6 months
6.1.3 Acknowledgement of receipt 1 Business Day
6.1.4 Time for acceptance or rejection 10 Business Days
6.1.5 Indicative delivery times 20 Business Days
6.1.6 Billing cycle Monthly
32.4 The MCMC welcomes operator feedback on its proposed timeframes in

relation to access to the O&T Services.
Additional terms of access
32.5 The MCMC proposes to move the following technical specifications to apply
as Service Specific Obligations under a new subsection 6.1 for O&T Services:
(a) ‘Handover principles’ (currently subsection 5.16.6);
(b) ‘Calling Line Identification (CLI)’ (currently subsection 5.16.7);
(c) ‘Dummy CLIs’ (currently subsection 5.16.8); and
(d) ‘Quality of service’ (currently subsection 5.16.9).
32.6 The MCMC notes that comments were received during the Access List review
in relation to near and far-end handover. The MCMC does not propose to
substantially amend the handover principles provisions at this time given
that the MSA already allows an Access Seeker to select near and far-end
handover for O&T Services and the Access Provider must comply. However,
if Access Seekers are concerned that this is not occurring in practice, the
MCMC would welcome that feedback, along with any anti-avoidance
provisions that may be required in the MSA to avoid gaming or undermining
this Access Seeker right.
32.7 Notably, part of the solution may be to address this issue in the MSAP
instead of the MSA. For example, if operators are trunking calls and charging
for longer carriage than is necessary, the charge for a near-end handover
may be based on no trunking or the most direct route notwithstanding any
trunking. This issue is also closely related to the availability of POIs, and
where the Access Seeker does not have a POI in each closed number area
or home area, this may come into consideration. The MCMC is reiterating
its position to not compel Access Seekers to build POIs, however the MCMC
is interested to consider how the rights of both parties can be maintained in
the existing framework. The MCMC will continue to consider this issue
following further feedback from operators.

32.8 The MCMC also received a number of operator comments on the Quality of
Service obligations under subsection 5.16.9 of the current MSA. For a
broader discussion of this feedback and the MCMC’s preliminary views on
the Quality of Service obligations, see section 26 of this PI Paper. However,
to the extent that the Quality of Service obligations remain specific to O&T
Services, then the MCMC proposes to include those obligations in a new
subsection 6.1.16.
Questions
Question 51: Do operators agree with the service-specific timeframes that the MCMC has
proposed in respect of the O&T Services? Why or why not? If not, please specify and
substantiate any proposed changes.
Question 52: Have Access Seekers experienced any issues with near and far-end
handover? If so, please provide examples and possible suggestions for amending the
current ‘handover principles’ in the MSA.
Question 53: Do operators consider the proposed service-specific obligations for O&T
Services are sufficient? Please detail any proposed addition, deletion or amendment to the
terms currently proposed by the MCMC.
Wholesale Line Rental Service

Overview
33.1 Subsection 5.25 of the MSA currently sets out a series of service-specific
obligations that apply for the Wholesale Line Rental Service.
33.2 The MCMC does not propose to substantively change the existing Wholesale
Line Rental Service provisions under subsection 5.25. However, the current
obligations would be moved to a new subsection 6.2, which would also
include additional obligations (e.g. new time requirements for forecasts,
etc.) to align with the approach taken in the rest of the Service Specific
Obligations.
33.3 The MCMC proposes the following service-specific timeframes for the
Wholesale Line Rental Service:

6.2.2 Forecasts:
(a) Forecasts covering a maximum period (a) 3 months
(b) Intervals or units used in Forecasts (b) 1 month
(c) Frequency of Forecast updates (c) 1 month
6.2.4 Time for acceptance or rejection 1 Business Day

relation to access to the Wholesale Line Rental Service.
33.5 The MCMC does not propose to substantively amend the current Wholesale
Line Rental Service obligations, which would now apply in addition to the
new common terms of access discussed above.
33.6 However, the MCMC proposes to clarify that:
(a) an Access Provider must not use any information of an Access

Seeker’s customer to market “or offer to supply” goods or services
to that customer; and
(b) the permitted exceptions to the prohibitions in paragraphs 6.2.8(a)

and 6.2.8(b) will only apply if a customer’s information “has not been
collected or generated with reference to, or combined with or
compared to, information provided in connection with the Access
Provider’s supply of the Wholesale Line Rental Service.”
33.7 The proposed changes are intended to support the MCMC’s broader
objective of promoting retail competition by limiting an Access
Provider’s ability to misuse an Access Seeker’s information to benefit
its own retail arm.
Questions
proposed in respect of the Wholesale Line Rental Service? Why or why not? If not, please
specify and substantiate any proposed changes.
Question 55: Do operators consider the proposed service-specific obligations for Wholesale
Line Rental Service are sufficient? Please detail any proposed addition, deletion or
amendment to the terms currently proposed by the MCMC.

Interconnect Link Service
Overview
34.1 The MCMC proposes to include a new subsection 6.3 that sets out the
detailed terms that would apply specifically for access to the Interconnect
Link Services.
Interconnect Link Services:
6.3.2 Forecasts:
(a) Forecasts covering a maximum period (a) 3 years
(b) Intervals or units used in Forecasts (b) 1 year
(c) Frequency of Forecast updates (c) 1 year
6.3.3 Acknowledgement of receipt 2 Business Days

relation to access to the Interconnect Link Services.
Questions
proposed in respect of the Interconnect Link Service? Why or why not? If not, please
Question 57: Do operators consider the proposed service-specific obligations for

Interconnect Link Service are sufficient? Please detail any proposed addition, deletion or
Access to Network Elements

Overview
obligations that apply for Access to Network Elements. The access services
covered by these obligations include:
(a) Full Access Service;
(b) Line Sharing Service;
(c) Bitstream with Network Service

(d) Bitstream without Network Service; and
(e) Sub-Loop Service.42
35.2 The MCMC does not propose to substantively change the existing Access to
Network Elements provisions under subsection 5.24. However, the MCMC
proposes to move the current obligations to a new subsection 6.4, which
would also include additional obligations (e.g. new time requirements for
forecasts, etc.) to align with the approach taken in the rest of the Service
Specific Obligations.
35.3 In its informal questionnaire, the MCMC asked for feedback in relation to
subsection 5.24.3 (Access to network information) under the MSA and
whether or not any of the prescribed information which must be provided to
Access Seekers is currently not collected or otherwise not available in the
operator’s network. One operator commented that it is generally able to
provide the information requested, subject to availability, and provided that
it has sufficient information from the Access Seeker about the coverage area
required and its purpose. Other operators either requested to maintain
subsection 5.24.3 or seemed generally satisfied with the requirements.
35.4 On the other hand, the MCMC notes the discussion in the Access List Review
on the possibility of using vectoring technology.43 So, the MCMC is
considering whether an Access Seeker should be able to request, as part of
its right to request network information under subsection 5.24.3 (under
subsection 6.4.3 in the Draft MSA), information concerning cables or other
facilities excluded by reason of vectoring technologies.
35.5 The MCMC proposes the following timeframes that would apply specifically
in relation to Access to Network Elements:
6.4.4 Forecasts:
6.4.10 Indicative activation timeframe Refer to the table in section 35.8

below.
42
Paragraph 4 of the Determination (Definitions and Interpretation), definition of ‘Access to Network Elements’.
43
MCMC, Access List Review - Public Inquiry Report at para 6.12 and 6.22.

relation to access to Access to Network Elements.
35.7 The MCMC does not propose to substantively amend the existing Access to
Network Elements provisions as currently set out under subsection 5.24 of
the MSA, which would continue to apply in addition to the new common
terms of access discussed above.
35.8 The key changes to the existing terms that are proposed by the MCMC are
as follows:
6.4.3 The MCMC proposes to amend These changes are intended to support the
(formerly subsection 6.4.3 of the Draft MSA to MCMC’s broader objective of improving
5.24.3) require the Access Provider to equivalent access under the MSA.
provide the Access Seeker with the
equivalent network information as it
gives to itself. Further, it is clarified
that the equivalent access is not
limited to the types of information in
subsection 6.4.3.
6.4.9 The MCMC proposes to amend These changes are intended to support the
(formerly subsection 6.4.9 to require an Access MCMC’s broader objective of improving
5.24.4.) Provider to provide access to its OSS equivalent access under the MSA.
for ordering, maintenance, fault
reporting and billing purposes on an
equivalent basis as it provides such
access for itself.
6.4.10 The MCMC proposes to clarify that an The MCMC proposes to change the current
(formerly Access Provider must activate ANE activation timelines under subsection 5.24.7 of
5.24.7) services either: the current MSA so that the timeframe
(a) in the same timeframe in which commences upon the date of the Access
the Access Provider would Provider’s Notice of Acceptance of the Order or
activate the service for itself; or confirmation of the Order (where applicable).
(b) the regulated timeframes as set However, the MCMC proposes to clarify that, if
out under subsection 6.4.10 of an Access Provider activates ANE services in a
the Draft MSA, shorter time period for itself, then it should
also be required to offer equivalent activation
whichever period is shorter.
times for Access Seekers as set out under the
paragraph 5.7.13(a) of the Draft MSA. These
changes are intended to support the MCMC’s
broader objective of improving equivalent
access under the MSA.

6.4.6 The MCMC proposes to include a new Thus, the MCMC notes that its proposed
(new) ground for refusal, whereby an inclusion of a new ground for refusal is
Access Provider may refuse an intended to recognise that an Access Provider
access request for access to ANE in should not be required to provide access to
respect of particular premises if the ANE if a retail HSBB Network Service is already
Access Provider can provide being supplied to a particular premise. In this
evidence that the premise is already case, rather than ANE services, the Access
actively connected to a HSBB Seeker should make an access request for
Network Service and is being HSBB Network Service (Layer 2 or Layer 3).
provided with a retail HSBB service.
Questions
proposed in respect of the Access Network Elements? Why or why not? If not, please
Question 59: Do operators consider the proposed service-specific obligations for Access to
Network Elements are sufficient? Please detail any proposed addition, deletion or
Digital Subscriber Line Resale Service

Overview
detailed terms that would apply specifically for access to the Digital
Subscriber Line Resale Service.
36.2 The MCMC proposes the following service-specific timeframes for the Digital
Subscriber Line Resale Service:
6.5.2 Forecasts:
6.5.6 Indicative activation times 10 Business Days
36.3 In addition, the MCMC also proposes to include a new ground for refusal,
which would permit an Access Provider to refuse an access request for

Digital Subscriber Line Resale Services in respect of a particular premise if
the Access Provider can provide evidence that the premise is already
actively connected and being served by a retail HSBB Network Service.

relation to access to the Digital Subscriber Line Resale Service.
Questions
proposed in respect of the Digital Subscriber Line Resale Service? Why or why not? If not,
please specify and substantiate any proposed changes.
Question 61: Is the indicative activation timeframe of 10 Business Days appropriate?

Would it be more appropriate to include a shorter activation timeframe instead?
Question 62: Do operators consider the proposed service-specific obligations for Digital
Subscriber Line Resale Service are sufficient? Please detail any proposed addition, deletion
or amendment to the terms currently proposed by the MCMC.
HSBB Network Services

Overview
obligations that apply for the HSBB Network Services.
37.2 The MCMC proposes to move the current HSBB Network Service obligations
to a new subsection 6.6, which would also include additional obligations
(e.g. new time requirements for forecasts, etc.) to align with the approach
taken in the rest of the Service Specific Obligations.
37.3 The MCMC notes that it has received a number of complaints from operators
in relation to the negotiation and supply of HSBB Network Services.
Operator comments in relation to the HSBB Network Services are discussed
in detail below, along with the MCMC’s preliminary views.
37.4 Given the high volume of operator comments on these issues, some of which
outline failures in the current approach in quite detailed terms, the MCMC
intends to use the current review of the MSA to address the key issues
plaguing access to the HSBB Network Services in Malaysia.
37.5 The MCMC has proposed some preliminary changes to the service-specific
obligations that apply to the HSBB Network Service. However, the MCMC
welcomes further feedback from operators on this issue.
Access to HSBB Network Services
37.6 The MCMC notes that it has received a number of complaints from operators
in relation to the negotiation and supply of HSBB Network Services.
37.7 Several operators consider that the current commercial negotiation process
for HSBB Access is not effective. During the Public Inquiry on the Access

List, several operators also highlighted several operational and technical
issues with the commercial HSBB Access, such as the inability of the Access
Seeker to comply with MCMC’s Mandatory Standard on QoS, and the need
to have access to serviceable addresses on an equivalent basis as the Access
Provider’s retail arm.44 Similarly, another operator cited that a requirement
for high volume commitments was a continuing obstacle in its commercial
negotiations for HSBB Access with the same Access Provider.
37.8 Further, the HSBB Network Service should be offered on a modular basis so
that customers of the Access Seeker who wish to subscribe for broadband
only may do so. The Access Seeker should be able to acquire broadband
only from the Access Provider.
37.9 Further, the MCMC received several complaints in relation to the lack of
equivalence between Access Seekers and an Access Provider’s own retail
arm. The role that an Access Provider plays in both the wholesale and retail
HSBB markets was seen as creating possible conflicts that hindered the
ability of Access Seekers to commercially negotiate equitable HSBB Access.
This issue was reiterated by multiple operators.
37.10 Another operator specifically requested that the terms and conditions of
access to Layer 3 HSBB Network Services be set out as service-specific
obligations under the MSA. The operator submitted that such terms should
cover details such as scope, location, capacity, quality, etc. of access to
Layer 3 HSBB Network Services.
37.11 The MCMC notes that one operator proposed some relatively detailed
amendments to the service-specific obligations for HSBB Network Services.
These amendments included:
(a) clarifying in paragraph 5.26.3(b) that the migration from copper to

fibre at all existing nodes should apply “whether in FTTH or FTTC”;
(b) specifying in subsection 5.26.4 that an Access Provider must publish

a list of locations “and premises (including the name and/or unit
number of the premises)” where HSBB Network Services are
available; and
(c) making it an express requirement for an Access Provider to provide

“accurate, updated and matched” information when making such
information available in an Implementation and Migration Plan or via
the Access Provider’s website.
37.12 The operator also proposed that two provisions be added as new service-
specific obligations for HSBB Network Services as follows:
(a) a new ‘Service Fulfilment Timeline’ section that would set out detailed
timelines that an Access Provider must comply with when carrying
out certain activities in relation to the supply of HSBB Network
Services (e.g. Service Gateway Configuration, Service availability
44
MCMC, Access List Review – Public Inquiry Paper, page 86.

check, Appointment with end users, Broadband Termination Unit
installation, Return Order management, Service Gateway
Upgrade/Downgrade and Broadband Termination Unit (BTU)
Upgrade/Downgrade, etc.);
(b) a new ‘Service Assurance Timeline’ section that would set out
detailed timelines that an Access Provider must comply with when
carrying out certain assurance activities in relation to the supply of
HSBB Network Services (e.g. fault rectification, on-site support,
appointments with end users, throughput, and network latency in
relation to the Layer 2 HSBB Network Service); and
(c) a new ‘QinQ Implementation’ section that would require an Access

Provider to provide the QinQ implementation to an Access Seeker, so
that the Access Seeker could choose its preferred VLAN IDs.
37.13 Another operator requested the inclusion of terms and conditions which
differ from the current terms of the MSA that it considers would help ensure
continuity of its existing access arrangements without setbacks and delays.
In particular, the operator proposed the following changes:
(a) Grounds of refusal (subsection 5.4.11): a failure to comply with the

operator’s Business Rules should provide grounds for refusal of an
Access Request;
(b) Forecasting (subsection 5.6.5): the minimum forecast period should

be 3 years, updated on a quarterly basis;
(c) Ordering (subsection 5.7): appointments by the Access Seeker with

its end user should be scheduled within 14 days of an Order;
(d) Delivery times (subsection 5.7.14): HSBB installation should be

completed within 14 days; and
(e) Minimum Term of Supply: the minimum term of supply should be

prescribed separately in respect of a BTU installation (2 years) and a
Service Gateway (3 years).
37.14 The MCMC continues to consider the detailed drafting changes proposed by
operators for inclusion in the Service Specific Obligations for access to HSBB
Network Services.
37.15 For now, the MCMC has proposed a number of initial changes to the current
Service Specific Obligations that apply for access to HSBB Network Services,
which include:
(a) the common terms of access (e.g. Forecasts, indicative activation

timeframes, etc.) for HSBB Network Services;
(b) requirements for an Access Provider to make certain information

available on its publicly available website (e.g. premises
serviceability, availability of Layer 2 HSBB Network Services and

Layer 3 HSBB Network Services, POI locations from which the HSBB
Network Services are available etc.);
(c) clarification that any information provided to an Access Seeker under

an Implementation and Migration Plan must allow the Access Seeker
to carry out certain activities (e.g. market and compete for delivery
to HSBB Network retail customers) on the same basis as the Access
Provider;
(d) express requirements for an Access Provider to make available

certain information (e.g. availability of HSBB Network Services) to an
Access Seeker as soon as the Access Provider makes that information
available to itself; and
(e) the inclusion of new reporting obligations that set out details such as
location and product availability of HSBB Network Services, which an
Access Provider would be required to notify to the MCMC on a bi-
annual basis.
The details of these proposed changes are discussed further below.
37.16 The MCMC considers that the additional information and reporting
requirements being proposed for HSBB Network Services should address
many of the issues raised by operators. In particular, a lack of key service
information, or inequitable access to such information, were consistent
complaints raised by operators which the proposed changes are intended to
address.
37.17 Lastly, the MCMC notes that many of its proposed changes in relation to
HSBB Network Services are already relatively common in other jurisdictions.
For example, in Australia, the wholesale high speed broadband provider,
nbn, regularly provides Access Seekers with detailed forecasting and
network rollout information.45 nbn also provides key service information
and updates to its customers via an online service portal and/or a B2B
gateway.46 The MCMC considers that similar measures should be available
in Malaysia, which would help to ensure all Access Seekers have equivalent
access to key service information.
37.18 The MCMC proposes the following service-specific timeframes for the HSBB
Network Services:
45
For example, see clause 1H.2 (‘Rollout progress information’) of nbn’s Special Access Undertaking available
at: http://www2.nbnco.com.au/content/dam/nbnco/documents/NBN%20Co%20SAU%20-%20Varied%20on%
2018%20November%202013%20(clean%20version).pdf.
46
For example, see nbn’s ‘NBN Co Platform Interfacing Service – Service Description’ available at:
http://www2.nbnco.com.au/content/dam/nbnco2/documents/sfaa-wba2-product-catalogue-npis-service-
description_20151102.pdf.

6.6.3 Forecasts:
6.6.4 Acknowledgement of receipt 1 hour (within a Business Day)
6.6.6 Indicative activation timeframes:

(a) Premises connected to the HSBB Network (a) 3 Business Days
(a) Premises not already connected to the (b) 20 Business Days
HSBB Network

relation to the HSBB Network Services.
37.20 In addition, the MCMC also proposes to include a new reporting obligation
that would apply specifically for the HSBB Network Services. Under
subsection 6.6.15 of the Draft MSA, the MCMC proposes to require each
Access Provider to notify the Commission two times each year of:
(a) the locations at which the Access Provider offers services over the
HSBB Network including to its end user customers, together with the
network types (e.g. fibre-to-the-node or fibre-to-the-home) used for
each location;
(b) the locations at which the Access Provider supplies HSBB Network
Services, together with the type of HSBB Network Service supplied
at each location (being the Layer 2 HSBB Network Service with QoS
or the Layer 3 HSBB Network Service);
(c) the locations at which the Access Provider supplies an alternative

commercially negotiated service to another operator using an HSBB
Network and any details of each such commercially negotiated
service as requested by the MCMC from time to time;
(d) each Class of Service or QoS Class (as applicable); and
(e) each bit rate offered in respect of each HSBB Network Service.
37.21 The MCMC notes that these more detailed reporting obligations for the HSBB
Network Services are intended to improve transparency and to allow for
greater monitoring by the MCMC of the supply of HSBB Network Services.
37.22 The key changes to the MSA proposed by the MCMC in relation to the HSBB
Network Services are as follows:

HSBB A new definition of “HSBB Network The new definition aligns with the updates to
Network Service” is proposed that means the Access List.
Service each of: The existing ‘Layer 2 HSBB Network Service
definition (a) Layer 2 HSBB Network Service with QoS’ is maintained and a new ‘Layer 3
(new) with Quality of Service HSBB Network Service’ is added to the MSA.
(QoS;); and The previous ‘HSBB Network Service without
(b) Layer 3 HSBB Network QoS’ is now removed from the MSA.
Service. Corresponding changes were made as
required throughout the rest of the MSA to
align with the updated terminology.
6.6.8 The MCMC proposes to require each The MCMC’s proposal to require an Access
(new) Access Provider who supplies HSBB Provider to make certain information about its
Network Services to make available HSBB Network Services publicly available (e.g.
on its website or through a self- via a freely accessible service portal) is
service portal a mechanism which intended to improve transparency and provide
allows a person to query: Access Seekers with equivalent service
(a) whether a premise is currently information that an Access Provider supplies to
connected, or is scheduled to its own retail arm.
be connected within 6 The MCMC notes that a lack of key service
months, to a HSBB Network; information was a consistent complaint raised
(b) whether the Access Provider by several operators, which the new proposal
offers Layer 2 HSBB Network is intended to address.
Services with QoS or Layer 3 Under the new subsection 6.6.8, the Access
HSBB Network Services in Provider would also be required to ensure that
respect of the premises; and the information is accurate. The Commission
(c) the maximum bit rate at which is considering whether a rebate should apply
the service is offered; where the Access Provider fails to meet that
requirement.
(d) the POIs to which the HSBB
Network Services are to be
supplied; and
(e) information and parameters
concerning service restoration
equivalent to that which it
provides to itself.
This information is to be accurate
and made available as soon as the
Access Provider makes that
information available to itself and
in any case, on and from the date
of inclusion of the premises in the
Implementation and Migration Plan
or any subsequent updates.
6.6.9 The MCMC proposes to clarify that As above, the MCMC’s proposed additions to
(formerly the information provided in an the current ‘Implementation and Migration
5.26.3) Access Provider’s implementation Plan’ provisions are intended to improve
and migration plan must allow an transparency and equivalent access to HSBB
Access Seeker to: Network Services, particularly in downstream
(a) market HSBB Network-based markets to promote the competitive supply of
retail services; retail HSBB Network Services.

(b) compete for the delivery of An Access Provider is already required to
HSBB Network-based retail manage its implementation plans in a non-
services; and discriminatory manner. Therefore, the draft
(c) order HSBB Network Services changes are proposed to clarify, and elaborate
in order to deliver such on, the scope and detail of information that an
services at the retail level, Access Provider will be expected to include in
its implementation plans.
on the same basis as the Access
Provider.
6.6.11 The MCMC proposes to include a The MCMC notes that it received a submission
(new) new provision to clarify that each during the recent review of the Access List, in
RAO for a HSBB Network Service which an operator complained that the service
must be consistent with the terms quality of the HSBB Network Service
and conditions in any applicable consistently did not meet the standards set
Mandatory Standard on Quality of out in the Mandatory Standard on Quality of
Service. Service.
Therefore, to address this complaint, the
MCMC proposes to expressly clarify that each
RAO for a HSBB Network Service must be
consistent with the terms and conditions in
any applicable Mandatory Standard on Quality
of Service.
6.6.12 to The MCMC proposes to include new The MCMC received operator feedback
6.6.14 Service Specific Obligations for the requesting the inclusion of more detailed
(new) HSBB Network Service that relate service fulfilment, service assurance and QinQ
to: implementation requirements for HSBB
(a) service fulfilment timelines Network Services in the MSA. In particular, the
(e.g. Service Gateway MCMC notes that one operator provided
configuration, service detailed terms and proposed timelines, which
availability checks); the MCMC has included as new Service Specific
Obligations for the HSBB Network Service.
(b) service assurance timelines
(e.g. mean fault restoration However, the MCMC is still considering
times); and whether these more detailed requirements are
necessary and, as such, the MCMC requests
(c) QinQ implementation to allow
operator feedback on:
an Access Seeker freedom to
choose their VLAN ID. (a) the proposal to expressly set out service
fulfilment and service assurance
timelines as new Service Specific
Obligations for the HSBB Network
Service; and
(b) the specific timing requirements that
should apply for each service fulfilment
and service assurance activity.
6.6.16 The Access Provider must offer the The Access Seeker should be free to compile
(new) HSBB Network Service on a its own bundles (e.g. triple play) and hence
modular basis so that the Access may need to acquire broadband services from
Seeker is not required to acquire the Access Provider but no other services. The
any other services in order to MSA now facilitates this approach.
acquire the HSBB Network Service.

Questions
proposed in respect of the HSBB Network Services? Why or why not? If not, please specify
and substantiate any proposed changes or amendments.
Question 64: Do operators think that the MCMC’s proposed changes to the Service Specific
Obligations for access to HSBB Network Services are sufficient to address the current
issues prohibiting competitive negotiation and supply of HSBB services? If not, please
provide reasons to support your position and any proposed improvements.
Question 65: Do operators agree with the inclusion of more detailed Service Specific
Obligations in relation to service fulfilment and service assurance of the HSBB Network
Service? If so, please provide feedback on the proposed timelines under subsections
6.6.12 to 6.6.14 of the Draft MSA.
Question 66: Do operators consider that an Access Provider that fails to comply with the
accuracy obligation under subsection 6.6.8 should be required to provide the Access
Seeker with a rebate? Why or why not?
Transmission Services
Overview
detailed terms that would apply specifically for access to, and supply of,
Transmission Services.
38.2 The MCMC notes that the inclusion of new Service Specific Obligations in the
MSA in relation to the supply of Transmission Services was specifically
requested in operator feedback that was provided to the MCMC. In
particular, one operator submitted that such terms should cover a range of
details such as the definition, scope, location, capacity and pricing of access
to Transmission Services.
38.3 The MCMC notes that one operator submitted that the indicative delivery
timeframes should be reduced from 8 months to 3 months for Orders
involving the provision of new Facilities and infrastructure, and from 60 days
to 30 days for Orders involving augmentation of capacity on existing
Facilities and infrastructure. This was discussed in section 18.19 of this PI
Paper.
Transmission Services:

6.7.2 Forecasts:
6.7.5 Indicative delivery times

(a) No new network facilities required (a) 20 Business Days
(b) New network facilities required (b) 60 Business Days

relation to access to the Transmission Services.
that would apply specifically for Transmission Services. Under a new
subsection 6.7.7, the MCMC proposes to require each Access Provider to
notify the Commission two times each year of:
(a) each technically feasible network point at which a Transmission

Service is offered and supplied (and, in the case of supply, the Access
Seekers to whom Transmission Services are supplied at those
points);
(b) each network interface at which a Transmission Service is offered

and supplied (and, in the case of supply, the Access Seekers to whom
Transmission Services are supplied using those interfaces);
(c) each bit rate at which a Transmission Service is offered and supplied
(and, in the case of supply, the Access Seekers to whom
Transmission Services are supplied at those bit rates); and
(d) whether the Transmission Service is supplied in conjunction with any

other Facility or Service.
38.7 The MCMC notes that these more detailed reporting obligations for
Transmission Services are intended to improve transparency and to allow
for greater monitoring by the MCMC, which should address some of the
concerns raised by Access Seekers in relation to the supply of Transmission
Services (e.g. being required to order bundled tail transmission and trunk
transmission services).
38.8 The MCMC proposes to include a number of additional Service Specific

Obligations in relation to the supply of Transmission Services, as follows:

6.7.8 The MCMC proposes to expressly The MCMC continues to receive complaints
(new) prohibit an Access Provider from from Access Seekers that they are often
requiring an Access Seeker to required to purchase the Transmission Service
purchase bundled transmission as a bundled service – i.e. to purchase a Trunk
services. Transmission Service between a pair of
technically feasible network transmission
points with a Trunk Transmission Service
between another pair of technically feasible
network transmission points.
The MCMC notes that it does not condone the
forced bundling of Transmission Services,
which is now clearly reflected in the proposed
inclusion of a ‘no bundling’ provision under
subsection 6.7.8 of the Draft MSA.
Questions
proposed in respect of the Transmission Services? Why or why not? If not, please specify
and substantiate any proposed changes or amendments.
Infrastructure Sharing
Overview
detailed terms that would apply specifically for Infrastructure Sharing
arrangements. In addition, as part of the proposal to apply the existing
Content Obligations as Service Specific Obligations, the MCMC proposes to
move some of the obligations under the current subsection 5.13 to this new
subsection 6.8 of the Draft MSA.
39.2 The MCMC proposes the following service-specific timeframes in relation to

Infrastructure Sharing:
6.8.2 Forecasts:

respect of Infrastructure Sharing.
Questions
proposed in respect of Infrastructure Sharing? Why or why not? If not, please specify and
substantiate any proposed changes or amendments.
Question 69: Do operators consider the proposed service-specific obligations for

Infrastructure Sharing are sufficient? Please detail any proposed addition, deletion or
Network Co-Location Service

Overview
detailed terms that would apply specifically for access to the Network Co-
Location Service. In line with the broader proposal to apply the existing
Content Obligations as Service Specific Obligations, the MCMC proposes to
move most of the existing subsection 5.13 to this new subsection 6.9.
40.2 The MCMC proposes the following service-specific timeframes for access to
the Network Co-Location Service:
6.9.2 Forecasts:

respect of the Network Co-Location Service.
Questions
proposed in respect of the Network Co-Location Service? Why or why not? If not, please
specify and substantiate any proposed changes or amendments.

Question 71: Do operators consider the proposed service-specific obligations for Network
Co-Location Service are sufficient? Please detail any proposed addition, deletion or
Domestic Connectivity to International Services

Overview
obligations that apply for Domestic Connectivity to International Services.
41.2 The MCMC does not propose to substantively change the existing obligations
under subsection 5.21. However, the MCMC proposes to move the current
obligations to a new subsection 6.10, which would also include additional
obligations (e.g. new time requirements for forecasts, etc.) to align with the
approach taken for the rest of the Service Specific Obligations. In addition,
as part of the proposal to apply the existing Content Obligations as Service
Specific Obligations, the MCMC proposes to move some of the obligations
under the existing subsection 5.13 to this new subsection 6.10.
for the Domestic Connectivity to International Services:
6.10.2 Forecasts:

relation to Domestic Connectivity to International Services.
41.5 The MCMC does not propose to substantively amend the existing Domestic
Connectivity to International Services provisions as currently set out under
subsection 5.21 of the MSA, which would continue to apply in addition to
the new common terms of access discussed above.
41.6 The key changes to the existing terms that are proposed by the MCMC are
as follows:

5.21.2 The MCMC proposes to delete the This provision is no longer required, as the
(deleted) current obligation for an Access backhaul transmission component of the
Provider to offer each Domestic Domestic Connectivity to International
Connectivity to International Service Services is now defined within a separate
on a modular basis. defined transmission service, and new
bundling prohibitions apply. Further, network
co-location is also acquired separately.
6.10.9 The MCMC proposes to require an The MCMC proposes to clarify that an Access
(new) Access Provider to offer physical Provider must offer and, where requested by
access to, and physical co-location an Access Seeker, provide physical access and
at, any network facility or site that is co-location at any network facility or site that
necessary for the Access Seeker to is necessary for the Access Seeker to be able
be able to gain the benefit of a to have the benefit of a Domestic Connectivity
Domestic Connectivity to to International Service. This new provision is
International Service. intended to further facilitate an Access
Furthermore, the Access Provider Seeker’s ability to access a Domestic
must provide access to nationally or Connectivity to International Service.
operationally secure sites and may
only put in place reasonable security
procedures and processes.
6.10.13 The MCMC proposes to include a Security reasons should not be used as a
(new) requirement for an Access Provider reason for denying access to information.
to publish the locations at which Confidential agreements can be used to
Domestic Connectivity to protect information.
International Service are available. If
the Access Provider cannot publish
for security reasons, it must make
available the information to Access
Seekers on request subject to a
confidentiality agreement being in
place.
Questions
proposed in respect of the Domestic Connectivity to International Service? Why or why
not? If not, please specify and substantiate any proposed changes or amendments.
Question 73: Do operators consider the proposed service-specific obligations for the
Domestic Connectivity to International Service are sufficient? Please detail any proposed
addition, deletion or amendment to the terms currently proposed by the MCMC.
Duct and Manhole Access

Overview
detailed terms that would apply specifically for Duct and Manhole Access.
In addition, as part of the proposal to apply the existing Content Obligations

as Service Specific Obligations, the MCMC proposes to move some of the
obligations under the existing subsection 5.13 to this new subsection 6.11.
42.2 The MCMC notes that the inclusion of new Service Specific Obligations in the
MSA in relation to access to lead-in ducts, mainline ducts and sub-ducts was
specifically requested in operator feedback. For example, one operator
submitted that such terms should cover a range of details such as the scope,
areas, location, capacity, sizes, type and quality of access to manholes and
ducts.
42.3 Another operator proposed draft terms for inclusion in new Service Specific
Obligations for Duct and Manhole Access. The key elements of the proposed
drafting would include:
(a) an ‘Application’ section setting out the scope of the Service Specific
Obligations;
(b) a new ‘Duct and Manhole facilities for sharing’ section outlining the
main components of ducts (e.g. main duct, riser, cable tray, etc.)
and manholes (e.g. manhole, chamber, access points, etc.) that
would be subject to the Service Specific Obligations;
(c) a ‘Form of Sharing’ provision that states Duct and Manhole Access
may be provided in various formats (e.g. underground, etc.); and
(d) a ‘Separation of ducts’ provision to deal with the separation of duct

elements between the Access Provider and various Access Seekers
(e.g. sub-ducts, micro-ducts, etc.).
42.4 However, the MCMC has also received feedback from one operator
expressing dissatisfaction with certain aspects of Duct and Manhole Access
regulation, including claims regarding the length of time that would be
required to implement access to the service and submissions to amend the
service description and parts of the MSA.
42.5 The comments received concerning proposed changes to the MSA in relation
to Duct and Manhole Access included:
(a) providing additional grounds for refusal of an Access Request for Duct
and Manhole Access on the basis of safety and security;
(b) allowing grounds for refusal on the basis of capacity/space

constraints where the capacity/space is reserved for future use
commencing up to 36 months from the date of the Access Request;
and
(c) in relation to the time for acceptance of an Order, that the specified
timeframe in the MSA of 14 days of receiving the Order is not
sufficient.
42.6 The MCMC invites operators to submit any proposed changes to the MSA
concerning Duct and Manhole Access regulation together with evidence and

information supporting their submissions (such as regulatory precedent), to
enable the MCMC to determine their reasonableness.
42.7 The MCMC continues to consider the detailed drafting that has been
provided for inclusion as new Service Specific Obligations for Duct and
Manhole Access as summarised above. However, the MCMC’s preliminary
view is that the common terms of access (e.g. forecasts, acknowledgement
of receipt, etc.) should apply to Duct and Manhole Access, along with
additional reporting requirements. The details of the MCMC’s proposal are
discussed below.
42.8 The MCMC proposes the following service-specific timeframes for Duct and
Manhole Access:
6.11.2 Forecasts:

relation to access to Duct and Manhole Access.
that would apply specifically for Duct and Manhole Access. Under subsection
6.11.7 of the Draft MSA, the MCMC proposes to require each Access Provider
to notify the Commission two times each year of:
(a) each area in which the Access Provider has been granted exclusive
rights to develop or maintain mainline duct and associated manhole
infrastructure;
(b) each area in which an Access Seeker has requested the supply of
Duct and Manhole Access, but in which the Access Provider has not
been granted exclusive rights to develop or maintain the mainline
duct and manhole infrastructure;
(c) each location in which an Access Seeker has requested the supply of
Duct and Manhole Access, but there is no room for the Access Seeker
to install its own sub-ducts so the Access Provider has instead offered
to supply access to its own sub-ducts;

(d) each location in which an Access Seeker has requested the supply of
Duct and Manhole Access, but there is no room for the Access Seeker
to install its own sub-ducts and in which there is also no room in the
Access Provider’s own sub-ducts; and
(e) each area in which the Access Provider has built or assumed
maintenance obligations in respect of lead-in ducts and associated
manhole infrastructure.
42.11 The MCMC notes that these more detailed reporting obligations for Duct and
Manhole Access are intended to improve transparency and to allow for
greater monitoring by the MCMC.
42.12 In addition, the MCMC has provided an additional ground of refusal where
an Access Provider has entered into an exclusive arrangement for
communications infrastructure, including to ducts and manhole
infrastructure in Putrajaya with the Government of Malaysia. Such an
arrangement cannot be amended or extended and must have existed as at
the date of this MSA Determination. Reporting obligations to the MCMC
apply in respect of such a refusal.
Questions
proposed in respect of Duct and Manhole Access? Why or why not? Please specify and
Question 75:Do operators consider the proposed service-specific obligations for Duct and
Manhole Access are sufficient? For example, do Access Seekers require the ability to
require Access Providers to undertake detailed field studies or the ability for an Access
Seeker to undertake its own ‘Make Ready Work’ (e.g. conduct structural analysis,
strengthening or augmenting existing infrastructure, etc.) prior to access being granted
by an Access Provider? Please detail any proposed addition, deletion or amendment to the
Digital Terrestrial Broadcasting Multiplexing Service

Overview
obligations that apply for access to the Digital Terrestrial Broadcasting
Multiplexing Service.
43.2 The MCMC does not propose to substantively change the existing obligations
under subsection 5.23. However, the MCMC proposes to move the current
obligations to a new subsection 6.12, which would also include additional
obligations (e.g. new time requirements for forecasts, etc.) to align with the
approach taken for the rest of the Service Specific Obligations.

for access to the Digital Terrestrial Broadcasting Multiplexing Service:
6.12.2 Forecasts:

relation to access to the Digital Terrestrial Broadcasting Multiplexing
Service.
43.5 The MCMC has reviewed the existing service-specific obligations that apply
for access to the Digital Terrestrial Broadcasting Multiplexing Service (e.g.
bit rate allocation, encryption, etc.). The MCMC considers that the current
provisions continue to operate effectively and the MCMC has not received
any operator feedback to suggest otherwise. Therefore, the MCMC does not
propose to substantively change the existing obligations under subsection
5.23, but instead to apply these provisions as additional terms of access
under new subsections 6.12.7 to 6.12.11 as set out in the Draft MSA.
Questions
proposed in respect of the Digital Terrestrial Broadcasting Multiplexing Service? Why or
why not? If not, please specify and substantiate any proposed changes or amendments.
Question 77: Do operators consider the proposed service-specific obligations for the Digital
Terrestrial Broadcasting Multiplexing Service are sufficient? Please detail any proposed
addition, deletion or amendment to the terms currently proposed by the MCMC.
MVNO Access
Overview
44.1 MVNO Access was recently added to the Access List. In the Public Inquiry
Report on Access List Review, the MCMC noted that there are currently a
number of MVNOs already in the Malaysian mobile market, and the typical
approach was for an Access Provider and an Access Seeker to commercially

agree the terms of MVNO Access. However, ultimately the MCMC decided to
regulate access to MVNO Access, which was determined to be necessary to
address concerns raised by potential Access Seekers and to support the
development of a burgeoning “thick” MVNO market. 47
44.2 The MCMC notes that it has received further comments from operators on
the approach to regulating MVNO Access. At a high level, these comments
may be summarised as follows:
(a) due to the complexity and extent of MVNO business models (e.g.
MVNE model, thick MVNO, thin MVNO), one mobile operator identified
a series of specific MSA obligations that the operator believed should
not apply for MVNO Access and should instead be left to commercial
negotiation; and
(b) similarly, another prominent mobile operator noted that only a light
regulation of MVNO Access under the MSA should be required given
that the MVNO industry is now subject to relatively robust
competition in Malaysia; and
(c) an operator specifically requested that the terms and conditions of

MVNO Access be set out as service-specific obligations under the
MSA.
A more detailed discussion of operator feedback on the regulation of MVNO

Access under the MSA is set out below, along with the MCMC’s proposed
responses.
44.3 Following an initial review of industry feedback and in line with its position
in the Access List review, the MCMC initially proposed to adopt a light-
handed approach to the regulation of MVNO Access under the MSA. As such,
the MCMC proposed to apply some of the Content Obligations for MVNO
services, as indicated in the Service Specific Obligations for MVNO Access
under a new subsection 6.13 of the Draft MSA. Access Providers would also
still be bound by the Disclosure Obligations and Negotiation Obligations
under the MSA.
44.4 However, since the Access List has come into force, the MCMC has been
reviewing the terms and conditions of Facilities and Services, including for
MVNO Access, in the published ARDs. In addition, the MCMC has received
numerous complaints from operators regarding the terms and conditions of
MVNO Access. It has come to the attention of the MCMC that unreasonable
terms and conditions were imposed with regard to MVNO Access, such as
imposing a range of financial obligations on the Access Seeker, not allowing
resale, specifying that the MVNO must not have any pre-existing
arrangement with another mobile operator and that the MVNO must acquire
International Gateway or Internet Exchange services from the Access
Provider, regardless of the requirements of the MVNO. Whilst the review of
47
For a more detailed discussion on the MCMC’s reasons for regulating MVNO Access, see the ‘Public Inquiry
Report on Access List Review (August 2015) at paragraphs 18.12 – 18.18 (available online:
http://www.skmm.gov.my/skmmgovmy/media/General/pdf/Access-List-PI-Report-2015.pdf).

terms and conditions of the MSA (with the necessary enforcement action
under section 149 of the CMA) is an on-going operational process, the MCMC
is considering whether the Service Specific Obligations for MVNO Access
should be strengthened further. The MCMC has included a new subsection
6.13.10 which prohibits any bundling of unnecessary facilities or
components that is not necessary for the provision of MVNO Access. The
MCMC invites further feedback on this.
Application of the MSA to MVNO Access
44.5 The MCMC received a number of comments from operators in relation to

their preferred approach to the regulation of the MVNO Access under the
MSA. For the most part, the MCMC notes that these comments were broadly
consistent with the feedback that was received during the recent Access List
review.
44.6 As discussed throughout this PI Paper, a mobile operator submitted that

MVNO Access should be excluded from certain Content Obligations under
the MSA. The particular Content Obligations cited by the operator were as
follows:
(a) indicative delivery times (subsection 5.7.14);
(b) network conditioning obligations (subsections 5.8.3 to 5.8.6);
(c) point of interface procedures (subsection 5.9);
(d) billing disputes (subsection 5.14.12);
(e) target times (subsection 5.15.13);
(f) Quality of Service obligations (subsection 5.16.9); and
(g) terms of suspension and termination obligations (subsections 5.17.5

to 5.17.6).
44.7 Instead, the mobile operator proposed that these particular terms of access
to MVNO services should instead be subject to the commercial negotiation
between an Access Provider and Access Seeker. This was viewed as being
particularly necessary considering the complexity and extent of MVNO
business models (e.g. MVNE model, thick MVNO, thin MVNO).
44.8 Similarly, another prominent mobile operator also noted that only a light
regulation of MVNO Access under the MSA should be required given that the
MVNO industry is now subject to relatively robust competition in Malaysia.
44.9 One approach proposed by an operator was to regulate the terms and
conditions of MVNO Access as service-specific obligations under the MSA.
The operator submitted that the terms should cover details such as the type,
network topology, interconnection, billing arrangements, etc.
44.10 The MCMC has considered the initial feedback from operators concerning
the approach to regulating the terms of MVNO Access. The MCMC proposes

to take a relatively light-handed approach to the regulation of MVNO Access,
which would be applied as follows:
(a) the Content Obligations would not apply for MVNO services, except
to the extent that Service Specific Obligations apply for MVNO Access
under a new subsection 6.13 of the MSA; and
(b) the Disclosure Obligations and Negotiation Obligations under the MSA
would apply for MVNO Access.
44.11 In line with the approach taken for the other Service Specific Obligations,
the MCMC proposes to apply the following common terms of access for
MVNO Access:
(a) Forecasting;
(b) Ordering and Provisioning;
(c) Billing and Settlement;
(d) Term, Suspension and Termination; and
(e) Legal Boilerplate Obligations.
The details of these Service Specific Obligations are summarised below.
44.12 The MCMC considers that its proposed approach to regulating MVNO Access
strikes a balance between the need to regulate the key terms of access to
help facilitate the entry of new “thick” MVNOs, while still providing a higher
degree of flexibility for parties to commercially negotiate the substantive
content of an Access Agreement.
for MVNO Access:
6.13.2 Forecasts:
The forecast requirements will be determined by Timeframe to be determined by an
an Access Provider, subject to: Access Provider having regard to
(a) having regard to the factors under the factors set out under
subsection 6.13.2; and subsection 6.13.2 (e.g. resources
to be supplied as part of MVNO
(b) the equivalence obligations under
Access) and subsection 6.13.3.
subsection 6.13.3.

relation to MVNO Access.
Questions
proposed in respect of MVNO Access? Why or why not? If not, please specify and
Question 79: Are there any other Content Obligations that operators think should be
applied as Service Specific Obligations in relation to MVNO Access?
Question 80: Do you consider there are any particular kinds of information or details
relating to MVNO Access which ought to be reported to the Commission or is the general
reporting obligation under subsection 6.13.8 of the Draft MSA sufficient? If so, please
specify.

Part F Standard Administration, Compliance and
Dispute Resolution
Standard administration and compliance

45.1 The Standard Compliance and Administration provisions are currently set
out under section 6 of the MSA. The majority of the mark-up in relation to
the Standard Compliance and Administration provisions are flow-on or
coincidental changes to align with broader amendments to the rest of the
MSA (e.g. references to ‘Access Reference Document’ changed to ‘Reference
Access Offer’). However, the MCMC is considering a few key changes to the
substantive provisions as outlined below.
Timeline for implementation
45.2 Some Access Providers have asked that the MCMC consider implementing a
grace period or transition period to allow operators to comply with new MSA
requirements.
45.3 The MCMC is mindful of providing Access Providers with a reasonable period
to achieve compliance with the MSA while ensuring that Access Seekers
have fair and effective access to Facilities and Services on the Access List
without undue delay.
45.4 The MCMC therefore seeks submissions from operators on how long a grace
period they consider is reasonable for an Access Provider to implement the
terms of the MSA, either on a per service basis or for application of the MSA
as a whole, and to provide information to support their submission.
45.5 For context, the current MSA provided a timeline for implementation of 90
days for each Access Provider to prepare, maintain and/or modify an ARD
for each facility and service on the Access List.
45.6 The MCMC also proposes to impose reporting requirements during any such
grace period to allow the MCMC to track progress towards implementation.
Other changes
45.7 One of the other changes proposed to the Standard Administration and
Compliance provisions is to clarify that the MCMC may make a direction to
require an operator to incorporate particular content into their:
(a) Reference Access Offer (as opposed to the existing Access Reference
Document); or
(b) Access Agreement.48
48
Draft MSA, subsection 7.1.4.

This amendment is intended to ensure that any direction by the MCMC is
implemented by the relevant operator, either via inclusion in a Reference
Access Offer or in an existing Access Agreement.
45.8 The Commission also proposes to clarify that the Commission may also
check for compliance with the MSA at the time it is reviewing a RAO (see
paragraph 7.3.2(a) of the Draft MSA).
45.9 The MCMC does not propose to make any other substantive changes to the
current provisions in the Standard Administration and Compliance
provisions under section 7 of the Draft MSA. Presumably, this position is
supported by operators given that no comments were received in relation
to section 6 of the current MSA.
45.10 The MCMC welcomes feedback on its proposed amendments to the Standard
Administration and Compliance provisions.
Questions
Question 81: What grace period do operators consider is reasonable for an Access Provider
to implement the terms of the MSA, either on a per service basis or for application of the
MSA as a whole? Please provide information to support your submission.
Question 82: Do operators have any other feedback on the proposed amendments to the
Standard Administration and Compliance provisions?
Dispute resolution
46.1 The Dispute Resolution Procedures are set out in Annexure A of the MSA.
The MCMC proposes only minimal changes to clarify and update the existing
provisions as applicable.
46.2 In its informal questionnaire on the MSA, the MCMC sought operator
feedback on the Dispute Resolution Procedures. In particular, the MCMC
asked operators if they had used the Dispute Resolution provisions and
whether they had any suggestions for improving the current procedures.
46.3 The MCMC notes that none of the operators that responded had used the
Dispute Resolution Procedures to date. Further, most of the respondents
were broadly happy with the current Dispute Resolution Procedures in the
MSA and did not have any suggested improvements.
46.4 One suggested change to the Dispute Resolution annexure was to remove
the Interconnect Steering Group provisions, which an operator submitted
was an unnecessary level of detail. However, the MCMC does not propose
to make this change as most other operators generally thought the existing
dispute processes were still appropriate, including the requirement for
elevation of a dispute to an Interconnect Steering Group if necessary.
46.5 Another operator suggested that the MSA should provide greater flexibility
for operators to negotiate Billing Dispute resolution. The MCMC invites

operators to consider whether any particular changes to the Billing Dispute
Resolution process are required to provide greater flexibility.
46.6 One operator suggested paragraph 5.14.13(c) of the MSA should expressly
require the Access Seeker to provide other relevant information such as the
circuit number and site ID along with details identifying the relevant Invoice
and charges in dispute, and suggested expressly providing an example of
the type of evidence required under paragraph 5.14.13(d) to indicate the
relevant traffic data in dispute, such as the Call Data Record. The operator
also suggested making other clarifications to the Billing Dispute resolution
procedures in Annexure A including providing express examples of:
(a) types of errors in the recording of calls or calculation of Charges

referred to in paragraph 6.3(d), such as rental charges; and
(b) the type of evidence in the form of the Invoiced party’s outgoing
report referred to in paragraph 6.4(d), such as the Call Record Data.
Given that no other operators raised similar concerns, the MCMC considers
that the meaning of the above provisions is sufficiently well understood and
so does not propose to include clarifications of this nature in the Draft MSA.
46.7 Given that operators appear to be generally satisfied with the current
Dispute Resolution Procedures under Annexure A of the MSA, the MCMC
does not propose to make any substantive changes to the current processes.
However, the MCMC welcomes further feedback on the Dispute Resolution
Procedures, including whether operators believe more significant changes
are required.
Questions
Question 83: Do you agree with the MCMC’s preliminary view that no substantive change
is required to the Dispute Resolution Procedures? If not, please specify what change you
consider is required and explain why.

Annexure 1 Indicative timeframe for this Public Inquiry
Task Timeline
Commencement of PI 9 September 2016
Close of PI 2 November 2016
PI Report to be issued early December 2016
Commission Determination on Mandatory Standard mid December 2016

on Access

Annexure 2 Consolidated list of questions
Question 1 Do you consider any other terms ought to be defined in paragraph 4

of the Determination?
Question 2 Do you agree with the MCMC’s proposed changes to the Service
Qualification definition? Why or why not? If not, please specify what
change you consider is required and explain why
Question 3 Do you agree with the MCMC’s proposal to strengthen the non-
discrimination obligations in the current MSA with obligations of an
‘equivalence of inputs’ standard? Why or why not? If not, please
propose an alternative standard of non-discrimination, list any
jurisdictions which have adopted that standard, and explain why you
consider that standard (and not an ‘equivalence of inputs’ standard)
will best promote the national policy objectives for the
Question 4 Do you consider any other change is required to the General

Principles in section 4 of the MSA? If so, please specify what change
Question 5 Do you agree with the MCMC’s view that the ARD model is no longer
the appropriate access instrument model for the Malaysian context?
Why or why not? If not, please explain why you consider retaining
the ARD model will best promote the national policy objectives for
the communications and multimedia industry.
Question 6 Do you agree with the MCMC’s proposal to implement an RAO model?
Why or why not? If not, please propose an alternative access
instrument model, list any jurisdictions which have adopted that
model, and explain why you consider that model (and not an RAO
model) will best promote the national policy objectives for the
Question 7 Do you agree with the MCMC’s proposed RAO model as set out in
Annexure 3 (particularly subsections 5.3.3 to 5.3.6)? Why or why
not? If not, please specify what change you consider is required and
explain why.
Question 8 Do you agree with the MCMC’s proposal to introduce new reporting
obligations as set out at subsection 5.3.12 of the Draft MSA? Why or
why not? If not, please specify what change you consider is required
and explain why.
Question 9 Do you agree with the MCMC’s proposal to amend the information
disclosure obligations as set out at subsection 5.3.7 of the MSA? Why
or why not? If not, please specify what change you consider is
Question 10 Do you agree the MCMC’s proposed general notification obligations

at subsections 5.4.1, 5.4.19, 5.9.4 and 5.9.9 of the Draft MSA are
necessary and proportionate? Why or why not? If not, please explain
why and specify what change you consider is required.

Question 11 Do you agree with the proposed changes to the security and
creditworthiness provisions of the current MSA? Why or why not? If
not, please specify what change you consider is required and explain
why.
Question 12 Under paragraph 5.4.5(b)i. of the Draft MSA, is the 4-month period
to renegotiate a subsequent agreement still appropriate and what are
the typical commercial practices for renegotiating an access
agreement?
Question 13 Are there any particular problems with including the proposed RAO
negotiation process under subsection 5.4 of the Draft MSA?
Question 14 Are there any improvements that can be made to the proposed RAO
negotiation process under subsection 5.4 of the Draft MSA (e.g. to
make it faster, to account for practical difficulties that may arise in
the finalisation of an Access Agreement, etc.)?
Question 15 Should the parties be required to only negotiate the terms and
conditions under a RAO rather than having an option to request
negotiation on totally different terms? (If the answer is “yes”, please
explain your concerns with allowing operators to negotiate on
alternative terms.)
Question 16 Are there any other Facilities and/or Services that should be made
the subject of a fast-track application under paragraph 5.4.21(c) in
the Draft MSA?
Question 17 Do you agree with the MCMC’s proposed changes to the Negotiation
Obligations set out at subsection 5.4 of the Draft MSA? Why or why
not? If not, please specify what change you consider is required and
explain why.
Question 18 Have any Access Seekers been charged by an Access Provider for
over-forecasting in accordance with subsection 5.6.14 of the current
MSA? Do you agree with the MCMC’s proposed changes to subsection
5.6.16 of the Draft MSA? If not, please explain why and specify what
changes (if any) should be made to this subsection as part of the
present review of the MSA.
Question 19 Are there any other Facilities and/or Services that should be made
the subject of a fast-track application under paragraph 5.4.21(c) in
the Draft MSA?
Question 20 Under subsection 5.7.5 of the MSA, should exemptions be made for
shorter acknowledgement of receipt times for orders made in relation
to Facilities or Services (e.g. acknowledge receipt of an HSBB
Network Services and/or ANE order within 24 hours)?
Question 21 Question 21: Have Access Seekers experienced any issues with an
Access Provider rejecting an Order on the grounds that the Access
Seeker had not obtained the necessary related agreements from the
Access Provider (under paragraph 5.7.17(e) of the MSA)?

Question 22 Where an Access Provider notifies an Access Seeker that a delivery
date will be delayed, is the current 14-day period before an Order
can be cancelled without penalty under paragraph 5.7.24(a)ii.
acceptable or should it be made shorter/longer (generally or for
particular Facilities or Services)?
Question 23 Have Access Seekers experienced any issues with the resource
charges under subsection 5.7.28 (e.g. unverifiable or excessive
charges)?
Question 24 Do you agree with the MCMC’s proposed changes to the ordering and
provisioning obligations set out at subsection 5.7 of the Draft MSA?
Why or why not? If not, please specify what change you consider is
Question 25 Do you agree the parties should have the option to agree that Access
Seeker confirmation of Orders is not required? Do you consider the
Service Specific Obligations should prescribe whether or not Access
Seeker confirmation of Orders is required for each type of Facility or
Service? Why or why not?
Question 26 Do you agree with the network conditioning obligations under

subsection 5.8 of the MSA are of practical relevance to O&T Services
only? Do you agree these obligations should be relocated to
subsection 6.1 (O&T Services)?
Question 27 Do you agree with the MCMC’s preliminary view that the current
Network Conditioning obligations in the MSA continue to operate well
and do not require any substantive changes or updates, other than
their relocation to form a part of the Service Specific Obligations in
subsection 6.1 (O&T Services)? If not, please specify what change
Question 28 Do you agree with the proposed changes to the number range
activation provision? Why or why not?
Question 29 Have Access Seekers requested access to an alternative Point of

Interface under subsection 5.9.5? If so, what was the outcome of the
request (including any reasons given for rejection and whether the
Access Seeker was satisfied by those reasons)?
Question 30 The MCMC is seeking feedback on the use of the Third Party Point of
Interface provisions under subsection 5.9.7 of the Draft MSA –
specifically, is it common for an Access Seeker to nominate a third
party for the purposes of interconnection, in what circumstances
would such a nomination be made and are there any improvements
that can be made to the terms of subsection 5.9.7?
Question 31 Do you agree with the MCMC’s proposed changes to the point of
interface procedures set out at subsection 5.9 of the Draft MSA? Why
or why not? If not, please specify what change you consider is

Question 32 Do you agree with the MCMC’s preliminary view that the current
decommissioning obligations in the MSA continue to operate well and
do not require any substantive changes or updates? If not, please
Question 33 Do you agree with the proposed clarification? Why or why not?
Question 34 Have operators either experienced or imposed a relevant change to

which subsection 5.11 applies?
If so, please:
a) describe the network change and any Facilities or Services
that were affected;
b) discuss whether the network change processes were
followed;
c) discuss how successful network change process was; and
d) discuss any improvements that may be made to the network
change processes.
Question 35 Do Access Seekers find the physical access obligations under

subsection 6.9.8 (formerly subsection 5.13.3) helpful and do Access
Seekers regularly request access to an Access Provider’s network
facilities under this provision?
Question 36 Do Access Provider’s find it difficult to provide physical access to

network facilities 24 hours a day, 7 days a week under subsection
6.9.8 (formerly subsection 5.13.3)? Are Access Providers generally
able to make an escort available for such inspections when an escort
is determined to be necessary in accordance with subsections 6.8.7,
6.9.9, 6.10.10, 6.11.8 (formerly subsection 5.13.4)? Please respond
based on the respective Service Specific Obligations.
Question 37 How do Access Seekers feel about the reservation and allocation of
space provisions under subsections 6.9.12 and 6.9.13 (formerly
subsections 5.13.7 and 5.13.8), including the operation to date of the
requirements under subsections 6.9.12 – 6.9.15 (formerly
subsections 5.13.7 – 5.13.10)?
Question 38 How is “preparatory work” carried out in practice by Access Seekers

(under subsection 6.9.17 or the former subsection 5.13.12) and
Access Providers (under subsection 6.9.18 or the former subsection
5.13.13)?
Question 39 Are operators getting sufficient access to power, back-up power, etc.
under the existing utilities and ancillary services provisions in
subsection 6.9.20 (formerly subsection 5.13.15)?
Question 40 Have Access Seekers had any issues with maintenance and extending
their network facilities under subsection 6.9.25 (formerly subsection
5.13.19)?
Question 41 Have operators experienced any issues with the set-off practices as
set out under subsection 5.14.10?

Question 42 Do you agree with the MCMC’s proposed changes to the billing and
settlement obligations set out at subsection 5.14 of the Draft MSA?
Why or why not? If not, please specify what change you consider is
Question 43 In relation to the target times under subsection 5.15.12 of the Draft
MSA (formerly subsection 5.15.13), should the MCMC include any
Service Specific Obligations with additional examples or different
fault response and restoration times? Do you agree with the proposed
progress update frequency times, as set out under subsection
5.15.12 of the Draft MSA? Why or why not? If not, please specify
what change you consider is required and explain why.
Question 44 Would operators support making all response times under subsection
5.15.12 (formerly subsection 5.15.13) within 1 hour?
Question 45 Do you agree with the proposed amendments to subsection 5.16.2 of

the Draft MSA? Why or why not?
Question 46 Would operators like to see new services added to the Quality of
Service table and, if so, which Access List services should be added?
Question 47 Are the terms of supply obligations under subsection 5.17.2 still
appropriate (e.g. are the categorisations in the list of
Facilities/Services clear, is each minimum term of supply still
appropriate, etc.)?
Question 48 Do you agree with the MCMC’s proposed changes to the term,
suspension and termination obligations set out at subsection 5.15 of
the Draft MSA? Why or why not? If not, please specify what change
Question 49 Are the timelines under subsection 5.18 still appropriate or are the
current requirements to notify an invalid churn and/or implement a
churn within 2 Business Days too short or long?
Question 50 Do operators support the proposal to permit an operator to review

and request additional security if the volume of Facilities and/or
Services ordered by an Access Seeker increases? Why or why not?
Question 51 Do operators agree with the service-specific timeframes that the

MCMC has proposed in respect of the O&T Services? Why or why not?
If not, please specify and substantiate any proposed changes.
Question 52 Have Access Seekers experienced any issues with near and far-end
handover? If so, please provide examples and possible suggestions
for amending the current ‘handover principles’ in the MSA.
Question 53 Do operators consider the proposed service-specific obligations for

O&T Services are sufficient? Please detail any proposed addition,
deletion or amendment to the terms currently proposed by the
MCMC.

MCMC has proposed in respect of the Wholesale Line Rental Service?

Why or why not? If not, please specify and substantiate any proposed
changes.

Wholesale Line Rental Service are sufficient? Please detail any
proposed addition, deletion or amendment to the terms currently
proposed by the MCMC.

MCMC has proposed in respect of the Interconnect Link Service? Why
or why not? If not, please specify and substantiate any proposed
changes.

Interconnect Link Service are sufficient? Please detail any proposed
addition, deletion or amendment to the terms currently proposed by
the MCMC.

MCMC has proposed in respect of the Access Network Elements? Why
changes.

Access to Network Elements are sufficient? Please detail any

MCMC has proposed in respect of the Digital Subscriber Line Resale
Service? Why or why not? If not, please specify and substantiate any
proposed changes.
Question 61 Is the indicative activation timeframe of 10 Business Days

appropriate? Would it be more appropriate to include a shorter
activation timeframe instead?

Digital Subscriber Line Resale Service are sufficient? Please detail any

MCMC has proposed in respect of the HSBB Network Services? Why
changes or amendments.
Question 64 Question 64: Do operators think that the MCMC’s proposed changes
to the Service Specific Obligations for access to HSBB Network
Services are sufficient to address the current issues prohibiting
competitive negotiation and supply of HSBB services? If not, please
provide reasons to support your position and any proposed
improvements.

Question 65 Do operators agree with the inclusion of more detailed Service
Specific Obligations in relation to service fulfilment and service
assurance of the HSBB Network Service? If so, please provide
feedback on the proposed timelines under subsections 6.6.12 to
6.6.14 of the Draft MSA.
Question 66 Do operators consider that an Access Provider that fails to comply

with the accuracy obligation under subsection 6.6.8 should be
required to provide the Access Seeker with a rebate? Why or why
not?

MCMC has proposed in respect of the Transmission Services? Why or
why not? If not, please specify and substantiate any proposed

MCMC has proposed in respect of Infrastructure Sharing? Why or why
not? If not, please specify and substantiate any proposed changes or
amendments.

Infrastructure Sharing are sufficient? Please detail any proposed
addition, deletion or amendment to the terms currently proposed by
the MCMC.

MCMC has proposed in respect of the Network Co-Location Service?
Why or why not? If not, please specify and substantiate any proposed

Network Co-Location Service are sufficient? Please detail any

MCMC has proposed in respect of the Domestic Connectivity to
International Service? Why or why not? If not, please specify and

the Domestic Connectivity to International Service are sufficient?
Please detail any proposed addition, deletion or amendment to the

MCMC has proposed in respect of Duct and Manhole Access? Why or
why not? Please specify and substantiate any proposed changes or
amendments.

Duct and Manhole Access are sufficient? For example, do Access
Seekers require the ability to require Access Providers to undertake

detailed field studies or the ability for an Access Seeker to undertake
its own ‘Make Ready Work’ (e.g. conduct structural analysis,
strengthening or augmenting existing infrastructure, etc.) prior to
access being granted by an Access Provider? Please detail any

MCMC has proposed in respect of the Digital Terrestrial Broadcasting
Multiplexing Service? Why or why not? If not, please specify and

the Digital Terrestrial Broadcasting Multiplexing Service are
sufficient? Please detail any proposed addition, deletion or

MCMC has proposed in respect of MVNO Access? Why or why not? If
not, please specify and substantiate any proposed changes or
amendments.
Question 79 Are there any other Content Obligations that operators think should
be applied as Service Specific Obligations in relation to MVNO Access?
Question 80 Do you consider there are any particular kinds of information or

details relating to MVNO Access which ought to be reported to the
Commission or is the general reporting obligation under subsection
6.13.8 of the Draft MSA sufficient? If so, please specify.
Question 81 What grace period do operators consider is reasonable for an Access

Provider to implement the terms of the MSA, either on a per service
basis or for application of the MSA as a whole? Please provide
information to support your submission.
Question 82 Do operators have any other feedback on the proposed amendments

to the Standard Administration and Compliance provisions?
Question 83 Do you agree with the MCMC’s preliminary view that no substantive
change is required to the Dispute Resolution Procedures? If not,
please specify what change you consider is required and explain why.

Annexure 3 Draft MSA
The Draft MSA is attached as Annexure 3 to this PI Paper.

Pi-Paper-Msa - 9 Sep 2016

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Pi-Paper-Msa - 9 Sep 2016

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission

Review of Mandatory Standard

Public Inquiry Paper

Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission

Submissions should be addressed to:

Attention : Ms Janakky Raju

Telephone : +603 8688 8000

ACCC Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

1.3 The MCMC acknowledges that regulating terms of access, or forbearance

1.4 Prior to this PI Paper, the MCMC undertook an information gathering

1.6 At the end of the Public Inquiry, the MCMC will:

Review of Mandatory Standard on Access 1

(a) applying a robust and transparent methodology for determining

(b) considering the state of competition in the Malaysian communications

(d) making amendments to the MSA to accommodate any changes (i.e.

(a) feedback from industry during the information gathering phase

(b) the work it recently carried out in its Assessment of Dominance in

Matters outside scope

(a) making determinations on Facilities and Services in the Access List;

(b) making determinations on pricing; and

(c) consideration of exemptions from the Standard Access Obligations

2.2 Chapter 10 of Part V of the CMA is concerned with the determination of

Review of Mandatory Standard on Access 2

(b) section 56 – the general processes for the MCMC to follow in

(c) section 58 – the discretion of the MCMC to hold a public inquiry on

(f) sections 62 and 64 – the discretion of the MCMC to conduct an inquiry

(g) section 65 – the requirement to publish a report into any inquiry

(h) section 104(2) – the MCMC must determine a mandatory standard if

(i) section 105 – a mandatory standard determined by the MCMC must

Review of Mandatory Standard on Access 3

Objects and national policy objectives

(a) to promote national policy objectives for the communications and

(b) to establish a licensing and regulatory framework in support of

(c) to establish the powers and functions for the Malaysian

(d) to establish powers and procedures for the administration of [the

(a) to establish Malaysia as a major global centre and hub for

(b) to promote a civil society where information-based services will

(c) to grow and nurture local information resources and cultural

(d) to regulate for the long-term benefit of the end user;

(e) to promote a high level of consumer confidence in service delivery

(f) to ensure an equitable provision of affordable services over

(g) to create a robust applications environment for end users;

(h) to facilitate the efficient allocation of resources such as skilled labour,

Review of Mandatory Standard on Access 4

(j) to ensure information security and network reliability and integrity.

Overview of the current MSA

3.3 An Access Provider must prepare an Access Reference Document (ARD),

Overview of obligations under the current MSA

3.4 The current MSA contains 3 substantive sections imposing obligations on

(a) Disclosure Obligations – Under the Disclosure Obligations in the

(b) Negotiation Obligations – Under the Negotiation Obligations in the

(c) Content Obligations – Under the Content Obligations in the MSA,

Review of Mandatory Standard on Access 5

Historical development of the current MSA

3.5 The first Commission Determination on the Mandatory Standard on Access,

3.7 In summary, the changes to the MSA in 2005 resulted in:

(a) a “fast track” process for applications and agreements, specifically

(b) a streamlining of the application and negotiation process for

(c) clarification regarding the binding nature of forecasts, confirmed by

(d) clarification regarding the provision of co-location by deemed Access

(e) obligations concerning inter-operator Mobile Number Portability

(f) obligations concerning Domestic Connectivity to International

(g) obligations concerning Internet Interconnection Service;