6054

GOVERNMENT GAZETTE

OF THE

REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA

N$16.80

WINDHOEK - 28 June 2016

No. 6054

CONTENTS

		Page
GENERALNOTICES	GENERALNOTICES
No. 209	Communications Regulatory Authority of Namibia: Notice of Withdrawal of Application for Com- mercial Broadcasting Service Licence and Spectrum Use Licence: Deukom (Pty) Ltd .......................	2
No. 210	Communications Regulatory Authority of Namibia: Notice to Withdraw Spectrum Use Licence in terms of the Regulations Regarding Licensing Procedures for Telecommunications and Broadcasting Service Licences and Spectrum Use Licences: Namibian Broadcasting Corporation ..........................	2
No. 211	Communications Regulatory Authority of Namibia: Notice in terms of the Regulations Regarding Licensing Procedures for Telecommunications and Broadcasting Service Licences and Spectrum Use Licences: Namibian Broadcasting Corporation .....................................................................................	4
No. 212	Communications Regulatory Authority of Namibia: Notice to Withdraw Spectrum Use Licence in terms of the Regulations Regarding Licensing Procedures for Telecommunications and Broadcasting Service Licences and Spectrum Use Licences: One Africa Television (Pty) Ltd ..................................	6
No. 213	Communications Regulatory Authority of Namibia: Notice of Intention to Make Regulations Setting Out the Frequency Channeling Plan for the Spectrum Bands 694-790 Mhz and 790-862 Mhz ...........	8
No. 214	Communications Regulatory Authority of Namibia: Determination of Licensees Holding ADominant Position in the Telecommuncations Market in terms of Section 78(1) of the Communications Act, 2008 .......................................................................................................................................................	12
No. 215	Communications Regulatory Authority of Namibia: Notice in terms of the Regulations Regarding Licensing Procedures for Telecommunications and Broadcasting Service Licences and Spectrum Use Licences: Coastal Network Solutions CC ..............................................................................................	24
No. 216	Communications Regulatory Authority of Namibia: Notice in terms of the Regulations Regarding the Submissions of Interconnection Agreements and Tariffs: Paratus Telecommunications Limited .........	26

________________

No. 209

2016

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL BROADCASTING SERVICE LICENCE AND SPECTRUM USE LICENCE

The Communications Regulatory Authority of Namibia, herewith gives notice that the Applicant referred to in the table has withdrawn its application for the provision of commercial broadcasting services within the Republic of Namibia as published in Government Gazette No. 5867, General Notice No. 526 dated 2 November 2015, effective from 1 July 2016:

Applicant ;	Applicants' Citi- zenship or place of in- corporation;	Percentage of Stock owned by Namibian Citi- zens or Namib- ian Companies controlled by Namibian Citi- zens;	Existing Type of Broadcasting Service Licence(s) / Providing a Service Without a License Existing License(s);	Proposed New Type of Broad- casting Service License(s);	Identify the legal basis on which the service is provided;
Deukom (Pty) Ltd	Austrian/South African	0% 1	Providing a Service Lawfully Without a Licence in terms of section 135 of the Communications Act No 8 of 2009.	Commercial Broadcasting	The Namibian Com- munications Com- mission Act, 2009 (Act No. 4 of 1992), did not require a license for the provi- sion of broadcasting services that was provided by Deu- kom (Pty) Ltd.

F. KISHI CHAIRPERSON OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS COMMUNICATIONS REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF NAMIBIA

________________

COMMUNICATIONS REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF NAMIBIA

No. 210

2016

NOTICE TO WITHDRAW SPECTRUM USE LICENCE IN TERMS OF THE REGULATIONS REGARDING LICENSING PROCEDURES FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND BROADCASTING SERVICE LICENCES AND SPECTRUM USE LICENCES

The Communications Regulatory Authority of Namibia, in terms of regulations 11(1) of the 'Regulations Regarding Licensing Procedures for Telecommunications and Broadcasting Service Licences and Spectrum Use Licences', published in Government Gazette No. 4785, General Notice No. 272 dated 29 August 2011 (as amended), herewith gives notice that the applicant referred to in the table herein below, intends to permanently discontinue the utilisation of the spectrum and has submitted applications for withdrawal of the licences as indicated in the column herein below to the Authority:

1 Subject to Section 85(2) and (3) of the Communications Act, No 8 of 2009.

General Notices

COMMUNICATIONS REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF NAMIBIA

Date on which licensee intends to permanently discontinue providing service;	26 November 2015, being 60 days from 27 September 2015(Date on which the applications was submitted as contemplated in regulation 10(3)(e)	26 November 2015, being 60 days from 27 September 2015(Date on which the applications was submitted as contemplated in regulation 10(3)(e)
Proof of Licence Application Fees Paid Up to Date Sub- mit- ted;	Yes	Yes
Concise State- ment of the reasons for proposed with- drawal;	The frequencies were utilised for the provision of analogue televi- sion services. Due to the mi-	gration to digital terrestrial televi- sion the NBC no longer requires the use of these frequencies
Radio Frequencies or group of frequencies withdrawn;	234 MHz	210 MHz
City/ Town	Epukiro NBC Tower	Aminus NBC Tower
District	Otjinene	Gobabis
Description of geographic cov- erage area(s);	Omaheke	Omaheke
Type of ser- vice licence;	Spectrum Use Licence as issued on 13 Septem- ber 2012, published	in Govern- ment Gazette 5037, Notice 306.
Percentage of Stock owned by Namibian Citizens Namib- ian Companies controlled by Namibian Citi- zens;	State Owned Enterprise
Licensee's Citizenship or place of incor- poration;	Established in terms of section 2 of the Namibian Broadcasting	Act (Act No. 9 of 1991)
Licensee	Namibian Broadcasting Corporation

Please note that the rest of the frequencies published on Government Gazette 5037, General Notice No. 306, dated 13 September 2012, remain valid, except if specifically withdrawn in terms of the Communications Act, 2009 (Act No. 8 of 2009).

The public may submit comments in writing to the Authority within a period of fourteen (14) days from the date of publication of this notice in the Gazette. The applicant may submit written reply comments within fourteen (14) days from date of notification of the written public comments.

All written submissions must contain the name and contact details of the person making the written submissions and the name and contact details of the person for whom the written submission is made, if different, and be clear and concise.

All written submissions must be made either physically or electronically -

• (1) By hand to the head offices of the Authority, namely Communication House, 56 Robert Mugabe Avenue, Windhoek;
• (2) By post to the head offices of the Authority, namely Private Bag 13309, Windhoek 9000;
• (3) By electronic mail to the following address: legal@cran.na;
• (4) By facsimile to the following facsimile number: +264 61 222790; or
• (5) By fax to e-mail to: 0886550852.

F. KISHI CHAIRPERSON OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS COMMUNICATIONS REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF NAMIBIA

________________

COMMUNICATIONS REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF NAMIBIA

No. 211

2016

NOTICE IN TERMS OF THE REGULATIONS REGARDING LICENSING PROCEDURES FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND BROADCASTING SERVICE LICENCES AND SPECTRUM USE LICENCES

The Communications Regulatory Authority of Namibia, in terms of regulation 11 of the 'Regulations Regarding Licensing Procedures for Telecommunications and Broadcasting Service Licences and Spectrum Use Licences', as published in Government Gazette No. 4785, General Notice No. 272 dated 29 August 2011, herewith gives notice that the persons referred to in the table below have submitted the following application to the Authority:

Spectrum Use Licence

	Region	Omusati	Omusati	Hardap	Karas Kavango	Omusati
An- tenna Height (m)	70.0	23.5	31.1	81.1	122.25	23.5
Polariza- tion	Vertical	Horizontal	Horizontal	Horizontal	Horizontal	Vertical
An- tenna Peak Gain (dBd)	10	7.5	7.5	7.5	12.5	10.1
frequencies dBW	20.0	20.0	20	20	30	20
of TX Power (W)	100	100	100	100	1000	100
or group Radio Freq- uencies or group of fre- quen- cies to be award- ed	506 MHz	554 MHz	474 MHz	482 MHz	610 MHz	474 MHz
Frequencies Radio Frequ- encies or group of fre- quen- cies applied for	506 MHz	1 522 MHz	470-694 MHz	470-694 MHz	610 MHz	1 470-694 MHz
Radio Mult- tiplex Number	1	E	1	1	1	E
Longitude;	15 04 07.3 E	14 53 10.0	17 07 35.2 E	20 50 12.5 E	21 25 11.6 E	14 59 07.0
Lati- tude;	17 53 38.8 S	17 44 09.0 S	24 02 32.5 S	20 36 06.6 S	18 04 30.9 S	17 30 37.7 S
Site Name;	Eholongo (Okahao tower)	Onesi (Tsandi Tower)	Kalkrand (Schlip Tower)	Eiseb-10	Andara	Onesi (Outapi Tower)
Descrip- tion of Geographic coverage area(s);	Republic of Namibia	Republic of Namibia	Republic of Namibia	Republic of Namibia	Republic of Namibia	Republic of Namibia
Appli- cation Fees Paid Up to Date? Yes/ No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Services intended to be provided using the spectrum being ap- plied for of (type of Service licence);	Broadcasting Services	Broadcasting Services	Broadcasting Services	Broadcasting Services	Broadcasting Services	Broadcasting Services
Percent- age of Stock owned by Namibian Citizens or Namibian citizens or Namibian Compa- nies con- trolled by Namibian Citizens;	State Owned Enterprise	State Owned Enterprise	State Owned Enterprise	State Owned Enterprise	State Owned Enterprise	State Owned Enterprise
Applicants Citizen- ship or place of incorpora- ion;	Established in terms of section 2 of the Namibian Broadcast- ing Act (Act No. 9 of 1991)	Established in terms of section 2 of the Namibian Broadcast- ing Act (Act No. 9 of 1991)	Established in terms of section 2 of the Namibian Broadcast- ing Act (Act No. 9 of 1991)	Established in terms of section 2 of the Namibian Broadcast- ing Act (Act No. 9 of 1991)	Established in terms of section 2 of the Namibian Broadcast- ing Act (Act No. 9 of 1991)	Established in terms of section 2 of the Namibian Broadcast- ing Act (Act No. 9 of 1991)
Applicant;	Namibian Broadcasting Corporation	Namibian Broadcasting Corporation	Namibian Broadcasting Corporation	Namibian Broadcasting Corporation	Namibian Broadcasting Corporation	Namibian Broadcasting Corporation

The public may submit comments in writing to the Authority within a period of fourteen (14) days from the date of publication of this notice in the Gazette. The applicant may submit written reply comments within fourteen (14) days from date of notification of the written public comments.

All written submissions must contain the name and contact details of the person making the written submissions and the name and contact details of the person for whom the written submission is made, if different, and be clear and concise.

All written submissions must be made either physically or electronically -

• (1) By hand to the head offices of the Authority, namely Communication House, 56 Robert Mugabe Avenue, Windhoek;
• (2) By post to the head offices of the Authority, namely Private Bag 13309, Windhoek 9000;
• (3) By electronic mail to the following address: legal@cran.na;
• (4) By facsimile to the following facsimile number: +264 61 222790; or
• (5) By fax to e-mail to: 0886550852.

F. KISHI CHAIRPERSON OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS COMMUNICATIONS REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF NAMIBIA

________________

COMMUNICATIONS REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF NAMIBIA

No. 212

2016

NOTICE TO WITHDRAW SPECTRUM USE LICENCE IN TERMS OF THE REGULATIONS REGARDING LICENSING PROCEDURES FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND BROADCASTING SERVICE LICENCES AND SPECTRUM USE LICENCES

The Communications Regulatory Authority of Namibia, in terms of regulations 11(1) of the 'Regulations Regarding Licensing Procedures for Telecommunications and Broadcasting Service Licences and Spectrum Use Licences', published in Government Gazette No. 4785, General Notice No. 272 dated 29 August 2011 (as amended), herewith gives notice that the applicant referred to in the table herein below, intends to permanently discontinue the utilisation of the spectrum and has submitted applications for withdrawal of the licences as indicated in the column herein below to the Authority:

Date on which licensee intends to permanently discontinue provid- ing service;	02 nd May 2016, been 60 days from 28 th February 2016 (date on which the application was submitted) as contemplated in regulation 10(3)(e) 02 nd May2016, been 60 days from	28 th February 2016 (date on which the application was submitted) as contemplated in regulation 10(3)(e)	02 nd May 2016, been 60 days from 28 th February 2016 (date on which the application was submitted) as contemplated in regulation 10(3)(e)	02 nd May 2016, been 60 days from 28 th February 2016 (date on which the application was submitted) as contemplated in regulation 10(3)(e)
Proof of Licence Application Fees Paid Up to Date Submit- ted;	No	No	No	No
Concise State- ment of the reasons for proposed with- drawal;	The frequencies were utilized for the provi- sion of analogue broadcast- ing television services. Due to the migration to digital terrestrial television, One Africa Televi- sion (Pty) Ltd no			longer requires the use of these frequencies.
Radio Frequencies or group of frequencies withdrawn;	207.25 MHz	583.25 MHz	583.25 MHz	623.25 MHz
City/Town	Ondangwa	Otjiwaongo	Outjo	Rundu
District	Ondangwa	Otjiwarongo	Outjo	Rundu
Description of geograph- ic coverage area(s);	Oshana	Otjozondjupa	Kunene	Kavango
Type of ser- vice licence;	Spectrum Use Licence as issued on 13 Septem- ber 2012, published in Government Gazette 5037, Notice 306.	Spectrum Use Licence as issued on 13 Septem- ber 2012, published in Government Gazette 5037, Notice 306.	Spectrum Use Licence as issued on 13 Septem- ber 2012, published in Government Gazette 5037, Notice 306.	Spectrum Use Licence as issued on 13 Septem- ber 2012, published in Government Gazette 5037, Notice 306.
Percentage of Stock owned by Namibian Citizens or Namibian citizens or Namibian Companies controlled by Namibian Citizens;	51%	51%	51%	51%
Licensee's Citizenship or place of incorpora- tion;	Namibia	Namibia	Namibia	Namibia
Licensee	One Africa Television (Pty) Ltd	One Africa Television (Pty) Ltd	One Africa Television (Pty) Ltd	One Africa Television (Pty) Ltd

Please note that the rest of the frequencies published on Government Gazette No. 5037, General Notice No. 306 dated 13 September 2012, remain valid.

The public may submit comments in writing to the Authority within a period of fourteen (14) days from the date of publication of this notice in the Gazette. The applicant may submit written reply comments within fourteen (14) days from date of notification of the written public comments.

All written submissions must contain the name and contact details of the person making the written submissions and the name and contact details of the person for whom the written submission is made, if different, and be clear and concise.

All written submissions must be made either physically or electronically -

• (1) By hand to the head offices of the Authority, namely Communication House, 56 Robert Mugabe Avenue, Windhoek;
• (2) By post to the head offices of the Authority, namely Private Bag 13309, Windhoek 9000;
• (3) By electronic mail to the following address: legal@cran.na;
• (4) By facsimile to the following facsimile number: +264 61 222790; or
• (5) By fax to e-mail to: 0886550852.

F. KISHI CHAIRPERSON OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS COMMUNICATIONS REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF NAMIBIA

________________

COMMUNICATIONS REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF NAMIBIA

No. 213

2016

NOTICE OF INTENTION TO MAKE REGULATIONS SETTING OUT THE FREQUENCY CHANNELING PLAN FOR THE SPECTRUM BANDS 694-790 MHz AND 790-862 MHz

The Communications Regulatory Authority of Namibia in terms of section 100 of the Communications Act, 2009 (Act No. 8 of 2009) and the Regulations regarding Rule-Making Procedures published in Government Gazette No. 4630, General Notice No. 334 dated 17 December 2010 -

• a) publishes this notice of intention to make the Regulations regarding the Frequency Channeling Plan for the Spectrum Band 694-790 MHz and 790-862 MHz as set out in Schedule 1; and
• b) sets outs the concise statement of the reasons and purpose for the proposed amendment of the regulations in Schedule 2.

The public may make oral submissions on the proposed regulations to the Authority, at a time, date and place notified by the Authority.

The public may also make written submission to the Authority within thirty (30) days from the date of publication of this notice in the Gazette, in the manner set out below for making of written submissions.

All written submission must -

• a) contain the name and contact details of the person making the written submissions and the name and contact details of the person for whom the written submission is made if different; and
• b) be clear and concise.

All written submissions must be send or submitted in any of the following manners-

• a) by hand to the head office of the Authority, namely Communications House, 56 Robert Mugabe Avenue, Windhoek;
• b) by post to the head office of the Authority, namely Private Bag 13309, Windhoek, 9000;
• c) by electronic mail to the following address: legal@cran.na;
• d) by facsimile to the following facsimile number: +264 61 222790; and
• e) by fax-to-email to: 0886550852.

F. KISHI CHAIRPERSON OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS COMMUNICATIONS REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF NAMIBIA

SCHEDULE 1

REGULATIONS SETTING OUT THE FREQUENCY CHANNELING PLAN FOR THE SPECTRUM BANDS 694-790 MHz AND 790-862 MHz

Background

1. The following principles have been considered to define the IMT frequency arrangement:
2. (a) Spectrum efficiency and high level of flexibility in order to adapt to national circumstances as well as to meet the changing need and demand for capacity in time and geography;
3. (b) Protection to broadcasting services below 694 MHz;
4. (c) Use of a 5 MHz block approach which is in line with the foreseen mobile systems to be used in the 700 MHz spectrum band;
5. (d) Facilitation of roaming and border coordination; and
6. (e) No Digital Terrestrial Television (DTT) services are to be offered in the 694-790 MHz spectrum band.
7. Recommendation ITU-R M.1036-5 as approved by the ITU Radio Assembly provides as follows-

'International Mobile Telecommunications (IMT) encompasses both IMT-2000 and IMTAdvanced collectively.

Key features of IMT-2000 and IMT-Advanced are contained in Recommendation ITU-R M.1645 and ITU-R M-1822. Frequency aspects and unwanted emission parameters are contained in Recommendations ITU-R M.1580, IT-R M.1581, ITU-R M.2070 and ITU-R M.2071.'

Definitions

1. In these regulations, a word or expression to which a meaning is assigned in the Act or the Regulations has the same meaning, and unless the context otherwise indicates

'Act' means the Communications Act, 2009 (Act No. 8 of 2009)

'IMT' means International Mobile Telecommunications

'ITU' means International Telecommunications Union

Purpose

2. These regulations set out the Frequency Channeling plan for the provision of IMT services in the spectrum bands 694-790 MHz and 790-890 MHz.

Frequency channeling arrangement for the 694-790 MHz spectrum band

3. The maximum inter-regional harmonisation is achieved by basing the frequency channeling arrangement on the lower duplexer of the APT 700 MHz band plan, as developed in the Asia Pacific Telecommunity and adopted in many parts of the world. This frequency arrangement was approved by the ITU Radio Assembly as contained in ITU-R M.1036-5 and is shown in Figure 1.
4. As graphically depicted above, the 2x 45 MHz FFD frequency channeling arrangement is implemented by using sub-blocks with a dual duplexer solution and conventional duplex arranged. Guard bands of 5MHz and 3MHz are provided at the lower and upper edge of the band to facilitated better co-existence with adjacent radio communications services.

Figure 1

Proposed frequency arrangement for the 790-862 MHz spectrum band

5. The frequency channeling arrangements for the spectrum band 790-862 MHz as approved by the ITU Radio Assembly and contained in ITU-R M.1036-5 is depicted below in figure 2 and figure 3.

Figure 2

Figure 3

6. IMT systems are operating in FDD mode and use a reversed duplex direction. Mobile terminal transmit is used within the upper band whilst base station transmit is used in the lower band.
7. The frequency channeling plan as depicted in figure 3 for the spectrum band 790-862 MHz will be applicable to Namibia.

Summary of the paired frequency arrangements in the band 694-862 MHz

8. The paired frequency channelling arrangements for IMT in the band 694-862 MHz is indicated in the table below.

	Paired Arrangements	Paired Arrangements	Paired Arrangements	Paired Arrangements
Frequency arrange- ments	Mobile Sta- tion Trans- mitter (MHz)	Centre gap (MHz)	Base Station Transmitter (MHz)	Duplex Sepa- ration (MHz)	Un-paired arrangements (MHz)
A1	824-849	20	869-894	45	None
A2	880-915	10	925-960	45	None
A3	832-862	11	791-821	41	None
A5	703-748	10	758-803	55	None

SCHEDULE 2

CONCISE STATEMENT AND PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS SETTING OUT THE FREQUENCY CHANNELING PLAN FOR THE SPECTRUM BANDS 694-790 MHz AND 790-862 MHz

Section 99 of the Communications Act, 2009 provides that the Authority is vested with the control, planning, administration, management and licensing of radio spectrum. Section 99 also requires the Authority to comply with the applicable standards and requirements of the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) and its Radio Regulations.

Section 100 of the Communications Act, 2009 deals specifically with the prescription of a frequency band plan setting out how radio spectrum may be used to ensure utilisation in an orderly, efficient and effective manner, to reduce congestion and interference, to allow for the introduction of new services and to permit as many licensees providing services as possible. A frequency channeling plan is complementary to the spectrum band plan.

In preparing a frequency channeling plan, the Authority must follow the procedures set out in section 100 of the Communications Act, 2009.

At international level, the planning of spectrum is the responsibility of the ITU, in particular the ITU's Radiocommunications Bureau (ITU-R). The mission of the ITU-R is to ensure rational, equitable, efficient and economical use of the radio frequency spectrum and to adopt recommendations for member states.

________________

No. 214

2016

DETERMINNATION OF LICENSEES HOLDING A DOMINANT POSITION IN THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS MARKET IN TERMS OF SECTION 78(1) OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT, 2009 (ACT NO. 8 OF 2009)

The Communications Regulatory Authority of Namibia, in terms of section 78(1) of the Communications Act, 2009 (Act No.8 of 2009) publishes this determination of licensees holding a dominant position in the telecommunications market in Namibia, which contains the following-

1. Determination of licensees holding a dominant position in the telecommunications market as set out in Schedule 1; and
2. A study document on the determination of licensees holding a dominant position in the market as set out in Schedule 2.

F. KISHI CHAIRPERSON OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS COMMUNICATIONS REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF NAMIBIA

SCHEDULE 1

DETERMINATION OF LICENSEES HOLDING A DOMINANT POSITION IN THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS MARKET IN TERMS OF SECTION 78(1)

The table below shows the determination as follows:

Table 1: Assessment of Dominance for Wireless End User Access market	Table 1: Assessment of Dominance for Wireless End User Access market	Telecom Namibia Limited	Mobile Telecom- munica- tions Limited	Paratus Telecom- munica- tions (Pty) Ltd
1	It has at least 35% of market share based on revenues?	No	Yes	No
2	It has less than 35% market share but controls some infra- structure that is necessary for the provision of the services in question?	Yes		No
3	It has less than 35% market share but has dominance in a related market and therefore is able to exercise power in the market for the telecommunications services in question			No
4	It has less than 35% market share but has a position in a market in another country or a relationship with provid- ers in another country that can be used to exercise market power in respect of the relevant class of telecommunica- tions services in Namibia?			No
	Dominant based on section 78 (4)?	Yes	Yes	No
	Do the 4 criteria give the licensee the ability to exercise market power (Section 78(5))?	No	Yes	No

All operators providing call termination are dominant, i.e. Mobile Telecommunications Limited, Telecom Namibia and Paratus Telecom. Telecom Namibia Limited is dominant for the Wired End User Access and the National Data Transmission markets. Mobile Telecommunications Limited is dominant for the wireless End User Access market. This is summarised in the table below:

COMMUNICATIONS REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF NAMIBIA

Table 2: Dominance findings	Table 2: Dominance findings	Table 2: Dominance findings
Markets	Markets	Dominant operators
1	Wired End User Access	Telecom Namibia Limited
2	National Data Transmission	Telecom Namibia Limited
3	Wireless End User Access	Mobile Telecommunications Limited

SCHEDULE 2

STUDY DOCUMENT ON THE DETERMINATION OF LICENSEES HOLDING A DOMINANT POSITION IN THE MARKET AS CONTEMPLATED IN SECTION 78 OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT, NO 8 OF 2009

Table of Contents

Introduction

Background

Intra vs inter platform competition Fixed-Mobile - Fixed-Wireless Broadband Substitution Focus on Wholesale markets Market concentration in Namibia

Conclusion

Market Definition and Dominance

Market 1- Fixed and Mobile Call Termination

Market 2 - Wired End User Access

Market 3 - National Data Transmission

Market 4 Wireless End User Access

Conclusions & Recommendations

References

INTRODUCTION

The Communications Act, 2009 (Act No. 8 of 2009) (Act) makes provision for heightened regulation on telecommunications licensees that hold a dominant position in the market. In order to determine dominance in the market, it is necessary to define relevant markets. The Authority needs to define markets and determine dominance based on the objectives of the Act and its service and technology neutral service licensing regime.

The adopted approach of the 2013 Dominance Study aimed at minimising the burden on licensees and the Authority while allowing the Authority to implement the objectives of the Act. Only two markets were defined at the time; telecommunication services and broadcasting services. Dominance was only declared for the telecommunications service market and Mobile Telecommunications Limited (MTC), Powercom (Pty) Ltd t/a Leo (Leo) and Telecom Namibia Limited (Telecom Namibia) were declared dominant as published in Government Gazette No. 5201 Notice No. 167 dated 29 May 2013.

Section 78 of the Act provides that the Authority must hold a hearing every three years in order to determine which licensees hold a dominant position in the market. The purpose of this study document is therefore to form the basis for the determination of dominance in the telecommunications market in 2015.

Since 2013 the market concentration has increased with Telecom Namibia taking over Leo and new trends have emerged globally. This market study is intended to provide an update to the 2013 market study and the two should be read together.

BACKGROUND

Telecommunications regulators around the world define markets and determine dominance for these markets in order to develop the appropriate ex ante regulation that promotes fair competition and thus affordable user prices and efficient investment. Arriving at general recommendations for identifying and defining markets however, which would be suitable across different jurisdictions with different broadband ecosystems and different economic conditions is difficult (ITU, 2013). A review of international practice indicates that regulatory interventions do not always lead to the desired outcomes and that the impact varies according to the market conditions present in each country.

The reason for this is primarily the appropriateness of the regulatory intervention to the conditions that pertain in a particular country and the regulatory resources and experience of the country in question. This means there is no generally accepted 'global best practice' regarding regulatory interventions. Even within common legal frameworks such as the European Union, their recommendations (EU 2003, EU 2007 and EU 2014a) acknowledge that member countries need the flexibility in their implementation to accommodate country specific factors (Tintor et al, 2010). Designing ex-ante regulation however, typically follows four steps (Tintor et al, 2010):

• a) defining relevant markets;
• b) analysis of defined markets;
• c) identifying significant market power (SMP) operators; and
• d) imposing measures and remedies with the aim of preventing monopolistic behaviour.

Each of these four steps is handled differently by regulators around the world and needs to be subject to careful consideration of the local conditions including institutional arrangements, legal frameworks and sector specific circumstances. In this regard, the ITU (2013) identifies three important aspects that must be considered in any market review:

• a) Market boundaries should not be set based on those customers who cannot switch to alternatives, but those who can. Users with very specific requirements that can only be met by one technology, or users that live in areas where only one network is available do not matter for market definitions.
• b) Convergence means that different technologies may be linked through a chain of substitution. Whether mobile and fixed broadband services are in the same market depends on the extent to which the differences in the capabilities of mobile and fixed broadband networks matter for end users. This may also change over time. Even if mobile and fixed broadband services were fairly substitutable at present, they may become less so as more bandwidth-intensive services are being developed.
• c) Markets may be separated as a result of bundling of services even if different technologies could compete on the basis of their technical capabilities.

Defining a market is an essential step in the assessment of dominance which has to be based on a clearly delineated relevant product market (Ecorys, 2013). The use of market definitions within the context of ex-ante regulation in the telecommunications sector 1 started in the USA as a result of the 1996 Telecommunication Act and in the EU with the release of the 1997 Notice on the Definition of the Relevant Market which proposed the following definitions (EU, 1997):

1 Note that market definitions in other sectors pre-dated the telecommunications sector, so there was substantial precedent for implementing the process in the telecommunications sector.

• a) 'a relevant product market comprises all those products and/or services which are regarded as interchangeable or substitutable by the consumer by reason of the products' characteristics, their prices and their intended use; and
• b) a relevant geographic market comprises the area in which the firms concerned are involved in the supply of products or services and in which the conditions of competition are sufficiently homogeneous.'

With the purpose of ex-ante regulation being to ensure competitive outcomes in order to enhance consumer welfare, several trends are important to keep in mind when defining markets and determining dominance. These are assessed below.

Intra vs inter platform competition

Inter-platform competition takes place when there are two competing infrastructures - in the Northern Hemisphere; this was initially cable TV and copper ADSL. Regulation in this case is directed at supporting competition between these two platforms. Where the networks already had significant penetration and the legacy technology relatively easily upgraded to provide broadband, this proved very successful in the first round of broadband development. This has proved more of a challenge as new high cost fibre networks were rolled out to meet the high demand for high capacity bandwidth. In so far as there is inter-platform competition in developing countries this mostly takes the form of wireless competing with fixed Internet access.

Stimulating intra-modal competition (popularised by Martin Cave in 2003 with his concept of the ladder of investment) means enabling firms to enter the market using wholesale access and then, over time, being incentivised to move up the ladder of investment as they build their own infrastructure (Berkman, 2010). Competition is established by operators offering the services via the same platform. In a wide-ranging literature review of the impact of the effects of unbundling on performance and investment, the Berkman Centre for Internet and Society found that many of the papers that find no support for the ladder of investment were industry supported or using out-dated data. The majority of independent reviews found an unambiguous positive link between local loop unbundling (LLU) and investment (Berkman, 2010). There is some empirical evidence to suggest that while intra network competition drove the first wave of broadband which was based on the upgrading of existing copper and cable systems, in the second phase of broadband, where new fibre networks had to be built, the benefits of intra modal competition fell away or were masked by the impact of inter platform competition (Middleton, 2008).

Nevertheless, an alternative position to the intra vs. inter-platform debate has emerged that suggests that competition is less established by duplicating trenches, ducts and poles, but by sharing highcapacity basic physical infrastructure (such as fibre) and investing in electronics leading to innovation in processes and services (Berkman, 2010). This approach is manifested in Open Access projects such as Australia's National Broadband Network (NBN) announced in 2009. Berkman (2010) notes that Open Access and unbundling are complementary efforts around a shared common set of slowmoving, extremely high cost elements: the passive infrastructure.

While Inter-platform competition (competing infrastructures) seems to be ideal to promote access and usage of ICTs, Intra-platform competition is often what small countries can reach at best. Establishing intra platform competition is even then often not possible because of market size and investments required to compete. Stuck with a single company owning the infrastructure, regulators then intervene to create a situation that leads to outcomes similar to a competitive environment. These include structural or functional separation between wholesale and retail operations of the incumbent operator, local loop unbundling in various forms and setting price caps for wholesale prices.

Fixed-Mobile - Fixed-Wireless Broadband Substitution

Few markets around the world have included mobile broadband and fixed networks in the same market. This is mostly due to the fact that in these countries, fixed and mobile have significantly different utilisation by end-consumers: consumers use mobile broadband to remain in contact (the concept of ubiquitous connectivity) and use fixed networks for high bandwidth applications (ITU 2013). Fixed provides high bandwidth, high capacity access, while mobile provides mobility. In developed economies, mobile is generally seen as a complement to fixed.

Those countries where mobile is a complementary service have not included mobile broadband in the Wholesale Broadband Access (WBA) market. Examples of countries that exclude mobile broadband from WBA include Ireland, the United Kingdom (UK), Portugal and Finland. Ireland, for example, found that consumer utilisation of mobile broadband was significantly different and that consumers used fixed for bandwidth intensive applications (BEREC, 2010).

In the UK, OFCOM found that the WBA market included fixed networks (copper and fibre) and not wireless, i.e. excluding fixed wireless and mobile broadband (Ofcom, 2013). In Finland and Portugal, the regulator found that WBA market included DSL, cable and fibre. The reasons for findings excluding mobile broadband from the WBA market are (BEREC, 2010):

• a) significant price differences between mobile and fixed broadband;
• b) differences in maximum download speed;
• c) differences in terms of traffic limits (i.e. data caps); and
• d) absence of mobility for fixed networks.

Within the European Union (EU), only the Austrian regulator found that mobile broadband was in the same market as DSL and that mobile broadband was effectively a substitute for fixed access (ITU, 2013). However, the regulator did distinguish between residential and business broadband. In the business market, there is a wholesale market for DSL only that excludes mobile broadband (BEREC, 2010). There were several reasons for the Austrian regulator's finding (ITU, 2013):

• a) Austria had the strongest growth in mobile broadband in the EU;
• b) no significant difference in use between fixed broadband and mobile broadband; and
• c) download speeds were broadly similar.

Finally, the regulator found that mobile broadband was cheaper and therefore that around 10% of consumers had moved to mobile broadband from fixed broadband, showing that there was substitution between mobile broadband and DSL taking place. The regulator found that: 'After mobile operators lowered prices for mobile broadband significantly in the beginning of 2007, the growth of fixed broadband lines slowed down significantly and even went to (almost) zero.'

Looking at the Fixed Wireless Access (FWA) market, Portugal, France, Ireland and Denmark have excluded FWA from the WBA market. The reasons for doing so were (BEREC, 2010):

• a) significantly different tariffs;
• b) different download capacity and broadband coverage;
• c) different functions available; and
• d) different investment costs to build a new FWA network.

By contrast, Finland included FWA in the WBA market on the basis that FWA provided an indirect constraint in sparsely populated areas which enabled competitive retail pricing compared to DSL connections (BEREC, 2010).

In Namibia fixed mobile substitution is a unidirectional relationship. Mobiles substitute or complement fixed lines but in reverse fixed lines cannot substitute mobiles. The regulatory treatment and the inclusion or exclusion of fixed-wireless differs from country to country. For Namibia the best approach is to define fixed and mobile end user access as separate markets due to the dominance of one operator in each of these markets.

Focus on Wholesale markets

The European Commission (EU, 2014a, b) is conducting a third review of markets that are susceptible to ex ante regulation. The findings of the third review are not yet confirmed. The proposed market definition of 2014 only includes wholesale markets, while the defined markets of the 2003 and 2007 included both retail and wholesale markets (see Table 1).

Table 1: List of broadband markets susceptible to ex ante regulation	Table 1: List of broadband markets susceptible to ex ante regulation	Table 1: List of broadband markets susceptible to ex ante regulation	Table 1: List of broadband markets susceptible to ex ante regulation	Table 1: List of broadband markets susceptible to ex ante regulation	Table 1: List of broadband markets susceptible to ex ante regulation
Recommendation 2003/311/EC	Recommendation 2003/311/EC	Recommendation 2007/879/EC	Recommendation 2007/879/EC	Recommendation 2014	Recommendation 2014
1	Access to the public tele- phone network at a fixed location for residential cus- tomers.
2	Access to the public tele- phone network at a fixed location for non-residential customers	1	Access to the public tele- phone network at a fixed location for residential and non-residential customers.
3	Publicly available local and/ or national telephone services provided at a fixed location for residential customers.
4	Publicly available interna- tional telephone services provided at a fixed location for residential customers.
5	Publicly available local and/ or national telephone services provided at a fixed location for non-residential customers.	2	Call origination on the public telephone network provided at a fixed location.
6	Publicly available interna- tional telephone services provided at a fixed location for non-residential customers.	3	Call termination on individual public telephone networks provided at a fixed location.	1	Wholesale call termination on individual public telephone networks provided at a fixed location
7	Retail leased lines (up to and including 2Mb)		_		_
11	Wholesale unbundled access (including shared access) to metallic loops and sub-loops for the purpose of providing broadband and voice services.	4	Wholesale (physical) network infrastructure access (includ- ing shared or fully unbundled access) at a fixed location.	3	a) Wholesale local access provided at a fixed location b) Wholesale central access provided at a fixed location
12	Wholesale broadband access (bitstream at fixed location)	5	Wholesale broadband access (bitstream at fixed location)		for mass- market products

Table 1: List of broadband markets susceptible to ex ante regulation	Table 1: List of broadband markets susceptible to ex ante regulation	Table 1: List of broadband markets susceptible to ex ante regulation	Table 1: List of broadband markets susceptible to ex ante regulation	Table 1: List of broadband markets susceptible to ex ante regulation	Table 1: List of broadband markets susceptible to ex ante regulation
Recommendation 2003/311/EC	Recommendation 2003/311/EC	Recommendation 2007/879/EC	Recommendation 2007/879/EC	Recommendation 2014	Recommendation 2014
13	Wholesale terminating seg- ments of leased lines.	6	Wholesale terminating segments of leased lines, irrespective of the technol- ogy used to provide leased or dedicated capacity.	4	Wholesale high-quality access provided at a fixed location
14	Wholesale trunk segments of leased lines.		_		_
15	Access and call origination on public mobile telephone networks, referred to (sepa- rately) in Annex I(2) of the Frame- work Directive in respect of Directives 97/33/ EC and 98/10/EC.
16	Voice call termination on individual mobile networks.	7	Voice call termination on individual mobile networks.	2	Wholesale voice call termi- nation on individual mobile networks
17	The wholesale national mar- ket for international roaming on public mobile networks.
18	Broadcasting transmission services, to deliver broadcast content to end users.
Source: EU (2003)	Source: EU (2003)	Source: EU (2007)	Source: EU (2007)	Source: EU (2014)	Source: EU (2014)

While a review of markets susceptible to ex ante regulation is required by EU legislation every few years, the reason for the review in 2014 was to assess the impact of new technologies, specifically mobile broadband including LTE, the impact of bundling by providers (Internet, mobile, TV etc.), and to increase the focus on areas where competition is not effective. 2

Also, the EC is committed to a process of reducing the regulatory burden, especially on smaller states. At present, the regulatory burden of the framework directives is estimated at Euro27 million (or around N$ 400 million) per member state (Ecorys 2013, p. 183). Based on this rationale, the EU has been reducing the number of markets that are susceptible to ex ante regulation and it seems probable that the 2014 review will reduce the number of broadband markets further to two from three, entirely focusing on fixed wholesale end user access.

A general trend is to limit regulatory interventions to the wholesale level. In the EU mobile retail markets are considered to be sufficiently competitive and a perspective is thus no longer defined for ex-ante regulation. This competiveness has not been reached for most African countries and ex ante regulation for retail markets may still be required. Dominant operators may use predatory pricing, for example, to distort competition and discourage market entry.

Market concentration in Namibia

Namibia has only two operators with national networks for mobile and only one for fixed (wired) services. Fibre to the home (FTTx) is offered currently by Telecom Namibia. xDSL services lags behind technological advances in other countries such as South Africa or Europe (VDSL2 e.g.).

2 See Digital Agenda for Europe: Update of the 2007 Recommendations on the list of markets relevant for ex ante regulation.

The sector is highly concentrated with the national operators (Mobile Telecommunications Limited (MTC) and Telecom Namibia Limited) making up more than 97% of the assets and 91% of revenues. 3

Figure 1: Assets in N$ million for financial year ending in 2013 and 2014 (company not group)

Figure 2: Revenues in N$ million for financial year ending in 2013 and 2014 (company not group)

Telecom Namibia and MTC clearly dominate the sector. At the same time both operators have a factual monopoly. Telecom Namibia is the only operator with a fixed (wired) end user access network and is the only operator providing national data connectivity based on own infrastructure. While both Telecom Namibia and MTC also operate a national mobile telephone network, only MTC has sizeable traffic. MTC market share of on-net traffic is above 99% and of total traffic above 98% since July 2013.

3 In the category 'Others' in the table below, competitors are Paratus Telecommunications (Pty) Ltd., Telepassport (Pty) Ltd, Dimension Data (Pty) Ltd, MWireless (Pty) Ltd t/a AfricaOnline Namibia, SALT IT (Pty) Ltd, MTN Business Solutions (Namibia) Limited and Bidvest Namibia Information Technology (Pty) Ltd.

■Mobile On-net traffic

■ Total Mobile outgoing traffic

Figure 8: MTC's market share of total mobile traffic

MTC's national mobile network is further nearly five times the size of Telecom Namibia's network, 1,100 compared to 258 GSM base stations in December 2014.

Since the last market study was conducted the only fully privately owned operator, Leo, has been acquired by Telecom Namibia thus leading to the same market structure as before liberalisation in 2005. The market study of 2013 only defined 2 markets:

1. Broadcasting; and

2. Telecommunication.

Three operators were dominant in the telecommunication sector (Leo, MTC and Telecom Namibia, and no dominance was declared for the Broadcasting sector.

Due to the increased market concentration, the market definition should be changed to allow nuanced ex ante regulation. Telecom Namibia and MTC being dominant for any telecommunication services, as in the existing market definition, may limit competition between the two operators.

It may also be a disincentive for a new entrant that is planning to roll out a national network, which may fear to be declared dominant from the start. This discussion paper thus proposes to define five markets and adopt a more granular approach to new proposed dominance regulation. Splitting mobile from fixed line markets, would for example, make each operator only dominant in one of the markets but not in the other.

Namibia does not have Cable TV to compete with Telecom Namibia's copper and fibre network. The inter platform competition that drove broadband adoption in the USA, which covered both national transmission networks and end user access at the same time, does not exist in Namibia. Intra platform competition is thus the only objectively attainable objective. Intra platform competition can be enforced by bitstream and local loop unbundling for fixed end user access and through an open access regime for national backbone infrastructure.

It makes sense to define markets for fixed-end-user access and national data connectivity separately, given that the ideal ex-ante intervention differs for these two services. Due to factual monopolies in Namibia's telecommunication sector, retail markets cannot not yet be excluded from possible ex ante regulation. The Authority however, subscribes to the light touch regulatory principle and will only intervene in the retail market as a last resort.

The Authority thus decided to define five markets as follows:

• a) Market 1: Fixed and Mobile Call Termination
• b) Market 2: Wired End User Access
• c) Market 3: National Data Transmission
• d) Market 4: Wireless End User Access
• e) Market 5: Broadcasting

A description and determination of dominance is given in the sections below.

MARKET DEFINITION AND DOMINANCE

The definition for dominance of the 2013 market study based on section 78 (4) of the Act that will be applied to this study as well is:

A licensee is dominant in a market if:

• a) It has at least 35% of market share based on revenues;
• b) It has less than 35% market share but controls some infrastructure that is necessary for the provision of the services in question;
• c) It has less than 35% market share but has dominance in a related market and therefore is able to exercise power in the market for the telecommunications services in question; or
• d) It has less than 35% market share but has a position in a market in another country or a relationship with providers in another country that can be used to exercise market power in respect of the relevant class of telecommunications services in Namibia.

Section 78(5) provides that the Authority must also consider the market power that may be exercised by a competitor of the licensee concerned in order to determine whether any of the matters referred to in subsection 4 will give the licensee concerned, market power. The assessment of dominance for each market will use Table 2.

Table 2: Assessment of Dominance for the Telecommunications Market	Table 2: Assessment of Dominance for the Telecommunications Market	OperatorA	Operator B
1	It has at least 35% of market share based on revenues?	(Yes/No)	(Yes/No)
2	It has less than 35% market share but controls some infrastructure that is necessary for the provision of the services in question?	(Yes/No)	(Yes/No)
3	It has less than 35% market share but has dominance in a related market and therefore is able to exercise power in the market for the telecommunications services in question	(Yes/No)	(Yes/No)
4	It has less than 35% market share but has a position in a market in another country or a relationship with providers in another country that can be used to exercise market power in respect of the relevant class of telecommunications services in Namibia?	(Yes/No)	(Yes/No)
	Dominant based on section 78 (4)?	(Yes/No)	(Yes/No)
	Do the 4 criteria give the licensee the ability to exercise market power (Section 78(5))?	(Yes/No)	(Yes/No)

The table checks for the four criteria spelled out in section 78 (4) of the Act. A 'Yes' in any of the four criteria would lead to the declaration of dominant for an operator if it allows the licensee to exercise market power according the section 78 (5). Two 'Yes' are required for an operator to be declared dominant.

Market 1- Fixed and Mobile Call Termination

The market for fixed and mobile call termination is a natural monopoly since only the operator owning the subscriber can terminate calls for that subscriber. All operators offering call termination are dominant operators.

Market 2 - Wired End User Access

The market for wired end user access includes retail and wholesale/reseller services provided via fibre or copper lines. Services in this market include fixed call origination, xDSL, FTTx, local leads or tail ends for leased lines. While Wired End User Access is being offered by a few licensees other than Telecom Namibia, others are mostly reselling Telecom Namibia services. Telecom Namibia is thus the only dominant operator in this market.

Market 3 - National Data Transmission

The market for National Data Transmission covers all forms of prearranged connectivity within Namibia excluding the end user access section. It covers wholesale and retail series. Services included in these markets are leased lines, Ethernet, SDH, PDH, ATM, micro wave, national IP transit and services rendered at submarine cable landing stations. While national data transmission is offered by a few licensees other than Telecom Namibia, others are mostly reselling Telecom Namibia transmission network infrastructure. Telecom Namibia is thus the only dominant operator in this market.

Market 4 Wireless End User Access

The market for wireless end user access includes retail and wholesale services and excludes call termination. It includes call and SMS origination as well as Internet access provided via mobile phone, dongle, wireless modem or router and Wimax.

MTC and Telecom Namibia operate the only national mobile networks. Telecom Namibia's market share for mobile voice and data combined with wireless less data is well below 35% market share. Additionally, Telecom Namibia's total number of mobile sites and base stations is only a fraction of MTC's network. 4 Telecom Namibia is thus not able to exercise market power in accordance with Section 78(5).

Paratus is currently offering VOIP through Wimax in selected towns. It does not operate a national mobile network and is equally not able to exercise market power.

MTC is declared the only dominant operator for this market.

4 MTC's national mobile network is further nearly five times the size of Telecom Namibia's network, 1100 compared to 258 GSM base stations in December 2014.

Table 3: Assessment of Dominance for Wireless End User Access market	Table 3: Assessment of Dominance for Wireless End User Access market	Telecom Namibia	MTC	Paratus
1	It has at least 35% of market share based on revenues?	No	Yes	No
2	It has less than 35% market share but controls some infrastructure that is necessary for the provision of the services in question?	Yes		No
3	It has less than 35% market share but has dominance in a related market and therefore is able to exercise power in the market for the telecommunications services in question			No
4	It has less than 35% market share but has a position in a market in another country or a relationship with providers in another country that can be used to exercise market power in respect of the relevant class of telecommunications services in Namibia?			No
	Dominant based on section 78 (4)?	Yes	Yes	No
	Do the 4 criteria give the licensee the ability to exercise market power (Section 78(5))?	No	Yes	No

CONCLUSIONS

All operators providing call termination are dominant, i.e. MTC, Telecom Namibia and Paratus Telecom. Telecom Namibia is dominant for the Wired End User Access and the National Data Transmission markets. MTC is dominant for the wireless End User Access market.

Table 4: Dominance findings	Table 4: Dominance findings	Table 4: Dominance findings
Markets	Markets	Dominant operators
1	Wired End User Access	Telecom Namibia
2	National Data Transmission	Telecom Namibia
3	Wireless End User Access	MTC

REFERENCES

Berec (2010): BEREC Report, Regulatory Accounting in Practice 2010, BoR (10) 48, http://www. irg.eu/streaming/BoR%20(10)%2048%20BEREC%20RA%20report%20in%20Practice%202010_ final.pdf?contentId=546971&field=ATTACHED_FILE.

Berec (2010). BEREC-RSPG report on market definitions http://goo.gl/9vAjo8.

Berec (2012). Report on the impact of fixed mobile substitution in market definition, 24 May 2012.

BEREC (2013). Response to the European Commission's questionnaire for the public consultation on the revision of the Recommendation on Relevant Markets, March 2013.

ECORYS (2013). Future electronic communications markets subject to ex-ante regulation: Final report to DG Connect, 18 September 2013. http://goo.gl/SUgqw4.

EU (2003). COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 2003/311/EC, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32003H0311.

EU (2007): COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 2007/879/EC, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:344:0065:0069:en:PDF.

EU (2014a). European Commission, Draft Explanatory Note on relevant markets http://ec.europa.eu/ information_society/newsroom/cf/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=4190 or http://goo.gl/yOTdGM.

EU (2014b). European Commission, Draft Recommendation on relevant markets, http://ec.europa. eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=4189.

ITU (2013). Competition and regulation in a converged broadband world, http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ treg/Events/Seminars/GSR/GSR12/documents/GSR12_BBReport_Koboldt_SMP_8.pdf.

Middleton, C. A. and Chang, S. (2008). 'The Adoption of Broadband Internet in Australia and Canada', Handbook of Research on Global Diffusion of Broadband Data Transmission, pages 820842.

Ofkom (2010). Review of the wholesale broadband access markets, 3 December 2010, http:// stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/wba/statement/wbastatement.pdf. Tintor, V., Janković, M. and Milićević, V. (2010).THE LEGAL AND ECONOMIC FRAMEWORK OF EU TELECOM MARKET REGULATION, ECONOMIC ANNALS, Volume LV, No. 185 / April - June 2010 UDC: 3.33 ISSN: 0013-3264, http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/00133264/2010/0013-32641085107T.pdf.

________________

COMMUNICATIONS REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF NAMIBIA

No. 215

2016

NOTICE IN TERMS OF THE REGULATIONS REGARDING LICENSING PROCEDURES FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND BROADCASTING SERVICE LICENCES AND SPECTRUM USE LICENCES

The Communications Regulatory Authority of Namibia, in terms of regulations 11 of the Regulations Regarding Licensing Procedures for Telecommunications and Broadcasting Service Licences and Spectrum Use Licences, as published in Government Gazette No. 4785, General Notice No. 272 dated 29 August 2011 (as amended), herewith gives notice that the Applicant referred to in the table below has submitted the following application to the Authority:

Telecommunications Service Licence Application

Yes
Namibia
Electronic Com- munications
Although applicant intends to use spectrum in the provision of the telecommunications services, it is in the spectrum exempt band as con- tained in the Regulations Regarding Licence Exempt Spectrum 1
Class Comprehen- sive telecommunica- tions service licence (ECS and ECNS)
51%
Namibia
Coastal Network Solu- tions CC

1 As published in Government Gazette No. 4839, Notice No. 395 dated 25 November 2011.

The public may submit comments in writing to the Authority within a period of fourteen (14) days from the date of publication of this notice in the Government Gazette.

The applicant may submit written reply comments within fourteen (14) days from date of notification of the written public comments.

All written submissions must contain the name and contact details of the person making the written submissions and the name and contact details of the person for whom the written submission is made, if different and be clear and concise.

All written submissions and reply comments must be made either physically or electronically -

• (1) By hand to the head offices of the Authority, namely Communication House, 56 Robert Mugabe Avenue, Windhoek;
• (2) By post to the head offices of the Authority, namely Private Bag 13309, Windhoek 9000;
• (3) By electronic mail to the following address: legal@cran.na;
• (4) By facsimile to the following facsimile number: +264 61 222790; or
• (5) By fax to e-mail to: 0886550852.

F. KISHI CHAIRPERSON OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS COMMUNICATIONS REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF NAMIBIA

________________

COMMUNICATIONS REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF NAMIBIA

No. 216

2016

NOTICE IN TERMS OF THE REGULATIONS REGARDING THE SUBMISSIONS OF INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENTS AND TARIFFS

The Communications Regulatory Authority of Namibia, in terms of Section 53(10) of the Communications Act, 2009 (Act No. 8 of 2009) read with regulation 8(1) of the 'Regulations Regarding the Submission of Interconnection Agreements and Tariffs', in Government Gazette No. 4714, Notice No. 126, dated 18 May 2011, herewith gives notice that Paratus Telecommunications Limited has filed tariffs with the Authority as set out in Schedule 1.

Any person may examine copies of the tariffs submitted at the head offices of the Authority during normal business hours and copies may be made on payment of a fee determined by the Authority. Copies are also available at www.cran.na where copies may be downloaded free of charge.

The public may submit in writing to the Authority written comments within fourteen (14) days from the date of publication of this notice in the Gazette .

Paratus Telecommunications Limited may submit, in writing to the Authority, a response to any written comments within fourteen (14) days from the lapsing of the time to submit written submissions.

All written submissions must contain the name and contact details of the person making the written submissions and the name and contact details of the person for whom the written submissions is made, if different and be clear and concise.

All written submissions and reply comments must be made either physically or electronically -

• (1) by hand to the head offices of the Authority, namely Communication House, 56 Robert Mugabe Avenue, Windhoek;
• (2) by post to the head offices of the Authority, namely Private Bag 13309, Windhoek 9000;
• (3) by electronic mail to the following address: legal@cran.na; and
• (4) by facsimile to the following facsimile number: +264 61 222790.
• (5) by fax to e-mail to: 0886550852

F. KISHI CHAIRPERSON OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS COMMUNICATIONS REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF NAMIBIA

SCHEDULE 1

SUBMISSION OF PROPOSED TARIFFS BY PARATUS TELECOMMUNICATIONS LIMITED COMMUNICATIONS ACT, 2009

The following are the proposed tariffs as submitted by Paratus Telecommunications Limited:

LTE DATA BUNDLES POSTPAID PACKAGES

	PT LTE LITE	PT Ultimate	PT LTE Pulse	PT LTE FLIX
Connection Fee - N$	340.00	340.00	430.00	430.00
Monthly Fee - N$	340.00	954.00	430.00	473.00
Includes Dongle (CPE)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Data CAP- GB	5	125	5	5
Max Clients (MAC)	1	10	1	1
Renewal period (months)	1	1	1	1
Contract Period (months)	3	24	3	3
Out of Bundle Rate - N$ perGB	See Bundles	See Bundles	See Bundles	See Bundles
Max Speed - Mbps	50	50	50	50

The customer has an option to subscribe to any of the 3 months Post-Paid packages for 12 months at a standard connection fee of N$285.00, with an option to get a router at a monthly fee of N$195.00 excluding VAT.

LTE DATA BUNDLES PREPAID PACKAGES

	PT Prepaid	PT BYO
Connection Fee - N$	740.00	150.00
Monthly Fee - N$	-	-
Includes Dongle (CPE)	Yes	No
Data CAP- GB (Valid for 30 days)	10	2
Max Clients (MAC)	1	1

Rollover period (months)	0	0
Subscription Validity (months)	3	3
Out of Bundle Rate - N$ perGB	See Bundles	See Bundles
Max Speed - Mbps	50	50

DATA BUNDLES TOP UP

Bundle Upgrades (Incl VAT)	Bundle Volume	Cost	Validity (Days)
Bundle 1	20MB	5.00	30
Bundle 2	50MB	10.00	30
Bundle 3	150MB	20.00	30
Bundle 4	225MB	30.00	30
Bundle 5	500MB	50.00	30
Bundle 6	1GB	85.00	30
Bundle 7	2GB	120.00	30
Bundle 8	2.25GB	150.00	30
Bundle 9	3GB	180.00	30
Bundle 10	5GB	250.00	30
Bundle 11	6GB	295.00	30
Bundle12	10GB	460.00	30
Bundle 13	25GB	865.00	30
Bundle 14	50GB	1,495.00	30

Please note that the full tariff submission including the terms and conditions and the remedies available to the consumers can be obtained from the Authority

________________