Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Local-loop unbundling

Local loop unbundling (LLU) is a telecommunications regulatory policy that compels incumbent local exchange carriers to lease portions of their existing local loop infrastructure—the physical transmission facilities, typically copper twisted-pair wires, connecting end-user premises to the incumbent's central office or distribution frame—to competing carriers at regulated wholesale rates, thereby enabling rivals to offer voice, data, and broadband services over the shared "last mile" without duplicating the high-cost access network.^[1]^[2] Implemented primarily to erode the natural monopoly advantages of legacy wireline operators and stimulate market entry in fixed-line services, LLU emerged in the late 1990s amid deregulation efforts, with the U.S. Telecommunications Act of 1996 mandating unbundled network elements including the local loop, and the European Union's 2000 regulatory framework similarly requiring access obligations on dominant firms to foster broadband competition.^[3]^[4] Proponents argued that LLU would accelerate broadband adoption by lowering barriers to entry for alternative providers, allowing them to deploy technologies like DSL over incumbents' copper lines; empirical analyses have indeed linked effective LLU regimes to higher fixed broadband penetration rates, particularly in densely populated areas where resale economics favor rapid rollout.^[5]^[6] However, causal assessments reveal limitations: while intra-platform competition via unbundled access boosted short-term subscriber growth in some markets, such as the UK where entrants differentiated offerings upward from incumbents, LLU often generated "waterbed effects" where wholesale access raised retail prices or crowded out incentives for greenfield fiber investments, as incumbents anticipated free-riding by resellers.^[7]^[8]^[9] Controversies surrounding LLU center on its net welfare effects, with economic models and longitudinal data indicating that mandatory sharing can deter irreversible capital expenditures in next-generation networks due to hold-up risks and diluted returns, potentially explaining slower fiber transitions in heavily unbundled jurisdictions compared to ladder-of-investment alternatives emphasizing bitstream access or facility-based rivalry.^[4]^[10] In practice, outcomes varied by implementation—strong enforcement in Europe correlated with diverse DSL providers but uneven upgrades, while U.S. policies faced legal challenges and eventual forbearance as wireless and cable alternatives eroded the rationale for compelled access, underscoring LLU's role as a transitional tool rather than a perpetual solution in evolving multi-platform ecosystems.^[3]^[11]

Definition and Technical Foundations

Core Concept and Process

Local loop unbundling (LLU) constitutes a regulatory mandate compelling incumbent telecommunications operators to grant alternative service providers nondiscriminatory access to the physical infrastructure of the local loop—the segment of copper wire pairs extending from the local exchange (or central office) to end-user premises, which serves as the final "last mile" in access networks. This policy addresses natural monopoly characteristics in local access, where duplication of wiring is economically inefficient, by enabling competitors to lease loops at regulated wholesale rates rather than deploying parallel infrastructure. Adopted as a core competition remedy in jurisdictions like the European Union via Regulation (EC) No 2887/2000 on 20 December 2000, LLU facilitates rivals' deployment of services such as asymmetric digital subscriber line (ADSL) broadband over existing copper facilities without incumbent mediation.^[12]^[13] The operational process commences with competitors securing collocation—physical or virtual space within the incumbent's exchange—to install specialized equipment, including digital subscriber line access multiplexers (DSLAMs) for aggregating and transmitting data traffic. In full unbundling, the targeted loop is physically disconnected from the incumbent's voice switch at the main distribution frame (MDF) and reterminated to the rival's DSLAM, transferring exclusive control of the entire frequency spectrum to the entrant for both voice (via VoIP or integrated gateways) and data services; this requires the incumbent to migrate any existing voice service to alternative provisioning if applicable.^[14] Provisioning involves line testing, qualification for DSL speeds (typically limited by loop length up to 5-6 km for ADSL), and activation, with regulated timelines often mandating completion within 10-20 working days depending on national rules.^[14] In contrast, shared access (or line sharing) employs a passive splitter at the MDF to segregate frequency bands: low frequencies (below ~4 kHz) for plain old telephone service (POTS) remain routed to the incumbent's equipment, while higher frequencies (starting ~25 kHz for ADSL) are directed to the entrant's DSLAM for data-only delivery, preserving incumbent voice monopoly on the loop while opening broadband competition. This hybrid avoids full disconnection but necessitates splitter installation and spectrum management to minimize crosstalk interference, with entrants typically bearing deployment costs under cost-oriented pricing frameworks. Empirical implementations, such as in the UK post-2001, demonstrated initial take-up rates exceeding 1 million lines by 2005 through such mechanisms.^[15]^[14]

Types of Access and Infrastructure Involved

The local loop infrastructure subject to unbundling typically consists of twisted-pair copper wires extending from the incumbent operator's main distribution frame (MDF) at the telephone exchange to the end-user's premises, forming the "last mile" connection originally designed for analog voice telephony but adapted for digital subscriber line (DSL) broadband services.^[16]^[17] This metallic access network, often spanning several kilometers, represents a bottleneck asset due to its high deployment costs and natural monopoly characteristics, prompting regulatory mandates for shared use to foster competition without requiring full duplication.^[12] In some implementations, sub-loop elements—such as feeder cables to street cabinets—are also unbundled, particularly as fiber-to-the-cabinet (FTTC) architectures emerge to extend DSL capabilities.^[18] Types of access under local loop unbundling vary by the degree of control granted to competitors over the physical and spectrum resources. Full unbundling, also known as access to "raw copper," provides the entrant with exclusive use of the entire local loop pair from the MDF, enabling installation of proprietary digital subscriber line access multiplexers (DSLAMs) at the exchange to deliver both voice and data services independently of the incumbent.^[13]^[19] Shared access, or line sharing, allows simultaneous use of the same loop: the incumbent maintains the plain old telephone service (POTS) using low-frequency spectrum, while the competitor overlays high-frequency DSL signals for broadband, requiring coordination to avoid interference.^[13]^[20] This form was explicitly mandated in the European Union's 2000 regulation on unbundled access.^[21] Sub-loop unbundling extends access to intermediate points beyond the central exchange, such as distribution frames in street cabinets, permitting competitors to lease only the "drop" segment to the customer and deploy their own fiber or advanced DSL equipment closer to premises for reduced latency and higher speeds.^[18] This variant addresses limitations of full exchange-based access in areas with distant cabinets but demands additional collocation facilities and has been implemented selectively, as in certain OECD jurisdictions post-2003.^[13] Collocation requirements—physical space at the incumbent's site for entrant equipment—are integral across these types, with regulations often specifying types like co-mingling (shared facilities) or virtual collocation (remote access via incumbent systems) to minimize costs.^[22] While primarily applied to copper, unbundling principles have influenced fiber access models, though physical unbundling of passive optical networks remains rarer due to deployment economics.^[23]

Historical Origins

Early Regulatory Roots in Telephony

The regulatory impetus for local loop unbundling originated in the mid-1990s amid efforts to erode incumbent monopolies in local telephony, where the physical "last mile" copper infrastructure—connecting customer premises to telephone exchanges—constituted a high-cost bottleneck resistant to duplication due to sunk investments exceeding billions in deployment. In the United States, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Pub. L. No. 104-104), enacted on February 8, 1996, marked the pivotal legislative foundation by requiring incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs), such as the Regional Bell Operating Companies formed after the 1984 AT&T divestiture, to provide competitors with access to seven specified network elements on an unbundled basis, explicitly including the local loop under Section 251(c)(3).^[24] This provision aimed to enable competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) to lease raw loop facilities at cost-based rates, interconnect them with their own equipment, and offer end-to-end voice services without rebuilding the wireline plant, which ILECs had amortized over decades under rate-of-return regulation.^[25] The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) operationalized these roots through its Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, First Report and Order (FCC 96-325), adopted August 8, 1996, which designated the local loop as an essential unbundled network element (UNE) indispensable for competitors lacking scale economies in rural or suburban areas. Pricing was set via total element long-run incremental cost (TELRIC), intended to reflect forward-looking expenses excluding embedded historical costs, with loops priced around $15-20 per month initially depending on distance and gauge. Early focus remained on plain old telephone service (POTS), where unbundling facilitated resale and facilities-based entry for local calling, building on precedents like the 1984 equal access mandates that required ILECs to provision long-distance dialing parity but stopped short of physical loop sharing. By 1997, over 100 CLECs had sought unbundled access, though implementation disputes led to litigation, including the Supreme Court's 1999 AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Board ruling affirming FCC authority over unbundling lists. Parallel developments abroad reinforced these telephony-centric origins. In Australia, the Trade Practices Act 1974 enabled the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) to declare Telstra's unconditioned local loop service open for access on July 18, 1997, obligating the incumbent to provide third parties with physical entry to loops for voice competition, priced via a cost-model approach amid Telstra's privatization transition. In the United Kingdom, the Office of Telecommunications (Oftel) introduced interim access obligations in 1997 under the licensed competition framework post-privatization of British Telecom in 1984, culminating in formal unbundling guidelines by 2000, but rooted in telephony resale disputes dating to the 1991 duopoly review. These measures reflected a consensus that local loops embodied natural monopoly characteristics—subadditive costs for densities below 50-100 lines per km—necessitating regulated access to mimic contestability without forgoing universal service obligations established in acts like the U.S. Communications Act of 1934. However, regulators emphasized temporary application, predicated on incumbents' obligation to maintain loops under common carrier duties, with non-compliance penalties enforced via arbitration.

Rise in the Broadband Transition (1990s-2000s)

The transition to broadband in the 1990s and early 2000s highlighted the limitations of incumbent telecommunications monopolies on copper-based local loops, prompting regulators to mandate unbundling as a means to foster competition in digital subscriber line (DSL) services. DSL technology, which repurposed existing telephone lines for high-speed data transmission, began commercial trials in the mid-1990s, with services launching in markets like Sweden by 1995-1997 via operators such as Telia.^[11] In the United States, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 explicitly required incumbent local exchange carriers to unbundle network elements, including local loops, to enable competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) to offer broadband without duplicating infrastructure.^[24] The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) implemented these provisions through rules adopted in 1996 and refined by 1999, mandating unbundled access to loops capable of supporting xDSL technologies, high-capacity lines, and dark fiber.^[26]^[27] This regulatory push aligned with the explosive growth of internet usage, as dial-up modems gave way to always-on broadband demands driven by the World Wide Web's expansion post-1993.^[28] By requiring nondiscriminatory access to unbundled loops, the 1996 Act aimed to transition the static, subsidized local exchange market of the early 1990s into a multi-firm environment supporting DSL deployment.^[29] In practice, this facilitated line sharing and full unbundling, allowing competitors to collocate equipment in incumbent central offices for DSL provisioning, though implementation faced disputes over pricing and technical feasibility.^[30] In the European Union, local loop unbundling gained traction amid similar broadband imperatives, culminating in Regulation (EC) No 2887/2000, adopted on December 18, 2000, and effective from December 31, 2000. This measure compelled dominant operators to provide reasonable requests for unbundled access to copper local loops, including for DSL applications, without requiring new infrastructure investment by entrants.^[21]^[31] The regulation responded to the 1999 review of the EU telecommunications framework, emphasizing local access competition to accelerate broadband rollout across member states.^[32] Some OECD countries, including early adopters in Scandinavia, introduced unbundling mandates in the late 1990s, but widespread implementation occurred around 2000, enabling alternative operators to leverage incumbents' loops for complementary services.^[33] Globally, the policy proliferated rapidly during this period, with the number of countries requiring local loop unbundling rising from 23 in 2000 to 65 by late 2004, as reported by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU).^[2] This surge reflected a consensus that unbundling could bridge the infrastructure gap in the broadband shift, particularly for DSL over legacy copper networks, though it often prioritized short-term entry over long-term investment incentives. In the U.S., full unbundling obligations under the 1996 Act spurred initial CLEC growth, with over 140 companies entering local markets by 1999.^[34] However, subsequent FCC relief from unbundling for fiber and advanced DSL in the early 2000s correlated with increased private capital inflows, suggesting that mandatory access facilitated transition but risked stifling next-generation deployments if prolonged.^[35]

Theoretical Frameworks and Policy Rationales

Promoting Competition via Ladder of Investment

The ladder of investment theory posits that regulated access to an incumbent's network infrastructure, including local-loop unbundling, enables new entrants to progressively build competitive capabilities, starting from service resale and advancing toward full infrastructure deployment.^[36] Proposed by economist Martin Cave in 2006, the framework envisions entrants climbing rungs of increasing investment intensity: initially relying on wholesale resale of the incumbent's retail services to test demand and acquire customers with minimal capital outlay; then accessing unbundled local loops to install their own equipment, such as digital subscriber line access multiplexers (DSLAMs), for differentiated broadband offerings; followed by higher-layer bitstream access for broader service innovation; and ultimately investing in replicable infrastructure like fiber optics or alternative last-mile networks.^[36] ^[37] This sequential approach aims to mitigate the high sunk costs and risks of greenfield infrastructure builds, fostering dynamic competition by allowing entrants to scale operations and recoup investments before committing to costly replication.^[38] Local-loop unbundling serves as a pivotal mid-level rung, providing physical access to the copper twisted-pair lines connecting customer premises to the incumbent's exchange, which entrants can lease at regulated prices to deploy their own active electronics.^[39] By mandating such unbundling, regulators seek to erode the incumbent's bottleneck control over the "last mile," enabling service-based competitors to offer faster or bundled services without duplicating the entire network, thereby pressuring the incumbent to innovate while entrants accumulate market share—estimated in some models to reach 20-30% before triggering self-deployment incentives.^[40] The theory assumes that temporary access remedies create a "stepping stone" effect, where entrants' growing revenues and technical expertise reduce the effective cost of entry for next-generation networks, leading to inter-platform rivalry that enhances overall market efficiency.^[36] Cave argued that this ladder promotes competition across the value chain by aligning regulatory intervention with entrants' risk profiles, avoiding over-reliance on either pure service competition (which sustains incumbents' dominance) or unregulated infrastructure duplication (which deters entry due to natural monopoly characteristics).^[38] In practice, the ladder's competitive promotion hinges on pricing access charges to reflect forward-looking costs, ensuring entrants neither subsidize incumbents nor face predatory barriers, as modeled in economic analyses where optimal unbundling fees balance short-term entry with long-term investment signals.^[40] For instance, under this regime, entrants using unbundled loops can achieve gross margins sufficient to fund partial rollouts, with empirical simulations suggesting that ladder-compliant policies could increase broadband penetration by 5-10% through intensified rivalry in the initial phases.^[41] Proponents contend that without such graduated access, incumbents' first-mover advantages—rooted in legacy copper deployment costs exceeding $100 per line in many jurisdictions—would perpetuate monopolistic pricing and sluggish upgrades, whereas the ladder incentivizes a virtuous cycle of emulation and differentiation.^[42] This framework influenced regulatory designs in jurisdictions emphasizing LLU, positioning it as a causal mechanism for transitioning from regulated access dependency to sustainable infrastructure contestability.^[43]

First-Principles Economic Analysis

Local loop infrastructure constitutes a canonical example of a durable asset with high upfront sunk costs and significant economies of scale, rendering replication costly and inefficient without strong demand-side drivers. In unregulated conditions, the asset owner prices access to recover these costs plus a return commensurate with risk, incentivizing maintenance and upgrades through exclusive control over revenues. Mandatory unbundling intervenes by requiring access at regulated rates, typically forward-looking long-run incremental costs (e.g., TELRIC methodology), which exclude embedded historical investments and fail to account for the option value of proprietary deployment. This pricing mechanism systematically undercompensates the incumbent, as it treats sunk capital as a free public good, distorting the marginal return on future enhancements and fostering underinvestment in network quality or next-generation technologies.^[44]^[45] From an incentives standpoint, unbundling creates asymmetric opportunities for free-riding: entrants can lease the loop at below-market rates to serve high-margin customers (cream-skimming), capturing revenues without bearing deployment risks or full maintenance burdens, while offloading low-density or unprofitable areas to the incumbent. Incumbents, anticipating this compelled sharing, discount the net present value of irreversible investments, particularly under uncertainty where real options valuation reveals heightened downside risk from regulatory expropriation-like effects. Entrants, in turn, delay facilities-based entry, as low lease prices raise the threshold for building alternative infrastructure, locking the market into service-layer competition rather than platform innovation. This dynamic undermines Schumpeterian creative destruction, where competing networks drive technological leaps, as neither party fully internalizes the externalities of risky capital outlays.^[46]^[45]^[44] Property rights theory further illuminates the causal flaws: secure, excludable rights over specialized assets encourage long-horizon investments by aligning private returns with social value creation, but unbundling erodes this by enabling post-investment mandates that transfer value without equivalent compensation, akin to a partial taking. Regulated access overrides voluntary contracting, suppressing price signals that would reveal true scarcity and demand for upgrades, leading to inefficient resource allocation across the sector. While proponents invoke static efficiency gains from immediate entry, first-principles reasoning prioritizes dynamic effects: distorted incentives retard overall capital formation, as evidenced by models showing reduced innovation in both core network elements and complementary services.^[46]^[44]

Empirical Assessments of Impacts

Effects on Broadband Adoption and Prices

Empirical analyses of local loop unbundling (LLU) in OECD and EU countries generally indicate a positive association with broadband adoption rates, particularly during the early 2000s when DSL deployment accelerated. Panel data from 17 EU countries between 2000 and 2010 show that LLU implementation correlated with a statistically significant increase in fixed broadband penetration, with an estimated coefficient of 0.1513 (p<0.01) in fixed-effects models controlling for country and time effects.^[10] Similarly, cross-country studies across OECD nations from 2002 to 2008 attribute part of the rise in subscriptions—up to 61% in some specifications—to LLU enabling service-based entry, especially in markets with initially low penetration and high infrastructure barriers.^[47] These effects stem from reduced entry costs for competitors, allowing them to leverage incumbent copper loops for DSL services without duplicating last-mile infrastructure, thereby expanding consumer access. However, the magnitude varies; some reviews critique early findings as overstated due to data error structures, yielding trivial or insignificant long-term gains in penetration after adjustments.^[48] In specific contexts like the United Kingdom, where LLU was mandated in 2001 and covered 85% of the population by 2009 across over 2,000 exchanges, the policy's direct impact on household adoption was modest, boosting penetration by at most 1.4% in the long run compared to non-LLU areas, with overall national doubling from 2005 to 2009 driven more by inter-platform rivalry such as cable.^[7] EU-wide evidence points to gains of around 15 percentage points in adoption linked to lower regulated access fees, underscoring that LLU's effectiveness hinges on pricing the unbundled loop access affordably to stimulate entrant deployment.^[47] Critically, higher one-off or monthly fees for unbundled access paradoxically amplified penetration effects in some models (coefficients of 0.0017 and 0.0011, respectively, p<0.01 and p<0.10), possibly by deterring low-commitment entrants and fostering sustainable competition.^[10] Regarding prices, evidence for substantial consumer price reductions from LLU is limited and often indirect, with competition manifesting more through quality differentiation than aggressive discounting. In the UK, LLU entrants offered speeds 20% higher than the incumbent's at typical subscription levels, prioritizing upstream differentiation over broad price cuts, while bitstream alternatives (less facility-based) enabled some price competition in unbundled areas.^[7] Cross-country panels similarly link LLU to improved broadband quality and adoption without consistent evidence of lowered retail prices; instead, regulated access pricing influences entrant viability, with lower loop rental fees correlating to higher take-up but higher fees sometimes yielding stronger net penetration via efficient entry.^[47] One Spanish case study from 2005 to 2011 found bitstream unbundling variants raised prices by 21%, highlighting risks of incomplete facility access stifling price discipline.^[47] Overall, LLU appears to enhance adoption primarily by accelerating rollout and upgrading service attributes, rather than through sustained price erosion, consistent with service competition substituting for pure price rivalry in regulated access regimes.

Consequences for Infrastructure Investment

Mandatory unbundling of the local loop exposes incumbents to a hold-up problem, where competitors can access newly built infrastructure at regulated prices that often fail to recover the full costs of sunk, irreversible investments, thereby diminishing the expected returns and deterring upgrades to higher-capacity networks. Theoretical models demonstrate that pricing mechanisms like TELRIC, which base access charges on forward-looking costs excluding historical sunk expenses, create an asymmetry: entrants avoid investment risks while incumbents bear them uncompensated, reducing net present value and option value for network enhancements. Empirical evidence from the U.S. post-1996 Telecommunications Act shows incumbent capital expenditures declining to 1990 levels by 2002, amid annual TELRIC price drops of 15-34%, as incumbents delayed upgrades due to unrecoverable risks.^[45] Cross-country analyses reveal varied impacts, with stricter unbundling correlating to lower infrastructure outlays in some contexts. In Japan, local loop unbundling exerted a statistically significant negative effect on incumbent investment from 1995-2011, attributed to low interconnection fees based on historical costs, despite later fiber optic pushes. Conversely, in the U.S., the same period showed a positive coefficient (+64.02, significant at 1% level) on investment, linked to vertically integrated structures and higher TELRIC fees. European studies indicate that greater numbers of local loop unbundling points or competitors in municipalities reduced deployment and coverage of fast broadband (≥30 Mbps), primarily fiber-based, as incumbents scaled back next-generation access (NGA) builds to avoid subsidizing rivals.^[33]^[49] While some EU panel data from 2000-2010 suggest a weakly positive short-term association between unbundling and overall investment (coefficient 1.42e+09, p<0.01), long-term effects remain inconclusive, particularly for NGA transitions where reliance on shared legacy copper networks discouraged full fiber rollouts. Comparative assessments highlight slower fiber investment in unbundling-heavy Europe versus the U.S., where deregulation after 2005 facilitated higher broadband infrastructure spending, underscoring how persistent access obligations can prioritize service-layer competition over facilities-based upgrades.^[10]^[50]

Global Policy Implementations

International Agreements and Frameworks

The World Trade Organization's (WTO) Reference Paper on Regulatory Principles for Basic Telecommunications, annexed to the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) via the 1997 Fourth Protocol, establishes non-binding pro-competitive guidelines adopted by 102 governments representing approximately 95% of global telecommunications revenues. Key provisions require major suppliers to provide interconnection at any technically feasible point, on reasonable and cost-oriented terms, and implement safeguards against anti-competitive practices such as cross-subsidization or withholding information.^[51] While the paper does not explicitly prescribe local loop unbundling, its emphasis on timely access to essential facilities and non-discriminatory treatment has been interpreted in regulatory contexts and WTO disputes to justify unbundling obligations, enabling competitors to lease incumbent loops for broadband services without full infrastructure duplication.^[51] The International Telecommunication Union (ITU), as a United Nations specialized agency, contributes technical recommendations rather than enforceable rules, with ITU-T Recommendation L.62 (September 2004, later renumbered L.254 in 2016 without substantive changes) focusing on practical implementation of unbundling in copper access networks. This includes guidelines for shared infrastructure use, such as colocation arrangements, line testing procedures, fault management, and operational coordination between incumbents and entrants to minimize service disruptions.^[52] Applicable to scenarios where multiple operators access the same local loop for services like DSL, the recommendation addresses national regulatory variations but stresses voluntary compliance, serving primarily as a harmonized technical baseline for interoperability rather than a mandate.^[52] The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) offers comparative policy analysis through documents like its 2003 report "Developments in Local Loop Unbundling," which surveys unbundling progress across member states, highlighting best practices for pricing (e.g., cost-based with forward-looking elements), provisioning timelines, and dispute resolution mechanisms. These non-binding assessments promote regulatory convergence by evaluating trade-offs between short-term competition gains and long-term investment incentives, influencing global discourse without legal force; for instance, they note early unbundling successes in pricing transparency but caution against over-reliance that could stifle fiber deployments. Absent dedicated multilateral treaties, these frameworks rely on soft law diffusion, with binding elements emerging only in regional trade agreements like select RTAs featuring explicit unbundling clauses.^[51]

European Union and Member States

The European Union established local loop unbundling (LLU) as a core mechanism to promote competition in broadband markets through Regulation (EC) No 2887/2000, adopted on 18 December 2000 and requiring notified operators to grant reasonable requests for full unbundled access, shared access, and resale of local loop services starting 2 January 2001. This temporary regulation, expiring on 31 July 2001, transitioned obligations into the permanent New Regulatory Framework via Directive 2002/19/EC (Access Directive), which empowered national regulatory authorities (NRAs) to impose LLU remedies on incumbents with significant market power (SMP) in wholesale local access markets. The European Commission supported implementation through a 2000-2001 sector inquiry, revealing bottlenecks in access and pricing, and initiated infringement proceedings against non-compliant member states by 2003.^[12] EU policy emphasized cost-oriented pricing, collocation rights, and sub-loop unbundling to facilitate DSL deployment, with the goal of accelerating broadband rollout amid varying national copper network qualities. Implementation across member states was executed by NRAs under EU harmonization, resulting in diverse uptake rates and remedy designs by the mid-2000s. In France, ARCEP (formerly ART) mandated aggressive LLU on France Télécom, enforcing low rental rates and rapid collocation; this spurred high adoption, with unbundled lines surging from 360,000 in March 2004 to over 1 million by December 2004, predominantly via line sharing for DSL services.^[53] Germany's Bundesnetzagentur required LLU from Deutsche Telekom starting early, achieving around 100,000 unbundled lines by mid-2003, though entrants often favored bitstream access over full unbundling due to higher deployment costs and regulatory pricing disputes.^[13] Italy's AGCOM promoted full unbundling on Telecom Italia's network, yielding high shares of fully unbundled lines by the mid-2000s—among the highest in the EU—following initial delays resolved through 2006 pricing adjustments and collocation expansions.^[53] Other states like the Netherlands and Sweden emphasized line sharing, while southern members such as Spain and Portugal saw slower progress due to geographic challenges and weaker enforcement until EU pressure in 2003. By the late 2000s, LLU remedies were reviewed under market analyses, with incumbents in France, Germany, and Italy retaining SMP designations but facing refined obligations like geographic segmentation for next-generation access (NGA).^[54] The 2009 regulatory package (Better Regulation Directive 2009/140/EC) maintained LLU for copper while allowing NRAs flexibility for fiber transitions, though unbundling rates peaked around 2005-2010 before declining with FTTH migration. In 2018's European Electronic Communications Code (Directive (EU) 2018/1972), LLU persisted as a default remedy for legacy loops, but emphasis shifted to symmetric access for gigabit networks, with member states like France certifying fiber infrastructure to balance competition and investment.^[55] Implementation disparities persisted, with northern states achieving higher historical LLU penetration (e.g., Denmark and Finland exceeding 20% of lines unbundled by 2005) compared to eastern expansions post-2004 enlargement, where uptake lagged due to nascent markets.^[13]

United States

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 established the framework for unbundling in the United States, requiring incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) under Section 251 to interconnect with competitors, resell services, and provide nondiscriminatory access to unbundled network elements (UNEs), including local loops, at forward-looking economic cost via the Total Element Long-Run Incremental Cost (TELRIC) methodology.^[25]^[26] This aimed to dismantle ILEC monopolies on last-mile copper infrastructure by enabling competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) to lease elements for voice and emerging broadband services like DSL, without building duplicate facilities.^[29] The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) implemented initial rules in its 1996 Local Competition Order, mandating unbundling of seven network elements, including loops and switches.^[26] Early judicial oversight shaped the policy's scope. The Supreme Court in AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Board (1999) affirmed FCC authority over unbundling but rejected a broad "impairment" standard for requiring access, emphasizing case-by-case analysis under Section 251(d)(2). Subsequent FCC orders, such as the 2000 Line Sharing Order permitting CLECs to access high-frequency portions of loops for DSL, facilitated initial broadband entry.^[56] However, reliance on "all-elements" combinations like UNE-Platform (UNE-P), which bundled loops, switches, and transport, grew dominant; by 2004, CLECs served 20 million of 33 million access lines via UNEs, capturing about 20% market share.^[29] Policy evolved through mandatory Triennial Reviews under Section 252(d)(1), prioritizing facilities-based competition over perpetual sharing. The 2003 Triennial Review Order narrowed unbundling obligations, exempting new fiber loops and packet-switched services from mandatory access to avoid deterring upgrades, while allowing states to assess impairment for legacy copper.^[57] The D.C. Circuit in United States Telecom Ass'n v. FCC (USTA II, 2004) vacated parts delegating decisions to states, prompting the 2005 Triennial Review Remand Order, which phased out unbundled switching nationwide by March 11, 2006, and limited loop unbundling to residential copper in uncompetitive areas.^[29]^[58] These changes shifted dynamics: UNE-P lines plummeted 90% from 2004 peaks to 3 million by 2010, as CLECs pivoted to VoIP (reaching 29 million lines by 2010) and wireless alternatives amid declining access lines from 181 million in 1999 to 95 million in 2010.^[29] Empirical analyses indicate unbundling's mixed effects, with initial entry gains but long-term distortions. While post-1996 capital investment surged (7.9% annual growth, peaking $194 billion above trend by 2001), mandatory access at TELRIC rates—below replacement costs—created free-rider incentives, reducing ILEC incentives for irreversible upgrades like fiber deployment, as competitors could lease without sharing upgrade costs.^[29]^[45] Scaling back obligations correlated with accelerated facilities-based investment; for instance, low UNE prices empirically discouraged CLEC self-provisioning of facilities, fostering dependence rather than innovation.^[59] In contrast to stricter regimes elsewhere, U.S. adjustments promoted broadband expansion, with data showing higher fiber deployment under "light-touch" unbundling limited to legacy elements.^[29] Recent FCC actions, such as the 2021 Unbundling Report and Order eliminating requirements for enterprise-grade DS1/DS3 loops (with transitions), further prioritize next-generation networks over compelled sharing.^[60]

Other Jurisdictions (UK, New Zealand, and Selected Examples)

In the United Kingdom, local loop unbundling (LLU) was implemented following the EU's regulatory framework and the UK's Communications Act 2003, with British Telecom (BT) required to provide physical access to its copper loops starting in July 2001.^[61] This policy enabled competitors to collocate equipment in BT exchanges and lease unbundled lines, aiming to accelerate DSL broadband rollout amid lagging adoption rates.^[7] However, econometric analysis of postcode-level data from 2002–2010 found no causal effect of LLU on broadband penetration or market entry beyond bitstream access, with unbundled areas showing similar subscriber growth to non-unbundled ones after controlling for local demand factors.^[62] While LLU facilitated service-based competition, reducing retail prices in some segments by up to 20% through 2005, it correlated with a 25–30% reduction in BT's capital expenditures on local infrastructure upgrades, as mandated sharing eroded returns on new investments.^[63]^[7] New Zealand mandated LLU via the Telecommunications Amendment Act 2006, with unbundled copper local loop (UCLL) services becoming available from December 2008 after the functional separation of Telecom New Zealand into operational divisions.^[64] The Commerce Commission regulated UCLL pricing through cost-based models, including a 2012 benchmarking review that adjusted wholesale rates downward by referencing international benchmarks to promote affordability for entrants.^[65] This complemented earlier bitstream unbundling from 2007, driving fixed broadband penetration from 15% in 2008 to over 25% by 2011, though attribution to LLU alone is complicated by concurrent government subsidies for rural connectivity.^[66] Cost-benefit modeling estimated net welfare gains from UCLL of NZ$200–500 million over a decade, primarily via lower retail prices, but highlighted risks of deterring fiber investments, with incumbents citing regulatory uncertainty as a factor in delayed next-generation network rollouts.^[67] In Australia, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) declared LLU as a regulated service in 2000 under Part XIC of the Trade Practices Act, requiring Telstra to provide access to its copper loops at cost-oriented prices varying by metropolitan versus rural zones.^[13] Despite facilitating early DSL competition, uptake remained low—less than 5% of loops unbundled by 2005—due to protracted pricing disputes and high backhaul costs, contributing to Australia's below-OECD-median broadband speeds through the mid-2000s.^[68] Canada's CRTC mandated LLU for incumbent local exchange carriers in Decision 99-16 (1999), with full wholesale access rules solidified by 2007, allowing regional price differentiation that averaged CAD$20–30 per month per line.^[13] This spurred alternative providers like TekSavvy but yielded mixed broadband adoption outcomes, as unbundling correlated with stable DSL pricing yet limited incentives for incumbents' fiber-to-the-premises investments amid competition from cable networks.^[68] In Japan, LLU introduced under the 2000 Telecommunications Business Law amendments boosted short-term DSL entry but reduced incumbent NTT's infrastructure spending by approximately 15% annually post-2001, exacerbating delays in fiber deployment relative to unregulated markets.^[33]

Criticisms, Controversies, and Unintended Consequences

Deterrence of Network Upgrades

Mandatory local loop unbundling (LLU) creates disincentives for incumbents to upgrade legacy copper networks to next-generation access (NGA) technologies like fiber-to-the-home, as competitors can access the enhanced infrastructure at regulated wholesale prices that fail to recover upgrade costs, enabling free-riding on sunk investments.^[69] This dynamic, rooted in the irreversibility of telecom infrastructure spending, leads incumbents to delay or forgo upgrades, anticipating that mandated sharing will erode returns.^[70] Empirical analyses of European telecoms data spanning over 70 fixed-line operators across 20 countries from the early 2000s confirm that access regulations, including LLU, exert a statistically significant negative effect on both total industry investment and individual carrier outlays, with regulated entry promotion undermining facilities-based competition.^[69] In practice, stricter LLU enforcement correlates with subdued NGA deployment; for instance, in France, municipalities with more local loop unbundlers experienced significantly lower coverage expansion for high-speed broadband (≥30 Mbps), encompassing fiber, as estimated via panel data from 2011–2015 and controlling for endogeneity through two-stage models.^[71] EU-wide evidence reinforces this: mandatory LLU has prompted "wait-and-see" attitudes among entrants, who favor service-based access over self-deployment, failing to compensate for incumbents' reduced incentives, while active fiber unbundling further deters upgrades.^[72] By December 2014, incumbents passed only 27.7% of EU homes with ultra-fast connections, trailing alternative operators but contributing to overall continental lags in NGA rollout relative to facilities-focused regimes like the U.S., where LLU was largely abandoned post-2005 in favor of infrastructure competition.^[72]^[50] These patterns hold despite LLU's intent to foster a "ladder of investment," as wholesale mandates depress retail prices and elevate opportunity costs for proprietary builds.^[72]

Regulatory Distortions and Market Failures

Local loop unbundling (LLU) introduces regulatory distortions through mandated access pricing mechanisms, such as forward-looking long-run incremental cost models like TELRIC in the United States or similar cost-oriented approaches in the European Union, which often undervalue the incumbent's embedded infrastructure costs, historical investments, and associated risks. This pricing fails to reflect opportunity costs or the premium required for capital-intensive network deployment, allowing entrants to lease loops at rates below efficient levels and engage in cream-skimming by targeting high-margin customers while avoiding unprofitable areas.^[73] ^[40] Consequently, incumbents face asymmetric burdens, subsidizing competitors and distorting market signals that would otherwise guide efficient entry and exit decisions.^[74] A core market failure stems from the free-rider problem inherent in LLU, where service-based competitors exploit the incumbent's sunk investments without bearing equivalent upgrade or maintenance costs, eroding the incumbent's ability to recoup expenditures through exclusive service provision. Empirical analyses across European markets reveal that stricter unbundling obligations correlate with reduced capital expenditures by both incumbents and, in some cases, entrants, as the policy dampens incentives for risky next-generation infrastructure like fiber optics. For instance, a study of EU countries found that higher LLU penetration lowered incentives for deploying high-speed broadband coverage exceeding 30 Mbps, with more competitors relying on unbundled access implying diminished facilities-based rollout.^[75] ^[10] ^[76] This dynamic undermines the "ladder of investment" rationale, trapping markets in legacy copper networks rather than fostering transitions to superior technologies, as evidenced by slower fiber adoption in heavily regulated jurisdictions compared to lighter-touch regimes.^[77] These distortions perpetuate dependency on regulated access, stifling dynamic competition and innovation by discouraging duplication of infrastructure essential for resilience and technological advancement. In the EU, where Regulation (EC) No 2887/2000 enforced LLU from December 2000, initial boosts in DSL-based broadband masked long-term underinvestment, with empirical evidence indicating negative effects on overall penetration when accounting for infrastructure quality.^[12] ^[10] Similarly, U.S. experiences prior to the 2005 FCC scaling back of unbundling obligations highlighted how expansive mandates led to inefficient entry without commensurate investment, prompting policy reversals to prioritize facilities-based rivalry.^[73] Overall, LLU's structure amplifies hold-up risks and transaction costs in access negotiations, further entrenching market inefficiencies over sustainable competition.^[74]

Evolution Toward Next-Generation Access

Transitions to Fiber and Alternatives

As telecommunications networks evolved toward next-generation access (NGA) technologies like fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP), regulators faced challenges in extending local loop unbundling (LLU) mandates from copper-based digital subscriber line (DSL) services to fiber optics, due to the latter's higher deployment costs and architectural differences, such as point-to-multipoint passive optical networks (PON) that complicate physical unbundling.^[78] Empirical analyses indicate that mandatory copper LLU often reduced incentives for fiber investment by incumbents and entrants, with one study finding a negative long-run effect on household broadband penetration rates and fiber coverage in Europe.^[79] Another examination of French municipalities showed that a higher number of LLU competitors correlated with lower deployment and coverage of fast broadband (over 30 Mbps), as service-based entry via copper delayed facilities-based fiber upgrades.^[76] In the United States, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) addressed this by eliminating unbundling obligations for fiber-based local loops as early as 2005, citing risks of deterring NGA deployment, and further modernized rules in 2020 by phasing out requirements for enterprise-grade DS1 and DS3 loops in competitive areas to prioritize voluntary infrastructure investment.^[80]^[60] This approach reflected a causal recognition that mandatory access on costly fiber networks could strand investments, unlike copper where sunk costs were already incurred. Within the European Union, the transition emphasized "virtual unbundled local access" (VULA) remedies for FTTP, allowing competitors Layer 2 access to fiber loops with control over speed and quality-of-service parameters, without physical handover, as implemented by regulators like Ofcom in the UK and Malta's MCA since around 2015.^[81]^[78] The European Commission's 2010 NGA Recommendation promoted passive infrastructure remedies like duct access over active unbundling to facilitate fiber rollout, while bitstream products served as substitutes, providing wholesale Ethernet access at aggregation points.^[82] These measures aimed to balance competition with investment, though evidence suggests persistent copper LLU obligations continued to hinder full FTTH transitions in some member states by preserving service-based reliance.^[83] Alternatives to traditional unbundling for fiber included fixed access network sharing (FANS), enabling virtualized operations and dark fiber leasing for point-to-point architectures, which reduced deployment barriers without mandating access.^[84] Facilities-based competition, supported by deregulation or subsidies, emerged in jurisdictions like parts of New Zealand post-2011, where structural separation of copper from fiber encouraged independent FTTP builds.^[85] In transition phases, regulators adjusted copper LLU pricing—often increasing it post-fiber availability—to accelerate network switch-off and migration, as modeled in analyses showing optimal incentives for full replacement.^[86] These strategies prioritized causal incentives for greenfield investments over legacy access mandates.

Recent Regulatory Adjustments (2020s)

In the early 2020s, regulators in major jurisdictions adjusted local loop unbundling (LLU) mandates to prioritize fiber-optic deployments over legacy copper networks, recognizing that traditional physical unbundling often discourages infrastructure upgrades by imposing ongoing access obligations on depreciating assets. These changes typically involve transitioning to virtual unbundled local access (VULA) for next-generation networks or lifting remedies as copper retires, aiming to balance competition with investment incentives.^[87]^[88] In the United States, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) eliminated unbundling requirements for enterprise-grade DS1 and DS3 loops in a January 2021 order, providing reasonable transition periods to facilitate shifts to next-generation services and reduce distortions in fiber investment.^[60] Building on a 2020 notice of proposed rulemaking that sought broader modernizations for local loops and dark fiber, the FCC in March 2025 further expedited copper retirement approvals, expanding criteria and streamlining processes to accelerate migrations without mandatory unbundling on new builds.^[3]^[89] European Union National Regulatory Authorities (NRAs), operating under the European Electronic Communications Code's implementation from 2020, have favored VULA remedies—offering layer-2 bitstream access—for very high capacity fiber networks, as physical LLU proves technically inefficient for fiber architectures requiring active splitting.^[90] The European Commission's December 2020 explanatory note reinforced VULA's equivalence to physical access for promoting competition while minimizing deployment risks, with BEREC guidelines standardizing layer-2 wholesale products including local handover points.^[91]^[92] As copper switch-offs advance—targeting completion by 2030 in many states—NRAs have deregulated markets exhibiting effective fiber competition, such as lifting significant market power designations in areas with widespread gigabit coverage.^[93]^[94] In the United Kingdom, Ofcom's March 2021 Wholesale Fixed Telecoms Market Review imposed VULA obligations on Openreach for full-fiber access through 2026, ensuring nondiscriminatory wholesale products while relaxing certain copper-era LLU constraints to spur gigabit investments exceeding £10 billion by mid-decade.^[95] With Openreach's copper network closure accelerating toward 2027-2030, traditional LLU volumes have declined sharply, prompting Ofcom's 2025 proposals for the 2026-2031 period to refine quality-of-service rules and equivalence principles for fiber-dominant markets.^[96]^[97] These adjustments underscore a regulatory pivot: preserving access competition via tailored fiber remedies while phasing out copper LLU to avoid perpetuating outdated infrastructure.^[98]

References

[1]
47 CFR § 51.319 - Specific unbundling requirements.
The local loop network element is defined as a transmission facility between a distribution frame (or its equivalent) in an incumbent LEC central office and ...
[2]
LOCAL LOOP UNBUNDLING - ITU
Local loop unbundling (LLU) is a trend where countries require operators to give competitors access to local loops to foster competition in broadband services.Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
[3]
Modernizing Unbundling and Resale Requirements in an Era of ...
Jan 6, 2020 · In this document, the Federal Communications Commission seeks comment on a number of proposals to modernize unbundling and resale obligations.Missing: controversies | Show results with:controversies
[4]
[PDF] MANDATORY UNBUNDLING AND IRREVERSIBLE INVESTMENT ...
This paper addresses the impact on investment incentives of the network sharing arrangements mandated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, with a focus on ...
[5]
An empirical analysis of fixed and mobile broadband diffusion
We find that local loop unbundling, income, population density, education, and price are significant factors in fixed broadband diffusion. For mobile broadband ...
[6]
[PDF] The relationship between local loop unbundling and the ... - EconStor
This paper means to add to empirical research on the impact of local loop unbundling (LLU) on broadband networks. In particular, it focuses on broadband ...
[7]
Unbundling the incumbent: Evidence from UK broadband - CEPR
Nov 25, 2012 · We also offer evidence that local loop unbundling entrants compete by differentiating their offers 'upwards' compared with BT. They have focused ...
[8]
[PDF] Unbundling the incumbent and deployment of high-speed internet
May 29, 2019 · We find that a higher number of LLU competitors in a municipality has a negative impact on the deployment and coverage of fast broadband,.
[9]
[PDF] A Structural Model of Local Loop Unbundling - STICERD
Nov 28, 2007 · We find that competitive externalities are empirically small: the potential impact of local loop unbundling on price competition explains, on ...
[10]
[PDF] The impact of local loop unbundling revisited - EconStor
In terms of intra-platform competition, empirical studies are divided over the effects of unbundling on broadband penetration. Denni/Gruber (2006) study the.Missing: history | Show results with:history<|separator|>
[11]
[PDF] Local Loop Unbundling and Bitstream Access
Local Loop Unbundling and Bitstream Access: Regulatory Practice in Europe and the U.S.. Pio Baake, Brigitte Preissl (Editors). Johannes M. Bauer. Per Björstedt.
[12]
Sector inquiry into local loop - Competition Policy - European Union
Unbundling of the local loop, either in the form of full unbundling or of shared access, was mandated by a European Regulation of December 2000 and ...Missing: process | Show results with:process
[13]
[PDF] Developments in Local Loop Unbundling (EN) - OECD
Jun 2, 2003 · The local loop refers to the telecommunication circuit, usually pairs of copper wire, between the user's premises and the telecommunications ...
[14]
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/consultations/uncategorised/8694-llu/associated-documents/llu_statement.pdf
[15]
[PDF] Unbundling the Local Loop and Regulatory Measures to Encourage ...
Line sharing is a form of local loop unbundling where the incumbent and other licensed operator share the same line. • From the MDF the wires are connected to a ...
[16]
FAQs on the unbundled local loop (ULL) - Deutsche Telekom
ULL, or Unbundled Local Loop, is a copper line from the local exchange to telephone sockets, also known as the 'last mile'.
[17]
SHARING INFRASTRUCTURE - ITU
In some regions, local loop unbundling is an important way to promote the sharing of infrastructure. The term “local loop” traditionally refers to the circuit ...<|separator|>
[18]
Do economic, institutional or political variables explain regulated ...
Mar 7, 2016 · This variable aims to examine whether scale economies impact on the costs to operators of unbundling local loops.
[19]
Local loop unbundling (LLU) - ANACOM
In full unbundling access, the operator of your choice has total control over the local loop, in order to provide users with voice and broadband services.Missing: process | Show results with:process
[20]
Local Loop Unbundling - CMS LawNow
The EU Regulation on LLU requires incumbents to offer shared access (or line sharing). Line sharing enables operators and the incumbent to share the same line.
[21]
Unbundled access to the local loop | EUR-Lex - European Union
Sep 19, 2005 · Unbundled access to the local loop is a prerequisite for developing high-speed access to the Internet. ACT. Regulation (EC) No 2887/2000 of the ...
[22]
[PDF] Local Loop Unbundling - ComReg
Mar 21, 1999 · Providing for consumer choice in terms of quality and price is the key benefit that should flow from liberalisation.Missing: concept | Show results with:concept<|separator|>
[23]
[PDF] ITU-T Rec. L.62 (09/2004) Practical aspects of unbundling services ...
For better understanding of the terms, the main types of unbundling of the local loop are outlined in. Figure 1 and described below. See abbreviations on the ...
[24]
[PDF] TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996 - Congress.gov
Mar 5, 1996 · ''(vi) Local switching unbundled from transport, local loop transmission, or other services. ''(vii) Nondiscriminatory access to—. ''(I) 911 ...
[25]
Telecommunications Act of 1996 | Federal Communications ...
Jun 20, 2013 · (1996). The third section identifies the FCC proceeding to implement the statutory requirement including the bureau docket number and the ...
[26]
[PDF] Federal Communications Commission 96-325
... Unbundling Requirements. 366. 1. Local Loops. 367. 2 ... Local Loop. Page 7. Federal Communications Commission. 96-325. Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub.
[27]
Adopts Rules on Unbundling of Network Elements
Sep 15, 1999 · Loops. Incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) must offer unbundled access to loops, including high-capacity lines, xDSL-capable loops, dark ...
[28]
[PDF] The FCC and the Unregulation of the Internet
Jul 14, 1999 · In the 1990s, the Internet would explode with the development of the World Wide Web and the first web browsers, software used to navigate the ...
[29]
[PDF] Lessons Learned from the U.S. Unbundling Experience
The stale, static, highly subsidized monopolized local exchange market of the early 1990s would soon transition into a dynamic, multi-firm, multi-technology ...
[30]
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 and its impact - ScienceDirect
This paper analyzes the effects on the implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (`Act') on US telecommunications markets.
[31]
[PDF] Official Journal of the European Communities 29.6.2000 L 156/44 ...
Jun 29, 2000 · Companies using DSL technology on unbundled local loops to provide services to customers should be authorised in accordance with the Directive ...
[32]
Local competition and the role of regulation: the EU debate and ...
Competition in local access networks and local loop unbundling have been central in the 1999 review of the EU communications regulatory framework.
[33]
[PDF] The influence of local loop unbundling on investment by incumbent ...
Some OECD countries first introduced LLU in the late 1990s, although most began adopting LLU around 2000. Therefore, it has been well over ten years since LLU ...
[34]
NTIA Ex Parte Comments on unbundled network elements (UNEs)in ...
The market-opening provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act) are stimulating the growth of local exchange competition. More than 140 companies ...
[35]
[PDF] a Brief history of Internet regulation - Progressive Policy Institute
So the Act included the unbundling requirement in order to rein in the local phone companies' (presumably) temporary monopoly power over local networks and to ...
[36]
Encouraging infrastructure competition via the ladder of investment
This approach has been likened to climbing a 'ladder of investment', which should culminate in a high level of competition across the value chain (Cave, 2004).
[37]
A critical review of the “ladder of investment” approach - ScienceDirect
The “ladder of investment” is a regulatory approach proposed by Cave (2006), which has been widely embraced by national regulatory authorities in the ...
[38]
Encouraging infrastructure competition via the ladder of investment
' The paper proposes and illustrates methods for assessing the replicability of different assets and sets out the steps which regulators can follow in ...
[39]
A Too Short Ladder? Broadband Investments and Local Loop ...
Jul 17, 2012 · This paper means to add to empirical research on the impact of local loop unbundling (LLU) on broadband networks ... ladder of investment theory).
[40]
[PDF] The relation between local loop unbundling and investment in fixed ...
The above papers seem to agree with the theory of the ladder of investment where an optimally set access price after entry can foster investment in new ...
[41]
Dynamic Entry and Investment in New Infrastructures: Empirical ...
Jan 29, 2011 · In this paper, we build an empirical model that encompasses a complete ladder-of-investment, composed of three rungs: bitstream access, local loop unbundling ...
[42]
Snakes and ladders: Unbundling in a next generation world
This need is likely to influence the regulator's unbundling and access pricing regime, including application of the 'ladder of investment', which encourages ...
[43]
Evidence for a Ladder of Investment in Central and Eastern ...
The approach to liberalisation of European telecommunications markets followed what has become known as the “Ladder of Investment” (LoI).
[44]
https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/7982/05_17YaleJonReg1_2000_.pdf
[45]
[PDF] Mandatory Unbundling and Irreversible Investment in Telecom ... - MIT
This paper focuses on the nature of decisions to make irreversible capital investments in telecommunications network infrastructure. Such investments constitute ...
[46]
[PDF] An Economist's Guide to Local Loop Unbundling
Abstract: This guide provides a critical review of the economics literature on the desirability and the effects of unbundling the local loop.Missing: principles | Show results with:principles
[47]
[PDF] Broadband - What Works Centre for Local Economic Growth
We looked for evidence on the effect of local loop unbundling either on household adoption of broadband and other broadband outcomes such as prices and ...
[48]
Catching Up in Broadband Regressions: Does Local Loop Unbundling Really Lead to Material Increases in OECD Broadband Uptake?
### Summary of Findings on Local Loop Unbundling (LLU) and Broadband Penetration
[49]
[PDF] Unbundling the Incumbent and Deployment of High-Speed Internet
We find that a higher number of LLU competitors has a negative impact on the deployment and coverage of fast broadband, delivering speeds of 30Mbps or more.
[50]
[PDF] U.S. vs. European Broadband Deployment: What Do the Data Say?
Jun 1, 2014 · Data analysis indicates that as of the end of 2012, the U.S. approach promoted broadband investment, while the European approach had the ...Missing: LLU | Show results with:LLU
[51]
[PDF] TYPOLOGY OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROVISIONS IN ...
May 12, 2022 · The Reference Paper not only does not explicitly refer to local loop unbundling, but the scope of its provisions on interconnection is ...
[52]
L.62 : Practical aspects of unbundling services by multiple operators in copper access networks
### Summary of ITU-T Recommendation L.62
[53]
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=977403
[54]
[PDF] Local Loop Unbundling and Bitstream Access: Regulatory Practice ...
A rather slow implementation of unbundling provisions took place in Italy, where the incum- bent was accused of avoiding regulatory interventions by using a ...
[55]
[PDF] THE FUTURE OF EUROPEAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS - cerre
Sep 15, 2024 · They do not necessarily reflect the position of, and cannot be attributed to any of the abovementioned organisations.
[56]
https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-releases-line-sharing-order
[57]
[PDF] Federal Communications Commission FCC 03-36
Principles of Unbundling. The standards for unbundling are based on ... United States Telecom Ass'n, 123 S.Ct. 1571 (2003 Mem.) (cert. denied after ...
[58]
Federal Communications Commission FCC 04-290 1 Before the ...
Feb 4, 2005 · ... Triennial Review NPRM,5 the Commission adopted, in the Triennial Review Order, new unbundling rules implementing section 251 of the 1996. Act ...<|separator|>
[59]
[PDF] Do Unbundling Policies Discourage CLEC Facilities-Based Investment
anecdotal evidence suggesting that low UNE prices discourage facilities-based investment also exists. Recently, empirical evidence has emerged to substantiate.
[60]
Modernizing Unbundling and Resale Requirements in an Era of ...
Jan 8, 2021 · In this document, the Commission eliminates unbundling requirements, subject to reasonable transition periods, for enterprise-grade DS1 and DS3 loops.
[61]
Implementing local loop unbundling - an account of the key challenges
Local loop unbundling (LLU) is a regulatory device that allows telecom operators without physical network infrastructure to lease access to the physical assets ...
[62]
[PDF] Local loop unbundling in the UK does not affect broadband ...
Jul 13, 2016 · This analysis uses data from the UK to investigate whether such a policy stimulates market entry and broadband penetration and/or leads to an ...
[63]
Unbundling the Incumbent: Evidence from UK Broadband
Abstract. We consider the impact of a regulatory process forcing an incumbent telecom operator to make its local broadband network available to other compa.
[64]
New Zealand Telecommunications | Telsoc
The next identified milestone is the 2006 operational separation of Telecom and local loop unbundling, which the paper asserts was the result of the growth of ...
[65]
[PDF] Final determination on the benchmarking review for the unbundled ...
Dec 3, 2012 · This determination concludes the Commission's benchmarking review for the UCLL service. This review was conducted under section 30R of the ...
[66]
[PDF] TOWARD UNIVERSAL BROADBAND ACCESS IN NEW ZEALAND
Nov 5, 2010 · The Government began to prepare significant reforms to the regulatory regime, including local loop unbundling, to support the Government's goal ...<|separator|>
[67]
[PDF] new zealand commerce commission modelling the impact of ... - Oxera
address whether local-loop unbundling (LLU) or unbundling of the fixed PDN should be regulated, and presents the results of the analysis. The analysis ...
[68]
(PDF) The Adoption of Broadband Internet in Australia and Canada
Aug 26, 2015 · Unbundling allows competitors to offer broadband services over existing infrastructure. There is mixed opinion as to the impact of local loop ...
[69]
Regulation and Investment in Network Industries: Evidence from ...
Empirical evidence from broadband networks suggests that infrastructure competition between digital subscriber line (DSL) and cable TV providers had a ...
[70]
[PDF] MANDATORY UNBUNDLING AND IRREVERSIBLE INVESTMENT ...
This paper addresses the impact on investment incentives of the network sharing arrangements mandated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, with a focus on ...
[71]
[PDF] Unbundling the incumbent and deployment of high-speed internet
Jul 20, 2022 · We find that a higher number of LLU competitors in a municipality has a negative impact on the deployment and coverage of fast broadband,.
[72]
Why is Europe lagging on next generation access networks? - Bruegel
Oct 1, 2015 · Empirical evidence suggests that mandatory local loop unbundling has not led entrants to ramp up access network infrastructure as expected.<|separator|>
[73]
https://www.fclj.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/68.1.3-Spiwak-and-Ford.pdf
[74]
Why Local Loop Unbundling Fails: The Case of EU, U.S. and Norway
Unified ownership implies that the entrant either directly invests in the local loop – i.e., becomes what is known in the US as a facilities-based operator, or ...Missing: criticisms | Show results with:criticisms
[75]
[PDF] The Relationship between Access Pricing Regulation and ... - ACM
This is a typical free rider problem that may cause big losses in social welfare. ... • Local loop unbundling (LLU). Contrary to the previous case, the ...
[76]
Unbundling the incumbent and deployment of high-speed internet
First, using panel data over the period 2011–2014, we estimate a model of entry into local markets by alternative operators using local loop unbundling (LLU).
[77]
[PDF] The Impact of Local Loop and Retail Unbundling Revisited Gordon J ...
6 Unbundling allows competitors in concentrated markets to use parts of the incumbent's network infrastructure. This should help to increase complementary ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[78]
[PDF] Virtual unbundling: The basis for competition in next generation ...
Virtual unbundling is designed to replicate physical unbundling of copper cables, introduced by OFCOM and RTR as a remedy in Market 4.
[79]
The long-run effects of copper-loop unbundling and the implications ...
This paper reviews the existing evidence on the effects of copper unbundling, and presents new empirical results based on regression analyses of broadband ...
[80]
[PDF] Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-152 Before the ...
Oct 28, 2020 · the Commission eliminated unbundled access to fiber-based local loops because, among other reasons, requiring unbundling of fiber-based ...
[81]
[PDF] VIRTUAL UNBUNDLED ACCESS TO FIBRE-TO-THE-HOME
Apr 15, 2015 · Within this general context, the FTTH VULA remedy is intended to achieve the following main regulatory objectives: 1. provide access seekers ...
[82]
Next Generation Access Networks (NGA) | EUR-Lex - European Union
Oct 20, 2010 · This Recommendation therefore defines a common regulatory approach as regards access to the new very fast broadband networks using optical fibre ...Missing: virtual | Show results with:virtual
[83]
Regulating next‐generation fixed access to telecommunications ...
In addition access seekers should be offered bitstream NGA products, which are adequate substitutes for local loop unbundling.
[84]
[PDF] Fixed Access Network Sharing (FANS) - Broadband Forum
An objective of FANS is to enable VNOs to perform operations with virtual unbundling similar ... Moreover, the coverage of next generation access networks (e.g. ...
[85]
Rollout and regulation of Fibre-To-The-Premises networks. Insights ...
We first analyse the evolution of the market and the regulatory framework concerning FTTP technologies. ... copper unbundling and investments. Section 3 ...Missing: FTTH | Show results with:FTTH
[86]
How to price the unbundled local loop in the transition from copper ...
All regulators facing this situation of technological change have to decide how to price unbundled access to the copper loop in this transition phase. Should ...
[87]
[PDF] Study on Regulatory Incentives for the Deployment of Very High ...
This study aims to support the Commission in assessing the need to revise guidance on regulatory incentives for deploying Very High Capacity Networks (VHCN).
[88]
[PDF] CERRE 2020 | VHCN
Nov 2, 2020 · ... virtual unbundled local access or. VULA, became the preferred local access product in upgraded copper networks67. There was a requirement to ...
[89]
FCC Fast-Tracks Copper Line Phase-Out for Modern Networks
Mar 24, 2025 · New actions announced by the FCC on March 20 include streamlining procedures for copper line retirement, expanding retirement criteria, and ...
[90]
[PDF] EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 6.2.2024 SWD(2024) 18 final ...
Feb 6, 2024 · ... local access is not limited to physical access but includes also virtual unbundled local access (VULA)168. Experience under the Article 7 ...
[91]
[PDF] EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 18.12.2020 SWD ... - Nkom
Dec 18, 2020 · ... unbundling will in many cases become less important over the course of the next 10 years. Virtual Unbundled Local Access (VULA). In the 2014 ...
[92]
BEREC Report on Common Characteristics of Layer 2 Wholesale ...
The document covers both L2 WAP with local points of handover (PoH) (also known as virtual unbundled local access (VULA)) and L2 WAP with PoH at higher levels ...Missing: fiber | Show results with:fiber
[93]
[PDF] Draft BEREC Progress Report on managing copper network switch-off
Dec 5, 2024 · Following BEREC (22) 69 Report on a consistent approach to migration and copper switch- off, this report aims at providing an update on the ...Missing: 2020s | Show results with:2020s
[94]
[PDF] Market Analysis Lifting of existing regulatory measures concerning ...
May 28, 2024 · Based on the market analysis, the AK found that there is effective competition in the end customer market for broadband connections in the fixed ...
[95]
UPDATE: Regulation of Fibre Broadband in the UK: Ofcom ...
Apr 19, 2021 · On 18 March 2021 Ofcom released its decision for regulation of the wholesale fixed telecommunications market from April 2021 until March 2026.
[96]
[PDF] 2020 WFTMR Volume 2: Market assessment - Ofcom
Apr 1, 2020 · local loop unbundling (LLU) backhaul) which provides connectivity from broadband providers' equipment located in BT exchanges back to the ...
[97]
DCD Magazine out now: The UK's copper switch-off
Sep 16, 2025 · DCD Magazine out now: The UK's copper switch-off. How BT and Openreach are approaching the end of copper. September 16, 2025. By: Sebastian Moss ...
[98]
[PDF] Copper switch-off | WIK-Consult • White paper
Nov 30, 2020 · This study provides a summary of the findings of research conducted by WIK-Consult in. Q3 2020 on the status of copper switch-off in 10 ...