INCA Sharing Framework

Your Information

Is your organisation a member of INCA?
Is your organisation a member of CNI?
Your organisation is (select all that apply):

Section 1: Overall Approach

The Three-Layer Model

The framework offers three levels of engagement:

  • INCA Layer: Low-barrier registration signalling willingness to consider sharing
  • AssetHUB Layer: Marketplace platform for bilateral negotiations
  • CNI Layer: Standardised products with agreed specifications and pricing

Question 1.1

Does this three-layer approach make sense for your organisation? Which layer(s) would you be most likely to engage with, and why?

Which layers would you be most likely to engage with?

Question 1.2

Section 2: INCA Layer - Principles and Code of Practice

Statement of Principles

  • Voluntary and selective: Share what you want, with whom you want
  • Respectful: Respond to enquiries, maintain confidentiality
  • Responsible: Consider sharing before overbuilding, maintain assets
  • Clear communication: Use common terminology

Code of Practice

  • Declare willingness to consider sharing
  • Keep contact details current
  • Acknowledge enquiries in reasonable time
  • Act in good faith

Members retain full control over whom they work with, what they share, pricing, and terms.

Question 2.1

Are the Statement of Principles and Code of Practice appropriate and acceptable?

Section 3: Common Framework - Topology and Terminology

Links (fibre routes)

Name Description Typical Distance
Core PoP to PoP >20km
Spine PoP to Aggregation Node 2-20km
Feeder Aggregation Node to Joint 500m-5km
Drop Joint to Premises <500m

Nodes (network locations)

  • PoP (Point of Presence): Data centre, IX, carrier hotel
  • Aggregation Node: Street cabinet (active or passive)
  • Joint: Splice point (typically where splitter is located)
  • Premises: End user location

Question 3.1

Are you happy with these link names (Core, Spine, Feeder, Drop)?

Question 3.2

Are the node names (PoP, Aggregation Node, Joint, Premises) clear and useful?

Question 3.3

Section 4: Valet Service Model

Valet Service Principle

A core principle is that the asset holder performs physical work on behalf of the access seeker:

  • Layer 0: Asset holder installs access seeker's cable into duct
  • Layer 1: Asset holder splices access seeker's fibre at both endpoints

Rationale

  • Protects asset holder's infrastructure
  • Avoids "shared access" maintenance problems
  • Reduces complexity compared with self-install (e.g. Openreach PIA)
  • Faster deployment (holder knows their own infrastructure)

Question 4.1

Do you support the valet service principle?

Section 5: CNI Layer - Dark Fibre Products (Layer 1)

Product Specifications Summary

Feature Drop Feeder Spine Core Point-to-Point
Typical Distance <500m 500m - 5km 2km - 20km >20km Any >1km
Loss Budget 1.5 dB total 3.0 dB total 0.35 dB/km + 1.0 dB 0.35 dB/km + 1.0 dB 0.35 dB/km + 1.5 dB
Provision Time 20 working days 25 working days 30 working days 30 working days 40 working days
Fault Response 8 hours 6 hours 4 hours 4 hours 4 hours
Fault Fix Target 24 hours 12 hours 8 hours 8 hours 8 hours
Availability (Std) 99.0% 99.5% 99.5% 99.5% 99.5%
Minimum Term 12 months 12 months 12 months 12 months 24 months

All products use ITU-T G.652 single-mode fibre. All fix targets are "best efforts". Premium SLA (99.9%) available only on Spine, Core, and Point-to-Point.

Question 5.1: Loss Budgets

The proposed loss budgets are:

  • Drop: 1.5 dB total
  • Feeder: 3.0 dB total
  • Spine/Core: 0.35 dB/km + 1.0 dB
  • Point-to-Point: 0.35 dB/km + 1.5 dB
Are these loss budgets realistic and achievable?

Question 5.2: Provision Times

The proposed provision times are:

  • Drop: 20 working days
  • Feeder: 25 working days
  • Spine/Core: 30 working days
  • Point-to-Point: 40 working days

Consider both perspectives: as an asset holder, can you deliver within these timescales? As an access seeker, are these timescales acceptable for your planning?

As an ASSET HOLDER: Can you deliver within these timescales?
As an ACCESS SEEKER: Are these timescales acceptable for your planning?

Question 5.3: Service Level Agreements

The proposed SLAs include:

  • Fault response times: 4 hours (Core/Spine), 6 hours (Feeder), 8 hours (Drop)
  • Fault fix targets: 8 hours (Core/Spine), 12 hours (Feeder), 24 hours (Drop) - all "best efforts"
  • Availability: 99.0% (Drop), 99.5% standard (Feeder/Spine/Core/P2P), 99.9% premium (Spine/Core/P2P)

Consider both perspectives: as an asset holder, can you commit to these SLAs? As an access seeker, do these SLAs meet your operational requirements?

As an ASSET HOLDER: Can you commit to these SLAs?
As an ACCESS SEEKER: Do these SLAs meet your operational requirements?

Question 5.4: Fibre Specification

The specification requires ITU-T G.652 single-mode fibre (not specifically G.652.D). This accommodates both newer low-water-peak fibre and older variants.

Is this fibre specification appropriate?

Question 5.5: Minimum Contract Terms

Most products: 12 months; Point-to-Point: 24 months (reflecting greater coordination effort)

Are these minimum terms appropriate?

Question 5.6

Section 6: CNI Layer - Duct Access Products (Layer 0)

Duct Route Specification

Product definition: Access to duct/subduct between two points with valet cable installation

Key parameters:

Parameter Value
Endpoints Specified by coordinates, address, or what3words
Capacity Single subduct/way per order
Cable deployment Valet - asset holder installs cable
Feasibility response 10 working days
Provision time 40 working days (includes cable deployment)
Fault acknowledgment 1 working day
Fault investigation 5 working days (if cause not obvious)
Fault fix Best efforts (dependent on damage type and permits)
Minimum term 36 months
Billing Annual (route) + one-off (deployment)

Question 6.1: Provision Time

The proposed provision time is 40 working days (including cable deployment).

Is this provision time realistic and achievable?

Question 6.2: Fault Handling

The proposed fault handling includes:

  • Acknowledgment within 1 working day
  • Investigation within 5 working days (if cause not immediately obvious)
  • Fix on best efforts basis (no fixed timescale)
Are these fault handling parameters realistic and appropriate for Layer 0?

Question 6.3: Minimum Term

The proposed minimum term is 36 months (longer than Layer 1 due to installation effort).

Is this minimum term appropriate?

Question 6.4

Section 7: CNI Commercial Model

Commercial Model

Aspect Detail
Revenue share 80% to asset holder, 20% to CNI
Pricing CNI sets minimums; holders may price higher (but not lower)
Standard specifications No negotiation; products defined in advance
Volume discounts None - all members pay same prices
Billing Monthly (Layer 1), Annual (Layer 0)

Question 7.1

What is your view on the 80/20 revenue share?

Section 8: Governance

Governance Arrangements

The framework is governed by INCA's Infrastructure Sharing Special Interest Group (ISSIG), with input from asset holders, access seekers, CNI, AssetHUB, and public sector bodies.

Key points:

  • INCA membership excludes incumbents (BT/Openreach, Virgin Media)
  • CNI membership is independent - open to any organisation (including non-INCA members)
  • Framework specifications updated based on member feedback
  • INCA reports to Ofcom/DSIT on framework operation and impact

Question 8.1

Section 9: General Feedback

Question 9.1

Question 9.2

Question 9.3

Would your organisation be likely to participate as an asset holder (offering infrastructure for sharing)?

Question 9.4

Would your organisation be likely to participate as an access seeker (accessing others' infrastructure)?

Question 9.5

Submit Your Response

Thank you for your participation in developing the INCA Infrastructure Sharing Framework.

All feedback will be considered by the INCA ISSIG and used to refine the framework before finalisation.