Preparing an interconnection agreement between licensed operators

Interconnection agreements govern how two licensed operators exchange traffic. They combine legal, commercial and technical dimensions in a single document and are often supported by a series of annexes that evolve independently of the main body.

Where one operator has published a reference interconnection offer, the negotiation typically starts from that document. The reference offer captures the standard commercial and technical terms the publishing operator is prepared to make available on non-discriminatory terms.

Deviations from the reference offer should be documented and justified to avoid discrimination concerns.

The technical annex specifies the points of interconnection, the signalling protocol, the media path, the required transport capacity, the quality of service parameters and the routing conventions between the two networks.

Because network technology evolves, the technical annex should be structured so it can be updated without reopening the entire agreement.

Commercial terms cover interconnection charges, billing periodicity, dispute resolution windows on billing, credit terms and security. Termination charges should be defined clearly and, where applicable, aligned with the regulator's guidance on cost orientation.

Operational governance clauses cover incident notification, planned works, capacity planning, forecasting and points of contact. These clauses are the ones the operations teams actually use every day, so their clarity matters more than their length.

The dispute resolution clause should describe the internal escalation path, the timeframe for good-faith negotiation and the pathway to regulatory or arbitral resolution if the parties cannot agree.

Where the regulator requires notification or approval of interconnection agreements, the notification should be filed promptly on signature and updates should be filed when the technical or commercial annexes change materially.

The framework governing preparing an interconnection agreement between licensed operators rests on the Law on Telecommunications (2015), its implementing sub-decrees and a series of Prakas issued by the Ministry of Post and Telecommunications (MPTC). Day-to-day administration sits with the Telecommunication Regulator of Cambodia (TRC), which interprets and applies these instruments through published notices, application forms and technical circulars.

Practitioners approaching interconnection should always identify the precise legal instrument that anchors the requirement before responding to a request or drafting an internal procedure. Reliance on informal guidance or historical practice is a common source of non-compliance, particularly where instruments have been updated since a filing was last prepared.

Where a matter also touches on customs, investment, cybersecurity or personal data, additional instruments issued by the Ministry of Economy and Finance, the Council for the Development of Cambodia or specialised agencies may apply in parallel. Coordinating between overlapping regimes is often more demanding than the underlying technical work.

In practice, preparing an interconnection agreement between licensed operators is not a purely formal exercise. TRC assesses submissions against the substance of the applicant's operations, including network topology, coverage plans, equipment inventory, customer segmentation and interaction with other licensed operators. Superficial or template-based submissions are frequently returned with requests for clarification, extending the overall timeline.

Whether interconnection applies to a specific project turns on the nature of the service, the equipment involved, the frequency bands used, the customer base and, in some cases, the identity of counterparties. Boundary cases—private networks with limited external connectivity, in-building systems, temporary deployments and pilots—should be documented and, where useful, confirmed in writing with TRC before commitments are made.

Applicants operating across multiple sites or business units should map the scope carefully. A single notification or licence rarely covers heterogeneous activities, and TRC increasingly expects distinct filings for materially different operations even where they sit within one corporate group.

A well-prepared submission on interconnection typically includes a cover letter identifying the applicant and the requested action, corporate documents (business registration, tax patent, memorandum and articles), authority to sign, technical descriptions and any supporting third-party evidence such as test reports, manufacturer declarations, coverage predictions or interconnection specifications.

TRC expects consistency between commercial and technical documents. Discrepancies between coverage claims and radio parameters, between customer categories in marketing materials and licence scope, or between imported equipment lists and type approval certificates are all common triggers for follow-up questions.

Retention of the underlying evidence file—not merely the approval letter—is essential. Renewals, modifications, inspections and disputes almost always require the original technical file to be produced, sometimes years after issuance.

Realistic timelines for interconnection depend on completeness at the point of filing. Straightforward submissions with complete documentation typically move faster than the statutory maximum; incomplete files can extend the process significantly, particularly where technical clarifications require input from foreign manufacturers or accredited laboratories.

Applicable fees combine application fees, technical evaluation fees and, where relevant, annual or usage-based charges. Fee schedules are periodically updated by Prakas and should be verified at the time of filing rather than assumed from prior transactions.

Communication style also matters. TRC prefers concise, well-organised written submissions in Khmer or bilingual form, with technical annexes clearly cross-referenced. Verbal representations should be confirmed by follow-up correspondence to create a durable record.

The most frequent pitfalls in interconnection include underestimating scope, relying on outdated templates, submitting foreign-language documents without appropriate translation, and failing to align technical parameters with commercial descriptions. Any of these can convert a routine matter into a protracted dialogue with the regulator.

Another recurring issue is fragmented internal ownership. Where regulatory, technical, procurement and legal teams work in isolation, obligations fall between the gaps—particularly ongoing reporting, renewals and change notifications. A single accountable owner, supported by a shared calendar of regulatory deadlines, materially reduces this risk.

Finally, applicants sometimes treat approvals as static. In fact, regulatory expectations evolve, and conditions attached to approvals may be updated at renewal or through subsequent Prakas. Periodic review of live approvals against current requirements is a low-cost, high-value discipline.

Approval is only the starting point. Sustained compliance in relation to preparing an interconnection agreement between licensed operators requires periodic reporting, prompt notification of material changes, cooperation with inspections and prompt payment of recurring fees. Failure on any of these tracks can jeopardise the original approval, even where the underlying activity remains lawful.

Operators are expected to maintain organised, retrievable records: correspondence with TRC, approval certificates, technical files, payment receipts, incident logs and internal decision memoranda. In practice, a simple structured folder—physical or digital—organised by matter and by year is sufficient, provided it is actually maintained.

Where responsibilities are outsourced (for example, to distributors, integrators or hosting providers), contractual arrangements should mirror the regulatory obligations, with clear allocation of reporting duties, indemnities and audit rights.

In our experience advising operators, equipment suppliers and investors on interconnection, the most successful filings are prepared as if they will be read by a reviewer with no prior context. Clear structure, concise technical explanation and pre-emptive answers to likely questions consistently shorten review cycles.

We recommend that clients treat regulatory engagement as a continuing relationship rather than a series of isolated transactions. Investment in a well-organised regulatory file, disciplined internal ownership and periodic review against evolving Prakas typically pays back many times over when time-sensitive matters arise.

Where a matter carries strategic or reputational weight, early informal engagement with TRC—before positions are locked in—often produces materially better outcomes than a purely formal approach. Lex Civora is available to support that engagement and to prepare the underlying filings to a standard appropriate to the stakes involved.