The European Parliament appears to be ready to negotiate on the future European electronic communications code. The industry committee (ITRE) reached a negotiating position in the evening of 2 October and granted the rapporteur a mandate for beginning discussions with the Council. The latter has called for caps on international intra-EU calls and for licenses to be set at a minimum of 25 years.
Nonetheless, there are still several steps to be taken before inter-institution negotiations between Parliament, the Council and Commission can begin. It is possible that at Parliament, a 10th of all MEPs could request during the next plenary session in Strasbourg, another vote on the negotiating mandate (as allowed by article 69 of the European Parliament’s own regulation). At the Council, the Presidency is still aiming for a general approach at the Telecommunications Council on 24 October. The working group is currently putting the final strokes to the text on 3 and 4 October, for validation at the Committee of Permanent Representatives on 11 October.
It should be recalled that the draft directive presented in September 2016 recasts the 2002 framework directive, the “authorisation” directive, the “access” directive and the “universal service” directive. According to the 283 pages, it seeks to ensure that by 2025, there is access to very high broadband for businesses, access to at least 100 Mbit/second for European households and uninterrupted 5G cover in all urban areas and main road axes (see EUROPE 11624).
Infrastructure sharing and co-investment
On Monday evening, the industry, research and energy committee (ITRE) endorsed all the compromise amendments (138 pages) prepared by rapporteur Pilar del Castillo (EPP, Spain) and the shadow rapporteurs from the other groups.
Two packages of compromise amendments were, however, submitted on the sharing of infrastructure (article 59) and co-investment (article 74). In the first section, MEPs agreed on allowing the regulatory authorities to impose access obligations, including active infrastructures as a last resort.
In the second section, MEPs opted for the compromise amendments prepared by the S&D, ALDE and Greens/EFA groups that authorise, but do not compel a regulatory authority to exempt operators from certain rules in the event of co-investment. The regulatory authorities will maintain the power to regulate access if competition is not guaranteed and if operators are involved in anti-competitive practices, explained the S&D group.
Opinions differ between Council and Parliament
Even though the Council has still not adopted its general approach, we are already able to observe differences of views emerging on intra-EU international calls, license duration and the role of the Office of the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC).
The ITRE committee supported, as part of an oral amendment, the appeal by MEPs in charge of the single market and consumer protection in favour of the abolition of surcharges for intra-EU international calls (those made from the country of residency to another EU country). It also explains that BEREC would be in charge of setting out guidelines on how service providers would be able to recover these costs in other ways.
Although the Council is very reluctant about introducing new regulation on the minimum duration for licenses, MEPs were in favour of the Commission’s proposal that forces member states to grant rights to use harmonised radio spectrum for a minimum period of 25 years. It should be pointed out that Ms del Castillo wanted the ceiling to be set at 30 years.
MEPs also maintained the peer group evaluation process for spectrum, which stipulates that any further negotiation should be the subject of an opinion drawn up by BEREC. The Council would prefer that this follow-up is undertaken at the request of a competent authority for the group responsible for radio spectrum policy.
Encryption, 112 and Transnational services
Other measures adopted by the ITRE committee include a “reverse 112 system” that would enable the national authorities to raise the alarm by way of geo-location tools to citizens in the event of major emergencies or impending disasters. There is also the possibility that companies providing electronic communication services in more than one member state, can obtain a general authorisation from the member state of main establishment.
MEPs also included the idea of a geographic index for coverage of the electronic communications networks by way of a “digital exclusion zone” indicator. They also supported comprehensive encryption and excluded any “backdoor” opportunities in this regard.
Responses vary widely
At the European Parliament, the EPP, S&D and ALDE particularly welcomed the provisions on international calls. The European Consumer Office also applauded this measure, although the European Telecommunications Network Operators' Association (ETNO) was broadly critical of it.
The S&D and the association representing alternative operators (ECTA) were delighted with the adoption of the compromise amendment on co-investment, while Digital Europe – which represents the digital technology industry (including Google and Microsoft) – criticised the fact that reducing the roles for co-investment had become optional and was no longer compulsory as proposed by the Commission. Nonetheless, the organisation welcomes the provisions on spectrum, particularly with regard to minimum licensing periods and the peer group assessment mechanism.
It should be pointed out that the ALDE group was particularly delighted with the adoption of the provisions on encryption. (Original version in French by Sophie Petitjean)