On Monday afternoon 4 December, the Telecommunications Council closed with an “any other business item” on the European electronic communications code. At this event, the Netherlands provided its support to the European Parliament for abolishing surcharges for international intra-EU calls. Hungary announced that together with other member states, it was preparing a proposal on the “institutional” chapter.
It should be recalled that the draft directive presented in September 2016 recasts the 2012 framework directive, the “authorisation” directive, the “access” directive and the “universal service” directive. Its aim is to introduce greater predictability and legal certainty in view of encouraging investment (see EUROPE 11624). After having reached its position, the Parliament and Council entered negotiations on 25 October. Another trialogue is planned for 6 December and will focus on the general objectives of the text as well as provisions on spectrum. The Presidency is also planning high-level talks on the rights of end users, universal services and some new elements introduced by the European Parliament.
The aim of the co-legislators is to reach an agreement before the summer of 2018, as called for by the heads of state and government (see EUROPE 11890).
Non-papers on intra-EU calls and “reverse 112” system
During the Telecoms Council, the Estonian Minister called on his counterparts to give their views on the two provisions introduced by the European Parliament in its position on 2 October, namely: the abolition of surcharges linked to intra-EU international calls and the introduction of a “reverse 112” system (see EUROPE 11875).
With regard to the first trialogue, the European Commission circulated two informal non-papers on these issues. The non-paper on international calls demonstrates that 4% of European households continue to make international EU calls on a daily basis. 14% make regular calls and 21% do so on an occasional basis. The majority of international calls through regular users’ mobiles are in Luxembourg (46%), Ireland (29%), Austria (25%), Cyprus (26%) and Slovenia (19%). On the other hand, they were less frequent in Spain (6%), Hungary (10%), Italy (9%) and Greece (9%). With regard to prices, the Commission notes that the prices of an international intra-EU call in the EU28 is on average three times higher than a domestic call and a text message is 2.24 times higher.
The non-paper on the reverse 112 system (a system that provides an emergency warning) indicates that mobile phone distribution and SMS-based public warning systems on localisation have been implemented or are currently being implemented in just a few member states (Belgium, Latvia, Netherlands, Romania and Sweden). It points out that article 114 of the TFEU could serve as a legal basis for, “the technical provisions facilitating public warnings by the organisation launching the alert to the devices of end users through electronic communications networks or services”. It also highlights the fact that it could prove more interesting if this obligation were imposed on member states (rather than on service/network providers) in so far as it would provide them with greater flexibility.
Main differences
During the discussions on 4 December, the Estonian Presidency summed up the main differences between the co-legislators by pointing to: (1) the duration of the licenses (Parliament wanted to extend them to 25 years, while the Council does not want to put forward any figures); 2) a peer group review for spectra management (Parliament would like to make this obligatory, while the Council wants to make it voluntary; 3) with regard to the role of the Commission and European regulators (as opposed to the Council), Parliament wants to introduce a dual locking system that allows both the Commission and BEREC to oppose solutions suggested by the national authorities; 4) the protection of persons with a disability and 5) end-to-end encryption without a backdoor.
Only a few member states intervened in the debate. The Netherlands ultimately supported an end to surcharges for international intra-EU calls. Mona Keijzer, the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs stated, “excessively high tariffs are difficult to justify to the public at large and any attempt to scrap them requires reflection”. She emphasised that the National Dutch Parliament backed her support for this objective. The other member states did not take a position on this question, despite an invitation to do so by Minister Urve Palo.
One source close to the dossier explained, “We can deduce that the majority of member states are against this idea on principle but that they are not fundamentally against it”. This same source cited the same reasons for those invoked for the abolition of roaming costs.
Hungary indicated that several countries, including those in the Visegrad group, were preparing a joint proposal on the institutional chapter in this code. Finland said that it was “concerned by the extent of the provisions on services” and appealed for greater flexibility in the rules rather than introducing new ones.
The nonpapers can be seen online at the following link: http://bit.ly/2BzeWw4 , http://bit.ly/2jeLh4U and http://bit.ly/2AyigIw (Original version in French by Sophie Petitjean)