Luxembourg, 12/06/2008 (Agence Europe) - Ministers responsible for telecommunications carefully examined the European Commission's proposals on the “telecom package”, on Thursday 12 June in Luxembourg. At this stage, it was no more than an exchange of views pending the European Parliament's first reading opinion in September. A Council political agreement should be reached by the end of the year, under French Presidency.
Member states largely supported the Commission's intentions (i.e. adjusting the regulatory framework for electronic communications to market realities to make it more effective, and promoting investment in new generation networks as well as the availability of broad band access throughout member states, including in the most remote areas). Member states support the arguments put forward by the Commission aimed at reducing administrative charges relating to market analysis procedure and easier access to radiofrequencies. There was also broad consensus in favour of strengthening security to the benefit of users and for better access to emergency services by all, with improved access for persons with disabilities. The stumbling block remains the creation of a European electronic communications market authority (EECMA), as proposed by the Commission in its draft regulation. The proposal was met with general refusal, after the fashion of the Parliament's current stance. Member states suggest instead that existing structures should be reinforced while confirming the role of the group of European regulators, which must, however, operate more effectively in order to face up to current difficulties on the electronic communications market. Member states suggest an analysis should be made by the next Council of alternative solutions to the Commission's proposal, in particular that formulated by the rapporteur for the European Parliament, Pilar del Castillo Vera (EPP-ED, Spain), who envisages the setting in place of an independent advisory body, “BERT” (Body of European Regulators in Telecommunications), which would work in parallel to the European Network and Information Security Agency, ENISA. The latter will have its mandate extended by three years (see related article). Along the same lines, the delegations unanimously rejected the right of veto available to the Commission for blocking decisions by national regulatory authorities, fearing the strengthening of Commission powers and too much interference on national territory. Denmark was more flexible and was not opposed to the right of veto in exceptional circumstances. Specificities inherent to national markets must be regulated by appropriate measures, the delegations said, agreeing in saying that there would be greater consistency in national decision-making. They refuse uniform solutions that would prevent harmonious market development. Commissioner Viviane Reding, responsible for information society and media policy, clearly understood this message and intimated that the Commission is preparing to come into line with the position shaping up within Council and Parliament.
Another element of reform continues to cause considerable debate, especially among telecoms operators - namely, the functional separation that national regulatory authorities can impose in exceptional circumstances, with the Commission's endorsement. By proposing this measure, the Commission's objective is to prevent traditional operators from taking a dominant position during the setting in place of new generation networks by blocking access to infrastructure by new operators. Member states are divided on this subject. Although some fully support the principle, underlining the advantages that such a solution could bring for markets where there is no or little competition (UK, Sweden, Ireland and, to a lesser extent, Hungary, to favour investment in new generation networks, and Belgium subject to an impact assessment analysis), a large number of delegations agree to the principle but remain very circumspect and only approve it as a last resort if other solutions have failed (Italy, Cyprus, Slovakia, Estonia and Poland in particular). Finally, some delegations (Germany, Czech Republic and Romania) were openly opposed and consider that functional separation should not be among the solutions available to national regulatory authorities, saying that this would only put a brake on investment. Given the strategic importance of the proposal for the development of next generation networks and investment required in this field, the question will come to the surface again during the French EU Presidency, in so far as the Council considers this political question should take pride of place. (I.L./transl.jl)