REPORT on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2002/21/EC on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services, Directive 2002/19/EC on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities, and Directive 2002/20/EC on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services
22.7.2008 - (COM(2007)0697 – C6‑0427/2007 – 2007/0247(COD)) - ***I
Committee on Industry, Research and Energy
Rapporteur: Catherine Trautmann
- DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION
- EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
- OPINION of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs
- OPINION of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection
- OPINION of the Committee on Culture and Education
- OPINION of the Committee on Legal Affairs
- OPINION of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
- PROCEDURE
DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION
on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2002/21/EC on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services, Directive 2002/19/EC on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities, and Directive 2002/20/EC on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services
(COM(2007)0697 – C6‑0427/2007 – 2007/0247(COD))
(Codecision procedure: first reading)
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2007)0697),
– having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 95 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6‑0427/2007),
– having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and the opinions of the Committee on Economic Affairs, the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection, the Committee on Culture and Education, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A6‑0321/2008),
1. Approves the Commission proposal as amended;
2. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text;
3. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.
Amendment 1 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 1 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(1a) Under Directive 2007/65/EC ("The Audiovisual Media Services Directive") a revision was carried out with the intention of ensuring optimal conditions of competitiveness and legal certainty for information technologies and media industries and services in the European Union, as well as respect for cultural and linguistic diversity. In this context, a fair and balanced regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services constitutes an essential pillar of the whole EU audiovisual sector. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 2 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(3) The EU regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services should therefore be reformed in order to complete the internal market for electronic communications by strengthening the Community mechanism for regulating operators with significant market power in the key markets. This is complemented through the establishment by Regulation […/…/EC] of [date] of the European Parliament and of the Council of a European Electronic Communications Market Authority (hereinafter referred to as "the Authority"). The reform also includes the definition of an efficient spectrum management strategy in order to achieve a Single European Information Space and the reinforcement of provisions for users with disabilities in order to obtain an inclusive information society. |
(3) The EU regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services should therefore be reformed in order to complete the internal market for electronic communications by strengthening the Community mechanism for regulating operators with significant market power in the key markets. The reform also includes the definition of an efficient and coordinated spectrum management strategy in order to achieve a Single European Information Space and the reinforcement of provisions for users with disabilities in order to obtain an inclusive information society. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 3 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 3 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(3a) The objective of the EU regulatory framework for electronic communications is to create a sustainable "ecosystem" for electronic communications, based on supply and demand: the former through effective and competitive infrastructure and service markets, the latter thanks to increasing information society developments. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Infrastructure-based competition is a prerequisite for a well functioning telecom market in the long run and one of the primary goals of this regulation. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 4 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 3 b (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(3b) The aim is to progressively reduce ex ante sector specific rules as competition in the markets develops and, ultimately, for electronic communications to be governed by competition law only. While the markets for electronic communications have shown strong competitive dynamics in recent years, it is essential that ex ante regulatory obligations should only be imposed where there is no effective and sustainable competition. Ex ante regulation should be reviewed as to the necessity of its continuation no later than three years after the date of transposition of this directive. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 5 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 3 c (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(3c) In order to ensure a proportional and adapted approach to varying competitive conditions, national regulatory authorities should be able to define markets on a sub-national basis and/or lift regulatory obligations in markets and/or geographic areas where there is effective infrastructure competition, even if they are not defined as separate markets. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 6 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 3 d (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(3d) A key issue for the coming years in order to achieve the goals of the Lisbon Agenda is to give appropriate incentives for investments in new high speed networks that will support innovation in content-rich internet services and strengthen international competitiveness of the European Union. Such networks have enormous potential to deliver benefits to consumers and business across the European Union. It is therefore vital to foster sustainable investment in the development of these new networks, while safeguarding competition and boosting consumer choice through regulatory predictability and consistency. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 7 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 3 e (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(3e) In its Communication “Bridging the Broadband Gap” of 20 March 2006, the Commission acknowledged that there is a territorial divide in the European Union regarding access to high speed broadband services. Despite the general increase in broadband connectivity, access in various regions is limited because of high costs due to low density of population and remoteness. Commercial incentives to invest in broadband deployment in these areas often turn out to be insufficient. On the positive side, technological innovation is reducing deployment costs. In order to ensure that investment in new technologies in underdeveloped regions is ensured, electronic communications regulation should be consistent with other policy measures taken, such as state aid policy, structural funds or wider industrial policy aims. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The regulatory framework should also take into account the need for closing regional gaps in development. The specific importance of broadband roll out should be emphasised. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 8 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 3 f (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(3f) Investment in R&D is of vital importance for the development of next generation fibre optics networks and for achieving flexible and efficient radio access thereby favouring enhanced competition and innovative applications and services to the benefit of consumers. The challenge is to deliver the next generation of ubiquitous and converged network and service infrastructures for electronic communications, IT and media. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Regulation has to favour investment in R&D for developing next generation wireline and wireless networks. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 9 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 3 g (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(3g) Public policy should play a role in complementing the effective functioning of the electronic communications markets, addressing both the supply and demand side to stimulate the virtuous circle where development of better content and services depends on infrastructure deployment and vice versa. Public intervention should be proportionate and should neither distort competition nor inhibit private investment and should increase incentives to invest and lower entry barriers. In this respect, public authorities may support the rollout of future-proof high-capacity infrastructure. In so doing, public support should be attributed through open, transparent and competitive procedures, should not favour a priori any given technology and should provide access to infrastructure on a non-discriminatory basis. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Some guidelines are needed regarding national or local public authorities playing a role in the electronic communications market, may it be purely supportive or more engaged. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 10 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 3 h (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(3h) The regulatory framework should also encompass the additional aims of: promoting consumer protection in the electronic communications sector by providing for accurate and comprehensive information, employing every possible means to that end, for transparency in terms of fees and charges, and for high standards in the delivery of services; fully recognising the role of consumer associations in public consultations; ensuring that the competent authorities are provided with the powers to thwart possible rigging and act with the necessary effectiveness to stamp out any instances of fraud involving electronic communications services. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The idea is to stress that the need to protect consumers should feature prominently among the aims of the harmonised regulatory framework. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 11 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 3 i (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(3i) The views of national regulatory authorities and industry stakeholders should be taken into account by the Commission when adopting measures under this Directive through the use of effective consultation to ensure transparency and proportionality. The Commission should issue detailed consultation documents, explaining the different courses of action being considered, and interested stakeholders shall be given a reasonable time in which to respond. Following the consultation, after having considered the responses, the Commission should give reasons for the resulting decision in a statement, which should include a description of how the views of those responding have been taken into account. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It is essential that the views of NRAs and industry stakeholders are taken into account in decisions at Community level, which decisions must be transparent and proportionate to the result to be achieved. For this to occur, full and effective consultation with national regulatory authorities and industry stakeholders is necessary. Reference to the Commission may be replaced with ERG, see justification for the amendments to Recital (3). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 12 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 4 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(4a) Without prejudice to Directive 1999/5/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity, it is necessary to clarify the application of certain aspects of terminal equipments concerning access for disabled end-users to ensure interoperability between terminal equipments and electronic communications networks and services. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
If the access to terminal equipments is not assured for people with disabilities, they will not be able to access electronic communications networks and services neither. That is why, in order to ensure interoperability between both, a clear mention of what kind of terminal equipments, which are those concerning access for disabled end-users is required. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 13 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 5 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(5a) The activities of national regulatory authorities and of the Commission under the framework for electronic communications contribute to the fulfilment of broader public policy objectives in the areas of culture, employment, the environment, social cohesion, regional development and town and country planning. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The regulatory framework should also take into account the need for closing regional gaps in development aiming to increase innovation and investment in all regions of the EU. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 14 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 11 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(11a) National electronic communications markets will continue to differ within the European Union. It is, therefore, essential that national regulatory authorities and the Body of European Regulators in Telecom ("BERT") possess the powers and knowledge in order to build a competitive EU "ecosystem" in electronic communications markets and services while understanding national and regional differences and respecting the requirements of subsidiarity; | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 15 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 16 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(16) Radio frequencies should be considered a scarce public resource that has an important public and market value. It is in the public interest that spectrum is managed as efficiently and effectively as possible from an economic, social and environmental perspective and that obstacles to its efficient use are gradually withdrawn. |
(16) Radio frequencies should be considered a scarce public resource that has an important public and market value. It is in the public interest that spectrum is managed as efficiently and effectively as possible from an economic, social and environmental perspective and taking account of the objectives of cultural diversity and of media pluralism, and that obstacles to its efficient use are gradually withdrawn. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It needs to be ensured that spectrum management will continue to take cultural and media pluralism aspects into account. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 16 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 16 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(16a) Although spectrum management remains within the competence of the Member States, only coordination and, where appropriate, harmonisation at Community level can ensure that spectrum users derive the full benefits of the internal market and that EU interests can be effectively defended world-wide. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Spectrum management to be effective needs to be aligned with the broader international harmonisation agenda pursued by ITU and CEPT. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 17 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 16 b (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(16b) The spectrum management provisions of this Directive should be consistent with the work of international and regional organisations dealing with radio spectrum management, such as the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) and the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT), so as to ensure the efficient management of and harmonisation of the use of spectrum across the Community and globally. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Spectrum management to be effective needs to be aligned with the broader international harmonisation agenda pursued by ITU and CEPT. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 18 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 16 c (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(16c) In order to contribute to the fulfilment of the objectives laid down in Article 8a of Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive), a spectrum-summit should be convened in 2010, driven by Member States, including the European Parliament, the Commission and all stakeholders. The summit should in particular contribute to : | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
a) ensuring greater consistency in EU spectrum policies in general; | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
b) freeing spectrum for new electronic communications services once the digital switchover takes place; | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
c) providing guidance regarding the switchover from analogue to digital terrestrial television. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Since it looks difficult to find common understanding between all interested parties, a summit in 2010 might be the ideal time to build consensus; | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 19 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 16 d (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(16d) The switchover from analogue to digital terrestrial television should, as a result of the superior transmission efficiency of digital technology, free up a significant amount of spectrum in the European Union, the so-called "digital dividend". Member States should release their digital dividends as quickly as possible, allowing citizens to benefit from the deployment of new, innovative and competitive services. To this end the obstacles existing at national level for the efficient (re)allocation of the digital dividend should be removed and a more coherent and integrated approach to the allocation of the digital dividend in the Community should be pursued. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 20 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 17 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(17) Radio frequencies should be managed so as to ensure that harmful interference is avoided. The basic concept of harmful interference should therefore be properly defined to ensure that regulatory intervention is limited to the extent necessary to prevent such interference. |
(17) Radio frequencies should be managed so as to ensure that harmful interference is avoided. The basic concept of harmful interference should therefore be properly defined by reference to existing internationally agreed frequency plans to ensure that regulatory intervention is limited to the extent necessary to prevent such interference. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Interference problems are one of the main reasons for the existence of national and international frequency plans. As frequencies cross borders beyond the EU, internationally binding agreements to avoid interference must be respected. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 21 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 20 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(20) Flexibility in spectrum management and access to spectrum should be increased through technology- and service-neutral authorisations to let spectrum users choose the best technologies and services to apply in a frequency band (hereinafter referred to as the ‘principles of technology and service neutrality’). The administrative determination of technologies and services should become the exception and should be clearly justified and subject to regular periodic review. |
(20) Flexibility in spectrum management and access to spectrum should be increased through technology- and service-neutral authorisations to let spectrum users choose the best technologies and services to apply in frequency bands available to electronic communications services as identified in national frequency allocation tables and in the ITU Radio Regulations (hereinafter referred to as the ‘principles of technology and service neutrality’). The administrative determination of technologies and services should apply when general interest objectives are at stake. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Necessary to ensure legal consistency with the definition of service neutrality proposed under Article 9 paragraph 4 subparagraph 1 of the Framework Directive. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 22 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 21 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(21) Exceptions to the principle of technology neutrality should be limited and justified by the need to avoid harmful interference, for example by imposing emission masks and power levels, or to ensure the protection of public health by limiting public exposure to electromagnetic fields, or to ensure proper sharing of spectrum, in particular where its use is only subject to general authorisations, or where strictly necessary to comply with an exception to the principle of service neutrality. |
(21) Restrictions on the principle of technology neutrality should be appropriate and justified by the need to avoid harmful interference, for example by imposing emission masks and power levels, or to ensure the protection of public health by limiting public exposure to electromagnetic fields, or to ensure proper sharing of spectrum, in particular where its use is only subject to general authorisations, or to comply with a general interest objective in conformity with Community law. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ensure coherency with the text of the directive which – for technology neutrality - refers to “restrictions” and not “exceptions”. Restrictions should not be limited to exception to the principle of service neutrality but needs to comply with general interest objectives. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 23 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 22 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(22) Spectrum users should also be able to freely choose the services they wish to offer over the spectrum subject to transitional measures to cope with previously acquired rights. It should be possible for exceptions to the principle of service neutrality which require the provision of a specific service to meet clearly defined general interest objectives such as safety of life, the need to promote social, regional and territorial cohesion, or the avoidance of inefficient use of spectrum to be permitted where necessary and proportionate. Those objectives should include the promotion of cultural and linguistic diversity and media pluralism as defined in national legislation in conformity with Community law. Except where necessary to protect safety of life, exceptions should not result in exclusive use for certain services, but rather grant priority so that other services or technologies may coexist in the same band insofar as possible. In order that the holder of the authorisation may choose freely the most efficient means to carry the content of services provided over radio frequencies, the content should not be regulated in the authorisation to use radio frequencies. |
(22) Spectrum users should also be able to freely choose the services they wish to offer over the spectrum subject to transitional measures to deal with previously acquired rights and the provisions of national frequency allocation plans and the ITU Radio Regulations. It should be possible for exceptions to the principle of service neutrality which require the provision of a specific service in order to take national public policy considerations into account or to meet clearly defined general interest objectives such as safety of life, the need to promote social, regional and territorial cohesion, the efficient use of radio frequencies and the effective management of spectrum. Those objectives should include the promotion of national audiovisual and media policies, cultural and linguistic diversity and media pluralism as defined in national legislation in conformity with Community law. Except where necessary to protect safety of life, or to ensure that the above objectives are achieved, exceptions should not result in exclusive use for certain services, but rather grant priority so that other services or technologies may coexist in the same band insofar as possible. In order that the holder of the authorisation may choose freely the most efficient means to carry the content of services provided over radio frequencies, the content should not be regulated in the authorisation to use radio frequencies. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The question whether spectrum can be allocated in a service-neutral way should depend on a reasonable balance between public interest and commercial value. In practice, the Commission adheres to this approach, e.g. in its Communication on the Digital Dividend, where it proposes the allocation of specific services to specific spectrum (sub)bands. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 24 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 23 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(23) It lies within the competence of the Member States to define the scope and nature of any exception regarding the promotion of cultural and linguistic diversity and media pluralism in accordance with their own national law. |
(23) It lies within the competence of the Member States to define the scope and nature of any exception regarding the promotion of cultural and linguistic diversity, national audiovisual and media policies and media pluralism in accordance with their own national law. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Member States should have the power to define the scope and nature of exceptions to national audiovisual and media policies. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 25 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 26 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(26) Given the effect of the exceptions on the development of the internal market for electronic communications services, the EC should be able to harmonise the scope and nature of any exceptions to the principles of technology and service neutrality other than those aimed at ensuring the promotion of cultural and linguistic diversity and media pluralism, having regard to harmonised technical conditions for the availability and efficient use of radio frequencies under the Decision 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a regulatory framework for radio spectrum policy in the European Community ("the Radio Spectrum Decision")[1]. |
deleted | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ensure legal coherence with our proposal for modified Article 9c. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 26 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 29 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(29) In order to promote the functioning of the internal market, and to support the development of cross-border services, the Commission should be given the power to grant the Authority specific responsibilities in the area of numbering. Furthermore, to allow citizens of the Member States, including travellers and disabled users, to be able to reach certain services by using the same recognisable numbers at similar prices in all Member States, the powers of the Commission to adopt technical implementing measures should also cover, where necessary, the applicable tariff principle or mechanism. |
(29) In order to promote the functioning of the internal market, and to support the development of cross-border services, the Commission should be able to consult BERT in the area of numbering. Furthermore, to allow citizens of the Member States, including travellers and disabled users, to be able to reach certain services by using the same recognisable numbers at similar prices in all Member States, the powers of the Commission to adopt technical implementing measures should also cover, where necessary, the applicable tariff principle or mechanism, as well as the establishment of a single EU front-up call number ensuring user-friendly access to these services. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 27 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 31 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(31) It is necessary to strengthen the powers of the Member States vis-à-vis holders of rights of way to ensure the entry or roll out of new network in an environmentally responsible way and independently of any obligation on an operator with significant market power to grant access to its electronic communications network. National regulatory authorities should be able to impose, on a case-by-case basis, the sharing of ducts, masts, and antennas, the entry into buildings and a better coordination of civil works. Improving facility sharing can significantly improve competition and lower the overall financial and environmental cost of deploying electronic communications infrastructure for undertakings. |
(31) It is necessary to strengthen the powers of the Member States vis-à-vis holders of rights of way to ensure the entry or roll out of new network in a fair, efficient and environmentally responsible way and independently of any obligation on an operator with significant market power to grant access to its electronic communications network. National regulatory authorities should be able to impose, on a case-by-case basis, the sharing of network elements and associated facilities such as ducts, masts, and antennas, the entry into buildings and a better coordination of civil works. Improving facility sharing can significantly improve competition and lower the overall financial and environmental cost of deploying electronic communications infrastructure for undertakings, notably of new fibre optic access networks. In particular, national regulatory authorities should be able to impose on operators obligations to provide a reference offer for granting access to their ducts in a fair and non-discriminatory way. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Additions in accordance with amendments to Article 12. New entrants should be able to access the ducts of SMP operators in a fair and non-discriminatory way. This will facilitate infrastructure competition and the transition to a full competitive market. For the deployment of new networks the sharing of network elements and associated facilities can speed up and reduce their financial and environmental impact. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 28 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 32 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(32) Reliable and secure communication of information over electronic communications networks is increasingly central to the whole economy and society in general. System complexity, technical failure or human mistake, accidents or attacks may all have consequences for the functioning and availability of the physical infrastructures that deliver important services to EU citizens, including e-Government services. National regulatory authorities should therefore ensure the integrity and security of public communications networks are maintained. The Authority should contribute to the enhanced level of security of electronic communications by, among other things, providing expertise and advice, and promoting the exchange of best practices. Both the Authority and the national regulatory authorities should have the necessary means to perform their duties, including powers to obtain sufficient information to be able to assess the level of security of networks or services as well as comprehensive and reliable data about actual security incidents that have had a significant impact on the operation of networks or services. Bearing in mind that the successful application of adequate security is not a one-off exercise but a continuous process of implementation, review and updating, the providers of electronic communications networks and services should be required to take measures to safeguard their integrity and security in accordance with the assessed risks, taking into account the state of the art of such measures. |
(32) Reliable and secure communication of information over electronic communications networks is increasingly central to the whole economy and society in general. System complexity, technical failure or human mistake, accidents or attacks may all have consequences for the functioning and availability of the physical infrastructures that deliver important services to EU citizens, including e-Government services. National regulatory authorities should therefore ensure the integrity and security of public communications networks are maintained. ENISA should contribute to the enhanced level of security of electronic communications by, among other things, providing expertise and advice, and promoting the exchange of best practices. Both ENISA and the national regulatory authorities should have the necessary means to perform their duties, including powers to obtain sufficient information to be able to assess the level of security of networks or services as well as comprehensive and reliable data about actual security incidents that have had a significant impact on the operation of networks or services. Bearing in mind that the successful application of adequate security is not a one-off exercise but a continuous process of implementation, review and updating, the providers of electronic communications networks and services should be required to take measures to safeguard their integrity and security in accordance with the assessed risks, taking into account the state of the art of such measures. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ENISA will continue to be solely competent concerning the security of networks and services. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 29 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 33 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(33) Where there is a need to agree on a common set of security requirements, power should be conferred on the Commission to adopt technical implementing measures to achieve an adequate level of security of electronic communications networks and services in the internal market. The Authority should contribute to the harmonisation of appropriate technical and organisational security measures by providing expert advice. National regulatory authorities should have the power to issue binding instructions relating to the technical implementing measures adopted pursuant to the Framework Directive. In order to perform their duties, they should have the power to investigate and to impose penalties in cases of non-compliance. |
(33) Where there is a need to agree on a common set of security requirements, power should be conferred on the Commission to adopt technical implementing measures to achieve an adequate level of security of electronic communications networks and services in the internal market. ENISA should contribute to the harmonisation of appropriate technical and organisational security measures by providing expert advice. National regulatory authorities should have the power to issue binding instructions relating to the technical implementing measures adopted pursuant to the Framework Directive. In order to perform their duties, they should have the power to investigate and to impose penalties in cases of non-compliance. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ENISA will continue to be solely competent concerning the security of networks and services. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 30 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 39 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(39a) Both investment and competition should be encouraged, so that consumer choice is protected and not undermined. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Directives should make clear that competition is not to be sacrificed in the name of investment – for example through regulatory holidays. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 31 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 43 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(43) The purpose of functional separation, whereby the vertically integrated operator is required to establish operationally separate business entities, is to ensure the provision of fully equivalent access products to all downstream operators, including the vertically integrated operator’s own downstream divisions. Functional separation has the capacity to improve competition in several relevant markets by significantly reducing the incentive for discrimination and by making it easier for compliance with non-discrimination obligations to be verified and enforced. In exceptional cases, it may be justified as a remedy where there has been persistent failure to achieve effective non-discrimination in several of the markets concerned, and where there is little or no prospect of infrastructure competition within a reasonable timeframe after recourse to one or more remedies previously considered to be appropriate. However, it is very important to ensure that its imposition preserves the incentives of the concerned undertaking to invest in its network and that it does not entail any potential negative effects on consumer welfare. Its imposition requires a coordinated analysis of different relevant markets related to the access network, in accordance with the market analysis procedure set out in Article 16 of the Framework Directive. When performing the market analysis and designing the details of this remedy, national regulatory authorities should pay particular attention to the products to be managed by the separate business entities, taking into account the extent of network roll-out and the degree of technological progress, which may affect the substitutability of fixed and wireless services. In order to avoid distortions of competition in the internal market, proposals for functional separation should be approved in advance by the Commission. |
(43) The purpose of functional separation, whereby the vertically integrated operator is required to establish operationally separate business entities, is to ensure the provision of fully equivalent access products to all downstream operators, including the vertically integrated operator’s own downstream divisions. Functional separation may have the capacity to improve competition in several relevant markets by significantly reducing the incentive for discrimination and by making it easier for compliance with non-discrimination obligations to be verified and enforced. In order to avoid distortions of competition in the internal market, proposals for functional separation should be approved in advance by the Commission. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Functional separation is already an accepted reality for some Member States; to impose remedies in "exceptional cases" is an interesting idea, but should be revaluated in 2014 once the review will take place. By then, it will be better understood how functional separation will lead to more competition and at the same time allow investment into new infrastructures. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 32 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 44 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(44a) The continuing market integration within the internal market for electronic communications networks and services requires better coordination in the application of the ex ante regulation as provided for under the legal framework for electronic commnucations. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A network of national regulatory authorities is the most suitable instrument to satisfy the requirements of the European telecommunications market. This amendment seeks to bring this opinion into line with the opinion tabled on the report on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council Regulation establishing the European Electronic Communications Market. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 33 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 46 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(46) While it is appropriate in some circumstances for a national regulatory authority to impose obligations on operators that do not have significant market power in order to achieve goals such as end-to-end connectivity or interoperability of services, it is however necessary to ensure that such obligations are imposed in conformity with the regulatory framework and in particular its notification procedures. |
(46) While is appropriate in some circumstances for a national regulatory authority to impose obligations on operators that do not have significant market power in order to achieve goals such as end-to-end connectivity or interoperability of services, or in order to promote efficiency, sustainable competition and maximum benefit for end-users, it is however necessary to ensure that such obligations are imposed in conformity with the regulatory framework and in particular its notification procedures. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Currently unregulated access operators charge exorbitant prices for connecting directory enquiry calls and also impede the ability of the directory enquiry providers to set their own retail prices. There is no justification for access operators to charge any differently to other similar interconnection products which consist in the transport of traffic to and from an interconnection point. These problems need to be addressed in order to permit the benefits of competition in directory enquiry services to be fully delivered to end users and allow the removal of a regulated retail universal service for directory enquiries. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 34 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 47 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(47a) Where it is necessary to adopt harmonisation measures for the implementation of the Community's electronic communications policy which go beyond technical implementing measures, the Commission should submit a legislative proposal to the European Parliament and to the Council. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Harmonisation measures which involve adding new essential provisions to the regulatory framework should be dealt with a legislative proposal. Only the direct application of the rules set out in the framework or the addition of non-essential elements should be subject of Comitology procedures. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 35 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 49 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(49) The introduction of the requirements of service and technology neutrality in assignment and allocation decisions, together with the increased possibility to transfer rights between undertakings, should increase the freedom and means to deliver electronic communications and audiovisual media services to the public, thereby also facilitating the achievement of general interest objectives. Therefore, certain general interest obligations imposed on broadcasters for the delivery of audiovisual media services could be increasingly met without the need to grant individual rights to use spectrum. The use of specific criteria to assign spectrum to broadcasters would be justified only where this is essential to meet a particular general interest objective set out in national law. Procedures associated with the pursuit of general interest objectives should in all circumstances be transparent, objective, proportionate and non-discriminatory. |
(49) The introduction of the requirements of service and technology neutrality in assignment and allocation decisions, together with the increased possibility to transfer rights between undertakings, should increase the freedom and means to deliver electronic communications and audiovisual media services to the public, thereby also facilitating the achievement of general interest objectives. However, certain general interest obligations imposed on broadcasters for the delivery of audiovisual media services may require the use of specific criteria for spectrum allocation, when it appears to be essential to meet a specific general interest objective set out in national law. Procedures associated with the pursuit of general interest objectives should in all circumstances be transparent, objective, proportionate and non-discriminatory. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Recital 49 is not consistent with Recital 23 or with Article 5(2) of the Authorisation Directive. It is important to recognize the need to take into account cultural and media policy objectives, as set out by national law. The original formulation is also more restrictive than Article 5(2) of the Authorisation Directive as regards the granting of individual rights of use for broadcasting services. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 36 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 50 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(50) In order to ensure equal treatment, no spectrum users should be exempted from the obligation to pay normal fees or charges set for the use of the spectrum. |
(50) Any exemption, full or partial, from the obligation to pay the fees or charges set for the use of the spectrum should be objective and transparent and based on the existence of other general interest obligations set out in national law. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Inclusion of Guardans amendment 8. It must remain possible for Member States to maintain or introduce systems where the obligation to pay usage fees is replaced by an obligation to fulfil general interest objectives. Such systems are commonplace with regard to terrestrial frequencies where they serve media pluralism objectives. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 37 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 53 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(53) Removing legal and administrative barriers to a general authorisation or rights of use for spectrum or numbers with European implications should favour technology and service development and contribute to improving competition. While the coordination of technical conditions for the availability and efficient use of radio frequencies is organised pursuant to the Radio Spectrum Decision28, it may also be necessary, in order to achieve internal market objectives, to coordinate or harmonise the selection procedures and conditions applicable to rights and authorisations in certain bands, to rights of use for numbers and to general authorisations. This applies in particular to electronic communications services that by their nature have an internal market dimension or cross-border potential, such as satellite services, the development of which would be hampered by discrepancies in spectrum assignment between Member States. The Commission, assisted by the Communications Committee and taking the utmost account of the opinion of the Authority, should therefore be able to adopt technical implementing measures to achieve such objectives. Implementing measures adopted by the Commission may require Member States to make available rights of use for spectrum and/or numbers throughout their territory and where necessary withdraw any other existing national rights of use. In such cases, Member States should not grant any new right of use for the relevant spectrum band or number range under national procedures. |
(53) Removing legal and administrative barriers to a general authorisation or rights of use for spectrum or numbers with European implications should favour technology and service development and contribute to improving competition. While the coordination of technical conditions for the availability and efficient use of radio frequencies is organised pursuant to the Radio Spectrum Decision28, it may also be necessary, in order to achieve internal market objectives, to coordinate or harmonise the selection procedures and conditions applicable to rights and authorisations in certain bands, to rights of use for numbers and to general authorisations. This applies in particular to electronic communications services that by their nature have an internal market dimension or cross-border potential, such as satellite services, the development of which would be hampered by discrepancies in spectrum assignment between Member States and between the EU and third countries, taking into account the decisions of ITU and CEPT. The Commission, assisted by the Communications Committee and taking the utmost account of the opinion of the Authority, should therefore be able to adopt technical implementing measures to achieve such objectives. Implementing measures adopted by the Commission may require Member States to make available rights of use for spectrum and/or numbers throughout their territory and where necessary withdraw any other existing national rights of use. In such cases, Member States should not grant any new right of use for the relevant spectrum band or number range under national procedures. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 38 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 57 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(57) The conditions that may be attached to authorisations should cover specific conditions governing accessibility for users with disabilities and the need of public authorities to communicate with the general public before, during and after major disasters. Also, considering the importance of technical innovation, Member States should be able to issue authorisations to use spectrum for experimental purposes, subject to specific restrictions and conditions strictly justified by the experimental nature of such rights. |
(57) The conditions that may be attached to authorisations should cover specific conditions governing accessibility for users with disabilities and the need of public authorities and emergency services to communicate between themselves and with the general public before, during and after major disasters. Also, considering the importance of technical innovation, Member States should be able to issue authorisations to use spectrum for experimental purposes, subject to specific restrictions and conditions strictly justified by the experimental nature of such rights. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 39 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 60 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(60) In particular, power should be conferred on the Commission to adopt implementing measures in relation to the notifications under Article 7 of the Framework Directive; the harmonisation in the fields of spectrum and numbering as well as in matters related to security of networks and services; the identification of trans-national markets; the implementation of the standards; the harmonised application of the provisions of the regulatory framework. Power should also be conferred to adopt implementing measures to update Annexes I and II to the Access Directive to market and technological developments and for adopting implementing measures to harmonise the authorisation rules, procedures and conditions for the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services. Since those measures are of general scope and are designed to supplement these Directives by the addition of new non-essential elements, they must be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny provided for in Article 5a of Decision 1999/468/EC. When, on imperative grounds of urgency, the normal time limits for this procedure cannot be complied with, the Commission should be able to use the urgency procedure provided for in Article 5a(6) of the above Decision. |
(60) In particular, power should be conferred on the Commission to adopt implementing measures in relation to the notifications under Article 7 of the Framework Directive; the harmonisation in the fields of spectrum and numbering as well as in matters related to security of networks and services; the identification of trans-national markets; the implementation of the standards; the harmonised application of the provisions of the regulatory framework. Power should also be conferred to adopt implementing measures to update Annexes I and II to the Access Directive to market and technological developments and for adopting implementing measures to harmonise the authorisation rules, procedures and conditions for the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services. Since those measures are of general scope and are designed to supplement these Directives by the addition of new non-essential elements, they must be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny provided for in Article 5a of Decision 1999/468/EC. Given that the conduct of the regulatory procedure with scrutiny within the normal time-limits could, in certain exceptional situations, impede the timely adoption of implementing measures, the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission should act speedily in order to ensure the timely adoption of those measures. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
On imperative and justified grounds of urgency the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission should act speedily in order to ensure the timely adoption of Comitology measures. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 40 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 1 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 1 – paragraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The amendment seeks to clarify the various aspects of terminal equipment which can ensure the accessibility of all telecommunication services. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 41 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 2 – point c Directive 2002/21/EC Article 2 – point e | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 42 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 2 – point e Directive 2002/21/EC Article 2 – point s | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 43 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 3 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 3 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Failure of NRAs to act in a timely manner, for example in relation to market reviews, can hold back competition and innovation in the market. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 44 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 3 a (new) Directive 2002/21/EC Article 3 – paragraph 3a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The addition of paragraph 3a ensures that the Member States ensure the establishment of the Body of Regulators in Telecom (BERT) comprised of all NRAs. BERT would be set up as an association of national regulatory authorities that would not have an independent legal personality, i.e., in particular this body would not be part of the direct or indirect Community administration. This avoids all conflicts with the MERONI case law. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 45 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 3 b (new) Directive 2002/21/EC Article 3 – paragraph 3b (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 46 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 4 – point a Directive 2002/21/EC Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Effectiveness and reasonable duration are key aspects of appeal mechanisms. Expertise of appeal bodies should be internal and not just “available to it”. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 47 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 4 – point a Directive 2002/21/EC Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The various procedural rights in the Member States should be taken into account. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 48 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 4 – point a a (new) Directive 2002/21/EC Article 4 – paragraph 2a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Appeal bodies should also be entitled to consult BERT should the case have an internal market impact. This mechanism would facilitate a progressive harmonisation in the application of the framework and improve the consistency of the electronic communications market. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 49 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 - point 5 Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive) Article 5 – paragraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 50 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 6 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 6 – subparagraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syntax clarification. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 51 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 6 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 6 – subparagraph 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 52 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 - point 6 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 7 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 53 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 6 a (new) Directive 2002/21/EC Article –7 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 54 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 7 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 7a ‑ paragraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 55 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 7 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 7a ‑ paragraph 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It remains vague what is meant by 'non-essential elements' in paragraph (2). Such proposed 'implementing measures' might have a considerable financial impact on undertakings. Any potential changes must be reserved to full scrutiny in a legislative procedure on EU-level or left to Member States. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 56 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 8 – point a Directive 2002/21/EC Article 8 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Technology neutrality is needed as a principle in order not to frustrate future technological innovation, but needs to be limited when it would be in frontal opposition to the primary objectives of the regulation. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 57 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 8 – point b Directives 2002/21/EC Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point a | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Clarification restricting the extension of these obligations, and specifying that obligations in the interest of social compensation represent public service tasks, the provision of which may lead operators to incur additional net costs, and that these costs should be met by the public authorities on production of supporting documents. Making NRAs responsible for the delivery of content seems inappropriate. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 58 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 8 – point b Directive 2002/21/EC Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point b | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 59 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 ‑ point 8 ‑ point b a (new) Directive 2002/21/EC Article 8 ‑ paragraph 2 ‑ point c | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 60 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 –- point 8 – point b b (new) Directive 2002/21/EC Article 8 – paragraph 3 – point c | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Point retaken in new paragraph 4a of Article 8. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 61 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 8 – point e Directive 2002/21/EC Article 8 – paragraph 4 – point g | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 62 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 8 – point e a (new) Directive 2002/21/EC Article 8 – paragraph 4 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 63 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 8 a (new) Directive 2002/21/EC Article 8 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 64 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 9 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 9 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 65 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 10 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 9 a | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 66 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 10 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 9 b | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 67 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 10 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 9 c | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 68 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 11 – point a Directive 2002/21/EC Article 10 – paragraph 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Failure to reform the numbering arrangements harms citizen, consumer and business interests in the EU. Art. 10 of the Framework Directive should be augmented with a stipulation to the effect that Member States shall remove restrictions in national numbering plans and associated rules which prevent the use of any kind of numbers anywhere in the EU, and shall remove any restrictions on the identity/classification of assignees of all types of numbers (this does not prevent attaching legitimate conditions to number assignment). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 69 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 11 – point b Directive 2002/21/EC Article 10 – paragraph 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 70 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 13 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 12 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 71 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 14 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 13 a | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 72 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 14 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 13 b – paragraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It is necessary to consider proportionality, sustainability and reasonable timing as main guiding principles. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 73 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 14 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 13b – paragraph 2 – introductory part | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Many NRAs do not have competence in security issues. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 74 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 14 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 13 b – paragraph 2 – point a | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The costs should be borne by the undertakings concerned. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 75 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 14 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 13 b – paragraph 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
As a logical consequence of the requirements laid down in Article 13a(3) to inform the NRA of any impact on security, the NRA must be empowered to investigate this. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 76 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 15 – point a Directive 2002/21/EC Article 14 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joint dominance remains an untested and difficult concept in the telecoms sector in both an ex post and ex ante context, yet may become increasingly important as markets consolidate. It is important that guidance is not deleted but is rather clarified through the Framework. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 77 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 15 – point b Directive 2002/21/EC Article 14 – paragraph 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Addressing leverage of dominance from one market into another is particularly vital in an industry characterised by vertical integration and convergence. Rather than deleting this measure – as the Commission has proposed – it should be refined to clarify that remedies such as non-discrimination, transparency, accounting separation – and prohibitions on anti-competitive bundling etc may be used ‘cross-market’ to address leverage problems. The existing provisions suggest that SMP would need to be found in the source and target leverage market in order to act. However, it is notable that this has not been used by regulators, is cumbersome and inconsistent with competition law, which does not require a ‘double dominance’ finding to address issues of leverage. The proposed changes would address this. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 78 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 16 – point ba (new) Directive 2002/21/EC Article 15 – paragraph 2 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The 2002 Framework directive establishes that European Commission publishes guidelines for market analysis and the assessment of significant market power but not for the identification of the appropriate remedies. There is clearly a missing element in the market analysis guidance tools provided the Commission: guidance on the selection of the appropriate remedies. The third part of a market analysis (i.e. the choice of the appropriate remedies) is the most crucial since it has the most concrete impact on the market. An erroneous choice of remedies may create irreparable distortions on market competitiveness and investment decisions. It is also the most complicated since it has varied possible outcomes and it entails, to a large extent, subjective evaluations. The need to provide guidance on the selection of regulatory obligations under the EU framework has indeed been recognised both by the Commission and the ERG. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 79 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 16 – point d – subparagraph 2 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 15 – paragraph 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The urgency procedure is not justified for the adoption of this type of measures. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 80 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 17 – point a Directive 2002/21/EC Article 16 – paragraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
To avoid giving the impression that the NRA have to analyse all markets identified in the recommendation, whereas (formally at least) the markets (and definitions) are given as a guide. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 81 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 17 – point c Directive 2002/21/EC Article 16 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NRAs should be obliged to undertake market analysis within a given timeframe. If NRAs do not, or are unable to undertake such analysis, then BERT should provide an opinion. However the commission is not best placed to veto remedies. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 82 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 18 – point a Directive 2002/21/EC Article 17 – paragraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It should not be left to the Commission to decide whether Parliament should have scrutiny powers or not. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 83 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 18 – point aa (new) Directive 2002/21/EC Article 17 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CEPT develops conditions for spectrum use in Europe and this should be taken into account, particularly in the absence of an ETSI standard. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 84 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 18 – point c Directive 2002/21/EC Article 17 – paragraph 6 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
All implementing measures under Article 17 should be adopted in accordance to the regulatory procedure with scrutiny. The urgency procedure is not justified for the adoption of this type of measures. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 85 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 20 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 19 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 86 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 22 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 21 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This amendment provides for the role of BERT in the resolution of cross-border disputes. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 87 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 22 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 21 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 88 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 - point 23 Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive) Article 21a | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 89 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 24 – point (-a) (new) Directive 2002/21/EC Article 22 – paragraph 1 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 90 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 26 Directive 2002/21/EC Annexes I and II | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joint dominance remains an untested and difficult concept in the telecoms sector in both ex post and ex ante context, yet may become increasingly important as markets consolidate. It is important that guidance is not deleted but is rather clarified through the Framework. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 91 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 2 – point 1 Directive 2002/19/EC Article 2 – point a | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 92 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 2 – point 1 a (new) Directive 2002/19/EC Article 2 – point e | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 93 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 2 – point 2 Directive 2002/19/EC Article 4 – paragraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
For consistency with the proposed definition of access. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 94 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 2 – point 2 Directive 2002/19/EC (Access Directive) Article 4 – paragraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 95 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 2 – point 3 - point a Directive 2002/19/EC Article 5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 96 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 2 – point 4 Directive 2002/19/EC Article 6 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The urgency procedure is not justified for the adoption of this type of measures. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 97 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 2 – point 6 – point aa (new) Directive 2002/19/EC Article 8 – paragraph 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Inclusion of the alternative procedure to the veto on remedies. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 98 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 2 – point 6 a (new) Directive 2002/19/EC Article 9 – paragraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
National regulators need clear authority to impose transparency obligations regarding traffic management policies regarding any restrictions on end-user access and traffic management policies. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 99 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 2 – point 6 b (new) Directive 2002/19/EC Article 9 – paragraph 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The amendment updates the description of access resulting from dominance in the local loop in the Access Directive to ensure technological neutrality and bring it into line with the new definition in the Commission’s Relevant Markets. By the time the amendments are approved, many loops may be partly or wholly composed of fibre and thus technological neutrality is required to ensure the Framework is futureproof. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 100 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 2 – point 8 Directive 2002/19/EC Article 12 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 101 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 2 – point 8 a (new) Directive 2002/19/EC Article 13 – paragraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 102 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 2 – point 8 b (new) Directive 2002/19/EC Article 13 – paragraph 4a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Paragraph 4a differentiates between access prices for cost-sharing contracts and short-term contracts. Margin squeeze tests shall apply in case of risk-sharing contracts this will not be the case for short-term contracts, otherwise the investor would loose necessary flexibility to set penetration prices. Penetration prices have to reflect the learning process of how new products are accepted; any regulation which would not allow flexibility in penetration prices would be counterproductive. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 103 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 2 – point 9 Directive 2002/19/EC Article 13 a | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 104 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 2 – point 10 – point b Directive 2002/19/EC Article 14 – paragraph 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The urgency procedure is not justified for the adoption of the measures proposed in the Access Directive. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 105 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 2 – point 10 a (new) Directive 2002/19/EC Annex II | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 106 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 – point 2 a (new) Directive 2002/20/EC Article 3 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 107 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 – point 3 Directive 2002/20/EC Article 5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 108 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 – point 5 Directive 2002/20/EC Article 6 a | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 109 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 – point 5 Directive 2002/20/EC Article 6 b (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EU-wide selection procedures for the issuing of rights should be subject to specific legislative proposals not Comitology. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 110 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 – point 7 Directive 2002/20/EC Article 8 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The function and wording of this Article are satisfactory. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 111 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 – point 8 – point a Directive 2002/20/EC Article 10 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The amendment proposes two explicit enforcement powers which are currently available to some, but not all regulators and which have proved useful in aiding enforcement. In particular, the ability to prevent a dominant operator from launching a service which would foreclose competition before access is made available to allow all to enter on a level playing field is important in ensuring that markets can be competitive (rather than monopolised) from the outset, which tends to boost roll-out and lower prices. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 112 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 – point 8 – point c Directive 2002/20/EC Article 10 – paragraph 5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 113 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 – point 8 – point d Directive 2002/20/EC Article 10 – paragraph 6 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Interim measures in case of such problem must protect all spectrum users. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 114 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 – point 8 – letter d a (new) Directive 2002/20/EC Article 10 – point 6 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 115 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 – point 9a (new) Directive 2002/20/EC Article 11 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point fa (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Spectrum trading encourages spectrum efficiency and should eliminate spectrum hoarding. However accurate figures on spectrum usage from undertakings would help BERT and NRAs accurately assess spectrum usage. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 116 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 – point 11 Directive 2002/20/EC Article 14 a – paragraph 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The type of Comitology measures adopted pursuant to the Authorisation Directive does not justify the employment of the urgency. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 117 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 – point 11 a Directive 2002/21EC Article 14 a – paragraph 1 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 118 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Article 3aReview procedure
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1. The Commission shall periodically review the functioning of this Directive and of Directives 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive), 2002/19/EC (Access Directive) and 2002/20/EC (Authorisation Directive) and report to the European Parliament and to the Council no later than three years after the date of application referred to in Article 5(1). In its report, the Commission shall assess whether, in the light of developments in the market and with regard to both competition and consumer protection there is continued need for the provisions on sector specific ex ante regulation laid down in Articles 8 to 13a of Directive 2002/19/EC (Access Directive) and Article 17 of Directive 2002/22/EC (Universal Service Directive) or whether they should be amended or repealed. For this purpose, the Commission may request information from the national regulatory authorities and BERT, which shall be supplied without undue delay. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
2. If the Commission finds that the provisions referred to in paragraph 1 need to be amended or repealed it shall submit a proposal to the European Parliament and the Council without undue delay. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 119 Proposal for a directive – amending act Annex I – point 3 – point a Directive 2002/20/EC Annex I – part A – point 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cross-border access to numbers is required for the internal market. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 120 Proposal for a directive – amending act Annex I – point 3 – point g Directive 2002/20/EC Annex I – part A – point 19 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It would be more efficient and welcome if discussion on the protection of copyright and related issues on electronic communications networks would be dealt with within the Content Online consultation. This initiative intends to create the right environment for a dialogue where all stakeholders from across the electronic value chain can work together to find solutions that are based on self-regulation and will be supported by all stakeholders. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 121 Proposal for a directive – amending act Annex I – point 3 – point ga (new) Directive 2002/20/EC Annex I – part A – point 19a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The existing set of conditions do not explicitly include transparency obligations for the purpose of ensuring that end-user access rights are protected. It is particularly important that NRAs have enough information to evaluate public communications networks providers’ compliance with their obligations to permit end-users to have access to content, services and applications of their choice. The general authorisation conditions provide a mechanism for ensuring transparency among communications network providers that do not have significant market power. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 122 Proposal for a directive – amending act Annex I – point 4 – point c Directive 2002/20/EC Annex I – part B – point 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 123 Proposal for a directive – amending act Annex I – point 4 – point d Directive 2002/20/EC Annex I – part B – point 7 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Regulatory obligations shall only be imposed on undertakings with significant power in a market justifying ex ante regulation. Prior to the 2002 framework, the obtainment of usage rights had sometimes been made conditional upon 'voluntary commitment' by new entrants which corresponded to such regulatory obligations (non-discrimination obligations etc). To avoid perpetuated regulation irrespective of market power, such 'voluntary commitments' shall be regarded to be expired after a transition period. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 124 Proposal for a directive – amending act Annex I – point 4a (new) Directive 2002/20/EC Annex I – part C – point 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Specific number ranges refer to particular types of service (free phone, national rate, local rate). It is important that NRAs can ensure that the charges operators levy for these services are within the range expected by customers. For example, customers could reasonably expect a (non-geographic) national rate number to be charged at their normal national rate. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 125 Proposal for a directive – amending act Annex II Directive 2002/20/EC Annex II – point 1 – point d | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It must remain possible for Member States to maintain or introduce systems where the obligation to pay usage fees is replaced by an obligation to fulfil specific general interest objectives. Such systems are commonplace with regard to terrestrial broadcastings frequencies where they serve media pluralism objectives. |
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
1. SPECTRUM REFORM
Spectrum, like other natural resources (sun, water, air), is a public good; market mechanisms, whilst constituting effective tools to derive optimal economic value (private and public), are not able alone to serve the general interest and provide public goods indispensable for achieving an information society for all. A combined policy and market approach is therefore required.
1.1 Accommodating flexibility (service and technology neutrality, trading, etc.) and harmonisation goals
Better coordination and more flexibility are required if we want to achieve an efficient exploitation of this scarce resource. However, an adequate balance should be struck between flexibility and the degree of harmonisation which is also needed in order to increase the internal market added value of spectrum (i.e. fixing specific spectrum bands for specific services and technologies such as GSM, UMTS, MCA and MSS).
The development of an absolute ‘harmonisation agenda’ (full command & control approach) is not compatible with an ‘idealistic’ neutrality regime (full market approach). That is why a mixed spectrum management regime, based on balanced combinations of options (scope of harmonisation vs. service neutrality, standardisation vs. technology neutrality, spectrum assignment modes) is preferable.
A gradual rather than a revolutionary spectrum reform seems realistic and preferable:
· Non-interference as well as compatibility with ITU radio regulations should be a precondition for reforms introduced;
· The scope and nature of service and technology neutrality should be consistent with ITU definitions;
· Technology neutrality should be pursued with clear rules on interoperability obligations and under which conditions standards could be imposed;
· Service neutrality should be understood as covering only electronic communication services, within their respective national frequency allocation tables and ITU regulations;
· Spectrum trading should be voluntary and compatible with the primary usage of the relevant band;
· General authorisations should remain a manageable principle and could be developed if there's a demand, even though it is a fact that most authorisations are individual rights of use;
· Member States should guarantee spectrum efficiency, and so impose the reduction, withdrawal or sale of radio frequencies in case of inefficient use;
· More spectrum should be harmonised for license-exempt spectrum on a non-interference basis.
1.2 Enhanced Commission's coordination role
Spectrum does not know of frontiers. An effective use of spectrum in the Member States requires a stronger EU coordination, in particular regarding the development of pan-European services and the negotiation of international agreements.
While spectrum management remains a national competence, only an EU approach ensures that EU interests can be effectively defended at world level. As in the case of commercial policy, power should be conferred upon the Community to conduct international negotiations based on clear mandates granted by the EU co-legislators.
1.3 Digital Dividend
The issue of the digital dividend requires an immediate political response; we can not wait until the reform Directives enter into force. The main guiding principle to allocate the spectrum released by the switchover should be social, cultural and economic value (better public service, wireless broadband to underserved areas, growth and jobs, etc.) and not only increasing public revenues. A coordinated EU approach is necessary to:
· Ensure that Member States undertake cost benefit analysis to determine the appropriate allocation of spectrum;
· Develop a common methodology for the cost benefit analysis;
· Identify bands that could be harmonised for well-defined pan-European or interoperable services at EU level or to promote efficient use and social benefit;
· Propose, if appropriate, binding legislation for harmonising these services.
2. IMPROVING EFFECTIVE AND CONSISTENT IMPLEMENTATION
A consistent implementation of the telecom framework is decisive for achieving a well functioning electronic communications internal market and a competitive information society economy to the benefit of consumers and enterprises..
The current balance of power between the Commission (‘guardian’ of markets definition and significant market power designation) and NRAs (responsible for implementation at local level) has worked reasonably well. However, there is room for improving the consistency both regarding national decisions with internal market impact and the application of remedies.
2.1 National Regulatory Authorities
A consistent application requires, first and foremost, independent and adequately resourced national regulatory authorities (NRAs). The rapporteur welcomes the independence provisions proposed by the Commission and stresses that these should not be compromised in the Interinstitutional negotiations.
An effective regulatory framework requires also the existence of specialised appeal bodies and effective appeal mechanisms (i.e. reasonable time limits for taking decisions) in order to prevent abuse of appeal procedures. Appeal bodies should also be entitled to consult BERT should the case have an internal market impact.
2.2 Consistent implementation through effective co-regulation
The most appropriate means to ensure consistency and effectiveness in a system where competences are distributed is through co-regulation. Only with such a cooperative and collaborative approach between the Commission and NRAs can results be achieved without altering the delicate institutional balance of powers or undermining the subsidiarity elements of the regulation. The Commission should play more the role of arbitrator and facilitator rather that of judge or sanction-taker.
This new co-regulation role should not undermine but complement the Commission's right of initiative to lead the co-regulation agenda, to propose to the co-legislators binding legislation to address consistency problems.
2.2.1 Remedies
A dispute resolution procedure, rather than a veto mechanism, should be put in place to engage actively all the parties concerned, the Commission, the individual NRAs, BERT and the stakeholders in searching for constructive solutions regarding the imposition of remedies.
The rapporteur puts forward in Amendment 17 an alternative procedure for the consistent application of remedies. The procedure is based upon the principle that only if the Commission and BERT (acting by a simple majority) agree that the proposed remedy is not appropriate the Commission could issue a reasoned decision requesting the NRA concerned to amend the draft measure. Functional separation, due to its far-reaching character, is subject to a special treatment whereby the Commission and BERT have to agree that it is the only effective remedy in order for the concerned NRA to be able to impose it.
3. TRANSITION TOWARDS FULL COMPETITION
While accepting the transitory nature of ex-ante regulation a gradual approach should be followed removing regulation only and if markets become effectively competitive. In this regard, the introduction of a qualified revision clause (requesting the Commission to monitor continuously the level of competition of regulated markets and to conduct periodic reviews) might be an adequate approach.
In addition, care should be taken on assessing the implications on competition of new access technologies (fibre networks), which could call for adapted methodological and regulatory tools to ensure that competition in these new markets is preserved and that, at the same time, adequate incentives for deploying these new networks are provided. The Commission is therefore urged to take due account of the political debate on the regulation of these new access networks and to adopt any recommendation on this matter in complete accordance with it.
3.1 Sub-national markets
In order to deregulate where it is no more needed, a more nuanced approach to market analyses, including sub-national markets is needed. Regulatory obligations could be lifted in geographic areas where competition is considered to have successfully taken off and, conversely, re-introduced or reinforced in non-competitive areas of markets that are considered competitive at national level. This could diminish the risk of dominant operators cross-subsidising between non competitive and competitive regions. NRAs should address in their market analysis this possibility.
4. NEXT GENERATION NETWORKS
How we treat next generation access is, together with spectrum, the two most important policy questions in the telecom sector today. Taking them into account in the Directives provides a complete view of the sector, in order to favour coherent investment.
Fibre networks offer much higher capacities than other telecommunications transport technologies. This new technological reality calls for a review and adaptation of the current electronic communications regulation with the triple objective of promoting investment (both by incumbents and new entrants), securing competition and consumer's choice, and fostering its rapid deployment as far as possible throughout the territory (and not only in densely populated areas).
While it is acknowledged that full infrastructure competition (parallel high capacity fibre access networks) is preferable and thus should be pursued as a primary goal, such deployment would probably not be feasible or economical in all countries or in all geographic areas within the different countries, as the current degree of deployment of competing networks already shows. Where not feasible, an open network approach favouring shared investments and, if necessary, mandating non-discriminatory access would be needed. When sharing is not feasible regulation should ensure that the investment risk is adequately borne by all operators accessing it.
In sum, regulators should have at their disposal an effective toolbox to pursue competition, investment and consumer benefits. This could involve, depending on the degree of competition in an area, making it mandatory to share in-building wiring, mandating access to passive infrastructure (such as access to ducts, poles and rights-of-way and inside wiring) and backhaul facilities, promoting shared investments and the use of demand aggregation or extending unbundling requirements to these new networks.
OPINION of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (5.6.2008)
for the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy
on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directives 2002/21/EC on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services, 2002/19/EC on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and services, and 2002/20/EC on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services
(COM(2007)0697 – C6‑0427/2007 – 2007/0247(COD))
Draftsman: Karsten Friedrich Hoppenstedt
SHORT JUSTIFICATION
The proposed reform of the regulatory framework for the telecommunications sector must be geared towards promoting competition more effectively, safeguarding investment and consolidating the internal market in electronic communications in order to continue the process of liberalisation. Consumer protection and network security also have to be taken into account, as do cultural aspects.
Given the fast-changing nature of the markets and advances in telecommunications, a flexible approach capable of responding to future developments is required.
A future-oriented approach is also essential to ensure the proposed regulatory framework can cope with the challenge of next generation networks (NGN). The development of broadband NGN network infrastructures raises important policy issues relating to location and competition, and firms require a high level of certainty as regards the planning and legal situation. Giving the national regulatory authorities the possibility of imposing facility-sharing and the granting of access to masts, ducts and buildings will encourage investment in glass fibre networks and enable new players to access the market. When the relevant decisions are made, care must be taken to ensure that the measures are proportionate and economic. The development of networks may also be encouraged by risk- and cost-sharing. Furthermore, when market definitions are drawn up it should be ascertained whether geographic areas at subnational level are competitive, so that they can be deregulated accordingly.
It has already been stated repeatedly that there is a need for enhanced coordination at supranational level. The requisite mechanisms should, however, be based on existing and developed structures to enable their potential to be exploited more speedily, effectively and rigorously. A network of national regulatory authorities should be set up, therefore, to perform tasks which cannot be carried out at national level. A strongly centralised system at Community level embodied in a European authority, on the other hand, would be at risk of failing to take specific national circumstances sufficiently into account. There does not appear to be sufficient political or economic justification for strengthening centralised authorities at the expense of the national regulatory authorities.
It should also be pointed out that the comitology procedure is not the appropriate procedure for laying down or amending rules affecting essential components of telecommunications law. The frequent recourse to comitology procedures prescribed in the proposal should be curtailed accordingly.
When analysing and defining national market conditions, the national regulators must be able to decide independently on the relevant proportionate measure to remedy the competition problem in question. The draft proposal, by giving the Commission a right of final decision, in other words the possibility of requiring regulatory authorities to place specific obligations on firms, would introduce a centralised European regulatory system. This power of intervention would create the risk that national circumstances would not be taken sufficiently into account and a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach would be applied.
With reference to the new criteria for according the Commission an additional right of veto, the emphasis should be on concertation, with the network of national regulatory authorities acting as a higher authority with the power of deciding whether measures taken by the national regulatory authorities are appropriate.
To achieve the goal of efficient and market-oriented spectrum management, as a general rule the allocation of spectrum use rights should be technology- and service-neutral. Spectrum allocation - with the exception of narrowly defined pan-European services - must, however, fall within the exclusive preserve of the Member States and when public interest objectives (such as media pluralism) are involved, specific technology constraints must be possible. So the proposal for a regulation must leave Member States sufficient discretion to grant exceptions to the principle of technology and service neutrality in the case of broadcasting services.
Spectrum trading is one possible means of ensuring efficient and economic use of broadcasting frequencies, provided the national regulatory authorities are included in decisions on spectrum trading. It is a matter for the Member States to decide whether and in what circumstances a more market-oriented approach, such as spectrum trading, can be contemplated in the case of broadcasting frequencies.
The decisions of international bodies such as CEPT, RRC and WRC must be taken into account to ensure that EU telecommunications legislation is consistent with other spectrum coordination instruments.
AMENDMENTS
The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs calls on the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following amendments in its report:
Amendment 1 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 3 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(3a) Electronic communications services are a fast-developing sector, characterised by a high level of technological innovation and highly dynamic markets. There is a need to scrutinise regularly the accuracy of regulation in such changing markets and technology with the aim of achieving the most from competition regarding prices, services and infrastructure. In order to ensure that EU citizens will continue to be able fully to participate in the global information society, innovation and the roll-out of high-speed next generation networks able to satisfy future customer demands for more bandwidth and services should be a priority in the application of this Directive. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 2 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 3 b (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(3b) The regulatory framework has to meet the new investment and innovation challenges, recognising the need to encourage both investment, in capacity as well as new infrastructure, and sustainable competition, so that consumer choice is extended and not undermined. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 3 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 5 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(5a) In its Communication of 20 March 2006 entitled "Bridging the Broadband Gap", the Commission acknowledged that there is a territorial divide in Europe regarding access to high-speed broadband services. Moreover, commercial incentives to invest in broadband deployment in areas with currently low broadband connection often turn out to be insufficient. In order to ensure investment in broadband services and new technologies in underdeveloped regions, this Directive should be consistent with other policy measures, such as State aid policy, structural funds or wider industrial policy aims. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Closing regional gaps on broadband access and new technologies should also be addressed via the current legislation. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 4 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 22 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(22) Spectrum users should also be able to freely choose the services they wish to offer over the spectrum subject to transitional measures to cope with previously acquired rights. It should be possible for exceptions to the principle of service neutrality which require the provision of a specific service to meet clearly defined general interest objectives such as safety of life, the need to promote social, regional and territorial cohesion, or the avoidance of inefficient use of spectrum to be permitted where necessary and proportionate. Those objectives should include the promotion of cultural and linguistic diversity and media pluralism as defined in national legislation in conformity with Community law. Except where necessary to protect safety of life, exceptions should not result in exclusive use for certain services, but rather grant priority so that other services or technologies may coexist in the same band insofar as possible. In order that the holder of the authorisation may choose freely the most efficient means to carry the content of services provided over radio frequencies, the content should not be regulated in the authorisation to use radio frequencies. |
(22) Spectrum users should also be able to freely choose the services they wish to offer over the spectrum subject to transitional measures to cope with previously acquired rights. It should be possible for exceptions to the principle of service neutrality which require the provision of a specific service to meet clearly defined general interest objectives such as safety of life, the need to promote social, regional and territorial cohesion, or the avoidance of inefficient use of spectrum to be permitted where necessary and proportionate. Those objectives should include the promotion of cultural and linguistic diversity and media pluralism as defined in national legislation in conformity with Community law. Except where necessary to protect safety of life, exceptions should not result in exclusive use for certain services, but rather grant priority so that other services or technologies may coexist in the same band insofar as possible. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
As recognized in Recital 5 of the Framework Directive, the separation between the regulation of transmission and the regulation of content should not prejudice taking into account the links existing between them, and particularly in order to guarantee media pluralism, cultural diversity and consumer protection. It must therefore remain possible for Member States to link the granting of individual rights of use with commitments related to the provision of particular content services. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 5 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 23 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(23) It lies within the competence of the Member States to define the scope and nature of any exception regarding the promotion of cultural and linguistic diversity and media pluralism in accordance with their own national law. |
(23) It lies within the competence of the Member States to define the scope and nature of any exception regarding the promotion of cultural and linguistic diversity and media pluralism in accordance with their own national law. In so doing, Member States may take into account the cultural relevance of broadcasting and professional wireless microphone systems for multimedia-based audio, video and live productions. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Broadcasting as well as media productions in connection with cultural events, for instance events with international character like the Olympic Games, depend on reliable transmission frequencies. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 6 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 31 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(31) It is necessary to strengthen the powers of the Member States vis-à-vis holders of rights of way to ensure the entry or roll out of new network in an environmentally responsible way and independently of any obligation on an operator with significant market power to grant access to its electronic communications network. National regulatory authorities should be able to impose, on a case-by-case basis, the sharing of ducts, masts, and antennas, the entry into buildings and a better coordination of civil works. Improving facility sharing can significantly improve competition and lower the overall financial and environmental cost of deploying electronic communications infrastructure for undertakings. |
(31) It is necessary to strengthen the powers of the Member States vis-à-vis holders of rights of way to ensure the entry or roll out of new network in an environmentally responsible way and independently of any obligation on an operator with significant market power to grant access to its electronic communications network. National regulatory authorities should be able to impose, on a case-by-case basis, the sharing of ducts, masts, and antennas, the entry into buildings and a better coordination of civil works. Improving facility sharing can significantly improve competition and lower the overall financial and environmental cost of deploying electronic communications infrastructure for undertakings. The sharing of ducts should be extended to cover all public infrastructure (water, sewage, electricity, gas) through which electronic communications infrastructure can be deployed to create a level playing field and improve possibilities for the roll-out of alternative infrastructure. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Exploring all potentials - i.e. not only telecom incumbents' ducts but also all public infrastructure (electricity, gas and sewage ducts) will help promote a fair playing field enabling the deployment of a new additional infrastructure provided that access is guaranteed to more than one players. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 7 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 33 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(33a) The management of telephony networks and services has historically been characterised by a high level of international cooperation to ensure harmonisation of technical standards and promote interoperability. Internet has achieved interoperability through open global standards for inter-network routing, while the development of services using Internet has depended upon the freedom to create new technical standards and protocols without regulatory intervention; that freedom has enabled unprecedented innovation in the creation of information society services and other, non-commercial services, yielding enormous economic and social gains for people in the European Union. Each tradition for the development and coordination of technical standards has benefited society in its respective sphere. The national regulatory authorities should recognise the importance of innovation and diversity in Internet protocols and services, and the importance of regulatory forbearance in achieving those objectives. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NRAs should not use powers to promote harmonisation in electronic communications networks in ways that would constrain the development of innovation on the Internet. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 8 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 39 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(39a) There is a need to encourage both investment and competition, so that consumer choice is protected and not undermined. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Directives should make clear that competition is not to be sacrificed in the name of investment – for example through regulatory holidays. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 9 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 44 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(44a) The continuing integration of markets within the internal market for electronic communications services and networks requires in the future closer coordination of the application of the regulatory instruments provided for in the legal framework. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A network of national regulatory authorities is the most suitable instrument to satisfy the requirements of the European telecommunications market. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This amendment seeks to bring this opinion into line with the opinion tabled on the report on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council Regulation establishing the European Electronic Communications Market. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 10 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 45 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(45a) The approach used to date to ensure uniform application of the law in the internal market, namely exchanging information and experience between national regulatory authorities, has proved satisfactory. Therefore, a procedure for joint decision-taking should pursue the objective of enhancing cooperation between national regulatory authorities. In view of the wide variety of problems with which the national regulatory authorities are faced and the often differing market conditions in the Member States, the only adequate and sufficient solution compatible with the requirements of the subsidiarity principle is one based on the use of existing decentralised powers. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A network of national regulatory authorities is the most suitable instrument to satisfy the requirements of the European telecommunications market. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This amendment seeks to bring this opinion into line with the opinion tabled on the report on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council Regulation establishing the European Electronic Communications Market. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 11 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 46 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(46a) A network of national regulatory authorities for Electronic Communications Markets (the Network) should be established and should be provided with staff and equipment in order to guarantee the smooth running of joint decision-taking procedures. Funding by the European Union is the only way of ensuring the independence of joint decision-taking. In this connection the secretariat should only supply work equipment to the joint body, and is not itself involved in decision-taking by the national regulatory authorities. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A network of national regulatory authorities is the most suitable instrument to satisfy the requirements of the European telecommunications market. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This amendment seeks to bring this opinion into line with the opinion tabled on the report on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council Regulation establishing the European Electronic Communications Market. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 12 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 50 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(50) In order to ensure equal treatment, no spectrum users should be exempted from the obligation to pay the normal fees or charges set for the use of the spectrum. |
deleted | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It must remain possible for Member States to maintain or introduce systems where the obligation to pay usage fees is replaced by an obligation to fulfil specific general interest objectives. Such systems are commonplace with regard to terrestrial broadcasting frequencies. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This concept will be difficult to implement e.g. it would force holders of satellite dishes to register them, leading to the burdensome administration of millions of registry entries. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 13 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 60 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(60a) Activities pursued under this Directive should acknowledge the work of international and regional organisations related to radio spectrum management, e.g. the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT), to ensure the efficient management, and harmonisation of use of spectrum across the Community. Member States and the Commission should recognise the content of international agreements entered into by Member States pursuant to the ITU Radio Regulations in the implementation of this Directive. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The importance of the ITU in establishing internationally binding regulations for the efficient use of spectrum and orbit usage based on efficient, rational and cost-effective utilisation cannot be ignored. To ensure the efficient use of spectrum it is essential that operators comply with and rely on the filing and coordination procedures under the ITU to ensure that a network or system can be successfully coordinated and brought into use. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 14 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 2 – point c Directive 2002/21/EC Article 2 – point e | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Exploring all potentials - i.e. not only telecom incumbents' ducts but also all public infrastructure (electricity, gas and sewage ducts) will help promote a fair playing field enabling the deployment of a new additional infrastructure provided that access is guaranteed to more than one players. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 15 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 2 – point e Directive 2002/21/EC Article 2 – point s | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Member States should be able to provide restrictions not only where such interference has been observed but also where it is likely that harmful interference occurs. In view of the seriousness of interference problems between one-way and two-way (receive and transmit) services, it is essential to provide protection against harmful interference, in line with internationally-agreed frequency plans, and particularly the ITU Geneva Plan (GE-O6). National legal systems must have the room to secure the common usage of spectrum. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 16 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 3 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 3 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Failure of NRAs to act in a timely manner, for example in relation to market reviews, can hold back competition and innovation in the market. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 17 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 3 a (new) Directive 2002/21/EC Article 3 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The European Electronic Communications Market Authority should be substituted by the Network of National Regulatory Authorities. The European Electronic Communications Market Authority creates a large bureaucracy, counters the principle of subsidiarity, contradicts the long-term goal to replace ex-ante regulation by competition law and in addition shows a lack of independence. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 18 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 4 – point a Directive 2002/21/EC Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Currently appeal processes can be held up for as much as several years, by which time it is too late to address the original problem. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 19 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 4 – point a Directive 2002/21/EC Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It's necessary to clarify, that interim measures may not be granted for other reasons. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 20 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 4 – point b Directive 2002/21/EC Article 4 – paragraph 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The European Electronic Communications Market Authority should be substituted by the Network of National Regulatory Authorities. The European Electronic Communications Market Authority creates a large bureaucracy, counters the principle of subsidiarity, contradicts the long-term goal to replace ex-ante regulation by competition law and in addition shows a lack of independence. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 21 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 5 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 5 – paragraph 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Future network or service developments are often highly confidential and to force companies to disclose information relating to the developments themselves might jeopardise innovation. However some advance notice of potential impact at the wholesale level is desirable. It needs to be clear that commercial confidentiality should be respected. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 22 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 6 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 7 – paragraph 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A more balanced solution should be chosen: instead of giving the Commission an outright veto over remedies, a "regulatory dialogue" on the appropriateness and effectiveness of the remedy should be setup, involving the national regulatory authority proposing the remedy and the Network of national regulatory authorities. The objective of this dialogue, during which the views of market participants should be duly taken into account by all participants, is to arrive at a joint view on what would represent the most appropriate and effective remedy. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 23 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 6 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 7 – paragraph 5 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A more balanced solution should be chosen: instead of giving the Commission an outright veto over remedies, a "regulatory dialogue" on the appropriateness and effectiveness of the remedy should be setup, involving the national regulatory authority proposing the remedy and the Network of national regulatory authorities. The objective of this dialogue, during which the views of market participants should be duly taken into account by all participants, is to arrive at a joint view on what would represent the most appropriate and effective remedy. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 24 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 6 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 7 – paragraph 6 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A more balanced solution should be chosen: instead of giving the Commission an outright veto over remedies, a "regulatory dialogue" on the appropriateness and effectiveness of the remedy should be setup, involving the national regulatory authority proposing the remedy and the Network of national regulatory authorities. The objective of this dialogue, during which the views of market participants should be duly taken into account by all participants, is to arrive at a joint view on what would represent the most appropriate and effective remedy. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 25 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 6 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 7 – paragraph 8 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Commission's proposal would constitute a serious precedent in internal market legislation as an EU body would substitute the decision of a national authority. This completely undermines the system of checks and balances of the EU Treaty, whereby national authorities implement Community law subject to Court control and possible Commission infringement procedures. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 26 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 7 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 7a – paragraph 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It remains vague what is meant by 'non-essential elements' in paragraph (2). Such proposed 'implementing measures' might have a considerable financial impact on undertakings. Any potential changes must be reserved to full scrutiny in a legislative procedure on EU-level or left to Member States. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 27 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 8 – point e a (new) Directive 2002/21/EC Article 8 – paragraph 4 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The current regulatory regime must be adapted to the investment challenges regarding the roll-out of Next Generation Access Networks. Regulation must enable market players to invest in NGAs and thus must take into account the risks involved. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 28 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 9 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 9 – paragraph 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
As frequencies cross borders beyond the EU, internationally binding agreements to avoid interference must be respected. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 29 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 9 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 9 – paragraph 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 30 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 9 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 9 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
References to the 2002 EC Spectrum Decision and the ITU Radio Regulations are essential to ensure consistency between EU rules, and compliance of EU rules with international rules reflected in national frequency allocation tables. The effective management of spectrum is the responsibility of the NRA and requires compliance with ITU procedures. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 31 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 9 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 9 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 – point c | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
References to the 2002 EC Spectrum Decision and the ITU Radio Regulations are essential to ensure consistency between EU rules, and compliance of EU rules with international rules reflected in national frequency allocation tables. The effective management of spectrum is the responsibility of the NRA and requires compliance with ITU procedures. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 32 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 9 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 9 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 – point c a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The general philosophy of spectrum policy should strive at ensuring efficient use of the spectrum. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 33 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 9 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 9 – paragraph 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
References to the 2002 EC Spectrum Decision and the ITU Radio Regulations are essential to ensure consistency between EU rules, and compliance of EU rules with international rules reflected in national frequency allocation tables. The effective management of spectrum is the responsibility of the NRA and requires compliance with ITU procedures. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 34 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 9 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 9 – paragraph 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Definition of cultural and media policies are national competences and this needs to be taken into account sufficiently. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 35 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 10 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 9a | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The forced review of existing rights is likely to introduce major business uncertainty and does not take into account the commercial reality of many operators whose investments based on frequencies usage rights cover periods of 15 years or more. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 36 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 10 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 9b – paragraph 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Spectrum trading falls under subsidiarity and thus should be dealt with according to national provisions. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 37 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 10 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 9b – paragraph 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The competent authority is not always the same authority as the national regulatory authority as defined in the Framework Directive. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 38 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 10 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 9c – paragraph 1– points from a to d | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The measures which are proposed to be adopted in comitology are much broader than just ‘non-essential elements of the Directive. On the other hand a lot of harmonisation can be conducted and has been conducted successfully on the basis of the existing Radio Spectrum Decision (676/2002/EC). Therefore b and c of the article should be deleted. Referring to recital 23 it lies within the competence of the Member States to define media policies. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 39 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 10 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 9c – paragraph 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 40 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 10 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 9 d (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
To ensure efficient spectrum use it is essential that operators comply with and can rely on the filing and coordination procedures under the internationally binding rules and procedures of the ITU in order to ensure that a network or system can be successfully coordinated and brought into use. The international rights and obligations of administrations regarding their own and other administrations’ frequency assignments are derived from the recording of the assignments in the ITU Master International Frequency Register, or the conformity of the assignments with an ITU frequency plan. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 41 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 11 – point -a (new) Directive 2002/21/EC Article 10 – paragraph 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Failure to reform the numbering arrangements harms citizen, consumer and business interests in the EU, especially in an environment where numbers from certain major European and non-European countries are, de jure or de facto, available world-wide. In addition, the currently existing restrictions (which are not contained in the directives but are common practice at national level) run contrary to the internal market goals. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 42 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 11 – point a Directive 2002/21/EC Article 10 – paragraph 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Failure to reform the numbering arrangements harms citizen, consumer and business interests in the EU, especially in an environment where numbers from certain major European and non-European countries are, de jure or de facto, available world-wide. In addition, the currently existing restrictions (which are not contained in the directives but are common practice at national level) run contrary to the internal market goals. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 43 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 11 – point b Directive 2002/21/EC Article 10 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Commission's amendment would lead to an expansion of retail regulation via prescription of tariff principles. It constitutes a breach of the systematic of the regulatory framework, which foresees price regulation of retail services only in the case of an SMP-finding on a retail market under Art. 17 of the Universal Service Directive. To introduce a sweeping new competence for price-setting for regulators is in violation of the aim of better regulation and the overarching principle that regulation should in principle be confined to the wholesale level. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 44 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 13 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 12 – paragraph 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 45 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 13 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 12 – paragraph 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stresses the need to take the justified security interests of the parties involved into account. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 46 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 13 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 12 – paragraph 3 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Exploring all potentials - i.e. not only telecom incumbents' ducts but also all public infrastructure (electricity, gas and sewage ducts) will help promote a fair playing field enabling the deployment of a new additional infrastructure provided that access is guaranteed to more than one players. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 47 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 14 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 13a – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
In order to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy and extra administrative load, national regulatory authorities should submit the reports only once a year. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 48 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 14 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 13a – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Authority should not have competence in security matters which should reside with ENISA. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
In individual cases Members States should have the possibility to use higher standards than the harmonized base-line to meet the goals set out in paragraphs 1 and 2. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 49 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 14 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 13b – paragraph 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Many NRAs do not have competence in security issues. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 50 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 14 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 13b – paragraph 2 – introductory part | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Many NRAs do not have competence in security issues. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 51 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 14 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 13b – paragraph 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Many NRAs do not have competence in security issues. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 52 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 - point 18 – point a a (new) Directive 2002/21/EC Article 17 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CEPT develops conditions for spectrum use in Europe and this should be taken into account, particularly in the absence of an ETSI standard. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 53 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 2 – point 3 – point a Directive 2002/19/EC Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraphs 1 a and 1 b (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ex-ante regulation as a rule must be limited to economic bottlenecks only. Thus, if in certain regions effective competition has developed, regulation must be removed accordingly. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 54 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 2 – point 7 Directive 2002/19/EC Article 9 – paragraph 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 55 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 2 – point 8 - point a Directive 2002/19/EC Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point f | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Facility sharing is already being coped with under Art. 12 FD. Thus, Art. 12 para. 1 lit. (f) is redundant. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 56 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 2 – point 8 a (new) Directive 2002/19/EC Article 13 – paragraph 1 and 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Regulation of NGNs may take into account the risk associated with the investment decision. Risk sharing can be achieved by enabling access on the basis of an upfront payment or on the basis of long term access contracts with minimum purchase quantities. Short-term contracts without minimum quantities may include a price-premium which covers the investment risk of the investor under the assumption that the full investment risk is being born by the investor. Long-term access contracts may reflect the time period necessary to allow amortisation of investment costs in new markets. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The key issue for the coming years is to give appropriate incentives for investments in new high speed networks that will support innovation in content-rich internet services. Such networks have enormous potential to deliver benefits to consumers across the European Union. It is therefore vital that there is no impediment to sustainable investment in the development of these new networks, while boosting competition and consumer choice. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 57 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 – point 3 Directive 2002/20/EC Article 5 – paragraph 1– point a | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Any risk of “harmful interference” is a “serious risk”. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The proposed mechanism to review existing rights is not realistic, as justified for the amendments to Article 9a of the Framework Directive. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It is imperative to ensure that spectrum allocation does not distort competition in the market. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 58 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 – point 3 Directive 2002/20/EC Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The general philosophy of spectrum policy should strive at ensuring efficient use of spectrum. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 59 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 – point 3 Directive 2002/20/EC Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Any risk of “harmful interference” is a “serious risk”. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The proposed mechanism to review existing rights is not realistic, as justified for the amendments to Article 9a of the Framework Directive. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 60 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 – point 3 Directive 2002/20/EC Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 5 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
For many new platforms and services, investment will need to be amortized over a period exceeding ten or, at any rate, five years. It is not uncommon to have to sustain substantial losses during the first couple of years of operation. It would be disproportionate to introduce a rigid requirement for national regulatory authorities to conduct a formal review of all spectrum licenses every five years. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 61 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 – point 3 Directive 2002/20/EC Article 5 – paragraph 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Any risk of “harmful interference” is a “serious risk”. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The proposed mechanism to review existing rights is not realistic, as justified for the amendments to Article 9a of the Framework Directive. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 62 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 – point 3 Directive 2002/20/EC Article 5 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Any risk of “harmful interference” is a “serious risk”. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The proposed mechanism to review existing rights is not realistic, as justified for the amendments to Article 9a of the Framework Directive. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 63 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 – point 3 Directive 2002/20/EC Article 5 – paragraph 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Safeguard for making sure that legacy investments are taken into due account. Otherwise former investments might be devalued. This would severely distort the market and would negatively affect future investment decisions. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 64 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 – point 3 Directive 2002/20/EC Article 5 – paragraph 6 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Any risk of “harmful interference” is a “serious risk”. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The proposed mechanism to review existing rights is not realistic, as justified for the amendments to Article 9a of the Framework Directive. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 65 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 – point 5 Directive 2002/20/EC Article 6a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The reference to the Radio Spectrum Decision is crucial to achieve an integrated policy approach and coherent treatment of harmonisation measures. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 66 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 – point 5 Directive 2002/20/EC Article 6a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The scope of the article is far to open. Moreover, the wording is not in line with the principle of checks and balance. It is important to ensure that Member States’ competences regarding frequencies are not undermined by new centralized procedures at EU level. Insofar it is appropriate to refer this article to pan-European services. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 67 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 – point 5 Directive 2002/20/EC Article 6a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point c | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The scope of the article is far to open. Moreover, the wording is not in line with the principle of checks and balance. It is important to ensure that Member States’ competences regarding frequencies are not undermined by new centralized procedures at EU level. Insofar it is appropriate to refer this article to pan-European services. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 68 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 – point 5 Directive 2002/20/EC Article 6a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point d | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It should be left to subsidiarity how conditions relating to general authorisations or individual rights of use should be defined in each Member State. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 69 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 – point 5 Directive 2002/20/EC Article 6a – paragraph 1 –subparagraph 1 – point f | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The scope of the article is far to open. Moreover, the wording is not in line with the principle of checks and balance. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 70 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 – point 5 Directive 2002/20/EC Article 6 b | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Authority should not have competence over spectrum policy and this should remain with the RSPG. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Article 6 b is not in line with the principle of subsidiarity. It is important to ensure that Member States’ competences regarding frequencies are not undermined by new centralized procedures at EU level. Insofar it is appropriate to refer this article to pan-European services. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 71 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 – point 13 Directive 2002/20/EC Article 17 – paragraph 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The forced review of existing rights is likely to introduce major business uncertainty and does not take into account the commercial reality of many operators whose investments based on frequencies usage rights cover periods of 15 years or more. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 72 Proposal for a directive – amending act Annex II Directive 2002/20/EC Annex II | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Consequence of deletion of article 6a.1(d). |
PROCEDURE
Title |
Electronic communications networks and services |
|||||||
References |
COM(2007)0697 – C6-0427/2007 – 2007/0247(COD) |
|||||||
Committee responsible |
ITRE |
|||||||
Opinion by Date announced in plenary |
ECON 10.12.2007 |
|
|
|
||||
Drafts(wo)man Date appointed |
Karsten Friedrich Hoppenstedt 15.1.2008 |
|
|
|||||
Discussed in committee |
1.4.2008 |
6.5.2008 |
19.5.2008 |
|
||||
Date adopted |
3.6.2008 |
|
|
|
||||
Result of final vote |
+: –: 0: |
44 0 0 |
||||||
Members present for the final vote |
Mariela Velichkova Baeva, Zsolt László Becsey, Pervenche Berès, Sharon Bowles, Udo Bullmann, David Casa, Manuel António dos Santos, Jonathan Evans, Elisa Ferreira, José Manuel García-Margallo y Marfil, Jean-Paul Gauzès, Donata Gottardi, Dariusz Maciej Grabowski, Benoît Hamon, Karsten Friedrich Hoppenstedt, Sophia in ‘t Veld, Othmar Karas, Piia-Noora Kauppi, Wolf Klinz, Christoph Konrad, Guntars Krasts, Kurt Joachim Lauk, Andrea Losco, Astrid Lulling, Florencio Luque Aguilar, John Purvis, Alexander Radwan, Bernhard Rapkay, Dariusz Rosati, Eoin Ryan, Antolín Sánchez Presedo, Olle Schmidt, Peter Skinner, Margarita Starkevičiūtė, Ivo Strejček, Ieke van den Burg, Cornelis Visser |
|||||||
Substitute(s) present for the final vote |
Dragoş Florin David, Mia De Vits, Harald Ettl, Ján Hudacký, Janusz Lewandowski, Theodor Dumitru Stolojan |
|||||||
Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote |
Edit Bauer |
|||||||
OPINION of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (26.6.2008)
for the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy
on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directives 2002/21/EC on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services, 2002/19/EC on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and services, and 2002/20/EC on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services
(COM(2007)0697 – C6‑0427/2007 – 2007/0247(COD))
Draftsman: Marian Zlotea
SHORT JUSTIFICATION
This proposal amends the Framework[1], Authorisation[2] and Access[3] Directives, which the Commission proposed in November 2007. Your Draftsman welcomes the 'Better Regulation' proposals in the package with strong support overall since the package is very important in improving a true European internal market in the field of telecommunication. The aim of the package is to enhance investment, innovation and consumer benefits in electronic communications, in other words to support and further develop a regulatory framework for the digital economy that is future-proof, market-oriented and exploits the advantages brought by the completion of the internal market, which your Draftsman also strongly supports.
Although your Draftsman welcomes the proposal on common regulatory framework for networks and services, access, interconnection and authorisation of electronic communications, he is of the opinion that there is scope for improvement.
Spectrum Management
The EU needs to rapidly move on to better forms of spectrum management which combine openness, flexibility and harmonization. There is a clear need for flexibility in spectrum utilisation and maximised efficiency.
A ‘harmonized’ view of spectrum management, which would bring 27 different national spectrum management schemes into line, would be useful to improve pan-European and cross-border services. A single spectrum regime returns technology and services benefits to users and thus economic and social and benefits (e.g. in volume production of standard equipment, lowering prices and the barrier to entry for new users).
In that respect, attention should be paid to frequency management and network planning to avoid interferences as far as possible, as technology neutral harmonisation can not solve the problems of interference.
The introduction by the Commission of flexibility in assignment of spectrum to a specific technology or services is welcomed by your draftsman. Allowing more flexible uses will lead to more innovation and consumer benefit. However, some bands may need to be reserved for one application across the EU (emergency services, for example) so caution with technical and service neutrality may be necessary.
Therefore, a gradual approach, rather than a revolutionary reform seems preferable. While technology neutrality will lead to innovative and technology developments, to the benefit of the consumer, it should be complemented by trading to ensure competition.
The Commission seeks to add market-based spectrum trading with secondary trading and auctions to the 'traditional method'. Spectrum trading by itself does not necessarily improve flexibility in spectrum use. It should however ease access to the spectrum and lead to more intensive (hence more valuable) use of the spectrum. Therefore, your Draftsman supports the establishment of tradability of rights of use throughout the EU for selected bands, when individual rights of use are granted.
New coordination and regulatory powers
The Commission proposes that National Regulatory Authorities should be given the power to mandate functional separation on dominant operators where it would help to increase competition for consumers and provide a level playing field for operators. Your draftsman fully supports the Commission proposal, recognising that this remedy may not be suitable in every Member States, but it should be a remedy available for NRAs to use.
Under the current proposal, Commission's power is extended. Commission has powers to veto NRA dominance designations and to issue Recommendations on all issues and Decisions on numbers. Your Draftsman is against the current proposals which would give the Commission such veto powers.
Facilitating access
The current regulatory framework already foresees the imposition of the least burdensome authorisation scheme, i.e. recourse to general authorisations as the preferred approach. However, in practice, spectrum usage rights are more frequently assigned through individual usage rights. The proposals confirm the general authorisation approach and establish it as the default method. They consequently introduce an obligation to justify cases where individual usage rights are to be issued. Such justification can be that it is necessary to prevent interference or to fulfil objectives of general interest. The rationale underlying this proposal is two-fold: (i) to prevent individual licences from being used as assignment methods where not necessary, and thereby overall to reduce the hurdle to access spectrum; (ii) technological progress increasingly allows the collective use of spectrum.
Your Draftsman is convinced that the protection of consumers requires strengthened measures and therefore suggests amendments which are improvements on these consumer protection issues. With regard to the duties and power of national regulatory authorities, the proposal sets out further measures regarding consumer protection. Your Draftsman seeks to strengthen and clarify the role of the authorities in order to attain improvements on these consumer protection issues.Furthermore, as recognized by the Commission, a fully functioning European retail market has not yet been achieved. Therefore, further concrete proposals are necessary to reach a true internal market.
AMENDMENTS
The Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection calls on the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following amendments in its report:
Amendment 1 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 3 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(3a) The objective of the EU regulatory framework for electronic communications is to create a sustainable "ecosystem" for electronic communications, based on supply and demand: the former through effectively competitive product or service markets, the latter thanks to increasing information society developments. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A sustainable environment for competition and investment in the telecommunications sector relies both on supply and demand. While the economic regulation relies usually more on supply, it is necessary not to forget the demand side. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 2 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 3 b (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(3b) Next generation networks have enormous potential to deliver benefits to businesses and consumers across the European Union. It is therefore vital that a lack of regulatory clarity does not act as an impediment to sustainable investment in the development of these new networks, while boosting competition and consumer choice. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 3 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 5 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(5a) In its Communication “Bridging the Broadband Gap” of 20 March 2006, the Commission acknowledged that there is a territorial divide in Europe regarding access to high speed broadband services. Despite the general increase in broadband connectivity, access in various regions is limited because of high costs due to low density of population and remoteness. Commercial incentives to invest in broadband deployment in these areas often turn out to be insufficient. On the positive side, technological innovation is reducing deployment costs. In order to ensure investment in new technologies in underdeveloped regions, telecoms regulation needs to be consistent with other policy measures taken, such as state aid policy, structural funds or wider industrial policy aims. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The regulatory framework should also take into account the need for closing regional gaps in development. The specific importance of broadband roll out should be emphasised. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 4 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 16 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(16a) The spectrum management provisions of this Directive should be consistent with the work of international and regional organisations dealing with radio spectrum management, such as the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT), so as to ensure the efficient management and harmonisation of the use of spectrum across the Community and globally. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Spectrum management to be effective needs to be aligned with the broader international harmonisation agenda pursued by ITU and CEPT. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 5 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 19 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(19a) Although spectrum management remains within the competence of the Member States, only coordination and, where appropriate, harmonisation at Community level can ensure that spectrum users derive the full benefits of the internal market and that EU interests can be effectively defended world-wide. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Spectrum management to be effective needs to be aligned with the broader international harmonisation agenda pursued by ITU and CEPT. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 6 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 22 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(22) Spectrum users should also be able to freely choose the services they wish to offer over the spectrum subject to transitional measures to cope with previously acquired rights. It should be possible for exceptions to the principle of service neutrality which require the provision of a specific service to meet clearly defined general interest objectives such as safety of life, the need to promote social, regional and territorial cohesion, or the avoidance of inefficient use of spectrum to be permitted where necessary and proportionate. Those objectives should include the promotion of cultural and linguistic diversity and media pluralism as defined in national legislation in conformity with Community law. Except where necessary to protect safety of life, exceptions should not result in exclusive use for certain services, but rather grant priority so that other services or technologies may coexist in the same band insofar as possible. In order that the holder of the authorisation may choose freely the most efficient means to carry the content of services provided over radio frequencies, the content should not be regulated in the authorisation to use radio frequencies. |
(22) Spectrum users should also be able to freely choose the services they wish to offer over the spectrum subject to transitional measures to cope with previously acquired rights. It should be possible for exceptions to the principle of service neutrality which require the provision of a specific service to meet clearly defined general interest objectives such as safety of life, the need to promote social, regional and territorial cohesion, or the avoidance of inefficient use of spectrum to be permitted where necessary and proportionate. Those objectives should include the promotion of cultural and linguistic diversity and media pluralism as defined in national legislation in conformity with Community law. Except where necessary to protect safety of life, exceptions should not result in exclusive use for certain services, but rather grant priority so that other services or technologies may coexist in the same band insofar as possible. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
As pointed out in recital 5 of the framework directive, the separation between the regulation of transmission and the regulation of content must not prejudice the taking into account of the links existing between them, in particular in order to guarantee media pluralism, cultural diversity and consumer protection. Member States must therefore conserve the freedom to make the granting of individual user rights dependent on commitments regarding the provision of specific service content. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 7 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 29 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(29) In order to promote the functioning of the internal market, and to support the development of cross-border services, the Commission should be given the power to grant the Authority specific responsibilities in the area of numbering. Furthermore, to allow citizens of the Member States, including travellers and disabled users, to be able to reach certain services by using the same recognisable numbers at similar prices in all Member States, the powers of the Commission to adopt technical implementing measures should also cover, where necessary, the applicable tariff principle or mechanism. |
(29) In order to promote the functioning of the internal market, and to support the development of cross-border services, the Commission should be given the power to grant the Authority specific responsibilities in the area of numbering. Furthermore, to allow citizens of the Member States, including travellers and disabled users, to be able to reach certain services by using the same recognisable numbers at similar prices in all Member States, the powers of the Commission to adopt technical implementing measures should also cover, where necessary, the applicable tariff principle or mechanism, as well as the establishment of a single European front-up call number ensuring user-friendly access to these services. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 8 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 31 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(31) It is necessary to strengthen the powers of the Member States vis-à-vis holders of rights of way to ensure the entry or roll out of new network in an environmentally responsible way and independently of any obligation on an operator with significant market power to grant access to its electronic communications network. National regulatory authorities should be able to impose, on a case-by-case basis, the sharing of ducts, masts, and antennas, the entry into buildings and a better coordination of civil works. Improving facility sharing can significantly improve competition and lower the overall financial and environmental cost of deploying electronic communications infrastructure for undertakings. |
(31) It is necessary to strengthen the powers of the Member States vis-à-vis holders of rights of way to ensure the entry or roll out of new network in an environmentally responsible way and independently of any obligation on an operator with significant market power to grant access to its electronic communications network. National regulatory authorities should be able to impose, on a case-by-case basis, the sharing of ducts, masts, and antennas, the entry into buildings and a better coordination of civil works. Improving facility sharing can significantly improve competition and lower the overall financial and environmental cost of deploying electronic communications infrastructure for undertakings. The sharing of ducts should be extended to cover all public infrastructure (water, sewage, electricity, gas) through which electronic communications infrastructure can be deployed to create a level playing field and improve possibilities for the roll out of alternative infrastructure. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New generation services will not run along the current copper wires; a whole new infrastructure will be deployed, for which the bottleneck is the physical ducts through which connections will be deployed. Real duct sharing – i.e. including not only telecoms incumbents’ ducts but also, for example all public infrastructure (electricity, gas, sewage ducts) - enables more than one player to have access to infrastructure to provide their services. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 9 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 50 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(50) In order to ensure equal treatment, no spectrum users should be exempted from the obligation to pay the normal fees or charges set for the use of the spectrum. |
deleted | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Member States must remain free to maintain or introduce alternatives replacing the compulsory payment of user fees with the obligation to meet general interest objectives. Such arrangements, which seek to achieve media pluralism, are common practice with regard to the allocation of terrestrial broadcasting frequencies. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 10 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 57 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(57) The conditions that may be attached to authorisations should cover specific conditions governing accessibility for users with disabilities and the need of public authorities to communicate with the general public before, during and after major disasters. Also, considering the importance of technical innovation, Member States should be able to issue authorisations to use spectrum for experimental purposes, subject to specific restrictions and conditions strictly justified by the experimental nature of such rights. |
(57) The conditions that may be attached to authorisations should cover specific conditions governing accessibility for users with disabilities and the need of public authorities and emergency services to communicate between themselves and with the general public before, during and after major disasters. Also, considering the importance of technical innovation, Member States should be able to issue authorisations to use spectrum for experimental purposes, subject to specific restrictions and conditions strictly justified by the experimental nature of such rights. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 11 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 60 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(60) In particular, power should be conferred on the Commission to adopt implementing measures in relation to the notifications under Article 7 of the Framework Directive; the harmonisation in the fields of spectrum and numbering as well as in matters related to the security of networks and services; the identification of trans-national markets; the implementation of the standards; the harmonised application of the provisions of the regulatory framework. Power should also be conferred to adopt implementing measures to update Annexes I and II to the Access Directive to market and technological developments and for adopting implementing measures to harmonise the authorisation rules, procedures and conditions for the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services. Since those measures are of general scope and are designed to supplement these Directives by the addition of new non-essential elements, they must be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny provided for in Article 5a of Decision 1999/468/EC. When, on imperative grounds of urgency, the normal time limits for this procedure cannot be complied with, the Commission should be able to use the urgency procedure provided for in Article 5a(6) of the above Decision. |
(60) In particular, power should be conferred on the Commission to adopt implementing measures in relation to the notifications under Article 7 of the Framework Directive; the harmonisation in the fields of spectrum and numbering as well as in matters related to the security of networks and services; the identification of trans-national markets; the implementation of the standards; the harmonised application of the provisions of the regulatory framework. Power should also be conferred on the Commission by the Framework and Authorisation Directives to harmonise the regulatory treatment of pan-European services, such as global telecommunications services. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 12 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 60 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(60a) It is the responsibility of the Member States to encourage cooperation arrangements between the parties concerned in order to promote efficient on-line services and a high level of consumer confidence. In particular, companies supplying electronic communications networks and/or services and other stakeholders should be encouraged to cooperate so as to promote legal content and protect on-line content. Such cooperation could for example be achieved on a wider scale without prejudice to the regulatory framework, by the drafting of negotiated and agreed codes of conduct between stakeholders. The introduction of such codes of conduct has already been envisaged in numerous Community instruments, for example Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market ('Directive on electronic commerce')1, Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights2, and Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data3. Such cooperation between stakeholders is essential to promoting on-line content, in particular European cultural content, and to realise the potential of the information society. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1 OJ L 178, 17.7.2000, p. 1. 2 OJ L 157, 30.4.2004, p. 45; corrected version in OJ L 195, 2.6.2004, p. 16. 3 OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p.31. Directive as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 (OJ L 284, 31.10.2003, p. 1). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This recital stresses the need to encourage good cooperation between stakeholders to promote on-line content and realise the potential of the information society. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 13 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 1 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 1 − paragraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
There is a need to clarify that the aspects of terminal equipments addressed are accessibility aspects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 14 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 ‑ point 3 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 3 ‑ paragraph 3 ‑ subparagraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
In order to ensure competition and innovation in the market, NRAs have to act in a timely manner, for example in relation to market reviews. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 15 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 4 – point (a) Directive 2002/21/EC Article 4 − paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Effectiveness and reasonable duration are key aspects of appeal mechanisms. Expertise of appeal bodies should be internal and not just "available to it". | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 16 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 ‑ point 4 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 4 ‑ paragraph 1 ‑ subparagraph 1 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Currently appeal processes can be held up for as much as several years, by which time it is too late to address the original problem. A time limit has therefore to be set. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 17 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 ‑ point 5 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 5 ‑ paragraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 18 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 6 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 6 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A new ‘coregulation’ procedure is proposed based on close cooperation between the Commission, the BERT and the national regulatory authorities. Rather than a ‘sanction’ veto imposed from above, this procedure involves consideration by peers in order to achieve a solution. In order for the Commission to take a decision along these lines, the Commission and the BERT (by simple majority vote) must agree on the need to amend a measure proposed by a national regulatory authority. Otherwise, the national regulatory authority must take full account of observations by the Commission and BERT. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 19 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 ‑ point 6 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 7‑ paragraph 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 20 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 6 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 7 – paragraph 4 – point c | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The veto is replaced by the mechanism set out in Article 6a (new). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 21 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 6 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 7 – paragraph 6 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The veto on remedies is replaced by the mechanism set out in Article 6a (new). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 22 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 ‑ point 6 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 7‑ paragraph 8 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
To improve consistency, without altering the delicate institutional balance of powers or undermining the subsidiarity elements of the Regulation, the Commission should play the role of an arbitrator rather than of a judge. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 23 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 6 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 7 – paragraph 9 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The veto on remedies is replaced by the mechanism contained in Article -7a (new). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 24 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 8 – point b Directive 2002/21/EC Article 8 − paragraph 2 – point b | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The proposed expansion of the NRA’s objective to promote competition “in particular for the delivery of content” should be rejected. The market for content delivery is already competitive. Accordingly, the market of broadcasting transmission services has already been removed from the list of recommended markets susceptible to ex-ante regulation. It stays unclear why this change is introduced. The addition moreover undermines the aim of a level playing field in competition, if competition in one areas judged more important than in another. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 25 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 ‑ point 8 ‑ point b a (new) Directive 2002/21/EC Article 8 ‑ paragraph 2 ‑ point c | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 26 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 8 − point e Directive 2002/21/EC Article 8 – paragraph 4 – point g a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 27 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 9 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 9 – paragraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Effective management of radio spectrum for electronic communication services should require the competent authorities to take into account competition aspects when allocation and assigning radio frequencies and avoid any distortions to competition. The proposed wording is consistent with that in recital 28 of the Commission's proposal for the framework directive. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 28 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 9 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 9 – paragraph 3 – point b a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Effective management of radio spectrum for electronic communication services should require the competent authorities to take into account competition aspects when allocation and assigning radio frequencies and avoid any distortions to competition. The proposed wording is consistent with that in recital 28 of the Commission's proposal for the framework directive. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 29 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 9 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 9 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Service neutrality must be limited to the possibilities provided by ITU radio broadcasting regulations determining which services can operate together within the various band widths. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 30 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 9 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 9 − paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 31 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 9 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 9 − paragraph 4 – subparagraph 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It is important that the definition of cultural and media policies remains in the hands of Member States and that legal safeguards and flexibility on national level are guaranteed in this matter. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 32 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 9 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 9 − paragraph 5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It is important that the definition of cultural and media policies remains in the hands of Member States and that legal safeguards and flexibility on national level are guaranteed in this matter. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 33 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 10 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 9a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No review should be necessary regarding rights expiring before the end of the five-year transitional period. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 34 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 10 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 9a – paragraph 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Operators should be able to continue offering and further developing (for example through HD TV) their broadcasting services after transition to digital technology. The digital dividend which is not used for broadcasting should be reassigned to other purposes under the new rules. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 35 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 10 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 9b – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Radio frequency interchangeability should not lead to any imbalance regarding service diversity or to speculation. However, national procedures cannot be ignored since spectrum management is the responsibility of the national authorities. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 36 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 10 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 9c | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bringing the Commission's implementing powers of the Radio Spectrum Decision within the Framework Directive must go along with the inclusion in the Directive of a clause equivalent to Article 1(4) of the Radio Spectrum Decision. In view of Member States' competence for cultural and media policy, the Commission should not identify broadcasting bands as bands for which usage rights might be transferred or leased. Under Article 9b, the transfer or lease of individual rights is subject to national procedures, and the Commission should thus not harmonize these procedures. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 37 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 11 – point (b) Directive 2002/21/EC Article 10 − paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 38 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 ‑ point 13 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 12 ‑ paragraph 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 39 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 13 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 12 − paragraph 3 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
In order to foster infrastructure roll-out access to ducts should not be artificially confined to ducts of telecommunications operators but should encompass all ducts available. The more ducts are available the better the chances for sustainable competition due to third party network roll-out. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 40 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 − point 14 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 13a − paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 41 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 − point 14 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 13a − paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 42 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 − point 14 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 13a − paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 43 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 14 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 13 − paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Commission can play a positive role in coordinating and favouring the sharing of best practices, without necessarily imposing binding measures. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 44 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 − point 14 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 13a − paragraph 4 − subparagraph 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 45 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 ‑ point 17 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 16 ‑ paragraph 5 ‑ subparagraph 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
To improve consistency without altering the delicate institutional balance of powers or undermining the subsidiarity elements of the Regulation, the Commission should play the role of an arbitrator rather than of a judge. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 46 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 20 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 19 – paragraph 4 – point a | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pan-European telecommunications services with its current lead example of global telecommunications services(GTS) offered to multinational companies with offices in a number of European countries are one of the areas where the Commission should have the power to ensure a harmonised regulatory approach within the EU. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 47 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 20 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 19 − paragraph 4 – point c | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Only consumer issues not covered by the Universal Service Directive should be regulated on the basis of this Article. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 48 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 2 – point 8 – point b a (new) Directive 2002/19/EC Article 12 − paragraph 2 – point a | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Infrastructure competition, while a primary goal of this regulation, needs to be assessed according to the benefit to the consumer too. Competition should be promoted as deep as possible in the value chain. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 49 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 2 – point 9 Directive 2002/19/EC Article 13a – paragraph 2 – point a | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Since functional separation can provide a means to simplify enforcement for the Authority and regulated operator, it should be possible for Regulators to make use of this measure on a forward-looking basis and not only after there is a long-standing failure of enforcement which means that remedies have been ineffective over an extended period (and thus competition has failed to develop). It is important to refer to 'effective' competition as some infrastructure competition could exist without being sufficient to provide an effective constraint on the dominant operator. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 50 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 – point 2 Directive 2002/20/EC Article 3 – paragraph 2 – subparagraphs 1 a and b (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 51 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 – point 3 Directive 2002/20/EC Article 5 – paragraph 1 – introductory wording | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
General authorisations may be a viable solution in the long term once the technology has developed. However, the granting of individual rights should remain the normal procedure for spectrum allocation. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 52 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 – point 3 Directive 2002/20/EC Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point b | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 53 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 – point 3 Directive 2002/20/EC Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
There are numerous new platforms and services on which investment must be recouped over a period exceeding ten or at least five years. It is not unusual to sustain considerable losses during the first one or two years of operation. It would be disproportionate to require the national regulatory authority on an inflexible basis to carry out a formal review every five years of all broadcasting spectrum licences. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 54 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 – point 5 Directive 2002/20/EC Article 6a – paragraph 1 – point c | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The granting of general authorisations is a long-term objective and harmonisation should not be envisaged at this stage. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 55 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 – point 5 Directive 2002/20/EC Article 6b | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Regarding the granting of these rights, selection should be carried out by means of specific legal proposals throughout the EU and not through the comitology procedure. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 56 Proposal for a directive – amending act Annex I – point 4 a (new) Directive 2002/20/EC Annex – Part C – point 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 57 Proposal for a directive – amending act Annex II – point 1 Directive 2002/20/EC Annex II – point 1 – point d | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Member States must remain free to maintain or introduce mechanisms to replace user fee obligations with obligations to fulfil specific general interest objectives. These mechanisms, which are intended to meet media pluralism objectives, are commonly applicable to terrestrial broadcasting frequencies. |
PROCEDURE
Title |
Electronic communications networks and services |
|||||||
References |
COM(2007)0697 – C6-0427/2007 – 2007/0247(COD) |
|||||||
Committee responsible |
ITRE |
|||||||
Opinion by Date announced in plenary |
IMCO 10.12.2007 |
|
|
|
||||
Drafts(wo)man Date appointed |
Marian Zlotea 31.1.2008 |
|
|
|||||
Discussed in committee |
28.2.2008 |
26.3.2008 |
6.5.2008 |
28.5.2008 |
||||
Date adopted |
16.6.2008 |
|
|
|
||||
Result of final vote |
+: –: 0: |
33 0 0 |
||||||
Members present for the final vote |
Cristian Silviu Buşoi, Charlotte Cederschiöld, Janelly Fourtou, Evelyne Gebhardt, Martí Grau i Segú, Małgorzata Handzlik, Malcolm Harbour, Edit Herczog, Iliana Malinova Iotova, Kurt Lechner, Lasse Lehtinen, Arlene McCarthy, Nickolay Mladenov, Catherine Neris, Bill Newton Dunn, Zita Pleštinská, Karin Riis-Jørgensen, Giovanni Rivera, Zuzana Roithová, Heide Rühle, Leopold Józef Rutowicz, Salvador Domingo Sanz Palacio, Christel Schaldemose, Andreas Schwab, Eva-Britt Svensson, Jacques Toubon, Bernadette Vergnaud |
|||||||
Substitute(s) present for the final vote |
Giovanna Corda, Jan Cremers, Dragoş Florin David, Manuel Medina Ortega, Rovana Plumb, Anja Weisgerber |
|||||||
- [1] Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (OJ L 108, 24.4.2002)
- [2] Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (OJ L 108, 24.4.2002)
- [3] Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (OJ L 108, 24.4.2002)
OPINION of the Committee on Culture and Education (11.6.2008)
for the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy
on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directives 2002/21/EC on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services, 2002/19/EC on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and services, and 2002/20/EC on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services
(COM(2007)0697 – C6‑0427/2007 – 2007/0247(COD))
Draftsman: Ignasi Guardans Cambó
SHORT JUSTIFICATION
With the "AMVS Directive" the EU delivered a strong message intended to ensure the optimal conditions of competitiveness and legal certainty for Europe's ICT and its media industries and services, as well as respect for cultural and linguistic diversity. The current review of the "telecom package" needs to be read and amended with the same spirit and political intentions. The best possible balance needs to be found among the needs of all current and future users of electronic networks, their legitimate business interests and general interest public policy concerns, as well as the rights and interests of consumers.
Radio frequencies are a scarce public resource that has an important public and market value, but also that they are essential to the fulfilment of some general interest public policy objectives. Thus, spectrum needs to be managed not only efficiently and effectively, but also with due attention to the public interest from an economic, social or cultural perspective. In this context some restrictions to the principles of service neutrality, and its impact in the transfer of individual rights to use radio frequencies should be imposed The role of Member States in this public policy decisions needs to be respected.
The importance to protect electronic communications services providers and in particular AVMS providers against harmful interference cannot be underestimated. This requires some small changes in the text, to properly put in context European spectrum regulation with other internationally binding decisions and instruments which cannot be ignored.
Finally, a proposal is made to underline the indispensable role of NRA in the protection and the promotion of lawful content over electronic communications networks and services.
AMENDMENTS
The Committee on Culture and Education calls on the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following amendments in its report:
Amendment 1 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 2 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(2a) Under Directive 2007/65/EC, the so-called "Audiovisual media services Directive", a revision was carried out with the intention of ensuring optimal conditions of competitiveness and legal certainty for information technologies and media industries and services in the EU, as well as respect for cultural and linguistic diversity. In this context, a fair and balanced regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services constitutes an essential pillar of the whole European audiovisual sector. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 2 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 3 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(3a) The views of national regulatory authorities, industry stakeholders and audiovisual media services providers should be taken into account by the Commission when making decisions under this Directive through the use of effective consultation to ensure transparency and proportionality. The Commission should issue detailed consultation documents, explaining the different courses of action being considered, and interested stakeholders should be given a reasonable time in which to respond. Having considered the responses, the Commission should give reasons for the resulting decision in a statement following the consultation, including a description of how the views of those responding have been taken into account. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It is essential that the views of NRAs, industry stakeholders and audiovisual media services providers are taken into account in decisions at Community level, which decisions must be transparent and proportionate to the result to be achieved. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 3 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 16 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(16) Radio frequencies should be considered a scarce public resource that has an important public and market value. It is in the public interest that spectrum is managed as efficiently and effectively as possible from an economic, social and environmental perspective and that obstacles to its efficient use are gradually withdrawn. |
(16) Radio frequencies are the property of Member States. They should be considered a scarce public resource that has an important public and economic value, and which is essential for the fulfilment of certain general interest public policy objectives. Spectrum should therefore be managed efficiently and effectively, with due attention being paid to the public interest from an economic, social, cultural and environmental perspective, and obstacles to its efficient use should be gradually withdrawn. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 4 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 17 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(17) Radio frequencies should be managed so as to ensure that harmful interference is avoided. The basic concept of harmful interference should therefore be properly defined to ensure that regulatory intervention is limited to the extent necessary to prevent such interference. |
(17) Radio frequencies should be managed so as to ensure that harmful interference is avoided. The basic concept of harmful interference should therefore be properly defined by taking account of existing internationally agreed frequency plans to ensure that regulatory intervention is limited to the extent necessary to prevent such interference. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Interference problems are one of the main reasons for the existence of national and international frequency plans. As frequencies cross borders beyond the EU, internationally binding agreements to avoid interference must be respected. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 5 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 20 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(20) Flexibility in spectrum management and access to spectrum should be increased through technology- and service-neutral authorisations to let spectrum users choose the best technologies and services to apply in a frequency band (hereinafter referred to as the ‘principles of technology and service neutrality’). The administrative determination of technologies and services should become the exception and should be clearly justified and subject to regular periodic review. |
(20) Flexibility in spectrum management and access to spectrum should be increased through technology- and service-neutral authorisations to let spectrum users choose the best technologies and services to apply in frequency bands available to electronic communications services as identified in national frequency allocation tables and in the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Radio Regulations (hereinafter referred to as the ‘principles of technology and service neutrality’). The administrative determination of technologies and services should apply when general interest objectives are at stake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Necessary to ensure legal consistency with the definition of service neutrality proposed under Article 9 paragraph 4 subparagraph 1 of the Framework Directive. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 6 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 21 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(21) Exceptions to the principle of technology neutrality should be limited and justified by the need to avoid harmful interference, for example by imposing emission masks and power levels, or to ensure the protection of public health by limiting public exposure to electromagnetic fields, or to ensure proper sharing of spectrum, in particular where its use is only subject to general authorisations, or where strictly necessary to comply with an exception to the principle of service neutrality. |
(21) Restrictions on the principle of technology neutrality should be appropriate and justified by the need to avoid harmful interference, for example by imposing emission masks and power levels, or to ensure the protection of public health by limiting public exposure to electromagnetic fields, or to ensure proper sharing of spectrum, in particular where its use is only subject to general authorisations, or to comply with a general interest objective in conformity with Community law. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ensure coherency with the text of the directive which – for technology neutrality - refers to “restrictions” and not “exceptions”. Restrictions should not be limited to exception to the principle of service neutrality but needs to comply with general interest objectives. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 7 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 22 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(22) Spectrum users should also be able to freely choose the services they wish to offer over the spectrum subject to transitional measures to cope with previously acquired rights. It should be possible for exceptions to the principle of service neutrality which require the provision of a specific service to meet clearly defined general interest objectives such as safety of life, the need to promote social, regional and territorial cohesion, or the avoidance of inefficient use of spectrum to be permitted where necessary and proportionate. Those objectives should include the promotion of cultural and linguistic diversity and media pluralism as defined in national legislation in conformity with Community law. Except where necessary to protect safety of life, exceptions should not result in exclusive use for certain services, but rather grant priority so that other services or technologies may coexist in the same band insofar as possible. In order that the holder of the authorisation may choose freely the most efficient means to carry the content of services provided over radio frequencies, the content should not be regulated in the authorisation to use radio frequencies. |
(22) Spectrum users should be able to freely choose the services they wish to offer over the spectrum subject to transitional measures to cope with previously acquired rights. On the other hand, spectrum use may also be explicitly assigned to the provision of a specific service or through a specific technology to meet clearly defined general interest objectives such as safety of life, the need to promote social, regional and territorial cohesion, or the avoidance of inefficient use of spectrum. Those objectives include the promotion of cultural and media policy objectives such as cultural and linguistic diversity and media pluralism as defined in national legislation in conformity with Community law. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 8 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 23 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(23) It lies within the competence of the Member States to define the scope and nature of any exception regarding the promotion of cultural and linguistic diversity and media pluralism in accordance with their own national law. |
(23) It lies within the competence of the Member States to define the scope and nature of any assignment of radio frequencies to ensure the promotion of cultural and media policy objectives such as cultural and linguistic diversity and media pluralism in accordance with their national law, internationally agreed radio frequency plans and general principles of Community law. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Necessary to ensure legal consistency in wording with amendment proposed under Article 9 (4) of the Framework Directive. This amendment complements the rapporteur’s amendment 6. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 9 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 24 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(24) As the allocation of spectrum to specific technologies or services is an exception to the principles of technology and service neutrality and reduces the freedom to choose the service provided or technology used, any proposal for such allocation should be transparent and subject to public consultation. |
deleted | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Legal consistency with proposal for amendment to Article 6.1. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 10 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 47 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(47a) Where it is necessary to adopt harmonisation measures for the implementation of the Community’s electronic communications and spectrum policy which go beyond technical implementing measures, the Commission should submit a legislative proposal to the European Parliament and the Council. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 11 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 49 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(49) The introduction of the requirements of service and technology neutrality in assignment and allocation decisions, together with the increased possibility to transfer rights between undertakings, should increase the freedom and means to deliver electronic communications and audiovisual media services to the public, thereby also facilitating the achievement of general interest objectives. Therefore, certain general interest obligations imposed on broadcasters for the delivery of audiovisual media services could be increasingly met without the need to grant individual rights to use spectrum. The use of specific criteria to assign spectrum to broadcasters would be justified only where this is essential to meet a particular general interest objective set out in national law. Procedures associated with the pursuit of general interest objectives should in all circumstances be transparent, objective, proportionate and non-discriminatory. |
(49) The introduction of the requirements of service and technology neutrality in assignment and allocation decisions, together with the increased possibility to transfer rights between undertakings, should increase the freedom and means to deliver electronic communications and audiovisual media services to the public, thereby also facilitating the achievement of general interest objectives. However, certain general interest obligations imposed on broadcasters for the delivery of audiovisual media services may require the use of specific criteria in the assignation of spectrum, when it appears to be essential to meet a specific general interest objective set out in national law. Procedures associated with the pursuit of general interest objectives should in all circumstances be transparent, objective, proportionate and non-discriminatory. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Recital 49 is not consistent with Recital 23 or with Article 5(2) of the Authorisation Directive. It is important to recognize the need to take into account cultural and media policy objectives, as set out by national law. The original formulation is also more restrictive than Article 5(2) of the Authorisation Directive as regards the granting of individual rights of use for broadcasting services. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 12 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 50 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(50) In order to ensure equal treatment, no spectrum users should be exempted from the obligation to pay the normal fees or charges set for the use of the spectrum. |
(50) Any total or partial exemption from the obligation to pay the fees or charges set for the use of the spectrum must be objective and transparent and based on the existence of other general interest obligations set out in national law. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It must remain possible for Member States to maintain or introduce systems where the obligation to pay usage fees is replaced by an obligation to fulfil specific general interest objectives. Such systems are commonplace with regard to terrestrial broadcasting frequencies where they serve media pluralism objectives. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 13 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 59 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(59) Measures necessary for the implementation of the Framework, Access and Authorisation Directives should be adopted in accordance with Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission. |
(59) Measures necessary for the implementation of the Framework, Access and Authorisation Directives should be adopted in accordance with Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission. Such implementing measures should not interfere with cultural and media policy objectives as defined by the Member States in accordance with those Directives. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The proposed safeguard is essential with regard to extended implementing powers conferred to the European Commission, in particular those in Articles 9c and 19 of the Framework Directive, article 6 of the Access Directive and Article 6a of the Authorisation Directive. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 14 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 60 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(60) In particular, power should be conferred on the Commission to adopt implementing measures in relation to the notifications under Article 7 of the Framework Directive; the harmonisation in the fields of spectrum and numbering as well as in matters related to security of networks and services; the identification of trans-national markets; the implementation of the standards; the harmonised application of the provisions of the regulatory framework. Power should also be conferred to adopt implementing measures to update Annexes I and II to the Access Directive to market and technological developments and for adopting implementing measures to harmonise the authorisation rules, procedures and conditions for the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services. Since those measures are of general scope and are designed to supplement these Directives by the addition of new non-essential elements, they must be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny provided for in Article 5a of Decision 1999/468/EC. When, on imperative grounds of urgency, the normal time limits for this procedure cannot be complied with, the Commission should be able to use the urgency procedure provided for in Article 5a(6) of the above Decision. |
(60) In particular, power should be conferred on the Commission to adopt implementing measures in relation to the notifications under Article 7 of the Framework Directive; the harmonisation in the field of numbering as well as in matters related to security of networks and services; the identification of trans-national markets; the implementation of the standards; the harmonised application of the provisions of the regulatory framework. Since those measures are of general scope and are designed to supplement these Directives by the addition of new non-essential elements, they must be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny provided for in Article 5a of Decision 1999/468/EC. Taking into account that the application of the regulatory procedure with scrutiny within the usual deadlines could, in certain exceptional situations, impede the timely adoption of implementing measures, the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission should act speedily in order to ensure the timely adoption of those measures. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Necessary to ensure legal consistency with amendments proposed for a new article 8a of the Framework Directive and amendments proposed under Article 6a of the Authorisation Directive.) Harmonisation measures which add new essential proposals to the regulatory framework must be dealt with under a legislative proposal. Only non-essential elements may be subject to the Comitology Procedure. On imperative and justified grounds of urgency the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission should act speedily in order to ensure the timely adoption of Comitology. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 15 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 60 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(60a) Activities pursued under this Directive should take account of the work of international and regional organisations dealing with radio spectrum management, such as the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT), to ensure the efficient management and harmonisation of use of spectrum across the Community. The Member States and the Commission should recognise the content of international agreements entered into by the Member States pursuant to the ITU Radio Regulations in the implementation of this Directive. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
is not an island. The importance of the ITU in establishing internationally binding regulations for the efficient use of spectrum and orbit usage based on efficient, rational and cost-effective utilisation cannot be ignored. The binding nature of the ITU rules (on EU and non-EU member states of the ITU) and the compatibility of the Directive with them must be expressly addressed. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 16 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 2 – point e Directive 2002/21/EC Article 2 – point s | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
In view of the seriousness of interference problems between broadcasting and two-way (receive and transmit) services, it is essential for digital broadcasting services to be afforded protection against harmful interference, in line with internationally-agreed frequency plans, and particularly the ITU Geneva Plan (GE-O6). The definition of harmful interference should be amended accordingly. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 17 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 6 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 6 – paragraph 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It is proposed that both the economic and the public value of the spectrum is considered in a balanced way to manage it efficiently. The assignment of a part of the spectrum to fulfil general interest objectives does therefore not constitute a restriction or exception from the proposed principle of service neutrality but complements it. It is therefore not justified to impose additional consultation procedures. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 18 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 6 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 7 – paragraph 4 –point c | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The measures under paragraph 5 (1) b of the Directive 2002/19 (Access Directive) aim at maintaining media pluralism and cultural diversity in the field of digital television and thus clearly fall within the competence of Member States. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 19 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 8 – point e Directive 2002/21/EC Article 8 – paragraph 4 – point g | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The mention to distribution is confusing as far as it may be interpreted as if the Directive provision creates a new right for the users to publicly communicate legal content, right which according to the law of intellectual property belongs exclusively to rights owner or a third party authorised by him. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 20 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 8 - point e Directive 2002/21/EC Article 8 – paragraph 4 - point g a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 21 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 8 a (new) Directive 2002/21/EC Article 8 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 22 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 9 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 9 – paragraph 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
There is no doubt that radio spectrum is a scarce resource. Both its economic and public value should be considered accordingly and in a balanced way to manage it efficiently. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 23 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 9 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 9 – paragraph 3 – point d | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Necessary to ensure coherence in vocabulary with suggested amendments in Article 9.4 Framework Directive. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 24 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 9 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 9 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 25 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 9 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 9 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 26 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 9 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 9 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 27 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 9 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 9 – paragraph 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 28 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 9 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 9 – paragraph 5 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Guardans amendment 16: the word ” restrictions” is changed to “measures” to ensure coherence in vocabulary with suggested amendments in Article 9.4 Framework Directive. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 29 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 10 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 9 a – paragraph 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 30 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 10 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 9 b – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 31 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 10 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 9 c – paragraph 1 - introductory wording | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 32 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 10 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 9 c – paragraph 1 – point -a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Legal consistency should be ensured with Article 8a (new) and the definition of service and technology neutrality in Article 9 of this Directive. Also, legal consistency needs to be ensured with the Radio Spectrum Decision (676/2002/Commission), in particular with regards to the scope of the article which concerns technical implementation measures and general interest objectives (new (d) which corresponds to Article 1 para.4 of the Spectrum decision). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 33 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 10 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 9 c – paragraph 1 – point -aa (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It is important for achieving consistency and coherence that all harmonisation measures in the field of spectrum management are grouped together and not distributed along two different legal frameworks (Framework Directive and Radio Spectrum Decision). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 34 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 10 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 9 c – paragraph 1 – point a | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 35 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 10 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 9 c – paragraph 1 – point d | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Legal consistency should be ensured with Article 8a (new) and the definition of service and technology neutrality in Article 9 of this Directive. Also, legal consistency needs to be ensured with the Radio Spectrum Decision (676/2002/Commission), in particular with regards to the scope of the article which concerns technical implementation measures and general interest objectives (new (d) which corresponds to Article 1 para.4 of the Spectrum decision). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 36 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 10 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Directive 2002/21/EC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Article 9 c – paragraph 1a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 37 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 10 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 9 c – paragraph 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Legal consistency should be ensured with Article 8a (new) and the definition of service and technology neutrality in Article 9 of this Directive. Also, legal consistency needs to be ensured with the Radio Spectrum Decision (676/2002/Commission), in particular with regards to the scope of the article which concerns technical implementation measures and general interest objectives (new (d) which corresponds to Article 1 para.4 of the Spectrum decision). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 38 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 10 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 9c a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
is not an island. The binding nature of the ITU rules (on EU and non-EU member states of the ITU) and the compatibility of the Directive with them must be expressly addressed. To ensure efficient spectrum use it is essential that operators comply with and can rely on the filing and coordination procedures under the internationally binding rules and procedures of the ITU in order to ensure that a network or system can be successfully coordinated and brought into use. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 39 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 11 - point b Directive 2002/21/EC Article 10 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The urgency procedure is not justified for the adoption of this type of measures. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 40 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 2 – point 3 - point a Directive 2002/19/EC Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The measures under paragraph 5 (1) b of the Directive 2002/19 (Access Directive) aim at maintaining media pluralism and cultural diversity in the field of digital television and thus clearly fall within the competence of Member States. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 41 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 – point 3 Directive 2002/20/EC Article 5 – paragraph 1 - introductory wording | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Although general authorisations might be a viable solution in the long term when technology to prevent interference problems develops, granting individual licences should continue to be the normal procedure for assigning spectrum. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 42 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 – point 3 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Any risk of “harmful interference” is a “serious risk”. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 43 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 – point 3 Directive 2002/20/EC Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The proposal corresponds to the directive which is currently into force and which has proved to be functional and efficient. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 44 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 – point 3 Directive 2002/20/EC Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
For many new platforms and services, investment will need to be amortized over a period exceeding ten or, at nay rate, five years. It is not uncommon to have to sustain substantial losses during the first couple of years of operation. It would be disproportionate to introduce a rigid requirement for national regulatory authorities to conduct a formal review of all broadcast spectrum licenses every five years. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 45 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 – point 5 Directive 2002/20/EC Article 6a – paragraph 1 - introductory wording | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 46 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 – point 5 Directive 2002/20/EC Article 6a – paragraph 1 – point a | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
All implementing measures under Article 6a (harmonisation) should be adopted according to the regulatory procedure with scrutiny. The urgency procedure is not justified for the adoption of these measures. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 47 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 – point 5 Directive 2002/20/EC Article 6a – paragraph 1 – point c | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
All implementing measures under Article 6a (harmonisation) should be adopted according to the regulatory procedure with scrutiny. The urgency procedure is not justified for the adoption of these measures. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 48 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 – point 5 Directive 2002/20/EC Article 6a – paragraph 1 – point d | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
All implementing measures under Article 6a (harmonisation) should be adopted according to the regulatory procedure with scrutiny. The urgency procedure is not justified for the adoption of these measures. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 49 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 – point 5 Directive 2002/20/EC Article 6a – paragraph 1 – point e | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
All implementing measures under Article 6a (harmonisation) should be adopted according to the regulatory procedure with scrutiny. The urgency procedure is not justified for the adoption of these measures. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 50 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 – point 5 Directive 2002/20/EC Article 6a – paragraph 1 – point f | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
All implementing measures under Article 6a (harmonisation) should be adopted according to the regulatory procedure with scrutiny. The urgency procedure is not justified for the adoption of these measures. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 51 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 – point 5 Directive 2002/20/EC Article 6a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
All implementing measures under Article 6a (harmonisation) should be adopted according to the regulatory procedure with scrutiny. The urgency procedure is not justified for the adoption of these measures. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 52 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 – point 5 Directive 2002/20/EC Article 6b - paragraph 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EU-wide selection procedures for the issuing of rights should be subject to specific legislative proposals not Comitology. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 53 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 – point 5 Directive 2002/20/EC Article 6b – paragraph 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EU-wide selection procedures for the issuing of rights should be subject to specific legislative proposals not Comitology. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 54 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 – point 11 Directive 2002/20/EC Article 14a – paragraph 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 55 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 - point 15 Directive 2002/20/EC Annex II | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(15) A new Annex II, the text of which is set out in the Annex to this Directive, is added. |
deleted | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 56 Proposal for a directive – amending act Annex II Directive 2002/20/EC Annex II – point 1 – point d | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It must remain possible for Member States to maintain or introduce systems where the obligation to pay usage fees is replaced by an obligation to fulfil specific general interest objectives. Such systems are commonplace with regard to terrestrial broadcasting frequencies where they serve of media pluralism objectives. |
PROCEDURE
Title |
Electronic communications networks and services |
|||||||
References |
COM(2007)0697 – C6-0427/2007 – 2007/0247(COD) |
|||||||
Committee responsible |
ITRE |
|||||||
Opinion by Date announced in plenary |
CULT 10.12.2007 |
|
|
|
||||
Drafts(wo)man Date appointed |
Ignasi Guardans Cambó 8.1.2008 |
|
|
|||||
Discussed in committee |
6.5.2008 |
|
|
|
||||
Date adopted |
3.6.2008 |
|
|
|
||||
Result of final vote |
+: –: 0: |
32 1 1 |
||||||
Members present for the final vote |
Maria Badia i Cutchet, Katerina Batzeli, Ivo Belet, Guy Bono, Nicodim Bulzesc, Marielle De Sarnez, Věra Flasarová, Milan Gaľa, Claire Gibault, Vasco Graça Moura, Lissy Gröner, Christopher Heaton-Harris, Luis Herrero-Tejedor, Ruth Hieronymi, Mikel Irujo Amezaga, Ramona Nicole Mănescu, Manolis Mavrommatis, Marianne Mikko, Ljudmila Novak, Doris Pack, Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański, Christa Prets, Pál Schmitt, Helga Trüpel, Thomas Wise |
|||||||
Substitute(s) present for the final vote |
Rolf Berend, Victor Boştinaru, Ignasi Guardans Cambó, Gyula Hegyi, Elisabeth Morin, Nina Škottová, Ewa Tomaszewska, Cornelis Visser |
|||||||
Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote |
Carlo Fatuzzo, Bilyana Ilieva Raeva |
|||||||
OPINION of the Committee on Legal Affairs (20.6.2008)
for the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy
on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directives 2002/21/EC on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services, 2002/19/EC on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and services, and 2002/20/EC on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services
(COM(2007)0697 – C6‑0427/2007 – 2007/0247(COD))
Rapporteur: Manuel Medina Ortega
SHORT JUSTIFICATION
The Commission proposal seeks to amend the current regulatory framework for electronic communications, consisting of the framework, authorisation and access directives, with a view to securing a genuine internal market in telecommunications. The main objectives of the proposal are to improve the effectiveness of electronic communications, ensure simpler and more efficient regulation for both operators and national regulatory authorities (NRA), and harmonise Community rules, with a view to increasing investment, innovation and consumer benefits. The main changes to the framework, authorisation and access directives concern the reform of spectrum management, the introduction of and strengthening the powers of the Commission vis-à-vis the Member States.
The rapporteur suggests the following amendments to the proposal:
A. Framework directive
· In the last paragraph of Article 6, which deals with the publication of the results of the consultation procedure by NRAs, greater confidentiality needs to be ensured for the information forwarded by undertakings.
· In Article 19(1), with regard to the harmonisation measures to be adopted by the Commission when there are divergences in the implementation by NRAs of the regulatory tasks specified in the framework directive and in the specific directives, the Commission is given the discretion to choose between a ‘decision’ and a ‘recommendation’, with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny applicable only to the former; there are therefore grounds for wondering whether this provision is appropriate since, ultimately, the extent of Parliament’s participation would depend on the choice made by the Commission.
· In Article 21(2) and (3), with regard to cross-border disputes between parties in different Member States, it should be specified that the coordination of the efforts by the national regulatory authorities to resolve the dispute could go as far as the adoption of a joint decision.
B. Authorisation directive
· In Article 10, with regard to compliance with the conditions of the general authorisation or of rights of use and the specific obligations, a new paragraph 6a should be introduced, stipulating that the Member States should always allow the penalties laid down in paragraphs 5 and 6 to be subject to judicial review, in accordance with national law.
AMENDMENTS
The Committee on Legal Affairs calls on the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following amendments in its report:
Amendment 1 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 3 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(3a) In the absence of other more specific legal bases, reference should be made to Article 95 of the EC Treaty, which provides for general measures to be adopted by codecision between Parliament and the Council to approximate the laws of the Member States which have as their object the establishment and functioning of the internal market. The article in question is also the legal basis for the legislative acts amended by this proposal which, furthermore, has an essentially horizontal scope, justifying the choice. However, the setting up of a regulatory authority at European level might require the application of Article 308 of the EC Treaty as a general clause, although under this provision the European Parliament does not enjoy power of codecision. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 2 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 32 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(32) Reliable and secure communication of information over electronic communications networks is increasingly central to the whole economy and society in general. System complexity, technical failure or human mistake, accidents or attacks may all have consequences for the functioning and availability of the physical infrastructures that deliver important services to EU citizens, including e-Government services. National regulatory authorities should therefore ensure the integrity and security of public communications networks are maintained. The Authority should contribute to the enhanced level of security of electronic communications by, among other things, providing expertise and advice, and promoting the exchange of best practices. Both the Authority and the national regulatory authorities should have the necessary means to perform their duties, including powers to obtain sufficient information to be able to assess the level of security of networks or services as well as comprehensive and reliable data about actual security incidents that have had a significant impact on the operation of networks or services. Bearing in mind that the successful application of adequate security is not a one-off exercise but a continuous process of implementation, review and updating, the providers of electronic communications networks and services should be required to take measures to safeguard their integrity and security in accordance with the assessed risks, taking into account the state of the art of such measures. |
(32) The availability of electronic communications services is essential in cases of emergency. National regulatory authorities should therefore ensure that a minimum standard of network availability is maintained to support essential communications in emergency situations. The national regulatory authorities should have the necessary means to perform their duties, including powers to obtain sufficient information to be able to assess the level of security of networks or services as well as comprehensive and reliable data about actual security incidents that have had a significant impact on the operation of networks or services. Bearing in mind that the successful application of adequate security is not a one-off exercise but a continuous process of implementation, review and updating, the providers of electronic communications networks and services should take measures to ensure essential network availability in accordance with the assessed risks. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Regulatory intervention is justified to ensure the availability of communications networks for essential communications in case of emergency, but customer demand and market competition rather than regulatory fiat should determine the level of security provided to protect ordinary communications under normal conditions. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 3 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 33 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(33) Where there is a need to agree on a common set of security requirements, power should be conferred on the Commission to adopt technical implementing measures to achieve an adequate level of security of electronic communications networks and services in the internal market. The Authority should contribute to the harmonisation of appropriate technical and organisational security measures by providing expert advice. National regulatory authorities should have the power to issue binding instructions relating to the technical implementing measures adopted pursuant to the Framework Directive. In order to perform their duties, they should have the power to investigate and to impose penalties in cases of non-compliance. |
(33) A competitive market is usually the best means of ensuring that an appropriate balance is struck between the level of security and the costs of achieving it, and between the constraints imposed by security requirements and the freedom to develop innovative services. It sometimes remains necessary to agree on a common set of security requirements to protect against widespread catastrophic failure, to protect against incidents on one network having cascade effects on other network and to ensure the availability of essential services in case of emergency. In accordance with the principles of necessity and proportionality, the national regulatory authorities are strictly limited to the powers necessary to achieve these objectives. National regulatory authorities should have the power to issue binding instructions relating to the technical implementing measures adopted pursuant to the Framework Directive. In order to perform their duties, they should have the power to investigate and to impose penalties in cases of non-compliance. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Determining appropriate security measures standards often involves a trade-off between legitimate and valuable competing objectives. The appropriate balance between these objectives will vary according to the different circumstances of different classes of network user. Customer demand and market competition is usually the best means of ensuring each user of communications networks can obtain services that hold to a balance appropriate to their own situation. Regulatory intervention remains justified to ensure a minimum level of protection against catastrophe, to ensure that communications networks can provide support in cases of emergency, and to protect against ‘externality’ effects in cases where one provider’s choices would adversely impact upon another. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 4 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 33 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(33a) The management of telephony networks and services has historically been characterised by a high level of international cooperation designed to ensure harmonisation of technical standards and to promote interoperability. The Internet has achieved interoperability through open global standards for inter-network routing, while the development of services using the Internet has depended upon the freedom to create new technical standards and protocols without regulatory intervention; this freedom has enabled unprecedented innovation in the creation of information society services and other, non-commercial services, yielding enormous economic and social gains for the people of Europe. Each tradition for the development and coordination of technical standards has benefited society in its respective sphere. The national regulatory authorities should recognise the importance of innovation and diversity in Internet protocols and services, and the importance of regulatory forbearance in achieving those objectives. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NRAs should not use powers to promote harmonisation in electronic communications networks in ways that would constrain the development of innovation on the Internet. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 5 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 33 b (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(33b) Protection of the security of electronic communications on the Internet is a shared responsibility, with obligations appropriate to their respective roles for hardware and software providers, providers of electronic communications networks and of electronic communications services, and for providers of information society services and providers of other services that use the Internet. These obligations are imposed by customer expectations and market demand, by national measures, by this Directive, by the Directive on privacy and electronic communication, by Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (Directive on electronic commerce)1, by Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data2, and by other measures. This Directive does not confer powers on regulatory authorities to regulate either information society services or similar services that are not provided for remuneration. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, national regulatory authorities should not use powers conferred under this Directive to impose obligations on providers of electronic communications networks for aspects of security outside their respective roles. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
________________________________ 1 OJ L 178, 17.7.2000, p. 1. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
2 OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31. Directive as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 (OJ L 284, 31.10.2003, p. 1). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Commission’s proposals fail to provide any clear evidence that regulatory intervention is necessary. It is particularly important in the area of security that any regulatory intervention is backed up with a clear impact assessment, which is clearly lacking in this case. Instead, NRAs, which only have the competence and capacity to regulate network operators are now expected to regulate a market consisting, for the most part, of industries over which the exercise no control (software providers, hardware providers, online service providers, etc). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 6 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 39 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(39a) The need to encourage both investment and competition should be recognised, so that consumer choice is protected and not undermined. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Directives should make clear that competition is not to be sacrificed in the name of investment – for example through regulatory holidays. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 7 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 2 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 2 – point s | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Member States should be able to provide restrictions not only where such interference has been observed but also where it is likely that harmful interference occurs. In view of the seriousness of interference problems between one-way and two-way (receive and transmit) services, it is essential to provide protection against harmful interference, in line with internationally-agreed frequency plans, and particularly the ITU Geneva Plan (GE-O6). National legal systems must have the room to secure the common usage of spectrum. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 8 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 3 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 3 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Failure of NRAs to act in a timely manner, for example in relation to market reviews, can hold back competition and innovation in the market. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 9 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 4 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 4 – paragraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Currently appeal processes can be held up for as much as several years, by which time it is too late to address the original problem. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The proposed text implies that interim measures may be granted for other reasons. This is not desirable. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 10 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 5 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 5 – paragraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The proposed addition concerning information on future network and service development would be problematic because that kind of information would contain most likely inside information. The threshold of such requirement should be very high. In this case it is not clear what would be the purpose and the added value of requiring the operators to submit such information to authorities. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
However, some advance notice of potential impact at the wholesale level is desirable. It needs to be clear that commercial confidentiality should be respected. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 11 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 6 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 6 – paragraph 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 12 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 6 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 7 – paragraph 9 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 13 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 8 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 8 – paragraph 4 – point g | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 14 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 8 – subpoint e a (new) Directive 2002/21/EC Article 8 – paragraph 4 – point g a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The cooperation of electronic communications services operators is essential to combat the attacks on copyright which are increasing exponentially on networks. The authority responsible at European level should be given the task of coordinating these efforts. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 15 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 9 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 9 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 – point c | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Spectrum sharing should be utilised where it is technically viable and efficient, taking the conflicting requirements into account. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 16 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 9 a (new) Directive 2002/21/EC Article 9 – paragraph 3 – point d a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Europe must respect international frequency plans (e.g. the ITU Geneva Plan (GE-06)) to avoid unnecessary interference and inefficient waste of spectrum on its borders. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 17 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 9 b (new) Directive 2002/21/EC Article 9 – paragraph 3 – point d b (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Europe must respect international frequency plans (e.g. the ITU Geneva Plan (GE-06)) to avoid unnecessary interference and inefficient waste of spectrum on its borders. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 18 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 9 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 9 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Service neutrality should respect the ITU Radio Regulations that determine which services can coexist in the different bands. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 19 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 10 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 9 c – subparagraph 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 20 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 11 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 10 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tariffs in numbering should remain a competence of Member States. The Authority should not have competence in numbering and this should reside with the European Radio Communications Office (ERO). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 21 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 14 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 13 a – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reinforcing network and information security is one of the areas where more action at Community level is needed and where proposed amendments certainly could bring added value. The only problematic issue in this context concerns the reporting obligation which is proposed for NRAs. Reporting every three months would be too burdensome and bureaucratic. Therefore, it is proposed that reporting would take place every year instead of every 3 months. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 22 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 14 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 13 a – paragraph 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Technical implementing measures should only be introduced where industry self-regulatory initiatives have not achieved an adequate level of security in the internal market. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 23 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 14 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 13 b | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Many NRAs do not have competence in security issues. On the other hand, the proposed enforcement of powers of the national regulators may become an excessive compliance burden, which could decelerate the development of new technologies. The national regulators should excess their power over public communications networks and publicly available electronic communications services only when necessary. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 24 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 20 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 19 – point 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 25 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 20 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 19 – paragraph 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 26 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 20 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 19 – paragraph 5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 27 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 22 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 21 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 28 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 22 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 21 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 29 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 2 – point 7 Directive 2002/19/EC Article 9 – paragraph 5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 30 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 – point 1 Directive 2002/20/EC Article 2 – paragraph 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 31 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 – point 2 a (new) Directive 2002/20/EC Article 3 – paragraph 3 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 32 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 – point 3 Directive 2002/20/EC Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point (a) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 33 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 – point 3 Directive 2002/20/EC Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 34 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 – point 3 Directive 2002/20/EC Article 5 – paragraph 6 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Many NRAs do not have competence in spectrum policy. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 35 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 – point 5 Directive 2002/20/EC Article 6 b | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EU-wide selection procedures for the issuing of rights should be subject to specific legislative proposals not Comitology. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 36 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 – point 8 – letter d a (new) Directive 2002/20/EC Article 10 – point 6 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
PROCEDURE
Title |
Electronic communications networks and services |
|||||||
References |
COM(2007)0697 – C6-0427/2007 – 2007/0247(COD) |
|||||||
Committee responsible |
ITRE |
|||||||
Opinion by Date announced in plenary |
JURI 10.12.2007 |
|
|
|
||||
Rapporteur for the opinion Date appointed |
Manuel Medina Ortega 19.12.2007 |
|
|
|||||
Discussed in committee |
26.2.2008 |
27.3.2008 |
8.4.2008 |
28.5.2008 |
||||
Date adopted |
29.5.2008 |
|
|
|
||||
Result of final vote |
+: –: 0: |
20 0 0 |
||||||
Members present for the final vote |
Carlo Casini, Bert Doorn, Monica Frassoni, Giuseppe Gargani, Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg, Neena Gill, Piia-Noora Kauppi, Katalin Lévai, Antonio Masip Hidalgo, Manuel Medina Ortega, Aloyzas Sakalas, Francesco Enrico Speroni, Diana Wallis, Jaroslav Zvěřina, Tadeusz Zwiefka |
|||||||
Substitutes present for the final vote |
Sharon Bowles, Luis de Grandes Pascual, Sajjad Karim, Georgios Papastamkos, Jacques Toubon |
|||||||
OPINION of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (2.6.2008)
for the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy
on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directives 2002/21/EC on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services, 2002/19/EC on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and services, and 2002/20/EC on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services
(COM(2007)0697 – C6‑0427/2007 – 2007/0247(COD))
Draftsman: Syed Kamall
SHORT JUSTIFICATION
To enhance investment, innovation, and consumer benefits in electronic communications, the EU needs a coherent regulatory framework which respects both the need for greater cooperation across the EU and the diversity of telecommunications markets within Member States.
National regulatory authorities (NRAs) would benefit from enhanced cooperation with one another as well as from the preservation of a significant degree of autonomy - from both the Commission and national governments - to assess and remedy national market issues. As complex issues within and between Member States require careful consideration and open dialogue, a mechanism of consultation and coordination will prove more effective than one of mandate and veto. The Commission should be able to recommend to a NRA to adopt or withdraw specific draft measures and the NRA may amend or withdraw draft measures within a period of three months.
NRAs should be provided with the tools they may require to enhance market competition. While specific national markets will require different solutions, functional separation should be available to NRAs as a potential option to address regulatory bottlenecks.
In line with respecting the specific needs and market conditions of Member States, spectrum management and harmonisation will be most effectively and appropriately addressed by NRAs in consultation with the Commission. Optimal decisions on assignment and allocation will respect technology neutrality while taking account of decisions taken by international organisations related to radio spectrum management.
Improving security and integrity are also vital to Europe's expanding electronic communications networks. While electronic networks and services draw Europe closer through communications, risks presented by breaches of security carry greater potential for harm. Safeguard measures should be proportional to assessed risks while also remaining circumstantially appropriate, so the Commission should have the power to adopt technical implementing measures in agreement with NRAs. Undertakings should notify NRAs of serious breaches of security, the definition of which should be determined by the specific NRA.
The Commission has proposed that once markets become more competitive, regulation should be left to competition policy. This should be taken a step further by means of sunset clauses to offer deadlines to work towards.
AMENDMENTS
The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs calls on the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following amendments in its report:
Amendment 1 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 1 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(1a) The sector-specific ex-ante market regulation as part of this framework makes provision for the transition from former monopolies to competitive markets for electronic communications networks and services. As soon as markets are competitive, ex-ante regulation should be discontinued and Community and national competition law should apply exclusively. With growing competitive dynamics in European electronic communications markets, the potential benefits of sector-specific ex-ante price and access regulation decrease significantly over time. The markets for electronic communications have shown strong competitive dynamics in recent years and competition is most likely to increase even further in the coming years. To ensure a timely transition to the exclusive application of Community and national competition law, the provisions of this Directive on sector-specific ex-ante regulation should lapse on a defined date unless the Commission demonstrates that continued ex-ante regulation will still be warranted after that date. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 2 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
(2) In that regard, the Commission presented its initial findings in its Communication to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 29 June 2006 on the review of the EU regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services. On the basis of these initial findings, a public consultation was held, which identified the continued lack of an internal market for electronic communications as the most important aspect needing to be addressed. In particular, regulatory fragmentation and inconsistencies between the activities of the national regulatory authorities were found to jeopardise not only the competitiveness of the sector, but also the substantial consumer benefits from cross-border competition. |
(2) In that regard, the Commission presented its initial findings in its Communication to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 29 June 2006 on the review of the EU regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services. On the basis of these initial findings, a public consultation was held, which showed support for a continuation of the current model for the framework The current framework introduces technical adjustments of atransitional nature to ensure that a full transition to competition law becomes a reality, as the nature of the framework remains temporary and should be reviewed by 31 December 2013, by which point if a fully competitive telecommunications market has developed, the provisions of this Directive shall lapse. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 3 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
(3) The EU regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services should therefore be reformed in order to complete the internal market for electronic communications by strengthening the Community mechanism for regulating operators with significant market power in the key markets. This is complemented through the establishment by Regulation […/…./EC] of [date] of the European Parliament and of the Council24 of a European Electronic Communications Market Authority (hereinafter referred to as "the Authority"). The reform also includes the definition of an efficient spectrum management strategy in order to achieve a Single European Information Space and the reinforcement of provisions for users with disabilities in order to obtain an inclusive information society. |
(3) The EU regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services should therefore be reformed in order to complete the internal market for electronic communications by strengthening the Community mechanism for regulating operators with significant market power in the key markets. The reform also includes the definition of an efficient and coordinated spectrum management strategy in order to achieve a Single European Information Space and the reinforcement of provisions for users with disabilities in order to obtain an inclusive information society. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 4 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 6 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
(6) The independence of the national regulatory authorities should be strengthened in order to ensure a more effective application of the regulatory framework and increase their authority and the predictability of their decisions. To this end, express provision should be made in national law to ensure that, in the exercise of its tasks, a national regulatory authority is protected against external intervention or political pressure liable to jeopardise its independent assessment of matters coming before it. Such outside influence makes a national legislative body unsuited to act as a national regulatory authority under the regulatory framework. For that purpose rules should be laid down in advance regarding the grounds for the dismissal of the head of the national regulatory authority in order to remove any reasonable doubt as to the neutrality of that body and its imperviousness to external factors. It is important that national regulatory authorities should have their own budget allowing them, in particular, to recruit a sufficient number of qualified staff. In order to ensure transparency, this should be published annually. |
(6) The independence of the national regulatory authorities should be strengthened in order to ensure a more effective application of the regulatory framework and increase their authority and the predictability of their decisions. To this end, express provision should be made in national law to ensure that, in the exercise of its tasks, a national regulatory authority is protected against external intervention or political pressure liable to jeopardise its independent assessment of matters coming before it. Such outside influence makes a national legislative body unsuited to act as a national regulatory authority under the regulatory framework. For that purpose rules should be laid down in advance regarding the grounds for the dismissal of the head of the national regulatory authority in order to remove any reasonable doubt as to the neutrality of that body and its imperviousness to external factors. The reasons for any such dismissal, except those that might affect the image of the institution, must be publicly announced. It is important that national regulatory authorities should have their own budget allowing them, in particular, to recruit a sufficient number of qualified staff. In order to ensure transparency, this should be published annually. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 5 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 11 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
(11) The Community mechanism allowing the Commission to require national regulatory authorities to withdraw planned measures concerning market definition and the designation of operators having significant market power has contributed significantly to a consistent approach in identifying the circumstances in which ex-ante regulation may be applied and the operators are subject to such regulation. However, there is no equivalent mechanism for the remedies to be applied. Monitoring of the market by the Commission and, in particular, the experience with the procedure under Article 7 of the Framework Directive, has shown that inconsistencies in the national regulatory authorities' application of remedies, even under similar market conditions, undermine the internal market in electronic communications, do not ensure a level playing field between operators established in different Member States, and prevent the realisation of consumer benefits from cross-border competition and services. The Commission should be given powers to require national regulatory authorities to withdraw draft measures on the remedies chosen by national regulatory authorities. In order to ensure the consistent application of the regulatory framework in the Community, the Commission should consult the Authority prior to its decision. |
(11) The Community mechanism allowing the Commission to require national regulatory authorities to withdraw planned measures concerning market definition and the designation of operators having significant market power has contributed significantly to a consistent approach in identifying the circumstances in which ex-ante regulation may be applied and the operators are subject to such regulation. However, there is no equivalent mechanism for the remedies to be applied. Monitoring of the market by the Commission and, in particular, the experience with the procedure under Article 7 of the Framework Directive, has shown that inconsistencies in the national regulatory authorities' application of remedies, even under similar market conditions, undermine the internal market in electronic communications, do not ensure a level playing field between operators established in different Member States, and prevent the realisation of consumer benefits from cross-border competition and services. The Commission may be given powers to negotiate with national regulatory authorities on the withdrawal of draft measures on the remedies chosen by national regulatory authorities. In order to ensure the consistent application of the regulatory framework in the Community, the Commission should consult the Authority prior to beginning negotiations. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 6 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 13 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
(13) Likewise, in view of the need to avoid a regulatory vacuum in a sector characterised by its fast-moving nature, if adoption of the re-notified draft measure would still create a barrier to the single market or be incompatible with Community law, the Commission, after having consulted the Authority, should be able to require the national regulatory authority concerned to impose a specific remedy within a specified time. |
(13) Likewise, in view of the need to avoid a regulatory vacuum in a sector characterised by its fast-moving nature, if adoption of the re-notified draft measure would still create a barrier to the single market or be incompatible with Community law, the Commission, after having consulted the Authority, should be able to recommend to the national regulatory authority concerned to impose a specific remedy within a specified time. If the national regulatory authority (NRA) concerned does not accept the recommendation, it should publish its reasoning in a clear and transparent manner. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 7 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 14 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
(14) Having regard to the short time limits in the Community consultation mechanism, powers should be conferred on the Commission to adopt implementing measures to simplify the procedures for exchanging information between the Commission and national regulatory authorities - for example in cases concerning stable markets, or involving only minor changes to previously notified measures - or to allow for the introduction of a notification exemption in order to streamline procedures in certain cases. |
(14) Having regard to the short time limits in the Community consultation mechanism, the Commission may, in consultation with NRAs, adopt implementing measures to simplify the procedures for exchanging information between the Commission and national regulatory authorities - for example in cases concerning stable markets, or involving only minor changes to previously notified measures - or to allow for the introduction of a notification exemption in order to streamline procedures in certain cases. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 8 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 15 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
(15) In line with the objectives of the European Charter on fundamental rights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Persons with Disabilities, the regulatory framework should ensure that all users, including disabled end-users, the elderly, and users with special social needs, have easy access to affordable high quality services. Declaration 22 annexed to the final Act of Amsterdam provides that the institutions of the Community shall take account of the needs of persons with a disability in drawing up measures under Article 95 of the Treaty. |
(15) In line with the objectives of the European Charter on fundamental rights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Persons with Disabilities, the regulatory framework should ensure that all users, including disabled end-users, the elderly, and users with special social needs, have easy access to electronic communications services. Declaration 22 annexed to the final Act of Amsterdam provides that the institutions of the Community shall take account of the needs of persons with a disability in drawing up measures under Article 95 of the Treaty. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 9 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 19 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
(19) National borders are increasingly irrelevant in determining optimal radio spectrum use. Fragmentation of the management of access to spectrum rights limits investment and innovation and does not allow operators and equipment manufacturers to realise economies of scale, thereby hindering the development of an internal market for electronic communications networks and services using radio spectrum. |
(19) National borders are increasingly irrelevant in determining optimal radio spectrum use. Fragmentation of the management of access to spectrum rights limits investment and innovation and may not allow operators and equipment manufacturers to realise economies of scale, thereby hindering the development of an internal market for electronic communications networks and services using radio spectrum. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 10 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 23 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
(23) It lies within the competence of the Member States to define the scope and nature of any exception regarding the promotion of cultural and linguistic diversity and media pluralism in accordance with their own national law. |
(23) It lies within the competence of the Member States to define the scope and nature of any exception regarding the promotion of cultural and linguistic diversity and media pluralism in accordance with their own national law, as long as this does not undermine the country of origin principle. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 11 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 26 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
(26) Given the effect of the exceptions on the development of the internal market for electronic communications services, the Commission should be able to harmonise the scope and nature of any exceptions to the principles of technology and service neutrality other than those aimed at ensuring the promotion of cultural and linguistic diversity and media pluralism, having regard to harmonised technical conditions for the availability and efficient use of radio frequencies under Decision No 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a regulatory framework for radio spectrum policy in the European Community (“Radio Spectrum Decision”). |
(26) Given the effect of the exceptions on the development of the internal market for electronic communications services, the Commission may, in agreement with NRAs, be able to harmonise the scope and nature of any exceptions to the principles of technology and service neutrality other than those aimed at ensuring the promotion of cultural and linguistic diversity and media pluralism, having regard to harmonised technical conditions for the availability and efficient use of radio frequencies under Decision No 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a regulatory framework for radio spectrum policy in the European Community (“Radio Spectrum Decision”). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 12 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 29 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
(29) In order to promote the functioning of the internal market, and to support the development of cross-border services, the Commission should be given the power to grant the Authority specific responsibilities in the area of numbering. Furthermore, to allow citizens of the Member States, including travellers and disabled users, to be able to reach certain services by using the same recognisable numbers at similar prices in all Member States, the powers of the Commission to adopt technical implementing measures should also cover, where necessary, the applicable tariff principle or mechanism. |
(29) In order to promote the functioning of the internal market, and to support the development of cross-border services, the Commission may, in agreement with NRAs, be given the power to grant the Authority specific responsibilities in the area of numbering. Furthermore, to allow citizens of the Member States, including travellers and disabled users, to be able to reach certain services by using the same recognisable numbers at similar prices in all Member States, the powers of the Commission to adopt technical implementing measures should also cover, where necessary, the applicable tariff principle or mechanism. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 13 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 31 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
(31) It is necessary to strengthen the powers of the Member States vis-à-vis holders of rights of way to ensure the entry or roll out of new network in an environmentally responsible way and independently of any obligation on an operator with significant market power to grant access to its electronic communications network. National regulatory authorities should be able to impose, on a case-by-case basis, the sharing of ducts, masts, and antennas, the entry into buildings and a better coordination of civil works. Improving facility sharing can significantly improve competition and lower the overall financial and environmental cost of deploying electronic communications infrastructure for undertakings. |
(31) It is necessary to strengthen the powers of the Member States vis-à-vis holders of rights of way to ensure the entry or roll out of new network in an environmentally responsible way and independently of any obligation on an operator with significant market power to grant access to its electronic communications network. National regulatory authorities should be able to impose, on a case-by-case basis, the sharing of ducts, masts, and antennas, the entry into buildings and a better coordination of civil works, where there is a lack of infrastructure competition. Improving facility sharing can significantly improve competition and lower the overall financial and environmental cost of deploying electronic communications infrastructure for undertakings. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 14 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 31 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
(31) It is necessary to strengthen the powers of the Member States vis-à-vis holders of rights of way to ensure the entry or roll out of new network in an environmentally responsible way and independently of any obligation on an operator with significant market power to grant access to its electronic communications network. National regulatory authorities should be able to impose, on a case-by-case basis, the sharing of ducts, masts, and antennas, the entry into buildings and a better coordination of civil works. Improving facility sharing can significantly improve competition and lower the overall financial and environmental cost of deploying electronic communications infrastructure for undertakings. |
(31) It is necessary to strengthen the powers of the Member States vis-à-vis holders of rights of way to ensure the entry or roll out of new network in an environmentally responsible way and independently of any obligation on an operator with significant market power to grant access to its electronic communications network. National regulatory authorities should be able to impose, on a case-by-case basis, the sharing of ducts, masts, and antennas, the entry into buildings and a better coordination of civil works, where there is a regulatory bottleneck in infrastructure competition. Improving facility sharing can significantly improve competition and lower the overall financial and environmental cost of deploying electronic communications infrastructure for undertakings. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 15 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 32 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
(32) Reliable and secure communication of information over electronic communications networks is increasingly central to the whole economy and society in general. System complexity, technical failure or human mistake, accidents or attacks may all have consequences for the functioning and availability of the physical infrastructures that deliver important services to EU citizens, including e-Government services. National regulatory authorities should therefore ensure the integrity and security of public communications networks are maintained. The Authority should contribute to the enhanced level of security of electronic communications by, among other things, providing expertise and advice, and promoting the exchange of best practices. Both the Authority and the national regulatory authorities should have the necessary means to perform their duties, including powers to obtain sufficient information to be able to assess the level of security of networks or services as well as comprehensive and reliable data about actual security incidents that have had a significant impact on the operation of networks or services. Bearing in mind that the successful application of adequate security is not a one-off exercise but a continuous process of implementation, review and updating, the providers of electronic communications networks and services should be required to take measures to safeguard their integrity and security in accordance with the assessed risks, taking into account the state of the art of such measures. |
(32) Reliable and secure communication of information over electronic communications networks is increasingly central to the whole economy and society in general. System complexity, technical failure or human mistake, accidents or attacks may all have consequences for the functioning and availability of the physical infrastructures that deliver important services to EU citizens, including e-Government services. National regulatory authorities should therefore ensure the integrity and security of public communications networks are maintained. The Authority should contribute to the enhanced level of security of electronic communications by, among other things, providing expertise and advice, and promoting the exchange of best practices. Both the Authority and the national regulatory authorities should have the necessary means to perform their duties, including powers to obtain sufficient information to be able to assess the level of security of networks or services as well as comprehensive and reliable data about actual security incidents that have had a significant impact on the operation of networks or services. Bearing in mind that the successful application of adequate security is not a one-off exercise but a continuous process of implementation, review and updating the providers of electronic communications networks and services should be required to take measures to safeguard their integrity and security in proportion to the assessed risks, taking into account the state of the art of such measures | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 16 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 33 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
(33) Where there is a need to agree on a common set of security requirements, power should be conferred on the Commission to adopt technical implementing measures to achieve an adequate level of security of electronic communications networks and services in the internal market. The Authority should contribute to the harmonisation of appropriate technical and organisational security measures by providing expert advice. National regulatory authorities should have the power to issue binding instructions relating to the technical implementing measures adopted pursuant to the Framework Directive. In order to perform their duties, they should have the power to investigate and to impose penalties in cases of non-compliance. |
(33) Where there is a need to agree on a common set of security requirements, power may, in agreement with the national regulatory authorities, be conferred on the Commission to adopt technical implementing measures to achieve an adequate level of security of electronic communications networks and services in the internal market where industry-led self-regulatory initiatives have not achieved an adequate level of security in the internal market in one or more Member States. Where technical implementing measures are deemed necessary, a cost reimbursement scheme at national level should be required. The European Network and Information Security Agency (Enisa) should contribute to the harmonisation of appropriate technical and organisational security measures by providing expert advice. National regulatory authorities should have the power to issue binding instructions relating to the technical implementing measures adopted pursuant to the Framework Directive. In order to perform their duties, they should have the power to investigate and to impose penalties in cases of non-compliance. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 17 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 36 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
(36) In order to provide market players with certainty as to regulatory conditions, a time limit for market reviews is necessary. It is important to conduct a market analysis on a regular basis and within a reasonable and appropriate timeframe. The timeframe should take account of whether the particular market has previously been subject to market analysis and duly notified. Failure of a national regulatory authority to analyse a market within the time limit may jeopardise the internal market, and normal infringement proceedings may not produce their desired effect in time. The Commission should therefore be able to ask the Authority to assist in the tasks of the national regulatory authority concerned, in particular to issue an opinion including a draft measure, the analysis of the relevant market and the appropriate obligations that the Commission could then impose. |
(36) In order to provide market players with certainty as to regulatory conditions, a time limit for market reviews is necessary. It is important to conduct a market analysis on a regular basis and within a reasonable and appropriate timeframe. The timeframe should take account of whether the particular market has previously been subject to market analysis and duly notified. Failure of a national regulatory authority to analyse a market within the time limit may jeopardise the internal market, and normal infringement proceedings may not produce their desired effect in time. The Commission may, in agreement with the NRAs, therefore be able to ask the Authority to assist in the tasks of the national regulatory authority concerned, in particular to issue an opinion including a draft measure, the analysis of the relevant market and the appropriate obligations that the Commission could then impose. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 18 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 53 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
(53) Removing legal and administrative barriers to a general authorisation or rights of use for spectrum or numbers with European implications should favour technology and service development and contribute to improving competition. While the coordination of technical conditions for the availability and efficient use of radio frequencies is organised pursuant to the Radio Spectrum Decision28, it may also be necessary, in order to achieve internal market objectives, to coordinate or harmonise the selection procedures and conditions applicable to rights and authorisations in certain bands, to rights of use for numbers and to general authorisations. This applies in particular to electronic communications services that by their nature have an internal market dimension or cross-border potential, such as satellite services, the development of which would be hampered by discrepancies in spectrum assignment between Member States. The Commission, assisted by the Communications Committee and taking the utmost account of the opinion of the Authority, should therefore be able to adopt technical implementing measures to achieve such objectives. Implementing measures adopted by the Commission may require Member States to make available rights of use for spectrum and/or numbers throughout their territory and where necessary withdraw any other existing national rights of use. In such cases, Member States should not grant any new right of use for the relevant spectrum band or number range under national procedures. |
(53) Removing legal and administrative barriers to a general authorisation or rights of use for spectrum or numbers with European implications should favour technology and service development and contribute to improving competition. While the coordination of technical conditions for the availability and efficient use of radio frequencies is organised pursuant to the Radio Spectrum Decision28, it may also be necessary, in order to achieve internal market objectives, to coordinate or harmonise the selection procedures and conditions applicable to rights and authorisations in certain bands, to rights of use for numbers and to general authorisations. This applies in particular to electronic communications services that by their nature have an internal market dimension or cross-border potential, such as satellite services, the development of which would be hampered by discrepancies in spectrum assignment between Member States and between the EU and third countries, taking into account the decisions of international organisations dealing with radiofrequency spectrum management, e.g. the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT). The Commission, assisted by the Communications Committee and taking the utmost account of the opinion of the Authority, should therefore be able to adopt technical implementing measures to achieve such objectives. Implementing measures adopted by the Commission may require Member States to make available rights of use for spectrum and/or numbers throughout their territory and where necessary withdraw any other existing national rights of use. In such cases, Member States should not grant any new right of use for the relevant spectrum band or number range under national procedures. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 19 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 - point 1 Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive) Article 1 - paragraph 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 20 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 - point 2 - point e Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive) Article 2 - point s | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 21 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 - point 2 - point e Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive) Article 2 - point s | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Given the seriousness of problems of interference between broadcasting and two-way services (reception and transmission), it is essential that digital broadcasting services be protected against harmful interference in accordance with international frequency plans, in particular the ITU Geneva Plan (GE-06). The definition of harmful interference must therefore be amended accordingly. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 22 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 - point 5 Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive) Article 5 - paragraph 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 23 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 - point 6 Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive) Article 7 - paragraph 1 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 24 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 - point 6 Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive) Article 7 - paragraph 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 25 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 - point 6 Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive) Article 7 - paragraph 6 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 26 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 -point 6 Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive) Article 7 - paragraph 8 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 27 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 - point 7 Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive) Article 7a - paragraph 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 28 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 - point 8 - point e Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive) Article 8 - paragraph 4 - point g a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
It seems appropriate to give a coordinating remit to the European Electronic Communications Market Authority, or to the coordinating body superseding it, so as to guarantee cooperation between electronic communications service operators as regards combating copyright breaches, which are increasing enormously. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 29 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 - point 9 Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive) Article 9 - paragraph 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 30 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 -point 9 Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive) Article 9 - paragraph 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 31 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 - point 9 Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive) Article 9 - paragraph 3 - point b a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 32 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 - point 9 Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive) Article 9 - paragraph 3 - subparagraph 2 - point d | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 33 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 - point 9 Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive) Article 9 - paragraph 5 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 34 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 - point 10 Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive) Article 9b - paragraph 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 35 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 - point 10 Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive) Article 9c, subparagraph 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 36 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 - point 11 - point (a) Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive) Article 10 - paragraph 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 37 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 - point 13 Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive) Article 12 - paragraph 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 38 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 - point 13 Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive) Article 12 - paragraph 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 39 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 - point 14 Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive) Article 13a - paragraph 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 40 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 - point 14 Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive) Article 13a - paragraph 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 41 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 - point 14 Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive) Article 13b - paragraph 2 - introductory wording | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
The proposed enforcement powers in the form of NRA binding instructions, security audits and the ability to require information provision on network operators is an additional compliance burden and should be minimised, so that over the longer term they do not harm development of new technologies to market. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 42 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 - point 14 Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive) Article 13b - paragraph 4 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
The proposed enforcement powers in the form of NRA binding instructions, security audits and the ability to require information provision on network operators is an additional compliance burden and should be minimised, so that over the longer term they do not harm development of new technologies to market. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 43 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 - point 16 - point d Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive) Article 15 - paragraph 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 44 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 - point 17 - point c Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive) Article 16 - paragraph 7 - subparagraph 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 45 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 - point 20 Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive) Article 19 - paragraph 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 46 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 - point 20 Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive) Article 19 - paragraph 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 47 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 - point 20 Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive) Article 19 - paragraph 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 48 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 - point 23 Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive) Article 21a | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 49 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 2 - point 2 Directive 2002/19/EC (Access Directive) Article 4 - paragraph 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 50 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 2 - point 4 Directive 2002/19/EC (Access Directive) Article 6 - paragraph 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 51 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 2 - point 8, point - a (new) Directive 2002/19/EC (Access Directive) Article 12 - paragraph 1 - point b a (new) - | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 52 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 2 - point 9 Directive 2002/19/EC (Access Directive) Article 13 a - paragraph 2 - introductory part | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 53 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 - point 1 Directive 2002/20/EC (Authorisation Directive) Article 2 - paragraph 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 54 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 - point 2 a (new) Directive 2002/20/EC (Authorisation Directive) Article 3 - paragraph 3 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 55 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 - point 3 Directive 2002/20/EC (Authorisation Directive) Article 5 - paragraph 1 - point (a) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 56 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 - point 3 Directive 2002/20/EC (Authorisation Directive) Article 5 - paragraph 2 - subparagraph 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 57 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 - point 3 Directive 2002/20/EC (Authorisation Directive) Article 5 - paragraph 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 58 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 - point 5 Directive 2002/20/EC (Authorisation Directive) Article 6 a - paragraph 1 - introductory part | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 59 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 3 - point 5 Directive 2002/20/EC (Authorisation Directive) Article 6 b - paragraph 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 60 Proposal for a directive – amending act ANNEX I - point 3 - point g Directive 2002/20/EC (Authorisation Directive) Annex - Part A- point 19 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
PROCEDURE
Title |
Electronic communications networks and services |
|||||||
References |
COM(2007)0697 – C6-0427/2007 – 2007/0247(COD) |
|||||||
Committee responsible |
ITRE |
|||||||
Opinion by Date announced in plenary |
LIBE 10.12.2007 |
|
|
|
||||
Drafts(wo)man Date appointed |
Syed Kamall 31.1.2008 |
|
|
|||||
Discussed in committee |
27.3.2008 |
5.5.2008 |
29.5.2008 |
|
||||
Date adopted |
29.5.2008 |
|
|
|
||||
Result of final vote |
+: –: 0: |
41 0 2 |
||||||
Members present for the final vote |
Alexander Alvaro, Emine Bozkurt, Philip Bradbourn, Mihael Brejc, Kathalijne Maria Buitenweg, Michael Cashman, Giusto Catania, Jean-Marie Cavada, Carlos Coelho, Panayiotis Demetriou, Gérard Deprez, Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra, Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop, Claudio Fava, Armando França, Urszula Gacek, Patrick Gaubert, Roland Gewalt, Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, Lívia Járóka, Ewa Klamt, Stavros Lambrinidis, Henrik Lax, Roselyne Lefrançois, Viktória Mohácsi, Claude Moraes, Martine Roure, Csaba Sógor, Manfred Weber, Tatjana Ždanoka |
|||||||
Substitute(s) present for the final vote |
Edit Bauer, Frieda Brepoels, Simon Busuttil, Evelyne Gebhardt, Genowefa Grabowska, Sophia in ‘t Veld, Syed Kamall, Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann, Marian-Jean Marinescu, Marianne Mikko, Bill Newton Dunn, Nicolae Vlad Popa |
|||||||
Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote |
Manolis Mavrommatis |
|||||||
PROCEDURE
Title |
Electronic communications networks and services |
|||||||
References |
COM(2007)0697 – C6-0427/2007 – 2007/0247(COD) |
|||||||
Date submitted to Parliament |
13.11.2007 |
|||||||
Committee responsible Date announced in plenary |
ITRE 10.12.2007 |
|||||||
Committee(s) asked for opinion(s) Date announced in plenary |
ECON 10.12.2007 |
IMCO 10.12.2007 |
CULT 10.12.2007 |
JURI 10.12.2007 |
||||
|
LIBE 10.12.2007 |
|
|
|
||||
Rapporteur(s) Date appointed |
Catherine Trautmann 18.12.2007 |
|
|
|||||
Discussed in committee |
29.1.2008 |
27.2.2008 |
6.3.2008 |
6.5.2008 |
||||
|
26.6.2008 |
|
|
|
||||
Date adopted |
7.7.2008 |
|
|
|
||||
Result of final vote |
+: –: 0: |
45 0 1 |
||||||
Members present for the final vote |
Jan Březina, Jerzy Buzek, Jorgo Chatzimarkakis, Dragoş Florin David, Pilar del Castillo Vera, Den Dover, Lena Ek, Nicole Fontaine, András Gyürk, Fiona Hall, David Hammerstein, Rebecca Harms, Erna Hennicot-Schoepges, Mary Honeyball, Romana Jordan Cizelj, Anne Laperrouze, Angelika Niebler, Reino Paasilinna, Atanas Paparizov, Aldo Patriciello, Francisca Pleguezuelos Aguilar, Anni Podimata, Miloslav Ransdorf, Herbert Reul, Teresa Riera Madurell, Paul Rübig, Andres Tarand, Patrizia Toia, Catherine Trautmann, Nikolaos Vakalis |
|||||||
Substitute(s) present for the final vote |
Alexander Alvaro, Ivo Belet, Juan Fraile Cantón, Robert Goebbels, Gunnar Hökmark, Erika Mann, Pierre Pribetich, Esko Seppänen, Hannes Swoboda, Silvia-Adriana Ţicău, Vladimir Urutchev, Lambert van Nistelrooij |
|||||||
Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote |
Milan Gaľa, Ruth Hieronymi, Eva Lichtenberger, Kathy Sinnott |
|||||||