r4SL 
it. COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 21.05.1997 
COM(97) 203 final 
Communication from the Commission 
to the European Parliament and the Council 
regarding the consultation on the Green Paper on 
a Numbering Policy for Telecommunications Services in Europe 

Communication from the Commission 
to the European Parliament and the Council 
regarding the consultation on the Green Paper on 
a Numbering Policy for Telecommunications Services in Europe 
Table of contents 
Summary 2 
I Introduction 5 
II Consultation process 6 
III Comments received on main points of the green paper 
1. General remarks 7 
2. Carrier selection / carrier pre-selection 7 
3. Number portability 11 
4. Restructuring of national numbering plans 14 
5. European Telephony Numbering Space 15 
6. Administration of European numbering space 16 
7. Long-term European numbering plan 16 
8. Alphanumeric dialling 17 
9. Naming and addressing in the Internet 17 
IV Evaluation 
1. Issues of general consensus or major support 19 
2. Issues for further discussion or study 20 
V Priorities for action 
1. Numbering and ensuring effective competition 22 
2. Numbering and the internal market 25 
VI Timetable 28 
VII Conclusions 30 
Glossary 
List of written contributions 33 
M 
SUMMARY 
Introduction 
In November 1996 the Commission published its Green Paper on a Numbering 
Policy for Telecommunications Services in Europe1, presenting various options for a 
common approach towards certain numbering issues in order to reach the agreed 
goals of a competitive and liberalised single telecommunications market. A broad 
public consultation on these options was intended to provide the input for a more 
concrete plan of action, closely following the needs and demands of residential and 
business customers and new entrants in the telecommunications market while taking 
account of any constraints within existing telecommunications structures. 
More than 100 participants attended a public hearing and around 80 written comments 
were received from residential and business users associations, telecommunications 
network and service providers, equipment and software manufacturers and national 
regulatory authorities and from their respective associations. 
The Green paper has also been put on the agenda of the European Parliament's 
Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, the Economic and Social Committee 
and the Committee of the Regions. Initial exchanges of view took place in these fora 
but formal opinions have not been adopted yet. 
The Joint Committee on Telecommunications, consisting of management and trade 
unions of telecommunications network and service providers within the Union, 
issued an opinion on 28 February. 
The outcome of the consultation 
flie consultation has demonstrated wide support for the Green Paper proposals to 
introduce call-by-call carrier selection, carrier pre-selection and operator number 
portability in order to enable the customer to benefit from a new competitive market. 
The comments also provided a useful basis to determine the most appropriate service 
and service provider coverage for the mandatory requirement of these numbering 
features, as well as clear indications concerning the timetable for their introduction. 
Moreover, the outcome of the consultation showed a strong emphasis on the need for 
national numbering plans to allow equal quantitative and qualitative access to 
numbering resources for all market players. This was generally felt to be a key 
requirement for non-discriminatory access to the liberalised telecommunication 
markets. 
COM(96)590 final, 20.11.1996 
There was broad agreement on the establishment of a European Telephony 
Numbering Space on the basis of the '388' country code as soon as feasible after the 
formal designation of this code for pan-European services by the International 
Telecommunications Union (ITU). There should be a broad coverage of various 
service types under this code, while ensuring transparency for the user as to the tariffs 
of the various services. Suggestions for the management of the European Telephony 
Numbering Space pointed in the direction of a structure within CEPT (Conférence 
Européenne des Postes et Telecommunications) / ECTRA (European Committee of 
Telecommunications Regulatory Affairs). 
There was support for medium term convergence of national numbering plans to the 
extent that this would not require major additional changes in numbering plans. A 
common approach to alphanumeric dialling on the basis of ITU -T Recommendation 
I:. 161 , Option A, on this issue, was widely welcomed. It was generally felt that the 
idea of a long term numbering plan for a unified European Numbering environment 
would require further study , especially regarding cost / benefit analysis, and should 
be seen in a 10 to 20 years perspective. 
The analysis of issues regarding naming and addressing within the Internet was 
confirmed, but most respondents felt that any problems could be solved through 
further self regulation rather than by regulatory intervention. Nevertheless, it was felt 
that representation of European interests required improvement. 
Proposed targets 
On the basis of the consultation the Commission considers as appropriate the 
following targets for the introduction of carrier selection, carrier pre-selection and 
number portability and for the establishment of the European Telephony Numbering 
Space : 
by 1 January 1998: 
• call-by-call carrier selection to be offered by all fixed local access providers with 
significant market power in all Member States where full liberalisation is required 
by that date and in Member States where additional transition periods have been 
agreed, by the end of that period. 
by 1 January 1999 : 
• establishment of a European Telephony Numbering Space on the basis of country 
code '388' 
by 1 January 2000: 
• carrier pre-selection for the user to be offered by all fixed local access providers 
with significant market po'wer in all Member States 
• c operator number portability to be offered by all fixed local access providers 
• number portability to be offered by all operators for non-geographic special service 
numbers (freephone, shared costs, premium rate services) 
4 
Action plan 
As a follow-up to the consultation and in order to reach the above targets, the 
Commission proposes the following timetable for action : 
by mid 1997 Adoption of resolutions by Council and the European Parliament 
confirming the priorities and timetable for action which have 
emerged from the consultation 
Commission review of national numbering plans in view of 
requirements of the full competition Directive 
by end 1997 Proposal for appropriate legislative measures to ensure the 
availability of facilities for carrier pre-selection and number 
portability throughout the internal market by 1 January 2000. 
ETO report with detailed description of national numbering plans 
Adoption of ETSI standard concerning alphanumerical key pads 
Launch studies on 1 ) possible minimum criteria and standardisation 
requirements in view of a long term number portability solution and 
2) alternative, on-screen/on-line means for tariff information for 
the user 
by end 1998 Examine possible extension of carrier selection and number 
portability requirements to mobile operators. 
by early 1999 Appropriate legislative measures to be adopted to ensure the 
availability of facilities for carrier pre-selection and number 
portability throughout the internal market by 1 January 2000 
Member States to implement '388' for the European Telephony 
Numbering Space 
Commission to issue common guidelines on fair and pro-
competitive arrangements for sharing costs of number portability 
Commission recommendations on further restructuring of national 
numbering plans in view of competition requirements and gradual 
convergence between national numbering schemes 
by end 1999 Examine desirability of extension of carrier selection requirements 
tofixed local access providers without significant market power. 
early 2000 Further study, in the light of experience with a liberalised single 
market in telecommunications and with the ETNS, of need for and 
costs / benefits of unified European numbering environment. 
I. INTRODUCTION 
With the emergence of a liberalised telecommunications market within the European 
Union, the availability of adequate numbers and appropriate numbering mechanisms, 
allocated and designed on a fair, transparent and non-discriminatory basis, is an 
essential condition for effective competition, innovation and consumer choice. 
Moreover, the outline of the European numbering environment, at present composed 
of national numbering plans and additional global numbering resources, is likely to 
have a significant impact on the opportunities for the development of pan-European 
services within a single market. 
Numbering policies determining or affecting the European numbering environment 
are currently developed at the national, the Community, the wider European and the 
global levels and in several different organisational frameworks. This practice is 
consistent with the principle of subsidiarity which requires measures to be taken at 
the most appropriate level. 
At the level of the European Union, existing and future numbering structures must be 
assessed against the objectives of the completion of a liberalised and competitive 
market in telecommunications services throughout the Union and the creation of an 
effective single market. 
Against this background the Commission published its Green Paper on a Numbering 
Policy for Telecommunications Services in Europe , presenting various options for a 
common approach towards certain numbering issues in order to reach the agreed 
goals of a liberalised, single telecommunications market. A broad public 
consultation on these options was intended to provide the input for a more concrete 
plan of action, closely following the needs and demands of residential and business 
users and new entrants in the telecommunications market while taking account of any 
constraints within existing telecommunications structures. 
COM(96)590 final, 20.11.1996 
II. CONSULTATION PROCESS 
The Green paper on numbering invited comments and views of all interested parties 
regarding the outline and features of a numbering environment which can facilitate 
real competition in a liberalised telecommunications market and contribute to the 
development of a single market to the benefit of the users. 
The Green paper was published in November 1996 and a public hearing, with more 
then one hundred participants, took place on 5 February 1997. 
Around 80 written comments were received from residential and business users 
associations, telecommunications service and network providers, equipment and 
software manufacturers and national regulatory authorities and their associations. 
The Green paper has also been put on the agenda of the European Parliament's 
Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, the Economic and Social Committee 
and the Committee of the Regions. Initial exchanges of views took place in these fora 
but formal opinions have not been adopted yet. 
The Joint Committee on Telecommunications, consisting of management and trade 
unions of telecommunications network and service providers within the Union, 
issued an opinion on 28 February. 
A list of written comments received by the Commission is set out in the Annex. 
IN. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON MAIN POINTS OF THE GREEN 
PAPER 
111.1 General Remarks 
The Green Paper on numbering was broadly welcomed and the issues it addressed 
were recognised as crucial for the development of effective competition in a single 
European telecommunications market. The Green paper was applauded for its effort 
to revitalise the discussion on numbering at the European level and for its attempt to 
sketch a coherent view on numbering issues accompanied by concrete proposals for 
action. 
At the same time it was pointed out that for all numbering changes and number 
mechanisms the needs of the user should be the main focus. Changes to numbering 
plans always impose a considerable burden on both business and residential users and 
should therefore only be envisaged if the benefits clearly outweigh the costs. 
A consumer association and various service providers stressed the importance of an 
objective information campaign to inform the users in due time of the new 
possibilities which would be available , in particular number portability, carrier 
selection and Europe wide service numbers. The user should obtain clear guidance on 
how to benefit from any of these new options. 
Incumbent operators insisted that the introduction of key numbering mechanisms 
should be harmonised and synchronised throughout the European Union in order to 
avoid competitive distortions. Other operators feared that such an approach would 
lead to undesirable delays in countries that were prepared to move faster. National 
regulators felt that there should be different implementation dates for different 
Member States in accordance with the development of their network and in line with 
transition periods that were granted for the liberalisation of telecommunications 
services. 
Numerous commentators raised the question of whether the green paper gave a too 
optimistic picture of the benefits of numbering changes and new mechanisms while 
underestimating the costs involved. 
III.2 Carrier selection / Carrier pre-selection 
- Green paper proposal -
Introduction of carrier selection in two steps, namely call-by-call carrier selection 
to be introduced by 1.1.1998 and carrier pre-selection by 1.1.2000. 
Comments -
Key issues 
Obligation to be imposed only on fixed or also on mobile access providers ? 
Obligation to be imposed only on operators with significant market power or also 
on new entrants ? 
Easy access or equal access ? 
Other issues 
Cost mechanism 
Billing arrangements 
Technical feasibility 
Allocation of prefixes 
Method for assigning the default carrier 
Timing 
The potential effects of carrier selection to increase competition were widely 
recognised , both by those who therefore advocate a rapid and general introduction 
and by those who for the same reasons insist that a more cautious and limited 
approach should be chosen. Comments focused on types of services (fixed, mobile) to 
be covered, categories of operators ( operators with significant market power only or 
all) to be obliged to offer carrier selection and on the merits of different carrier 
selection mechanisms. 
Mobile versus fixed 
Mobile operators typically argued that no form of carrier selection should be imposed 
to the mobile sector since sufficient competition already exists. Some also invoked 
technical complications for implementation of carrier selection in mobile networks for 
which standardised solutions need to be developed first. Long distance service 
providers on the contrary insisted that all local loop access providers, wired and 
mobile, should be obliged to offer carrier selection. 
Incumbents versus new entrants 
Alternative fixed local loop access providers felt that the debate on carrier selection is 
based on the (false) presumption that the local loop is a utility rather than a 
competitive product. They considered carrier selection to be a useful temporary 
instrument to force down tariffs for international and long distance calls as charged 
by operators with significant market power. However, any across the board obligation 
for local access providers to offer carrier selection would act as a disincentive to 
invest in local infrastructure. These arguments were countered by others, in particular 
long distance and international service providers, who believe that the regulatory 
framework should not favour one particular structural outcome of the competitive 
process (infrastructure or service based competition). Moreover they added that carrier 
selection will also provide an incentive to invest in the local loop given the 
importance of customer ownership. 
"Easy access"3 versus "equal access" 
As to the mechanism of carrier selection, a small minority held the view that easy 
access is a sufficient instrument to facilitate competition in order to lower long 
distance and international tariffs. Moreover, they insisted that where easy access 
already exists, the costs of a mandatory migration to equal access would not outweigh 
the benefits. 
Nevertheless, a majority of the comments , not only those of new entrants in the long 
distance and international services market and of business and residential users 
associations, but also the majority of incumbents and national regulators supported the 
eventual need for full equal access. Various international service providers expressed 
strong misgivings concerning the risk that easy access is wholly inadequate in 
bringing about effective competition given its strong bias in favour of the incumbent 
operator. They said that experience shows that customers find it difficult to make the 
additional dialling effort required for selecting a different carrier than the one 
determined by default by the local access provider. The latter will in most cases be the 
incumbent even in a fully liberalised market. 
In the same context incumbent operators stressed the need for harmonised and 
synchronised introduction of pro-competitive numbering mechanisms throughout the 
EU in order to avoid competitive distortions (see below under 'timing'). 
Cost calculation 
Many respondents underlined the need for a fair and transparent calculation of the 
interconnection costs which the local access providers may charge the selected carrier, 
as these will have a significant impact on the profit margin of the selected carrier. 
Sufficient unbundling of the local loop is a crucial requirement to ensure that the 
selected carrier and his customer only pay for the part of the local access providers' 
network which is used for setting up the call. A significant detail will be whether the 
local access provider will also charge for unsuccessful calls (busy line, no reply). 
Billing arrangements 
Related to the calculation of costs is the issue of billing arrangements. No clear trend 
emerged from the comments apart from the fact that billing arrangements are 
considered to be important. Various commentators felt that being able to send bills 
directly to customers is important for service providers in view of branding and 
3 Easy access , in relation to carrier selection, refers to the situation where the default long distance 
carrier is determined by the local access operator with the possibility of override through dialling of a 
(short) code by the user on a call-by-call basis. 
4 In relation to carrier selection , equal access refers to the situation where the long-distance carrier is 
pre-selected by the customer with the possibility of override through dialling on a call-by-call basis.. 
10 
building a customer relation. This however requires that the local access network is 
able to transfer Calling Line Identification to the long distance carrier. Others said that 
the selected carrier should have a choice between direct billing or sub-contracting , 
subject to commercial negotiations with the local access provider. A consumer 
association pointed out that it would be in the interest of users for billing to be 
transferred to a third party so that the exercise of choice through frequent switching 
between carriers would not lead to just as many bills as there were operators 
involved. 
Technical feasibility 
The technical feasibility of introducing carrier selection and carrier pre-selection 
within the proposed time frame was hardly questioned, except for subscriber lines 
linked to analogue exchanges. Especially the absence of Calling Line Identification 
(CLI) capability in such lines is seen as a problem since CLI would be necessary for 
the selected carrier to identify his customer. It was felt that it would not be 
appropriate, solely for the purpose of ensuring carrier pre-selection, to insist on costly 
upgrades of such analogue exchanges where their replacement by digital exchanges 
was already foreseen in investment plans. 
Carrier prefixes 
Concerning the carrier prefixes, most respondents insisted that it was too late to 
harmonise codes at a European level since various Member States have already 
dedicated different ranges of prefixes for carrier selection. Harmonisation of these 
ranges only just after they have been introduced would be costly, disruptive and 
confusing. 
Other comments on prefixes stressed the importance of dialling parity with the 
incumbent operator and the need to have short prefixes , which can be easily 
memorised and which do not deter the caller from using them because of their length 
in cases where they cannot be pre-programmed in terminal equipment. On the other 
hand, one-digit prefixes were considered to be inappropriate because they will only 
offer room for 6 or 7 alternative carriers. 
Various regulators pointed out that the assignment of a carrier prefix would depend on 
the ability of a certain carrier to cover (most of) the national territory. Others 
remarked that by foreseeing carrier prefixes of varying length it would be possible to 
stimulate investment in infrastructure by allocating short prefixes to infrastructure 
based carriers and longer prefixes to service based carriers. 
Moving to equal access 
Among those who were in favour of carrier pre-selection, there was wide support for 
leaving the initiative to change the default long distance carrier to the customer and to 
use marketing campaigns as an instrument to influence the customer's choice. The 
method where all subscribers are requested through a ballot, organised by the 
5 a first level of harmonisation would be to have one structure of prefixes throughout Europe (e.g. 
lOxy) but leaving the allocation of the xy part at the national level; a seond level would be to allocate 
the xy part at the European level so that an operator could be selected by the same code throughout 
Europe. 
11 
regulator, to indicate their preferred long distance default carrier, was widely rejected 
by the market players. Nevertheless, a consumer association felt that the regulator 
should play a strong role in raising the awareness of the consumer and in providing 
complete and unbiased information about the various options. 
Timing 
Strong views were expressed by national regulators and incumbent operators about 
the need to harmonise and synchronise the introduction of, inter alia, carrier selection 
and pre-selection throughout the EU. Given the important competitive implications of 
especially carrier selection and pre-selection, it was felt by a majority that a situation 
were different mechanisms were used in different Member States at different times 
would lead to unacceptable competitive distortions. A small minority held the 
opposite view, arguing that the selection mechanism should depend on the state of 
competition in a given national market and on the technical development of the 
network. 
Nevertheless, there seems to be general acceptance for carrier selection and pre­
selection to be synchronised with the liberalisation of voice telephony which means 
that for Member States with agreed additional transition periods, the introduction of 
carrier selection and pre-selection should take effect at these later dates as well. Some 
operators pointed out that in these cases the intermediate step of easy access should be 
skipped in order to have equal access established throughout the European Union at 
the same time. 
Several alternative service providers consider a two-step approach unnecessary and 
undesirable. They argue that there are no valid reasons to postpone carrier pre­
selection except the wish to protect existing market shares. A majority however is in 
agreement with the mandatory introduction of some form of carrier selection by 
I.1.199X followed by carrier pre-selection by 1.1.2000. liven for those operators and 
user associations who consider that the time frame could be more ambitious , this 
appears to be an acceptable proposition. 
IH.3 Number portability 
- Green paper proposal-
Implementation of number portability for the (fixed) local loop as from 1.1.1998 
and by 1.1.2000 at the latest in all major centres of population and from 1.1.2000 
for mobile networks and for special services. 
- Comments 
Key issues 
• coverage (types of services) 
12 
cost sharing mechanism 
• technical solutions 
timing 
The importance of number portability as one of the elements to achieve real 
competition between local access providers is generally accepted. The main point of 
debate are the technical feasibility, the costs of implementation and the mechanism 
for sharing these costs between the operators involved. 
Coverage 
As for carrier selection, there is opposition from mobile operators who say that given 
the level of competition in mobile markets number portability is not needed and its 
implementation costs would outweigh the benefits. 
As to the wishes of consumers in this matter, various mobile operators claim that for 
mobile users changing number is not a significant deterrent. However, one mobile 
operator , arguing in favour of mobile number portability, quotes a market research 
result which suggests that 40% of mobile users , especially users in the business 
segment, see changing numbers as a significant barrier for changing to another 
network provider. A major consumer association also pleads in favour of having 
number portability in the mobile sector as well. 
There is general agreement about the need to have reciprocity in number portability 
meaning that both incumbents and new entrants should offer it to their customers. 
In contrast to the Green Paper suggestion (and the provisions of the Interconnection 
Directive) many respondents advocate general territorial coverage , rather than a 
phased-in approach requiring at an initial stage only coverage of major centres of 
population, since the latter option could be a disincentive to invest in infrastructure in 
less populated areas. 
Various international operators and some regulators stress that portability of numbers 
for special services (freephone, premium rate and shared costs) is an urgent 
requirement since holders of such numbers are even more reluctant to change 
operator if this implies changing their number too. 
Geographic portability (keeping the number while changing location) is not seen as an 
important option for the general public but it was recognised as most desirable for 
corporate and other business users. Their needs could however be accommodated by 
non-geographic numbers . 
Consumer associations and operators stressed that the present numbers contain an 
important element of tariff information which should be preserved (i.e. identifying 
6 Non-geographic numbers are (national) number ranges that are not identified with one specific 
geographic region, city area or local community. They are used for instance for freephone, shared cost 
and premium rate services. 
13 
whether a call is a long distance or premium rate call) . Number portability should not 
lead to less transparency in the expected price of a call. 
Technical solutions 
There is consensus that any switch based implementation of number portability, such 
as remote call forwarding or drop-back, is unsatisfactory in the long run because it is 
inefficient and may impair the quality of the network services. Moreover, the 
operator who receives the number will remain dependent on the operator who looses 
the number for termination of calls, and the conveyance costs for rerouting of calls 
will be high, with no particular incentive to bring them down. 
There is consensus that the technically and economically superior solution for number 
portability is that of a parallel data base with equal access for all operators and no 
interdependence. However, various respondents maintain that the costs of a data base 
solution are underestimated. An international operator on the contrary, felt that the 
implementation of an intelligent network solution should be a formal requirement for 
which a time frame should be imposed. 
Another respondent suggested that , following the example of the FCC, minimum 
criteria should be determined for a long term portability solution, taking account of 
characteristics and dissimilarities of existing national numbering plans so that switch 
manufacturers could work towards a single standard. 
Some regulators insisted that methods of implementing number portability should be 
left to them and similarly incumbent operators maintained that the technical solutions 
should be their domain, provided that interoperability would be assured on the basis 
of ETSI standards. 
Costs and cost sharing 
Little evidence of projected costs was provided. The total costs of the various 
solutions and the way in which they should be shared by the operators concerned 
were the subject of many comments and divergent opinions, though not necessarily 
very developed. All agreed however, on the great importance of a fair cost sharing 
mechanism for a successful implementation of number portability. 
On the basis of specific experience regarding this issue, one regulator suggested a 
cost allocation scheme in which the administrative and per-line set-up costs should be 
borne by the 'recipient' operator, each operator should bear his own system set-up 
costs and any additional conveyance costs should, in principle, be borne by the 
'donor' operator to be recovered through general network charges. This would 
encourage most efficient routing methods. There should then, however, be a 
7 Number portability solution where recognition of a ported number can only be achieved at the 
original terminating local exchange. 
14 
possibility to have some temporary additional conveyance charges for the 'recipient' 
to allow the implementation of efficient routing. 
In the case of an intelligent network solution, an international operator proposed that 
a charge be imposed on all service providers based on their service revenues to cover 
the common costs of the creation and management of the necessary data base. 
It was also suggested that the Commission should provide detailed guidance on cost 
issues. 
Timing 
Several of the incumbent operators stressed the importance of a synchronised 
introduction of number portability whereas others felt that a gradual introduction 
would be more appropriate in order to allow operators to integrate the introduction of 
number portability capacity in their regular network update programme. 
As to the date for implementation, number portability has already been introduced in 
several Member States and will be introduced in other Member States by next year. 
These Member States and the operators based there felt that the proposed timetable 
was not ambitious enough. Users' associations, manufacturers and alternative access 
providers also proposed earlier dates 
However, a minority of regulators and incumbent operators insisted that the proposed 
date of 1.1.2000 was too early and that the existing deadline of 2003 foreseen by the 
Interconnection Directive should be maintained . 
f 11.4 Restructuring of national numbering plans 
- Green paper proposal -
Review of national numbering schemes towards further integration of national 
numbering plans, adaptation of national numbering schemes according to the 
agreed common guidelines, to be completed by the year 2000. No allocation of 
numbers beyond the length of 13 digits (not including carrier selection prefixes or 
international prefixes). 
- Comments -
There was widespread concern over the cost and impact for users of further changes of 
national numbering plans in the short to medium term. Major overhauls of various 
national numbering plans had recently been completed and a period of stability would 
be welcomed by all. 
15 
At the same time, there was support for gradual convergence in the long term on the 
basis of common guidelines but the time frame should stretch well beyond the 2000 
date proposed in the Green Paper. 
Moreover, most respondents stressed the significance of open, non-discriminatory 
and transparent national numbering plans managed by independent authorities for the 
success of a competitive market. One regulator suggested that national numbering 
plans should be examined systematically, with the technical assistance of 
CEPT/ECTRA, to verify whether the competitive requirements were met. I'or any 
necessary further changes reasonable implementation periods should be allowed. 
II 1.5 European Telephony Numbering Space 
- Green Paper Proposal -
Implementation of European Telephony Numbering Space by I January 1998 at 
-1 "omments -
Pan-European carriers and other operators with a pan-European strategic vision, 
expressed strong support for the development of an European Telephony Numbering 
Space and felt that it would create opportunities for the development of pan-European 
services. Many others , although not against the idea, questioned the current demand 
for Europe wide numbers for special services. It was however admitted by some that 
supply might have to precede demand in this case. 
There was broad support for implementation of an European Telephony Numbering 
Space on the basis of the '388' country code. However, given the fact that clearance 
for the use of this code by the International Telecommunications Union is expected in 
May 1997, the proposed implementation date of 1.1.1998 was seen as unrealistic, and 
should be replaced by a target of late 1998/ early 1999. 
Many comments insisted that any development of Europe wide services should not 
interfere with the development of global services and that duplication should be 
avoided. Some felt that for this reason '388' should in any case not be used for 
freephone services since these could already be accommodated by the Universal 
International Freephone Service number '800'. They argued that use of global 
numbers could be confined to European countries if the service provider wished to 
do this. 
In contrast, others urged to maintain a wide spectrum of special European services to 
be covered by the European Telephony Numbering Space. Several commentators saw 
an interest in accommodating the numbering needs of multinational corporate users 
within the European Telephony Numbering Space. 
16 
Consumer associations underlined that there should be a clear distinction between 
numbers for freephone and premium rate services in order not to confuse the users 
about (he costs of their calls. Moreover, it would be necessary to introduce 
possibilities for selective call barring , simultaneously with the introduction of Europe 
wide premium rate numbers. 
Various comments suggested that '388' would prove a useful testing ground for 
demand of pan-European services and for the value-added of numbering management 
at a European level. Further development could be decided depending on the success 
of this initial code. 
1II.6 Administration of European numbering space ~~~] 
- ( ireen paper proposal -
EU, in conjunction with ECTRA , to propose a new structure for regulation and 
administration of numbers in Europe by 1 January 1998 at the latest. 
- Comments -
Most comments on this topic were received from regulators and incumbent operators. 
There were few remarks from other network and service providers. It was generally 
accepted that the creation of an European Telephony Numbering Space , even on a 
limited scale, would require the administration at a European level of number 
allocation. However, in line with the modest ambitions which were expressed for the 
European Telephony Numbering Space in an initial phase, the management tasks 
would, in the view of most respondents, not require a new structure at this stage. 
Various respondents suggested that ETC) should administer the European Telephony 
Numbering Space. 
A consumer association pointed out that any newly created administrative structure 
should also incorporate consumer interests. 
III.7 Long-term European numbering plan 
- Green paper proposal -
Development of a long-term strategic plan for numbering in Europe by 1.1.1998. 
This should include the creation of a European country code (3xy) with transfer of 
17 
responsibility of administration and management of the last two digits to Europe 
and a unified numbering environment by the year 2000. 
- C 'ommenls -
A majority of commentators felt that the advantages of and demand for a unified 
European numbering environment were insufficiently demonstrated. It was widely 
believed that the costs would outweigh the benefits and that in any case the proposed 
time scale of 1.1.2000 was not realistic. There was general consensus that the costs 
and benefits as well as the technicalities of any such evolution should be examined 
thoroughly before any decision could be taken. The experience of the development of 
the '388' code and of the European Telephony Numbering Space would play a key 
role. If the outcome of further studies would be positive , harmonised European 
numbering should in any case be projected over a 10-20 years period. 
III.8 Alpha-numeric dialling I 
- ( ircen paper proposal -
Adoption of a common standard for keypads supporting alpha-numeric dialling. 
- Comments -
There was strong support for a common approach to alpha-numeric dialling on the 
basis of International Telecommunications Union recommendation E.161, Option A 
providing a format for the association of alphabetic characters to numbers. A 
consumer association pointed out that it would be very useful for users if the '*' and 
'# ' function codes would be standardised as well. 
One respondent warned that it was important not to create the impression that users 
could actually own certain numbers. Even if numbers were to be widely associated 
with letters this should not lead to trade mark claims by business users on certain 
numbers. 
III.9 Naming and addressing in the Internet 
- Green paper proposal 
18 
Fair and non-discriminatory allocation of internet names and addresses should be 
safeguarded. Situation in the Member States to be reviewed in order to assess the 
need for concrete measures. 
- Comments -
Internet naming and addressing issues attracted less attention than other issues raised 
in the Green Paper. Nevertheless, there was agreement on the analysis regarding 
naming and addressing and it was felt that the problems identified should be 
addressed. 
Some felt that global harmonisation and restructuring of use and allocation of internet 
names and addresses was needed. Another comment insisted that the use of national 
top level domain names should be encouraged to ensure that allocation practices were 
in line with national trade mark law. With global top level domain names the 
protection of trade marks was much more difficult. 
In general the comments said that the best way to solve any problems was through 
continued self-regulation and not by regulatory intervention. However, there were 
various calls for European non-regulatory initiatives in order to improve the 
representation of European interests in the global discussions. 
19 
IV EVALUATION 
I V.l Issues of consensus or major support 
On the basis of the comments received at the hearing and in writing, the Commission 
concludes that the consultation has demonstrated that : 
• the crucial role of numbering in ensuring effective competition is generally 
acknowledged ; 
• the introduction of carrier selection within fixed networks for operators with 
significant market power, at the same time as markets are opened to full 
competition, is widely supported ; 
• only carrier pre-selection will give users the full benefits of competition in long 
distance and international calls , and it can and should be introduced by 1.1.2000 
at the latest for fixed local access providers with significant market power; 
the introduction of operator number portability on a reciprocal basis (both for 
incumbents and new entrants) in the fixed networks is considered to be an 
important requirement ; 
territorial phasing-in of number portability, starting in the major centres of 
population, is not considered to be necessary or desirable ; general territorial 
coverage was favoured instead; 
the portability of non-geographic numbers (freephone, premium rate, shared costs) 
is generally regarded as a feature to be introduced urgently ; 
the implementation of a European Telephony Numbering Space initially on the 
basis of the '388' country code , to be used as a testing ground for any further 
development, is widely seen as the best approach ; 
a common approach to alphanumeric numbering based on European Union wide 
implementation of International Telecommunications Union recommendation 
E.164 would be welcomed; 
continuation of self-regulation was regarded as the best approach to tackle any 
problems occurring with naming and addressing issues concerning the Internet: 
however, issues need to be examined further in view of European initiatives to 
improve representation of European interests at the global level. 
Regarding the question of call-by-call carrier selection with the default determined by 
the local access provider ("easy access") and carrier pre-selection by the customer 
20 
("equal access"), the consultation brought out in great detail the arguments used by 
those who object to equal access and others, the vast majority , who recommend and 
support it. Without addressing any of the other arguments of this debate here, it is 
useful to clarify one of the main aspects of the discussion, namely the effect of "equal 
access" on local infrastructure competition and the views of the Commission on this. 
It is argued by a minority, based on a regulatory choice made in the past, that carrier 
pre-selection arrangements reduce the profit margins for local access providers by 
opening the market for long distance and international calls to strong competition. 
This would then suppress the incentive to invest in alternative local infrastructure, 
thus leaving the provision of local access in most cases to a single, de facto monopoly 
provider. 
The majority of comments say that leaving barriers for services competition in order 
to stimulate infrastructure competition, on the contrary does not lead to economic 
efficiency nor does it give customers the best deal. On the one hand a duopoly for 
local infrastructure is no guarantee for real competition regarding the offer of local 
access services and on the other hand , not having user friendly instruments to pre­
select other service providers over the local network invariably leads to service tariffs 
staying high. Moreover, residual barriers to service competition create an artificial 
incentive for infrastructure investment which may not be sustainable in the longer 
term. 
On the basis of the arguments brought forward in the consultation, the Commission 
considers that "equal access" is the best instrument for creating a level playing field 
for incumbent operators and new entrants alike. Moreover, as user associations have 
pointed out, the consumer is best served with user friendly mechanisms which offer 
access to all services available and they do not consider call-by-call carrier selection 
without the possibility for the customer to choose his own default as user friendly. 
For these reasons , the Commission proposes the introduction of carrier pre-selection 
throughout the internal market by a set date. The concern about having sufficient 
investment in local access infrastructure is shared by the Commission. However, 
incentive for investment in the local loop is likely to be driven increasingly by the 
provision of new multimedia services rather than by competition in traditional voice 
telephony. More importantly , concerns about the quality and availability of local 
access are considered to be met by the universal service obligations which are now 
firmly anchored in Community legislation. These obligations ensure that every 
citizen can access an affordable service of defined quality wherever they live in the 
Community. 
IV.2 Issues for further discussion or study 
On the basis of the comments the Commission concludes that it would not be justified 
at this stage , to oblige local access providers without significant market power to 
offer carrier selection or carrier pre-selection. 
It appears that if such obligations are imposed on local access providers with 
significant market power, the market forces themselves will provide an incentive for 
21 
local access providers without significant market power to offer similar facilities 
without regulatory obligations or, alternatively, to lower their tariffs to competitive 
levels. If they would refrain from doing this, they would not be an attractive 
alternative for customers who would then stay with or switch back to the access 
provider offering such options. 
The issue of whether a broader obligation is required , will be reconsidered as part of 
the general review of the functioning of the various telecommunications liberalisation 
and harmonisation measures (as already foreseen in the relevant Directives), 
scheduled for 1999. 
Secondly, the Commission considers that the need to oblige mobile operators to offer 
carrier selection, carrier pre-selection and number portability needs to be further 
examined, especially as it would require technical changes to the GSM standard 
(which are currently being examined by ETSI) and could involve high introduction 
costs. Despite the high degree of competition in various national mobile markets 
allowing fair consumer choice, many other markets are still in the early stages of a 
development process and it remains to be seen what level of competition will be 
reached. For these reasons, the Commission finds that it would be reasonable to re­
evaluate the need for introduction of new numbering mechanisms facilitating 
consumer choice in the mobile sector by the end of 1998. 
Furthermore the Commission concludes that further study is needed on : 
an appropriate cost sharing mechanism for number portability: 
how the eventual introduction of an intelligent network solution for number 
portability can be facilitated and how inter-operability requirements can be met; 
technical and cost aspects of the implementation of carrier selection and number 
portability in mobile networks: 
the costs and benefits and technical aspects of a harmonisation of national 
numbering plans in view of a long term European numbering plan. 
22 
V. PRIORITIES FOR ACTION 
V.l Numbering and ensuring effective competition 
The consultation has shown that there is broad agreement on the importance of 
appropriate numbering schemes and mechanisms to allow users to benefit from 
competition in a liberalised market. 
In addition to the general application of competition rules under the Treaty, the legal 
framework for telecommunications establishes obligations for Member States with 
regard to numbering. The Commission Directive with regard to the implementation 
of full competition in telecommunications markets requires that adequate numbers 
are made available for all telecommunications services before 1 July 1997. The 
Interconnection Directive reiterates this requirement and also stipulates that 
"National regulatory authorities shall ensure that numbering plans and procedures 
are applied in a manner that gives fair and equal treatment to all providers of 
publicly available telecommunications services'" and that there shall be no "undue 
discrimination in the number sequences used to give access to the services of other 
telecommunications operators." Moreover, the Interconnection Directive already sets 
a deadline of 1 January 2003 for the introduction of operator number portability at 
least in all major centres of population , but the consultation has indicated that this 
date should be brought forward. In any case, according to competition rules as 
recalled in directive 96/19/CE, the numbering policy of the Member States shall not -
inter alia - lead to maintain barriers to entry at an artificially high level, so that a 
dominant position would be acquired, maintained, or strengthened, even though 
special or exclusive rights would have been abolished. 
1. Carrier selection / carrier pre-selection 
In a multi-operator environment, users must be able to access simply and cheaply the 
operator of their choice, even where this operator does not provide a direct line into 
the customer's office or home. In this context carrier selection and interconnection are 
two sides of the same coin. If we agree that it is important to oblige incumbent 
operators to offer interconnection to new entrants, we should also make sure that the 
users have appropriate instruments to reach the interconnected new entrants. 
The consultation showed wide support for the early introduction of carrier selection as 
an immediate step and the subsequent introduction of carrier pre-selection to allow 
equal access. 
8 Commission Directive 96/19/EC of 13 March 1996 amending Directive 90/388/EEC with regard to 
the implementation of full competition in telecommunications markets, OJ L 74 ,22.3.1996, p. 13. 
9 Directive 97/ /EC of the European Parliament and the Council on interconnection in 
telecommunications with regard to ensuring universal service and interoperability through application 
of the principles of open network provision (ONP) (awaiting formal adoption) 
23 
Whilst the Interconnection Directive does not determine whether the default service 
provider should be chosen by the customer or by the local access provider, it does 
require that fair and equal treatment regarding numbering is given to all service 
providers. In practice this means that Member States must at least create a system of 
pre-fixes by which customers can reach other service providers than their local access 
providers. 
In order to achieve effective competition, the Commission considers that 
national implementation measures must be in place on the basis of the current 
regulatory framework to ensure that 
• a non-discriminatory and user friendly mechanism for direct selection by the 
customer of a long distance and international calls carrier is offered by all 
fixed local access providers with significant market power by 1 January 1998 
in all Member States where liberalisation of voice telephony is required by 
that date. 
• long distance and international service providers may negotiate pro-
competitive cost calculation and billing arrangements with the incumbent 
operator. 
Further Community measures will be needed to achieve that: 
• carrier pre-selection is available for customers of all fixed local access 
providers with significant market power by 1 January 2000 in all Member 
States. 
The need for extension of carrier selection or pre-selection to mobile operators 
must be re-evaluated by the end of 1998 and the need for an extension to fixed 
local access providers without significant market power, must be examined in 
the 1999 review. 
2. Number portability 
The need to change telephone numbers when changing network provider has been 
identified as an important deterrent, both for business and residential users. The 
availability of operator number portability will be crucial to stimulating competition 
in the local loop. The introduction of number portability is already a legal 
requirement under the Interconnection Directive by 1 January 2003 at the latest for 
major centres of population.. While there is broad agreement on the need to 
introduce number portability , divergent views emerged in the consultation as to the 
coverage and timetable for its introduction. 
24 
On the basis of the consultations the Commission believes that the 
Interconnection Directive should be amended to 
• require all operators who issue non-geographic special service numbers ( 
freephone, shared costs and premium rate ) to offer operator portability for 
such numbers by 1.1.2000. 
• require all local fixed access providers to offer operator number portability by 
1 January 2000 at the latest. 
In view of these requirements , the consultation indicated that certain 
accompanying measures will be needed. In particular, it will be necessary to 
• develop guidelines by 1998 on fair and pro-competitive arrangements for 
assessing and sharing the costs of number portability between operators 
involved. 
• study possible minimum criteria and standardisation requirements in view of 
guaranteeing interoperability within a long term number portability solution 
(intelligent network solution). 
With regard to any further extension of number portability . the Commission 
draws the following conclusions from the results of the consultation: 
• taking account of studies conducted by ETSI, by the end of 1998 the 
desirability of and a possible date for requiring mobile operators to offer 
operator number portability must be re-evaluated. 
• it would not be desirable to have location number portability or number 
portability between different service categories (between fixed and mobile), 
where this would lead to a loss of tariff information for the user. In this 
context it would be necessary to study how a system of on-line, per call tariff 
information for the user can be implemented in a multi-operator environment 
where numbers no longer give reliable indications for the tariff of a call. 
3. Opening national numbering plans to competition 
The consultation on the Green Paper has stressed once again the great importance 
attached by operators and service providers, and in particular new entrants and 
25 
incumbents with a pan-European strategy, to open, non-discriminatory and 
transparent national numbering plans to be managed by independent authorities. 
These requirements are fully recognised by EC telecommunications legislation and 
obligations have been imposed on Member States accordingly. 
in •• ••• —• —• -—— ——————___— 
Under the full competition Directive the Commission will scrutinise the 
national numbering plans to verify that they have been sufficiently adapted to 
the new competitive environment. Part of the factual input needed for this 
assessment will be provided by a study which ETO is currently conducting. 
On the basis of the ETO study, and after discussion with all interested parties, 
the Commission should propose recommendations for any further restructuring 
of national numbering plans needed to accommodate the numbering needs of a 
multi carrier environment in an equal, non-discriminatory way. 
V.2 Numbering and the single market 
Obviously, from the present situation where telecommunications services and 
networks are still very much organised and operating within national borders, it is 
difficult to think ahead and forecast the requirements of a unified European market for 
telecommunications services. Only a few respondents have been able to make this 
leap in time and to recognise the needs and the opportunities of a single market for 
telecommunications services. 
Practically all respondents underlined the need to allow for long to very long periods 
in case of significant changes in numbering plans. This means that numbering plans 
are not a commodity which can be easily and quickly adjusted to changing needs, 
especially where changes are required to at least fifteen numbering plans 
1. Implementation of European Telephony Numbering Space 
The best arbitration mechanism to decide which of the divergent assessments of the 
future demand for pan-European services is the correct one will be the market itself. 
However, in order to allow the market to reply, the availability of pan-European 
numbers must precede the demand. 
10 Commission Directive 96/16/EC amending Commission Directive 90/388/EEC regarding the 
implementation of full competition in telecommunications markets, OJ L 74, 22.03.1996, p. 13. 
26 
The Commission considers appropriate to 
• aim at establishing the European Telephony Numbering Space by 1 January 
1999 on the basis of the '388' country code. 
• define a broad spectrum of services which may be operating under the '388' 
code, while at the same time ensuring that users can easily distinguish between 
various types of services and their tariffs. 
• charge a structure within CEPT /ECTRA with the processing of applications 
for pan-European numbers and the settlement of disputes. 
2. Convergence of national numbering plans 
The consultation showed that harmonisation in itself was not seen as a sufficient 
ground for changing national numbering plans. At the same time, the merits of a 
certain degree of harmonisation were recognised but to achieve this, a gradual , 
natural convergence on the basis of consensus was advocated. Therefore the 
Commission believes that future changes in numbering plans should be based on 
agreed common guidelines with a dual competition and convergence purpose. In this 
way the growth and expansion of the pan-European dimension within the European 
numbering environment can be achieved without having to undertake any major 
additional changes in national numbering plans. 
The recommendations which the Commission intends to give for further 
restructuring of national numbering plans needed to achieve equal qualitative 
and quantitative access to number resources for all market players (see above), 
should also incorporate criteria ensuring an appropriate degree of convergence 
between national numbering plans. 
3. Long term European numbering plan 
27 
The consultation on the Green Paper has shown that there is considerable uncertainty 
about the costs and benefits of a unified European numbering environment, and that 
further study is therefore required. 
In the light of experience gained with a liberalised single market and with the 
European Telephony Numbering Space, by the end of 1999, the Commission 
will contract a detailed study of the costs and benefits likely to be associated with 
a unified European numbering environment. 
4. Alphanumeric dialling 
The general support for a common approach to alphanumeric dialling on the basis of 
International Telecommunications Union recommendation E.161 , option A, should 
be translated in a common standard. 
Consumers have expressed an interest in harmonisation of the "*" and "# " function 
codes as well. This is a somewhat different and more complicated type of 
harmonisation since it requires a common standard for these codes to be available as 
functions in the network. Therefore it involves cooperation and agreement of all 
network operators. ETSI is currently undertaking work towards a common standard. 
The Commission believes that ETSI should endeavour to adopt common 
standards , both on alphanumeric dialling and the "*" and "#" codes by the end 
of 1997. 
5. Internet naming and addressing 
Although there was broad agreement on the significance of naming and addressing 
within the Internet and the problems which have occurred, no consensus has emerged 
about the nature and scope of initiatives or measures which should be taken. The 
Commission sees this outcome as support for an informal but active contribution to 
be made by the Commission , with a view to defend European interests in the global 
discussion. 
28 
The Commission will keep the situation under review and will propose non-
regulatory initiatives where this can have an added value for the representation 
of European interests at the global level. 
29 
VI. TIMETABLE 
On the basis of the preceding chapter on priorities for action, the timetable for the 
availability of carrier selection and pre-selection, number portability and pan-
European numbers is as follows : 
by 1 January 1998 Call-by-call carrier selection to be offered by all fixed 
local access providers with significant market power in 
all Member States where full liberalisation is required 
by that date and in Member States where additional 
transition periods have been agreed, by the end of that 
period. 
by 1 January 1999 Establishment of a European Telephony Numbering 
Space on the basis of country code '388' 
by 1 January 2000 Carrier pre-selection , with default to be determined by 
the subscriber and with call-by-call override for the user, 
to be offered by all fixed local access providers with 
significant market power in all Member States 
Operator number portability to be offered by all fixed 
local access providers 
Number portability to be offered by all operators for 
non-geographic special service numbers (freephone, 
shared costs, premium rate services) 
In order to attain these objectives and to decide on any follow-up , the following 
actions will be needed : 
by mid 1997 Adoption of resolutions by Council and the European Parliament 
confirming the priorities and timetable for action which have 
emerged from the consultation 
Commission review of national numbering plans in view of 
requirements of the full competition Directive 
by end 1997 Proposal for appropriate legislative measures to ensure the 
availability of facilities for carrier pre-selection and number 
portability throughout the internal market by 1 January 2000. 
30 
ETO report with detailed description of national numbering plans 
Adoption of ETSI standard concerning alphanumerical key pads 
Launch studies on 1) possible minimum criteria and standardisation 
requirements in view of a long term number portability solution and 
2) alternative, on-screen/on-line means for tariff information for 
the user 
by end 1998 Examine possible extension of carrier selection and number 
portability requirements to mobile operators. 
by early 1999 Appropriate legislative measures to be adopted to ensure the 
availability of facilities for carrier pre-selection and number 
portability throughout the internal market by 1 January 2000. 
Member States to implement '388' for the European Telephony 
Numbering Space 
Commission to issue common guidelines on fair and pro-
competitive arrangements for sharing costs of number portability 
Commission recommendations on further restructuring of national 
numbering plans in view of competition requirements and gradual 
convergence 
by end 1999 Examine desirability of extension of carrier selection requirements 
to fixed local access providers without significant market power 
early 2000 Further study, in the light of experience with a liberalised single 
market in telecommunications and with the ETNS, of need for and 
costs / benefits of unified European numbering environment. 
31 
VII. CONCLUSIONS 
The consultation has demonstrated wide support for the Green Paper proposals to 
introduce carrier selection, carrier pre-selection and operator number portability in 
order to enable the user to benefit from a new competitive market situation. The 
comments also provided a useful basis to determine the most appropriate coverage in 
terms of services and service providers, for the mandatory requirement of these 
numbering features, as well as clear indications concerning the timetable for their 
introduction. The Commission will propose concrete measures to ensure that these 
numbering mechanisms are put into practice by the deadlines which are considered 
desirable and feasible. 
Moreover, the outcome of the consultation showed a strong emphasis on the need for 
national numbering plans to allow equal quantitative and qualitative access to 
numbering resources for all carriers. This was generally felt to be a key requirement 
for non-discriminatory access to the liberalised telecommunication markets. The 
Commission will continue to closely monitor the situation in the Member States with 
regard to numbering plans and take action where necessary. In addition 
recommendations will be issued for further restructuring. These recommendations will 
also take account of convergence requirements. 
On other numbering issues related to the single market, various action points have 
been identified and the Commission will actively follow and encourage developments 
in CEPT/ECTRA regarding the establishment of the European Telephony Numbering 
Space. Where necessary mandates and work requirements will be submitted to ETSI 
and ETO on specific issues identified in the consultation. 
A long term view on a European Numbering environment will need to be developed 
on the basis of experience gained with a liberalised market and with the European 
Telephony Numbering Space. The Commission will follow up on this with a detailed 
cost / benefit study. 
The Commission transmits to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic 
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, the present 
Communication prepared on the basis of the public consultation. 
32 
Glossary 
Alpha-numeric dialling / keypad 
Carrier pre-selection 
Carrier selection Dialling a telephone number by using the 
corresponding letters on the telephone's keypad 
that correspond to the name of the service or the 
called party e.g. "0-800-FLOWERS" 
Possibility for customers to determine their own 
default carrier on a semi-permanent basis thus 
avoiding any additional dialling 
The possibility for customers to choose their 
long-distance or international operator e.g. by 
dialling a code or by determining the default 
carrier 
Easy access 
•CTRA 
Equal access Method for carrier selection whereby the default 
carrier is determined by the local access provider 
with the possibility of call-by-call override by the 
user through dialling a code 
European Committee for Telecommunications 
Regulatory Affairs created as one of the three 
committees under the Conference des Postes et 
Télécommunications It includes a number of 
project teams covering inter alia licensing, 
numbering, interconnection, mobile 
communications, testing and type-approval. 
Council Resolution 92/C318/EEC of 19 
November 1992 on the promotion of co-operation 
on Europe wide numbering, identified several 
tasks for ECTRA , including the creation of a 
European numbering space and the preparation of 
positions for discussion within ITU. 
Method for carrier selection whiteout bias in 
favour of a particular long distance or international 
carrier whereby either the default carrier is 
determined by the customer with call-by-call 
override or no default carrier is determined and 
each long distance or international call must be 
preceded by a carrier selection prefix, (the latter 
method is not considered to be user friendly) 
33 
•:TNS 
ETO 
ETSI (still to he created) European Telephony 
Numbering Space refers to a numbering space 
which exists in parallel with national numbering 
spaces. Numbers from the ETNS will be available 
and can be accessed anywhere in the European 
Union ( and throughout the rest of Europe). 
European Telecommunications Office 
established under the umbrella of ECTRA to 
technical, preparatory work. do 
European Telecommunications Standards Institute 
charged with developing Europe wide standards 
for the telecommunications sector 
Freephone service A service that is (can be accessed) free of charge 
to the customer. The access code '800' is 
generally associated with freephone. 
ITU International Telecommunications Union, the 
United Nations specialised agency for 
telecommunications 
ITU-T Telecommunications sector of the ITU. 
Non-geographic services Telecommunications services that are numbered 
from (national) number ranges which are not 
assigned or associated with a specific region, city 
area or local community. 
Number portability The possibility for a subscriber to keep his 
telephone number while changing a) operator, b) 
type of service or c) location. 
Premium rate or shared revenue Service for which the caller pays an extra charge 
service which is billed by the telecommunications 
operator. The revenues are shared between the 
latter and the service provider. 
Shared cost service Service for which the cost of the call are shared 
between the caller and the called party, generally 
resulting in the caller paying local rate and the 
called party being charged with any additional 
costs. 
34 
WRITTEN CONTRIBUTIONS 
[National administrations and National Regulatory Authorities 
Belgium 
Denmark 
Germany 
Greece 
Spain 
France 
Ireland 
Italy 
Netherlands 
Austria 
Portugal 
Finland 
Sweden 
United Kingdom 
Norway 
Liechtenstein 
Switzerland BIPT /IBPT 
Forskningsministeriet / Telepolitisk Kontor 
Bundesministerium fur Post und Telekommunikation 
Ministry of transport and telecommunications 
Ministerio de Fomento / Secretaria General de Comunicaciones 
Permanent Representation to the EU 
Department of Transport, Energy and Communications 
Ministère délie Poste e delle Telecommunicazioni 
Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat 
Bundesministerium fur Wissenschafl, Verkehr und Kunst 
Instituto das comunicaçoes de Portugal 
Telehallintokcskus/Teleforvaltningscentralen 
Kommunikationsdepartementet 
Permanent Representation to the EU 
Ministry of transport and communications 
Government of the principality of Liechtenstein - EEA 
Coordination Unit 
BAKOM (Bundesamt fur Kommunikation) 
Associations 
AFTEL ( Association française de la télématique multimédia) 
AFUTT (Association française des utilisateurs du téléphone et des 
télécommunications) 
AK Wicn (Bundcskammcr fur Arbeiter und Angestellte - Vienna) 
AOST (Association des Opérateurs de Services de Télécommunications) 
BEUC (Bureau Européen des Unions des Consommateurs) 
CEEP (Centre Européen des Entreprises à Participation Publique) 
CIGREF (Club Informatique des grandes entreprises françaises) 
CNPF (Conseil National du Patronat français) 
DIH (Deutscher Industrie- und Handelstag) 
ECCO (European Competitive Carrier's Organization) 
ECMA ( European Computer Manufacturers Association) 
ECTEL (European Telecommunications Manufacturers Asociation) 
ECTRA (European Committee of Telecommunications Regulatory Affairs) 
ETNO (European Public Telecommunications Network Operators' Association) 
ETO (European Telecommunications Office) 
ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute) 
35 
EU Committee of the American Chamber of Commerce 
EURIM (European Informatics Market) 
FEDIM (Fédération Européenne du marketing direct) 
FEI (Federation of the Electronics Industry) 
GITEP (Groupement des Industries de Télécommunications et d'Electronique 
Professionnelle en France) 
GSM MoU Association 
HDE (Hauptverband des Deutschen Einzelhandels) 
ICSTIS (The Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone 
Information Services) 
INTUG (International Telecommunications Users Group) 
Joint Committee on Telecommunications 
ONP-CCP / HI F (European Interconnection Forum) 
RNID (Royal Institute for Deaf People) 
UNICE (Union des Confédérations de l'Industrie et des Employeurs d'Europe) 
Union Internationale des Chemins de fer 
Telecommunications service and network providers 
ACC telecom UK 
Airtouch 
AT&T 
Belgacom 
British Telecom 
Cegetel 
Cellnet 
Companhia Portuguesa Radio Marconi 
Debitel Kommunikationstechnik 
DeTeMobil 
Deutsche Telekom 
Easynet 
E-plus Mobilfunk 
Energis 
France Telecom 
Global One 
lonica 
Mannesmann Eurokom 
Mannesmann Mobilfunk 
Mercury communications 
Orange 
Portugal Telecom 
Post & Telekom Austria 
Proximus 
PTT Telecom - Netherlands 
STET - Italy 
36 
Telecential communications 
Telecom Tiircann 
Telecom Italia 
Telefonica - Spain 
Telenet operaties 
Telenor 
Unisource 
Vebacom & RWE 
VIAG 
Worldcom- MFS 
Manufacturers 
Alcatel /Alsthom 
Olivetti 
Consultants 
Institute for Public Policy Research 
International Integrated Information Systems 
Mr. Craig Macbride 
NCSi Datentechnik 
Dr.Clive Page 
37 
ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(97) 203 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 15 01 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-97-234-EN-C 
ISBN 92-78-19889-7 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg