C 226/56 EN 8.8.2000 Official Journal of the European Communities
Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on:
— the ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions’, on the ‘Fifth Report onthe implementation of the Telecommunications Regulatory Package’, and
— the ‘Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Towards a newframework for electronic communications infrastructure and associated services — the 1999
Communications Review’
(2000/C 226/15)
THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,
having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Fifth Report on the
Implementation of the Telecommunications Regulatory Package’, (COM(1999) 537 final) and the
Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions on ‘Towards a new framework for Electronic
Communications infrastructure and associated services — The 1999 Communications Review’,(COM(1999) 539 final);
having regard to the decision by the Commission on 15 November 1999, acting under the first paragraph
of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to consult the Committee of the
Regions on the matter;
having regard to the decision taken by its bureau on 2 June 1999 to instruct Commission 3 for Trans-
European Networks, Transport and Information Society to prepare an opinion on the subject;
having regard to the draft opinion (CdR 520/99 rev. 1) adopted by Commission 3 on 4 February 2000
(rapporteur: Mr Koivisto FIN, PSE),
adopted the following opinion at its 33rd plenary session on 12-13 April 2000 (session of 13 April).
1.The purpose of the communications b)Towards a new framework for Electronic Communications
infrastructure and associated services
a)The Fifth Report on the Implementation of the Telecommuni-1.2. The communication presents a review of EU regulationcations Regulatory Packagein telecommunications, and proposes the main elements for
a new framework for communications infrastructure and
associated services. 1.1. The communication
— examines the implementation of existing telecommuni-
cations regulations in the Community;
— analyses how national regulations are implemented in 2.The opinion of the Committee of the Regions; the
practice; general situation with regard to telecommunications
markets
— provides an overview of the development of telecommuni-
cations markets;
2.1. The Committee of the Regions agrees with the general
— summarises the main obstacles to the implementation of policy objectives presented by the Commission, the principles
the single market; behind regulatory action, and the structure of the new
regulatory framework. In particular, the Committee of the
Regions endorses the Commission’s view that the new frame- — provides starting points for the review of the entire
regulatory framework for communications, but telecom- work must seek to increase competition in all market segments,
particularly at local and regional level. munications in particular.
8.8.2000 EN C 226/57 Official Journal of the European Communities
2.2. The Committee of the Regions also agrees with the areas which, on account of their market structure, require a
different approach. For example, various local authorities principles underlying the two communications, namely that
the new regulatory framework should be designed to cater for across Europe — the best and most widely known example
probably being the city of Stockholm — have, through their new, dynamic and largely unpredictable markets with many
more players than at present. own efforts or by other means, acquired an often quite
extensive broadband telecommunications cable network,
which has then been available in practice for network equip-
ment and services to all businesses. In such cases, although in
2.3. Like the Commission, the Committee of the Regions one respect a kind of monopoly prevails, the common
wishes to stress that the new framework must be much more European objectives are generally achieved more effectively
flexible than before and broader in scope in order to be able from the point of view of the user with regard to the
to adapt to rapid and unpredictable technological and market breadth of service provision and value for money than in the
changes, which have an impact on all other sectors of society. competition situations envisaged by the two communications.
2.8. In view of the situation described above, the Committee 2.4. The Committee of the Regions commends the fact that
of the Regions hopes that the Commission will seek to make a the Fifth Report takes the regional dimension into account
clearer market distinction between cable and other equivalent more clearly when considering the consequences of legislation
infrastructure services on the one hand, and actual consumer on service access and pricing.
services on the other.
2.5. The Committee of the Regions wishes to draw the
Commission’s attention to the fact that, in many Member
States, the regional competition described in the Fifth Report3.The opinion of the Committee of the Regions; pro-is, in practice, purely theoretical and in reality, particularly inposals for new regulatory principlesthe most remote regions, services are provided by a single
company. The Committee of the Regions is concerned at the
rapidly widening disparities between regions and considersthat a universal service and other similar mechanisms are
excessively slow instruments for rectifying the situation in3.1. Licensing and authorisationsrapidly evolving markets.
3.1.1. The regions support the principles on licensing and
authorisations outlined in the communication. 2.5 (a) Existing research confirms that there is a clear
link between concentrations of economic activity and theestablishment of telecommunications networks. Telecom-
munications infrastructure is thus one of the elements of
competition in attracting enterprises. It also follows that in all
3.2. Access and interconnection likelihood differences do not exist — or will not arise — solely
between EU regions; they will also occur within regions.
Account should be taken of these factors in the formulation
of EU telecommunications policy as they have important 3.2.1. In line with the above, the Committee of the Regions
implications for social and economic cohesion in the EU is doubtful as to whether the proposed measures can achieve
Member States. Furthermore, regional and local authorities the general EU information society policy objectives suf-
should be careful to take measures to establish the right ficiently quickly and would prefer to see a clearer market
conditions with regard to the establishment of telecommuni- separation between infrastructure and services.
cations networks, insofar as such measures come within their
powers.
3.2.2. The Committee of the Regions feels it is important
that all mobile operators, and not just those with a majormarket position, are subject to the obligations relating to the2.6. The Committee of the Regions hopes that futurefreedom of choice of operator.reports on implementing telecommunications markets might
consider actual operators located in various parts of the EUand in different regions with different service needs, in order
to establish just how effective competition really is.
3.3. Management of radio frequency
2.7. The Committee of the Regions agrees with the Com-
mission’s view on the need for a broader regulatory basis for 3.3.1. The Committee of the Regions has no comments to
make on the Commission position on management of radio the communications sector, but wishes to emphasise that
elsewhere within the field of telecommunications there are frequency.
C 226/58 EN 8.8.2000 Official Journal of the European Communities
3.4. Universal service 3.6. Numbering, naming and addressing
3.6.1. The Committee of the Regions hopes that number 3.4.1. The Committee of the Regions wishes to draw the
portability can also be introduced as quickly as possible Commission’s attention in particular to the fact that free
between fixed and mobile communication networks. competition in telecommunications does not bring equal
benefits to all regions or to all local districts within regions. In
addition, the rapid evolution in markets and technologies has
merely served to exacerbate these differences, as new services
3.7. Specific competition issues tend to be concentrated in areas with a sufficiently large
volume of customers. The aim of universal services is to
provide universal access to the information society. The3.7.1. The Committee of the Regions endorses clarificationCommittee of the Regions therefore feels that the positionsof the concepts of ‘significant market power’ and ‘dominantpresented in the communication must be regularly monitoredposition’. However, in general the situation with regard towith regard to actual results, and constantly, pro-activelymarket position changes decisively when the focus is shiftedrevised in order to guarantee truly universal access. At thefrom the European or national level to the regional and localsame time we must guarantee, inter alia, the social, culturalone. The Committee of the Regions feels that, in essence, itand economic development of the sparsely populated areasshould also be possible to apply the regulations on dominantand influence population stabilisation.market position in those cases where individual consumers
only have a single option for purchasing an importantcommunication service.3.4.2. Contrary to the Commission’s position, the Com-
mittee of the Regions feels it is important to include broadband
services within the scope of existing universal services, at least
as a political objective. Inter alia this would achieve the aim of3.8. Institutional issuesensuring that the most disadvantaged regions, or at least
part of them, would not remain unconnected to the new
technologies. Otherwise they would lag even further behind3.8.1. In view of the convergence taking place betweenthe potentially more developed regions, since they woulddifferent fields of communications and telecommunications,either lack advanced telecom services or would secure themthe Committee of the Regions considers the Commissiontoo late.proposal on the Communications Committee to be appropri-
ate. Indeed, the capability should be there to rapidly expand
the activities of both the Committee and the High Level Group,3.4.3. The Committee of the Regions also wishes to drawif the fields converge faster than expected in the future. Thethe Commission’s attention to the fact that users in everyCommittee of the Regions agrees with the Commission viewregion have very different needs (for example, schools, healththat no real added value would be achieved by setting up acare, different kinds of companies and citizens). EffectiveEuropean regulatory authority.universal service criteria should also take account of users with
unusual needs.
3.8.2. The Committee of the Regions believes that the
independence of national regulatory authorities is essential, as3.4.4. In addition to developing a universal service, thethe transition from the former state monopolies to openCommittee of the Regions feels that serious considerationcompetition is still ongoing in many Member States.should be given to rapidly targeting resources, including EU
funding opportunities, towards local authorities and otherlocal and regional players responsible for general infrastructure
provision, so that they can, if necessary, put in place the
4.Summary necessary broadband infrastructure in their own regions and
make it available to different kinds of service provider.
Naturally, particular attention should be paid in this respect toThe Committee of the Regions:those regions where the market does not function correctly
and funding should be provided to counter this shortfall, so as
to put them on an equal footing with other regions when it — The Committee of the Regions agrees with the general
comes to playing this new role. policy objectives presented by the Commission, the prin-
ciples behind regulatory action, and the structure of the
new regulatory framework. In particular, the Committee
of the Regions endorses the Commission’s view that thenew framework must seek to increase competition in all3.5. The interests of users and consumersmarket segments, particularly at local level.
— The Committee feels that the views on the universal service 3.5.1. The Committee of the Regions wishes to draw the
Commission’s attention to the importance of ensuring privacy presented in the Communication must be applied actively
and on an ongoing basis in order to ensure the relevant protection in operations employing the latest mobile phone
technologies. access.
8.8.2000 EN C 226/59 Official Journal of the European Communities
— In addition to developing a universal service, the Com- the European or national level to the regional and local
one. The Committee of the Regions feels that, in essence, mittee feels that serious consideration should be given to
rapidly targeting resources, including EU funding oppor- it should also be possible to apply the regulations on
dominant market position in those cases where individual tunities, towards local authorities and other local and
regional players responsible for general infrastructure consumers only have a single option for purchasing an
important communication service. provision, so that they can, if necessary, put in place the
necessary broadband infrastructure in their own regions— The Committee draws the Commission’s attention to theand make it available to different kinds of service provider.importance of ensuring privacy protection in operations
employing the latest mobile phone technologies.— The Committee endorses clarification of the concepts
of ‘significant market power’ and ‘dominant position’. — The Committee hopes that number portability can be
introduced as quickly as possible between fixed and mobile However, in general the situation with regard to market
position changes decisively when the focus is shifted from communication networks.
Brussels, 13 April 2000.
The President
of the Committee of the Regions
Jos CHABERT