EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 12.10.2016 COM(2016) 590 final/2 2016/0288(COD) CORRIGENDUM



This document corrects document COM(2016) 590 final of 14.09.16.



Concerns the English language version.



Correction of errors of a clerical, formatting and coding nature, as well as correction of cross-references and the use of certain defined terms.



The text shall read as follows:

Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing the European Electronic Communications Code (Recast) (Text with EEA relevance) {SWD(2016) 303 final/2}

{SWD(2016) 304 final}

{SWD(2016) 305 final}

{SWD(2016) 313 final}



EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 1.CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL •Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Since the last revision of the regulatory framework for electronic communications in 2009, the sector has significantly evolved and its role as an enabler of the online economy has grown. Market structures have evolved, with monopolistic market power becoming increasingly limited, and at the same time connectivity has become a widely pervasive feature of economic life. Consumers and businesses are increasingly relying on data and internet access services instead of telephony and other traditional communication services. This evolution has brought formerly unknown types of market players to compete with traditional telecom operators (e.g. so called over-the-top -players (OTTs): service providers offering a wide variety of applications and services, including communications services, over the internet). At the same time, it has also increased the demand for high-quality fixed and wireless connectivity with the rise in the number and popularity of online content services, such as cloud computing, the Internet of Things, Machine-to-Machine communication (M2M) etc. Electronic communications networks have evolved as well. The main changes include: (i) the ongoing transition to an all-IP environment, (ii) the possibilities provided by new and enhanced underlying network infrastructures that support the practically unlimited transmission capacity of fibre optical networks, (iii) the convergence of fixed and mobile networks towards seamless service offers to the end-users regardless of location or device used and (iv) the development of innovative technical network management approaches, in particular Software Defined Networks and Network Function Virtualisation (NFV). These usage and operational changes expose the current rules to new challenges that are likely to increase in importance in the medium and long term, and therefore must be factored into a review of the regulatory framework for electronic communications. This review needs to be seen in light of the Digital Single Market (DSM) strategy for Europe. The DSM strategy recognised the importance of the paradigm shifts that the digital sector is undergoing and stated that individuals and businesses should be able to seamlessly access and conduct online activities under conditions of fair competition. Furthermore, it announced that ‘the Commission will present proposals in 2016 for an ambitious overhaul of the regulatory framework focusing on (i) a consistent single market approach to spectrum policy and management (ii) delivering the conditions for a true single market by tackling regulatory fragmentation to allow economies of scale for efficient network operators and service providers and effective protection of consumers, (iii) ensuring a level playing field for market players and consistent application of the rules, (iv) incentivising investment in high-speed broadband networks (including a review of the Universal Service Directive) and (v) a more effective regulatory institutional framework.’ Pursuant to this commitment and in line with ‘Better Regulation’ requirements, the Commission carried out an ex post evaluation. It assessed the effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU added-value of the Union regulatory framework, and pinpointed areas where there is potential for simplification, without undermining the objectives of the framework. •Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area As connectivity services provided over electronic communications networks constitute the backbone for digital products and services, this proposal presents a high degree of synergy with the other initiatives included in the DSM strategy. The proposal also complements existing sector-specific regulation. In particular, the proposal is fully coherent with Directive 2014/61/EU (Broadband Cost Reduction Directive) with which it provides a comprehensive set of rules facilitating the roll-out of broadband infrastructures. Alongside the recently adopted Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 ensuring an open internet and abolishing roaming surcharges, the current proposal ensures a high level of end-user protection in other areas requiring sector-specific rules. The proposed rules on spectrum management build on current instruments in this area, most notably the Radio Spectrum Decision No 676/2002/EC, the Radio Spectrum Policy Group Decision 2002/622/EC and Decision 243/2012/EU establishing a multiannual radio spectrum policy programme (RSPP). Finally, it also paves the way for the review of Directive 2002/58/EC on privacy and electronic communications announced as part of the DSM strategy. •Consistency with other Union policies While this proposal addresses regulatory issues arising from the specificities of the electronic communications sector as a network industry, it builds on and complements existing EU law in several areas. In the domain of market regulation, the proposals remain based on the principles of EU Competition Law, like the existing regulatory framework. It further sets out measures, such as mapping of network deployments, that also provide useful information for State aid purposes and thereby enhances the coherence of the two policies. On end-user protection, the proposed rules complement horizontal consumer protection law by addressing the specificities of the sector on the one hand, while streamlining the current sector-specific rules in areas where the former has evolved since the last review in 2009 on the other. In this way, the proposal avoids overlaps in areas where horizontal rules alone can ensure an adequate level of protection for end-users. Cohesion policy and European structural and investment funds are an important tool to fill the connectivity gaps in market failure areas and should be allocated in a way that allows the resources available to be maximised. The proposal contributes to this objective by providing appropriate conditions for private investments so that public funds can be focused where they are most needed. The proposal maintains the current complementarity between electronic communications and audiovisual media services policy by continuing to ensure that the framework remains without prejudice to measures taken at Union or national level, in accordance with EU law, to pursue general interest objectives, in particular relating to content regulation and audiovisual policy. The distinction between the regulation of broadcasting signal transmission and the regulation of content does not prevent the links between them from being considered, in particular in order to guarantee media pluralism, cultural diversity and consumer protection. •Consistency with international law obligations The proposal is consistent with existing international law obligations, including GATS and the GATS Annex on Telecommunications and the GATS Reference Paper. 2.LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY •Legal basis The proposal is based on Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as it aims to achieve the internal market for electronic communications and ensure its functioning.

•Subsidiarity (for non-exclusive competence) As the proposal constitutes a review of the existing framework, the subsidiarity analysis below focuses on: the new objective of ubiquitous and unconstrained connectivity, the harmonisation of the competences of national regulatory authorities (NRAs), the harmonisation of spectrum-related issues and revised rules on services. Ubiquitous and unconstrained connectivity Without ubiquitous, very high capacity connectivity the single market cannot tap into a significant part of its human capital. This impairs both territorial cohesion and the ability of businesses to produce efficiently and to provide innovative and competitive services. Connectivity can play an essential socioeconomic role in preventing isolation and depopulation and in linking peripheral with central regions of the EU The situation of Member States with regard to connectivity differs quite significantly. There are very important discrepancies, which may not be explained solely by the different landscape, population, GDP or purchasing power, but are the result of different policy choices made today and in the past. Absence of EU action to pursue ubiquitous and unconstrained connectivity as a separate objective of the framework would only perpetuate this patchwork with negative effects on the single market and consumer interests. The harmonisation of NRAs competences The institutional set-up allows for a high degree of flexibility for national regulatory authorities and Member States which allows for regulation to be tailored to meet specific national or local circumstances. However, this system carries significant weakness in areas where consistency is essential or would better serve the common European interest. Some areas of regulation require a more coordinated, or harmonised, approach at EU level. This can be achieved, inter alia, by ensuring that the tasks of the NRAs, which then participate in the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC), as the pillars of the institutional set-up, are harmonised. The harmonisation of NRA tasks should not result in a reduction of their political independence, but on the contrary to an extension of the protection against instructions to all new areas of competence. Harmonisation of spectrum related issues Spectrum, like other resources such as numbers and to some extent land, is a scarce resource that belongs to the Member States, and whose management and assignment needs to consider national specificities and needs. At the same time, there is a need for a more convergent and consistent EU regulation for market entry to eliminate the obstacles that appear due to undue divergent conditions for the assignment of individual rights of use for spectrum, numbers or land. Consistent EU level rules are necessary to (i) enable providers to expand their services to other Member States; (ii) create a sufficient market scale effect allowing front running Member States to benefit from it ; (iii) give timely access to state of the art wireless capacities and services for EU citizens and businesses to benefit from the digital environment, innovative services and applications and be able to commercially develop and underpin the benefits of the digital economy that is constantly evolving towards the "mobile" economy, where spectrum policy has an important role; (iv) allow countries which are lagging behind to catch up and participate in the DSM, thereby also allowing more advanced Member States to further increase citizens' and commercial exchanges within their borders; and, (v) treat all spectrum users in a coherent way throughout the Union. Lastly, in order for the EU to lead the rest of the world on new and enhanced services, such as 5G, equipment manufacturers and providers of communications services need sufficient scale. This means not only technical harmonisation, but most importantly an internal market developing in a broadly aligned fashion, for services and devices to benefit from stable and harmonised rules. Services In services, competition between local providers of electronic communications services that bundle network access with services and global providers of services over the top of the networks reinforces the right of the EU to act to ensure a level playing field. Action is also needed at EU level to reduce fragmentation of end-user protection rules, which raises administrative costs for cross-border service providers and hinders development of innovative services, while resulting in an uneven and sub-optimal level of consumer protection across the Union. •Proportionality The proposal complies with the principle of proportionality as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union because it will not go beyond what is necessary for the achievement of the objectives. It makes targeted adjustments to the current framework in order to respond to the market and technology changes and in particular to the need to address at Union level the need for availability and widespread take-up of very high capacity networks as a basis for a fully functioning digital single market. Regarding access regulation, the national regulatory authorities remain competent in ensuring that market failures are addressed with appropriate remedies and that regulation contributes to the common policy objectives. The proposed rules provide regulators with additional tools to address the current connectivity challenge, but the way they are to be used depends on national circumstances which are for national regulators to assess. The reasons for targeted strengthening of regulatory oversight mainly through an enhanced role of BEREC is justified on the basis of evidence of a lack of consistency in the implementation of regulation, which is key for promoting the internal market. Equally, spectrum is a shared competence between the Commission and Member States. The proposed rules provide an overall framework for coherent spectrum management across the EU while Member States have the necessary discretion to implement and apply the rules corresponding to national circumstances. Due to the important cross-border implications of spectrum management and its wider impact on connectivity in the internal market certain co-ordination procedures at the Union level are necessary. The end-user protection rules introduce full harmonisation with targeted exceptions (e.g. regarding maximum contract duration), but harmonisation is limited to the areas covered by the proposal. Moreover, the choice of the legal form of a Directive will leave as a result certain discretion to Member States to adapt the implementation to their national law. •Choice of the instrument The proposal for a European Electronic Communications Code consists of a horizontal recasting of the four existing Directives (Framework, Authorisation, Access and Universal Service), bringing them all under a single Directive. Each of the Directives contains measures applicable to electronic communications networks and to electronic communications service providers. The review offers an occasion to simplify the current structure, with a view to reinforcing its coherence and accessibility, consistently with the regulatory fitness objective. It offers also the possibility to adapt the structure to the new market reality, where the provision of communications services is no longer necessarily bundled to the provision of a network. 3.RESULTS OF EX POST EVALUATIONS, STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS •Ex post evaluations/fitness checks of existing legislation

Overall, the Staff Working Document accompanying the proposal and assessing the regulatory fitness of the current rules concludes that the regulatory framework for electronic communications has broadly achieved its general objective of ensuring a competitive sector providing significant end-user benefits. Nevertheless, while its main specific objectives — promoting competition, developing the internal market, and promoting end-user interest — remain relevant, a review of the regulatory framework seems necessary in order to address the growing need for increased connectivity of the Digital Single Market and to streamline provisions taking into account market and technological developments. More specifically, regarding the specific evaluation criteria, the findings can be summarised as follows: Relevance - Generally speaking, the evaluation has shown that the specific objectives of the framework — promoting competition, realising the single market and protecting consumer interests — remain as valid as ever, with an increased relevance for the single market objective. Effective and sustainable competition drives efficient investment and fuels the development of the internal market. It ultimately serves the interests of end-users, by inducing innovation and providing maximum benefit in terms of choice, price and quality. At the same time, connectivity has emerged as the underlying driving force for the digital society and economy, underpinned by technological changes and evolving consumer and market demands – it is key to the political commitment of the Juncker Commission to deliver the Digital Single Market. It is therefore necessary to consider adjusting the current policy objectives and regulatory tools to further support the deployment of infrastructure and widespread take-up of corresponding connectivity services in line with future needs. Most regulatory areas remain as relevant as in 2009, if not more so — in particular spectrum management, given the role of spectrum as an essential but scarce input for the deployment of current and next-generation mobile and fixed wireless networks, along with access regulation as a means of addressing the enduring entry barriers in the networks. For instance, while the relevance of certain specific components of the universal service rules is being called into question by market developments, the concept of a safety net ensuring that all citizens are included in a fully developed digital society is gaining even greater importance in a digital single market. Similarly, while specific provisions under the end-user protection objective might have to be adjusted in view of technological, market or legislative changes, the basic end-user protection needs to which the provisions respond remain relevant and their specific objectives remain central. Effectiveness - It is widely recognised that the regulatory framework has been effective in delivering a competitive sector overall. This, in turn, has generated significant end-user benefits, such as widely available (basic) broadband, a significant decrease in prices, and increased choice. Access and spectrum regulation in particular, but also market entry provisions, have contributed to higher levels of competition. Nevertheless, access regulation has delivered competition more at service level than at network level, and while investments in very high capacity networks have advanced, they have not taken place across all Member States at the pace envisaged by the public policy agendas and corresponding to expected future needs. Importantly, although the release of a significant amount of spectrum for wireless broadband is a notable achievement, progress in spectrum management did not meet the expectations of the last review, resulting in a delayed and fragmented 4G network roll-out and take-up. Efforts to achieve the Single Market objective have reached rather modest results. Regulatory consistency has been achieved only to a limited extent, affecting the operations of cross-border providers and reducing predictability for all operators and their investors. The current framework harmonises very few competences assigned to national regulatory authorities responsible for ex ante market regulation and allows Member States to assign tasks under the framework to other authorities which do not meet the same independence requirements. The result is a patchwork since, other than ex ante market regulation, there is no other competence for which all 28 national regulatory authorities that are members of BEREC are also competent. More importantly, the cooperation and consistency tools available have led to a situation where the best regulatory solutions have not always been followed, which has had an impact on end-user outcomes. EU-level consistency checks, through the current governance structure, contribute to the predictability of access regulation throughout the EU; however their influence is significantly restricted as regards draft regulatory remedies. Similarly, the lack of consistency in spectrum management and the absence of an institutional set-up for the coordination of spectrum assignments has had negative consequences for end-users such as the delayed 4G deployment in most parts of the EU. The achievements of the framework in protecting end-users and in ensuring a safety net (universal service) are significant — albeit progress in consumer satisfaction is relatively slow. It is also clear that not all sector-specific end-user protection provisions are still fit for purpose in the context of technological, market and wider legislative developments. Efficiency - While a precise cost calculation has not been possible, the evaluation has shown that the benefits of the framework — for most operators, end-users and society as a whole - greatly outweigh the costs resulting from its implementation. However, while a certain level of complexity might be necessary in order to ensure well calibrated intervention (e.g. appropriate access regulation), several areas have been identified where the administrative burden could be reduced without compromising – in some cases even improving - the effectiveness of the provisions. Examples are longer ex ante market regulation cycles, simplified procedures for imposing remedies in termination markets, streamlining certain overlapping consumer protection provisions. EU added value - The regulatory framework has been instrumental in delivering competition on the single market, that, to an extent, would not have been possible or likely at national level. It has levelled up national regulatory practice in the sector, promoting - with different degrees of success for specific regulation areas -‘best in class’ models across the European Union. EU action has also contributed to a more comprehensive, if not homogeneous, end-user protection than would otherwise be the case. Coherence – Overall, the various instruments making up the regulatory framework for electronic communications have reinforced each other in the pursuit of their objectives. Two issues however merit specific attention in the review process: the coherence between (i) regulation aimed at incentivising competitive network roll-out and (ii) the EU financing and state aid rules in the sector, as well as the potential overlaps between certain sector-specific provisions and horizontal consumer interest legislation. •Stakeholder consultations A dedicated 12-week open public consultation was launched on 11 September 2015 that gathered inputs for the evaluation process in order to assess the current rules and to seek views on possible adaptations to the framework in light of market and technological developments. It covered a general evaluation of the current framework as well as a more detailed evaluation and review of the specific elements of the framework: (i) network access regulation, (ii) spectrum management and wireless connectivity, (iii) sector-specific regulation for electronic communications services, (iv) universal service rules and (v) institutional set-up and governance. The consultation was both broad and detailed, eliciting extensive inputs from consumers, providers of electronic communications networks and services, national and EU operator associations, civil society organisations, broadcasters, technology providers, internet and online service providers, undertakings relying on connectivity and wider digital economy players, national authorities at all levels, national regulators and other interested stakeholders. Inputs provided include those from stakeholders affected by the policy, those who have to implement it and those with a stated interest in the policy. The consultation attracted 244 online replies from stakeholders in all Member States as well as from outside the Union. The consultation was complemented with a public hearing on 11 November 2015, halfway through the public consultation. In addition to the public consultation BEREC provided input to the evaluation and the review process and published its opinion in December 2015. The Radio Spectrum Policy Group (RSPG) had also provided its opinion on the DSM and the Framework Review. The following trends emerged from the consultation process: • Connectivity is broadly recognised as the underlying driving force for the digital society and economy, underpinned by technological changes and evolving consumer and market demands. • Good connectivity is perceived as a necessary condition to achieve the Digital Single Market. Many respondents pointed to the need for policy measures and possible adjustments to current policy and regulatory tools to support the deployment of infrastructure in line with future needs.

• A number of inputs asserted that the current regulatory framework does not sufficiently advance the internal market. There is a general perception that the regulatory framework needs to be adjusted to current market dynamics. Many respondents however acknowledged the achievements ushered in by the liberalisation of the telecom markets, in particular in terms of end-user benefits and competition within most national markets. • On spectrum, the importance of wireless connectivity and wireless broadband are acknowledged. In general, industry is supportive of a more coordinated approach and seeks additional certainty for investments and possibilities to develop throughout the EU new wireless and mobile communications including 5G. A more flexible access to and use of spectrum was identified as increasingly important. • Member States’ authorities generally underline the achievements in the field of technical harmonisation, and the need for additional coordination to be bottom-up and voluntary; some of them call for a better balance between harmonisation and flexibility. There is general recognition of the importance of more flexible access and use of spectrum in the future. • The administrations of several Member States see the need for updating the telecoms rules, for reasons varying from the need to promote investment in next-generation infrastructures to the need to respond to technological and market changes. There are also calls for greater flexibility and simplification of those rules. • Whereas traditional telecom companies consider that short-term economic gains have been preferred to long-term investment and innovation, alternative operators, BEREC, and consumer organisations consider that the framework has largely delivered on its current objectives. • Telecom users are generally in favour of the current access regulation, while some consider that the emphasis should be put on service competition rather than on the underlying infrastructure, and that the sharing of infrastructure should be emphasised. • The vast majority of respondents consider that the review should be the opportunity to reconsider the universal service regime completely. The administrations of the Member States see the need to maintain universal service, with flexibility at Member State level on funding and application to broadband. BEREC supports maintaining the current range of universal service obligation instruments. • While administrations of several Member States, the regulatory community and consumer organisations still see a need for a sector-specific end-user protection based on high-level minimum harmonisation, the telecom sector calls for more reliance on horizontal legislation and full harmonisation, especially for services. The telecom sector in general but also some administrations argue that the same rules should apply to similar services while other administrations, so-called ‘over-the-top’ players, software and equipment vendors, cable operators and some broadcasters are of the view that the concept of electronic communications services as currently defined has proven robust. • While the continuing role of national regulatory authorities and spectrum management authorities is widely acknowledged, a large group of respondents highlights that the institutional set-up at EU level should be revised to improve legal certainty and accountability. As part of the evaluation process, the Commission has also contracted a number of studies. Implementation of these studies encompassed public workshops that allowed stakeholders to comment and provide feedback to the ongoing evaluation work: on 6 April 2016 a public workshop was held to validate the interim findings of a study SMART 2015/002 conducted by WIK, IDATE and Deloitte on ‘regulatory, in particular access, regimes for network investments models in Europe’, and on 2 May 2016, a public workshop was held to validate the interim findings of study SMART 2015/003 conducted by WIK, CRIDS and Cullen on ‘Substantive issues for review in the areas of market entry, management of scarce resources and general end-user issues’. •Collection and use of expertise The Commission relied on the following external expert advice: Policy recommendations from other EU institutions, in particular the European Parliament and the European Council. Three dedicated review studies: ‘Support for the preparation of the impact assessment accompanying the review of the regulatory framework for e-communications’ (SMART 2015/0005), ‘Regulatory, in particular access, regimes for network investment models in Europe’ (SMART 2015/0002), ‘Substantive issues for review in the areas of market entry, management of scarce resources and general consumer issues’ (SMART 2015/0003). In addition, a number of other studies have provided input to the review processs. These studies are listed in section 6.1.4 of the impact assessment.

A high-level expert panel conducted in the framework of study SMART 2015/0005. •Impact assessment The executive summary of the impact assessment and the positive opinion of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board can be found on the website of the Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/impact/ia_carried_out/cia_2016_en.htm . A number of options, as outlined in the impact assessment, were examined and the following options were retained: Access Regulation NGA+ Focusing regulation on high-quality connectivity This option considers that while the key principles of the framework remain valid, significant adjustments are necessary to provide necessary incentives for both incumbents and competitors to make economically viable investments or co-investments in future networks that are in principle capable of providing very high capacity connectivity to every citizen and business in Europe. Spectrum Binding and enforceable rules for enhancing coordination of spectrum management in the EU with greater focus on adapting spectrum rules to the future 5G challenges This aims at adapting the framework to the developments in terms of ubiquitous connectivity and 5G deployment and to ensure greater consistency with regard to Member States´ measures, notably those affecting competitive market conditions and economic regulation. It seeks to do this by means of greater adaptations of the framework, legally enforceable instruments and a peer review mechanism allowing BEREC, the Commission and national regulatory authorities to review elements of individual Member States’ planned national assignment procedures which have more impact on market and business developments. Moreover, this option will place greater emphasis on the investment environment for dense 5G networks. Universal service Incremental adaptation to trends with the focus on voice and broadband affordability This option focuses the universal service EU obligation on the affordability aspect, including the provision of affordable voice communications and basic broadband in the EU in its scope as well as a right to contract for consumers benefiting from special universal tariffs. At the EU level, broadband would be defined by referring to a functional internet access connection defined on the basis of a minimum list of online services which enable end-users’ participation in civil society, which Member States shall further define at national level. Affordability should be ensured for these services provided at a fixed location, notably via direct support, but Member States have the possibility to include affordability measures for mobile services for the most vulnerable end-users’ where lack of such affordability is demonstrated. Availability of these services will be primarily promoted by other policy tools (incentives to private investment, state aid, spectrum-related coverage obligations, etc.) and can only exceptionally be included at national level if duly demonstrated. Taking into account a broader range of beneficiaries (beyond the telecom sector) of universal broadband, this option relies on financing though the general budget as a more equitable and the least distortive way of funding the provision of universal service. Services Internet Access Services (IAS) and regulatory obligations for electronic communications services mainly linked to the use of numbering resources This option builds on other options. It proposes, on top of the regulation of IAS, to apply a limited set of sector-specific rules to interpersonal communications services, provided either traditionally (voice telephony or SMS), or via the IAS. In particular, the option determines those areas which still require sector-specific protection by reason of their characteristics and proposes to apply the relevant rules equally to all providers of services that are functionally equivalent. In many cases this will be IAS plus interpersonal communications services using numbers (‘use’ being understood as provision of numbers to the service’s own subscribers, or provision of a service that enables communication with other providers’subscribers via such numbers). In key areas such as security and the power to impose interoperability, the relevant rules should apply to all interpersonal communications services. It is proposed that end-user rules be subject to full harmonisation to the extent possible, instead of the current minimum harmonisation approach, in order to lessen the compliance burden and to avoid distorting market conditions across the Member States. In order to reduce regulatory burden, it is proposed to lift regulatory obligations where they are no longer needed or are adequately covered by general consumer protection law. One key example is the repeal of the power of NRAs to directly impose retail price regulation. As regards regulatory obligations applicable to interpersonal communications services, most of them would be linked to the use of public numbering resources — confirming an approach that has been identified by regulators since at least the last review of the framework but which is widely contested by the relevant service providers and has not been widely applied in practice. The scope of access to emergency services is redefined using the concept of number-based interpersonal communications services, but taking account of the inability of certain online services to assure quality of service of such calls. Rules that would apply to number-based interpersonal communications services cover inter alia contract duration, transparency, information on quality of service, number portability led by the receiving provider, consumption monitoring tools, comparison tools for both prices and quality of service or switching rules for bundles to avoid lock-in effects. Additionally, in certain areas public policy interests such as security, require applying regulatory obligations to all interpersonal communications services, i.e. also to those that are provided over the IAS but do not use numbering resources. ‘Must carry’ and electronic programme guides (EPG)

Maintain Member States’ possibility to impose ‘must carry’ and EPG obligations This option would keep the current ‘must carry’ and EPG rules in place. However, it clarifies that the transmission obligations may include data complementary to radio and TV channels which supports connected TV services and EPGs. Numbering Adapting the EU framework on numbering to address competition issues on the market Under this option the framework is adapted to allow Member States the assignment of numbers to undertakings other than providers of electronic communications services or networks. This option would allows extraterritorial use of certain numbering resources within the EU, subject to appropriate safeguards to protect end-users in all Member States where the numbers are used. Governance Advisory role for BEREC/RSPG with certain normative powers for BEREC and improved process for market review and spectrum assignment This option envisages, in particular, a minimum set of harmonised competences for NRAs and the alignment of NRAs’ and BEREC’s tasks, as well as the substantial alignment of BEREC’s governance structure with the Common Approach on decentralised agencies. Furthermore, BEREC will be given additional tasks, such as powers to adopt binding decisions on the identification of transnational markets and on a contract summary template; quasi-binding powers in relation to the internal market procedures for draft national measures on market regulation (the ‘double-lock’ system – see below) and the establishment of a single maximum termination rate for the EU; and the issuing of guidelines in a number of areas: geographical surveys, common approaches to meeting transnational demand, minimum criteria for reference offers, common criteria for the management of numbering resources, quality-of-service parameters, applicable measurement methods and the technical details of the cost model to be applied by NRAs when setting maximum symmetric termination rates. It will also be given the power to request information directly from operators. BEREC will also be in charge of setting up a register for the extraterritorial use of numbers and cross-border arrangements and another EU register of providers of electronic communications networks and services. In addition, it will be asked to assist the Commission and NRAs in the area of standardisation by helping them identify a lack of interoperability or a threat to end-to-end connectivity or to effective access to emergency services. As regards remedies, a 'double-lock' system is proposed whereby, in cases where BEREC and the Commission agree on their position regarding the draft remedies proposed by an NRA, the NRA could be required by the Commission to amend or withdraw the draft measure and, if necessary, to re-notify the market analysis. BEREC will receive some additional normative and advisory tasks. As regards spectrum, NRAs will gain decision-making competences concerning only the regulatory and market shaping conditions of spectrum assignment for electronic communications networks and services. Furthermore, a 'peer review' system within BEREC is introduced as a new coordination mechanism. This mechanism will require NRAs to notify their draft measures in regard to these aspects of spectrum assignment for review by BEREC and issuance of a non-binding opinion. Moreover, additional general normative powers are be accorded to the Commission with regard to laying down criteria for defining certain spectrum assignments elements, taking the utmost account of the advice of RSPG and based on adoption through comitology (Cocom) – to guide individual NRAs, and the ‘peer review’ within BEREC. The RSPG will remain an advisory body and will provide opinions to the Commission before adopting the implementing measures by comitology. •Regulatory fitness and simplification The policy measures proposed under the preferred option bundle support the REFIT agenda and address the objective of simplification and reduction of administrative burden in line with the findings of the evaluation exercise on the REFIT potential of the review. Several of the proposed changes under access, spectrum, universal service, services/end-users, numbering and governance policy areas aim to make rules clear; allow parties to easily understand their rights and obligations; and to avoid overregulation and administrative burdens. The proposed changes include specifically: streamlining and geographic targeting of access regulation; the use (wherever possible) of general authorisation in preference to individual licences for spectrum; fostering secondary markets for spectrum; the removal of redundant universal service obligations such as requirements to ensure the provision of payphones and physical directories; narrowing of the scope of universal service availability obligations and ending of the sectorial sharing mechanism; clarifying the scope of the Regulatory Framework and the removal of redundant consumer protection obligations where these are already addressed through horizontal legislation or met by the market; harmonisation and clarification of rules and governance of numbering in the M2M context; and aligning the remit of NRAs with BEREC. The simplification measures in the preferred options have also a single market coherence dimension as they will ensure greater consistency in access remedies and in spectrum assignment processes, which at the moment tend to generate complexity for operators wanting to use spectrum in various Member States, and can also (in case of divergent timetables) cause interference in border areas. Equally the introduction of standardised wholesale remedies for example in relation to business access facilitates businesses operating in more than one Member State and the lengthening of the spectrum licences fosters the creation of a pan-European secondary market for spectrum as well as a more investment-friendly environment for holders of such licences. •Fundamental rights The proposal also takes full account of the fundamental rights and principles recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In particular, the proposed measures aim at achieving higher levels of connectivity with a modernised set of end-user protection rules. This will in turn ensure non-discriminatory access to any contents and services, including public services, and help promote freedom of expression and of business, and enable Member States to comply with the Charter at a much lower cost in the future. 4.BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS

The proposal has no implications for the EU budget. 5.OTHER ELEMENTS •Implementation plans and monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements Monitoring of the implementation will continue to be assured by the Commission on the basis of: The European Digital Progress Report The European Digital Progress Report covers 28 Member States and provides comprehensive data and analysis of market, regulatory and consumer developments in the digital economy, including: Digital Scoreboard, which measures progress of the European Digital Economy. It is fed by data conveyed by the national regulatory authorities, Eurostat and additional relevant sources and includes data about the general situation of all dimensions of the Digital Economy Society Index in the EU Member States. The indicators included in the report allow a comparison of progress across European countries as well as over time. Telecom reports on European electronic communications regulation and markets, which provide comprehensive data and analysis of market, regulatory and consumer developments in the sector. Eurobarometer annual household survey The current Eurobarometer survey provides insights into how the e-comms market performed for end-users and on consumer attitudes in relation to service platforms uptake and usage of services, as well as on a number of consumer protection-related issues. •Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal The proposal amends the current framework with the following substantive changes: Amendments to policy objectives: Article 3 streamlines the presentation of current objectives and complements them with a new objective of widespread access to and take-up of very high capacity connectivity across the EU alongside the existing objectives of promotion of competition, of the internal market and of end-user interests. Amendments related to access regulation: Amendments related to access regulation aim at reinforcing and improving the SMP access regime currently in place, to further promote infrastructure competition and network deployment by all operators and to sustain the deployment of very high capacity networks throughout the Union’s territory. In the first and second category (the reinforcement of the SMP regime and the promotion of infrastructure competition and network deployment by all operators), the following provisions and changes are relevant: Articles 61 and 65 amend the market analysis procedures, codifying current best practices and aiming at more focused and legally certain access regulation, as well as tightening its geographical focus, to ensure that access obligations are imposed only when and where necessary to address retail market failures and to assure end-user outcomes. The rules also lay down an obligation for regulators to take into consideration commercial access agreements in their market analyses, as well as any other regulatory obligations already imposed, for example symmetrical obligations. Furthermore, the article extends the current maximum three-year market review period to five years, which will allow operators longer term planning, and will provide national regulators with greater flexibility as regards the timing of market reviews. Article 66 reflects these objectives by updating and amending the corresponding rules for the imposition and revision of regulatory obligations, for example when market conditions change. Article 70 supports greater infrastructure competition by ensuring access to civil infrastructure, such as ducts, poles etc., where these are held by operators with SMP. Also with a view to supporting infrastructure competition, Article 59 clarifies the conditions under which obligations can be imposed on all operators (symmetric obligations), to ensure access to non-replicable network assets, such as in-house wiring and cables. To protect investment incentives, such access is limited to the first concentration point from the end-user, but can be expanded beyond it in limited circumstances, to facilitate alternative network deployment in the most difficult and less densely populated areas.

Articles 63 and 64 empower BEREC to identify transnational markets, as well as to identify transnational demand even where markets remain national or sub-national. BEREC can adopt guidelines for national regulators to adopt common approaches when imposing remedies that can help such transnational demand to be met. Article 64 also empowers the Commission, with the support of BEREC, to establish harmonised technical specifications for certain wholesale access products to meet the demand for cross-border communications, in particular from business users, in cases where the absence of such harmonised products hinders the internal market. Article 73 introduces an EU-level process for determining a binding methodology for setting voice termination rates, a stable market which is similarly regulated across most Member States. In addition, it creates a mechanism for establishing maximum termination rates at EU level, with a view to alleviating the administrative burden for national regulators, allowing them to focus their efforts on the analysis of the most complex broadband markets. Finally, to sustain the deployment of very high capacity networks throughout the Union territory the following changes are proposed: Article 22 requires national regulators to survey the state of broadband networks and investment plans across their national territory, to enable them to better take geographic specificities into account in market analyses. National regulators must also identify so called ‘digital exclusion areas’ where no operator or public authority has deployed or plans to deploy a very high capacity network or has upgraded or extended their legacy network to a performance of at least 100 Mbps download speeds, or is planning to do so. They can publish the designated digital exclusion areas and organise a call for interest therein with a view to promote very high capacity network deployment in these difficult areas. Article 72 clarifies the circumstances in which pricing flexibility can be granted to SMP operators, without compromising competition. Pricing flexibility can be beneficial to investors in new networks, provided it does not impede downstream competition. Article 74, together with Annex IV, introduces provisions to facilitate commercial co-investment in new infrastructures and to draw the necessary regulatory consequences. The sharing of new network elements between an SMP network owner and access seekers entails a greater degree of risk sharing compared to traditional access products, and also can give a more durable basis for sustainable competition if appropriate conditions on the design of the co-investment are met. This should allow adaptation of regulated access, enabling all co-investors to benefit from first-mover advantages relative to other undertakings. The continued availability of regulated access products to non-participating undertakings, up to the capacity that was available prior to the investment, may still be appropriate. Article 77 offers a simplified regulatory model for wholesale-only networks with significant market power, limited to fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory access rules and subject to dispute resolution as necessary. The provisions require strict conditions for a network to be seen as truly ‘wholesale-only’, and may be particularly appropriate for local very high capacity networks, which might nevertheless be considered to have significant market power in the future. Article 76 provides clarifications on the process for voluntary separation, introducing legal certainty by way of commitments provided by the operator undergoing a process of separation. Finally, Article 78 clarifies the role of national regulators in accompanying SMP operators that migrate from legacy to new networks (e.g. when switching off legacy copper networks), as a means to further support the transition to new networks. Amendments related to spectrum management: Article 45 provides a clarification of the general objectives and principles to guide Member States when managing spectrum at national level. These address consistency and proportionality in authorisation procedures, the importance of ensuring appropriate coverage, timing considerations when making spectrum available, the prevention of cross-border or harmful interference, establishing the ‘use it or lose it’principle and fostering shared spectrum use as well as spectrum trading and leasing. The article also provides a mechanism for allowing temporary alternative use for harmonised spectrum subject to clearly defined conditions. Article 46 gives more prominence to general authorisations vs. individual licences as well as to shared use of spectrum in line with Union law, in order to ensure that national authorities prospectively develop the authorisation models most appropriate to 5G developments. It also provides for Commission powers to adopt binding measures to achieve consistency within different types of authorisation regimes. Article 47 defines authorisation conditions attached to a general authorisation for radio frequencies and their rights of use and provides for Commission implementing measures to achieve consistency as regards certain conditions, such as the criteria for defining and measuring coverage obligations, whose importance is strengthened as part of spectrum efficiency. It also puts an emphasis on obligations such as sharing infrastructure to improve end-users´ connectivity especially in less dense areas. Articles 48-54 target key aspects of spectrum authorisation with a view to enhancing consistency in Member States practice, such as (i) minimum licence durations (25 years); (ii) clear and simpler process for spectrum trading and leasing, (iii) objective criteria for consistent application based on competition law principles for measures to promote competition, such as spectrum caps, spectrum reservation for new entrants and wholesale access obligations; (iv) processes to improve consistency and predictability when granting and renewing individual spectrum usage rights; (v) clearer conditions for the restriction or withdrawal of existing rights, including by means of the ‘use it or lose it’ solution and strengthened enforcement roles for national authorities. These articles also provide for Commission powers to adopt measures to set common maximum deadlines for authorising the use of harmonised spectrum in all Member States and for coordinating the major elements of selection processes and setting criteria for their design. Articles 55 and 56 simplify conditions for access to Wi-Fi, to meet the exponential demand for connectivity and for the deployment and provisions of low-power wireless broadband access (small cells) to reduce costs of deploying very dense networks. Article 28 sets out a coordination obligation between Member States to address cross-border interferences problems, with the involvement of RSPG, accompanied by implementing powers for the Commission to adopt binding measures to resolve cross-border disputes taking the utmost account of the RSPG’s advice. The proposal confers on national regulators competences in respect of market and economic regulatory aspects of spectrum assignment for electronic communications services. They are also made competent for deciding on the imposition of exceptional measures on network/spectrum sharing and national roaming with a view to cover white connectivity spots. Natioanal regulators must base their action in this field on a sound economic and competitive analysis of the markets. In order to ensure the consistent application across the Union of assignment conditions which have an impact on economic, market and competitive conditions and thus on market functioning, Article 35 creates a peer review mechanism for BEREC to review the market and economic regulatory aspects of national draft spectrum assignments and issue non-binding opinions. Article 37 introduces a framework for Member States to facilitate voluntary pan-EU or multi-country assignment procedures. Amendments to the universal service regime: The proposal aims at modernising the universal service regime by removing the mandatory inclusion at EU level of legacy services (public payphones, comprehensive directories and directory enquiry services) from the scope and focusing on the basic universal service broadband, which would be defined by reference to a dynamic basic list of online services usable over a broadband connection. Member State intervention should focus on affordability of available connectivity rather than on the deployment of networks, for which better tools exist. Affordability of universal service must be ensured at least at a fixed location but Member States will have flexibility to extend affordability measures to mobile services too, for the most vulnerable users.

Article 79 lays down an obligation for Member States to ensure affordable access to all end-users to functional broadband internet access and voice communications services at least at a fixed location. In order to ensure affordability, Article 80 empowers Member States to require undertakings to have special tariff options for end-users identified as having low incomes or special social needs and/or to provide those end-users direct support and establishes a right to contract for consumers benefiting from special universal tariffs. While Member State intervention should focus on the affordability of available connectivity rather than on the deployment of networks, Article 81 allows a Member State to include the provision of connection at fixed location (availability) in the scope if it demonstrates that such connection cannot be ensured under normal commercial circumstances or through other public policy tools at its disposal. In recognition of the need for flexibility to tackle different national circumstances, Article 82 allows Member States to continue mandating at national level services that currently fall within the EU universal service obligation, such as pay phones, directories and directory inquiry services, if the need is duly demonstrated provided they adapt the financing regime too. Article 85 establishes that the universal service should be financed through the general budget and no longer through sectoral funding. Amendments to the services and end-user protection rules: In order to reflect the market and regulatory developments over the past years and the continued need for sector-specific rules, Article 2(4) redefines the term ‘electronic communications service’. It contains three types of service categories: (i) internet access service , (ii) interpersonal communications service, encompassing two sub-categories: i.e. one that is number-based and one that is number-independent, and (iii) services consisting wholly or mainly of the conveyance of signals, such as transmission services used for M2M communications and for broadcasting. Many end-user provisions will only apply to internet access services and to number-based interpersonal communications services. Number-independent interpersonal communications services will be subject only to obligations, where public policy interests require applying specific regulatory obligations to be applied to all types of interpersonal communications services, regardless of whether they use numbers. This relates in particular to security provisions (Article 40). Additionally, in the event of an actual threat to end-to-end connectivity or to effective access to emergency services, the Commission may identify a need for measures to ensure interoperability, for instance through the launch of a standardisation process. Such standards could be imposed by NRAs where necessary (Article 59) The proposal reduces the regulatory burden by lifting regulatory obligations where they are no longer needed or are adequately covered by general consumer law. One key example is the repeal of the power of national regulators to directly impose retail price regulation on SMP operators (repeal of article 17 of the Universal Service Directive). Also certain provisions on contracts, transparency, equivalence of access by disabled users, directory services and interoperability of consumer digital television equipment have been streamlined and partly deleted because of overlap with horizontal rules or other redundancies (Articles 95 -98, 103- 105). A limited number of new provisions are envisaged to address new challenges, e.g. better readability of contracts through a short-form summarising the essential contract information, the provision of consumption control tools to inform end-users about their current communications usage, enhanced provisions on price and quality comparison tools, switching rules for the rapidly increasing number of bundles to avoid lock-in effects (key sector-specific provisions, such as maximum contract duration and rights to contract termination, would apply to the entire bundle) and a provision prohibiting discrimination based on nationality or the country of residence (Articles 92, 95, 96, 98,- and 100). While there is a general maximum service contract period of 2 years, longer separate agreements with end-users are allowed as a means to facilitate reimbursement of contributions to the deployment of a physical connection and to support network roll-out through instalment-based contributions to network capital costs (the ‘demand aggregation’ approach), (Article 98). Amendments to numbering provisions: In order to address competition issues in the M2M market (most importantly, the lock-in with a given operator), the proposal allows national regulators to assign numbers to undertakings other than providers of electronic communications networks and services, without however requiring them to do so (Article 88). The same article also requires national regulators to determine certain numbering resources for the extraterritorial use of national numbers within the EU, as a means of responding to the increasing demand for such extraterritorial use of numbering resources in particular for M2M applications. As regards the rules for harmonised numbers for services of social value, the focus remains on the effective implementation of the missing children hotline (Article 90) while the overall framework for 116 numbers continues to be based on Commission Decision 2007/116/EC. Due to the lack of demand for the European Telephone Numbering Space over the past years the corresponding provision has been deleted (Article 27 of the Universal Service Directive). Amendments to emergency communications provisions: Legal clarity is brought about regarding access to emergency services by all number-based interpersonal communications service providers. The proposed provisions replace the existing Commission mandate to impose technical implementing measures by the power to adopt delegated acts to ensure effective access to the single European emergency number 112 with regards to caller location, call routing to the ‘public safety answering points’ and access for disabled end-users in a coherent way EU-wide. Such an approach ensures cross-border deployment and functioning of technical solutions for emergency communications (Article 102). Amendments to governance: Articles 5, 6 and 8 strengthen the role of independent national regulators by establishing a minimum set of competences for those regulators across the EU and enhance their independence requirements, by providing for appointment requirements and reporting obligations.

Article 12 introduces some changes as regards the procedure for general authorisation. Providers should submit notifications to BEREC, which should act as a single contact point and forward the notifications to relevant national regulatory authorities. BEREC should establish a register at EU level. Article 27 provides a procedure for resolution of cross-border disputes between undertakings, reinforcing BEREC's role by obliging national regulatory authority to consult BEREC. Article 33 provides a ‘double-lock’ system, in cases where BEREC and the Commission agree on their position regarding the draft remedies proposed by a national regulator and notified to the Commission and BEREC under Article 32. In such cases, the regulator could be required by the Commission to amend or withdraw the draft measure and, if necessary, to re-notify its market analysis to them. ê 2002/19/EC (adapted) 2016/0288 (COD) Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive) Ö establishing the European Electronic Communications Code Õ (Recast) (Text with EEA relevance) THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community Ö on the Functioning of the European Union Õ , and in particular Article 95 Ö 114 Õ thereof, Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission, After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments, Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee, Having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions, Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure,

Whereas: ê (1)Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council have been substantially amended. Since further amendments are to be made, those Directives should be recast in the interests of clarity. ê 2002/21/EC recital 1 (adapted) The current regulatory framework for telecommunications has been successful in creating the conditions for effective competition in the telecommunications sector during the transition from monopoly to full competition. ê 2002/21/EC recital 2 (adapted) On 10 November 1999, the Commission presented a communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions entitled ‘Towards a new framework for electronic communications infrastructure and associated services - the 1999 communications review’. In that communication, the Commission reviewed the existing regulatory framework for telecommunications, in accordance with its obligation under Article 8 of Council Directive 90/387/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the establishment of the internal market for telecommunications services through the implementation of open network provision . It also presented a series of policy proposals for a new regulatory framework for electronic communications infrastructure and associated services for public consultation. ê 2002/21/EC recital 3 (adapted) On 26 April 2000 the Commission presented a communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the results of the public consultation on the 1999 communications review and orientations for the new regulatory framework. The communication summarised the public consultation and set out certain key orientations for the preparation of a new framework for electronic communications infrastructure and associated services. ê 2002/21/EC recital 4 (adapted) The Lisbon European Council of 23 and 24 March 2000 highlighted the potential for growth, competitiveness and job creation of the shift to a digital, knowledge-based economy. In particular, it emphasised the importance for Europe's businesses and citizens of access to an inexpensive, world-class communications infrastructure and a wide range of services. ê 2009/136/EC recital 1 (adapted) ð new (2) The functioning of the five directives comprising Ö which are part of Õ the existing regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (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 (Access Directive) , 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 (Authorisation Directive) , Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) , Directive 2002/22/EC (Universal Service Directive) and Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council(Directive on privacy and electronic communications) (together referred to as ‘the Framework Directive and the Specific Directives’)) is subject to periodic review by the Commission, with a view, in particular, to determining the need for modification in the light of technological and market developments ð ï .

ò new (3)In the Digital Single Market strategy, the Commission outlined that the review of the telecoms framework will focus on measures that aim at incentivising investment in high-speed broadband networks, bring a more consistent single market approach to spectrum policy and management, deliver conditions for a true single market by tackling regulatory fragmentation, ensure a level playing field for all market players and consistent application of the rules, as well as provide a more effective regulatory institutional framework. (4)This Directive is part of a "Regulatory Fitness" exercise the scope of which includes four of the Directives (Framework, Authorisation, Access and Universal Service Directive) and a Regulation (BEREC Regulation). Each of the Directives currently contains measures applicable to providers of electronic communications networks and of electronic communications services, consistently with the regulatory history of the sector under which undertakings were vertically integrated i.e. active in both the provision of networks and of services. The review offers an occasion to recast the four directives in order to simplify the current structure, with a view to reinforcing its coherence and accessibility, consistently with the REFIT objective. It offers also the possibility to adapt the structure to the new market reality, where the provision of communications services is not any more necessarily bundled to the provision of a network. As provided in the Interinstitutional Agreement of 28 November 2001 on a more structured use of the recasting technique for legal acts, recasting consists in the adoption of a new legal act which incorporates in a single text both the substantive amendments which it makes to an earlier act and the unchanged provisions of that act. The proposal for recasting deals with the substantive amendments which it makes to an earlier act, and on a secondary level, it includes the codification of the unchanged provisions of the earlier act with those substantive amendments. ê 2002/20/EC recital 3 (adapted) (5)The objective of tThis Directive is to Ö should Õ create a legal framework to ensure the freedom to provide electronic communications networks and services, subject only to the conditions laid down in this Directive and to any restrictions in conformity with Article 46 Ö 52 Õ (1) of the Treaty, in particular measures regarding public policy, public security and public health. ê 2002/21/EC recital 7 (adapted) ð new (6)The provisions of this Directive and the Specific Directives are without prejudice to the possibility for each Member State to take the necessary measures ð justified on grounds set out in Articles 87 and 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, ï to ensure the protection of its essential security interests, to safeguard public policyð, public moralityï and public security, and to permit the investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences ê 2002/21/EC recital 5 (adapted) ð new (7)The convergence of the telecommunications, media and information technology sectors means Ö that Õ all transmission ð electronic communications ï networks and services should be covered Ö to the extent possible Õ by a single Ö European Electronic Communications Code established by a single Directive, with the exception of matters better dealt with through directly applicable rules established through regulations Õ regulatory framework. That regulatory framework consists of this Directive and four specific Directives: 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 (Authorisation Directive) , 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 (Access Directive) , Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) , Directive 97/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the telecommunications sector , (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Specific Directives’). It is necessary to separate the regulation of transmission ð electronic communications networks and services ï from the regulation of content. This framework Ö Code Õ does not therefore cover the content of services delivered over electronic communications networks using electronic communications services, such as broadcasting content, financial services and certain information society services, and is therefore without prejudice to measures taken at Community Ö Union Õ or national level in respect of such services, in compliance with Community Ö Union Õ law, in order to promote cultural and linguistic diversity and to ensure the defence of media pluralism. The content of television programmes is covered by Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council . ð The regulation of audiovisual policy and content aims at achieving general interest objectives, such as freedom of expression, media pluralism, impartiality, cultural and linguistic diversity, social inclusion, consumer protection and the protection of minors. ï The separation between the regulation of transmission ð electronic communications ï and the regulation of content does 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. ê 2002/21/EC recital 8 ð new (8)This Directive does not cover equipment within the scope of Directive 1999/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of March 1999 on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity ð affect the application to radio equipment of Directive 2014/53/EU ï , but does cover consumer equipment used for digital television.

ê 2009/140/EC recital 11 (adapted) ð new (9) In order to allow national regulatory authorities to meet the objectives set out in the Framework Ö this Õ Directive and the Specific Directives, in particular concerning end-to-end interoperability, the scope of the Framework Directive should be extended to cover certain aspects of radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment as defined in Directive 1999/5/EC 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 Ö Directive 2014/53/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council Õ and consumer equipment used for digital television, in order to facilitate access for disabled users. ð It is important for regulators to encourage network operators and equipment manufacturers to cooperate in order to facilitate access by disabled users to electronic communications services. The non-exclusive use of spectrum for the self-use of radio terminal equipment, although not related to an economic activity, should also be subject to this directive in order to guarantee a coordinated approach with regard to their authorisation regime. ï ê 2002/21/EC recital 6 (adapted) Audiovisual policy and content regulation are undertaken in pursuit of general interest objectives, such as freedom of expression, media pluralism, impartiality, cultural and linguistic diversity, social inclusion, consumer protection and the protection of minors. The Commission communication ‘Principles and guidelines for the Community's audio-visual policy in the digital age’, and the Council conclusions of 6 June 2000 welcoming this communication, set out the key actions to be taken by the Community to implement its audio-visual policy. ê 2002/22/EC recital 50 (adapted) The provisions of this Directive do not prevent a Member State from taking measures justified on grounds set out in Articles 30 and 46 of the Treaty , and in particular on grounds of public security, public policy and public morality. ê 2002/21/EC recital 9 (adapted) Information society services are covered 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) . ê 2002/21/EC recital 10 (adapted) ð new (10)The definition of ‘information society service’ in Article 1 of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules of information society services spans a wide range of economic activities which take place on-line. Most of these activities are not covered by the scope of this Directive because they do not consist wholly or mainly in the conveyance of signals on electronic communications networks. ð Certain electronic communications services under this Directive could also fulfil the definition of ‘information society service’ in Article 1 of Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services. The provisions governing Information Society Services apply to those electronic communications services to the extent that there are not more specific provisions applicable to electronic communications services in this Directive or in other Union acts. ï Ö However, electronic communications services such as Õ Vvoice telephony, ð messaging services ï and electronic mail conveyance services are covered by this Directive. The same undertaking, for example an Internet service provider, can offer both an electronic communications service, such as access to the Internet, and services not covered under this Directive, such as the provision of web-based ð and not communications-related ï content. ê 2002/20/EC recital 20 (11)The same undertaking, for example a cable operator, can offer both an electronic communications service, such as the conveyance of television signals, and services not covered under this Directive, such as the commercialisation of an offer of sound or television broadcasting content services, and therefore additional obligations can be imposed on this undertaking in relation to its activity as a content provider or distributor, according to provisions other than those of this Directive, without prejudice to the list of conditions laid in the Annex I to this Directive.

ò new (12)The regulatory framework should cover the use of radio spectrum by all electronic communications networks, including the emerging self-use of radio spectrum by new types of networks consisting exclusively of autonomous systems of mobile radio equipment that is connected via wireless links without a central management or centralised network operator, and not necessarily within the exercise of any specific economic activity. In the developing fifth generation mobile communications environment, such networks are likely to develop in particular outside buildings and on the roads, for transport, energy, R&D, eHealth, public protection and disaster relief, Internet of Things, machine-to-machine and connected cars. As a result, the application by Member States, based on Article 7 of Directive 2014/53/EU, of additional national requirements regarding the putting into service or use of such radio equipment, or both, in relation to the effective and efficient use of spectrum and avoidance of harmful interference should reflect the principles of the internal market. (13)The requirements concerning the capabilities of electronic communications networks are constantly increasing. While in the past the focus was mainly on growing bandwidth available overall and to each individual user, other parameters like latency, availability and reliability are becoming increasingly important. The current response towards this demand is bringing optical fibre closer and closer to the user and future 'very high capacity networks' will require performance parameters which are equivalent to what a network based on optical fibre elements at least up to the distribution point at the serving location can deliver. This corresponds in the fixed-line connection case to network performance equivalent to what is achievable by an optical fibre installation up to a multi-dwelling building, considered as the serving location, and in the mobile connection case to network performance similar to what is achievable based on an optical fibre installation up to the base station, considered as the serving location. Variations in end-users' experience which are due to the different characteristics of the medium by which the network ultimately connects with the network termination point should not be taken into account for the purposes of establishing whether or not a wireless network could be considered as providing similar network performance. In accordance with the principle of technological neutrality, other technologies and transmission media should not be excluded, where they compare with this baseline scenario in terms of their capabilities. The roll-out of such 'very high capacity networks' will further increase the capabilities of networks and pave the way for the roll-out of future mobile network generations based on enhanced air interfaces and a more densified network architecture. ê 2009/136/EC recital 13 (adapted) ð new (14)Definitions need to be adjusted so as to conform to the principle of technology neutrality and to keep pace with technological development. ð Technological and market evolution has brought networks to move to internet protocol technology, and enabled end-users to choose between a range of competing voice service providers. Therefore, the term 'publicly available telephone service', exclusively used in Directive 2002/22/EC and widely perceived as referring to traditional analogue telephone services should be replaced by the more current and technological neutral term 'voice communications'. ï In particular,cConditions for the provision of a service should be separated from the actual definitional elements of a publicly available telephone Ö voice communications Õ service, i.e. an electronic communications service made available to the public for originating and receiving, directly or indirectly, national or national and international calls through a number or numbers in a national or international telephone numbering plan, whether such a service is based on circuit switching or packet switching technology. It is the nature of such a service that it is bidirectional, enabling both the parties to communicate. A service which does not fulfil all these conditions, such as for example a ‘click-through’ application on a customer service website, is not Ö such Õ a publicly available telephone service. Publicly available telephone Ö Voice communications Õ services also include means of communication specifically intended for disabled end-users using text relay or total conversation services. ò new (15)The services used for communications purposes, and the technical means of their delivery, have evolved considerably. End-users increasingly substitute traditional voice telephony, text messages (SMS) and electronic mail conveyance services by functionally equivalent online services such as Voice over IP, messaging services and web-based e-mail services. In order to ensure that end-users are effectively and equally protected when using functionally equivalent services, a future-oriented definition of electronic communications services should not be purely based on technical parameters but rather build on a functional approach. The scope of necessary regulation should be appropriate to achieve its public interest objectives. While "conveyance of signals" remains an important parameter for determining the services falling into the scope of this Directive, the definition should cover also other services that enable communication. From an end-user's perspective it is not relevant whether a provider conveys signals itself or whether the communication is delivered via an internet access service. The amended definition of electronic communications services should therefore contain three types of services which may partly overlap, that is to say internet access services according to the definition in Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) 2015/2120, interpersonal communications services as defined in this Directive, and services consisting wholly or mainly in the conveyance of signals. The definition of electronic communications service should eliminate ambiguities observed in the implementation of the previous definition and allow a calibrated provision-by-provision application of the specific rights and obligations contained in the framework to the different types of services. The processing of personal data by electronic communications services, whether as remuneration or otherwise, must be in compliance with Directive 95/46/EC which will be replaced by Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation) on 25 May 2018. (16)In order to fall within the scope of the definition of electronic communications service, a service needs to be provided normally in exchange for remuneration. In the digital economy, market participants increasingly consider information about users as having a monetary value. Electronic communications services are often supplied against counter-performance other than money, for instance by giving access to personal data or other data. The concept of remuneration should therefore encompass situations where the provider of a service requests and the end-user actively provides personal data, such as name or email address, or other datadirectly or indirectly to the provider. It should also encompass situations where the provider collects information without the end-user actively supplying it, such as personal data, including the IP address, or other automatically generated information, such as information collected and transmitted by a cookie). In line with the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union on Article 57 TFEU, remuneration exists within the meaning of the Treaty also if the service provider is paid by a third party and not by the service recipient. The concept of remuneration should therefore also encompass situations where the end-user is exposed to advertisements as a condition for gaining access to the service, or situations where the service provider monetises personal data it has collected. (17)Interpersonal communications services are services that enable interpersonal and interactive exchange of information, covering services like traditional voice calls between two individuals but also all types of emails, messaging services, or group chats. Interpersonal communications services only cover communications between a finite, that is to say not potentially unlimited, number of natural persons which is determined by the sender of the communication. Communications involving legal persons should be within the scope of the definition where natural persons act on behalf of those legal persons or are involved at least on one side of the communication. Interactive communication entails that the service allows the recipient of the information to respond. Services which do not meet those requirements, such as linear broadcasting, video on demand, websites, social networks, blogs, or exchange of information between machines, should not be considered as interpersonal communications services. Under exceptional circumstances, a service should not be considered as an interpersonal communications service if the interpersonal and interactive communication facility is a purely ancillary feature to another service and for objective technical reasons cannot be used without that principal service, and its integration is not a means to circumvent the applicability of the rules governing electronic communications services. An example for such an exception could be, in principle, a communication channel in online games, depending on the features of the communication facility of the service. (18)Interpersonal communications services using numbers from a national and international telephone numbering plan connect with the public (packet or circuit) switched telephone network. Those number-based interpersonal communications services comprise both services to which end-users numbers are assigned for the purpose of ensuring end-to-end connectivity and services enabling end-users to reach persons to whom such numbers have been assigned. The mere use of a number as an identifier should not be considered equivalent to the use of a number to connect with the public switched telephone network, and should therefore, in itself, not be considered sufficient to qualify a service as a number-based interpersonal communications service. Number-independent interpersonal communications services should be subject only to obligations, where public interests require applying specific regulatory obligations to all types of interpersonal communications services, regardless of whether they use numbers for the provision of their service. It is justified to treat number-based interpersonal communications services differently, as they participate in and hence also benefit from a publicly assured interoperable ecosystem. ê 2002/22/EC recital 6 (adapted) ð new (19)The network termination point represents a boundary for regulatory purposes between the regulatory framework for electronic communication Ö communications Õ networks and services and the regulation of telecommunication terminal equipment. Defining the location of the network termination point is the responsibility of the national regulatory authority, where necessary on the basis of a proposal by the relevant undertakings. ð In the light of the practice of national regulatory authorities, and given the variety of fixed and wireless topologies, the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (ʻBERECʼ) should, in close cooperation with the Commission, adopt guidelines on how to identify the network termination point, in accordance with this Directive, in various concrete circumstances. ï ò new (20)Technical developments make it possible for end-users to access emergency services not only by voice calls but also by other interpersonal communications services. The concept of emergency communication should therefore cover all those interpersonal communications services that allow such emergency services access. It builds on the emergency system elements already enshrined in Union legislation, namely 'Public Safety Answering Point' ('PSAP') and 'most appropriate PSAP', and on 'emergency services'.

ê 2002/21/EC recital 16 (adapted) ð new (21)National regulatory ð and other competent ï authorities should have a harmonised set of objectives and principles to underpin Ö their work Õ , and should, where necessary, coordinate their actions with the regulatory authorities of other Member States ð and with BEREC ï in carrying out their tasks under this regulatory framework. ê 2002/21/EC recital 17 (adapted) ð new (22)The activities of national regulatory ð competent ï authorities established under this Directive and the Specific Directives contribute to the fulfilment of broader policies in the areas of culture, employment, the environment, social cohesion and town and country planning. ò new (23)In order to translate the political aims of the Digital Single Market strategy into regulatory terms, the framework should, in addition to the existing three primary objectives of promoting competition, internal market and end-user interests, pursue an additional connectivity objective, articulated in terms of outcomes: widespread access to and take-up of very high capacity fixed and mobile connectivity for all Union citizens and businesses on the basis of reasonable price and choice, enabled by effective and fair competition, by efficient investment and open innovation, by efficient use of spectrum, by common rules and predictable regulatory approaches in the internal market and by the necessary sector-specific rules to safeguard the interests of citizens. For the Member States, the national regulatory authorities and other competent authorities and the stakeholders, that connectivity objective translates on the one hand into aiming for the highest capacity networks and services economically sustainable in a given area, and on the other hand into pursuing territorial cohesion, in the sense of convergence in capacity available in different areas. ê 2002/21/EC recital 18 (adapted) ð new (24)The requirement for Ö principle that Õ Member States to ð should apply EU law in a technologically neutral fashion ï ensure that national regulatory authorities take the utmost account of the desirability of making regulation technologically neutral, that is to say that Ö a national regulatory Õ ð or other competent ï Ö authority Õ it neither imposes nor discriminates in favour of the use of a particular type of technology, does not preclude the taking of proportionate steps to promote certain specific services where this is justified in ð order to attain the objectives of the regulatory framework ï , for example digital television as a means for increasing spectrum efficiency. ð Furthermore, it does not preclude taking into account that certain transmission media have physical characteristics and architectural features that can be superior in terms of quality of service, capacity, maintenance cost, energy efficiency, management flexibility, reliability, robustness and scalability, and ultimately in terms of performance, which can be reflected in actions taken in view of pursuing the various regulatory objectives. ï ê 2009/140/EC recital 53 (25)Both efficient investment and competition should be encouraged in tandem, in order to increase economic growth, innovation and consumer choice. ê 2009/140/EC recital 54

(26)Competition can best be fostered through an economically efficient level of investment in new and existing infrastructure, complemented by regulation, wherever necessary, to achieve effective competition in retail services. An efficient level of infrastructure-based competition is the extent of infrastructure duplication at which investors can reasonably be expected to make a fair return based on reasonable expectations about the evolution of market shares. ê 2009/140/EC recital 8 (adapted) ð new (27)In order to achieve the goals of the Lisbon Agenda,iIt is necessary to give appropriate incentives for investment in new Ö very Õ high-speed ð capacity ï networks that will support innovation in content-rich Internet services and strengthen the international competitiveness of the European Union. Such networks have enormous potential to deliver benefits to consumers and businesses across the European Union. It is therefore vital to promote sustainable investment in the development of these new networks, while safeguarding competition and boosting consumer choice through regulatory predictability and consistency. ê 2009/140/EC recital 5 (adapted) (28)The aim is progressively to reduce ex ante sector-specific rules as competition in the markets develops and, ultimately, for electronic communications to be governed by competition law only. Considering that the markets for electronic communications have shown strong competitive dynamics in recent years, it is essential that ex ante regulatory obligations only be imposed where there is no effective and sustainable competition Ö on the retail markets concerned Õ . ò new (29)Electronic communications are becoming essential for an increasing number of sectors. The Internet of Things is an illustration of how the radio signal conveyance underpinning electronic communications continues to evolve and shape societal and business reality. To derive the greatest benefit from those developments, the introduction and accommodation of new wireless communications technologies and applications in spectrum management is essential. As other technologies and applications relying on spectrum are equally subject to growing demand, and can be enhanced by integration of or combination with electronic communications, spectrum management should adopt, where appropriate, a cross-sectorial approach to improve spectrum usage efficiency. ê 2009/140/EC recital 28 (adapted) ð new (30)Although spectrum management remains within the competence of the Member States, sStrategic planning, coordination and, where appropriate, harmonisation at Community Ö Union Õ level can help ensure that spectrum users derive the full benefits of the internal market and that EU Ö Union Õ interests can be effectively defended globally. For these purposes, where appropriate, legislative multiannual radio spectrum policy programmes should Ö may Õ be established Ö adopted Õ ð , with the first one defined by Decision No 243/2012/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, ï Ö setting Õ to set out the policy orientations and objectives for the strategic planning and harmonisation of the use of radio spectrum in the Community Ö Union Õ. These policy orientations and objectives may refer to the availability and efficient use of radio spectrum necessary for the establishment and functioning of the internal market Ö , in accordance with this Directive Õ and may also refer, in appropriate cases, to the harmonisation of procedures for the granting of general authorisations or individual rights of use for radio frequencies where necessary to overcome barriers to the internal market. These policy orientations and objectives should be in accordance with this Directive and the Specific Directives. ê 2009/140/EC recital 32 (adapted) ð new (31)The current spectrum management and distribution system is generally based on administrative decisions that are insufficiently flexible to cope with technological and economic evolution, in particular with the rapid development of wireless technology and the increasing demand for bandwidth. Ö National borders are increasingly irrelevant in determining optimal radio spectrum use. Õ The uUndue fragmentation amongst national policies ð regarding the management of radio spectrum, including unjustified different conditions for access to, and use of, radio spectrum according to the type of operator, may ï results in increased costs and lost market opportunities for spectrum users., and Ö It may Õ slows down innovation, ð limit investment, reduce economies of scale for manufacturers and operators as well as create tensions between rights holders and discrepancies in the cost of access to spectrum. This fragmentation may overall result in a distortion of the functioning ï to the detriment of the internal market, Ö and prejudice to Õ consumers and the economy as a whole. Moreover, the conditions for access to, and use of, radio frequencies may vary according to the type of operator, while electronic services provided by these operators increasingly overlap, thereby creating tensions between rights holders, discrepancies in the cost of access to spectrum, and potential distortions in the functioning of the internal market.

ê 2009/140/EC recital 33 (adapted) 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 sp