Executive Summary Sheet

Impact assessment on the review of the regulatory framework for electronic communications

A. Need for action

Why? What is the problem?

Over the past few years, the role of the electronic communications sector as an enabler of the online economy has significantly increased. Consumers and businesses are increasingly relying on data and internet access services instead of traditional telephone services. This means that the sector needs to contribute to meeting increasing user demand and socio-economic needs and to react to new internet-based competitors. The review of the regulatory framework can help address these issues. The public consultation, the impact assessment support study, the evaluation of the current regulatory framework and the continuous dialogue with stakeholders, helped identify three sets of problems. They are (i) the obstacles to unconstrained connectivity by means of ubiquitous, very-high-capacity (VHC) fixed and mobile infrastructures for a digital single market, (ii) the fitness of the framework to deal with rapid market and technological changes and (iii) regulatory redundancies and inefficiencies and a lack of coherence, resulting in unnecessary administrative burdens.

What is the review expected to achieve?

The general objective of the review is to ensure that the pro-competitive framework leads to ubiquitous unconstrained connectivity as the basis for a digital single market. This means introducing a new VHC connectivity objective in addition to the existing ones relating to competition, the internal market and end-user interests. The analysis carried out identified three specific objectives for the review that are related to the general one. The first is to contribute to ubiquitous connectivity in the internal market. The second is to promote competition and user choice in the internal market. The third is to simplify the regulatory intervention and to achieve internal market coherence. The internal market remains an objective of the framework and underpins each objective of the review. A number of potential synergies and trade-offs between objectives have also been identified.

What is the added value of EU action?

Developing common and consistent regulatory approaches and sharing regulatory knowledge and resources can achieve better regulatory results at a lower cost for the whole EU, especially in areas of regulation with a cross-border dimension. Improvements to the framework to respond to today’s challenges and future market developments can benefit Member States, as VHC connectivity networks become available in the EU. While there must be some flexibility to adapt to local circumstances, national regulators will only best be able to achieve their expanded objectives by cooperating with each other and with the Commission to devise the best solutions to similar problems.

B. Solutions

What legislative and non-legislative policy options have been considered? Is there a preferred option or not? Why?

All areas considered have a preferred option. The preferred option for access to networks is the roll-out of VHC networks while preserving access regulation of dominant market players to ensure competitive markets and end-user take-up. The preferred option for spectrum involves binding and enforceable enhanced coordination of spectrum management to adapt to 5G needs in the EU. The preferred option for universal service brings it into line with market trends and broadband affordability. The preferred option for services streamlines sector-specific regulatory needs, taking into account developments in horizontal consumer protection legislation. It also links regulation mainly to the provision of internet access service and communications services relying on the use of public numbering resources, with a targeted extension of specific regulatory obligations to all internet-based communications services on the grounds of end-user protection and public policy interests. The preferred option for must-carry rules and obligations for electronic programme guides (EPG) is to leave matters as they are, with only some slight changes. The preferred option for numbering is to modify the EU framework in order to address harmonisation and competition issues on the machine-to-machine market. The preferred option for governance is to amend the competences of independent regulators and change the current structure of BEREC to make it a fully-fledged agency with more tasks, including the exercise of certain powers and better market review, numbering and spectrum assignment processes. The Radio Spectrum Policy Group (RSPG) will continue to be an EC Expert Group advisory body articulating and coordinating national administrations’ views on high-level strategy issues in spectrum policy and related developments.

Who supports which option?