WRITTEN QUESTION E-1643/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(12 June 2001)

Subject: Abrupt imposition of implausibly explained charges by Netherlands KPN telephone company for voice-mail reception

1. Is the Commission aware that in 1998 KPN, the biggest telephone company in the Netherlands, offered its subscribers a free voicemail connection, only to announce, at the beginning of May 2001, that it would be imposing separate charges, as from 10 May, for listening to every incoming voicemail?

2. Does the Commission consider the short period of notice between announcing and imposing the increased charges as compatible with Article 17(5) of Telecommunications Directive 98/10/EC(1) of 26 February 1998, which lays down a substantial period of notice?

3. Does the Commission share the assumption that a better explanation for these charges can be found by looking at KPN's need to cover its high expenditure on the recent purchase of major interests in Germany (E-Plus and UMTS frequencies, together costing 17 billion), as opposed to the cost of providing voicemail, not least because users very often ring back in response to receiving a voicemail message, with the result that the telephone company's outgoings and income will tend to balance each other out?

4. Is the provider of telephone services under an obligation, in the event of any such increase in charges, to take active steps (in particular by publishing information about procedures to be followed and stating a deadline) to provide subscribers in good time with the opportunity to deactivate their voicemail option so that they will not be forced to incur higher costs as a consequence of retaining their connection?

5. Is the Commission also aware that the action described in question 1 is being justified by an appeal to technical innovations which most subscribers will never use, viz. forwarding voice messages to e-mail and fax?

6. Does the Commission consider the circumstances referred to in question 5 as being compatible with Article 17(4) of Telecommunications Directive 98/10/EC, which stipulates that no payment may be demanded of subscribers for facilities not required for the service requested?

7. What further action will the Commission take, in response to this question, both to correct infringements of the directive concerned and to prevent any repeat of such practices for the purpose of increasing charges, or imitation by others?

(1) OJ L 101, 1.4.1998, p. 24.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 2001)

The Commission is indeed aware that KPN has been offering its subscribers the choice of free voicemail since 1998, and also that KPN has been imposing charges for listening to incoming voicemail messages since May 2001.

In his question, the Honourable Member refers to the provisions of Article 17(4) and 17(5) of one of the directives of the telecommunication legislative framework, Directive 98/10/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 1998 on the application of open network provision (ONP) and on universal service for telecommunications in a competitive environment (the New Voice Telephony Directive).

The (voicemail) service described is not covered by the scope of the New Voice Telephony Directive. Article 2, paragraph 3, under b) of this Directive indicates what is included in the term publicly available telephone services for the purposes of the Directive, setting out a list of services that fall under the scope of this Directive. The voicemail service, described above, cannot be considered as included in this list. The article also clearly states that fixed public telephony services do not include value added services provided over the public telephone network. As a consequence the voicemail service is not regulated by the European telecommunications framework.

The voicemail service that KPN has offered since 1998 should therefore be classified as a commercial service, which is fully open to competitive forces. The fact that KPN has set a price on this service could indicate the opening up of possibilities for other operators to offer competitive prices, which would mean more choice for the consumer.

Considering the above, the Commission does not see the need, nor does it have the competence on the basis of the applicable legislative framework, to take action.