COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER Summary of responses to the public consultation on universal service principlesin e-communications
Date: 2011-11-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Internet, consumer protection, regulation of telecommunications, telematics, telephone, universal service

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 23.11.2011 
SEC(2011) 1398 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

Summary of responses to the public consultation on universal service principles 
in e-communications 

Accompanying the document 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

Universal service in e-communications: report on the outcome of the public consultation 
and the third periodic review of the scope in accordance with Article 15 of Directive 
2002/22/EC 

{COM(2011) 795 final} 

 
 
 
 
  
 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Summary of responses to the public consultation on universal service principles  
in e-communications 

Accompanying document to the 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

Universal service in e-communications: report on the outcome of the public consultation 
and the third periodic review of the scope in accordance with Article 15 of Directive 
2002/22/EC 

1. 

OVERVIEW 

The Commission held a public consultation on future universal service principles in the area 
of  electronic  communications  networks  and  services  from  March  to  May  2010.  A  public 
workshop was held on 30 March 2010, attended by over 200 people.  

A  total  of  149  contributions  were  received.  21 %  came  from  national  and  regional 
governments,  NRAs  and  other  public  or  semi-public  bodies,  12 %  from  organisations 
representing consumer and user interests, trade unions and people with disabilities, 13 % from 
private citizens, 26 % from business organisations and 28 % from communications operators, 
service  providers,  manufacturers  and  other  companies.  The  various  responses  to  the 
consultation  illustrate  the  wide  debate  on  universal  service  in  electronic  communications. 
Views are diverse, ranging from calls for the phasing out of the relevant EU rules to arguing 
for harmonised universal service obligations ("USO")across the EU. 

2. 

ISSUES COVERED 

2.1.  The concept of universal service (Questions 1 and 2) 

Most  respondents  considered  that  USO  should  continue  to  act  as  a  safety-net.  Several 
consumer  organisations  argued,  however,  that  USO  should  become  a  pro-active  tool  in  the 
context of broadband. National administrations tended to prefer no fundamental changes. By 
contrast,  respondents  from  the  industry  argued  that  market  forces  made  the  competitive 
provision of e-communications services ubiquitous and affordable, thereby contributing more 
to their universality than any USO. Accordingly, there would be a need for a major reform or 
phasing out of the current regime. 

2.2.  The  role  of  universal  service  in  meeting  the  ‘broadband  for  all’  objective 
(Questions 3 and 4) 

On  this  question  many  governments  were  cautious,  arguing  that  competition  could  be 
adversely  affected  if  USO  could  realistically  only  be  met  by  cross-subsidisation  of  the 
incumbent by other market players. Some governments thought, though, that USO might have 
a complementary role in this respect. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
Many  consumer  organisations  argued  that  internet  had  become  utility-like  and  a  broadband 
connection  was  increasingly  needed  for  online  services  in  everyday  life.  USO  should 
therefore  become  a  tool  at  EU  level  to  bring  broadband  or  very  high-speed  internet  to  all. 
Several  respondents  highlighted  the  need  to  drive  internet  take-up  and  to  address  digital 
literacy and access to skills and terminals. Disability organisations argued that internet access 
for the disabled was hampered by inaccessible services and unaffordable technologies.  

Both  incumbents  and  new  entrants  stressed  that  while  the  EU’s  broadband  coverage  targets 
deserved  support,  USO  were  not  the  right  tool  to  achieve  them  because  of  their  impact  on 
investment, innovation and employment (due to the levies imposed on operators). Measures 
supporting the commercial provision of broadband (e.g. releasing spectrum and targeted State 
less  market-distorting.  New  entrants  saw  rigorous 
aid)  were  more  efficient  and 
implementation  of  the  EU’s  pro-competitive  framework,  complemented  by  wireless 
technologies, as the way forward. 

Mobile  operators  argued  that  in  the  absence  of  market  demand,  mandating  broadband  as  a 
USO  would  not  make  it  more  widely  available,  but  would  lead  to  market  distortions  by 
influencing the mix of technologies and service providers on the market. The satellite industry 
stated  that  the  EU  should  reaffirm  its  commitment  to  the  objective  of  ‘broadband  for  all’, 
rather than invoking USO for this purpose. 

2.3.  Balance between a coordinated EU response and national flexibility (Questions 5 
and 6) 

National administrations generally welcomed their increased flexibility in defining functional 
internet access although some called for more legal certainty and others for further flexibility. 
A few governments argued that a target or minimum level for basic broadband could be set at 
EU  level  in  the  future.  Others  thought  that  increased  EU  harmonisation  could  distort 
competition  and  deter  investment,  or  would  not  take  enough  account  of  national 
circumstances.  

The  Body  for  European  Regulators  in  Electronic  Communications    underlined  the  need  for 
national flexibility, as a common EU approach would probably result in higher costs for users 
and negative effects on competition, investment and markets. 

Many  operators  expressed  concern  over  legal  certainty  regarding  Recital  5  CRD  and  called 
for  further  guidance.  Some  consumer  organisations  saw  a  need  for  national  flexibility 
regarding broadband speeds, while calling for more clarity in this respect. 

2.4. 

Financing (Questions 7 and 8) 

Most  governments  favoured  maintaining  the  current  financing  regime  (allowing  both  tax-
based and sectoral funding) while some argued that public funding should be considered only 
as  a  supplementary  measure.  Views  varied  on  the  financing  of  USO  associated  with 
broadband. A few administrations considered that given the benefits of ubiquitous broadband, 
other  funding  methods,  e.g.  contributions  beyond  the  telecoms  sector  or  increased  use  of 
public funding, could be considered in the future.  

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
Several market players argued that the EU broadband targets constituted economic and social 
policies that should be funded via general taxation, if needed, and not through a sectoral fund. 
This view was generally shared by business users, as services provided over broadband would 
be mostly non-telecoms services.  

In  particular,  incumbents  argued  that  USO  represent  an  unfair  indirect  tax  on  operators  and 
their  customers.  Both  incumbents  and  new  entrants  argued  that  the  current  financing  and 
costing provisions were being implemented in a fragmented way, with undertakings finding it 
difficult to obtain compensation.  

Some  consumer  organisations  thought  that  USO  should  in  general  be  funded  by  the  sector, 
while in the context of broadband roll-out, public funding would be the best way forward. 

EN 

4 

   EN