Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

**COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES**

Brussels, 21.05.1997
COM(97) 203 final

#### **Communication from the Commission** **to the European Parliament and the Council** **regarding the consultation on the Green Paper on** **a Numbering Policy for Telecommunications Services in Europe**

_**r4S**_
_**L**_

**it.**

#### **Communication from the Commission** **to the European Parliament and the Council** **regarding the consultation on the Green Paper on** **a Numbering Policy for Telecommunications Services in Europe**

_Table of contents_

Summary 2

I Introduction 5

II Consultation process 6

III Comments received on main points of the green paper

1. General remarks 7

2. Carrier selection / carrier pre-selection 7
3. Number portability 11
4. Restructuring of national numbering plans 14
5. European Telephony Numbering Space 15
6. Administration of European numbering space 16
7. Long-term European numbering plan 16
8. Alphanumeric dialling 17
9. Naming and addressing in the Internet 17

IV Evaluation

1. Issues of general consensus or major support 19
2. Issues for further discussion or study 20

V Priorities for action

1. Numbering and ensuring effective competition 22
2. Numbering and the internal market 25

VI Timetable 2 8

VII Conclusions 30

Glossary
List of written contributions 33

_**M**_

**SUMMARY**

**Introduction**

In November 1996 the Commission published its Green Paper on a Numbering
Policy for Telecommunications Services in Europe [1], presenting various options for a
common approach towards certain numbering issues in order to reach the agreed
goals of a competitive and liberalised single telecommunications market. A broad
public consultation on these options was intended to provide the input for a more
concrete plan of action, closely following the needs and demands of residential and
business customers and new entrants in the telecommunications market while taking
account of any constraints within existing telecommunications structures.

More than 100 participants attended a public hearing and around 80 written comments
were received from residential and business users associations, telecommunications
network and service providers, equipment and software manufacturers and national
regulatory authorities and from their respective associations.

The Green paper has also been put on the agenda of the European Parliament's
Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, the Economic and Social Committee
and the Committee of the Regions. Initial exchanges of view took place in these fora
but formal opinions have not been adopted yet.

The Joint Committee on Telecommunications, consisting of management and trade
unions of telecommunications network and service providers within the Union,
issued an opinion on 28 February.

**The outcome of** **the** **consultation**

flie consultation has demonstrated wide support for the Green Paper proposals to
introduce call-by-call carrier selection, carrier pre-selection and operator number
portability in order to enable the customer to benefit from a new competitive market.
The comments also provided a useful basis to determine the most appropriate service
and service provider coverage for the mandatory requirement of these numbering
features, as well as clear indications concerning the timetable for their introduction.

Moreover, the outcome of the consultation showed a strong emphasis on the need for
national numbering plans to allow equal quantitative and qualitative access to
numbering resources for all market players. This was generally felt to be a key
requirement for non-discriminatory access to the liberalised telecommunication
markets.

COM(96)590 final, 20.11.1996

There was broad agreement on the establishment of a European Telephony
Numbering Space on the basis of the '388' country code as soon as feasible after the
formal designation of this code for pan-European services by the International
Telecommunications Union (ITU). There should be a broad coverage of various
service types under this code, while ensuring transparency for the user as to the tariffs
of the various services. Suggestions for the management of the European Telephony
Numbering Space pointed in the direction of a structure within CEPT (Conférence
Européenne des Postes et Telecommunications) / ECTRA (European Committee of
Telecommunications Regulatory Affairs).

There was support for medium term convergence of national numbering plans to the
extent that this would not require major additional changes in numbering plans. A
common approach to alphanumeric dialling on the basis of ITU -T Recommendation
I:. 161, Option A, on this issue, was widely welcomed. It was generally felt that the
idea of a long term numbering plan for a unified European Numbering environment
would require further study, especially regarding cost / benefit analysis, and should
be seen in a 10 to 20 years perspective.

The analysis of issues regarding naming and addressing within the Internet was
confirmed, but most respondents felt that any problems could be solved through
further self regulation rather than by regulatory intervention. Nevertheless, it was felt
that representation of European interests required improvement.

**Proposed targets**

On the basis of the consultation the Commission considers as appropriate the
following targets for the introduction of carrier selection, carrier pre-selection and
number portability and for the establishment of the European Telephony Numbering
Space :

**by** **1** **January** **1998:**

- call-by-call carrier selection to be offered by all fixed local access providers with
significant market power in all Member States where full liberalisation is required
by that date and in Member States where additional transition periods have been
agreed, by the end of that period.

**by 1 January 1999** :

 - establishment of a European Telephony Numbering Space on the basis of country

code '388'

**by 1 January 2000:**

 - carrier pre-selection for the user to be offered by all fixed local access providers
with significant market po'wer in all Member States

**•** **c** [operator] [ number portability to be offered by all fixed local access providers ]

- number portability to be offered by all operators for non-geographic special service
numbers (freephone, shared costs, premium rate services)

**4**

**Action plan**
As a follow-up to the consultation and in order to reach the above targets, the
Commission proposes the following timetable for action :

by mid 1997 Adoption of resolutions by Council and the European Parliament
confirming the priorities and timetable for action which have
emerged from the consultation

Commission review of national numbering plans in view of
requirements of the full competition Directive

by end 1997 Proposal for appropriate legislative measures to ensure the
availability of facilities for carrier pre-selection and number
portability throughout the internal market by 1 January 2000.

ETO report with detailed description of national numbering plans

Adoption of ETSI standard concerning alphanumerical key pads

Launch studies on 1 ) possible minimum criteria and standardisation
requirements in view of a long term number portability solution and
2) alternative, on-screen/on-line means for tariff information for
the user

by end 1998 Examine possible extension of carrier selection and number
portability requirements to mobile operators.

by early 1999 Appropriate legislative measures to be adopted to ensure the
availability of facilities for carrier pre-selection and number
portability throughout the internal market by 1 January 2000

Member States to implement '388' for the European Telephony
Numbering Space

Commission to issue common guidelines on fair and procompetitive arrangements for sharing costs of number portability

Commission recommendations on further restructuring of national
numbering plans in view of competition requirements and gradual
convergence between national numbering schemes

by end 1999 Examine desirability of extension of carrier selection requirements
tofixed local access providers without significant market power.

early 2000 Further study, in the light of experience with a liberalised single
market in telecommunications and with the ETNS, of need for and
costs / benefits of unified European numbering environment.

**I.** **INTRODUCTION**

With the emergence of a liberalised telecommunications market within the European
Union, the availability of adequate numbers and appropriate numbering mechanisms,
allocated and designed on a fair, transparent and non-discriminatory basis, is an
essential condition for effective competition, innovation and consumer choice.

Moreover, the outline of the European numbering environment, at present composed
of national numbering plans and additional global numbering resources, is likely to
have a significant impact on the opportunities for the development of pan-European
services within a single market.

Numbering policies determining or affecting the European numbering environment
are currently developed at the national, the Community, the wider European and the
global levels and in several different organisational frameworks. This practice is
consistent with the principle of subsidiarity which requires measures to be taken at
the most appropriate level.

At the level of the European Union, existing and future numbering structures must be
assessed against the objectives of the completion of a liberalised and competitive
market in telecommunications services throughout the Union and the creation of an
effective single market.

Against this background the Commission published its Green Paper on a Numbering
Policy for Telecommunications Services in Europe, presenting various options for a
common approach towards certain numbering issues in order to reach the agreed
goals of a liberalised, single telecommunications market. A broad public
consultation on these options was intended to provide the input for a more concrete
plan of action, closely following the needs and demands of residential and business
users and new entrants in the telecommunications market while taking account of any
constraints within existing telecommunications structures.

COM(96)590 final, 20.11.1996

**II.** **CONSULTATION PROCESS**

The Green paper on numbering invited comments and views of all interested parties
regarding the outline and features of a numbering environment which can facilitate
real competition in a liberalised telecommunications market and contribute to the
development of a single market to the benefit of the users.

The Green paper was published in November 1996 and a public hearing, with more
then one hundred participants, took place on 5 February 1997.

Around 80 written comments were received from residential and business users

associations, telecommunications service and network providers, equipment and
software manufacturers and national regulatory authorities and their associations.

The Green paper has also been put on the agenda of the European Parliament's
Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, the Economic and Social Committee
and the Committee of the Regions. Initial exchanges of views took place in these fora
but formal opinions have not been adopted yet.

The Joint Committee on Telecommunications, consisting of management and trade
unions of telecommunications network and service providers within the Union,
issued an opinion on 28 February.

A list of written comments received by the Commission is set out in the Annex.

**IN.** **COMMENTS RECEIVED ON MAIN POINTS OF THE GREEN**

**PAPER**

**111.1** **General** **Remarks**

The Green Paper on numbering was broadly welcomed and the issues it addressed
were recognised as crucial for the development of effective competition in a single
European telecommunications market. The Green paper was applauded for its effort
to revitalise the discussion on numbering at the European level and for its attempt to
sketch a coherent view on numbering issues accompanied by concrete proposals for
action.

At the same time it was pointed out that for all numbering changes and number
mechanisms the needs of the user should be the main focus. Changes to numbering
plans always impose a considerable burden on both business and residential users and
should therefore only be envisaged if the benefits clearly outweigh the costs.

A consumer association and various service providers stressed the importance of an
objective information campaign to inform the users in due time of the new
possibilities which would be available, in particular number portability, carrier
selection and Europe wide service numbers. The user should obtain clear guidance on
how to benefit from any of these new options.

Incumbent operators insisted that the introduction of key numbering mechanisms
should be harmonised and synchronised throughout the European Union in order to
avoid competitive distortions. Other operators feared that such an approach would
lead to undesirable delays in countries that were prepared to move faster. National
regulators felt that there should be different implementation dates for different
Member States in accordance with the development of their network and in line with
transition periods that were granted for the liberalisation of telecommunications
services.

Numerous commentators raised the question of whether the green paper gave a too
optimistic picture of the benefits of numbering changes and new mechanisms while
underestimating the costs involved.

**III.2** **Carrier selection / Carrier pre-selection**

**-**
_**Green paper proposal -**_

_**Introduction of**_ _**carrier**_ _**selection in two**_ _**steps,**_ _**namely call-by-call carrier selection**_
_**to be**_ _**introduced by**_ _**1.1.1998**_ _**and carrier pre-selection by**_ _**1.1.2000.**_

_Comments -_

**Key issues**

Obligation to be imposed only on fixed or also on mobile access providers ?
Obligation to be imposed only on operators with significant market power or also
on new entrants ?

Easy access or equal access ?

**Other issues**

Cost mechanism

Billing arrangements
Technical feasibility
Allocation of prefixes
Method for assigning the default carrier
Timing

The potential effects of carrier selection to increase competition were widely
recognised, both by those who therefore advocate a rapid and general introduction
and by those who for the same reasons insist that a more cautious and limited
approach should be chosen. Comments focused on types of services (fixed, mobile) to
be covered, categories of operators ( operators with significant market power only or
all) to be obliged to offer carrier selection and on the merits of different carrier
selection mechanisms.

**Mobile versus fixed**
Mobile operators typically argued that no form of carrier selection should be imposed
to the mobile sector since sufficient competition already exists. Some also invoked
technical complications for implementation of carrier selection in mobile networks for
which standardised solutions need to be developed first. Long distance service
providers on the contrary insisted that all local loop access providers, wired and
mobile, should be obliged to offer carrier selection.

**Incumbents versus new entrants**
Alternative fixed local loop access providers felt that the debate on carrier selection is
based on the (false) presumption that the local loop is a utility rather than a
competitive product. They considered carrier selection to be a useful temporary
instrument to force down tariffs for international and long distance calls as charged
by operators with significant market power. However, any across the board obligation
for local access providers to offer carrier selection would act as a disincentive to

invest in local infrastructure. These arguments were countered by others, in particular
long distance and international service providers, who believe that the regulatory
framework should not favour one particular structural outcome of the competitive
process (infrastructure or service based competition). Moreover they added that carrier
selection will also provide an incentive to invest in the local loop given the
importance of customer ownership.

**"Easy access"** **[3]** **versus** **"equal** **access"**
As to the mechanism of carrier selection, a small minority held the view that easy
access is a sufficient instrument to facilitate competition in order to lower long
distance and international tariffs. Moreover, they insisted that where easy access
already exists, the costs of a mandatory migration to equal access would not outweigh
the benefits.

Nevertheless, a majority of the comments, not only those of new entrants in the long
distance and international services market and of business and residential users

associations, but also the majority of incumbents and national regulators supported the
eventual need for full equal access. Various international service providers expressed
strong misgivings concerning the risk that easy access is wholly inadequate in
bringing about effective competition given its strong bias in favour of the incumbent
operator. They said that experience shows that customers find it difficult to make the
additional dialling effort required for selecting a different carrier than the one
determined by default by the local access provider. The latter will in most cases be the
incumbent even in a fully liberalised market.

In the same context incumbent operators stressed the need for harmonised and
synchronised introduction of pro-competitive numbering mechanisms throughout the
EU in order to avoid competitive distortions (see below under 'timing').

**Cost calculation**

Many respondents underlined the need for a fair and transparent calculation of the
interconnection costs which the local access providers may charge the selected carrier,
as these will have a significant impact on the profit margin of the selected carrier.
Sufficient unbundling of the local loop is a crucial requirement to ensure that the
selected carrier and his customer only pay for the part of the local access providers'
network which is used for setting up the call. A significant detail will be whether the
local access provider will also charge for unsuccessful calls (busy line, no reply).

**Billing arrangements**
Related to the calculation of costs is the issue of billing arrangements. No clear trend
emerged from the comments apart from the fact that billing arrangements are
considered to be important. Various commentators felt that being able to send bills
directly to customers is important for service providers in view of branding and

3 Easy access, in relation to carrier selection, refers to the situation where the default long distance
carrier is determined by the local access operator with the possibility of override through dialling of a
(short) code by the user on a call-by-call basis.
4 In relation to carrier selection, equal access refers to the situation where the long-distance carrier is
pre-selected by the customer with the possibility of override through dialling on a call-by-call basis..

**10**

building a customer relation. This however requires that the local access network is
able to transfer Calling Line Identification to the long distance carrier. Others said that
the selected carrier should have a choice between direct billing or sub-contracting,
subject to commercial negotiations with the local access provider. A consumer
association pointed out that it would be in the interest of users for billing to be
transferred to a third party so that the exercise of choice through frequent switching
between carriers would not lead to just as many bills as there were operators

involved.

Technical feasibility
The technical feasibility of introducing carrier selection and carrier pre-selection
within the proposed time frame was hardly questioned, except for subscriber lines
linked to analogue exchanges. Especially the absence of Calling Line Identification
(CLI) capability in such lines is seen as a problem since CLI would be necessary for
the selected carrier to identify his customer. It was felt that it would not be
appropriate, solely for the purpose of ensuring carrier pre-selection, to insist on costly
upgrades of such analogue exchanges where their replacement by digital exchanges
was already foreseen in investment plans.

**Carrier prefixes**
Concerning the carrier prefixes, most respondents insisted that it was too late to
harmonise codes at a European level since various Member States have already
dedicated different ranges of prefixes for carrier selection. Harmonisation of these
ranges only just after they have been introduced would be costly, disruptive and
confusing.

Other comments on prefixes stressed the importance of dialling parity with the
incumbent operator and the need to have short prefixes, which can be easily
memorised and which do not deter the caller from using them because of their length
in cases where they cannot be pre-programmed in terminal equipment. On the other
hand, one-digit prefixes were considered to be inappropriate because they will only

offer room for 6 or 7 alternative carriers.

Various regulators pointed out that the assignment of a carrier prefix would depend on
the ability of a certain carrier to cover (most of) the national territory. Others
remarked that by foreseeing carrier prefixes of varying length it would be possible to
stimulate investment in infrastructure by allocating short prefixes to infrastructure
based carriers and longer prefixes to service based carriers.

**Moving to equal access**
Among those who were in favour of carrier pre-selection, there was wide support for
leaving the initiative to change the default long distance carrier to the customer and to
use marketing campaigns as an instrument to influence the customer's choice. The
method where all subscribers are requested through a ballot, organised by the

5 a first level of harmonisation would be to have one structure of prefixes throughout Europe (e.g.
lOxy) but leaving the allocation of the xy part at the national level; a seond level would be to allocate
the xy part at the European level so that an operator could be selected by the same code throughout
Europe.

11

regulator, to indicate their preferred long distance default carrier, was widely rejected
by the market players. Nevertheless, a consumer association felt that the regulator
should play a strong role in raising the awareness of the consumer and in providing
complete and unbiased information about the various options.

**Timing**
Strong views were expressed by national regulators and incumbent operators about
##### the need to harmonise and synchronise the introduction of, inter alia, carrier selection

and pre-selection throughout the EU. Given the important competitive implications of
especially carrier selection and pre-selection, it was felt by a majority that a situation
were different mechanisms were used in different Member States at different times

would lead to unacceptable competitive distortions. A small minority held the
opposite view, arguing that the selection mechanism should depend on the state of
competition in a given national market and on the technical development of the
network.

Nevertheless, there seems to be general acceptance for carrier selection and preselection to be synchronised with the liberalisation of voice telephony which means
that for Member States with agreed additional transition periods, the introduction of
carrier selection and pre-selection should take effect at these later dates as well. Some
operators pointed out that in these cases the intermediate step of easy access should be
skipped in order to have equal access established throughout the European Union at
the same time.

Several alternative service providers consider a two-step approach unnecessary and
undesirable. They argue that there are no valid reasons to postpone carrier preselection except the wish to protect existing market shares. A majority however is in
agreement with the mandatory introduction of some form of carrier selection by
I.1.199X followed by carrier pre-selection by 1.1.2000. liven for those operators and
user associations who consider that the time frame could be more ambitious, this
appears to be an acceptable proposition.

**IH.3 Number portability**

**-** _**Green**_ _**paper proposal-**_

_**Implementation of number**_ _**portability**_ _**for the (fixed) local loop**_ _**as**_ _**from 1.1.1998**_

_**and by 1.1.2000 at the latest in all major centres of population and from 1.1.2000**_

_**for**_ _**mobile networks and**_ _**for**_ _**special**_ _**services.**_

_**-**_ _**Comments**_

**Key** **issues**

 - coverage (types of services)

12

cost sharing mechanism

- technical solutions
timing

The importance of number portability as one of the elements to achieve real
competition between local access providers is generally accepted. The main point of
debate are the technical feasibility, the costs of implementation and the mechanism
for sharing these costs between the operators involved.

**Coverage**
As for carrier selection, there is opposition from mobile operators who say that given
the level of competition in mobile markets number portability is not needed and its
implementation costs would outweigh the benefits.

As to the wishes of consumers in this matter, various mobile operators claim that for
mobile users changing number is not a significant deterrent. However, one mobile
operator, arguing in favour of mobile number portability, quotes a market research
result which suggests that 40% of mobile users, especially users in the business
segment, see changing numbers as a significant barrier for changing to another
network provider. A major consumer association also pleads in favour of having
number portability in the mobile sector as well.

There is general agreement about the need to have reciprocity in number portability
meaning that both incumbents and new entrants should offer it to their customers.

In contrast to the Green Paper suggestion (and the provisions of the Interconnection
Directive) many respondents advocate general territorial coverage, rather than a
phased-in approach requiring at an initial stage only coverage of major centres of
population, since the latter option could be a disincentive to invest in infrastructure in
less populated areas.

Various international operators and some regulators stress that portability of numbers
for special services (freephone, premium rate and shared costs) is an urgent
requirement since holders of such numbers are even more reluctant to change
operator if this implies changing their number too.

Geographic portability (keeping the number while changing location) is not seen as an
important option for the general public but it was recognised as most desirable for
corporate and other business users. Their needs could however be accommodated by
non-geographic numbers .

Consumer associations and operators stressed that the present numbers contain an
important element of tariff information which should be preserved (i.e. identifying

6 Non-geographic numbers are (national) number ranges that are not identified with one specific
geographic region, city area or local community. They are used for instance for freephone, shared cost
and premium rate services.

**13**

whether a call is a long distance or premium rate call) . Number portability should not
lead to less transparency in the expected price of a call.

**Technical solutions**

There is consensus that any switch based implementation of number portability, such
as remote call forwarding or drop-back, is unsatisfactory in the long run because it is
inefficient and may impair the quality of the network services. Moreover, the
operator who receives the number will remain dependent on the operator who looses
the number for termination of calls, and the conveyance costs for rerouting of calls
will be high, with no particular incentive to bring them down.

There is consensus that the technically and economically superior solution for number
portability is that of a parallel data base with equal access for all operators and no
interdependence. However, various respondents maintain that the costs of a data base
solution are underestimated. An international operator on the contrary, felt that the
implementation of an intelligent network solution should be a formal requirement for
which a time frame should be imposed.

Another respondent suggested that, following the example of the FCC, minimum
criteria should be determined for a long term portability solution, taking account of
characteristics and dissimilarities of existing national numbering plans so that switch
manufacturers could work towards a single standard.

Some regulators insisted that methods of implementing number portability should be
left to them and similarly incumbent operators maintained that the technical solutions
should be their domain, provided that interoperability would be assured on the basis
of ETSI standards.

**Costs and cost sharing**
Little evidence of projected costs was provided. The total costs of the various
solutions and the way in which they should be shared by the operators concerned
were the subject of many comments and divergent opinions, though not necessarily
very developed. All agreed however, on the great importance of a fair cost sharing
mechanism for a successful implementation of number portability.

On the basis of specific experience regarding this issue, one regulator suggested a
cost allocation scheme in which the administrative and per-line set-up costs should be
borne by the 'recipient' operator, each operator should bear his own system set-up
costs and any additional conveyance costs should, in principle, be borne by the
'donor' operator to be recovered through general network charges. This would
encourage most efficient routing methods. There should then, however, be a

7 Number portability solution where recognition of a ported number can only be achieved at the
original terminating local exchange.

**14**

possibility to have some temporary additional conveyance charges for the 'recipient'
to allow the implementation of efficient routing.

In the case of an intelligent network solution, an international operator proposed that
a charge be imposed on all service providers based on their service revenues to cover
the common costs of the creation and management of the necessary data base.

It was also suggested that the Commission should provide detailed guidance on cost
issues.

**Timing**
Several of the incumbent operators stressed the importance of a synchronised
introduction of number portability whereas others felt that a gradual introduction
would be more appropriate in order to allow operators to integrate the introduction of
number portability capacity in their regular network update programme.

As to the date for implementation, number portability has already been introduced in
several Member States and will be introduced in other Member States by next year.
These Member States and the operators based there felt that the proposed timetable
was not ambitious enough. Users' associations, manufacturers and alternative access
providers also proposed earlier dates
However, a minority of regulators and incumbent operators insisted that the proposed
date of 1.1.2000 was too early and that the existing deadline of 2003 foreseen by the
Interconnection Directive should be maintained .

f **11.4** **Restructuring of national numbering plans**

**-** _**Green**_ _**paper proposal -**_

_**Review of national numbering schemes towards further integration of national**_
_**numbering**_ _**plans,**_ _**adaptation of**_ _**national**_ _**numbering schemes according**_ _**to**_ _**the**_
_**agreed common guidelines, to be completed by the year 2000. No allocation of**_
_**numbers beyond the length of**_ _**13**_ _**digits (not including carrier**_ _**selection**_ _**prefixes or**_
_**international**_ _**prefixes).**_

_**-**_ _**Comments**_ **-**

There was widespread concern over the cost and impact for users of further changes of
national numbering plans in the short to medium term. Major overhauls of various
national numbering plans had recently been completed and a period of stability would
be welcomed by all.

**15**

At the same time, there was support for gradual convergence in the long term on the
basis of common guidelines but the time frame should stretch well beyond the 2000
date proposed in the Green Paper.

Moreover, most respondents stressed the significance of open, non-discriminatory
and transparent national numbering plans managed by independent authorities for the
success of a competitive market. One regulator suggested that national numbering
plans should be examined systematically, with the technical assistance of
CEPT/ECTRA, to verify whether the competitive requirements were met. I'or any
necessary further changes reasonable implementation periods should be allowed.

**II** **1.5** **European Telephony Numbering** **Space**

- _Green Paper Proposal_ _-_

_**Implementation of European**_ _**Telephony**_ _**Numbering Space by**_ _**I**_ _**January 1998 at**_

_-_ 1 _"omments_ _-_

Pan-European carriers and other operators with a pan-European strategic vision,
expressed strong support for the development of an European Telephony Numbering
Space and felt that it would create opportunities for the development of pan-European
services. Many others, although not against the idea, questioned the current demand
for Europe wide numbers for special services. It was however admitted by some that
supply might have to precede demand in this case.

There was broad support for implementation of an European Telephony Numbering
Space on the basis of the '388' country code. However, given the fact that clearance
for the use of this code by the International Telecommunications Union is expected in
May 1997, the proposed implementation date of 1.1.1998 was seen as unrealistic, and
should be replaced by a target of late 1998/ early 1999.

Many comments insisted that any development of Europe wide services should not
interfere with the development of global services and that duplication should be
avoided. Some felt that for this reason '388' should in any case not be used for
freephone services since these could already be accommodated by the Universal
International Freephone Service number '800'. They argued that use of global
numbers could be confined to European countries if the service provider wished to
do this.

In contrast, others urged to maintain a wide spectrum of special European services to
be covered by the European Telephony Numbering Space. Several commentators saw
an interest in accommodating the numbering needs of multinational corporate users
within the European Telephony Numbering Space.

16

Consumer associations underlined that there should be a clear distinction between

numbers for freephone and premium rate services in order not to confuse the users
about (he costs of their calls. Moreover, it would be necessary to introduce
possibilities for selective call barring, simultaneously with the introduction of Europe
wide premium rate numbers.

Various comments suggested that '388' would prove a useful testing ground for
demand of pan-European services and for the value-added of numbering management
at a European level. Further development could be decided depending on the success
of this initial code.

**1II.6** **Administration of European numbering** **space** ~~~]

**-** **(** _**ireen**_ _**paper**_ _**proposal**_ _**-**_

_**EU, in conjunction with ECTRA, to propose a new structure for regulation and**_
_**administration of numbers in Europe by 1 January 1998 at the latest.**_

**-** _**Comments**_ _**-**_

Most comments on this topic were received from regulators and incumbent operators.
There were few remarks from other network and service providers. It was generally
accepted that the creation of an European Telephony Numbering Space, even on a
limited scale, would require the administration at a European level of number
allocation. However, in line with the modest ambitions which were expressed for the
European Telephony Numbering Space in an initial phase, the management tasks
would, in the view of most respondents, not require a new structure at this stage.
Various respondents suggested that ETC) should administer the European Telephony
Numbering Space.

A consumer association pointed out that any newly created administrative structure
should also incorporate consumer interests.

**III.7** **Long-term European numbering plan**

**-** _**Green paper proposal**_ **-**

_**Development of a long-term strategic plan for numbering in Europe by 1.1.1998.**_
_**This**_ _**should include the**_ _**creation**_ _**of a**_ _**European**_ _**country code (3xy) with transfer of**_

17

_**responsibility of**_ _**administration**_ _**and management of the last two digits to Europe**_
_**and a**_ _**unified numbering environment**_ _**by**_ _**the**_ _**year 2000.**_

_-_ _C 'ommenls_ _-_

A majority of commentators felt that the advantages of and demand for a unified
European numbering environment were insufficiently demonstrated. It was widely
believed that the costs would outweigh the benefits and that in any case the proposed
time scale of 1.1.2000 was not realistic. There was general consensus that the costs
and benefits as well as the technicalities of any such evolution should be examined
thoroughly before any decision could be taken. The experience of the development of
the '388' code and of the European Telephony Numbering Space would play a key
role. If the outcome of further studies would be positive, harmonised European
numbering should in any case be projected over a 10-20 years period.

**III.8** **Alpha-numeric dialling** I

- ( _ircen paper proposal_ _-_

_**Adoption of a**_ _**common**_ _**standard for**_ _**keypads supporting alpha-numeric**_ _**dialling.**_

_-_ _Comments_ _-_

There was strong support for a common approach to alpha-numeric dialling on the
basis of International Telecommunications Union recommendation E.161, Option A
providing a format for the association of alphabetic characters to numbers. A
consumer association pointed out that it would be very useful for users if the '*' and
'# ' function codes would be standardised as well.

One respondent warned that it was important not to create the impression that users
could actually own certain numbers. Even if numbers were to be widely associated
with letters this should not lead to trade mark claims by business users on certain
numbers.

**III.9** **Naming and addressing in the Internet**

 _Green paper proposal_

18

_**Fair and**_ _**non-discriminatory allocation**_ _**of internet names and**_ _**addresses**_ _**should be**_
_**safeguarded. Situation in the Member States to be reviewed in order to assess the**_
_**need**_ _**for**_ _**concrete**_ _**measures.**_

**-** _**Comments**_ _**-**_

Internet naming and addressing issues attracted less attention than other issues raised
in the Green Paper. Nevertheless, there was agreement on the analysis regarding
naming and addressing and it was felt that the problems identified should be
addressed.

Some felt that global harmonisation and restructuring of use and allocation of internet
names and addresses was needed. Another comment insisted that the use of national

top level domain names should be encouraged to ensure that allocation practices were
in line with national trade mark law. With global top level domain names the
protection of trade marks was much more difficult.

In general the comments said that the best way to solve any problems was through
continued self-regulation and not by regulatory intervention. However, there were
various calls for European non-regulatory initiatives in order to improve the
representation of European interests in the global discussions.

19

**IV EVALUATION**

**I** **V.l** **Issues of consensus or major support**

On the basis of the comments received at the hearing and in writing, the Commission
concludes that the consultation has demonstrated that :

- the crucial role of numbering in ensuring effective competition is generally
acknowledged ;

- the introduction of carrier selection within fixed networks for operators with
significant market power, at the same time as markets are opened to full
competition, is widely supported ;

**•** [only carrier pre-selection will give users the full benefits of competition in long ]
distance and international calls, and it can and should be introduced by 1.1.2000
at the latest for fixed local access providers with significant market power;

the introduction of operator number portability on a reciprocal basis (both for
incumbents and new entrants) in the fixed networks is considered to be an
important requirement ;

territorial phasing-in of number portability, starting in the major centres of
population, is not considered to be necessary or desirable ; general territorial
coverage was favoured instead;

the portability of non-geographic numbers (freephone, premium rate, shared costs)
is generally regarded as a feature to be introduced urgently ;

the implementation of a European Telephony Numbering Space initially on the
basis of the '388' country code, to be used as a testing ground for any further
development, is widely seen as the best approach ;

a common approach to alphanumeric numbering based on European Union wide
implementation of International Telecommunications Union recommendation
E.164 would be welcomed;

continuation of self-regulation was regarded as the best approach to tackle any
problems occurring with naming and addressing issues concerning the Internet:
however, issues need to be examined further in view of European initiatives to
improve representation of European interests at the global level.

Regarding the question of call-by-call carrier selection with the default determined by
the local access provider ("easy access") and carrier pre-selection by the customer

**20**

("equal access"), the consultation brought out in great detail the arguments used by
those who object to equal access and others, the vast majority, who recommend and
support it. Without addressing any of the other arguments of this debate here, it is
useful to clarify one of the main aspects of the discussion, namely the effect of "equal
access" on local infrastructure competition and the views of the Commission on this.

It is argued by a minority, based on a regulatory choice made in the past, that carrier
pre-selection arrangements reduce the profit margins for local access providers by
opening the market for long distance and international calls to strong competition.
This would then suppress the incentive to invest in alternative local infrastructure,
thus leaving the provision of local access in most cases to a single, de facto monopoly
provider.

The majority of comments say that leaving barriers for services competition in order
to stimulate infrastructure competition, on the contrary does not lead to economic
efficiency nor does it give customers the best deal. On the one hand a duopoly for
local infrastructure is no guarantee for real competition regarding the offer of local
access services and on the other hand, not having user friendly instruments to preselect other service providers over the local network invariably leads to service tariffs
staying high. Moreover, residual barriers to service competition create an artificial
incentive for infrastructure investment which may not be sustainable in the longer

term.

On the basis of the arguments brought forward in the consultation, the Commission
considers that "equal access" is the best instrument for creating a level playing field
for incumbent operators and new entrants alike. Moreover, as user associations have
pointed out, the consumer is best served with user friendly mechanisms which offer
access to all services available and they do not consider call-by-call carrier selection
without the possibility for the customer to choose his own default as user friendly.
For these reasons, the Commission proposes the introduction of carrier pre-selection
throughout the internal market by a set date. The concern about having sufficient
investment in local access infrastructure is shared by the Commission. However,
incentive for investment in the local loop is likely to be driven increasingly by the
provision of new multimedia services rather than by competition in traditional voice
telephony. More importantly, concerns about the quality and availability of local
access are considered to be met by the universal service obligations which are now
firmly anchored in Community legislation. These obligations ensure that every
citizen can access an affordable service of defined quality wherever they live in the
Community.

IV.2 Issues for further discussion or study

On the basis of the comments the Commission concludes that it would not be justified
at this stage, to oblige local access providers without significant market power to
offer carrier selection or carrier pre-selection.

It appears that if such obligations are imposed on local access providers with
significant market power, the market forces themselves will provide an incentive for

21

local access providers without significant market power to offer similar facilities
without regulatory obligations or, alternatively, to lower their tariffs to competitive
levels. If they would refrain from doing this, they would not be an attractive
alternative for customers who would then stay with or switch back to the access
provider offering such options.
The issue of whether a broader obligation is required, will be reconsidered as part of
the general review of the functioning of the various telecommunications liberalisation
and harmonisation measures (as already foreseen in the relevant Directives),
scheduled for 1999.

Secondly, the Commission considers that the need to oblige mobile operators to offer
carrier selection, carrier pre-selection and number portability needs to be further
examined, especially as it would require technical changes to the GSM standard
(which are currently being examined by ETSI) and could involve high introduction
costs. Despite the high degree of competition in various national mobile markets
allowing fair consumer choice, many other markets are still in the early stages of a
development process and it remains to be seen what level of competition will be
reached. For these reasons, the Commission finds that it would be reasonable to reevaluate the need for introduction of new numbering mechanisms facilitating
consumer choice in the mobile sector by the end of 1998.

Furthermore the Commission concludes that further study is needed on :

an appropriate cost sharing mechanism for number portability:

how the eventual introduction of an intelligent network solution for number
portability can be facilitated and how inter-operability requirements can be met;

technical and cost aspects of the implementation of carrier selection and number
portability in mobile networks:

the costs and benefits and technical aspects of a harmonisation of national
numbering plans in view of a long term European numbering plan.

**22**

**V.** **PRIORITIES FOR ACTION**

**V.l** **Numbering and ensuring** **effective** **competition**

The consultation has shown that there is broad agreement on the importance of
appropriate numbering schemes and mechanisms to allow users to benefit from
competition in a liberalised market.

In addition to the general application of competition rules under the Treaty, the legal
framework for telecommunications establishes obligations for Member States with
regard to numbering. The Commission Directive with regard to the implementation
of full competition in telecommunications markets requires that adequate numbers
are made available for all telecommunications services before 1 July 1997. The
Interconnection Directive reiterates this requirement and also stipulates that
_"National_ _regulatory authorities shall ensure_ _that numbering_ _plans and procedures_
_are applied in a manner that gives fair and equal treatment to all providers of_
_publicly available telecommunications_ _services'"_ and that there shall be no _"undue_
_discrimination in the number sequences used to give access to the services of_ _other_
_telecommunications_ _operators."_ Moreover, the Interconnection Directive already sets
a deadline of 1 January 2003 for the introduction of operator number portability at
least in all major centres of population, but the consultation has indicated that this
date should be brought forward. In any case, according to competition rules as
recalled in directive 96/19/CE, the numbering policy of the Member States shall not inter alia - lead to maintain barriers to entry at an artificially high level, so that a
dominant position would be acquired, maintained, or strengthened, even though
special or exclusive rights would have been abolished.

1. Carrier selection / carrier pre-selection

In a multi-operator environment, users must be able to access simply and cheaply the
operator of their choice, even where this operator does not provide a direct line into
the customer's office or home. In this context carrier selection and interconnection are

two sides of the same coin. If we agree that it is important to oblige incumbent
operators to offer interconnection to new entrants, we should also make sure that the
users have appropriate instruments to reach the interconnected new entrants.

The consultation showed wide support for the early introduction of carrier selection as
an immediate step and the subsequent introduction of carrier pre-selection to allow
equal access.

8 Commission Directive 96/19/EC of 13 March 1996 amending Directive 90/388/EEC with regard to
the implementation of full competition in telecommunications markets, OJ L 74,22.3.1996, p. 13.
9 Directive 97/ /EC of the European Parliament and the Council on interconnection in
telecommunications with regard to ensuring universal service and interoperability through application
of the principles of open network provision (ONP) (awaiting formal adoption)

**23**

Whilst the Interconnection Directive does not determine whether the default service

provider should be chosen by the customer or by the local access provider, it does
require that fair and equal treatment regarding numbering is given to all service
providers. In practice this means that Member States must at least create a system of
pre-fixes by which customers can reach other service providers than their local access
providers.

**In order to achieve effective competition, the Commission** **considers that**
**national implementation measures** **must** **be in place on the basis of the current**
**regulatory framework to** **ensure** **that**

**• a non-discriminatory and user friendly mechanism for direct selection by the**
**customer of a** **long** **distance and international calls carrier is offered by** **all**
**fixed local access providers with significant market power by 1 January 1998**
**in all Member States where liberalisation of voice telephony is required by**
**that date.**

**•** **long** **distance and international service providers may negotiate pro-**
**competitive cost calculation and billing arrangements with the incumbent**
**operator.**

**Further Community measures will** **be** **needed to achieve that:**

**• carrier pre-selection is available for customers** **of all fixed local access**
**providers with significant market power by 1 January 2000 in all Member**
**States.**

**The need for extension of carrier selection or pre-selection to mobile operators**
**must be re-evaluated by the end of 1998 and the need for an extension to fixed**
**local access providers without significant market power, must be examined in**
**the 1999 review.**

**2.** **Number portability**

The need to change telephone numbers when changing network provider has been
identified as an important deterrent, both for business and residential users. The
availability of operator number portability will be crucial to stimulating competition
in the local loop. The introduction of number portability is already a legal
requirement under the Interconnection Directive by 1 January 2003 at the latest for
major centres of population.. While there is broad agreement on the need to
introduce number portability, divergent views emerged in the consultation as to the
coverage and timetable for its introduction.

**24**

**On the basis of** **the** **consultations the Commission believes that the**

**Interconnection Directive should be amended to**

**• require all operators who issue** **non-geographic** **special service numbers (**
**freephone, shared costs and** **premium** **rate ) to offer operator portability for**
**such numbers by 1.1.2000.**

**• require** **all** **local fixed access providers to offer operator number portability by**
**1 January 2000 at the latest.**

**In view of these requirements, the consultation indicated that certain**
**accompanying measures** **will** **be needed.** **In** **particular,** **it** **will** **be necessary to**

**• develop guidelines by 1998 on fair and pro-competitive arrangements for**
**assessing and sharing the costs of number portability between operators**
**involved.**

**• study possible minimum criteria and standardisation requirements in view of**
**guaranteeing interoperability within a** **long** **term number portability solution**
**(intelligent network solution).**

**With regard to any further extension of number portability** **.** **the Commission**
**draws the following conclusions from the results of** **the** **consultation:**

**•** **taking** **account of studies conducted by** **ETSI,** **by the end of 1998 the**
**desirability of and a possible date for** **requiring** **mobile operators to offer**
**operator number portability must be re-evaluated.**

**• it would** **not** **be desirable to have location number portability or number**
**portability between different service categories (between fixed and mobile),**
**where this would lead to a loss of tariff information for the user. In this**

**context it would be necessary to study how a system of on-line, per call tariff**
**information for the user can be implemented in a multi-operator environment**
**where numbers no longer give reliable indications for the tariff of** **a** **call.**

**3.** **Opening national numbering plans to competition**

**The consultation on the Green Paper has stressed once again the great importance**
**attached by operators and service providers, and in particular new entrants and**

**25**

incumbents with a pan-European strategy, to open, non-discriminatory and
transparent national numbering plans to be managed by independent authorities.
These requirements are fully recognised by EC telecommunications legislation and
obligations have been imposed on Member States accordingly.

**i n** **••** **•••** **—• —• -——** **—** **—** **—** **—** **—** **—** **_** **_** **_** **—**
**Under the full competition Directive** **the Commission will scrutinise the**
**national numbering plans to verify that they have been sufficiently adapted to**
**the new competitive environment. Part of the factual input needed for this**
**assessment will be provided by** **a** **study which ETO is currently conducting.**

**On the basis of the ETO study, and after discussion with all interested parties,**
**the Commission should propose recommendations for any further restructuring**
**of national numbering plans needed to accommodate** **the** **numbering needs of a**
**multi carrier** **environment in an** **equal,** **non-discriminatory way.**

**V.2** **Numbering and the single market**

Obviously, from the present situation where telecommunications services and
networks are still very much organised and operating within national borders, it is
difficult to think ahead and forecast the requirements of a unified European market for
telecommunications services. Only a few respondents have been able to make this
leap in time and to recognise the needs and the opportunities of a single market for
telecommunications services.

Practically all respondents underlined the need to allow for long to very long periods
in case of significant changes in numbering plans. This means that numbering plans
are not a commodity which can be easily and quickly adjusted to changing needs,
especially where changes are required to at least fifteen numbering plans

**1.** **Implementation of European Telephony Numbering Space**

The best arbitration mechanism to decide which of the divergent assessments of the
future demand for pan-European services is the correct one will be the market itself.
However, in order to allow the market to reply, the availability of pan-European
numbers must precede the demand.

10 Commission Directive 96/16/EC amending Commission Directive 90/388/EEC regarding the
implementation of full competition in telecommunications markets, OJ L 74, 22.03.1996, p. 13.

26

**The Commission considers appropriate to**

**• aim at establishing the European Telephony Numbering Space by 1 January**
**1999 on the basis of** **the** **'388'** **country code.**

**• define a broad spectrum of services which may be operating under the '388'**
**code, while at the same time ensuring** **that** **users can easily distinguish between**
**various types of services and their tariffs.**

**• charge a structure within CEPT /ECTRA with the processing of applications**
**for pan-European numbers and the settlement of disputes.**

**2.** **Convergence of national numbering plans**

The consultation showed that harmonisation in itself was not seen as a sufficient

ground for changing national numbering plans. At the same time, the merits of a
certain degree of harmonisation were recognised but to achieve this, a gradual,
natural convergence on the basis of consensus was advocated. Therefore the
Commission believes that future changes in numbering plans should be based on
agreed common guidelines with a dual competition and convergence purpose. In this
way the growth and expansion of the pan-European dimension within the European
numbering environment can be achieved without having to undertake any major
additional changes in national numbering plans.

**The recommendations which the Commission intends to give for further**
**restructuring of national numbering plans needed to achieve equal qualitative**
**and quantitative access to number resources for all market players (see above),**
**should also incorporate criteria ensuring an appropriate degree of convergence**
**between national numbering plans.**

**3.** **Long term European numbering plan**

**27**

The consultation on the Green Paper has shown that there is considerable uncertainty
about the costs and benefits of a unified European numbering environment, and that
further study is therefore required.

**In the light of experience gained with a liberalised single market and with the**
**European Telephony Numbering Space, by the end of 1999, the Commission**
**will contract a detailed study of the costs and benefits likely to be associated with**
**a unified European numbering environment.**

**4.** **Alphanumeric dialling**

The general support for a common approach to alphanumeric dialling on the basis of
International Telecommunications Union recommendation E.161, option A, should
be translated in a common standard.

Consumers have expressed an interest in harmonisation of the "*" and "# " function
codes as well. This is a somewhat different and more complicated type of
harmonisation since it requires a common standard for these codes to be available as
functions in the network. Therefore it involves cooperation and agreement of all
network operators. ETSI is currently undertaking work towards a common standard.

**The Commission believes that** **ETSI** **should** **endeavour** **to adopt common**
**standards, both on alphanumeric dialling and the** **"*"** **and** **"#"** **codes by the end**
**of 1997.**

**5.** **Internet naming and addressing**

Although there was broad agreement on the significance of naming and addressing
within the Internet and the problems which have occurred, no consensus has emerged
about the nature and scope of initiatives or measures which should be taken. The
Commission sees this outcome as support for an informal but active contribution to
be made by the Commission, with a view to defend European interests in the global
discussion.

28

**The Commission** **will** **keep the situation under review and will propose non-**
**regulatory initiatives where this can have an added value for the representation**
**of European interests at the global level.**

**29**

**VI.** **TIMETABLE**

On the basis of the preceding chapter on priorities for action, the timetable for the
availability of carrier selection and pre-selection, number portability and panEuropean numbers is as follows :

by 1 January 1998 Call-by-call carrier selection to be offered by all fixed
local access providers with significant market power in
all Member States where full liberalisation is required
by that date and in Member States where additional
transition periods have been agreed, by the end of that
period.

by 1 January 1999 Establishment of a European Telephony Numbering
Space on the basis of country code '388'

by 1 January 2000 Carrier pre-selection, with default to be determined by
the subscriber and with call-by-call override for the user,
to be offered by all fixed local access providers with
significant market power in all Member States

Operator number portability to be offered by all fixed
local access providers

Number portability to be offered by all operators for
non-geographic special service numbers (freephone,
shared costs, premium rate services)

In order to attain these objectives and to decide on any follow-up, the following
actions will be needed :

**by** **mid 1997** Adoption of resolutions by Council and the European Parliament
confirming the priorities and timetable for action which have
emerged from the consultation

Commission review of national numbering plans in view of
requirements of the full competition Directive

by **end 1997** Proposal for appropriate legislative measures to ensure the
availability of facilities for carrier pre-selection and number
portability throughout the internal market by 1 January 2000.

**30**

ETO report with detailed description of national numbering plans

Adoption of ETSI standard concerning alphanumerical key pads

Launch studies on 1) possible minimum criteria and standardisation
requirements in view of a long term number portability solution and
2) alternative, on-screen/on-line means for tariff information for
the user

by end 1998 Examine possible extension of carrier selection and number
portability requirements to mobile operators.

by early 1999 Appropriate legislative measures to be adopted to ensure the
availability of facilities for carrier pre-selection and number
portability throughout the internal market by 1 January 2000.

Member States to implement '388' for the European Telephony
Numbering Space

Commission to issue common guidelines on fair and procompetitive arrangements for sharing costs of number portability

Commission recommendations on further restructuring of national
numbering plans in view of competition requirements and gradual

convergence

by end 1999 Examine desirability of extension of carrier selection requirements
to fixed local access providers without significant market power

early 2000 Further study, in the light of experience with a liberalised single
market in telecommunications and with the ETNS, of need for and
costs / benefits of unified European numbering environment.

**31**

**VII.** **CONCLUSIONS**

The consultation has demonstrated wide support for the Green Paper proposals to
introduce carrier selection, carrier pre-selection and operator number portability in
order to enable the user to benefit from a new competitive market situation. The
comments also provided a useful basis to determine the most appropriate coverage in
terms of services and service providers, for the mandatory requirement of these
numbering features, as well as clear indications concerning the timetable for their
introduction. The Commission will propose concrete measures to ensure that these
numbering mechanisms are put into practice by the deadlines which are considered
desirable and feasible.

Moreover, the outcome of the consultation showed a strong emphasis on the need for
national numbering plans to allow equal quantitative and qualitative access to
numbering resources for all carriers. This was generally felt to be a key requirement
for non-discriminatory access to the liberalised telecommunication markets. The
Commission will continue to closely monitor the situation in the Member States with
regard to numbering plans and take action where necessary. In addition
recommendations will be issued for further restructuring. These recommendations will
also take account of convergence requirements.

On other numbering issues related to the single market, various action points have
been identified and the Commission will actively follow and encourage developments
in CEPT/ECTRA regarding the establishment of the European Telephony Numbering
Space. Where necessary mandates and work requirements will be submitted to ETSI
and ETO on specific issues identified in the consultation.

A long term view on a European Numbering environment will need to be developed
on the basis of experience gained with a liberalised market and with the European
Telephony Numbering Space. The Commission will follow up on this with a detailed
cost / benefit study.

The Commission transmits to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, the present
Communication prepared on the basis of the public consultation.

**32**

#### **Glossary**

Alpha-numeric dialling / keypad

Carrier pre-selection

Carrier selection

Easy access

 - CTRA

Equal access

Dialling a telephone number by using the
corresponding letters on the telephone's keypad
that correspond to the name of the service or the
called party e.g. "0-800-FLOWERS"

Possibility for customers to determine their own
default carrier on a semi-permanent basis thus
avoiding any additional dialling

The possibility for customers to choose their
long-distance or international operator e.g. by
dialling a code or by determining the default
carrier

Method for carrier selection whereby the default
carrier is determined by the local access provider
with the possibility of call-by-call override by the
user through dialling a code

European Committee for Telecommunications
Regulatory Affairs created as one of the three
committees under the Conference des Postes et

Télécommunications It includes a number of

project teams covering inter alia licensing,
numbering, interconnection, mobile
communications, testing and type-approval.
Council Resolution 92/C318/EEC of 19
November 1992 on the promotion of co-operation
on Europe wide numbering, identified several
tasks for ECTRA, including the creation of a
European numbering space and the preparation of
positions for discussion within ITU.

Method for carrier selection whiteout bias in

favour of a particular long distance or international
carrier whereby either the default carrier is
determined by the customer with call-by-call
override or no default carrier is determined and

each long distance or international call must be
preceded by a carrier selection prefix, (the latter
method is not considered to be user friendly)

**33**

 - :TNS

ETO

ETSI

(still to he created) European Telephony
Numbering Space refers to a numbering space
which exists in parallel with national numbering
spaces. Numbers from the ETNS will be available
and can be accessed anywhere in the European
Union ( and throughout the rest of Europe).

European Telecommunications Standards Institute
charged with developing Europe wide standards
for the telecommunications sector

European Telecommunications Office
established under the umbrella of ECTRA to
technical, preparatory work.

do

Freephone service A service that is (can be accessed) free of charge
to the customer. The access code '800' is

generally associated with freephone.

ITU International Telecommunications Union, the
United Nations specialised agency for
telecommunications

ITU-T Telecommunications sector of the ITU.

Non-geographic services Telecommunications services that are numbered
from (national) number ranges which are not
assigned or associated with a specific region, city
area or local community.

Number portability The possibility for a subscriber to keep his
telephone number while changing a) operator, b)
type of service or c) location.

Premium rate or shared revenue Service for which the caller pays an extra charge
service which is billed by the telecommunications
operator. The revenues are shared between the
latter and the service provider.

Shared cost service Service for which the cost of the call are shared
between the caller and the called party, generally
resulting in the caller paying local rate and the
called party being charged with any additional

costs.

**34**

**WRITTEN CONTRIBUTIONS**

[National **administrations and National Regulatory Authorities**

Belgium
Denmark

Germany
Greece

Spain
France

Ireland

Italy
Netherlands

Austria

Portugal
Finland

Sweden

United Kingdom
Norway
Liechtenstein

Switzerland

**Associations**

BIPT /IBPT

Forskningsministeriet / Telepolitisk Kontor
Bundesministerium fur Post und Telekommunikation
Ministry of transport and telecommunications
Ministerio de Fomento / Secretaria General de Comunicaciones
Permanent Representation to the EU
Department of Transport, Energy and Communications
Ministère délie Poste e delle Telecommunicazioni

Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat

Bundesministerium fur Wissenschafl, Verkehr und Kunst
Instituto das comunicaçoes de Portugal

Telehallintokcskus/Teleforvaltningscentralen
Kommunikationsdepartementet
Permanent Representation to the EU
Ministry of transport and communications
Government of the principality of Liechtenstein - EEA
Coordination Unit

BAKOM (Bundesamt fur Kommunikation)

AFTEL ( Association française de la télématique multimédia)
AFUTT (Association française des utilisateurs du téléphone et des
télécommunications)
AK Wicn (Bundcskammcr fur Arbeiter und Angestellte - Vienna)
AOST (Association des Opérateurs de Services de Télécommunications)
BEUC (Bureau Européen des Unions des Consommateurs)
CEEP (Centre Européen des Entreprises à Participation Publique)
CIGREF (Club Informatique des grandes entreprises françaises)
CNPF (Conseil National du Patronat français)
DIH (Deutscher Industrie- und Handelstag)
ECCO (European Competitive Carrier's Organization)
ECMA ( European Computer Manufacturers Association)
ECTEL (European Telecommunications Manufacturers Asociation)
ECTRA (European Committee of Telecommunications Regulatory Affairs)

ETNO (European Public Telecommunications Network Operators' Association)
ETO (European Telecommunications Office)

ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute)

35

EU Committee of the American Chamber of Commerce

EURIM (European Informatics Market)
FEDIM (Fédération Européenne du marketing direct)
FEI (Federation of the Electronics Industry)
GITEP (Groupement des Industries de Télécommunications et d'Electronique
Professionnelle en France)
GSM MoU Association

HDE (Hauptverband des Deutschen Einzelhandels)
ICSTIS (The Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone
Information Services)
INTUG (International Telecommunications Users Group)
Joint Committee on Telecommunications

ONP-CCP / HI F (European Interconnection Forum)

RNID (Royal Institute for Deaf People)
UNICE (Union des Confédérations de l'Industrie et des Employeurs d'Europe)
Union Internationale des Chemins de fer

**Telecommunications service and network providers**

ACC telecom UK

Airtouch

AT&T

Belgacom
British Telecom

Cegetel
Cellnet

Companhia Portuguesa Radio Marconi
Debitel Kommunikationstechnik

DeTeMobil

Deutsche Telekom

Easynet
E-plus Mobilfunk
Energis
France Telecom

Global One

lonica

Mannesmann Eurokom

Mannesmann Mobilfunk

Mercury communications
Orange

Portugal Telecom
Post & Telekom Austria

Proximus

PTT Telecom - Netherlands

STET - Italy

36

Telecential communications

**Telecom Tiircann**

Telecom Italia

Telefonica - Spain
Telenet operaties
Telenor

Unisource

Vebacom & RWE

VIAG

Worldcom- MFS

**Manufacturers**

Alcatel /Alsthom

Olivetti

**Consultants**

Institute for Public Policy Research
International Integrated Information Systems
Mr. Craig Macbride
NCSi Datentechnik

Dr.Clive Page

**37**

#### **ISSN 0254-1475**

## COM(97) 203 final

# **DOCUMENTS**

### EN 15 01 Catalogue number : CB-CO-97-234-EN-C ISBN 92-78-19889-7

Office for Official Publications of the European Communities

L-2985 Luxembourg