European Commission calls for input on Review of the EU Regulatory Framework for Ele

damien

Send in your opinions!

http://www.ofcomwatch.co.uk/2005/11/european-commission-calls-for-input-on

damien

*bump*

More details here:

http://europa.eu.int/information_society/policy/ecomm/info_centre/documentation/public_consult/index_en.htm#review

Tom Young

Damien,

Nice to see yourself and the IOFFL Committee are on the ball.

Please can you all try and remain level headed and calm with a submission and review some of the failed regulation we have seen in Ireland. While the current framework seeks/ed to move away from the historic modus operandi, going forward we need to make sure not to 'cut off hands despite face'.

Most of the areas for review are concerned with bottlenecks and access. We'd do well not to suggest movement further.

Regulate only where necessary.

Happy New Year to you all and I will watch to see what comes from the members and interested parties with great interest. Remember there are currently 18 relevant markets in the EU Telecom Framework (Incl. Mobile, Broadcast, DSL, LLU etc).

Tom

Sponge Bob

Tom Young wrote:

Regulate only where necessary.

Put DSL , at least 1024/128 DSL, into the Universal Service Basket .

Happy New Year to you all and I will watch to see what comes from the members and interested parties with great interest. Remember there are currently 18 relevant markets in the EU Telecom Framework (Incl. Mobile, Broadcast, DSL, LLU etc).

Many of the 18 are (correctly ) exempt in ireland, say higher capacity leased lines above 2 mbits , the rest are in limbo because Comreg regulations on those micromarkets was sucessfully appealed to ECAP by either Eircom or o2 or Vodafone....or in one utterly surreal case by Three.ie . All appeals suceeed because Comreg cannot show the basis for regulation is sound.

To all intents and purposes the Framework in Ireland is as yet unimplemented and unimplementable by a failed regulator .

Abolish Comreg and replace it with something that _could_ implement the framework. It would be nice if the EU were to recommend the same.

Tom Young

Sponge Bob wrote:

Put DSL , at least 1024/128 DSL, into the Universal Service Basket .

To all intents and purposes the Framework in Ireland is as yet unimplemented and unimplementable by a failed regulator .

Abolish Comreg and replace it with something that _could_ implement the framework. It would be nice if the EU were to recommend the same.

In practice I know where you are coming from, implementation in EURO Jargon, means transposed into law, with analysis carried out.

ECAP and resource is a massive issue, far too much time taken in appeals to suit Barrister's diaries. The ECAP have expertise on hand via the DCMNR.

I wonder would law firms take test cases pro bono (for trade associations e.g. ALTO or IOFFL) or free if ComReg's processes were cleaner? So far all but one appeal has been turfed out in favour of the appelant owing to approaching with 'dirty hands' on ComReg's part. E.g. Not following due process.

Your thoughts on abolition are interesting. I guess this won't be viable. I find it interesting to note that ComReg are trying to hire legal advisors. The salary scales wouldn't get top brass, or even near it.

Tom

Sponge Bob

The transposition of the directives in 2003 had to be followed by analysis of each (18 or so) micromarket, a decision as to whether it was competitive (unregulated) or uncompetititve (thereby regulated) . By and large I agreeed with those initial findings.

no effective regulation on foot of those findings has been implemented however as it has been appealed or is subject to appeal .

given the ease with which 3 particular carriers (not three who had an excellent case) can frustrate the entire intent of the EU Regulatory Framework post transposition the issues now are.

1. Is there any point to having Comreg , as constituted and run , I say no.
2. Should the EU find that Ireland is in breach of its obligations under EU law in having such a useless regulator , I say yes
3. Should the EU now step in and demand a drastic overhaul of regulation in Ireland , I say yes.
4. Should the EU look at how competition has been thwarted here , I say yes.

Ireland is such a textbook example of how not to properly implement EU law that the EU itself is being called into disrepute .

damien

*Bump*


1. General Topics
– What are the strengths and weaknesses of the framework?
– To what extent has the framework achieved its objectives?
– What impacts has the framework produced to date?
– How can the framework be improved?
– How can the framework contribute further to the Lisbon goals of growth andjobs?

2. Specific Topics
Scope and objectives
Do changes in technology, markets and society call into question the scope of the EU regulatory framework as set out in the Framework Directive? Do the current objectives need to be changed or prioritised?

Convergence and technological development
Does the regulatory framework allow technological development and convergence to be adequately accommodated (bearing in mind the current review of the Recommendation on relevant markets)? What adjustments to the framework could be made?

Single market aspects
Would deepening or strengthening the single market aspects of the framework contribute to investment in, and growth of, the sector? What are the remaining barriers towards consolidating the single market in eCommunications?

Article 7 procedures (Framework Directive)
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the current Article 7 consultation procedures, under which NRAs notify to the Commission the results of their market analyses? To what extent has this procedure served to improve harmonisation of the way in which markets are regulated? What could be improved?

Spectrum management
What are the changes required to the current regulatory package concerning the management of the radio spectrum in the Community, so as to consolidate 4 the internal market for wireless electronic communication services and equipment and to optimise the use of this resource?

Competition and access regulation
The current framework requires national regulatory authorities to promote
competition in networks and services, and to encourage efficient investment in infrastructure. Should there be any changes in the provisions of the Directives that deal with access and related regulation, in order to achieve these objectives?

Authorisations and rights of use
Is the current system of national authorisations an appropriate model going forward? Is there a need for further harmonisation in the management of numbering, naming and addressing and radio spectrum resources? To what extent does the existing model affect the emergence of trans-national, European-wide services?

Consumer protection, citizens’ interests and users’ rights
Should the existing provisions on consumer protection and users rights be extended or strengthened in any areas, in particular with regard to disabled users? Do foreseeable market and technological developments (eg next generation networks) threaten or enhance freedom of choice for users?

Privacy and security
Do current provisions provide an adequate legal framework to protect citizens’ privacy and security, and to promote consumer trust and confidence in the information society while contributing to the development of the internal market? What improvements could be made?

Standards and interoperability
To what extent does the process in Article 17 of the Framework Directive, whereby the Commission publishes a List of Standards in the OJ, serve to promote interoperability of services and freedom of choice for users? Are there better ways to secure interoperability?

Leased Lines
Should the minimum set of leased lines (see Art 18 of the Universal Service
Directive) be retained, modified, or withdrawn?

Institutional aspects

Are the mechanisms designed to ensure harmonisation between the Member States (Communication Committee, Radio Spectrum Committee, Radio Spectrum Policy Group, European Regulators Group) working efficiently with respect to the development of the Internal market? What could be improved?
The above list of issues is not exhaustive and respondents are invited to comment on any other aspect of the framework.

damien

Contributions should be sent before 31 January 2006 in electronic format to:
infso-b1@cec.eu.int (note that the “ l” is the number one) marked “2006 Review” in the subject line.