Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-06-13-Speech-2-167"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000613.14.2-167"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this paper from the Commission was an extremely sound document as it was but Mr van Velzen has managed to improve on a number of points in what was already a welcome paper. I would like to congratulate him on having done so. But it is pointless to make liberalisation an end in itself. Hence political objectives must be fulfilled. Liberalisation should benefit subscribers and competition.
There are a few points that we definitely still need to address. There has certainly been a drop in prices, however, this has happened in the business sector and there is little or no evidence of it in the case of local calls, roaming, or calls between the fixed network and mobile phones, and vice versa. Therefore this is a clear example of market imperfection. Perhaps it is not cost-effective for new firms to work at this level. Consequently, there is a need for regulations here, otherwise the citizens in more remote regions will be at a disadvantage because they will not be connected, i.e. they will not be part of the universal service.
Therefore we are calling for the state to be given the right to intervene. Secondly, we demand a more flexible formulation of universal service, for e-mail and the Internet used to be considered a luxury. These days, people who do not have these services are almost being discriminated against. Accordingly, Internet access ought to be counted as one of the universal services. Thirdly, needless to say, drops in price must not be to the detriment of quality of service.
Furthermore, we are agreed on transparency and on the matter of choice. Pre-selection is restrictive for the subscriber and is something they should be able to sue over. Like you, we are in favour of having transmission obligations. You have also taken account of health in recital E, which is a matter particularly dear to the heart of the Greens.
By and large, we support your report, however we cannot support 8a or 8b, both of which are new. 8a is contrary to the Amsterdam Protocol No. 32 and to the ‘Television Without Frontiers’ Directive. I have only this to say about 8b new: the ‘television without frontiers’ directive is not the object of this dossier. The guidelines for a common audiovisual policy are discussed in the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, and specifically in the Veltroni report. This discussion has only just begun and we must not prejudge the outcome.
Last but not least, I would like to issue a rebuke of the Commission for failing to wait for Parliament. It is continuing to work on an independent basis. I just felt that this needed to be said."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples