Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-06-13-Speech-2-186"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000613.14.2-186"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I first wish to join in the congratulations of many here today to Mr van Velzen, whose profound knowledge and experience can be seen in this important report. I also want to congratulate the whole Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy on the quality of its work. The debate here shows that many members of that committee have taken part not only in the reflections on this report but also on the whole range of issues on the information society.
According to current law, Directive 97(13), Member States determine which procedures to follow in allocating the limited-frequency spectrum available for third-generation networks, provided they comply with the principles of objectivity, non-discrimination, proportionality and transparency established by Community law. The Commission is of the view that the use of auction procedures for the allocation of radio frequencies for third-generation mobile networks is not in itself contrary to those principles and as such cannot be subject to infringement procedures.
Regarding the need to foster the development of innovative services and competition, it depends on the economic effect of the various auction formulae used. These are dependent on a variety of variables – length of licence, rules of payment for licence fees, conditions for network deployment, roaming obligations, etc. – which cannot yet be assessed.
The Commission continues to monitor the licensing process in Member States with great attention to ensure that the above-mentioned principles are respected. It is making an ongoing assessment of the economic impact of procedures used. I will return to this issue in detail, when I reply to the written question of Mr van Velzen.
Mrs Matikainen-Kallström put forward the question about local laws and also put the question about the local loop. How can we guarantee that the liberalisation of the last mile will take place? When the Commission discussed this issue last time it was decided to make a recommendation to Member States to liberalise the last mile so that both full access and shared access can be guaranteed in the local loop. I find it a very important issue. Added to that, my colleague, the competition Commissioner, will monitor the issue from the viewpoint of potential abuse of a dominant position.
Thirdly, we have decided to put that issue, too, into the legal proposal for the future legal framework. The first question is: could this part be separated out to get it through more quickly? But I agree with your concern that the question of the local loop is the biggest issue this year. In two or three years' time we will have other issues, but right now we have the network ready, connecting lines everywhere and we can use the existing network with new technology to achieve an enormous increase in broad band everywhere in Europe.
Mr Glante asked the question of who decides what. This is a big issue which we have discussed in many contexts. Some people say we should have a European regulator to guarantee full European coherence on those issues. On the other hand there are people who say that it should all go to the Member States' national authorities and national regulators. Our intention is to try to balance this issue so that we have some coherence at European level, coherence of interpretation, so that we can have a European level playing field but not to interfere in the issues where the national regulators can do their jobs in a coherent manner. We shall come back to that issue in our final proposal.
I want once more to express my thanks for the report and for the very interesting debate today. The Commission will look forward to working together with the European Parliament in the course of the forthcoming legislative process. After the debate and your votes it will go back to the Commission and I hope that we will be able to make proposals at the end of this month. I share Mrs Palacio's wish that on this issue the European Parliament and the Council will be able to take decisions very speedily. Of course there will continue to be a need for an in-depth discussion, but we must be able to create a competent and clear legal framework for electronic communications in the new converged world. Otherwise the European economy will suffer severe losses and European consumers, too, will lose the possibilities that new technology can give them if applied in the proper legal framework which guarantees full competition between operators.
The Commission can agree with most of the report and welcomes the conclusions and recommendations. The report reflects a deep understanding of the sector and what sector-specific regulation should do to support future development of the electronic communications area.
The Commission shares the goals of the report to regulate with a view to achieving a competitive market in this sector. We also share an understanding of how sector-specific rules can contribute to this objective. Furthermore, the report accurately notes the two kinds of
regulation needed: first, the regulation needed to inject effective competition into the market. This includes a symmetric regulation related to market power and other pro-competitive regulations, such as number portability. In this respect, I welcome the fact that the report pays attention to the need to ensure that number portability is not impeded by technical measures or other arrangements which limit consumers' choice of operators and service providers. Second, the regulation needed in respect of general public policy objectives, like consumer protection and universal service.
The report concurs with the Commission's intention to withdraw
regulation needed to substitute for competition and to allow the normal competition rules to apply once the markets in this sector are competitive. It is also noteworthy that this report represents the shared vision of what the sector can contribute to society and to individuals. Looking in the same direction is an important step in ensuring that everyone reaches the desired destination.
The report proposes that in order to be able to respond quickly to market developments, the directive should be in place during 2001 and that the working period of the directive should be limited to the year 2005. With regard to the fast adoption of directives, the Commission totally agrees. As to limiting the life span of the directive to 2005, this raises some questions. The risk is that it would weaken the credibility of legislation and, in particular, the independence of the regulators. However, of course we are ready to discuss any comments made in the report.
The Commission accepts that there is a certain tension between legal certainty and flexibility. Our approach to flexibility is to allow the regulators to determine on the basis of a close-to-the market analysis that effective competition in the market allows the
rules to be dismantled. This sends the right signals to markets. Otherwise major players will have an incentive to simply delay until the time period expires.
It also takes account of the different levels of competition in each Member State and the different speeds of development, both of which the report recognises as needing consideration.
On licensing, Parliament calls for one-stop shopping in respect of authorisations in this sector. The Commission's proposals would both harmonise and simplify the process that companies go through in order to provide communications services. If the current widely diverse system were retained, then the one-stop shop model would be logical as the report says. If the harmonised registration system is the solution, it could be as simple as the one-stop shop model. We must consider the alternatives at the end of the process.
Mr van Velzen has sent me a written question on the auctions. I will use the normal internal procedures to reply to that question, but perhaps I can make some comment at this time. I will return to this issue in the formal way. The same question was put by Mrs Matikainen-Kallström."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples