Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-28-Speech-3-142"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010228.7.3-142"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – I would first like to thank the three rapporteurs, Mr Brunetta, Mr Paasilinna and Mrs Niebler. These are not just any reports. Firstly they cover three directives which will be central to the future competence of the European economy.
On Mr Brunetta’s report on access and interconnection, I am thankful for the support for the basic principles of the directive. In competitive markets interconnection of and access to networks should, in principle, be agreed on the basis of commercial negotiations. If this does not happen regulatory intervention is warranted but we have to ensure that regulatory intervention is done on the basis of a market analysis. We have to prove first that the market is not competitive and only then impose
regulation if necessary.
Therefore, I believe that imposing straightforward price regulation on mobile call termination or on roaming charges would be over-regulating. The Commission cannot support Amendments Nos 39 and 40. However, there is a field where all service providers have been subject to access regulation. This is the conditional access for digital television. This regime has worked well. Moving away from the regime of Directive 95/48 would require wide consultation and careful analysis. Therefore, the Commission does not support Amendment No 46.
To sum up, the Commission can accept in full Amendments Nos 7, 8, 15, 21, 29, 41, 44 and 48. The Commission can accept in part or in principle Amendments Nos 1, 6, 9, 12, 16 to 18, 19, 23, 24, 26, 28, 30 to 34, 37, 38, 42, 43, 45 and 47. The Commission cannot accept Amendments Nos 2 to 5, 10, 11, 13, 14, 20, 22, 25, 27, 35, 36, 39, 40, 46 and 49 to 51.
Concerning Mrs Niebler’s report on the authorisation directive, the Commission is very pleased with the support for the basic principles of its proposal. The move from individual licences to general authorisations will greatly improve market access and cut red tape. In many respects, Mrs Niebler’s report strengthens and improves the Commission’s proposals. For the key issue of usage fees for radio spectrum I welcome the elements that seek to strengthen coordination and to eliminate the possibility of unproportionate and potentially disastrous licensing conditions.
The idea of annual instalments for the payment of one-off amounts is a possible solution. We will, however, have to look carefully at the exact wording. The obligation on Member States to take account of the policy objectives of the whole framework in their systems for frequency pricing is likewise welcomed. It is also one of the key objectives pursued in the Commission’s proposal for a regulatory framework for radio spectrum policy. Specifying that frequency pricing mechanisms are subject to the consultation and transparency procedure of the framework directive is also useful.
All in all, we are happy to accept most of Amendment No 21, subject to some redrafting. However, on the matter of administrative charges the Commission cannot support Amendments Nos 7 and 20. They would delete the provision that aims to ensure that such charges will not have a discriminatory effect. Maintaining turnover as a key for dividing administrative charges seems the most appropriate way.
The Commission is willing, however, to consider some of the elements proposed in the new Amendment No 27 tabled by Mr van Velzen. To sum up, the Commission can accept in full Amendments Nos 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 23 and 25. The Commission can also accept in part or in principle Amendments Nos 8, 11 to 14, 16, 18, 20 to 24 and 26 to 28. The Commission cannot accept Amendments Nos 4, 6, 7, 9, 15, 17 and 19.
Finally, I should like to touch briefly on the situation on the telecommunications markets and licensing for third-generation services. Of course we are all worried – Europe is the world leader in mobile communications and we have to maintain this lead.
We know the facts. The current legislation leaves Member States the choice of licensing methods and licensing conditions. We know that it has led to a wide divergence in the sums paid for the licences. The single market is fragmented. Frequency actions which coincided with the peak of the new economy stocks led to price levels which would be unimaginable in today’s market conditions.
I am ready to reply positively to Mr Paasilinna’s request for a Commission report later on the licensing issue. There is uncertainty and preoccupation in the market now, but we have to remember the fact that third-generation mobile communications will offer enormous potential for totally new types of services. There will be a strong business case for it and public authorities must ensure that the right conditions are in place, and here we need to work together. We have to safeguard Europe’s lead in mobile communications. There is no magic wand but we absolutely must get the future regulatory framework right.
Secondly, the amount of knowledge of technologies, markets and regulation which is needed for drawing up these reports is exceptional, so let me sincerely salute the reports for their high quality.
Our proposals, with Parliament’s support, provide for procedures that allow for coordinated or even harmonised assignment of radio frequencies. The consultation and transparency procedure of Article 6 of the framework directive, the authorisation directive and the Commission’s proposal for a regulatory framework on radio spectrum policy provide us with the necessary instruments.
The new framework will also allow for secondary trading of radio spectrum which enables more flexible management of this resource. More than ever we need to work together. The European Parliament and the Commission should try to convince the Member States to take a more coordinated approach to frequency assignment.
I urge Parliament to debate soon the proposal for radio spectrum policy and thus send out a strong signal on the importance and the urgency of the matter.
Finally, on the proposals made by Mr van Velzen, I strongly agree with him that we need firm actions to stimulate the use of mobile Internet and take steps to keep the European lead in third-generation. We have to see that new Internet protocol version 6 will be rolled out swiftly. We have to stimulate European content production and we also need to increase the availability of public sector information for these purposes.
We have to see that sufficient research funding is available for future wireless technologies as foreseen in the Commission’s proposal for the sixth Framework Programme for research and also, the other proposals which he made, I am ready to look at them and the Commission will come back to this area. Together we must guarantee that Europe’s lead in mobile communication will be safeguarded.
I am not able to cover, due to the time-limits, all the issues of crucial importance that I would like to. I apologise for this and will try to concentrate on the very core issues.
First, on the framework directive, the Commission is very pleased with the Paasilinna report, in particular as regards the consultation and transparency mechanism contained in Article 6. This is the key provision to ensure that not only national interest drives regulatory decisions but that European interest is also taken into account. After all, if we do not take into account European interest, we do not serve national interest in this business either.
This legislation will ensure a level playing field for operators across the single market. Its application will lead to a European regulatory culture in the telecommunications sector which will help to even out those differences in national decisions that can threaten the single market and the whole sector. I am referring here, as many here have already done, to different licensing conditions imposed by Member States for the third-generation services. The Commission is happy to support those parts of Amendment No 33 which aim at strengthening the transparency and consultation procedure and the Commission is strongly against Amendment No 78 which would weaken this procedure. However, we consider that the requirement to consult other national regulatory authorities on draft measures is necessary for the creation of the European regulatory culture.
The second key element is the SMP definition. It is the Commission’s view that the definition in Amendment No 56 is too wide. We are concerned that it could lead to over-regulation, which would lead to fear of over-regulation by the operators, which could in turn hamper investment. We also believe that this definition could undermine consistency of regulatory action. The Commission considers that its original proposal would better serve the fundamental objective of the whole package, which is to minimise regulation but provide regulators with flexible tools to ensure effective competition in every market segment.
On institutional issues, I am convinced that we must involve the European Parliament closely in the process of implementing the new framework. We must seek together the most efficient and flexible mechanisms for involving Parliament but for institutional reasons we cannot go against the agreements on comitology. Thus I regret that the Commission cannot support Amendments Nos 72 to 74.
Finally, on digital television, I will soon be inviting the market players to discuss how best to ensure that digital television systems are rolled out swiftly in Europe so that digital television becomes a viable alternative platform for Internet access. For the time being, the Commission considers that voluntary industrial standardisation is the best process, and it is not ready to support Amendment No 63.
As far as the report of Mr Paasilinna is concerned, the Commission can accept in full Amendments Nos 4, 12, 29, 32, 34, 55, 65 and 68 and the Commission can accept in part or in principle Amendments Nos 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 22, 25, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 45 to 48, 53, 54, 57 to 61, 66, 67, 69 and 75. The Commission cannot accept Amendments Nos 5, 8, 14, 16, 18, 20, 23, 24, 26, 39, 41 to 44, 49 to 52, 56, 62, 63, 64, 70 to 74 and 76 to 79."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples