Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-07-03-Speech-2-203"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010703.9.2-203"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Thank you, Ms Kauppi, for this extremely interesting and timely question. It is true that currently, given the prevailing market conditions and, in particular, the decline in the market valuation of most technologies companies, network sharing has been seriously envisaged by certain third generation operators as a means to alleviate their debt burden and lower their network deployment costs.
The Commission has already indicated that, in principle, it considers network infrastructure sharing positively, due to the potential economic gains, always provided that competition rules and other relevant Community laws are respected, in particular those of the licensing directive. This view has been expressed in the Commission communication on the introduction of third generation mobile communications in the European Union that was adopted on 20 March 2001. Certain forms of networking infrastructure sharing, notably site and mast sharing, could greatly contribute to reducing the environmental impact of network deployment.
So far, the Commission has not been formally notified of any agreement between 3G operators, therefore, it is not yet clear how network sharing will take place and how it will be implemented. Some operators may choose to engage in network infrastructure sharing within a limited geographical area, while others may opt for full geographical coverage. In the same vein, some operators may choose to share only sites and masts, whereas others may choose also to share antennas and what I would call 'active elements' of their networks, such as radio network controllers.
From contacts with operators and manufacturers, it appears that the degree of cooperation among 3G license holders will be influenced by the availability of new technology which will enable operators to share even active elements of their networks, without having to exchange or share sensitive information among themselves or otherwise compromise their independence as competitors.
The Commission has already had some preliminary discussions with national regulators on the competition law issues raised by network-sharing. At this stage, the Commission can only require parties to ensure that when they conclude network-sharing agreements, competition among themselves and with third parties is not restricted or affected. Any restriction of competition could be tolerated only if it brought benefits to consumers and fulfilled all the other conditions set out in Article 81(3) of the Treaty.
In any event, the freedom of contracting parties to disengage from their network-sharing cooperation and deploy their own networks in areas where they previously shared infrastructure should be preserved. Given that the Commission has not yet been formally notified of, or had occasion to examine, any case of network sharing, it is uncertain at this stage whether the Commission might need to issue, in the future, any kind of specific guidelines on the competition law aspects of network sharing.
Finally, as regards the EIB, the Commission is aware of the Bank's intention of taking account of competition considerations in assessing projects for loans. The Commission clearly welcomes this intention as ensuring coherence between the Bank's objectives in rolling out projects in accordance with its mandate, particularly following the Lisbon European Council and Community policy in a liberalised environment."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples