Roaming TSM Net Neutrality DSM Advanced digital networks and - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶

Sep 26, 2023 263 likes •406 views

BoR (16) 80 Review of the Telecoms Framework BEREC Opinion and further update Ervin Kajzinger (NMHH), co-chair RF EWG OCECPR Stakeholder meeting, 12nd April 2016, Nicosia Content The Review Process BEREC opinion Further up-date 2

SLIDE 1

Review of the Telecoms Framework BEREC Opinion and further update

Ervin Kajzinger (NMHH), co-chair RF EWG OCECPR Stakeholder meeting, 12nd April 2016, Nicosia

BoR (16) 80

SLIDE 2

Content

The Review Process
BEREC opinion
Further up-date

SLIDE 3

Enhance the digital economy Better access for consumers and businesses Advanced digital networks and innovative services CONNECTIVITY UNIVERSAL SERVICE END USER’S PROTECTION LEVEL PLAYING FIELD SPECTRUM TSM DSM Roaming Net Neutrality INSTITUTIONAL DESIGN

SLIDE 4

The process of the Review

Until 1990 1998 Review 2002 2009

Monopolist market scenario Services directive

Independence
f NRAs

1990

Liberalisation New directives:

Full competition
Interconnection
Privacy

Infrastructure based competition 2002 package (FD, Access, Auth US, e-Priv) Full competition 2002 package reviewed + BEREC + Roaming T

be launched

in Q3/2016 In force from 2020

December 2015 May 2015 Q3 2016 April 2016

Digital Single Market

Q4 2016 2018 2020

BEREC Opinion

BEREC - Commission High level meeting Legislative initiative to be published by the Commission Start of negotiations Council of EU EP Agreement Entry into force

SLIDE 5

How to promote connectivity in Europe? CONNECTIVITY

Improve fast/superfast broadband infrastructure deployment speed
Digital divide, rural areas
Foster take-up of high-speed broadband

By which means/options?

Regulation/Deregulation
Role of Universal Service
State Aid

Competition drives investment No “one-size fits all” solution Regulatory toolbox need to be refreshed to

respond to the fast evolving and diverse market requirements

SLIDE 6

Does the current scope of the USO needs to be updated?

UNIVERSAL SERVICE

Member States should retain discretion to define scope of US US to be retained as a basic service (e.g. for rural areas or digital illiterate citizens)

Should the US contribute to the connectivity goal?

Action needed to avoid a new digital

divide

Up to Member States to set particular

technical parameters of broadband access

Reflecting specific needs of national

situations and geographies etc.

SLIDE 7

Distortion of a level playing field among different players?

Focus on situations of competing services
New business models and changes in the internet value chain

Options? Perspectives?

 NRAs willing to monitor market developments (impact of new players/business models) on

the telecom markets

 Current ECS definition would benefit from some clarification  Legislator should consider the policy objectives of each obligation and the proportionality of

imposing that obligation on a specific service or service type

LEVEL PLAYING FIELD

SLIDE 8

General and/or sector specific consumer law?

END-USER’S PROTECTION

A balance should be found between these two legislative approaches No legal gap to be created but it is necessary to avoid double regulation In any case consumers should not be less protected

Level of harmonisation for consumer law?

Current minimum harmonisation approach more future proof than full/maximum

harmonisation approach

Maximum harmonisation approach would risk bringing level of end user protection down to

lowest common denominator

SLIDE 9

Status quo

SPECTRUM

Current framework has worked well European (global) spectrum harmonisation already reality Existing framework already includes extensive tools to harmonise spectrum

Future perspective

Further harmonisation should be approached with caution Top down harmonisation runs the risk of sterilising spectrum and resulting in inefficient use

f scarce resources

Risk of hampering rather than supporting innovation (enable “front runners”) Principles in the existing framework could be further enforced through closer cooperation

between RSPG and BEREC (best practices)

SLIDE 10

Experiences and lessons learnt…

INSTITUTIONAL DESIGN

Current sectoral institutional set-up has worked well BEREC’s rootedness in NRAs’ expertise ensures independent and professional work Appropriate balance between harmonisation and national markets promotes the internal

market Room for improvement

Scope for improving operational efficiency of BEREC BEREC and independent NRAs’ competences should be aligned Increased advisory role for BEREC before tabling legislative proposals

SLIDE 11

This is the right moment to re-fresh Regulation

Promote Competition and Investment
Promote the Internal Market
Empower and protect End-Users

 Pursue the most efficient, proportionate and least intrusive regulatory approaches

according to market conditions

 Details defined bottom-up  Regulate, co-regulate and deregulate as and when needed.

“Light touch Regulation”

SLIDE 12

SLIDE 13

Regulatory objectives
Network access

Simplified regulation

Role of co-investment Oligopolistic market situations Investment plans

Spectrum

What the problem is? Competencies of NRAs Further coordination of assignment conditions Small cells, unlicensed spectrum

Governance

Competencies of NRAs Future role of BEREC and the EC

SLIDE 14

Roaming TSM Net Neutrality DSM Advanced digital networks and - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Review of the Telecoms Framework BEREC Opinion and further update

Content

Competition drives investment No “one-size fits all” solution Regulatory toolbox need to be refreshed to

Member States should retain discretion to define scope of US US to be retained as a basic service (e.g. for rural areas or digital illiterate citizens)

Up to Member States to set particular

Reflecting specific needs of national

 NRAs willing to monitor market developments (impact of new players/business models) on

 Current ECS definition would benefit from some clarification  Legislator should consider the policy objectives of each obligation and the proportionality of

A balance should be found between these two legislative approaches No legal gap to be created but it is necessary to avoid double regulation In any case consumers should not be less protected

Current minimum harmonisation approach more future proof than full/maximum

Maximum harmonisation approach would risk bringing level of end user protection down to

Current framework has worked well European (global) spectrum harmonisation already reality Existing framework already includes extensive tools to harmonise spectrum

Further harmonisation should be approached with caution Top down harmonisation runs the risk of sterilising spectrum and resulting in inefficient use

Risk of hampering rather than supporting innovation (enable “front runners”) Principles in the existing framework could be further enforced through closer cooperation

Current sectoral institutional set-up has worked well BEREC’s rootedness in NRAs’ expertise ensures independent and professional work Appropriate balance between harmonisation and national markets promotes the internal

Scope for improving operational efficiency of BEREC BEREC and independent NRAs’ competences should be aligned Increased advisory role for BEREC before tabling legislative proposals

 Pursue the most efficient, proportionate and least intrusive regulatory approaches

 Details defined bottom-up  Regulate, co-regulate and deregulate as and when needed.

“Light touch Regulation”

Simplified regulation

Thank you

ervin.kajzinger@nmhh.hu