geraldinespiteri.com

On 13 November 2007, the European Commission proposed a general review of the rules governing electronic communications. The package contained legislative proposals, providing for the establishment of a new EU telecoms authority ultimately controlled by the Commission, the introduction of functional separation to spur competition, a review of radio spectrum management and a range of consumer protection measures.

On 24 September 2008, the European Parliament approved a broad revision of the rules proposed by the Commission, rejecting the establishment of the new authority as framed by the EU executive, and watering down bold proposals on functional separation and radio spectrum. MEPs also added to their text clear indications to help develop networks for a super-fast Internet (so-called Next Generation Networks) in a bid to boost competition.

Today, EurActive reports that despite progress on the funding of new fibre networks, the European institutions are still a long way from reaching an overall compromise on the review of EU rules governing electronic communications. On the 17th February, a ministerial conference began in Prague, to try to iron out differences.  The Czech EU Presidency has already presented a number of draft compromise texts that are considered close to the Commission approach, but divergences between member states remain wide.

The division of competences between the national regulatory authorities for electronic communications and the Commission has yet to be addressed.  It would appear that the Commission will try to retain its power to veto national decisions if they would potentially hamper the smooth functioning of the internal market.   In Malta, this has caused problems with the findings of joint dominance in the telecoms infrastructure market, where the Commission has vetoed such a finding of the Malta Communications Authority (MCA). The MCA has therefore had to withdraw its finding, and this has meant that the single cable infrastructure operator and the other infrastructure operator have been free not to offer access to their infrastructure, or to offer such access on terms and conditions which they deem fit, whether or not they are competitive.

This being a very lucrative sector, the majority of Member States would appear unwilling to relinquish their control.  This could of course give rise to lack of harmonisation among the laws or their enforcement at national level. With an exclusive veto right for the Commission almost certainly ruled out, two main options remain on the table: the EU executive could exercise its veto only if backed by a body of European regulators (which in practice means no veto power), or it could merely keep a non-binding “recommendation” power.

Another unresolved dispute regards the allocation of radio spectrum, the invisible electromagnetic waves which feed mobile phones, satellites, televisions, radios and many other electronic devices. The planned transition to transmission via cable, envisaged by almost all member states by 2012, will free much of this limited resource. However, how to use it and how to regulate radio frequencies, whether at EU or national level, remain the subject of fierce disputes.

geraldine