1 / 13

C laire Milne antelope.uk Email: cbm@antelope.uk tel/fax: +44 20 8505 9826

SERENATE study: telecoms regulation and research networking in Europe Noordwijkerhout, 5 February 2003. C laire Milne http://www.antelope.org.uk Email: cbm@antelope.org.uk tel/fax: +44 20 8505 9826. Outline of presentation. Introduction to the study Telecoms regulation in Europe

Download Presentation

C laire Milne antelope.uk Email: cbm@antelope.uk tel/fax: +44 20 8505 9826

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. SERENATE study: telecoms regulation and research networking in EuropeNoordwijkerhout, 5 February 2003 Claire Milne http://www.antelope.org.uk Email: cbm@antelope.org.uk tel/fax: +44 20 8505 9826

  2. Outline of presentation • Introduction to the study • Telecoms regulation in Europe • Impact of telecoms regulation on NRENs • Direct impacts (regulatory status) • Indirect impacts (market conditions) • Conclusions

  3. Introduction to the study • Aim: to assess main implications for European NRENs of regulatory situation, with particular reference to new ownership models • Approach: focus on country analyses, especially accession countries (AC) plus Greece and Portugal • Collaborative effort by CTI, DANTE, relevant NRENs, and SSC – thanks to all concerned • Telecoms regulation: market liberalisation and rules for running networks and providing services (excludes NREN-specific rules, eg their own statutes). Main areas: • Competition rules • Limited resource management eg spectrum, rights of way • Universal service and consumer protection

  4. Telecoms regulation in Europe • From July 2003 actually “electronic communications” in place of telecoms – reflecting convergence (but excludes content regulation) • EU (and EEA) markets supposed to be fully liberalised since January 1998; annual Commission “implementation reports” track progress • New regulatory package of 5 interlinked Directives approved April 2002 for transposition in all member states by July 2003 • Implementation currently in progress, many details open • Accession countries must adopt acquis communautaire by date of joining

  5. Full liberalisation dates • Pre-1998: UK, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands • 1998: France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Austria • 1999: Luxembourg, Spain. Ireland • 2000: Portugal • 2001: Greece, Slovenia, Czech Republic, Estonia • 2002: Hungary • 2003: Romania, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland • 2004: Bulgaria, Cyprus, Slovak Republic?, Turkey?

  6. How regulation works in Europe • EU legislation is binding on members and will be on prospective members, followed voluntarily by Switzerland and EEA members • EU laws are “transposed” into national laws and regulations, leading to some national variations • Idea of a European regulator floated during 1999 Review but dropped – there is no international regulation (apart from WTO) • ERO provides “one-stop shop” for licensing plus technical co-ordination among 44 countries of “greater Europe”

  7. 5 new Directives • Framework Directive • Authorisation Directive • Access Directive • Universal Service and Consumer Protection Directive • Data Protection Directive • Plus earlier Local Loop Unbundling Directive

  8. Main points of new regime • Aim is freest possible market consistent with adequate consumer protection; further opening plus “tidying up” exercise (but smooth transition intended from status quo) • Continuing basic principles: objective, non-discriminatory, proportionate, transparent; also technology-neutral • Licensing abolished, replaced by general authorisations for electronic communications service (ECS) provision subject to general conditions of entitlement – notification only, minimal fees • Market analysis procedure must justify additional ex ante regulation to curb abuse of Significant Market Power (SMP) – mainly, by former incumbent operators

  9. Future of interconnection regulation • “Interconnection” is now a special case of “access” – ie ability to use network elements and other facilities (eg buildings, ducts, software) • Interconnection means “physical and logical linking of networks to enable users of both networks to communicate with each other” • “Public communications network” (PCN) • Wholly or mainly for provision of publicly available ECS • ECS are normally provided for remuneration • PCN operators must negotiate access and interconnection, regulators may intervene where necessary • If not public then “private” in D7 (shorthand for a variety of others) • Regulators may require more of SMP operators: • Fair, reasonable, timely, non-discriminatory, transparent access • At cost-oriented prices (based on separated accounts)

  10. Main implications for NRENs

  11. Main implications for NRENs • Indirect: liberalisation (with continuing regulation, cf leased line pricing, mobile termination rates) should eventually bring lower prices, higher quality and more variety • Direct: • No general regulatory barriers to owning or running networks • Public network status brings special rights and responsibilities and may objectively justify discrimination (replaces old “infrastructure based” category) • Especially if public, NRENs could attract charges of competing unfairly because of public funding and special access to customers • Rights of way and construction permits may remain a problem

  12. Some country differences affecting NRENs • Degree of liberalisation (depends on eg: time, strength of regulator, ownership of incumbent) • Market size, especially for high-speed leased lines • NREN structure and functions (eg: ISP activities, broadband infrastructure provision) • Other eg: geographic situation and international links, political interventions, “culture”

  13. Conclusions • New regulatory regime will mainly help NRENs: • More competition leading to lower prices etc • Supportive of NRENs using new ownership models and getting necessary elements from incumbents • But could lead to questions over NRENs’ own status and fair competition • Worth clarifying positions and preparing arguments

More Related