Proposal for the EU Regulation “ Connected Continent ” and its Implications

1. 3rd Luxembourg Workshop on Space and Satellite Communications Law Proposal for the EU Regulation “Connected Continent” and its Implications Spielmann Max 6th of June 2014

2. Introduction & Outline • Commission argues: • Most ambitious plan in 26 years of telecoms market reform • Will allow the creation of a Single Market • Brings distinct solution, but they are all vital • Structure of the proposal: 1. Removal of unnecessary obstacles: • Single authorisation • Virtual access obligations • Spectrum coordination 2. Consumer protection: • General principles • Net neutrality • Roaming 3. BEREC reform

3. I. The removal of unnecessary obstacles A. Single EU authorisation • ‘One-stop-shop’ + Single authorisation • Condition = Notification in home MS (all languages) • Despite one-stop-shop’: • ‘Host NRA’ = In principle competent • ‘Home NRA’ = Competent for Suspension/Withdrawal • But: Extension of Commission’s powers B. European virtual access products • Introduction of these product in the European legal order • Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in order to adapt to technological developments

4. C. Coordination of use of spectrum • Art. 12: Commission = implementing acts: • Establish common timetables for the whole Union • Determine minimum durations for rights of use • Determine synchronised expiry or renewal dates • Implementing acts for all these requirements • Art. 16: The Commission may adopt implementing acts to ensure/resolve: • Coordinated outcomes + equitable access to spectrum • Any practical inconsistencies • The enforcement of coordinated solutions • Commission: Proposal will have positive effects for cross border activities/Economy of scale/Efficient use • Criticisms: Commission would become de facto competent/has already extensive powers

5. II. BEREC reform • Commission wants to become competent to propose a list of candidates/ to propose withdrawal of Chairpersons • Advantages (COM): Allow BEREC to play a more strategic role + more organisational stability • Criticisms: Loss of independence + Not necessary III. Consumer protection principles A. General consumer protection rules • Changes are mostly related to the choice of the legal instrument • Main advantage: Promotion of cross border activities • Main criticisms: Loss of MS possibility to act / Reduction of some national consumer protection standards

6. B. Net neutrality • Currently no harmonised framework • Commission proposal: • Principle: everyone has the right to access and to distribute content via its internet service access • Exceptions: • Data-volumes/Speeds may contractually be limited • Specialised Services/IPS may agree with each other, or with content providers • Traffic management measures • Parliament = Insists on the principle of net neutrality  Amended proposal = Step in the right direction

7. C. Roaming charges • Commission wants to allow ‘roaming alliances’  Conditions (but exceptions): • Roaming services at domestic charges • Coverage of all MS • Roaming alliances may rely on ‘reasonable use’ criterion • Main criticisms: • Current framework only entered into force in 2012 / Not even developed its full effects • Only favour large operators • ‘Reasonable use’ criterion = negative

8. Concluding remarks • Commission’s ultimate intent (promote best economical growth) = in principle valid objective • But – Commission: • Unjustified intent to be endowed by further competences • Favours large operators at the expense of consumer protection standards • Consequently: Most provisions ≠ ready to be adopted

9. Thank you for your attentionQuestions?