ITRE Amendments on Single Market Regulation

De La Quadrature du Net

Sommaire

Amendment 154[modifier]

Giles Chichester
Paragraph 1

Draft legislative resolution

Amendment

1. Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out;

1. Rejects the Commission proposal;


Amendment 155[modifier]

Sabine Verheyen, Petra Kammerevert, Helga Trüpel, Doris Pack

Proposal for a rejection

The European Parliament rejects [the Commission proposal].

Justification:
We support the Commission’s fundamental aims of promoting the internal market in the interests of consumers and the European economy. However, it is very doubtful whether this proposal for a regulation is well-suited to meet them. On the contrary we fear the proposal will have adverse effects on willingness to invest and on competition. Accordingly a coordinated review of the whole legal framework should be carried out in the next electoral period following a careful analysis and prior consultation of all stakeholders.

Amendment 156[modifier]

Jens Rohde
Citation 5 a (new)

Draft legislative resolution

Amendment

- Having regard to the European Parliament resolution of 12 September 2013 on the Digital Agenda for Growth, Mobility and Employment: time to move up a gear, in which the European Parliament calls for the abolishment of roaming in 2015.

Amendment 157[modifier]

Christian Ehler
Recital 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(1) Europe has to tap all sources of growth to exit the crisis, create jobs and regain its competitiveness. Restoring growth and job creation in the Union is the aim of the Europe 2020 Strategy. The 2013 Spring European Council stressed the importance of the digital single market for growth and called for concrete measures, in order to establish a single market in information and communications technology (ICT) as early as possible. In line with the objectives of the Europe 2020 Strategy and with this call, this regulation aims at establishing a single market for electronic communications by completing and adapting the existing Union Regulatory Framework for Electronic Communications.

(1) Europe has to tap all sources of growth to exit the crisis, create jobs and regain its competitiveness. Restoring growth and job creation in the Union is the aim of the Europe 2020 Strategy. Furthermore the Digital Sphere has become a part of the public space where new forms of cross-border trade are established, and business opportunities for European companies in the global digital economy are being created along with innovative market development and social and cultural interaction. The 2013 Spring European Council stressed the importance of the digital single market for growth and called for concrete measures, in order to establish a single market in information and communications technology (ICT) as early as possible. In line with the objectives of the Europe 2020 Strategy and with this call, this regulation aims at establishing a single market for electronic communications by completing and adapting the existing Union Regulatory Framework for Electronic Communications.

Justification:
In line with the Transatlantic Dialogue (TLD) Non-Paper "Cyber security and Internet issues - Establishing framework for Transatlantic action".

Amendment 158[modifier]

Patrizia Toia
Recital 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(2) The Digital Agenda for Europe (DAE), one of the flagship initiatives of Europe 2020 Strategy, has already recognised the role of ICT and network connectivity as an indispensable basis for the development of our economy and society. For Europe to reap the benefits of digital transformation, the Union needs a dynamic single market in electronic communications for all sectors and across all of Europe. Such a truly single communications market will be the backbone of an innovative and 'smart' digital economy and a foundation of the digital single market where online services can freely flow across borders.

(2) The Digital Agenda for Europe (DAE), one of the flagship initiatives of Europe 2020 Strategy, has already recognised the role of ICT and network connectivity as an indispensable basis for the development of our economy and society. For Europe to reap the benefits of digital transformation, the Union needs a dynamic single market in electronic communications for all sectors and across all of Europe. Such a truly single communications market will be the backbone of an innovative and 'smart' digital economy and a foundation of the digital single market where online services can freely flow across borders within a single, open, standardised and interoperable framework.


Amendment 159[modifier]

Petra Kammerevert
Recital 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(3) In a seamless single market in electronic communications, the freedom to provide electronic communications networks and services to every customer in the Union and the right of each end-user to choose the best offer available on the market should be ensured and should not be hindered by the fragmentation of markets along national borders. The current regulatory framework for electronic communications does not fully address such fragmentation, with national, rather than Union-wide general authorisation regimes, national spectrum assignment schemes, differences of access products available for electronic communications providers in different Member States, and different sets of sector-specific consumer rules applicable. The Union rules in many cases merely define a baseline, and are often implemented in diverging ways by the Member States.

(3) In a seamless single market in electronic communications, the right of each individual to access electronic communications networks and services in the Union, the freedom to provide these and the right of each end-user to choose the best offer available on the market should be ensured and should not be hindered by the fragmentation of markets along national borders.


Amendment 160[modifier]

Sabine Verheyen, Doris Pack
Recital 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(3) In a seamless single market in electronic communications, the freedom to provide electronic communications networks and services to every customer in the Union and the right of each end-user to choose the best offer available on the market should be ensured and should not be hindered by the fragmentation of markets along national borders. The current regulatory framework for electronic communications does not fully address such fragmentation, with national, rather than Union-wide general authorisation regimes, national spectrum assignment schemes, differences of access products available for electronic communications providers in different Member States, and different sets of sector-specific consumer rules applicable. The Union rules in many cases merely define a baseline, and are often implemented in diverging ways by the Member States.

(3) In a seamless single market in electronic communications, the freedom to provide electronic communications networks and services to every customer in the Union and the right of each end-user to choose the best offer available on the market should be ensured and should not be hindered by the fragmentation of markets along national borders.


Amendment 161[modifier]

András Gyürk
Recital 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(3) In a seamless single market in electronic communications, the freedom to provide electronic communications networks and services to every customer in the Union and the right of each end-user to choose the best offer available on the market should be ensured and should not be hindered by the fragmentation of markets along national borders. The current regulatory framework for electronic communications does not fully address such fragmentation, with national, rather than Union-wide general authorisation regimes, national spectrum assignment schemes, differences of access products available for electronic communications providers in different Member States, and different sets of sector-specific consumer rules applicable. The Union rules in many cases merely define a baseline, and are often implemented in diverging ways by the Member States.

(3) The freedom to provide electronic communications networks and services to every customer in the Union and the right of each end-user to choose the best offer available on the market should be ensured and should not be hindered by the fragmentation of markets along national borders. The current regulatory framework for electronic communications does not fully address such fragmentation, with diverging national implementation of the general authorisation regime, national spectrum assignment schemes, and different sets of sector-specific consumer rules applicable. For example, while the Authorisation Directive limits the type of information which may be required, 12 Member States demand additional detail such as a categorisation of the intended types of activities, the geographical scope of the activity, the targeted market, the company structure, including names of shareholders, and of shareholders of shareholders, Chamber of Commerce certification and a criminal records of the representative of the undertaking.


Amendment 162[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Recital 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(3) In a seamless single market in electronic communications, the freedom to provide electronic communications networks and services to every customer in the Union and the right of each end-user to choose the best offer available on the market should be ensured and should not be hindered by the fragmentation of markets along national borders. The current regulatory framework for electronic communications does not fully address such fragmentation, with national, rather than Union-wide general authorisation regimes, national spectrum assignment schemes, differences of access products available for electronic communications providers in different Member States, and different sets of sector-specific consumer rules applicable. The Union rules in many cases merely define a baseline, and are often implemented in diverging ways by the Member States.

(3) In a seamless single market in electronic communications, the freedom to provide electronic communications networks and services to every customer in the Union and the right of each end-user to choose the best offer available on the market should be ensured and should not be hindered by the fragmentation of markets along national borders. The current regulatory framework for electronic communications needs to be harmonised and simplified to facilitate and speed up the completion of the digital single market. The Union rules in many cases merely define a baseline, and are often implemented in diverging ways by the Member States.


Amendment 163[modifier]

Gunnar Hökmark
Recital 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(3) In a seamless single market in electronic communications, the freedom to provide electronic communications networks and services to every customer in the Union and the right of each end-user to choose the best offer available on the market should be ensured and should not be hindered by the fragmentation of markets along national borders. The current regulatory framework for electronic communications does not fully address such fragmentation, with national, rather than Union-wide general authorisation regimes, national spectrum assignment schemes, differences of access products available for electronic communications providers in different Member States, and different sets of sector-specific consumer rules applicable. The Union rules in many cases merely define a baseline, and are often implemented in diverging ways by the Member States.

(3) In a seamless single market in electronic communications, the freedom to provide electronic communications networks and services to every customer in the Union and the right of each end-user to choose the best offer available on the market should be ensured and should not be hindered by the fragmentation of markets along national borders. The current regulatory framework for electronic communications does not fully address such fragmentation, with national, rather than Union-wide general authorisation regimes, national spectrum assignment schemes, differences of access products available for electronic communications providers in different Member States, and different sets of sector-specific consumer rules applicable. The Union rules in many cases merely define a baseline, and the differences in the enforcement and implementation of the regulatory framework has led to higher costs for operators active in more than one country; thereby hindering investments and the development of a single market for telecoms


Amendment 164[modifier]

Patrizia Toia, Francesco De Angelis
Recital 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(4) A truly single market for electronic communications should promote competition, investment and innovation in new and enhanced networks and services by fostering market integration and cross-border service offerings. It should thus help to achieve the ambitious high-speed broadband targets set out in the DAE. The growing availability of digital infrastructures and services should in turn increase consumer choice, quality of service and diversity of content, and contribute to territorial and social cohesion, as well as facilitating mobility across the Union.

(4) A truly single market for electronic communications should promote competition, investment and innovation in new and enhanced networks and services by fostering market integration and cross-border service offerings. It should thus help to achieve the ambitious high-speed broadband targets set out in the DAE and facilitate the emergence of services and applications that are able to exploit open data and formats in an interoperable, standardised and safe way, ensuring that they are available at the same functional and non-functional levels throughout the Union. The growing availability of digital infrastructures and services should in turn increase consumer choice, quality of service and diversity of content, and contribute to territorial and social cohesion, as well as facilitating mobility across the Union.


Amendment 165[modifier]

Gunnar Hökmark
Recital 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(4) A truly single market for electronic communications should promote competition, investment and innovation in new and enhanced networks and services by fostering market integration and cross-border service offerings. It should thus help to achieve the ambitious high-speed broadband targets set out in the DAE. The growing availability of digital infrastructures and services should in turn increase consumer choice, quality of service and diversity of content, and contribute to territorial and social cohesion, as well as facilitating mobility across the Union.

(4) A truly single market for electronic communications should promote competition, coordination, investment, innovation and more capacity in new and enhanced networks and services by fostering market integration and cross-border service offerings. It should thus help to achieve the ambitious high-speed broadband targets set out in the DAE. The growing availability of digital infrastructures and services should in turn increase consumer choice, quality of service and diversity of content, and contribute to territorial and social cohesion, as well as facilitating mobility across the Union.


Amendment 166[modifier]

Ioannis A. Tsoukalas
Recital 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(4) A truly single market for electronic communications should promote competition, investment and innovation in new and enhanced networks and services by fostering market integration and cross-border service offerings. It should thus help to achieve the ambitious high-speed broadband targets set out in the DAE. The growing availability of digital infrastructures and services should in turn increase consumer choice, quality of service and diversity of content, and contribute to territorial and social cohesion, as well as facilitating mobility across the Union.

(4) A truly single market for electronic communications should promote competition, investment and innovation in new and enhanced networks and services by fostering market integration and cross-border service offerings. It should thus help to achieve, and even surpass, the high-speed broadband targets set out in the DAE. The growing availability of digital infrastructures and services should in turn increase consumer choice, quality of service and diversity of content, and contribute to territorial and social cohesion, as well as facilitating mobility across the Union.


Amendment 167[modifier]

Patrizia Toia, Francesco De Angelis
Recital 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(5) The benefits arising from a single market for electronic communications should extend to the wider digital ecosystem that includes Union equipment manufacturers, content and application providers and the wider economy, covering sectors such as banking, automotive, logistics, retail, energy and transport, which rely on connectivity to enhance their productivity through, for example, ubiquitous cloud applications, connected objects and possibilities for integrated service provision for different parts of the company. Public administrations and the health sector should also benefit from a wider availability of e-government and e-health services. The offer of cultural content and services, and cultural diversity in general, may be also enhanced in a single market for electronic communications. The provision of connectivity through electronic communications networks and services is of such importance to the wider economy and society that unjustified sector-specific burdens, whether regulatory or otherwise, should be avoided.

(5) The benefits arising from a single market for electronic communications should extend to the wider digital ecosystem that includes Union equipment manufacturers, content and application providers and the wider economy, covering sectors such as banking, automotive, logistics, retail, energy, medicine, mobility and transport, and the intelligent management of emergencies and natural disasters, which rely on connectivity and broadband to enhance their productivity, quality and end-user provision through, for example, ubiquitous cloud applications, advanced analysis of big data from communications networks, connected and interoperable objects and possibilities for integrated cross-border service provision, against a background of open-standard system interoperability and open data. Public administrations and the health sector should also benefit from a wider availability of e-government and e-health services. The offer of cultural content and services, and cultural diversity in general, may be also enhanced in a single market for electronic communications. The provision of connectivity through electronic communications networks and services is of such importance to the wider economy and society and to the smart cities of the future that unjustified sector-specific burdens, whether regulatory or otherwise, should be avoided.


Amendment 168[modifier]

Ioannis A. Tsoukalas
Recital 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(5) The benefits arising from a single market for electronic communications should extend to the wider digital ecosystem that includes Union equipment manufacturers, content and application providers and the wider economy, covering sectors such as banking, automotive, logistics, retail, energy and transport, which rely on connectivity to enhance their productivity through, for example, ubiquitous cloud applications, connected objects and possibilities for integrated service provision for different parts of the company. Public administrations and the health sector should also benefit from a wider availability of e-government and e-health services. The offer of cultural content and services, and cultural diversity in general, may be also enhanced in a single market for electronic communications. The provision of connectivity through electronic communications networks and services is of such importance to the wider economy and society that unjustified sector-specific burdens, whether regulatory or otherwise, should be avoided.

(5) The benefits arising from a single market for electronic communications should extend to the wider digital ecosystem that includes Union equipment manufacturers, content and application providers and the wider economy, covering sectors such as banking, automotive, logistics, retail, energy and transport, which rely on connectivity to enhance their productivity through, for example, ubiquitous cloud applications, connected objects and possibilities for integrated service provision for different parts of the company. Public administrations and the health sector should also benefit from a wider availability of e-government and e-health services. The offer of cultural and educational content and services, and cultural diversity in general, may be also enhanced in a single market for electronic communications. The provision of connectivity through electronic communications networks and services is of such importance to the wider economy and society that unjustified sector-specific burdens, whether regulatory or otherwise, should be avoided.


Amendment 169[modifier]

Marisa Matias
Recital 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(6) This Regulation aims at the completion of the single electronic communications market through action on three broad, inter-related axes. First, it should secure the freedom to provide electronic communications services across borders and networks in different Member States, building on the concept of a single EU authorisation which puts in place the conditions for ensuring greater consistency and predictability in the content and implementation of sector-specific regulation throughout the Union. Second, it is necessary to enable access on much more convergent terms and conditions to essential inputs for the cross-border provision of electronic communications networks and services, not only for wireless broadband communications, for which both licensed and unlicensed spectrum is key, but also for fixed line connectivity. Third, in the interests of aligning business conditions and building the digital confidence of citizens, this Regulation should harmonise rules on the protection of end-users, especially consumers. This includes rules on non-discrimination, contractual information, termination of contracts and switching, in addition to rules on access to online content, applications and services and on traffic management which not only protect end-users but simultaneously guarantee the continued functioning of the Internet ecosystem as an engine of innovation. In addition, further reforms in the field of roaming should give end-users the confidence to stay connected when they travel in the Union, and should become over time a driver of convergent pricing and other conditions in the Union.

(6) This Regulation aims at the completion of the single electronic communications market through action on three broad, inter-related axes. First, it should secure the freedom to provide electronic communications services across borders and networks in different Member States, building on the concept of a single EU authorisation which puts in place the conditions for ensuring greater consistency and predictability in the content and implementation of sector-specific regulation throughout the Union. Second, it is necessary to enable access on much more convergent terms and conditions to essential inputs for the cross-border provision of electronic communications networks and services, not only for wireless broadband communications, for which both licensed and unlicensed spectrum is key, but also for fixed line connectivity. Third, in the interests of aligning business conditions and building the digital confidence of citizens, this Regulation should harmonise rules on the protection of end-users, especially consumers. This includes rules on non-discrimination, contractual information, termination of contracts and switching, in addition to rules on access to online content, applications and services and on traffic management which not only protect end-users but simultaneously guarantee the continued functioning of the Internet ecosystem as an engine of innovation. In addition, further reforms to abolish roaming should give end-users the confidence to stay connected when they travel in the Union without being subject to additional charges over and above the tariffs which they pay in the Member State where their contract was concluded.


Amendment 170[modifier]

Patrizia Toia
Recital 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(6) This Regulation aims at the completion of the single electronic communications market through action on three broad, inter-related axes. First, it should secure the freedom to provide electronic communications services across borders and networks in different Member States, building on the concept of a single EU authorisation which puts in place the conditions for ensuring greater consistency and predictability in the content and implementation of sector-specific regulation throughout the Union. Second, it is necessary to enable access on much more convergent terms and conditions to essential inputs for the cross-border provision of electronic communications networks and services, not only for wireless broadband communications, for which both licensed and unlicensed spectrum is key, but also for fixed line connectivity. Third, in the interests of aligning business conditions and building the digital confidence of citizens, this Regulation should harmonise rules on the protection of end-users, especially consumers. This includes rules on non-discrimination, contractual information, termination of contracts and switching, in addition to rules on access to online content, applications and services and on traffic management which not only protect end-users but simultaneously guarantee the continued functioning of the Internet ecosystem as an engine of innovation. In addition, further reforms in the field of roaming should give end-users the confidence to stay connected when they travel in the Union, and should become over time a driver of convergent pricing and other conditions in the Union.

(6) This Regulation aims at the completion of the single electronic communications market through action on three broad, inter-related axes. First, it should secure the freedom to provide electronic communications services across borders and networks in different Member States, building on the concept of a single EU authorisation which puts in place the conditions for ensuring greater consistency and predictability in the content and implementation of sector-specific regulation throughout the Union. Second, it is necessary to enable access on much more convergent terms and conditions to essential inputs for the cross-border provision of electronic communications networks and services, not only for wireless broadband communications, for which both licensed and unlicensed spectrum is key, but also for fixed line connectivity. Third, in the interests of aligning business conditions and building the digital confidence of citizens, this Regulation should harmonise rules on the protection of end-users, especially consumers. This includes rules on non-discrimination, contractual information, termination of contracts and switching, in addition to rules on access to online content, applications and services, traffic management and shared, common standards on end-user privacy and data protection and security, which not only protect end-users but simultaneously guarantee the continued functioning of the Internet ecosystem as an engine of innovation. In addition, further reforms in the field of roaming should give end-users the confidence to stay connected when they travel in the Union, and should become over time a driver of convergent pricing and other conditions in the Union.


Amendment 171[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Recital 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(6) This Regulation aims at the completion of the single electronic communications market through action on three broad, inter-related axes. First, it should secure the freedom to provide electronic communications services across borders and networks in different Member States, building on the concept of a single EU authorisation which puts in place the conditions for ensuring greater consistency and predictability in the content and implementation of sector-specific regulation throughout the Union. Second, it is necessary to enable access on much more convergent terms and conditions to essential inputs for the cross-border provision of electronic communications networks and services, not only for wireless broadband communications, for which both licensed and unlicensed spectrum is key, but also for fixed line connectivity. Third, in the interests of aligning business conditions and building the digital confidence of citizens, this Regulation should harmonise rules on the protection of end-users, especially consumers. This includes rules on non-discrimination, contractual information, termination of contracts and switching, in addition to rules on access to online content, applications and services and on traffic management which not only protect end-users but simultaneously guarantee the continued functioning of the Internet ecosystem as an engine of innovation. In addition, further reforms in the field of roaming should give end-users the confidence to stay connected when they travel in the Union, and should become over time a driver of convergent pricing and other conditions in the Union.

(6) This Regulation aims at the completion of the single electronic communications market through action on three broad, inter-related axes. First, it should secure the freedom to provide electronic communications services across borders and networks in different Member States, building on harmonised and simplified regulations to ensure greater consistency and predictability in the content and implementation of sector-specific regulation throughout the Union. Second, it is necessary to enable access on much more convergent terms and conditions to essential inputs for the cross-border provision of electronic communications networks and services, not only for wireless broadband communications, for which both licensed and unlicensed spectrum is key, but also for fixed line connectivity. Third, in the interests of aligning business conditions and building the digital confidence of citizens, this Regulation should harmonise rules on the protection of end-users, especially consumers. This includes rules on non-discrimination, contractual information, termination of contracts and switching, in addition to rules on access to online content, applications and services and on traffic management which not only protect end-users but simultaneously guarantee the continued functioning of the Internet ecosystem as an engine of innovation. In addition, further reforms in the field of roaming should give end-users the confidence to stay connected when they travel in the Union, and should become over time a driver of convergent pricing and other conditions in the Union.


Amendment 172[modifier]

Amelia Andersdotter
Recital 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(6) This Regulation aims at the completion of the single electronic communications market through action on three broad, inter-related axes. First, it should secure the freedom to provide electronic communications services across borders and networks in different Member States, building on the concept of a single EU authorisation which puts in place the conditions for ensuring greater consistency and predictability in the content and implementation of sector-specific regulation throughout the Union. Second, it is necessary to enable access on much more convergent terms and conditions to essential inputs for the cross-border provision of electronic communications networks and services, not only for wireless broadband communications, for which both licensed and unlicensed spectrum is key, but also for fixed line connectivity. Third, in the interests of aligning business conditions and building the digital confidence of citizens, this Regulation should harmonise rules on the protection of end-users, especially consumers. This includes rules on non-discrimination, contractual information, termination of contracts and switching, in addition to rules on access to online content, applications and services and on traffic management which not only protect end-users but simultaneously guarantee the continued functioning of the Internet ecosystem as an engine of innovation. In addition, further reforms in the field of roaming should give end-users the confidence to stay connected when they travel in the Union, and should become over time a driver of convergent pricing and other conditions in the Union.

(6) This Regulation aims at the completion of the single electronic communications market through action on three broad, inter-related axes. First, it should secure the freedom to provide electronic communications services across borders and networks in different Member States, building on the concept of a single EU authorisation which puts in place the conditions for ensuring greater consistency and predictability in the content and implementation of sector-specific regulation throughout the Union. Second, it is necessary to enable access on much more convergent terms and conditions to essential inputs for the cross-border provision of electronic communications networks and services, not only for wireless broadband communications, for which both licensed and unlicensed spectrum is key, but also for fixed line connectivity. Third, in the interests of aligning business conditions and building the digital confidence of citizens, this Regulation should harmonise rules on the protection of users, especially consumers. This includes rules on non-discrimination, contractual information, termination of contracts and switching, in addition to rules on access to online content, applications and services and on traffic management which not only protect users but simultaneously guarantee the continued functioning of the Internet ecosystem as an engine of innovation. In addition, further reforms in the field of roaming should give users the confidence to stay connected when they travel in the Union, and should become over time a driver of convergent pricing and other conditions in the Union.

(This amendment applies to the whole text)

Justification:
We prefer the term "user" to "end-user", which gives a too restrictive, or passive aspect of the internet user. The internet user should also be entitledto provide applications and services on the internet, see our amendment on article 23-1. The freedoms on the internet requires us to remind that.

Amendment 173[modifier]

Werner Langen, Herbert Reul
Recital 8 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(8a) To take account of the convergence of the once separate markets in traditional telecommunications services and information society services, the scope of this Regulation covers all services which mainly serve communications purposes or are primarily used by consumers for communication, in order to secure an appropriate level of consumer protection. Services which do not mainly serve communications purposes and are thus not essentially communicative in nature, such as online banking services or location-based services, will continue to be excluded from its scope.


Amendment 174[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Recital 9

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(9) The provision of cross-border electronic communications is still subject to greater burdens than those confined to the national borders. In particular, cross-border providers still need to notify and pay fees in individual host Member States. Holders of a single EU authorisation should be subject to a single notification system in the Member State of their main establishment (home Member State), which will reduce the administrative burden for cross-border operators. The single EU authorisation should apply to any undertaking that provides or intends to provide electronic communications services and networks in more than one Member State, thereby entitling it to enjoy the rights attached to the freedom to provide electronic communications services and networks in accordance with this Regulation in any Member State. A single EU authorisation defining the legal framework applicable to electronic communications operators providing services across Member States on the basis of a general authorisation in the home Member State should ensure the effectiveness of the freedom to provide electronic communications services and networks in the whole Union.

(9) The provision of cross-border electronic communications is still subject to greater burdens than those confined to the national borders. Harmonised and simplified regulations need to be introduced on the format and content of the notifications that must be made by operators in each Member State where they wish to operate. The Commission should draw up the standard notification format after consulting all interested parties and with the support of BEREC.


Amendment 175[modifier]

Gunnar Hökmark
Recital 10

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(10) The provision of electronic communications services or networks across borders may take different forms, depending on several factors such as the kind of network or services provided, the extent of the physical infrastructure needed or the number of subscribers in the different Member States. The intention to provide electronic communications services cross-border or to operate an electronic communications network in more than one Member State may be demonstrated by activities such as negotiation of agreements on access to networks in a given Member State or marketing via an internet site in the language of the targeted Member State.

(10) The provision of electronic communications services or networks across borders may take different forms, depending on several factors such as the kind of network or services provided, the extent of the physical infrastructure needed or the number of subscribers in the different Member States.


Amendment 176[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Recital 11

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(11) Irrespective of how the provider chooses to operate electronic communications networks or provide electronic communications services across borders, the regulatory regime applicable to a European electronic communications provider should be neutral vis-à-vis the commercial choices which underlie the organisation of functions and activities across Member States. Therefore, regardless of the corporate structure of the undertaking, the home Member State of a European electronic communications provider should be considered to be the Member State where the strategic decisions concerning the provision of electronic communications networks or services are taken.

(11) Irrespective of how the provider chooses to operate electronic communications networks or provide electronic communications services across borders, the regulatory regime applicable to an electronic communications provider should be neutral vis-à-vis the commercial choices which underlie the organisation of functions and activities across Member States.


Amendment 177[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Recital 13

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(13) Most sector-specific conditions, for example concerning access to or security and integrity of networks or access to emergency services, are strongly linked to the place where such network is located or the service is provided. Consequently a European electronic communications provider may be subject to conditions applicable in the Member States where it operates, to the extent that this Regulation does not provide otherwise.

deleted


Amendment 178[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Recital 14

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(14) Where Member States require contribution from the sector in order to finance universal service obligations and to the administrative costs of the national regulatory authorities, the criteria and procedures for apportioning contributions should be proportionate and non-discriminatory with regard to European electronic communications providers, so as not to hinder cross-border market entry, in particular of new entrants and smaller operators; individual undertakings’ contributions should therefore take into account the contributor’s market share in terms of turnover realised in the relevant Member State and should be subject to the application of a de minimis threshold.

deleted


Amendment 179[modifier]

Salvador Sedó i Alabart
Recital 15

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(15) It is necessary to ensure that in similar circumstances there is no discrimination in the treatment of any European electronic communications provider by different Member States and that consistent regulatory practices are applied in the single market, in particular as regards measures falling within the scope of Articles 15 or 16 of Directive 2002/21/EC, or Articles 5 or 8 of Directive 2002/19/EC. European electronic communications providers should therefore have a right to equal treatment by the different Member States in objectively equivalent situations in order to enable more integrated multi-territorial operations. Furthermore, there should be specific procedures at Union level for the review of draft decisions on remedies within the meaning of Article 7a of Directive 2002/21/EC in such cases, in order to avoid unjustified divergences in obligations applicable to European electronic communications providers in different Member States.

(15) It is necessary to ensure that in similar circumstances there is no discrimination in the treatment of any European electronic communications provider by different Member States and that consistent regulatory practices are applied in the single market, in particular as regards measures falling within the scope of Articles 15 or 16 of Directive 2002/21/EC, or Articles 5 or 8 of Directive 2002/19/EC. European electronic communications providers should therefore have a right to equal treatment by the different Member States in objectively equivalent situations in order to enable more integrated multi-territorial operations.

Justification:
There are no grounds for this proposal by the Commission of power to veto the NRA's remedies in the case of European providers.

Amendment 180[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Recital 15

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(15) It is necessary to ensure that in similar circumstances there is no discrimination in the treatment of any European electronic communications provider by different Member States and that consistent regulatory practices are applied in the single market, in particular as regards measures falling within the scope of Articles 15 or 16 of Directive 2002/21/EC, or Articles 5 or 8 of Directive 2002/19/EC. European electronic communications providers should therefore have a right to equal treatment by the different Member States in objectively equivalent situations in order to enable more integrated multi-territorial operations. Furthermore, there should be specific procedures at Union level for the review of draft decisions on remedies within the meaning of Article 7a of Directive 2002/21/EC in such cases, in order to avoid unjustified divergences in obligations applicable to European electronic communications providers in different Member States.

(15) It is necessary to ensure that in similar circumstances there is no discrimination in the treatment of any electronic communications provider by different Member States and that consistent regulatory practices are applied in the single market, in particular as regards measures falling within the scope of Articles 15 or 16 of Directive 2002/21/EC, or Articles 5 or 8 of Directive 2002/19/EC. Electronic communications providers should therefore have a right to equal treatment by the different Member States in objectively equivalent situations in order to enable more integrated multi-territorial operations. Furthermore, there should be specific procedures at Union level for the review of draft decisions on remedies within the meaning of Article 7a of Directive 2002/21/EC in such cases, in order to avoid unjustified divergences in obligations applicable to electronic communications providers in different Member States.


Amendment 181[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Recital 16

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(16) An allocation of regulatory and supervisory competences should be established between the home and any host Member State of European electronic communications providers with a view to reducing the barriers to entry while ensuring that the applicable conditions for the provision of electronic communications services and networks by these providers are properly enforced. Therefore, while each national regulatory authority should supervise compliance with the conditions applicable in its territory in accordance with Union legislation, including by means of sanctions and interim measures, only the national regulatory authority in the home Member State should be entitled to suspend or withdraw the rights of a European electronic communications provider to provide electronic communications networks and services in the whole Union or part thereof.

deleted


Amendment 182[modifier]

Petra Kammerevert
Recital 17

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(17) Radio spectrum is a public good and an essential resource for the internal market for mobile, wireless broadband and satellite communications in the Union. Development of wireless broadband communications contributes to the implementation of the Digital Agenda for Europe and in particular to the aim of securing access to broadband at a speed of no less than 30 Mbps by 2020 for all Union citizens and of providing the Union with the highest possible broadband speed and capacity. However, the Union has fallen behind other major global regions - North America, Africa and parts of Asia - in terms of the roll-out and penetration of the latest generation of wireless broadband technologies that are necessary to achieve those policy goals. The piecemeal process of authorising and making available the 800 MHz band for wireless broadband communications, with over half of the Member States seeking a derogation or otherwise failing to do so by the deadline laid down in the Radio Spectrum Policy Programme (RSPP) Decision 243/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council[23] testifies to the urgency of action even within the term of the current RSPP. Union measures to harmonise the conditions of availability and efficient use of radio spectrum for wireless broadband communications pursuant to Decision 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and the Council[24] have not been sufficient to address this problem.

(17) Radio spectrum is a public good and an extremely scarce resource. It is vital for the achievement of a wide range of societal, cultural, social and economic objectives. The 2009 telecoms review specified that the Commission must take equal and appropriate account of all these aspects in the context of spectrum management. The requirements set out in the telecoms package thus form the basis for any radio spectrum policy in the European Union. For that reason, it is also vital that future radio spectrum policy should be consistent with that legal framework and with the principles laid down therein.

[23] Decision No 243/2012/EU of the European Parliament and the Council of 14 March 2012 establishing a multiannual radio spectrum policy programme (OJ L 81, 21.3.2012, p. 7).

[24] Decision 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 7 March 2002 on a regulatory framework for radio spectrum policy in the European Community (Radio Spectrum Decision) (OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 1).


Amendment 183[modifier]

Sabine Verheyen, Doris Pack
Recital 17

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(17) Radio spectrum is a public good and an essential resource for the internal market for mobile, wireless broadband and satellite communications in the Union. Development of wireless broadband communications contributes to the implementation of the Digital Agenda for Europe and in particular to the aim of securing access to broadband at a speed of no less than 30 Mbps by 2020 for all Union citizens and of providing the Union with the highest possible broadband speed and capacity. However, the Union has fallen behind other major global regions - North America, Africa and parts of Asia - in terms of the roll-out and penetration of the latest generation of wireless broadband technologies that are necessary to achieve those policy goals. The piecemeal process of authorising and making available the 800 MHz band for wireless broadband communications, with over half of the Member States seeking a derogation or otherwise failing to do so by the deadline laid down in the Radio Spectrum Policy Programme (RSPP) Decision 243/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council,[23] testifies to the urgency of action even within the term of the current RSPP. Union measures to harmonise the conditions of availability and efficient use of radio spectrum for wireless broadband communications pursuant to Decision 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and the Council[24] have not been sufficient to address this problem.

(17) Radio spectrum is a public good and a finite resource. Therefore it is of utmost importance to take account of the social, cultural and economic value of spectrum as a whole. As laid down in the Radio Spectrum Policy Programme (RSPP) Decision 243/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council, any additional spectrum for wireless broadband communications should be linked with the review of the use of spectrum in the whole UHF band. According to Article 6, paragraph 5 of the RSPP, the Commission will report to the European Parliament and the Council by 1 January 2015 on whether there is a need for action to harmonise additional frequency bands.

__________________

__________________

[24] Decision 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 7 March 2002 on a regulatory framework for radio spectrum policy in the European Community (Radio Spectrum Decision) (OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 1).

[24] Decision 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 7 March 2002 on a regulatory framework for radio spectrum policy in the European Community (Radio Spectrum Decision) (OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 1).


Amendment 184[modifier]

Patrizia Toia
Recital 17

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(17) Radio spectrum is a public good and an essential resource for the internal market for mobile, wireless broadband and satellite communications in the Union. Development of wireless broadband communications contributes to the implementation of the Digital Agenda for Europe and in particular to the aim of securing access to broadband at a speed of no less than 30 Mbps by 2020 for all Union citizens and of providing the Union with the highest possible broadband speed and capacity. However, the Union has fallen behind other major global regions - North America, Africa and parts of Asia - in terms of the roll-out and penetration of the latest generation of wireless broadband technologies that are necessary to achieve those policy goals. The piecemeal process of authorising and making available the 800 MHz band for wireless broadband communications, with over half of the Member States seeking a derogation or otherwise failing to do so by the deadline laid down in the Radio Spectrum Policy Programme (RSPP) Decision 243/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council,[23] testifies to the urgency of action even within the term of the current RSPP. Union measures to harmonise the conditions of availability and efficient use of radio spectrum for wireless broadband communications pursuant to Decision 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and the Council[24] have not been sufficient to address this problem.

(17) Radio spectrum is a public good and an essential resource for the internal market for mobile, wireless broadband and satellite communications in the Union. Development of wireless broadband communications contributes to the implementation of the Digital Agenda for Europe and in particular to the aim of securing access to broadband at a speed of no less than 30 Mbps by 2020 for all Union citizens and of providing the Union with the highest possible broadband speed and capacity. Several EU Member States have fallen behind other global regions, such as North America and parts of Asia, in terms of the roll-out and penetration of the latest generation of wireless broadband technologies, thereby holding the Union back from achieving such strategic goals. However, the Union has fallen behind other major global regions - North America, Africa and parts of Asia - in terms of the roll-out and penetration of the latest generation of wireless broadband technologies that are necessary to achieve those policy goals. The piecemeal process of authorising and making available the 800 MHz band for wireless broadband communications, with over half of the Member States seeking a derogation or otherwise failing to do so by the deadline laid down in the Radio Spectrum Policy Programme (RSPP) Decision 243/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council, testifies to the urgency of action even within the term of the current RSPP. Union measures to harmonise the conditions of availability and efficient use of radio spectrum for wireless broadband communications pursuant to Decision 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and the Council[24] have not been sufficient to address this problem.

__________________

__________________

[23] Decision 243/2012/EU of the European Parliament and the Council of 14 March 2012, establishing a multiannual radio spectrum policy programme, OJ L 81 of 21.3.2012

[23]Decision 243/2012/EU of the European Parliament and the Council of 14 March 2012, establishing a multiannual radio spectrum policy programme, OJ L 81 of 21.3.2012.

[24] Decision 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 7 March 2002 on a regulatory framework for radio spectrum policy in the European Community (Radio Spectrum Decision) (OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 1).

[24]Decision 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 7 March 2002 on a regulatory framework for radio spectrum policy in the European Community (Radio Spectrum Decision) (OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 1).


Amendment 185[modifier]

Gunnar Hökmark, Jens Rohde
Recital 17

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(17) Radio spectrum is a public good and an essential resource for the internal market for mobile, wireless broadband and satellite communications in the Union. Development of wireless broadband communications contributes to the implementation of the Digital Agenda for Europe and in particular to the aim of securing access to broadband at a speed of no less than 30 Mbps by 2020 for all Union citizens and of providing the Union with the highest possible broadband speed and capacity. However, the Union has fallen behind other major global regions - North America, Africa and parts of Asia - in terms of the roll-out and penetration of the latest generation of wireless broadband technologies that are necessary to achieve those policy goals. The piecemeal process of authorising and making available the 800 MHz band for wireless broadband communications, with over half of the Member States seeking a derogation or otherwise failing to do so by the deadline laid down in the Radio Spectrum Policy Programme (RSPP) Decision 243/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council,[23] testifies to the urgency of action even within the term of the current RSPP. Union measures to harmonise the conditions of availability and efficient use of radio spectrum for wireless broadband communications pursuant to Decision 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and the Council[24] have not been sufficient to address this problem.

(17) Radio spectrum is a public good and an essential resource for the internal market for mobile, wireless broadband and satellite communications in the Union. Development of wireless broadband communications contributes to the implementation of the Digital Agenda for Europe and in particular to the aim of securing access to broadband at a speed of no less than 30 Mbps by 2020 for all Union citizens and of providing the Union with the highest possible broadband speed and capacity. However, partly due to the fragmentation of the Union process for making available spectrum suitable for high speed wireless broadband access, the Union has fallen behind other major global regions - North America, Africa and parts of Asia - in terms of the roll-out and penetration of the latest generation of wireless broadband technologies that are necessary to achieve those policy goals. The piecemeal process of authorising and making available the 800 MHz band for wireless broadband communications, with over half of the Member States seeking a derogation or otherwise failing to do so by the deadline laid down in the Radio Spectrum Policy Programme (RSPP) Decision 243/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council,[23] testifies to the urgency of action even within the term of the current RSPP. The situation calls for improvement in Member States willingness and ability to implement already agreed rules, as well as in the Commission's exercise of its powers. Union measures to harmonise the conditions of availability and efficient use of radio spectrum for wireless broadband communications pursuant to Decision 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and the Council[24] have not been sufficient to address this problem.

__________________

__________________

[23] Decision 243/2012/EU of the European Parliament and the Council of 14 March 2012, establishing a multiannual radio spectrum policy programme, OJ L 81 of 21.3.2012.

[23] Decision 243/2012/EU of the European Parliament and the Council of 14 March 2012, establishing a multiannual radio spectrum policy programme, OJ L 81 of 21.3.2012.

[24] Decision 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 7 March 2002 on a regulatory framework for radio spectrum policy in the European Community (Radio Spectrum Decision) (OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 1).

[24] Decision 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 7 March 2002 on a regulatory framework for radio spectrum policy in the European Community (Radio Spectrum Decision) (OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 1).


Amendment 186[modifier]

Teresa Riera Madurell
Recital 17

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(17) Radio spectrum is a public good and an essential resource for the internal market for mobile, wireless broadband and satellite communications in the Union. Development of wireless broadband communications contributes to the implementation of the Digital Agenda for Europe and in particular to the aim of securing access to broadband at a speed of no less than 30 Mbps by 2020 for all Union citizens and of providing the Union with the highest possible broadband speed and capacity. However, the Union has fallen behind other major global regions - North America, Africa and parts of Asia - in terms of the roll-out and penetration of the latest generation of wireless broadband technologies that are necessary to achieve those policy goals. The piecemeal process of authorising and making available the 800 MHz band for wireless broadband communications, with over half of the Member States seeking a derogation or otherwise failing to do so by the deadline laid down in the Radio Spectrum Policy Programme (RSPP) Decision 243/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council,[23] testifies to the urgency of action even within the term of the current RSPP. Union measures to harmonise the conditions of availability and efficient use of radio spectrum for wireless broadband communications pursuant to Decision 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and the Council[24] have not been sufficient to address this problem.

(17) Radio spectrum is a public good and an essential resource for the internal market for mobile, wireless broadband and satellite communications in the Union. Development of wireless broadband communications contributes to the implementation of the Digital Agenda for Europe and in particular to the aim of securing access to broadband at a speed of no less than 30 Mbps by 2020 for all Union citizens and of providing the Union with the highest possible broadband speed and capacity. However, the Union has fallen behind other major global regions - North America, Africa and parts of Asia - in terms of the roll-out and penetration of the latest generation of wireless broadband technologies that are necessary to achieve those policy goals. The piecemeal process of authorising and making available the 800 MHz band for wireless broadband communications, with over half of the Member States having sought and been granted a derogation by the Commission or otherwise failing to do so by the deadline laid down in the Radio Spectrum Policy Programme (RSPP) Decision 243/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council,[23] testifies to the urgency of action even within the term of the current RSPP. Union measures to harmonise the conditions of availability and efficient use of radio spectrum for wireless broadband communications pursuant to Decision 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and the Council[24] have not been sufficient to address this problem.

__________________

__________________

[23] Decision 243/2012/EU of the European Parliament and the Council of 14 March 2012, establishing a multiannual radio spectrum policy programme, OJ L 81 of 21.3.2012.

[23] Decision 243/2012/EU of the European Parliament and the Council of 14 March 2012, establishing a multiannual radio spectrum policy programme, OJ L 81 of 21.3.2012

[24] Decision 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 7 March 2002 on a regulatory framework for radio spectrum policy in the European Community (Radio Spectrum Decision) (OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 1).

[24] Decision 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 7 March 2002 on a regulatory framework for radio spectrum policy in the European Community (Radio Spectrum Decision) (OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 1).


Amendment 187[modifier]

Herbert Reul
Recital 17

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(17) Radio spectrum is a public good and an essential resource for the internal market for mobile, wireless broadband and satellite communications in the Union. Development of wireless broadband communications contributes to the implementation of the Digital Agenda for Europe and in particular to the aim of securing access to broadband at a speed of no less than 30 Mbps by 2020 for all Union citizens and of providing the Union with the highest possible broadband speed and capacity. However, the Union has fallen behind other major global regions - North America, Africa and parts of Asia - in terms of the roll-out and penetration of the latest generation of wireless broadband technologies that are necessary to achieve those policy goals. The piecemeal process of authorising and making available the 800 MHz band for wireless broadband communications, with over half of the Member States seeking a derogation or otherwise failing to do so by the deadline laid down in the Radio Spectrum Policy Programme (RSPP) Decision 243/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council,[23] testifies to the urgency of action even within the term of the current RSPP. Union measures to harmonise the conditions of availability and efficient use of radio spectrum for wireless broadband communications pursuant to Decision 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and the Council[24] have not been sufficient to address this problem.

(17) Radio spectrum is a public good and an essential resource for the internal market for mobile, wireless broadband, satellite communications and broadcasting in the Union. Development of wireless broadband communications contributes to the implementation of the Digital Agenda for Europe and in particular to the aim of securing access to broadband at a speed of no less than 30 Mbps by 2020 for all Union citizens and of providing the Union with the highest possible broadband speed and capacity. However, the Union has fallen behind other major global regions - North America, Africa and parts of Asia - in terms of the roll-out and penetration of the latest generation of wireless broadband technologies that are necessary to achieve those policy goals. The piecemeal process of authorising and making available the 800 MHz band for wireless broadband communications, with over half of the Member States seeking a derogation or otherwise failing to do so by the deadline laid down in the Radio Spectrum Policy Programme (RSPP) Decision 243/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council,[23] testifies to the urgency of action even within the term of the current RSPP. Union measures to harmonise the conditions of availability and efficient use of radio spectrum for wireless broadband communications pursuant to Decision 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and the Council[24] have not been sufficient to address this problem.

__________________

__________________

[23] Decision No 243/2012/EU of the European Parliament and the Council of 14 March 2012 establishing a multiannual radio spectrum policy programme (OJ L 81, 21.3.2012, p. 7).

[23] Decision No 243/2012/EU of the European Parliament and the Council of 14 March 2012 establishing a multiannual radio spectrum policy programme (OJ L 81, 21.3.2012, p. 7).

[24] Decision 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 7 March 2002 on a regulatory framework for radio spectrum policy in the European Community (Radio Spectrum Decision) (OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 1).

[24] Decision 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 7 March 2002 on a regulatory framework for radio spectrum policy in the European Community (Radio Spectrum Decision) (OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 1).


Amendment 188[modifier]

Gunnar Hökmark, Jens Rohde
Recital 17 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(17 a) Trading and leasing of spectrum for wireless broadband communications should be further facilitated in order to create more flexible and efficient allocation of spectrum resources.


Amendment 189[modifier]

Petra Kammerevert
Recital 18

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(18) The application of various national policies creates inconsistencies and fragmentation of the internal market which hamper the roll-out of Union-wide services and the completion of the internal market for wireless broadband communications. It could in particular create unequal conditions for access to such services, hamper competition between undertakings established in different Member States and stifle investments in more advanced networks and technologies and the emergence of innovative services, thereby depriving citizens and businesses of ubiquitous integrated high-quality services and wireless broadband operators of increased efficiency gains from large-scale more integrated operations. Therefore, action at Union level regarding certain aspects of radio spectrum assignment should accompany the development of wide integrated coverage of advanced wireless broadband communications services throughout the Union. At the same time, Member States should retain the right to adopt measures to organise their radio spectrum for public order, public security purposes and defence.

(18) Radio spectrum serves the public interest in a wide range of areas in the Member States. In that connection, due account has to be taken of a host of specific national and regional characteristics. Member States should therefore also retain the right to adopt measures to organise their radio spectrum which are required to carry out specific cultural and social tasks. Alongside terrestrial broadcasting and the cultural and creative sectors, this also includes public order, public security and defence purposes. In the event of disputes between Member States regarding the use of spectrum, the Commission plays a supplementary coordinating role in support of the Member States.


Amendment 190[modifier]

Sabine Verheyen, Doris Pack
Recital 18

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(18) The application of various national policies creates inconsistencies and fragmentation of the internal market which hamper the roll-out of Union-wide services and the completion of the internal market for wireless broadband communications. It could in particular create unequal conditions for access to such services, hamper competition between undertakings established in different Member States and stifle investments in more advanced networks and technologies and the emergence of innovative services, thereby depriving citizens and businesses of ubiquitous integrated high-quality services and wireless broadband operators of increased efficiency gains from large-scale more integrated operations. Therefore, action at Union level regarding certain aspects of radio spectrum assignment should accompany the development of wide integrated coverage of advanced wireless broadband communications services throughout the Union. At the same time, Member States should retain the right to adopt measures to organise their radio spectrum for public order, public security purposes and defence.

(18) The EU Telecom Package as revised in 2009 establishes the principles for spectrum management. It recognizes Member States' competence with respect to cultural and audiovisual policies and generally leaves them the necessary scope for action. Therefore, action at Union level regarding certain aspects of radio spectrum assignment should continue to endorse a dynamic approach to spectrum management, which recognizes Member States' competence in this field and respects the cultural, audiovisual and media policies of each Member State. Sufficient flexibility is needed to accommodate specific national requirements and Member States should retain the right to adopt measures to organise their radio spectrum for public order, public security purposes and defence. In cases of disputes between Member States over spectrum use, the Commission may coordinate and support dispute settlement.


Amendment 191[modifier]

Amelia Andersdotter
Recital 18

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(18) The application of various national policies creates inconsistencies and fragmentation of the internal market which hamper the roll-out of Union-wide services and the completion of the internal market for wireless broadband communications. It could in particular create unequal conditions for access to such services, hamper competition between undertakings established in different Member States and stifle investments in more advanced networks and technologies and the emergence of innovative services, thereby depriving citizens and businesses of ubiquitous integrated high-quality services and wireless broadband operators of increased efficiency gains from large-scale more integrated operations. Therefore, action at Union level regarding certain aspects of radio spectrum assignment should accompany the development of wide integrated coverage of advanced wireless broadband communications services throughout the Union. At the same time, Member States should retain the right to adopt measures to organise their radio spectrum for public order, public security purposes and defence.

(18) The application of various national policies creates inconsistencies and fragmentation of the internal market which hamper the roll-out of Union-wide services and the completion of the internal market for wireless broadband communications. It could in particular create unequal conditions for access to such services, hamper competition between undertakings established in different Member States and stifle investments in more advanced networks and technologies and the emergence of innovative services, thereby depriving citizens and businesses of ubiquitous integrated high-quality services and wireless broadband operators of increased efficiency gains from large-scale more integrated operations. Therefore, action at Union level regarding certain aspects of radio spectrum assignment should accompany the development of wide integrated coverage of advanced wireless broadband communications services throughout the Union. While, Member States may retain the right to adopt measures to organise their radio spectrum for public order, public security purposes and defence, any new spectrum made available following the application of this regulation should be exclusively used for the internal market harmonisation.


Amendment 192[modifier]

Catherine Trautmann, Patrizia Toia, Teresa Riera Madurell, Edit Herczog
Recital 18

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(18) The application of various national policies creates inconsistencies and fragmentation of the internal market which hamper the roll-out of Union-wide services and the completion of the internal market for wireless broadband communications. It could in particular create unequal conditions for access to such services, hamper competition between undertakings established in different Member States and stifle investments in more advanced networks and technologies and the emergence of innovative services, thereby depriving citizens and businesses of ubiquitous integrated high-quality services and wireless broadband operators of increased efficiency gains from large-scale more integrated operations. Therefore, action at Union level regarding certain aspects of radio spectrum assignment should accompany the development of wide integrated coverage of advanced wireless broadband communications services throughout the Union. At the same time, Member States should retain the right to adopt measures to organise their radio spectrum for public order, public security purposes and defence.

(18) The application of various national policies creates inconsistencies and fragmentation of the internal market which hamper the roll-out of Union-wide services and the completion of the internal market for wireless broadband communications. It could in particular create unequal conditions for access to such services, hamper competition between undertakings established in different Member States and stifle investments in more advanced networks and technologies and the emergence of innovative services, thereby depriving citizens and businesses of ubiquitous integrated high-quality services and wireless broadband operators of increased efficiency gains from large-scale more integrated operations. Therefore, action at Union level regarding certain aspects of radio spectrum assignment should accompany the development of wide integrated coverage of advanced wireless broadband communications services throughout the Union. At the same time, Member States should retain the right to adopt measures to organise their radio spectrum for public order, public security purposes and defence, or to pursue general interest objectives such as cultural diversity and media pluralism.


Amendment 193[modifier]

Angelika Niebler
Recital 18

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(18) The application of various national policies creates inconsistencies and fragmentation of the internal market which hamper the roll-out of Union-wide services and the completion of the internal market for wireless broadband communications. It could in particular create unequal conditions for access to such services, hamper competition between undertakings established in different Member States and stifle investments in more advanced networks and technologies and the emergence of innovative services, thereby depriving citizens and businesses of ubiquitous integrated high-quality services and wireless broadband operators of increased efficiency gains from large-scale more integrated operations. Therefore, action at Union level regarding certain aspects of radio spectrum assignment should accompany the development of wide integrated coverage of advanced wireless broadband communications services throughout the Union. At the same time, Member States should retain the right to adopt measures to organise their radio spectrum for public order, public security purposes and defence.

(18) The application of various national policies creates inconsistencies and fragmentation of the internal market which hamper the roll-out of Union-wide services and the completion of the internal market for wireless broadband communications. It could in particular create unequal conditions for access to such services, hamper competition between undertakings established in different Member States and stifle investments in more advanced networks and technologies and the emergence of innovative services, thereby depriving citizens and businesses of ubiquitous integrated high-quality services and wireless broadband operators of increased efficiency gains from large-scale more integrated operations. Therefore, action at Union level regarding certain aspects of radio spectrum assignment should accompany the development of wide integrated coverage of advanced wireless broadband communications services throughout the Union. At the same time, Member States should retain the right to adopt measures to organise their radio spectrum for purposes of public order, public security, safeguarding and promoting linguistic and cultural diversity and media pluralism, and defence.


Amendment 194[modifier]

Jean-Pierre Audy
Recital 18

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(18) The application of various national policies creates inconsistencies and fragmentation of the internal market which hamper the roll-out of Union-wide services and the completion of the internal market for wireless broadband communications. It could in particular create unequal conditions for access to such services, hamper competition between undertakings established in different Member States and stifle investments in more advanced networks and technologies and the emergence of innovative services, thereby depriving citizens and businesses of ubiquitous integrated high-quality services and wireless broadband operators of increased efficiency gains from large-scale more integrated operations. Therefore, action at Union level regarding certain aspects of radio spectrum assignment should accompany the development of wide integrated coverage of advanced wireless broadband communications services throughout the Union. At the same time, Member States should retain the right to adopt measures to organise their radio spectrum for public order, public security purposes and defence.

(18) The application of various national policies creates inconsistencies and fragmentation of the internal market which hamper the roll-out of Union-wide services and the completion of the internal market for wireless broadband communications. It could in particular create unequal conditions for access to such services, hamper competition between undertakings established in different Member States and stifle investments in more advanced networks and technologies and the emergence of innovative services, thereby depriving citizens and businesses of ubiquitous integrated high-quality services and wireless broadband operators of increased efficiency gains from large-scale more integrated operations. Therefore, action at Union level regarding certain aspects of radio spectrum assignment should accompany the development of wide integrated coverage of advanced wireless broadband communications services throughout the Union. At the same time, Member States should retain the right to adopt measures to organise their radio spectrum for public order, public security purposes and defence and to pursue general interest objectives, in particular in the context of audiovisual and media policies.

Or.

Amendment 195[modifier]

Patrizia Toia
Recital 19

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(19) Electronic communications services providers, including mobile operators or consortia of such operators, should be able to collectively organise the efficient and affordable coverage of a vast part of the Union's territory to the long-term benefit of end users, and therefore use radio spectrum across several Member States with similar conditions, procedures, costs, timing, duration in harmonised bands, and with complementary radio spectrum packages, such as a combination of lower and higher frequencies for coverage of densely and less densely populated areas. Initiatives in favour of greater coordination and consistency would also enhance the predictability of the network investment environment. Such predictability would also be greatly favoured by a clear policy in favour of long-term duration of rights of use related to radio spectrum, without prejudice to the indefinite character of such rights in some Member States, and linked in its turn to clear conditions for the transfer, lease or sharing of part of all of the radio spectrum subject to such an individual right of use.

(19) Electronic communications services providers, including mobile operators or consortia of such operators, should be able to collectively organise the efficient, technologically modern, advanced and affordable coverage of a vast part of the Union's territory to the long-term benefit of end users, and therefore use radio spectrum across several Member States with similar conditions, procedures, costs, timing, duration in harmonised bands, and with complementary radio spectrum packages, such as a combination of lower and higher frequencies for coverage of densely and less densely populated areas. Initiatives in favour of greater coordination and consistency would also enhance the predictability of the network investment environment. Such predictability would also be greatly favoured by a clear policy in favour of long-term duration of rights of use related to radio spectrum, without prejudice to the indefinite character of such rights in some Member States, and linked in its turn to clear conditions for the transfer, lease or sharing of part of all of the radio spectrum subject to such an individual right of use.


Amendment 196[modifier]

Petra Kammerevert
Recital 20

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(20) Coordination and consistency of rights of use for radio spectrum should be improved, at least for the bands which have been harmonised for wireless fixed, nomadic and mobile broadband communications. This includes the bands identified at ITU level for International Mobile Telecommunications (IMT) Advanced systems, as well as bands used for radio local area networks (RLAN) such as 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz. It should also extend to bands that may be harmonised in the future for wireless broadband communications, as envisaged in Article 3(b) of the RSPP and in the RSPG Opinion on "Strategic challenges facing Europe in addressing the growing radio spectrum demand for wireless broadband" adopted on 13 June 2013, such as, in the near future, the 700 MHz, 1.5 GHz and 3.8-4.2 GHz bands.

(20) Coordination and consistency of rights of use for radio spectrum should be improved for the bands which have been harmonised for wireless fixed, nomadic and mobile broadband communications. This includes the bands identified at ITU level for International Mobile Telecommunications (IMT) Advanced systems, as well as bands used for radio local area networks (RLAN) such as 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz. It should also extend to bands that may be harmonised in the future for wireless broadband communications under Directive 2002/21/EC.


Amendment 197[modifier]

Angelika Niebler
Recital 20

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(20) Coordination and consistency of rights of use for radio spectrum should be improved, at least for the bands which have been harmonised for wireless fixed, nomadic and mobile broadband communications. This includes the bands identified at ITU level for International Mobile Telecommunications (IMT) Advanced systems, as well as bands used for radio local area networks (RLAN) such as 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz. It should also extend to bands that may be harmonised in the future for wireless broadband communications, as envisaged in Article 3(b) of the RSPP and in the RSPG Opinion on "Strategic challenges facing Europe in addressing the growing radio spectrum demand for wireless broadband" adopted on 13 June 2013, such as, in the near future, the 700 MHz, 1.5 GHz and 3.8-4.2 GHz bands.

(20) Coordination and consistency of rights of use for radio spectrum should be improved, at least for the bands which have been harmonised for wireless fixed, nomadic and mobile broadband communications. This includes the bands identified at ITU level for International Mobile Telecommunications (IMT) Advanced systems, as well as bands used for radio local area networks (RLAN) such as 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz. It should also extend to bands that may be harmonised in the future for wireless broadband communications under Directive 2002/21/EC.


Amendment 198[modifier]

Herbert Reul
Recital 20

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(20) Coordination and consistency of rights of use for radio spectrum should be improved, at least for the bands which have been harmonised for wireless fixed, nomadic and mobile broadband communications. This includes the bands identified at ITU level for International Mobile Telecommunications (IMT) Advanced systems, as well as bands used for radio local area networks (RLAN) such as 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz. It should also extend to bands that may be harmonised in the future for wireless broadband communications, as envisaged in Article 3(b) of the RSPP and in the RSPG Opinion on "Strategic challenges facing Europe in addressing the growing radio spectrum demand for wireless broadband" adopted on 13 June 2013, such as, in the near future, the 700 MHz, 1.5 GHz and 3.8-4.2 GHz bands.

(20) Coordination and consistency of rights of use for radio spectrum should be improved for the bands which have been harmonised for wireless fixed, nomadic and mobile broadband communications. This includes the bands identified at ITU level for International Mobile Telecommunications (IMT) Advanced systems, as well as bands used for radio local area networks (RLAN) such as 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz. It should also extend to bands that may be harmonised in the future for wireless broadband communications under Directive 2002/21/EC.


Amendment 199[modifier]

Jean-Pierre Audy
Recital 20

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(20) Coordination and consistency of rights of use for radio spectrum should be improved, at least for the bands which have been harmonised for wireless fixed, nomadic and mobile broadband communications. This includes the bands identified at ITU level for International Mobile Telecommunications (IMT) Advanced systems, as well as bands used for radio local area networks (RLAN) such as 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz. It should also extend to bands that may be harmonised in the future for wireless broadband communications, as envisaged in Article 3(b) of the RSPP and in the RSPG Opinion on "Strategic challenges facing Europe in addressing the growing radio spectrum demand for wireless broadband" adopted on 13 June 2013, such as, in the near future, the 700 MHz, 1.5 GHz and 3.8-4.2 GHz bands.

(20) Coordination and consistency of rights of use for radio spectrum should be improved for the bands which have been harmonised for wireless fixed, nomadic and mobile broadband communications. This includes the bands identified at ITU level for International Mobile Telecommunications (IMT) Advanced systems, as well as bands used for radio local area networks (RLAN) such as 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz. It may also extend to bands harmonised in the future for wireless broadband communications in accordance with Articles 8a and 9 of Directive 2002/21/EC.


Amendment 200[modifier]

Sabine Verheyen, Doris Pack
Recital 20

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(20) Coordination and consistency of rights of use for radio spectrum should be improved, at least for the bands which have been harmonised for wireless fixed, nomadic and mobile broadband communications. This includes the bands identified at ITU level for International Mobile Telecommunications (IMT) Advanced systems, as well as bands used for radio local area networks (RLAN) such as 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz. It should also extend to bands that may be harmonised in the future for wireless broadband communications, as envisaged in Article 3(b) of the RSPP and in the RSPG Opinion on ‘Strategic challenges facing Europe in addressing the growing radio spectrum demand for wireless broadband’ adopted on 13 June 2013, such as, in the near future, the 700 MHz, 1.5 GHz and 3.8-4.2 GHz bands.

(20) Coordination and consistency of rights of use for radio spectrum should be improved, at least for the bands which have been harmonised for wireless fixed, nomadic and mobile broadband communications. This includes the bands identified at ITU level for International Mobile Telecommunications (IMT) Advanced systems, as well as bands used for radio local area networks (RLAN) such as 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz. It should also extend to bands that may be harmonised in the future for wireless broadband communications, as laid down in Directive 2002/21/EC.


Amendment 201[modifier]

Giles Chichester
Recital 20

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(20) Coordination and consistency of rights of use for radio spectrum should be improved, at least for the bands which have been harmonised for wireless fixed, nomadic and mobile broadband communications. This includes the bands identified at ITU level for International Mobile Telecommunications (IMT) Advanced systems, as well as bands used for radio local area networks (RLAN) such as 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz. It should also extend to bands that may be harmonised in the future for wireless broadband communications, as envisaged in Article 3(b) of the RSPP and in the RSPG Opinion on ‘Strategic challenges facing Europe in addressing the growing radio spectrum demand for wireless broadband’ adopted on 13 June 2013, such as, in the near future, the 700 MHz, 1.5 GHz and 3.8-4.2 GHz bands.

(20) Coordination and consistency of rights of use for radio spectrum should be improved, at least for the bands which have been harmonised for wireless fixed, nomadic and mobile broadband communications. This includes the bands identified at ITU level for International Mobile Telecommunications (IMT) Advanced systems, as well as bands used for radio local area networks (RLAN) such as 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz. It should also extend to bands that may be harmonised in the future for wireless broadband communications, as envisaged in Article 3(b) of the RSPP and in the RSPG Opinion on ‘Strategic challenges facing Europe in addressing the growing radio spectrum demand for wireless broadband’ adopted on 13 June 2013, such as, in the near future, the 700 MHz, 1.5 GHz.


Amendment 202[modifier]

Lambert van Nistelrooij
Recital 20

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(20) Coordination and consistency of rights of use for radio spectrum should be improved, at least for the bands which have been harmonised for wireless fixed, nomadic and mobile broadband communications. This includes the bands identified at ITU level for International Mobile Telecommunications (IMT) Advanced systems, as well as bands used for radio local area networks (RLAN) such as 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz. It should also extend to bands that may be harmonised in the future for wireless broadband communications, as envisaged in Article 3(b) of the RSPP and in the RSPG Opinion on Strategic challenges facing Europe in addressing the growing radio spectrum demand for wireless broadband adopted on 13 June 2013, such as, in the near future, the 700 MHz, 1.5 GHz and 3.8-4.2 GHz bands.

(20) Coordination and consistency of rights of use for radio spectrum should be improved, at least for the bands which have been harmonised for wireless fixed, nomadic and mobile broadband communications. This includes the bands identified at ITU level for International Mobile Telecommunications (IMT) Advanced systems, as well as bands used for radio local area networks (RLAN) such as 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz. It should also extend to bands that may be harmonised in the future for wireless broadband communications, as envisaged in Article 3(b) of the RSPP and in the RSPG Opinion on 'Strategic challenges facing Europe in addressing the growing radio spectrum demand for wireless broadband' adopted on 13 June 2013, such as, in the near future, the 700 MHz and 1.5 GHz bands.


Amendment 203[modifier]

Claude Turmes
Recital 20

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(20) Coordination and consistency of rights of use for radio spectrum should be improved, at least for the bands which have been harmonised for wireless fixed, nomadic and mobile broadband communications. This includes the bands identified at ITU level for International Mobile Telecommunications (IMT) Advanced systems, as well as bands used for radio local area networks (RLAN) such as 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz. It should also extend to bands that may be harmonised in the future for wireless broadband communications, as envisaged in3Article (b) of the RSPP and in the RSPG Opinion on "Strategic challenges facing Europe in addressing the growing radio spectrum demand for wireless broadband" adopted on 13 June 2013, such as, in the near future, the 700 MHz, 1.5 GHz and 3.8-4.2 GHz bands.

(20) Coordination and consistency of rights of use for radio spectrum should be improved, at least for the bands which have been harmonised for wireless fixed, nomadic and mobile broadband communications. This includes the bands identified at ITU level for International Mobile Telecommunications (IMT) Advanced systems, as well as bands used for radio local area networks (RLAN) such as 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz. It should also extend to bands that may be harmonised in the future for wireless broadband communications, as envisaged in Article 3(b) of the RSPP and in the RSPG Opinion on "Strategic challenges facing Europe in addressing the growing radio spectrum demand for wireless broadband" adopted on 13 June 2013, such as, in the near future, the 700 MHz and 1.5 GHz bands.

Or.

Justification:

The Radio Spectrum Policy Programme (RSPP) sets out a detailed roadmap. In particular, the Member States are required to authorise the use of the following harmonised bands by the end of 2012: 900/1800 MHz, 2.5-2.69 GHz and 3.4-3.8 GHz. Given that the debate on current band use is still ongoing, there is insufficient justification to expand beyond 3.8 GHz.

Amendment 204[modifier]

Patrizia Toia
Recital 21 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(21a) Consistency and clear sharing among the Member States of their levels of protection, privacy and security of customer data, in order to ensure high common standards as regards privacy and the protection and security of sensitive or private end-user data.


Amendment 205[modifier]

Giles Chichester
Recital 24

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(24) As regards the other main substantive conditions which may be attached to rights of use of radio spectrum for wireless broadband, the convergent application by individual Member States of the regulatory principles and criteria set down in this Regulation would be favoured by a coordination mechanism whereby the Commission and the competent authorities of the other Member States have an opportunity to comment in advance of the granting of rights of use by a given Member State and whereby the Commission has an opportunity, taking into account the views of the Member States, to forestall implementation of any proposal which appears to be non-compliant with Union law.

(24) The convergent application by individual Member States of the regulatory principles and criteria set down in the Union regulatory framework would be favoured by a coordination mechanism whereby the Commission and the competent authorities of the other Member States have an opportunity to comment in advance of the granting of rights of use by a given Member State.

Justification:
The Commission may participate in ensuring a higher level of consistency between the different national radio spectrum assignment procedures by commenting on draft measures proposed by national competent authorities. Providing the Commission with a veto power in this regard would be too far reaching and represent a transfer of powers from Member States to the Commission which is neither justified nor proportionate, impinging on the principle of subsidiarity.

Amendment 206[modifier]

Petra Kammerevert
Recital 24

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(24) As regards the other main substantive conditions which may be attached to rights of use of radio spectrum for wireless broadband, the convergent application by individual Member States of the regulatory principles and criteria set down in this Regulation would be favoured by a coordination mechanism whereby the Commission and the competent authorities of the other Member States have an opportunity to comment in advance of the granting of rights of use by a given Member State and whereby the Commission has an opportunity, taking into account the views of the Member States, to forestall implementation of any proposal which appears to be non-compliant with Union law.

(24) ) As regards the other main substantive conditions which may be attached to rights of use of radio spectrum for wireless broadband, the convergent application by individual Member States of the regulatory principles and criteria set down in this Regulation would be favoured by a coordination mechanism whereby the Commission and the competent authorities of the other Member States have an opportunity to comment in advance of the granting of rights of use by a given Member State.


Amendment 207[modifier]

Patrizia Toia
Recital 24

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(24) As regards the other main substantive conditions which may be attached to rights of use of radio spectrum for wireless broadband, the convergent application by individual Member States of the regulatory principles and criteria set down in this Regulation would be favoured by a coordination mechanism whereby the Commission and the competent authorities of the other Member States have an opportunity to comment in advance of the granting of rights of use by a given Member State and whereby the Commission has an opportunity, taking into account the views of the Member States, to forestall implementation of any proposal which appears to be non-compliant with Union law.

(24) The convergent application by individual Member States of the regulatory principles concerning the European single market for electronic communications would be favoured by a coordination mechanism whereby the Commission and the competent authorities of the other Member States have an opportunity to comment in advance of the granting of rights of use by a given Member State and whereby the Commission has an opportunity, taking into account the views of the Member States, to forestall implementation of any proposal which appears to be non-compliant with Union law.


Amendment 208[modifier]

Gunnar Hökmark, Jens Rohde
Recital 24 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(24 a) The economic value of consistent spectrum usage rights over several territories granted to the same operator would be higher than the fragmented combination of individual licenses because of the possibilities for economies of scale, for integrated networks, and for the avoidance of cross-border interference issues. Multi-territorial spectrum authorisation procedures conducted jointly between Member States would allow mobile network operators to be granted spectrum usage rights across several Member States that are consistent or identical, for example with regard to their duration, the spectrum blocks assigned, and the related license conditions.


Amendment 209[modifier]

Gunnar Hökmark
Recital 24 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(24 b) Pan European licence auctions under BEREC supervision can stimulate the development of one single EU telecom market, without roaming.


Amendment 210[modifier]

Edit Herczog
Recital 25

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(25) Considering the massive growth in radio spectrum demand for wireless broadband, solutions for alternative spectrally efficient access to wireless broadband should be promoted. This includes the use of low-power wireless access systems with a small-area operating range such as so called hotspots of radio local area networks (RLAN, also known as ‘Wi-Fi’), as well as networks of low-power small size cellular access points (also called femto-, pico- or metrocells).

(25) Considering the massive growth in radio spectrum demand for wireless broadband, solutions for alternative spectrally efficient access to wireless broadband should be encouraged and not be prevented. This currently includes the use of low-power wireless access systems with a small-area operating range such as so called 'hotspots' of radio local area networks (RLAN, also known as 'Wi-Fi'), as well as networks of low-power small size cellular access points (also called femto-, pico- or metrocells). Dynamic spectrum access, including on a licence-exempt basis and other innovative technologies and uses of spectrum should be encouraged and made possible.

Justification:
In the face of continued demand for wireless access to the Internet, new technologies enable dynamic, much more efficient use of spectrum, notably when on a licence-exempt basis. It is crucial that, faced with under-utilisation of spectrum in numerous frequencies, at least at certain times of day, innovative technologies and uses of spectrum be encouraged and made possible by EU Regulation and by national regulatory authorities.

Amendment 211[modifier]

Ioannis A. Tsoukalas
Recital 25

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(25) Considering the massive growth in radio spectrum demand for wireless broadband, solutions for alternative spectrally efficient access to wireless broadband should be promoted. This includes the use of low-power wireless access systems with a small-area operating range such as so called ‘hotspots’ of radio local area networks (RLAN, also known as ‘Wi-Fi’), as well as networks of low-power small size cellular access points (also called femto-, pico- or metrocells).

(25) Considering the massive growth in radio spectrum demand for wireless broadband, solutions for alternative spectrally efficient access to wireless broadband should be actively promoted. This includes the use of low-power wireless access systems with a small-area operating range such as so called ‘hotspots’ of radio local area networks (RLAN, also known as ‘Wi-Fi’), as well as networks of low-power small size cellular access points (also called femto-, pico- or metrocells). Furthermore, dynamic spectrum access and other innovative technologies and uses of spectrum should be promoted.


Amendment 212[modifier]

Jean-Pierre Audy
Recital 25

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(25) Considering the massive growth in radio spectrum demand for wireless broadband, solutions for alternative spectrally efficient access to wireless broadband should be promoted. This includes the use of low-power wireless access systems with a small-area operating range such as so called hotspots of radio local area networks (RLAN, also known as ‘Wi-Fi’), as well as networks of low-power small size cellular access points (also called femto-, pico- or metrocells).

(25) Considering the massive growth in radio spectrum demand for wireless broadband, solutions for alternative spectrally efficient access to wireless broadband should be promoted. This includes the use of low-power wireless access systems with a small area operating range such as so called 'hotspots' of radio local area networks (RLAN), as well as networks of low-power small size cellular access points (also called femto-, pico- or metrocells)


Amendment 213[modifier]

Patrizia Toia
Recital 25

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(25) Considering the massive growth in radio spectrum demand for wireless broadband, solutions for alternative spectrally efficient access to wireless broadband should be promoted. This includes the use of low-power wireless access systems with a small-area operating range such as so called 'hotspots' of radio local area networks (RLAN, also known as 'Wi-Fi'), as well as networks of low-power small size cellular access points (also called femto-, pico- or metrocells).

(25) Considering the massive growth in radio spectrum demand for wireless broadband, solutions for alternative spectrally efficient access to wireless broadband should be promoted. This includes, but is not restricted to, the use of low-power wireless access systems with a small-area operating range such as so called 'hotspots' of radio local area networks (RLAN, also known as 'Wi-Fi'), as well as networks of low-power small size cellular access points (also called femto-, pico- or metrocells).


Amendment 214[modifier]

Patrizia Toia
Recital 27

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(27) Most RLAN access points are so far used by private users as a local wireless extension of their fixed broadband connection. If end users, within the limits of their own internet subscription, choose to share access to their RLAN with others, the availability of a large number of such access points, particularly in densely populated areas, should maximise wireless data capacity through radio spectrum re-use and create a cost-effective complementary wireless broadband infrastructure accessible to other end users. Therefore, unnecessary restrictions for end users to share access to their own RLAN access points with other end users or to connect to such access points, should be removed or prevented.

(27) Most RLAN access points are so far used by private users as a local wireless extension of their fixed broadband connection. If end users, within the limits of their own internet subscription, choose to share access to their RLAN with others, the availability of a large number of such access points, particularly in densely populated areas, should maximise wireless data capacity through radio spectrum re-use and create a cost-effective complementary wireless broadband infrastructure accessible to other end users. Therefore, restrictions for end users to share access to their own RLAN access points with other end users or to connect to such access points, should be removed or prevented.


Amendment 215[modifier]

Lambert van Nistelrooij
Recital 30

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(30) Member States should ensure that the management of radio spectrum at national level does not prevent other Member States from using the radio spectrum to which they are entitled, or from complying with their obligations as regards bands for which the use is harmonised at Union level. Building on the existing activities of the RSPG, a coordination mechanism is necessary to ensure that each Member State has equitable access to radio spectrum and that the outcomes of coordination are consistent and enforceable.

(30) Member States should ensure that for bands harmonised at Union level for wireless broadband communications, the implementation of harmonised timetables and deadlines for the assignment of spectrum is not unduly delayed by coordination problems; in particular the management of radio spectrum at national level should not prevent other Member States from using the radio spectrum to which they are entitled, or from complying with their obligations as regards such bands. Building on the existing activities of the RSPG, a coordination mechanism is necessary to ensure that each Member State has equitable access to radio spectrum and that the outcomes of coordination are consistent and enforceable.


Amendment 216[modifier]

Jolanta Emilia Hibner
Recital 30

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(30) Member States should ensure that the management of radio spectrum at national level does not prevent other Member States from using the radio spectrum to which they are entitled, or from complying with their obligations as regards bands for which the use is harmonised at Union level. Building on the existing activities of the RSPG, a coordination mechanism is necessary to ensure that each Member State has equitable access to radio spectrum and that the outcomes of coordination are consistent and enforceable.

(30) Member States should ensure that for bands harmonised at Union level for wireless broadband communications, the implementation of harmonised timetables and deadlines for the assignment of spectrum is not unduly delayed by coordination problems; in particular the management of radio spectrum at national level should not prevent other Member States from using the radio spectrum to which they are entitled, or from complying with their obligations as regards such bands. Building on the existing activities of the RSPG, a coordination mechanism is necessary to ensure that each Member State has equitable access to radio spectrum and that the outcomes of coordination are consistent and enforceable.


Amendment 217[modifier]

Gunnar Hökmark, Jens Rohde
Recital 30

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(30) Member States should ensure that the management of radio spectrum at national level does not prevent other Member States from using the radio spectrum to which they are entitled, or from complying with their obligations as regards bands for which the use is harmonised at Union level. Building on the existing activities of the RSPG, a coordination mechanism is necessary to ensure that each Member State has equitable access to radio spectrum and that the outcomes of coordination are consistent and enforceable.

(30) Member States should ensure that for bands harmonised at Union level for wireless broadband communications, the implementation of harmonised timetables and deadlines for the assignment of spectrum is not unduly delayed by coordination problems; in particular the management of radio spectrum at national level should not prevent other Member States from using the radio spectrum to which they are entitled, or from complying with their obligations as regards bands for which the use is harmonised at Union level. Building on the existing activities of the RSPG, a coordination mechanism is necessary to ensure that each Member State has equitable access to radio spectrum and that the outcomes of coordination are consistent and enforceable.


Amendment 218[modifier]

Jean-Pierre Audy
Recital 31

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(31) Experience in the implementation of the Union's regulatory framework indicates that existing provisions requiring the consistent application of regulatory measures together with the goal of contributing to the development of the internal market have not created sufficient incentives to design access products on the basis of harmonised standards and processes, in particular in relation to fixed networks. When operating in different Member States, operators have difficulties in finding access inputs with the right quality and network and service interoperability levels, and when they are available, such inputs exhibit different technical features. This increases costs and constitutes an obstacle to the provision of services across national borders.

deleted


Amendment 219[modifier]

Christian Ehler
Recital 31

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(31) Experience in the implementation of the Union's regulatory framework indicates that existing provisions requiring the consistent application of regulatory measures together with the goal of contributing to the development of the internal market have not created sufficient incentives to design access products on the basis of harmonised standards and processes, in particular in relation to fixed networks. When operating in different Member States, operators have difficulties in finding access inputs with the right quality and network and service interoperability levels, and when they are available, such inputs exhibit different technical features. This increases costs and constitutes an obstacle to the provision of services across national borders.

(31) Experience in the implementation of the Union's regulatory framework indicates that existing provisions requiring the consistent application of regulatory measures together with the goal of contributing to the development of the internal market have not created sufficient incentives to design access products on the basis of harmonised standards and processes, in particular in relation to fixed networks. When operating in different Member States, operators have difficulties in finding access inputs with the right quality and network and service interoperability levels, and when they are available, such inputs exhibit different technical features. This increases costs and constitutes an obstacle to the provision of services across national borders.

Therefore, additionally to the provisions laid down in this regulation, a joint European research approach to define comprehensive and evidence based assessments of challenges and policy solutions, on the global, European and national level, is needed. Cooperation between European and international research and standardisation agencies should be further encouraged.

Justification:
In line with the Transatlantic Dialogue (TLD) Non-Paper "Cyber security and Internet issues - Establishing framework for Transatlantic action".

Amendment 220[modifier]

Christian Ehler
Recital 31

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(31) Experience in the implementation of the Union's regulatory framework indicates that existing provisions requiring the consistent application of regulatory measures together with the goal of contributing to the development of the internal market have not created sufficient incentives to design access products on the basis of harmonised standards and processes, in particular in relation to fixed networks. When operating in different Member States, operators have difficulties in finding access inputs with the right quality and network and service interoperability levels, and when they are available, such inputs exhibit different technical features. This increases costs and constitutes an obstacle to the provision of services across national borders.

(31) Experience in the implementation of the Union's regulatory framework indicates that existing provisions requiring the consistent application of regulatory measures together with the goal of contributing to the development of the internal market have not created sufficient incentives to design access products on the basis of harmonised standards and processes, in particular in relation to fixed networks. The lack of common standards and harmonized measures impairs the Union's competitiveness immensely: When operating in different Member States, operators have difficulties in finding access inputs with the right quality and network and service interoperability levels, and when they are available, such inputs exhibit different technical features. This increases costs and constitutes an obstacle to the provision of services across national borders.


Amendment 221[modifier]

Jean-Pierre Audy
Recital 32

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(32) The integration of the single market for electronic communications would be accelerated through establishment of a framework to define certain key European virtual products, which are particularly important for providers of electronic communication services to provide cross-border services and to adopt a pan-Union strategy in an increasingly all-IP environment, based on key parameters and minimum characteristics.

deleted


Amendment 222[modifier]

Jean-Pierre Audy
Recital 33

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(33) The operational needs served by various virtual products should be addressed. European virtual broadband access products should be available in cases where an operator with significant market power has been required under the terms of the Framework Directive and the Access Directive to provide access on regulated terms at a specific access point in its network. First, efficient cross-border entry should be facilitated by harmonised products that enable initial provision by cross-border providers of services to their end customers without delay and with a predictable and sufficient quality, including services to business customers with multiple sites in different Member States, where this would be necessary and proportionate pursuant to market analysis. These harmonised products should be available for a sufficient period in order to allow access seekers and providers to plan medium and long term investments.

deleted


Amendment 223[modifier]

Jean-Pierre Audy
Recital 34

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(34) Secondly, sophisticated virtual access products that require a higher level of investment by access seekers and allow them a greater level of control and differentiation, particularly by providing access at a more local level, are key to creating the conditions for sustainable competition across the internal market. Hence, these key wholesale access products to next-generation access (NGA) networks should also be harmonised to facilitate cross-border investment. Such virtual broadband access products should be designed to have equivalent functionalities to physical unbundling, in order to broaden the range of potential wholesale remedies available for consideration by national regulatory authorities under the proportionality assessment pursuant to Directive 2002/19/EC.

deleted


Amendment 224[modifier]

Catherine Trautmann
Recital 35 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(35 a) There is a need to harmonise the conditions for high-quality wholesale products used for the supply of business services to enable the provision of seamless services to cross-border and multi-national corporations across the European Union. Such harmonisation could play a significant role in terms of EU business competitiveness with regards to communications costs.


Amendment 225[modifier]

Sabine Verheyen, Ivo Belet, Doris Pack
Recital 36

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(36) In a context of progressive migration to ‘all IP networks’, the lack of availability of connectivity products based on the IP protocol for different classes of services with assured service quality that enable communication paths across network domains and across network borders, both within and between Member States, hinders the development of applications that rely on access to other networks, thus limiting technological innovation. Moreover, this situation prevents the diffusion on a wider scale of efficiencies which are associated with the management and provision of IP-based networks and connectivity products with an assured service quality level, in particular enhanced security, reliability and flexibility, cost-effectiveness and faster provisioning, which benefit network operators, service providers and end users. A harmonised approach to the design and availability of these products is therefore necessary, on reasonable terms including, where requested, the possibility of cross-supply by the electronic communications undertakings concerned.

deleted


Amendment 226[modifier]

Petra Kammerevert
Recital 36

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(36) In a context of progressive migration to 'all IP networks', the lack of availability of connectivity products based on the IP protocol for different classes of services with assured service quality that enable communication paths across network domains and across network borders, both within and between Member States, hinders the development of applications that rely on access to other networks, thus limiting technological innovation. Moreover, this situation prevents the diffusion on a wider scale of efficiencies which are associated with the management and provision of IP-based networks and connectivity products with an assured service quality level, in particular enhanced security, reliability and flexibility, cost-effectiveness and faster provisioning, which benefit network operators, service providers and end users. A harmonised approach to the design and availability of these products is therefore necessary, on reasonable terms including, where requested, the possibility of cross-supply by the electronic communications undertakings concerned.

deleted


Amendment 227[modifier]

Marietje Schaake, Nadja Hirsch
Recital 36

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(36) In a context of progressive migration to all IP networks, the lack of availability of connectivity products based on the IP protocol for different classes of services with assured service quality that enable communication paths across network domains and across network borders, both within and between Member States, hinders the development of applications that rely on access to other networks, thus limiting technological innovation. Moreover, this situation prevents the diffusion on a wider scale of efficiencies which are associated with the management and provision of IP-based networks and connectivity products with an assured service quality level, in particular enhanced security, reliability and flexibility, cost-effectiveness and faster provisioning, which benefit network operators, service providers and end users. A harmonised approach to the design and availability of these products is therefore necessary, on reasonable terms including, where requested, the possibility of cross-supply by the electronic communications undertakings concerned.

(36) In a context of progressive migration to 'all IP networks', the lack of availability of connectivity products based on the IP protocol for different classes of services with a defined quality of service within closed communications networks using the Internet Protocol with strict admission control could hinder the development of services that rely on this defined quality in order to function adequately. A harmonised approach to the design and availability of these services is therefore necessary, including safeguards to guarantee that the enhanced quality is not functionally identical or to the detriment of the performance, affordability or quality of internet access services or undermines competition, innovation or net neutrality.


Amendment 228[modifier]

Petra Kammerevert
Recital 36 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(36a) Restrictions on the quality and accessibility of electronic communications content, applications and services can also result from providers’ requirements for specific terminal equipment. Such commercial practices are incompatible with the objective of a seamless single market and end-user rights.


Amendment 229[modifier]

Marietje Schaake, Salvador Sedó i Alabart, Amelia Andersdotter
Recital 37

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(37) The establishment of European virtual broadband access products under this Regulation should be reflected in the assessment by national regulatory authorities of the most appropriate access remedies to the networks of operators designated as having significant market power, while avoiding over-regulation through the unnecessary multiplication of wholesale access products, whether imposed pursuant to market analysis or provided under other conditions. In particular, the introduction of the European virtual access products should not, in and of itself, lead to an increase in the number of regulated access products imposed on a given operator. Moreover, the need for national regulatory authorities, following the adoption of this Regulation, to assess whether a European virtual broadband access product should be imposed instead of existing wholesale access remedies, and to assess the appropriateness of imposing a European virtual broadband access product in the context of future market reviews where they find significant market power, should not affect their responsibility to identify the most appropriate and proportionate remedy to address the identified competition problem in accordance with Article 16 of Directive 2002/21/EC.

(37) The establishment of European virtual broadband access products under this Regulation should be reflected in the assessment by national regulatory authorities of the most appropriate access remedies to the networks of operators designated as having significant market power. The possibility of the implementation of functional separation as an exceptional measure, and the implementation of full equivalence of access should be kept under constant review by national regulatory authorities. National regulatory authorities should avoid over-regulation through the unnecessary multiplication of wholesale access products, whether imposed pursuant to market analysis or provided under other conditions. In particular, the introduction of the European virtual access products should not, in and of itself, lead to an increase in the number of regulated access products imposed on a given operator. Moreover, the need for national regulatory authorities, following the adoption of this Regulation, to assess whether a European virtual broadband access product should be imposed instead of existing wholesale access remedies, and to assess the appropriateness of imposing a European virtual broadband access product in the context of future market reviews where they find significant market power, should not affect their responsibility to identify the most appropriate and proportionate remedy to address the identified competition problem in accordance with Article 16 of Directive 2002/21/EC.

Justification:
BEREC’s “Guidance on functional separation under Articles 13a and 13b of the Access Directive and national procedures” offers useful guidance to NRAs on the legal and practical considerations that need to be kept under review. This will ensure that, when it is objectively necessary to ensure competition, innovation and lower prices, functional separation or equivalence of access could be implemented with minimum delays.

Amendment 230[modifier]

Jean-Pierre Audy
Recital 38

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(38) In the interests of regulatory predictability, key elements of evolving decisional practice under the current legal framework which affect the conditions under which wholesale access products, including European virtual broadband access products, are made available for NGA networks, should also be reflected in the legislation. These should include provisions reflecting the importance, for the analysis of wholesale access markets and in particular of whether there is a need for price controls on such access to NGA networks, of the relationship between competitive constraints from alternative fixed and wireless infrastructures, effective guarantees of non-discriminatory access, and the existing level of competition in terms of price, choice and quality at retail level. The latter consideration ultimately determines the benefits to end users. For example, in the conduct of their case-by-case assessment pursuant to Article 16 of Directive 2002/21/EC and without prejudice to the assessment of significant market power and the application of EU competition rules, national regulatory authorities may consider that in the presence of two fixed NGA networks, market conditions are competitive enough to be able to drive network upgrades and to evolve towards the provision of ultra-fast services, which is one important parameter of retail competition.

deleted


Amendment 231[modifier]

Gunnar Hökmark
Recital 38

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(38) In the interests of regulatory predictability, key elements of evolving decisional practice under the current legal framework which affect the conditions under which wholesale access products, including European virtual broadband access products, are made available for NGA networks, should also be reflected in the legislation. These should include provisions reflecting the importance, for the analysis of wholesale access markets and in particular of whether there is a need for price controls on such access to NGA networks, of the relationship between competitive constraints from alternative fixed and wireless infrastructures, effective guarantees of non-discriminatory access, and the existing level of competition in terms of price, choice and quality at retail level. The latter consideration ultimately determines the benefits to end users. For example, in the conduct of their case-by-case assessment pursuant to Article 16 of Directive 2002/21/EC and without prejudice to the assessment of significant market power and the application of EU competition rules, national regulatory authorities may consider that in the presence of two fixed NGA networks, market conditions are competitive enough to be able to drive network upgrades and to evolve towards the provision of ultra-fast services, which is one important parameter of retail competition.

(38) In the interests of regulatory predictability, key elements of evolving decisional practice under the current legal framework which affect the conditions under which wholesale access products, including European virtual broadband access products, are made available for NGA networks, should also be reflected in the legislation. These should include provisions reflecting the importance, for the analysis of wholesale access markets and in particular of whether there is a need for price controls on such access to NGA networks, of the relationship between competitive constraints from alternative fixed and wireless infrastructures, effective guarantees of non-discriminatory access, and the existing level of competition in terms of price, choice and quality at retail level.


Amendment 232[modifier]

Amelia Andersdotter
Recital 39

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(39) It is to be expected that intensified competition in a single market will lead to a reduction over time in sector-specific regulation based on market analysis. Indeed, one of the results of completing the Single Market should be a greater tendency towards effective competition on relevant markets, with ex post application of competition law increasingly being seen as sufficient to ensure market functioning. In order to ensure legal clarity and predictability of regulatory approaches across borders, clear and binding criteria should be provided on how to assess whether a given market still justifies the imposition of ex-ante regulatory obligations, by reference to the durability of bottlenecks and the prospects of competition, in particular infrastructure-based competition, and the conditions of competition at retail level on parameters such as price, choice and quality, which are ultimately what is relevant to end users and to the global competitiveness of the EU economy. This should underpin successive reviews of the list of markets susceptible to ex ante regulation and help national regulators to focus their efforts where competition is not yet effective and to do so in a convergent manner. The establishment of a true single market for electronic communications may in addition affect the geographical scope of markets, for the purposes of both sector-specific regulation based on competition principles and the application of competition law itself.

deleted


Amendment 233[modifier]

Giles Chichester
Recital 39

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(39) It is to be expected that intensified competition in a single market will lead to a reduction over time in sector-specific regulation based on market analysis. Indeed, one of the results of completing the Single Market should be a greater tendency towards effective competition on relevant markets, with ex post application of competition law increasingly being seen as sufficient to ensure market functioning. In order to ensure legal clarity and predictability of regulatory approaches across borders, clear and binding criteria should be provided on how to assess whether a given market still justifies the imposition of ex-ante regulatory obligations, by reference to the durability of bottlenecks and the prospects of competition, in particular infrastructure-based competition, and the conditions of competition at retail level on parameters such as price, choice and quality, which are ultimately what is relevant to end users and to the global competitiveness of the EU economy. This should underpin successive reviews of the list of markets susceptible to ex ante regulation and help national regulators to focus their efforts where competition is not yet effective and to do so in a convergent manner. The establishment of a true single market for electronic communications may in addition affect the geographical scope of markets, for the purposes of both sector-specific regulation based on competition principles and the application of competition law itself.

deleted


Amendment 234[modifier]

Francesco De Angelis
Recital 39

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(39) It is to be expected that intensified competition in a single market will lead to a reduction over time in sector-specific regulation based on market analysis. Indeed, one of the results of completing the Single Market should be a greater tendency towards effective competition on relevant markets, with ex post application of competition law increasingly being seen as sufficient to ensure market functioning. In order to ensure legal clarity and predictability of regulatory approaches across borders, clear and binding criteria should be provided on how to assess whether a given market still justifies the imposition of ex-ante regulatory obligations, by reference to the durability of bottlenecks and the prospects of competition, in particular infrastructure-based competition, and the conditions of competition at retail level on parameters such as price, choice and quality, which are ultimately what is relevant to end users and to the global competitiveness of the EU economy. This should underpin successive reviews of the list of markets susceptible to ex ante regulation and help national regulators to focus their efforts where competition is not yet effective and to do so in a convergent manner. The establishment of a true single market for electronic communications may in addition affect the geographical scope of markets, for the purposes of both sector-specific regulation based on competition principles and the application of competition law itself.

deleted

Justification:
In order to prevent detrimental effects on end users, it is necessary to avoid a weakening of competition rules in the Member States.

Amendment 235[modifier]

Christian Ehler
Recital 40

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(40) Disparities in the national implementation of sector-specific end-user protection rules create significant barriers to the single digital market, in particular in the form of increased compliance costs for providers of electronic communications to the public wishing to offer services across Member States. Moreover, fragmentation and uncertainty as to the level of protection granted in different Member States undermines end-users' trust and dissuades them from purchasing electronic communications services abroad. In order to achieve the Union's objective to remove barriers to the internal market it is necessary to replace existing, divergent national legal measures with a single and fully harmonised set of sector-specific rules which create a high common level of end-user protection. Such full harmonisation of the legal provisions should not prevent providers of electronic communications to the public from offering end-users contractual arrangements which go beyond that level of protection.

(40) Disparities in the national implementation of sector-specific end-user protection rules create significant barriers to the single digital market, create uncertainty, in particular in the form of increased compliance costs for providers of electronic communications to the public wishing to offer services across Member States. Moreover, fragmentation and uncertainty as to the level of protection granted in different Member States undermines end-users' trust and dissuades them from purchasing electronic communications services abroad. In order to achieve the Union's objective to remove barriers to the internal market it is necessary to replace existing, divergent national legal measures with a single and fully harmonised set of sector-specific rules which create a high common level of end-user protection. Such full harmonisation of the legal provisions should not prevent providers of electronic communications to the public from offering end-users contractual arrangements which go beyond that level of protection.


Amendment 236[modifier]

Sabine Verheyen, Doris Pack
Recital 42

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(42) Where the provisions in Chapters 4 and 5 of this Regulation refer to end-users, such provisions should apply not only to consumers but also to other categories of end-users, primarily micro enterprises. At their individual request, end-users other than consumers should be able to agree, by individual contract, to deviate from certain provisions.

deleted


Amendment 237[modifier]

Petra Kammerevert
Recital 42

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(42) Where the provisions in Chapters 4 and 5 of this Regulation refer to end-users, such provisions should apply not only to consumers but also to other categories of end-users, primarily micro enterprises. At their individual request, end-users other than consumers should be able to agree, by individual contract, to deviate from certain provisions.

deleted


Amendment 238[modifier]

Petra Kammerevert
Recital 45

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(45) The internet has developed over the past decades as an open platform for innovation with low access barriers for end-users, content and application providers and internet service providers. The existing regulatory framework aims at promoting the ability of end-users to access and distribute information or run applications and services of their choice. Recently, however, the report of the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) on traffic management practices published in May 2012 and a study, commissioned by the Executive Agency for Consumers and Health and published in December 2012, on the functioning of the market of internet access and provision from a consumer perspective, showed that a significant number of end-users are affected by traffic management practices which block or slow down specific applications.

(45) The internet has developed over the past decades as an open platform for innovation with low access barriers for end-users, content and application providers and internet service providers. Fundamentally equal treatment and non-discrimination in forwarding data packages, irrespective of content, service, application, origin or destination, must be safeguarded by law throughout the EU, to provide a lasting guarantee that all users of internet services have in principle access to all content, services or applications on the internet or can offer these themselves. Access network operators are subject to a general obligation to forward data packages by providing transfer services of an appropriate level of quality to users, regardless of origin and destination or the content, services and applications to be transferred. This level of quality must be continuously developed in line with technological progress. The open and non-discriminatory nature of the internet is the key driver of innovation and economic efficiency. These essential characteristics help secure the freedom and diversity of expression, the media and culture. The existing regulatory framework aims at promoting the ability of end-users to access and distribute information or run applications and services of their choice. Recently, however, the report of the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) on traffic management practices published in May 2012 and a study, commissioned by the Executive Agency for Consumers and Health and published in December 2012, on the functioning of the market of internet access and provision from a consumer perspective, showed that a significant number of end-users are affected by traffic management practices which block or slow down specific applications. These tendencies require clear rules at the Union level to maintain the open internet and to avoid fragmentation of the single market resulting from individual Member States' measures. An open internet which works exclusively on the best-effort principle should not be undermined or have its future development hindered by the development of other products and services.


Amendment 239[modifier]

Amelia Andersdotter
Recital 45

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(45) The internet has developed over the past decades as an open platform for innovation with low access barriers for end-users, content and application providers and internet service providers. The existing regulatory framework aims at promoting the ability of end-users to access and distribute information or run applications and services of their choice. Recently, however, the report of the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) on traffic management practices published in May 2012 and a study, commissioned by the Executive Agency for Consumers and Health and published in December 2012, on the functioning of the market of internet access and provision from a consumer perspective, showed that a significant number of end-users are affected by traffic management practices which block or slow down specific applications. These tendencies require clear rules at the Union level to maintain the open internet and to avoid fragmentation of the single market resulting from individual Member States' measures.

(45) The internet has developed over the past decades as an open platform for innovation with low access barriers for end-users, content and application providers and internet service providers. The existing regulatory framework aims at promoting the ability of end-users to access and distribute information or run applications and services of their choice. Recently, however, the report of the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) on traffic management practices published in May 2012 and a study, commissioned by the Executive Agency for Consumers and Health and published in December 2012, on the functioning of the market of internet access and provision from a consumer perspective, showed that a significant number of end-users are affected by traffic management practices which block or slow down specific applications. These tendencies require clear rules at the Union level to maintain the open internet and to avoid fragmentation of the single market resulting from individual Member States' measures. Indeed, as stated by the European Parliament resolution of 17 November 2011 on the open internet and net neutrality in Europe 2011/2866, the internet's open character has been a key driver of competitiveness, economic growth, social development and innovation – which has led to spectacular levels of development in online applications, content and services – and thus of growth in the offer of, and demand for, content and services, and has made it a vitally important accelerator in the free circulation of knowledge, ideas and information, including in countries where access to independent media is limited;


Amendment 240[modifier]

Marietje Schaake, Nadja Hirsch
Recital 45

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(45) The internet has developed over the past decades as an open platform for innovation with low access barriers for end-users, content and application providers and internet service providers. The existing regulatory framework aims at promoting the ability of end-users to access and distribute information or run applications and services of their choice. Recently, however, the report of the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) on traffic management practices published in May 2012 and a study, commissioned by the Executive Agency for Consumers and Health and published in December 2012, on the functioning of the market of internet access and provision from a consumer perspective, showed that a significant number of end-users are affected by traffic management practices which block or slow down specific applications. These tendencies require clear rules at the Union level to maintain the open internet and to avoid fragmentation of the single market resulting from individual Member States' measures.

(45) The internet has developed over the past decades as an open platform for innovation with low access barriers for end-users, content and application providers and internet service providers. The key driver of the unprecedented innovation and economic activity in the digital age has been the fact that all internet traffic is treated equally, without discrimination, restriction or interference, independent of its sender, receiver, type, content, device, service or application; conform the principle of net neutrality. The existing regulatory framework aims at promoting the ability of end-users to access and distribute information or run applications and services of their choice. Recently, however, the report of the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) on traffic management practices published in May 2012 and a study, commissioned by the Executive Agency for Consumers and Health and published in December 2012, on the functioning of the market of internet access and provision from a consumer perspective, showed that a significant number of end-users are affected by traffic management practices which block or slow down specific applications. These tendencies require clear rules to enshrine the principle of net neutrality in law at the Union level to maintain the open internet and to avoid fragmentation of the single market resulting from individual Member States' measures.


Amendment 241[modifier]

Jean-Pierre Audy
Recital 45

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(45) The internet has developed over the past decades as an open platform for innovation with low access barriers for end-users, content and application providers and internet service providers. The existing regulatory framework aims at promoting the ability of end-users to access and distribute information or run applications and services of their choice. Recently, however, the report of the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) on traffic management practices published in May 2012 and a study, commissioned by the Executive Agency for Consumers and Health and published in December 2012, on the functioning of the market of internet access and provision from a consumer perspective, showed that a significant number of end-users are affected by traffic management practices which block or slow down specific applications. These tendencies require clear rules at the Union level to maintain the open internet and to avoid fragmentation of the single market resulting from individual Member States' measures.

(45) The internet has developed over the past decades as an open platform for innovation with low access barriers for end-users, content and application providers and internet service providers. The open and non-discriminatory nature of the internet plays a key driving role in innovation and economic efficiency, but also in safeguarding the freedom and pluralism of the media, as well as cultural diversity. The existing regulatory framework aims at promoting the ability of end-users to access and distribute information or run applications and services of their choice. Recently, however, the report of the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) on traffic management practices published in May 2012 and a study, commissioned by the Executive Agency for Consumers and Health and published in December 2012, on the functioning of the market of internet access and provision from a consumer perspective, showed that a significant number of end-users are affected by traffic management practices which block or slow down specific applications. These tendencies require clear rules at the Union level to maintain the open internet and to avoid fragmentation of the single market resulting from individual Member States' measures. The development of specialised services or of traffic offering a guaranteed quality of service should not undermine the open internet based on the ‘best effort’ principle. The open internet must remain the standard and not become the exception.

Or.

Amendment 242[modifier]

Ivo Belet
Recital 45

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(45) The internet has developed over the past decades as an open platform for innovation with low access barriers for end-users, content and application providers and internet service providers. The existing regulatory framework aims at promoting the ability of end-users to access and distribute information or run applications and services of their choice. Recently, however, the report of the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) on traffic management practices published in May 2012 and a study, commissioned by the Executive Agency for Consumers and Health and published in December 2012, on the functioning of the market of internet access and provision from a consumer perspective, showed that a significant number of end-users are affected by traffic management practices which block or slow down specific applications. These tendencies require clear rules at the Union level to maintain the open internet and to avoid fragmentation of the single market resulting from individual Member States' measures.

(45) The internet has developed over the past decades as an open platform for innovation with low access barriers for end-users, content and application providers and internet service providers. The openness and non-discriminatory features of the Internet are key drivers for innovation, economic efficiency as well as safeguards for media freedom, media pluralism and cultural diversity. The existing regulatory framework aims at promoting the ability of end-users to access and distribute information or run applications and services of their choice. Recently, however, the report of the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) on traffic management practices published in May 2012 and a study, commissioned by the Executive Agency for Consumers and Health and published in December 2012, on the functioning of the market of internet access and provision from a consumer perspective, showed that a significant number of end-users are affected by traffic management practices which block or slow down specific applications, the risk for these practices being particular high for vertically integrated companies. These tendencies require clear rules at the Union level to maintain the open internet and to avoid fragmentation of the single market resulting from individual Member States' measures.


Amendment 243[modifier]

Catherine Trautmann, Patrizia Toia, Teresa Riera Madurell, Dimitrios Droutsas, Edit Herczog
Recital 45

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(45) The internet has developed over the past decades as an open platform for innovation with low access barriers for end-users, content and application providers and internet service providers. The existing regulatory framework aims at promoting the ability of end-users to access and distribute information or run applications and services of their choice. Recently, however, the report of the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) on traffic management practices published in May 2012 and a study, commissioned by the Executive Agency for Consumers and Health and published in December 2012, on the functioning of the market of internet access and provision from a consumer perspective, showed that a significant number of end-users are affected by traffic management practices which block or slow down specific applications. These tendencies require clear rules at the Union level to maintain the open internet and to avoid fragmentation of the single market resulting from individual Member States' measures.

(45) The internet has developed over the past decades as an open platform for innovation with low access barriers for end-users, content and application providers and internet service providers. The existing regulatory framework aims at promoting the ability of end-users to access and distribute information or run applications and services of their choice. This ability is best ensured when all types of traffic are treated equally by providers of electronic communications to the public. Recently, however, the report of the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) on traffic management practices published in May 2012 and a study, commissioned by the Executive Agency for Consumers and Health and published in December 2012, on the functioning of the market of internet access and provision from a consumer perspective, showed that a significant number of end-users are affected by traffic management practices which block or slow down specific applications. These tendencies require clear rules at the Union level to maintain the open internet and to avoid fragmentation of the single market resulting from individual Member States' measures.


Amendment 244[modifier]

Patrizia Toia
Recital 45

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(45) The internet has developed over the past decades as an open platform for innovation with low access barriers for end-users, content and application providers and internet service providers. The existing regulatory framework aims at promoting the ability of end-users to access and distribute information or run applications and services of their choice. Recently, however, the report of the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) on traffic management practices published in May 2012 and a study, commissioned by the Executive Agency for Consumers and Health and published in December 2012, on the functioning of the market of internet access and provision from a consumer perspective, showed that a significant number of end-users are affected by traffic management practices which block or slow down specific applications. These tendencies require clear rules at the Union level to maintain the open internet and to avoid fragmentation of the single market resulting from individual Member States' measures.

(45) The internet has developed over the past decades as an open platform for innovation with low access barriers for end-users, content and application providers and internet service providers. The existing regulatory framework aims at promoting the ability of end-users to access and distribute data and information or run applications and services of their choice. Recently, however, the report of the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) on traffic management practices published in May 2012 and a study, commissioned by the Executive Agency for Consumers and Health and published in December 2012, on the functioning of the market of internet access and provision from a consumer perspective, showed that a significant number of end-users are affected by traffic management practices which block or slow down specific applications. These tendencies require clear rules at the Union level to maintain the open internet and to avoid fragmentation of the single market resulting from individual Member States' measures.


Amendment 245[modifier]

Petra Kammerevert
Recital 46

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(46) The freedom of end-users to access and distribute information and lawful content, run applications and use services of their choice is subject to the respect of Union and compatible national law. This Regulation defines the limits for any restrictions to this freedom by providers of electronic communications to the public but is without prejudice to other Union legislation, including copyright rules and Directive 2000/31/EC.

(46) The right of end-users to access and distribute information and content, run applications and use services of their choice is subject to the respect of Union and compatible national law.


Amendment 246[modifier]

Françoise Castex
Recital 46

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(46) The freedom of end-users to access and distribute information and lawful content, run applications and use services of their choice is subject to the respect of Union and compatible national law. This Regulation defines the limits for any restrictions to this freedom by providers of electronic communications to the public but is without prejudice to other Union legislation, including copyright rules and Directive 2000/31/EC.

(46) The freedom of end-users to access and distribute information and lawful content, run applications and use services of their choice is subject to the respect of Union and compatible national law. This Regulation defines the limits for any restrictions to this freedom by providers of electronic communications to the public but is without prejudice to other Union legislation, including copyright rules, Directive 1995/46, Directive 2002/58 and Directive 2000/31/EC.


Amendment 247[modifier]

Amelia Andersdotter
Recital 46

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(46) The freedom of end-users to access and distribute information and lawful content, run applications and use services of their choice is subject to the respect of Union and compatible national law. This Regulation defines the limits for any restrictions to this freedom by providers of electronic communications to the public but is without prejudice to other Union legislation, including copyright rules and Directive 2000/31/EC.

(46) The freedom of end-users to access and distribute information and content, run applications and use services of their choice is subject to the respect of Union and compatible national law. This Regulation defines the limits for any restrictions to this freedom by providers of electronic communications to the public but is without prejudice to other Union legislation, including copyright rules, Directive 1995/46, Directive 2002/58, and Directive 2000/31/EC.

Justification:
The reference to Directive 1995/46 and Directive 2002/58 define the limit to traffic management from data protection and privacy perspective

Amendment 248[modifier]

András Gyürk
Recital 46 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(46 a) The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union requires that limitations to the respect for private life, right of confidentiality of communications, right to data protection or freedom to receive or impart information must be provided for by law and respect the essence of those rights and freedoms. Union case law with respect to monitoring or filtering electronic communications confirms, that an imposition of an obligation on a provider of electronic communications or services to indiscriminately monitor communications constitutes not only a serious infringement on the freedom of the provider to conduct its business but also infringes the fundamental rights of the customers of the provider. Any scheme involving monitoring of communications or services should therefore either be specifically provided for by Union law, or national law adopted in conformity with union law, or, if based on a voluntary arrangement, be subject to court review.


Amendment 249[modifier]

Amelia Andersdotter
Recital 46 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(46 a) Non-discrimination of information in the sending, transmitting and receiving phase shall be ensured for encouraging innovation and eliminating entry barriers, as stated by the European Parliament in its implementation report on the regulatory framework for electronic communications 2013/2080;


Amendment 250[modifier]

Amelia Andersdotter
Recital 46 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(46 b) Potential anti-competitive and discriminative behaviour in traffic management would be contrary to the principle of net neutrality and the open internet, and should be therefore prevented, as also stated by the European Parliament in its initiative report 2013/2080;


Amendment 251[modifier]

Amelia Andersdotter
Recital 46 c (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(46 c) According to the European Parliament in its resolutions of 17th November 2011 on the open internet and net neutrality in Europe 2011/2866, and of 11th December 2012 on a digital freedom strategy in EU foreign policy 2012/2098, internet service providers should not block, discriminate against, impair or degrade the ability of any person to use a service to access, use, send, post, receive or offer any content, application or service of their choice, irrespective of source or target.


Amendment 252[modifier]

Petra Kammerevert
Recital 47

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(47) In an open internet, providers of electronic communications to the public should, within contractually agreed limits on data volumes and speeds for internet access services, not block, slow down, degrade or discriminate against specific content, applications or services or specific classes thereof except for a limited number of reasonable traffic management measures. Such measures should be transparent, proportionate and non-discriminatory. Reasonable traffic management encompasses prevention or impediment of serious crimes, including voluntary actions of providers to prevent access to and distribution of child pornography. Minimising the effects of network congestion should be considered reasonable provided that network congestion occurs only temporarily or in exceptional circumstances.

(47) In an open internet, providers of electronic communications to the public ought not to delete, block, slow down, degrade or discriminate against specific content, applications or services or specific classes thereof except for a number of reasonable traffic management measures that are clearly defined in this Regulation and individually justified. Such measures must be transparent, necessary and proportionate.


Amendment 253[modifier]

Edit Herczog
Recital 47

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(47) In an open internet, providers of electronic communications to the public should, within contractually agreed limits on data volumes and speeds for internet access services, not block, slow down, degrade or discriminate against specific content, applications or services or specific classes thereof except for a limited number of reasonable traffic management measures. Such measures should be transparent, proportionate and non-discriminatory. Reasonable traffic management encompasses prevention or impediment of serious crimes, including voluntary actions of providers to prevent access to and distribution of child pornography. Minimising the effects of network congestion should be considered reasonable provided that network congestion occurs only temporarily or in exceptional circumstances.

(47) In an open Internet, providers of electronic communications to the public should, within contractually agreed limits on data volumes and speeds for Internet access services, not block, slow down, degrade or discriminate against specific content, applications or services or specific classes thereof except for a limited number of reasonable traffic management measures. Such measures should be relevant, efficient, transparent, proportionate and non-discriminatory, and in accordance with existing laws including, inter alia, privacy and data protection. Preserving the integrity and security of the network and minimising the effects of network congestion through traffic management measures should be considered reasonable provided that it occurs only temporarily or in exceptional circumstances and provided that equivalent types of traffic are treated equally.

Justification:
The language ‘and the general characteristics of the service’ could be misused as a loophole to offer products to consumers which do not in fact enable them to access and use the content, applications and services of their choice on the Internet. The only limitations to the open Internet, bar reasonable traffic management, should concern data volumes and speeds. The scope of what is deemed reasonable traffic management should also be more clearly caveated, in line with BEREC and EDPS guidance, to reflect notably the acceptable use of traffic management to handle genuine network security and congestion problems as they arise, and in full respect of data protection and privacy.

Amendment 254[modifier]

Catherine Trautmann, Dimitrios Droutsas, Edit Herczog
Recital 47

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(47) In an open internet, providers of electronic communications to the public should, within contractually agreed limits on data volumes and speeds for internet access services, not block, slow down, degrade or discriminate against specific content, applications or services or specific classes thereof except for a limited number of reasonable traffic management measures. Such measures should be transparent, proportionate and non-discriminatory. Reasonable traffic management encompasses prevention or impediment of serious crimes, including voluntary actions of providers to prevent access to and distribution of child pornography. Minimising the effects of network congestion should be considered reasonable provided that network congestion occurs only temporarily or in exceptional circumstances.

(47) In an open internet, providers of electronic communications to the public should, within contractually agreed limits on data volumes and speeds for internet access services and the general characteristics of the service, not block, slow down, degrade or discriminate against specific content, applications or services or specific classes thereof except for a limited number of reasonable traffic management measures. Such measures should be transparent, proportionate and non-discriminatory. Minimising the effects of network congestion should be considered reasonable provided that network congestion occurs only temporarily or in exceptional circumstances and if, upon request from the competent national authorities, the provider can demonstrate that equal treatment of traffic would be substantially less efficient.

When a provider of electronic communications takes such measures, it should also inform the content, applications and services providers which are affected.


Amendment 255[modifier]

Seán Kelly
Recital 47

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(47) In an open internet, providers of electronic communications to the public should, within contractually agreed limits on data volumes and speeds for internet access services, not block, slow down, degrade or discriminate against specific content, applications or services or specific classes thereof except for a limited number of reasonable traffic management measures. Such measures should be transparent, proportionate and non-discriminatory. Reasonable traffic management encompasses prevention or impediment of serious crimes, including voluntary actions of providers to prevent access to and distribution of child pornography. Minimising the effects of network congestion should be considered reasonable provided that network congestion occurs only temporarily or in exceptional circumstances.

(47) In an open internet, providers of electronic communications to the public should, within contractually agreed limits on data volumes and speeds for internet access services, not block, slow down, degrade or discriminate against specific content, applications or services or specific classes thereof except for a limited number of reasonable traffic management measures. Such measures should be efficient, appropriate, transparent, proportionate and non-discriminatory and in line with existing laws, including, inter alia, data protection. Reasonable traffic management encompasses the prevention or impediment of serious crimes, including voluntary actions of providers to prevent access to and distribution of child pornography. Preserving the integrity and security of the network and minimising the effects of network congestion through traffic management measures should be considered reasonable provided that it occurs only temporarily or in exceptional circumstances and provided that equivalent types of traffic are treated equally.

Justification:
The meaning of reasonable traffic management should be refined and tightened, in line with the guidelines and opinions of BEREC and EDPS, such as the acceptable use of traffic management to handle genuine network security and congestion problems, all the while respecting data privacy requirements.

Amendment 256[modifier]

Teresa Riera Madurell
Recital 47

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(47) In an open internet, providers of electronic communications to the public should, within contractually agreed limits on data volumes and speeds for internet access services, not block, slow down, degrade or discriminate against specific content, applications or services or specific classes thereof except for a limited number of reasonable traffic management measures. Such measures should be transparent, proportionate and non-discriminatory. Reasonable traffic management encompasses prevention or impediment of serious crimes, including voluntary actions of providers to prevent access to and distribution of child pornography. Minimising the effects of network congestion should be considered reasonable provided that network congestion occurs only temporarily or in exceptional circumstances.

(47) In an open internet, providers of electronic communications to the public should not block, slow down, degrade or discriminate against specific content, applications or services or specific classes thereof except for a limited number of reasonable traffic management measures. Such measures should be transparent, proportionate to the legitimate goal to be attained and non-discriminatory. Reasonable traffic management encompasses prevention or impediment of serious crimes, including voluntary actions of providers to prevent access to and distribution of child pornography. Minimising the effects of network congestion should be considered reasonable provided that network congestion occurs only temporarily or in exceptional circumstances and that the provider is able to demonstrate at the request of the national competent authority that impartial traffic management would prove less efficient.

When taking such measures providers of electronic communications should inform the content, applications and services providers concerned.


Amendment 257[modifier]

Ioannis A. Tsoukalas
Recital 47

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(47) In an open internet, providers of electronic communications to the public should, within contractually agreed limits on data volumes and speeds for internet access services, not block, slow down, degrade or discriminate against specific content, applications or services or specific classes thereof except for a limited number of reasonable traffic management measures. Such measures should be transparent, proportionate and non-discriminatory. Reasonable traffic management encompasses prevention or impediment of serious crimes, including voluntary actions of providers to prevent access to and distribution of child pornography. Minimising the effects of network congestion should be considered reasonable provided that network congestion occurs only temporarily or in exceptional circumstances.

(47) In an open internet, providers of electronic communications to the public should, within contractually agreed limits on data volumes and speeds for internet access services, not block, slow down, degrade or discriminate against specific content, applications or services or specific classes thereof except for a limited number of reasonable traffic management measures. Such measures should be relevant, transparent, proportionate and non-discriminatory. Reasonable traffic management encompasses prevention or impediment of serious crimes and should be in accordance with existing laws including, inter alia, privacy and data protection. Preserving the integrity and security of the network and minimising the effects of network congestion through traffic management measures should be considered reasonable provided that it occurs only temporarily or in exceptional circumstances.


Amendment 258[modifier]

Jean-Pierre Audy
Recital 47

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(47) In an open internet, providers of electronic communications to the public should, within contractually agreed limits on data volumes and speeds for internet access services, not block, slow down, degrade or discriminate against specific content, applications or services or specific classes thereof except for a limited number of reasonable traffic management measures. Such measures should be transparent, proportionate and non-discriminatory. Reasonable traffic management encompasses prevention or impediment of serious crimes, including voluntary actions of providers to prevent access to and distribution of child pornography. Minimising the effects of network congestion should be considered reasonable provided that network congestion occurs only temporarily or in exceptional circumstances.

(47) In an open internet, providers of electronic communications to the public should, within contractually agreed limits on data volumes and speeds for internet access services, not block, slow down, degrade or discriminate against specific content, applications or services or specific classes thereof except for a limited number of reasonable traffic management measures. Any price discrimination or discriminatory conditions relating to data volumes and speeds in respect of specific content, applications or services should be prohibited. Reasonable traffic management measures should be transparent, proportionate and non-discriminatory. Reasonable traffic management encompasses prevention or impediment of serious crimes, including voluntary actions of providers to prevent access to and distribution of child pornography. Minimising the effects of network congestion should be considered reasonable provided that network congestion occurs only temporarily or in exceptional circumstances. As soon as they implement such measures, providers of electronic communications to the public must notify the providers of content, applications or services.

Or.

Amendment 259[modifier]

Sabine Verheyen
Recital 47

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(47) In an open internet, providers of electronic communications to the public should, within contractually agreed limits on data volumes and speeds for internet access services, not block, slow down, degrade or discriminate against specific content, applications or services or specific classes thereof except for a limited number of reasonable traffic management measures. Such measures should be transparent, proportionate and non-discriminatory. Reasonable traffic management encompasses prevention or impediment of serious crimes, including voluntary actions of providers to prevent access to and distribution of child pornography. Minimising the effects of network congestion should be considered reasonable provided that network congestion occurs only temporarily or in exceptional circumstances.

(47) In an open internet, providers of electronic communications to the public should, within contractually agreed limits on data volumes and speeds for internet access services, not block, slow down, degrade or discriminate against specific content, applications or services or specific classes thereof except for a limited number of reasonable traffic management measures. Such measures should be transparent, proportionate and non-discriminatory. Reasonable traffic management encompasses prevention or impediment of serious crimes, including voluntary actions of providers to prevent access to and distribution of child pornography. Minimising the effects of network congestion should be considered reasonable in demonstrated temporary cases of acute traffic congestion, provided that equivalent types of traffic are treated equally.


Amendment 260[modifier]

Amelia Andersdotter
Recital 47

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(47) In an open internet, providers of electronic communications to the public should, within contractually agreed limits on data volumes and speeds for internet access services, not block, slow down, degrade or discriminate against specific content, applications or services or specific classes thereof except for a limited number of reasonable traffic management measures. Such measures should be transparent, proportionate and non-discriminatory. Reasonable traffic management encompasses prevention or impediment of serious crimes, including voluntary actions of providers to prevent access to and distribution of child pornography. Minimising the effects of network congestion should be considered reasonable provided that network congestion occurs only temporarily or in exceptional circumstances.

(47) In an open internet, providers of electronic communications to the public should not block, slow down, degrade or discriminate against specific content, applications or services or specific classes thereof except for a limited number of technically-reasonable, non-commercially based, traffic management measures. Such measures should be transparent, proportionate and non-discriminatory. Minimising the effects of network congestion should be considered reasonable provided that network congestion occurs only temporarily or in exceptional circumstances.

Justification:
Defining technical measures should only be done through objective criteria and excluding any subjective one such as "voluntary actions and commercial agreements of providers".

Amendment 261[modifier]

Françoise Castex
Recital 47

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(47) In an open internet, providers of electronic communications to the public should, within contractually agreed limits on data volumes and speeds for internet access services, not block, slow down, degrade or discriminate against specific content, applications or services or specific classes thereof except for a limited number of reasonable traffic management measures. Such measures should be transparent, proportionate and non-discriminatory. Reasonable traffic management encompasses prevention or impediment of serious crimes, including voluntary actions of providers to prevent access to and distribution of child pornography. Minimising the effects of network congestion should be considered reasonable provided that network congestion occurs only temporarily or in exceptional circumstances.

(47) In an open internet, providers of electronic communications to the public should not block, slow down, degrade or discriminate against specific content, applications or services or specific classes thereof except for a limited number of reasonable traffic management measures. Such measures should be transparent, proportionate and non-discriminatory. Reasonable traffic management encompasses prevention or impediment of serious crimes, including voluntary actions of providers to prevent access to and distribution of child pornography. Minimising the effects of network congestion should be considered reasonable provided that network congestion occurs only temporarily or in exceptional circumstances.


Amendment 262[modifier]

Marietje Schaake, Nadja Hirsch
Recital 47

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(47) In an open internet, providers of electronic communications to the public should, within contractually agreed limits on data volumes and speeds for internet access services, not block, slow down, degrade or discriminate against specific content, applications or services or specific classes thereof except for a limited number of reasonable traffic management measures. Such measures should be transparent, proportionate and non-discriminatory. Reasonable traffic management encompasses prevention or impediment of serious crimes, including voluntary actions of providers to prevent access to and distribution of child pornography. Minimising the effects of network congestion should be considered reasonable provided that network congestion occurs only temporarily or in exceptional circumstances.

(47) In an open internet, providers of electronic communications to the public should not block, slow down, degrade or discriminate against specific content, applications or services or specific classes thereof except for a limited number of clearly defined reasonable traffic management measures. Such measures should be transparent, proportionate and non-discriminatory. Reasonable traffic management could encompass voluntary actions of providers to prevent access to and distribution of child pornography, subject to judicial review.. Minimising the effects of network congestion could be considered reasonable provided that network congestion occurs only temporarily or in exceptional circumstances.


Amendment 263[modifier]

Jean-Pierre Audy
Recital 47 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(47 a) The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union requires that limitations to the respect for private life, right of confidentiality of communications, right to data protection or freedom to receive or impart information must be provided for by law and respect the essence of those rights and freedoms. In the context of traffic management measures, the CJEU in Case C-70/10, SABAM v. Tiscali (Scarlet), with respect to general monitoring of electronic communications, states that an imposition of an obligation on an Internet service provider of electronic communications or services to indiscriminately monitor communications would constitutes not only a serious infringement on the freedom of the provider to conduct its business, but may also infringe the fundamental rights of the customers of the provider. Any scheme involving general monitoring of communications by providers of electronic communications or services should therefore be specifically provided for by Union law, or national law adopted in conformity with Union law;


Amendment 264[modifier]

Petra Kammerevert
Recital 47 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(47a) This Regulation is without prejudice to Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (E-Privacy Directive).


Amendment 265[modifier]

Jean-Pierre Audy
Recital 48

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(48) Volume-based tariffs should be considered compatible with the principle of an open internet as long as they allow end-users to choose the tariff corresponding to their normal data consumption based on transparent information about the conditions and implications of such choice. At the same time, such tariffs should enable providers of electronic communications to the public to better adapt network capacities to expected data volumes. It is essential that end-users are fully informed before agreeing to any data volume or speed limitations and the tariffs applicable, that they can continuously monitor their consumption and easily acquire extensions of the available data volumes if desired.

(48) Volume-based tariffs should be considered compatible with the principle of an open internet as long as they allow end-users to choose the tariff corresponding to their normal data consumption based on transparent information about the conditions and implications of such choice. At the same time, such tariffs should enable providers of electronic communications to the public to better adapt network capacities to expected data volumes. In order to customize their offers to meet end-user demand for specific content, services or applications, providers of electronic communications may provide offers where the conveyance of data for such content, services or applications is not deducted from the customers data allowance. It is essential that end-users are fully informed before agreeing to any data volume or speed limitations and the tariffs applicable, that they can continuously monitor their consumption and easily acquire extensions of the available data volumes if desired.


Amendment 266[modifier]

Teresa Riera Madurell
Recital 48

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(48) Volume-based tariffs should be considered compatible with the principle of an open internet as long as they allow end-users to choose the tariff corresponding to their normal data consumption based on transparent information about the conditions and implications of such choice. At the same time, such tariffs should enable providers of electronic communications to the public to better adapt network capacities to expected data volumes. It is essential that end-users are fully informed before agreeing to any data volume or speed limitations and the tariffs applicable, that they can continuously monitor their consumption and easily acquire extensions of the available data volumes if desired.

(48) Volume-based tariffs should be considered compatible with the principle of an open internet as long as they allow end-users to choose the tariff corresponding to their normal data consumption based on clear, transparent and explicit information about the conditions and implications of such choice. At the same time, such tariffs should enable providers of electronic communications to the public to better adapt network capacities to expected data volumes. It is essential that end-users are fully informed before agreeing to any data volume or speed limitations and the tariffs applicable, that they can continuously monitor their consumption and easily acquire extensions of the available data volumes if desired.


Amendment 267[modifier]

Seán Kelly
Recital 49

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(49) There is also end-user demand for services and applications requiring an enhanced level of assured service quality offered by providers of electronic communications to the public or by content, applications or service providers. Such services may comprise inter alia broadcasting via Internet Protocol (IP-TV), video-conferencing and certain health applications. End-users should therefore also be free to conclude agreements on the provision of specialised services with an enhanced quality of service with either providers of electronic communications to the public or providers of content, applications or services.

(49) Services and applications delivered with an enhanced level of assured service quality can be offered by providers of electronic communications to the public or by content, applications or service providers. End-users should therefore also be free to conclude agreements on the provision of such specialised services with an enhanced quality of service with either providers of electronic communications to the public or providers of content, applications or services. Where such agreements are concluded with the internet access provider, the provider should ensure that the enhanced quality service does not diminish the general quality of internet access. Take-up by end-users and application and commercial service providers of specialised services should thus be on a voluntary and non-discriminatory basis.

Justification:
Having regard to BEREC’s conclusion that user control should prevail wherever possible, it is important that the Regulation clarifies that end-users and application and commercial service providers are not faced with suboptimal conditions and quality of internet access such that they are obliged to agree a contract for specialised services. Take-up of specialised services should thus be absolutely voluntary.

Amendment 268[modifier]

Lambert van Nistelrooij
Recital 49

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(49) There is also end-user demand for services and applications requiring an enhanced level of assured service quality offered by providers of electronic communications to the public or by content, applications or service providers. Such services may comprise inter alia broadcasting via Internet Protocol (IP-TV), video-conferencing and certain health applications. End-users should therefore also be free to conclude agreements on the provision of specialised services with an enhanced quality of service with either providers of electronic communications to the public or providers of content, applications or services.

(49) There is also end-user demand for services and applications requiring an enhanced level of assured service quality offered by providers of electronic communications to the public or by content, applications or service providers. Such services may comprise inter alia broadcasting via Internet Protocol (IP-TV), video-conferencing and certain health applications. End-users should therefore also be free to conclude agreements on the provision of specialised services with an enhanced quality of service with either providers of electronic communications to the public or providers of content, applications or services. The provision of such specialised services should not impair the general quality of internet access. Furthermore, traffic management measures should not be applied in such a way as to discriminate against specialised services competing with those offered by the provider of internet access either directly or in partnership with other undertakings unless there is an objective justification.


Amendment 269[modifier]

Catherine Trautmann, Patrizia Toia, Teresa Riera Madurell, Dimitrios Droutsas, Edit Herczog
Recital 49

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(49) There is also end-user demand for services and applications requiring an enhanced level of assured service quality offered by providers of electronic communications to the public or by content, applications or service providers. Such services may comprise inter alia broadcasting via Internet Protocol (IP-TV), video-conferencing and certain health applications. End-users should therefore also be free to conclude agreements on the provision of specialised services with an enhanced quality of service with either providers of electronic communications to the public or providers of content, applications or services.

(49) There is also end-user demand for services and applications requiring optimisations in order to ensure adequate service characteristics offered by providers of electronic communications to the public or by content, applications or service providers. Such services may comprise inter alia broadcasting via Internet Protocol (IP-TV), video-conferencing and certain health applications. End-users should therefore also be free to conclude agreements on the provision of specialised services with an optimised quality of service with either providers of electronic communications to the public or providers of content, applications or services. Where such agreements are implemented alongside Internet access services, the responsible providers should ensure that the optimised quality service does not impair the general quality of internet access.


Amendment 270[modifier]

Ioannis A. Tsoukalas
Recital 49

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(49) There is also end-user demand for services and applications requiring an enhanced level of assured service quality offered by providers of electronic communications to the public or by content, applications or service providers. Such services may comprise inter alia broadcasting via Internet Protocol (IP-TV), video-conferencing and certain health applications. End-users should therefore also be free to conclude agreements on the provision of specialised services with an enhanced quality of service with either providers of electronic communications to the public or providers of content, applications or services.

(49) There is also end-user demand for services and applications requiring an enhanced level of assured service quality offered by providers of electronic communications to the public or by content, applications or service providers. Such services may comprise inter alia broadcasting via Internet Protocol (IP-TV), video-conferencing and certain health applications. End-users should therefore also be free to conclude agreements on the provision of specialised services with an enhanced quality of service with either providers of electronic communications to the public or providers of content, applications or services. Take-up by end-users or by providers of content, applications and services of commercial offers for specialised services should be on a voluntary and non-discriminatory basis.


Amendment 271[modifier]

Ivo Belet
Recital 49

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(49) There is also end-user demand for services and applications requiring an enhanced level of assured service quality offered by providers of electronic communications to the public or by content, applications or service providers. Such services may comprise inter alia broadcasting via Internet Protocol (IP-TV), video-conferencing and certain health applications. End-users should therefore also be free to conclude agreements on the provision of specialised services with an enhanced quality of service with either providers of electronic communications to the public or providers of content, applications or services.

(49) There is also end-user demand for services and applications requiring an enhanced level of assured service quality offered by providers of electronic communications to the public or by content, applications or service providers. Such services may comprise inter alia broadcasting via Internet Protocol (IP-TV), video-conferencing and certain health applications. End-users should therefore also be free to conclude agreements on the provision of specialised services with an enhanced quality of service with either providers of electronic communications to the public or providers of content, applications or services. However these specialised services should remain the exception and should not be marketed or widely used as a substitute for internet access service;


Amendment 272[modifier]

Gunnar Hökmark
Recital 49

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(49) There is also end-user demand for services and applications requiring an enhanced level of assured service quality offered by providers of electronic communications to the public or by content, applications or service providers. Such services may comprise inter alia broadcasting via Internet Protocol (IP-TV), video-conferencing and certain health applications. End-users should therefore also be free to conclude agreements on the provision of specialised services with an enhanced quality of service with either providers of electronic communications to the public or providers of content, applications or services.

(49) There is also end-user demand for services and applications requiring an enhanced level of assured service quality offered by providers of electronic communications to the public or by content, applications or service providers. Such services may comprise inter alia broadcasting via Internet Protocol (IP-TV), video-conferencing and certain health applications. End-users should therefore also be free to conclude agreements on the provision of specialised services with an enhanced quality of service with either providers of electronic communications to the public or providers of content, applications or services. It should be ensured that such agreements do not impair the general quality of internet access and lead to a two speed Internet.


Amendment 273[modifier]

Jean-Pierre Audy
Recital 49

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(49) There is also end-user demand for services and applications requiring an enhanced level of assured service quality offered by providers of electronic communications to the public or by content, applications or service providers. Such services may comprise inter alia broadcasting via Internet Protocol (IP-TV), video-conferencing and certain health applications. End-users should therefore also be free to conclude agreements on the provision of specialised services with an enhanced quality of service with either providers of electronic communications to the public or providers of content, applications or services.

(49) There is also end-user demand for services and applications requiring an enhanced level of assured service quality offered by providers of electronic communications to the public. Such services may comprise inter alia broadcasting via Internet Protocol (IP-TV), video-conferencing and certain health applications. End-users should therefore also be free to conclude agreements on the provision of specialised services with an enhanced quality of service with providers of electronic communications to the public.


Amendment 274[modifier]

Petra Kammerevert
Recital 50

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(50) In addition, there is demand on the part of content, applications and services providers, for the provision of transmission services based on flexible quality parameters, including lower levels of priority for traffic which is not time-sensitive. The possibility for content, applications and service providers to negotiate such flexible quality of service levels with providers of electronic communications to the public is necessary for the provision of specialised services and is expected to play an important role in the development of new services such as machine-to-machine (M2M) communications. At the same time such arrangements should allow providers of electronic communications to the public to better balance traffic and prevent network congestion. Providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public should therefore be free to conclude specialised services agreements on defined levels of quality of service as long as such agreements do not substantially impair the general quality of internet access services.

(50) In addition, there is demand on the part of content, applications and services providers, for the provision of transmission services based on quality parameters. For the provision of specialised services in closed networks, it is necessary that content, applications and service providers have the opportunity to negotiate such a specific quality of service levels with providers of electronic communications to the public for a limited group of users. This is expected to play an important role in the development of new services such as machine-to-machine (M2M) communications. Specialised services must not impair the quality of open internet access services nor be marketed as a substitute for the internet or used as such. They are permissible only if there is a demonstrable technical and specific need for them, beyond economic self-interest, as a means of providing real-time-critical applications, or applications at a particular level of quality. If specialised services are offered or marketed by access network providers, the latter have an obligation to also offer an open internet access service within the meaning of recital 45. All open internet services are subject to the best-effort principle.


Amendment 275[modifier]

Marietje Schaake, Nadja Hirsch
Recital 50

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(50) In addition, there is demand on the part of content, applications and services providers, for the provision of transmission services based on flexible quality parameters, including lower levels of priority for traffic which is not time-sensitive. The possibility for content, applications and service providers to negotiate such flexible quality of service levels with providers of electronic communications to the public is necessary for the provision of specialised services and is expected to play an important role in the development of new services such as machine-to-machine (M2M) communications. At the same time such arrangements should allow providers of electronic communications to the public to better balance traffic and prevent network congestion. Providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public should therefore be free to conclude specialised services agreements on defined levels of quality of service as long as such agreements do not substantially impair the general quality of internet access services.

(50) In addition, there is demand on the part of content, applications and services providers, for the provision of transmission services based on flexible quality parameters, including lower levels of priority for traffic which is not time-sensitive. The possibility for content, applications and service providers to negotiate such flexible quality of service levels with providers of electronic communications to the public could foster the development of new services such as machine-to-machine (M2M) communications. At the same time such arrangements should allow providers of electronic communications to the public to better balance traffic and prevent network congestion. Providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public should therefore be free to conclude specialised services agreements on defined levels of quality of service as long as such defined levels of quality are technically necessary for the functionality of the service and these agreements do not impair the quality of internet access services, in accordance with the principle of net neutrality.


Amendment 276[modifier]

Jean-Pierre Audy
Recital 50

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(50) In addition, there is demand on the part of content, applications and services providers, for the provision of transmission services based on flexible quality parameters, including lower levels of priority for traffic which is not time-sensitive. The possibility for content, applications and service providers to negotiate such flexible quality of service levels with providers of electronic communications to the public is necessary for the provision of specialised services and is expected to play an important role in the development of new services such as machine-to-machine (M2M) communications. At the same time such arrangements should allow providers of electronic communications to the public to better balance traffic and prevent network congestion. Providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public should therefore be free to conclude specialised services agreements on defined levels of quality of service as long as such agreements do not substantially impair the general quality of internet access services.

(50) In addition, there is demand on the part of content, applications and services providers, for the provision of transmission services based on flexible quality parameters, including lower levels of priority for traffic which is not time-sensitive. The possibility for content, applications and service providers to negotiate such flexible quality of service levels with providers of electronic communications to the public is necessary for the provision of specialised services and is expected to play an important role in the development of new services such as machine-to-machine (M2M) communications. At the same time such arrangements should allow providers of electronic communications to the public to better balance traffic and prevent network congestion. Providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public should therefore be free to conclude specialised services agreements on defined levels of quality of service as long as such agreements do not substantially impair the general quality of internet access services. In that respect, the dymanic allocation of the capacity not used for specialised services, when they are switched off, to the internet access service contributes to its overall quality;


Amendment 277[modifier]

Françoise Castex
Recital 50

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(50) In addition, there is demand on the part of content, applications and services providers, for the provision of transmission services based on flexible quality parameters, including lower levels of priority for traffic which is not time-sensitive. The possibility for content, applications and service providers to negotiate such flexible quality of service levels with providers of electronic communications to the public is necessary for the provision of specialised services and is expected to play an important role in the development of new services such as machine-to-machine (M2M) communications. At the same time such arrangements should allow providers of electronic communications to the public to better balance traffic and prevent network congestion. Providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public should therefore be free to conclude specialised services agreements on defined levels of quality of service as long as such agreements do not substantially impair the general quality of internet access services.

(50) In addition, there is demand on the part of content, applications and services providers, for the provision of transmission services based on flexible quality parameters, including lower levels of priority for traffic which is not time-sensitive. The possibility for content, applications and service providers to negotiate such flexible quality of service levels with providers of electronic communications to the public could serve to the provision of specialised services and is expected to play an important role in the development of new services such as machine-to-machine (M2M) communications. At the same time such arrangements should allow providers of electronic communications to the public to better balance traffic and prevent network congestion. Providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public should therefore be free to conclude specialised services agreements on defined levels of quality of service as long as such quality characteristics are technically necessary for the functionality of the service and agreements do not impair the quality of internet access services.


Amendment 278[modifier]

Amelia Andersdotter
Recital 50

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(50) In addition, there is demand on the part of content, applications and services providers, for the provision of transmission services based on flexible quality parameters, including lower levels of priority for traffic which is not time-sensitive. The possibility for content, applications and service providers to negotiate such flexible quality of service levels with providers of electronic communications to the public is necessary for the provision of specialised services and is expected to play an important role in the development of new services such as machine-to-machine (M2M) communications. At the same time such arrangements should allow providers of electronic communications to the public to better balance traffic and prevent network congestion. Providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public should therefore be free to conclude specialised services agreements on defined levels of quality of service as long as such agreements do not substantially impair the general quality of internet access services.

(50) In addition, there is demand on the part of content, applications and services providers, for the provision of transmission services based on flexible quality parameters, including lower levels of priority for traffic which is not time-sensitive. The possibility for content, applications and service providers to negotiate such flexible quality of service levels with providers of electronic communications to the public could be used for the provision of specialised services and is expected to play an important role in the development of new services such as machine-to-machine (M2M) communications. At the same time such arrangements should allow providers of electronic communications to the public to better balance traffic and prevent network congestion. Providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public should therefore be free to conclude specialised services agreements on defined levels of quality of service as long as such quality characteristics are technically necessary for the functionality of the service and agreements do not impair the quality of internet access services.

Justification:
A specialised service must not be considered as an arbitrary way for Internet Service Providers and Internet Access Providers to be completely free to enter with each other into commercial agreements, by passing “open internet” provisions, violating both freedom of communication as well as competition and innovation in the digital economy. For this reason, it is mandatory to specify that specialised services shall be distinct from Internet access services, and they shall not replicate an already-existing service already accessible on the internet.

Amendment 279[modifier]

Teresa Riera Madurell
Recital 50

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(50) In addition, there is demand on the part of content, applications and services providers, for the provision of transmission services based on flexible quality parameters, including lower levels of priority for traffic which is not time-sensitive. The possibility for content, applications and service providers to negotiate such flexible quality of service levels with providers of electronic communications to the public is necessary for the provision of specialised services and is expected to play an important role in the development of new services such as machine-to-machine (M2M) communications. At the same time such arrangements should allow providers of electronic communications to the public to better balance traffic and prevent network congestion. Providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public should therefore be free to conclude specialised services agreements on defined levels of quality of service as long as such agreements do not substantially impair the general quality of internet access services.

(50) In addition, there is demand on the part of content, applications and services providers, for the provision of transmission services based on flexible quality parameters, including lower levels of priority for traffic which is not time-sensitive. The possibility for content, applications and service providers to negotiate such flexible quality of service levels with providers of electronic communications to the public opens the door to the provision of specialised services and is expected to play an important role in the development of new services such as machine-to-machine (M2M) communications. At the same time such arrangements should allow providers of electronic communications to the public to better balance traffic and prevent network congestion. Providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public should therefore be free to conclude specialised services agreements on defined levels of quality of service as long as such agreements do not impair the quality of internet access services.


Amendment 280[modifier]

Róża Gräfin von Thun und Hohenstein
Recital 50

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(50) In addition, there is demand on the part of content, applications and services providers, for the provision of transmission services based on flexible quality parameters, including lower levels of priority for traffic which is not time-sensitive. The possibility for content, applications and service providers to negotiate such flexible quality of service levels with providers of electronic communications to the public is necessary for the provision of specialised services and is expected to play an important role in the development of new services such as machine-to-machine (M2M) communications. At the same time such arrangements should allow providers of electronic communications to the public to better balance traffic and prevent network congestion. Providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public should therefore be free to conclude specialised services agreements on defined levels of quality of service as long as such agreements do not substantially impair the general quality of internet access services.

(50) In addition, there is demand on the part of content, applications and services providers, for the provision of transmission services based on flexible quality parameters, including lower levels of priority for traffic which is not time-sensitive. The possibility for content, applications and service providers to negotiate such flexible quality of service levels with providers of electronic communications to the public is necessary for the provision of specialised services and is expected to play an important role in the development of new services such as machine-to-machine (M2M) communications. At the same time such arrangements should allow providers of electronic communications to the public to better balance traffic and prevent network congestion. Providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public should therefore be free to conclude specialised services agreements on defined levels of quality of service as long as such agreements do not impair the quality of internet access services.


Amendment 281[modifier]

Catherine Trautmann
Recital 50

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(50) In addition, there is demand on the part of content, applications and services providers, for the provision of transmission services based on flexible quality parameters, including lower levels of priority for traffic which is not time-sensitive. The possibility for content, applications and service providers to negotiate such flexible quality of service levels with providers of electronic communications to the public is necessary for the provision of specialised services and is expected to play an important role in the development of new services such as machine-to-machine (M2M) communications. At the same time such arrangements should allow providers of electronic communications to the public to better balance traffic and prevent network congestion. Providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public should therefore be free to conclude specialised services agreements on defined levels of quality of service as long as such agreements do not substantially impair the general quality of internet access services.

(50) In addition, there is demand on the part of content, applications and services providers, for the provision of transmission services based on flexible quality parameters, including lower levels of priority for traffic which is not time-sensitive. The possibility for content, applications and service providers to negotiate such flexible quality of service levels with providers of electronic communications to the public may be necessary for the provision of specialised services and is expected to play an important role in the development of new services such as machine-to-machine (M2M) communications. At the same time such arrangements should allow providers of electronic communications to the public to better balance traffic and prevent network congestion. Providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public should therefore be free to conclude specialised services agreements on defined levels of quality of service as long as such agreements do not substantially impair the general quality of internet access services.


Amendment 282[modifier]

Marietje Schaake, Nadja Hirsch
Recital 51

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(51) National regulatory authorities play an essential role in ensuring that end-users are effectively able to exercise this freedom to avail of open internet access. To this end national regulatory authorities should have monitoring and reporting obligations, and ensure compliance of providers of electronic communications to the public and the availability of non-discriminatory internet access services of high quality which are not impaired by specialised services. In their assessment of a possible general impairment of internet access services, national regulatory authorities should take account of quality parameters such as timing and reliability parameters (latency, jitter, packet loss), levels and effects of congestion in the network, actual versus advertised speeds, performance of internet access services compared with specialised services, and quality as perceived by end-users. National regulatory authorities should be empowered to impose minimum quality of service requirements on all or individual providers of electronic communications to the public if this is necessary to prevent general impairment/degradation of the quality of service of internet access services.

(51) National regulatory authorities play an essential role in ensuring that end-users are effectively able to exercise this freedom to avail of open internet access. To this end national regulatory authorities should have monitoring and reporting obligations, and ensure compliance of providers of electronic communications to the public and the availability of non-discriminatory internet access services of high quality which are not impaired by specialised services. National regulatory authorities should establish clear and comprehensible notification and redress mechanisms for end-users subjected to discrimination, restriction or interference of online content, services or applications. In their assessment of a possible general impairment of internet access services, national regulatory authorities should take account of quality parameters such as timing and reliability parameters (latency, jitter, packet loss), levels and effects of congestion in the network, actual versus advertised speeds, performance of internet access services compared with specialised services, and quality as perceived by end-users. National regulatory authorities should be empowered to impose minimum quality of service requirements on all or individual providers of electronic communications to the public if this is necessary to prevent general impairment/degradation of the quality of service of internet access services.


Amendment 283[modifier]

Giles Chichester
Recital 51

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(51) National regulatory authorities play an essential role in ensuring that end-users are effectively able to exercise this freedom to avail of open internet access. To this end national regulatory authorities should have monitoring and reporting obligations, and ensure compliance of providers of electronic communications to the public and the availability of non-discriminatory internet access services of high quality which are not impaired by specialised services. In their assessment of a possible general impairment of internet access services, national regulatory authorities should take account of quality parameters such as timing and reliability parameters (latency, jitter, packet loss), levels and effects of congestion in the network, actual versus advertised speeds, performance of internet access services compared with specialised services, and quality as perceived by end-users. National regulatory authorities should be empowered to impose minimum quality of service requirements on all or individual providers of electronic communications to the public if this is necessary to prevent general impairment/degradation of the quality of service of internet access services.

(51) National regulatory authorities play an essential role in ensuring that end-users are effectively able to exercise this freedom to avail of open internet access. To this end national regulatory authorities should have monitoring and reporting obligations, and ensure compliance of providers of electronic communications to the public and the availability of non-discriminatory internet access services of high quality. In their assessment of a possible general impairment of internet access services, national regulatory authorities should take account of quality parameters such as timing and reliability parameters (latency, jitter, packet loss), levels and effects of congestion in the network, actual versus advertised speeds, performance of internet access services compared with enhanced quality services, and quality as perceived by end-users. National regulatory authorities should be empowered to impose minimum quality of service requirements on all or individual providers of electronic communications to the public if this is necessary to prevent general impairment/degradation of the quality of service of internet access services or to safeguard the ability of end users to access and distribute content or information or to run applications and services of their choice.


Amendment 284[modifier]

Petra Kammerevert
Recital 51

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(51) National regulatory authorities play an essential role in ensuring that end-users are effectively able to exercise this freedom to avail of open internet access. To this end national regulatory authorities should have monitoring and reporting obligations, and ensure compliance of providers of electronic communications to the public and the availability of non-discriminatory internet access services of high quality which are not impaired by specialised services. In their assessment of a possible general impairment of internet access services, national regulatory authorities should take account of quality parameters such as timing and reliability parameters (latency, jitter, packet loss), levels and effects of congestion in the network, actual versus advertised speeds, performance of internet access services compared with specialised services, and quality as perceived by end-users. National regulatory authorities should be empowered to impose minimum quality of service requirements on all or individual providers of electronic communications to the public if this is necessary to prevent general impairment/degradation of the quality of service of internet access services.

(51) National regulatory authorities play an essential role in ensuring that end-users are effectively able to exercise the right to avail of open internet access. To this end national regulatory authorities should have monitoring and reporting obligations, and ensure compliance of providers of electronic communications to the public and the availability of non-discriminatory internet access services of high quality which are not impaired by specialised services. In their assessment of a possible general impairment of internet access services, national regulatory authorities should take account of quality parameters such as timing and reliability parameters (latency, jitter, packet loss), levels and effects of congestion in the network, actual versus advertised speeds, performance of internet access services compared with specialised services, and quality as perceived by end-users. National regulatory authorities should be empowered to impose minimum quality of service requirements on all or individual providers of electronic communications to the public if this is necessary to prevent general impairment/degradation of the quality of service of internet access services.


Amendment 285[modifier]

Patrizia Toia
Recital 57

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(57) With respect to terminal equipment, contracts should specify any restrictions imposed by the provider on the use of the equipment, for example by way of ‘SIM-locking’ mobile devices, and any charges due on termination of the contract prior to the agreed expiry date. No charges should be due after expiry of the agreed contract duration.

(57) With respect to terminal equipment, contracts should specify, clearly and comprehensibly, any restrictions imposed by the provider on the use of the equipment, for example by way of ‘SIM-locking’ mobile devices, and any charges due on termination of the contract prior to the agreed expiry date. No charges should be due after expiry of the agreed contract duration.


Amendment 286[modifier]

Patrizia Toia
Recital 58

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(58) In order to avoid bill shocks, end-users should be able to define maximum financial limits for the charges related to their usage of calls and internet access services. This facility should be available free of charge, with an appropriate notification that can be consulted again subsequently, when the limit is being approached. Upon reaching the maximum limit, end-users should no longer receive or be charged for those services unless they specifically request the continued provision as agreed with the provider.

(58) In order to avoid bill shocks, end-users should be able to define maximum financial limits for the charges related to their usage of calls and internet access services. This facility should be available free of charge and involve simple procedures, with an appropriate notification that can be consulted again subsequently, when the limit is being approached. Upon reaching the maximum limit, end-users should no longer receive or be charged for those services unless they specifically request the continued provision as agreed with the provider.


Amendment 287[modifier]

Teresa Riera Madurell
Recital 59

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(59) Experience from Member States and from a recent study commissioned by the Executive Agency for Consumers and Health has shown that long contract periods and automatic or tacit extensions of contracts constitute significant obstacles to changing a provider. It is thus desirable that end-users should be able to terminate, without incurring any costs, a contract six months after its conclusion. In such a case, end-users may be requested to compensate their providers for the residual value of subsidised terminal equipment or for the pro rata temporis value of any other promotions. Contracts which have been tacitly extended should be subject to termination with a one-month notice period.

(59) Experience from Member States and from a recent study commissioned by the Executive Agency for Consumers and Health has shown that long contract periods and automatic or tacit extensions of contracts constitute significant obstacles to changing a provider. It is thus desirable that end-users should be able to terminate a contract with a one-month notice period without incurring any costs. In such a case, end-users may be requested to compensate their providers for the residual value of subsidised terminal equipment or for the pro rata temporis value of any other promotions.


Amendment 288[modifier]

Ioannis A. Tsoukalas
Recital 62

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(62) In order to take full advantage of the competitive environment, end-users should be able to make informed choices and switch providers when it is in their interests. End-users should therefore be able to switch without being hindered by legal, technical or procedural obstacles, including contractual conditions and charges. Number portability is a key facilitator of consumer choice and effective competition. It should be implemented within a minimum delay so that the number is effectively activated within one working day of concluding an agreement to port a number. Settlement of outstanding bills should not be a condition for execution of a porting request.

(62) In order to take full advantage of the competitive environment, end-users should be able to make informed choices and switch providers when it is in their interests. End-users should therefore be able to switch without being hindered by legal, technical or procedural obstacles, including contractual conditions and charges. Number portability is a key facilitator of consumer choice and effective competition. It should be implemented within a minimum delay so that the number is effectively activated within one working day of concluding an agreement to port a number. Settlement of outstanding bills should not be a condition for execution of a porting request. Furthermore, options for cross-border number portability, in case of relocation to other parts of the EU, should be examined.


Amendment 289[modifier]

Sabine Verheyen
Recital 68

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(68) In order to take account of market and technical developments, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of adapting the Annexes. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing-up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and to the Council.

deleted


Amendment 290[modifier]

Petra Kammerevert
Recital 68

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(68) In order to take account of market and technical developments, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of adapting the Annexes. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing-up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and to the Council.

deleted


Amendment 291[modifier]

Jean-Pierre Audy
Recital 72

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(72) The mobile communications market remains fragmented in the Union, with no mobile network covering all Member States. As a consequence, in order to provide mobile communications services to their domestic customers travelling within the Union, roaming providers have to purchase wholesale roaming services from operators in a visited Member State. These wholesale charges constitute an important impediment to providing roaming services at price levels corresponding to domestic mobile services. Therefore further measures should be adopted to facilitate lowering these charges. Commercial or technical agreements among roaming providers which allow a virtual extension of their network coverage across the Union provide a means to internalise wholesale costs. To provide appropriate incentives, certain regulatory obligations laid down in Regulation (EC) No 531/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council[26] should be adapted. In particular, when roaming providers, through their own networks or through bilateral or multilateral roaming agreements ensure that all customers in the Union are offered by default roaming tariffs at the level of domestic tariffs, the obligation of domestic providers to enable their customers to access voice, SMS and data roaming services of any alternative roaming provider should not apply to such providers, subject to a transitional period where such access has already been granted.

deleted

__________________

[26] Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council of 13 June 2012 on roaming on public mobile communications networks within the Union (OJ L 172, 30.6.2012, p. 10).


Amendment 292[modifier]

Herbert Reul
Recital 72

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(72) The mobile communications market remains fragmented in the Union, with no mobile network covering all Member States. As a consequence, in order to provide mobile communications services to their domestic customers travelling within the Union, roaming providers have to purchase wholesale roaming services from operators in a visited Member State. These wholesale charges constitute an important impediment to providing roaming services at price levels corresponding to domestic mobile services. Therefore further measures should be adopted to facilitate lowering these charges. Commercial or technical agreements among roaming providers which allow a virtual extension of their network coverage across the Union provide a means to internalise wholesale costs. To provide appropriate incentives, certain regulatory obligations laid down in Regulation (EC) No 531/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council[26] should be adapted. In particular, when roaming providers, through their own networks or through bilateral or multilateral roaming agreements ensure that all customers in the Union are offered by default roaming tariffs at the level of domestic tariffs, the obligation of domestic providers to enable their customers to access voice, SMS and data roaming services of any alternative roaming provider should not apply to such providers, subject to a transitional period where such access has already been granted.

deleted

__________________

[26] Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council of 13 June 2012 on roaming on public mobile communications networks within the Union (OJ L 172, 30.6.2012, p. 10).


Amendment 293[modifier]

Christian Ehler
Recital 72

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(72) The mobile communications market remains fragmented in the Union, with no mobile network covering all Member States. As a consequence, in order to provide mobile communications services to their domestic customers travelling within the Union, roaming providers have to purchase wholesale roaming services from operators in a visited Member State. These wholesale charges constitute an important impediment to providing roaming services at price levels corresponding to domestic mobile services. Therefore further measures should be adopted to facilitate lowering these charges. Commercial or technical agreements among roaming providers which allow a virtual extension of their network coverage across the Union provide a means to internalise wholesale costs. To provide appropriate incentives, certain regulatory obligations laid down in Regulation (EC) No 531/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council[26] should be adapted. In particular, when roaming providers, through their own networks or through bilateral or multilateral roaming agreements ensure that all customers in the Union are offered by default roaming tariffs at the level of domestic tariffs, the obligation of domestic providers to enable their customers to access voice, SMS and data roaming services of any alternative roaming provider should not apply to such providers, subject to a transitional period where such access has already been granted.

(72) The mobile communications market remains fragmented in the Union, with no mobile network covering all Member States. As a consequence, in order to provide mobile communications services to their domestic customers travelling within the Union, roaming providers have to purchase wholesale roaming services from operators in a visited Member State. These wholesale charges constitute an important impediment to providing roaming services at price levels corresponding to domestic mobile services. Therefore further measures should be adopted to facilitate lowering these charges, ensure legal certainty and a help to stabilize the market Commercial or technical agreements among roaming providers which allow a virtual extension of their network coverage across the Union provide a means to internalise wholesale costs. To provide appropriate incentives, certain regulatory obligations laid down in Regulation (EC) No 531/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council[26] should be adapted. In particular, when roaming providers, through their own networks or through bilateral or multilateral roaming agreements ensure that all customers in the Union are offered by default roaming tariffs at the level of domestic tariffs, the obligation of domestic providers to enable their customers to access voice, SMS and data roaming services of any alternative roaming provider should not apply to such providers, subject to a transitional period where such access has already been granted.

__________________

__________________

[26] Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council of 13 June 2012 on roaming on public mobile communications networks within the Union (OJ L 172, 30.6.2012, p. 10).

[26] Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council of 13 June 2012 on roaming on public mobile communications networks within the Union (OJ L 172, 30.6.2012, p. 10).


Amendment 294[modifier]

Jean-Pierre Audy
Recital 73

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(73) Bilateral or multilateral roaming agreements can allow a mobile operator to treat roaming by its domestic customers on the networks of partners as being to a significant degree equivalent to providing services to such customers on its own networks, with consequential effects on its retail pricing for such virtual on-net coverage across the Union. Such an arrangement at the wholesale level could allow the development of new roaming products and therefore increase choice and competition at retail level.

deleted


Amendment 295[modifier]

Herbert Reul
Recital 73

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(73) Bilateral or multilateral roaming agreements can allow a mobile operator to treat roaming by its domestic customers on the networks of partners as being to a significant degree equivalent to providing services to such customers on its own networks, with consequential effects on its retail pricing for such virtual on-net coverage across the Union. Such an arrangement at the wholesale level could allow the development of new roaming products and therefore increase choice and competition at retail level.

deleted


Amendment 296[modifier]

Lambert van Nistelrooij
Recital 73

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(73) Bilateral or multilateral roaming agreements can allow a mobile operator to treat roaming by its domestic customers on the networks of partners as being to a significant degree equivalent to providing services to such customers on its own networks, with consequential effects on its retail pricing for such virtual on-net coverage across the Union. Such an arrangement at the wholesale level could allow the development of new roaming products and therefore increase choice and competition at retail level.

(73) Commercial or technical roaming agreements can allow a mobile operator to treat roaming by its domestic customers on the networks of partners as being to a significant degree equivalent to providing services to such customers on its own networks, with consequential effects on its retail pricing for such virtual on-net coverage across the Union. Such an arrangement at the wholesale level could allow the development of new roaming products and therefore increase choice and competition at retail level.


Amendment 297[modifier]

Jürgen Creutzmann
Recital 74

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(74) The Digital Agenda for Europe and Regulation No 531/2012 establish the policy objective that the difference between roaming and domestic tariffs should approach zero. In practical terms, this requires that consumers falling into any of the broad observable categories of domestic consumption, identified by reference to a party's various domestic retail packages, should be in a position to confidently replicate the typical domestic consumption pattern associated with their respective domestic retail packages while periodically travelling within the Union, without additional costs to those incurred in a domestic setting. Such broad categories may be identified from current commercial practice by reference, for example, to the differentiation in domestic retail packages between pre-paid and post-paid customers; GSM-only packages (i.e. voice, SMS); packages adapted for different volumes of consumption; packages for business and consumer use respectively; retail packages with prices per unit consumed and those which provide ‘buckets’ of units (e.g. voice minutes, megabytes of data) for a standard fee, irrespective of actual consumption. The diversity of retail tariff plans and packages available to customers in domestic mobile markets across the Union accommodates varying user demands associated with a competitive market. That flexibility in domestic markets should also be reflected in the intra-Union roaming environment, while bearing in mind that the need of roaming providers for wholesale inputs from independent network operators in different Member States may still justify the imposition of limits by reference to reasonable use if domestic tariffs are applied to such roaming consumption.

(74) The Digital Agenda for Europe and Regulation No 531/2012 establish the policy objective that the difference between roaming and domestic tariffs should approach zero. In practical terms, this requires that consumers falling into any of the broad observable categories of domestic consumption, identified by reference to a party's various domestic retail packages, should be in a position to confidently replicate the typical domestic consumption pattern associated with their respective domestic retail packages while periodically travelling within the Union, without additional costs to those incurred in a domestic setting. Such broad categories may be identified from current commercial practice by reference, for example, to the differentiation in domestic retail packages between pre-paid and post-paid customers; GSM-only packages (i.e. voice, SMS); packages adapted for different volumes of consumption; packages for business and consumer use respectively; retail packages with prices per unit consumed and those which provide ‘buckets’ of units (e.g. voice minutes, megabytes of data) for a standard fee, irrespective of actual consumption. The diversity of retail tariff plans and packages available to customers in domestic mobile markets across the Union accommodates varying user demands associated with a competitive market. That flexibility in domestic markets should also be reflected in the intra-Union roaming environment, while bearing in mind that the need of roaming providers for wholesale inputs from independent network operators in different Member States may still justify the imposition of limits by reference to reasonable use if domestic tariffs are applied to such roaming consumption. In particular, usage going beyond normal roaming consumption and arbitrage effects should be prevented as otherwise competitive domestic markets and incentives for infrastructure investment could be negatively impacted.

Justification:
It should be ensured that users do not replace their domestic provider with a roaming provider who has not invested in the users' member state infrastructure. Therefore there should be fair usage limits to roaming consumption to avoid arbitrage effects, which could otherwise pose a significant risk for providers and hamper investment in new infrastructure.

Amendment 298[modifier]

Jean-Pierre Audy
Recital 74

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(74) The Digital Agenda for Europe and Regulation No 531/2012 establish the policy objective that the difference between roaming and domestic tariffs should approach zero. In practical terms, this requires that consumers falling into any of the broad observable categories of domestic consumption, identified by reference to a party's various domestic retail packages, should be in a position to confidently replicate the typical domestic consumption pattern associated with their respective domestic retail packages while periodically travelling within the Union, without additional costs to those incurred in a domestic setting. Such broad categories may be identified from current commercial practice by reference, for example, to the differentiation in domestic retail packages between pre-paid and post-paid customers; GSM-only packages (i.e. voice, SMS); packages adapted for different volumes of consumption; packages for business and consumer use respectively; retail packages with prices per unit consumed and those which provide ‘buckets’ of units (e.g. voice minutes, megabytes of data) for a standard fee, irrespective of actual consumption. The diversity of retail tariff plans and packages available to customers in domestic mobile markets across the Union accommodates varying user demands associated with a competitive market. That flexibility in domestic markets should also be reflected in the intra-Union roaming environment, while bearing in mind that the need of roaming providers for wholesale inputs from independent network operators in different Member States may still justify the imposition of limits by reference to reasonable use if domestic tariffs are applied to such roaming consumption.

(74) The Digital Agenda for Europe and Regulation No 531/2012 establish the policy objective that the difference between roaming and domestic tariffs should approach zero. In practical terms, this requires that consumers falling into any of the broad observable categories of domestic consumption, identified by reference to a party's various domestic retail packages, should be in a position to confidently replicate the typical domestic consumption pattern associated with their respective domestic retail packages while periodically travelling within the Union, without additional costs to those incurred in a domestic setting. Such broad categories may be identified from current commercial practice by reference, for example, to the differentiation in domestic retail packages between pre-paid and post-paid customers; GSM-only packages (i.e. voice, SMS); packages adapted for different volumes of consumption; packages for business and consumer use respectively; retail packages with prices per unit consumed and those which provide ‘buckets’ of units (e.g. voice minutes, megabytes of data) for a standard fee, irrespective of actual consumption. The diversity of retail tariff plans and packages available to customers in domestic mobile markets across the Union accommodates varying user demands associated with a competitive market. That flexibility in domestic markets should also be reflected in the intra-Union roaming environment, while bearing in mind that the need of roaming providers for wholesale inputs from independent network operators in different Member States may still justify the imposition of limits by reference to reasonable use if domestic tariffs are applied to such roaming consumption. This is to prevent anomalous or fraudulent usage as well as arbitrage scenarios which could have an impact on competitive domestic markets.


Amendment 299[modifier]

Herbert Reul
Recital 74

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(74) The Digital Agenda for Europe and Regulation No 531/2012 establish the policy objective that the difference between roaming and domestic tariffs should approach zero. In practical terms, this requires that consumers falling into any of the broad observable categories of domestic consumption, identified by reference to a party's various domestic retail packages, should be in a position to confidently replicate the typical domestic consumption pattern associated with their respective domestic retail packages while periodically travelling within the Union, without additional costs to those incurred in a domestic setting. Such broad categories may be identified from current commercial practice by reference, for example, to the differentiation in domestic retail packages between pre-paid and post-paid customers; GSM-only packages (i.e. voice, SMS); packages adapted for different volumes of consumption; packages for business and consumer use respectively; retail packages with prices per unit consumed and those which provide "buckets" of units (e.g. voice minutes, megabytes of data) for a standard fee, irrespective of actual consumption. The diversity of retail tariff plans and packages available to customers in domestic mobile markets across the Union accommodates varying user demands associated with a competitive market. That flexibility in domestic markets should also be reflected in the intra-Union roaming environment, while bearing in mind that the need of roaming providers for wholesale inputs from independent network operators in different Member States may still justify the imposition of limits by reference to reasonable use if domestic tariffs are applied to such roaming consumption.

(74) The Digital Agenda for Europe and Regulation No 531/2012 establish the policy objective that the difference between roaming and domestic tariffs should approach zero. In practical terms, this requires that consumers falling into any of the broad observable categories of domestic consumption, identified by reference to a party's various domestic retail packages, should be in a position to confidently replicate the typical domestic consumption pattern associated with their respective domestic retail packages while periodically travelling within the Union, without additional costs to those incurred in a domestic setting. Such broad categories may be identified from current commercial practice by reference, for example, tothe differentiation in domestic retail packages between pre-paid and post-paid customers;GSM-only packages (i.e. voice, SMS); packages adapted for different volumes of consumption; packages for business and consumer use respectively; retail packages with prices per unit consumed and those which provide "buckets" of units (e.g. voice minutes, megabytes of data) for a standard fee, irrespective of actual consumption. The diversity of retail tariff plans and packages available to customers in domestic mobile markets across the Union accommodates varying user demands associated with a competitive market. That flexibility in domestic markets should also be reflected in the intra-Union roaming environment, while bearing in mind that the need of roaming providers for wholesale inputs from independent network operators in different Member States may still justify the imposition of limits by reference to reasonable use if domestic tariffs are applied to such roaming consumption. This serves to prevent abuses which would have an adverse effect on national competition.


Amendment 300[modifier]

Gunnar Hökmark
Recital 74 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(74 a) The structural measures provided for in regulation (EU) No 531/2012 aiming at increasing the competition in the roaming market such as the local break out solution and the decoupling mechanism is an important step to abolish retail roaming charges. The phasing out of retail roaming charges must be subject to lower wholesale caps creating a level playing field between all operators in the union and the Commission shall therefore by 1 July 2015 present the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers with proposals in this respect.


Amendment 301[modifier]

Gunnar Hökmark
Recital 74 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(74 b) With a view to creating a level playing field for all market operators, wholesale roaming access should be provided on non-discriminatory terms and conditions without making a distinction between domestic and foreign operators, including the terms and conditions of wholesale access provided for domestic mobile services.


Amendment 302[modifier]

Jean-Pierre Audy
Recital 75

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(75) While it is in the first place for roaming providers to assess themselves the reasonable character of the volumes of roaming voice calls, SMS and data to be covered at domestic rates under their various retail packages, national regulatory authorities should supervise the application by roaming providers of such reasonable use limits and ensure that they are specifically defined by reference to detailed quantified information in the contracts in terms which are clear and transparent to customers. In so doing, national regulatory authorities should take utmost account of relevant guidance from BEREC. In its guidance, BEREC should identify various usage patterns substantiated by the underlying voice, data and SMS usage trends at the Union level, and the evolution of expectations as regards in particular wireless data consumption.

(75) While it is in the first place for roaming providers to assess themselves the reasonable character of the volumes of roaming voice calls, SMS and data to be covered at domestic rates under their various retail packages, national regulatory authorities should supervise the application by roaming providers of such reasonable use limits and ensure that they are specifically defined by reference to detailed quantified information in the contracts in terms which are clear and transparent to customers. In so doing, national regulatory authorities should take utmost account of relevant guidance from BEREC. In its guidance, BEREC should –based on the results of a prior public consultation - identify various usage patterns substantiated by the underlying voice, data and SMS usage trends at the Union level, and the evolution of expectations as regards in particular wireless data consumption.


Amendment 303[modifier]

Herbert Reul
Recital 75

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(75) While it is in the first place for roaming providers to assess themselves the reasonable character of the volumes of roaming voice calls, SMS and data to be covered at domestic rates under their various retail packages, national regulatory authorities should supervise the application by roaming providers of such reasonable use limits and ensure that they are specifically defined by reference to detailed quantified information in the contracts in terms which are clear and transparent to customers. In so doing, national regulatory authorities should take utmost account of relevant guidance from BEREC. In its guidance, BEREC should identify various usage patterns substantiated by the underlying voice, data and SMS usage trends at the Union level, and the evolution of expectations as regards in particular wireless data consumption.

(75) While it is in the first place for roaming providers to assess themselves the reasonable character of the volumes of roaming voice calls, SMS and data to be covered at domestic rates under their various retail packages, national regulatory authorities should supervise the application by roaming providers of such reasonable use limits and ensure that they are specifically defined by reference to detailed quantified information in the contracts in terms which are clear and transparent to customers.In so doing, national regulatory authorities should take utmost account of relevant guidance from BEREC, based on the results of a public consultation. In its guidance, BEREC should identify various usage patterns substantiated by the underlying voice, data and SMS usage trends at the Union level, and the evolution of expectations as regards in particular wireless data consumption.


Amendment 304[modifier]

Jürgen Creutzmann
Recital 75

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(75) While it is in the first place for roaming providers to assess themselves the reasonable character of the volumes of roaming voice calls, SMS and data to be covered at domestic rates under their various retail packages, national regulatory authorities should supervise the application by roaming providers of such reasonable use limits and ensure that they are specifically defined by reference to detailed quantified information in the contracts in terms which are clear and transparent to customers. In so doing, national regulatory authorities should take utmost account of relevant guidance from BEREC. In its guidance, BEREC should identify various usage patterns substantiated by the underlying voice, data and SMS usage trends at the Union level, and the evolution of expectations as regards in particular wireless data consumption.

(75) While it is in the first place for roaming providers to assess themselves the reasonable character of the volumes of roaming voice calls, SMS and data to be covered at domestic rates under their various retail packages, national regulatory authorities should supervise the application by roaming providers of such reasonable use limits and ensure that they are specifically defined by reference to detailed quantified information in the contracts in terms which are clear and transparent to customers. In so doing, national regulatory authorities should take utmost account of relevant guidance from BEREC. In its guidance, BEREC should, following consultation of all relevant stakeholders, identify various usage patterns substantiated by the underlying voice, data and SMS usage trends at the Union level, and the evolution of expectations as regards in particular wireless data consumption.


Amendment 305[modifier]

Jens Rohde
Recital 75 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(75 a) While the Roaming III Regulation with its structural measures will inject greater competition into the market it is not expected of its own to create a situation where customers can confidently replicate their consumption behaviour in their home Member State when travelling abroad and thereby to end roaming surcharges overall in Europe. Article 37, therefore, builds on the Roaming Regulation, providing incentives to operators to provide roaming at domestic price levels. The proposal modifies the wholesale roaming caps entering into force on 1 July 2014 and introduces a further reduction of the wholesale roaming caps on 1 July 2015 in such a manner as to enable all domestic providers to internalise the wholesale roaming costs and to gradually introduce roaming services at domestic price levels from 1 July 2014 The proposed regime is designed to induce the pass-on of reduced wholesale roaming charges to consumers through the provision of roaming services at domestic price levels, under conditions which ensure that roaming throughout the Union is covered and that consumers throughout the Union benefit in due course from such offers. At the same time, the proposal provides the necessary balance to allow operators to adjust their retail offers and to gradually ensure all of their customer base benefits from them. Without the proposed reduction of wholesale roaming charges it is unrealistic to imagine that an operator alone would be able to provide roaming at domestic price levels throughout the whole Union in the envisaged time frame.

Justification:
This amendment enables 'roam like at home' retail offers to emerge from 1 July 2014 and enables the provision of 'roam like at home' to all mobile users in the EU from 1 July 2015.

Amendment 306[modifier]

Gunnar Hökmark
Recital 75 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(75 a) Together with the Commission, BEREC should be responsible for ensuring that any phasing out of retail roaming charges does not lead to higher prices in domestic markets


Amendment 307[modifier]

Róża Gräfin von Thun und Hohenstein
Recital 76

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(76) In addition, the significant reduction in mobile termination rates throughout the Union in the recent past should now allow the elimination of additional roaming charges for incoming calls.

(76) In order to provide clarity and legal certainty, a date should be set for the final phasing out of retail roaming surcharges which reduction began with Regulation (EC) No 717/2007. In advance of that final abolition of retail surcharges, the wholesale rates should be further decreased and mobile termination rates should be harmonised on a very low level, throughout the EU, in order to allow for a true level playing field for telecom operators.

Justification:
In a number of Member States average domestic price is below EUR 0,05. Keeping wholesale price for voice roaming at current level - EUR 0,05 after 1/07/2016, when operators will be obliged to charge roaming customers identically as domestic ones, would create serious distortions on the market. As mobile operators will compete from 1 July 2016 on a European market, mobile termination rates should be harmonised in order to level playing field for all companies.

Amendment 308[modifier]

Gunnar Hökmark
Recital 76

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(76) In addition, the significant reduction in mobile termination rates throughout the Union in the recent past should now allow the elimination of additional roaming charges for incoming calls.

(76) In addition, while some Member States have lowered mobile termination rates (MTR) drastically the level of MTRs still varies greatly between Member States and future binding legislation might therefore be needed.


Amendment 309[modifier]

Christian Ehler
Recital 77

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(77) In order to provide stability and strategic leadership to BEREC activities, BEREC Board of Regulators should be represented by a full-time Chairperson appointed by the Board of Regulators, on the basis of merit, skills, knowledge of electronic communication market participants and markets, and of experience relevant to supervision and regulation, following an open selection procedure organised and managed by the Board of Regulators assisted by the Commission. For the designation of the first Chairperson of the Board of Regulators, the Commission should, inter alia, draw up a shortlist of candidates on the basis of merit, skills, knowledge of electronic communication market participants and markets, and of experience relevant to supervision and regulation. For the subsequent designations, the opportunity of having a shortlist drawn up by the Commission should be reviewed in a report to be established pursuant to this Regulation. The Office of BEREC should therefore comprise the Chairperson of the Board of Regulators, a Management Committee and an Administrative Manager.

(77) In order to provide stability and strategic leadership to BEREC activities, BEREC Board of Regulators should be represented by a full-time Chairperson appointed by the Board of Regulators, for a limited period of time on the basis of merit, skills, knowledge of electronic communication market participants and markets, and of experience relevant to supervision and regulation, following an open selection procedure organised and managed by the Board of Regulators assisted by the Commission. For the designation of the first Chairperson of the Board of Regulators, the Commission should, inter alia, draw up a shortlist of candidates on the basis of merit, skills, knowledge of electronic communication market participants and markets, and of experience relevant to supervision and regulation. For the subsequent designations, the opportunity of having a shortlist drawn up by the Commission should be reviewed in a report to be established pursuant to this Regulation. The Office of BEREC should therefore comprise the Chairperson of the Board of Regulators, a Management Committee and an Administrative Manager.


Amendment 310[modifier]

Patrizia Toia
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) providers of electronic communications services and networks have the right, the ability and the incentive to develop, extend and operate their networks and to provide services irrespective of where the provider is established or its customers are situated in the Union,

(a) providers of electronic communications services and networks have the right, the ability and the incentive to develop, extend and operate their networks and to provide interoperable services at European level, based on standardised open data and formats, irrespective of where the provider is established or its customers are situated in the Union,


Amendment 311[modifier]

Gunnar Hökmark
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) providers of electronic communications services and networks have the right, the ability and the incentive to develop, extend and operate their networks and to provide services irrespective of where the provider is established or its customers are situated in the Union,

(a) providers of electronic communications services and networks have the right, the ability and the incentive to develop, extend and operate their networks cross-border on a pan European scale and to provide services irrespective of where the provider is established or its customers are situated in the Union,


Amendment 312[modifier]

Patrizia Toia
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) citizens and businesses have the right and the possibility to access competitive, secure and reliable electronic communications services, irrespective of where they are provided from in the Union, without being hampered by cross-border restrictions or unjustified additional costs.

(b) citizens and businesses have the right and the possibility to access competitive, secure and reliable electronic communications services, with common rules to guarantee high standards of protection, privacy and security of their personal data, irrespective of where they are provided from in the Union, without being hampered by cross-border restrictions or unjustified additional costs.


Amendment 313[modifier]

Giles Chichester
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b a) to address the phasing out of surcharges for roaming communications within the Union.


Amendment 314[modifier]

Jean-Pierre Audy
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

a) to secure simplified, predictable and convergent regulatory conditions regarding key administrative and commercial parameters, including as regards the proportionality of individual obligations which may be imposed pursuant to market analysis;

deleted


Amendment 315[modifier]

Salvador Sedó i Alabart
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) to promote sustainable competition within the single market and the global competitiveness of the Union, and to reduce sector-specific market regulation accordingly as and when these objectives are achieved;

(b) to promote sustainable competition within the single market and to reduce sector-specific market regulation accordingly as and when these objectives are achieved;

Justification:
Giving the EU regulation the new objective of promoting the EU's global competitiveness will increase legal uncertainty.

Amendment 316[modifier]

Jean-Pierre Audy
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

b) to promote sustainable competition within the single market and the global competitiveness of the Union, and to reduce sector-specific market regulation accordingly as and when these objectives are achieved;

b) to promote the global competitiveness of the Union, and to reduce sector-specific market regulation with respect to the achievement of sustainable competition within the single market.


Amendment 317[modifier]

Patrizia Toia, Francesco De Angelis
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point d

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(d) to facilitate innovative and high-quality service provision;

(d) to facilitate innovative and high-quality service provision, through, for instance, open data in standard interoperable formats held by the operators themselves in aggregate forms that cannot be traced back to individual users, in order to promote the emergence of new value-added services and applications, to develop, for example, ‘smart cities’ in keeping with the objectives of the Digital Agenda for Europe.


Amendment 318[modifier]

Françoise Castex
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point d

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

d) to facilitate innovative and high-quality service provision;

d) to facilitate both innovative and high-quality service provision and affordable access to broadband communications, having regard in particular to the contribution and needs of small and medium-sized enterprises as well as not-for-profit sector operators providing Internet access services;


Amendment 319[modifier]

Teresa Riera Madurell
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point d

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(d) to facilitate innovative and high-quality service provision;

(d) to facilitate innovative and high-quality service provision and reasonable access to broadband;


Amendment 320[modifier]

Jean-Pierre Audy
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point d a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

d a) to promote sustainable competition within the single market and to ensure a level playing field for all the actors in competition on this market with respect to rules and regulation


Amendment 321[modifier]

Jean-Pierre Audy
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point d b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

d b) to secure simplified, predictable and convergent regulatory conditions regarding key administrative and commercial parameters, including as regards the proportionality of individual obligations which may be imposed pursuant to market analysis;


Amendment 322[modifier]

Marietje Schaake, Nadja Hirsch, Amelia Andersdotter
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point e a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

e a) to ensure that all internet traffic is treated equally, without discrimination, restriction or interference, independent of its sender, receiver, type, content, device, service or application;


Amendment 323[modifier]

Werner Langen, Herbert Reul
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point f a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(fa) to secure uniform starting conditions and conditions of competition between providers of electronic communication services and providers of information society services.


Amendment 324[modifier]

Angelika Niebler
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point f a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(fa) to create a fair conditions of competition between providers of electronic communication services and providers of information society services.

Justification:
In view of increasing convergence, there needs to be a level playing field between regulated telecom service providers and internet service providers.

Amendment 325[modifier]

Paul Rübig
Article 1 – paragraph 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2a. to construct a common legal framework for both electronic communication service providers and information service providers;


Amendment 326[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Article 1 – paragraph 3 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) a single EU authorisation for European electronic communications providers;

(a) the introduction of a single EU standard notification form that will provide each Member State with all theinformation necessary for the authorisation procedure;


Amendment 327[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Article 1 – paragraph 3 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) further convergence of regulatory conditions as regards the necessity and proportionality of remedies imposed by national regulatory authorities on European electronic communications providers;

(b) further convergence of regulatory conditions as regards the necessity and proportionality of remedies imposed by national regulatory authorities on electronic communications providers;


Amendment 328[modifier]

Marisa Matias
Article 1 – paragraph 3 – point f

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(f) the phasing out of unjustified surcharges for intra-Union communications and roaming communications within the Union.

(f) the phasing out of roaming within the Union.

Amendment 329[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. "single EU authorisation" means the legal framework applicable to a European electronic communications provider in the whole Union based on the general authorisation in the home Member State and in accordance with this Regulation;

deleted

Amendment 330[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5. "home Member State" means the Member State where the European electronic communications provider has its main establishment;

deleted


Amendment 331[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6. "main establishment" means the place of establishment in the Member State where the main decisions are taken as to the investments in and conduct of the provision of electronic communications services or networks in the Union;

deleted


Amendment 332[modifier]

Angelika Niebler
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 8

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(8) "harmonised radio spectrum for wireless broadband communications" means radio spectrum for which the conditions of availability and efficient use are harmonised at Union level, in particular pursuant to Decision 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and the Council,[27] and which serves for electronic communications services other than broadcasting;

(8) "harmonised radio spectrum for wireless broadband communications" means radio spectrum for which the conditions of availability and efficient use are harmonised at Union level through the allocation of a primary use, in accordance with the provisions and procedures of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and pursuant to Decision 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and the Council[27] and which serves for electronic communications services other than broadcasting;

__________________

__________________

[27] Decision 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 7 March 2002 on a regulatory framework for radio spectrum policy in the European Community (Radio Spectrum Decision) (OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 1).

[27] Decision 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 7 March 2002 on a regulatory framework for radio spectrum policy in the European Community (Radio Spectrum Decision) (OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 1).


Amendment 333[modifier]

Petra Kammerevert
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 8

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(8) "harmonised radio spectrum for wireless broadband communications" means radio spectrum for which the conditions of availability and efficient use are harmonised at Union level, in particular pursuant to Decision 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and the Council,[27] and which serves for electronic communications services other than broadcasting;

(8) "harmonised radio spectrum for wireless broadband communications" means radio spectrum for which the conditions of availability and efficient use are harmonised at Union level through the allocation of a primary use, in accordance with the provisions and procedures of Directive 2002/21/EC and pursuant to Decision 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and the Council,1 and which serves for electronic communications services other than broadcasting;

__________________

__________________

[27] Decision 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 7 March 2002 on a regulatory framework for radio spectrum policy in the European Community (Radio Spectrum Decision) (OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 1).

[27] Decision 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 7 March 2002 on a regulatory framework for radio spectrum policy in the European Community (Radio Spectrum Decision) (OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 1).


Amendment 334[modifier]

Catherine Trautmann, Patrizia Toia, Teresa Riera Madurell
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 8

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(8) harmonised radio spectrum for wireless broadband communications means radio spectrum for which the conditions of availability and efficient use are harmonised at Union level, in particular pursuant to Decision 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and the Council,[27] and which serves for electronic communications services other than broadcasting;

(8) "harmonised radio spectrum for wireless broadband communications" means radio spectrum for which the conditions of availability, efficiency and primary use are harmonised at Union level in accordance with Directive 2002/21/EC, and with Decision 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and the Council,[27] and which serves for electronic communications services other than broadcasting;

__________________

__________________

[27] Decision 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 7 March 2002 on a regulatory framework for radio spectrum policy in the European Community (Radio Spectrum Decision) (OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 1).

[27] Decision 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 7 March 2002 on a regulatory framework for radio spectrum policy in the European Community (Radio Spectrum Decision) (OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 1).


Amendment 335[modifier]

Jean-Pierre Audy
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 8

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(8) "harmonised radio spectrum for wireless broadband communications" means radio spectrum for which the conditions of availability and efficient use are harmonised at Union level, in particular pursuant to Decision 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and the Council,[27] and which serves for electronic communications services other than broadcasting;

(8) "harmonised radio spectrum for wireless broadband communications" means radio spectrum for which the conditions of availability, efficiency and primary use are harmonised at Union level, in accordance with Directive 2002/21/EC and Decision 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and the Council,[27] and which serves for electronic communications services other than broadcasting;

__________________

__________________

[27] Decision 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 7 March 2002 on a regulatory framework for radio spectrum policy in the European Community (Radio Spectrum Decision) (OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 1).

[27] Decision 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 7 March 2002 on a regulatory framework for radio spectrum policy in the European Community (Radio Spectrum Decision) (OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 1).

Or.

Amendment 336[modifier]

Sabine Verheyen, Doris Pack
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 8

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(8) harmonised radio spectrum for wireless broadband communications means radio spectrum for which the conditions of availability and efficient use are harmonised at Union level, in particular pursuant to Decision 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and the Council,[27] and which serves for electronic communications services other than broadcasting;

(8) 'harmonised radio spectrum for wireless broadband communications' means radio spectrum for which the conditions of availability and efficient use are harmonised at Union level, according to the provisions and procedures as laid down in Directive 2002/21/EC and pursuant to Decision 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and the Council,[27] and which serves for electronic communications services other than broadcasting;

__________________

__________________

[27] Decision 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 7 March 2002 on a regulatory framework for radio spectrum policy in the European Community (Radio Spectrum Decision) (OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 1).

[27] Decision 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 7 March 2002 on a regulatory framework for radio spectrum policy in the European Community (Radio Spectrum Decision) (OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 1).


Amendment 337[modifier]

Herbert Reul
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 8

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(8) "harmonised radio spectrum for wireless broadband communications" means radio spectrum for which the conditions of availability and efficient use are harmonised at Union level, in particular pursuant to Decision 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and the Council,[27] and which serves for electronic communications services other than broadcasting;

(8) "harmonised radio spectrum for wireless broadband communications" means radio spectrum for which the conditions of availability and efficient use are harmonised at Union level in accordance with Directive 2002/21/EC and pursuant to Decision 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and the Council,[27] and which serves for electronic communications services other than broadcasting;

__________________

__________________

[27] Decision 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 7 March 2002 on a regulatory framework for radio spectrum policy in the European Community (Radio Spectrum Decision) (OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 1).

[27] Decision 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 7 March 2002 on a regulatory framework for radio spectrum policy in the European Community (Radio Spectrum Decision) (OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 1).


Amendment 338[modifier]

Jean-Pierre Audy
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 9

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(9) small-area wireless access point means a low power wireless network access equipment of small size operating within a small range, which may or may not be part of a public terrestrial mobile communications network, and be equipped with one or more low visual impact antennas, which allows wireless access by the public to electronic communications networks regardless of the underlying network topology;

(9) "small-area wireless access point" means a low power wireless network access equipment of small size operating within a small range, using licensed spectrum or a combination of licensed and license-exempt spectrum, which may or may not be part of a public terrestrial mobile communications network, and be equipped with one or more low visual impact antennas, which allows wireless access by the public to electronic communications networks regardless of the underlying network topology;


Amendment 339[modifier]

Jean-Pierre Audy
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 10

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(10) radio local area network (RLAN) means a low power wireless access system, operating within a small range, with a low risk of interference to other such systems deployed in close proximity by other users, using on a non-exclusive basis spectrum for which the conditions of availability and efficient use for this purpose are harmonised at Union level;

(10) "radio local area network" (RLAN) means a low power wireless access system, operating within a small range, with a low risk of interference to other such systems deployed in close proximity by other users, using on a license-exempt basis spectrum for which the conditions of availability and efficient use for this purpose are harmonised at Union level, without prejudice to the license-exempt regime which includes no regulatory protection rights, nor rights to cause harmful interferences to licensed radio systems in band or in adjacent bands.


Amendment 340[modifier]

Petra Kammerevert
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 11 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(11a) ‘Best effort principle’ means the assurance that requests for forwarding of data will be dealt with in chronological order of receipt as quickly as possible and irrespective of content, service, use, origin or destination;


Amendment 341[modifier]

Ivo Belet
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 12

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(12) ‘assured service quality (ASQ) connectivity product’ means a product that is made available at the internet protocol (IP) exchange, which enables customers to set up an IP communication link between a point of interconnection and one or several fixed network termination points, and enables defined levels of end to end network performance for the provision of specific services to end users on the basis of the delivery of a specified guaranteed quality of service, based on specified parameters;

deleted


Amendment 342[modifier]

Catherine Trautmann, Teresa Riera Madurell
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 12

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(12) ‘assured service quality (ASQ) connectivity product’ means a product that is made available at the internet protocol (IP) exchange, which enables customers to set up an IP communication link between a point of interconnection and one or several fixed network termination points, and enables defined levels of end to end network performance for the provision of specific services to end users on the basis of the delivery of a specified guaranteed quality of service, based on specified parameters;

deleted


Amendment 343[modifier]

Marietje Schaake
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 12

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(12) ‘assured service quality (ASQ) connectivity product’ means a product that is made available at the internet protocol (IP) exchange, which enables customers to set up an IP communication link between a point of interconnection and one or several fixed network termination points, and enables defined levels of end to end network performance for the provision of specific services to end users on the basis of the delivery of a specified guaranteed quality of service, based on specified parameters;

deleted


Amendment 344[modifier]

Petra Kammerevert
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 12

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(12) "assured service quality (ASQ) connectivity product" means a product that is made available at the internet protocol (IP) exchange, which enables customers to set up an IP communication link between a point of interconnection and one or several fixed network termination points, and enables defined levels of end to end network performance for the provision of specific services to end users on the basis of the delivery of a specified guaranteed quality of service, based on specified parameters;

deleted

Amendment 345[modifier]

Petra Kammerevert
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 12 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(12a) ‘justified traffic management’ means traffic management which, derogating from the best effort principle, is permissible where it is dictated by technical constraints and is in line with the general principles of necessity, reasonability, efficiency assurance, non-discrimination and transparency as well as the other conditions of this regulation;


Amendment 346[modifier]

Marietje Schaake, Nadja Hirsch, Amelia Andersdotter
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 12 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(12 a) "net neutrality" means the principle that all internet traffic is treated equally, without discrimination, restriction or interference, independent of its sender, receiver, type, content, device, service or application;


Amendment 347[modifier]

Petra Kammerevert
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 14

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(14) "internet access service" means a publicly available electronic communications service that provides connectivity to the internet, and thereby connectivity between virtually all end points connected to the internet, irrespective of the network technology used;

(14) ‘internet access service’ means a publicly available electronic communications service that provides connectivity to the internet, and thereby connectivity between virtually all end points connected to the internet, irrespective of the network technology used; the Member States shall lay down appropriate minimum requirements for the quality of service of internet access services which shall continually be upgraded in line with technological developments; an internet access service enables end-users to use any internet-based application in accordance with the best effort principle; the only permissible derogation from this principle is proportionate, justified traffic management, in cases where the conditions for its use are clearly defined;


Amendment 348[modifier]

Sabine Verheyen, Ivo Belet, Doris Pack
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 14

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(14) internet access service means a publicly available electronic communications service that provides connectivity to the internet, and thereby connectivity between virtually all end points connected to the internet, irrespective of the network technology used;

(14) 'open internet access service' means a publicly available electronic communications service that provides connectivity to the internet at a level of quality that reflects the advances in technology, and thereby allows for connectivity between all end points connected to the internet, irrespective of the network technology used and without any restrictions to the legal content exchanged. It enables end-users to run any application utilising the electronic communication function of the Internet. Unrestricted Internet access service is based on the best efforts principle, the only exceptions allowed are proportionate technical traffic management measures or implementation of court order;


Amendment 349[modifier]

Jean-Pierre Audy
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 14

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(14) "internet access service" means a publicly available electronic communications service that provides connectivity to the internet, and thereby connectivity between virtually all end points connected to the internet, irrespective of the network technology used;

(14) "internet access service" means a publicly available electronic communications service that provides connectivity to the internet, and thereby connectivity between virtually all end points connected to the internet, irrespective of the network technology used. It allows end-users to run any application using an electronic communications network on the basis of the ‘best effort’ principle;

Or.

Amendment 350[modifier]

Amelia Andersdotter
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 14

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(14) ‘internet access service’ means a publicly available electronic communications service that provides connectivity to the internet, and thereby connectivity between virtually all end points connected to the internet, irrespective of the network technology used;

(14) ‘internet access service’ means a publicly available electronic communications service that provides connectivity to the internet, and thereby connectivity between virtually all end points connected to the internet, irrespective of the network technology used; It enables end-users to run any application utilising the electronic communications network of the internet.


Amendment 351[modifier]

Catherine Trautmann
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 14

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(14) ‘internet access service’ means a publicly available electronic communications service that provides connectivity to the internet, and thereby connectivity between virtually all end points connected to the internet, irrespective of the network technology used;

(14) ‘internet access service’ means a publicly available electronic communications service that provides connectivity to the internet, and therewith connectivity between virtually all end points of the internet, irrespective of the network technologies used;


Amendment 352[modifier]

Jürgen Creutzmann
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 14

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(14) internet access service means a publicly available electronic communications service that provides connectivity to the internet, and thereby connectivity between virtually all end points connected to the internet, irrespective of the network technology used;

(14) 'internet access service' means a publicly available electronic communications service that provides connectivity to the internet, and thereby connectivity between virtually all end points connected to the internet, irrespective of the network technology or devices used;

Justification:
Further clarification with regards to different devices.

Amendment 353[modifier]

Petra Kammerevert
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 15

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(15) "specialised service" means an electronic communications service or any other service that provides the capability to access specific content, applications or services, or a combination thereof, and whose technical characteristics are controlled from end-to-end or provides the capability to send or receive data to or from a determined number of parties or endpoints; and that is not marketed or widely used as a substitute for internet access service;

(15) ʻspecialised serviceʼ means an electronic communications service or any other service that is provided and operated only within closed electronic communications networks and is not marketed or used as an internet substitute or functionally identical to the content, applications or services of the open internet. A specialised service shall be admissible only where there is a manifest technical and factual need, over and above economic self-interest, for particular real-time critical applications meeting certain quality criteria. It is characterised by clearly-defined, guaranteed and customised quality-of-service parameters which are subject to continuous end-to-end management up to the ‘last mile’ by the specialised service provider. A specialised service may not be limited to an endpoint controlled by the service provider.


Amendment 354[modifier]

Amelia Andersdotter
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 15

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(15) specialised service means an electronic communications service or any other service that provides the capability to access specific content, applications or services, or a combination thereof, and whose technical characteristics are controlled from end-to-end or provides the capability to send or receive data to or from a determined number of parties or endpoints; and that is not marketed or widely used as a substitute for internet access service;

(15) 'specialised service' means an electronic communications service operated within closed electronic communications networks using the Internet Protocol with strict admission control; and that is not marketed as a substitute for internet access service or functionally identical to services available over the public internet access service;

Justification:
based on the BEREC definition, which points out the idea that a specialised service cannot be operated on the best effort internet, but has to run separately from it, namely within “closed network with strict admission control”. Furthermore a specialised service must not replicate any service already existing on the internet or else it would simply circumvent Net Neutrality.

Amendment 355[modifier]

Marietje Schaake, Nadja Hirsch
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 15

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(15) ‘specialised service’ means an electronic communications service or any other service that provides the capability to access specific content, applications or services, or a combination thereof, and whose technical characteristics are controlled from end-to-end or provides the capability to send or receive data to or from a determined number of parties or endpoints; and that is not marketed or widely used as a substitute for internet access service;

(15) ‘specialised service’ means an electronic communications service, operated within closed electronic communications networks using the Internet Protocol with strict admission control; and that is not marketed or used as a substitute for internet access service or functionally identical to services available over the public internet access service;


Amendment 356[modifier]

Françoise Castex
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 15

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(15) ‘specialised service’ means an electronic communications service or any other service that provides the capability to access specific content, applications or services, or a combination thereof, and whose technical characteristics are controlled from end-to-end or provides the capability to send or receive data to or from a determined number of parties or endpoints; and that is not marketed or widely used as a substitute for internet access service;

(15) ‘specialised service’ means an electronic communications service operated within closed electronic communications networks using the Internet Protocol with strict admission control and that is not marketed or used as a substitute for internet access service or functionally identical to services available over the public internet access service;


Amendment 357[modifier]

Sabine Verheyen, Ivo Belet, Doris Pack
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 15

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(15) specialised service means an electronic communications service or any other service that provides the capability to access specific content, applications or services, or a combination thereof, and whose technical characteristics are controlled from end-to-end or provides the capability to send or receive data to or from a determined number of parties or endpoints; and that is not marketed or widely used as a substitute for internet access service;

(15) 'specialised service' means an electronic communications service or any other service that is provided and operated within a closed electronic communications network using the internet protocol, relying on strict admission control and that is not marketed or widely used as a substitute for internet access service;


Amendment 358[modifier]

Angelika Niebler
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 15

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(15) "specialised service" means an electronic communications service or any other service that provides the capability to access specific content, applications or services, or a combination thereof, and whose technical characteristics are controlled from end-to-end or provides the capability to send or receive data to or from a determined number of parties or endpoints; and that is not marketed or widely used as a substitute for internet access service;

(15) ‘specialised service’ means an electronic communications service or any other service that provides the capability to access specific content, applications or services, or a combination thereof, and whose technical characteristics are controlled from end-to-end or provides the capability to send data to a determined number of parties or endpoints which are provided and operated in closed electronic communications networks using the Internet Protocol. These networks shall be subject to strict admissibility checks. A specialised service may not be used as a substitute for internet access service.


Amendment 359[modifier]

Jürgen Creutzmann
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 15

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(15) specialised service means an electronic communications service or any other service that provides the capability to access specific content, applications or services, or a combination thereof, and whose technical characteristics are controlled from end-to-end or provides the capability to send or receive data to or from a determined number of parties or endpoints; and that is not marketed or widely used as a substitute for internet access service;

(15) 'specialised service' means an electronic communications service or any other service using the Internet Protocol that provides to a determined number of parties optimised access to specific content, applications or services, or a combination thereof, and the technical characteristics of which are controlled using traffic management in order to ensure adequate service characteristics; and that is not marketed or widely used as a substitute for internet access service;

Justification:
End-to-end control of specialised services might not always be technically possible or, in certain cases, not even intended as e.g. only a part of the transmission route could be optimised. Also it is not clear whether a complete end-to-end control is feasible for mobile data connections. Furthermore, it has been explicitly mentioned that optimised access naturally involves traffic management.

Amendment 360[modifier]

Catherine Trautmann, Teresa Riera Madurell, Dimitrios Droutsas, Edit Herczog
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 15

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(15) ‘specialised service’ means an electronic communications service or any other service that provides the capability to access specific content, applications or services, or a combination thereof, and whose technical characteristics are controlled from end-to-end or provides the capability to send or receive data to or from a determined number of parties or endpoints; and that is not marketed or widely used as a substitute for internet access service;

(15) ‘specialised service’ means an electronic communications service or any other service that provides the capability to access or use specific content, applications or services, or a combination thereof, in order to ensure adequate characteristics from end-to-end. A specialised service is operated within closed electronic communications networks and thus clearly separated from internet access services and is not marketed or used as a substitute for internet access service;


Amendment 361[modifier]

Jean-Pierre Audy
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 15

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(15) specialised service means an electronic communications service or any other service that provides the capability to access specific content, applications or services, or a combination thereof, and whose technical characteristics are controlled from end-to-end or provides the capability to send or receive data to or from a determined number of parties or endpoints; and that is not marketed or widely used as a substitute for internet access service;

(15) "specialised service" means an electronic communications service that provides the capability to access specific content, applications or services, or a combination thereof, that is subject to admission control and whose technical characteristics are controlled using traffic management in order to ensure adequate service characteristics or provides the capability to send or receive data to or from a determined number of parties or endpoints; and that is not marketed or widely used as a substitute for internet access service


Amendment 362[modifier]

Giles Chichester
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 15

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(15) specialised service means an electronic communications service or any other service that provides the capability to access specific content, applications or services, or a combination thereof, and whose technical characteristics are controlled from end-to-end or provides the capability to send or receive data to or from a determined number of parties or endpoints; and that is not marketed or widely used as a substitute for internet access service;

(15) 'specialised service' means an electronic communications service or any other service that provides the capability to access specific content, applications or services, or a combination thereof with a defined quality of service or dedicated capacity, and whose technical characteristics are controlled from end-to-end or provides the capability to send or receive data to or from a determined number of parties or endpoints; and that is not marketed or widely used as a substitute for internet access service;


Amendment 363[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Chapter 2 – title

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Single EU authorisation

Harmonisation and simplification of authorisation regulations


Amendment 364[modifier]

Lambert van Nistelrooij
Article 3 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. A European electronic communications provider has the right to provide electronic communications networks and services in the whole Union and to exercise the rights linked to the provision of such networks and services in each Member State where it operates pursuant to a single EU authorisation which is subject only to the notification requirements provided in Article 4.

1. Any electronic communications provider established in the Union has the right to provide electronic communications networks and services in the whole Union and to exercise the rights linked to the provision of such networks and services in each Member State where it operates.


Amendment 365[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Article 3 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(1) A European electronic communications provider has the right to provide electronic communications networks and services in the whole Union and to exercise the rights linked to the provision of such networks and services in each Member State where it operates pursuant to a single EU authorisation which is subject only to the notification requirements provided in Article 4.

(1) An electronic communications provider has the right to provide electronic communications networks and services in the whole Union and to exercise the rights linked to the provision of such networks and services in each Member State where it operates pursuant to Article 3 of Directive 2002/20/EC as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC, on the basis of a notification for each Member State concerned. The notification format shall be a single EU standard format, in accordance with Article 4.


Amendment 366[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Article 3 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(2) The European electronic communications provider is subject to the rules and conditions applied in each Member State concerned in compliance with Union law unless otherwise provided in this Regulation and without prejudice to Regulation (EU) No 531/2012.

(2) The European electronic communications provider is subject to the rules and conditions applied in each Member State concerned in compliance with Union law.


Amendment 367[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Article 3 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(3) By way of derogation from Article 12 of Directive 2002/20/EC, a European electronic communications provider may be subject to administrative charges applicable in the host Member State only if it has an annual turnover for electronic communications services in that Member State above 0,5% of the total national electronic communications turnover. In levying these charges only the turnover for electronic communications services in the Member State concerned shall be taken into account.

deleted


Amendment 368[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Article 3 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(4) By way of derogation from1Article 3(1)(b) of Directive 2002/22/EC a European electronic communications provider may be subject to the contributions imposed to share the net cost of universal service obligations in the host Member State only if it has an annual turnover for electronic communications services in that Member State above 3% of the total national electronic communications turnover. In levying any such contribution only the turnover in the Member State concerned shall be taken into account.

deleted


Amendment 369[modifier]

Gunnar Hökmark
Article 3 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5. A European electronic communications provider shall be entitled to equal treatment by the national regulatory authorities of different Member States in objectively equivalent situations.

5. National regulatory authorities shall treat electronic communications providers equally in comparable situations, irrespective of their Member State of establishment.


Amendment 370[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Article 3 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(5) A European electronic communications provider shall be entitled to equal treatment by the national regulatory authorities of different Member States in objectively equivalent situations.

(5) Electronic communications providers shall be entitled to equal treatment by the national regulatory authorities of different Member States in objectively equivalent situations.


Amendment 371[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Article 3 – paragraph 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(6) In the event of a dispute between undertakings involving a European electronic communications provider regarding obligations applicable in accordance with Directives 2002/19/EC, 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC and 2002/22/EC, this Regulation or Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 in a host Member State, the European electronic communications provider may consult the national regulatory authority in the home Member State, which may deliver an opinion with a view to ensuring the development of consistent regulatory practices. The national regulatory authority in the host Member State shall take utmost account of the opinion issued by the national regulatory authority of the home Member State when deciding the dispute.

deleted


Amendment 372[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Article 3 – paragraph 7

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(7) European electronic communications providers who, at the date of entry into force of this Regulation, have the right to provide electronic communications networks and services in more than one Member State shall submit the notification provided for in Article 4 at the latest by 1 July 2016.

deleted


Amendment 373[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Article 4 – title

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Notification procedure for European electronic communications providers

Standard notification format


Amendment 374[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Article 4 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(1) A European electronic communications provider shall submit a single notification in accordance with this Regulation to the national regulatory authority of the home Member State, before beginning activity in at least one Member State.

(1) The Commission shall adopt implementing acts to define the standard notification format no later than 30 December 2014, after consulting all interested parties and BEREC.


Amendment 375[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

The notification shall contain a declaration of the provision or the intention to commence the provision of electronic communications networks and services and shall be accompanied by the following information only:

deleted

(a) the name of the provider, his legal status and form, registration number, where the provider is registered in trade or other similar public register, the geographical address of the main establishment, a contact person, a short description of the networks or services provided or intended to be provided, including identification of the home Member State;

(b) the host Member State(s) where the services and the networks are provided or intended to be provided directly or by subsidiaries and, in the latter case, the name, his legal status and form, geographical address, registration number, where the provider is registered in trade or other similar public register in the host Member State, and contact point of any subsidiary concerned and the respective operating areas. Where a subsidiary is controlled jointly by two or more electronic communications providers with their main establishments in different Member States the subsidiary shall indicate the relevant home Member State among those of the parent companies for the purpose of this Regulation and shall be notified by the parent company of that home Member State accordingly.


Amendment 376[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Article 4 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(3) Any change to the information submitted in accordance with paragraph 2 shall be made available to the national regulatory authority of the home Member State within one month following the change. In the event that the change to be notified concerns the intention to provide electronic communications networks or services in a host Member State that is not covered by a previous notification, the European electronic communications provider may begin activity in that host Member State upon notification.

deleted


Amendment 377[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Article 4 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(4) Non-compliance with the notification requirement laid down in this Article shall constitute a breach of the common conditions applicable to the European electronic communications provider in the home Member State.

deleted


Amendment 378[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Article 4 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

The national regulatory authority of the home Member State shall forward the information received in accordance with paragraph 2 and any change to that information in accordance with paragraph 3 to the national regulatory authorities of the concerned host Member States and to the BEREC Office within one week following reception of such information or any change.

deleted


Amendment 379[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Article 4 – paragraph 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(6) At the request of a European electronic communications provider, the national regulatory authority of the home Member State shall issue a declaration in accordance with Article 9 of Directive 2002/20/EC, specifying that the undertaking in question is subject to the single EU authorisation.

deleted


Amendment 380[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Article 4 – paragraph 7

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(7) In the event that one or more national regulatory authorities in different Member States consider that the identification of the home Member State in a notification made in accordance with paragraph 2 or any change to the provided information made available in accordance with paragraph 3 does not correspond or no longer corresponds to the main establishment of the undertaking pursuant to this Regulation, it shall refer the issue to the Commission, substantiating the grounds on which it bases its assessment. A copy of the referral shall be communicated to the BEREC Office for information. The Commission, having given the relevant European electronic communications provider and the national regulatory authority of the disputed home Member State the opportunity to express their views, shall issue a decision determining the home Member State of the undertaking in question pursuant to this Regulation within three months following the referral of the issue.

deleted


Amendment 381[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Article 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Article 5

deleted

Compliance with the single EU authorisation

(1) The national regulatory authority of each concerned Member State shall monitor and ensure, in accordance with its national legislation implementing the procedures provided for in Article 10 of Directive 2002/20/EC, that European electronic communications providers comply with the rules and conditions applicable in its territory in accordance with Article 3.

(2) The national regulatory authority of a host Member State shall transmit to the national regulatory authority of the home Member State any relevant information concerning individual measures adopted in relation to a European electronic communications provider with a view to ensuring compliance with the rules and conditions applicable in its territory in accordance with Article 3.


Amendment 382[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Article 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

[...]

deleted


Amendment 383[modifier]

Teresa Riera Madurell
Article 6 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Article 6 a

Abolition of retail charges

With effect from 1 July 2015, roaming providers shall not levy any surcharge in comparison to the charges for mobile communications services at domestic level on roaming costumers in any Member State for any regulated roaming call made or received, for any regulated roaming SMS message sent, for any roaming MMS message sent or for any regulated data roaming services used or any general charge to enable the terminal equipment or service to be used abroad.


Amendment 384[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Article 7

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Article 7

deleted

Coordination of enforcement measures

(1) When applying Article 6, the national regulatory authority of the home Member State shall take supervisory or enforcement measures related to an electronic communications service or network provided in another Member State or which has caused damage in another Member State with the same diligence as if the electronic communications service or network concerned was provided in the home Member State.

(2) The Member States shall ensure that within their territories it is possible to serve the legal documents relating to measures taken in accordance with Articles 5 and 6.


Amendment 385[modifier]

Sabine Verheyen, Doris Pack
Article 8 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. This section shall apply to harmonised radio spectrum for wireless broadband communications.

1. This section shall apply to harmonised radio spectrum for wireless broadband communications according to Directive 2009/140/EC and Decision No 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council with due regard to the provisions as laid down in Article 8a and 9 of Directive 2002/21/EC.


Amendment 386[modifier]

Catherine Trautmann
Article 8 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. This section shall apply to harmonised radio spectrum for wireless broadband communications.

1. This section shall apply to harmonised radio spectrum for wireless broadband communications; its provisions shall be interpreted in accordance with the relevant parts of Directive 2002/21/EC (in particular Articles 8a and 9), as well as with the Radio Spectrum Policy Programme.


Amendment 387[modifier]

Petra Kammerevert
Article 8 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(1) This section shall apply to harmonised radio spectrum for wireless broadband communications.

(1) This section shall apply to harmonised radio spectrum within the meaning of Directives 2009/140/EC and 676/2002/EC for wireless broadband communications, subject to the provisions of Articles 8a and 9 of Directive 2002/21/EC.


Amendment 388[modifier]

Angelika Niebler
Article 8 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(1) This section shall apply to harmonised radio spectrum for wireless broadband communications.

(1) This section shall apply to harmonised radio spectrum for wireless broadband communications, subject to the provisions of Articles 8a and 9 of Directive 2002/21/EC (framework directive).


Amendment 389[modifier]

Herbert Reul
Article 8 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(1) This section shall apply to harmonised radio spectrum for wireless broadband communications.

(1) This section shall apply to harmonised radio spectrum for wireless broadband communications, subject to the provisions of Articles 8a and 9 of Directive 2002/21/EC.


Amendment 390[modifier]

Jean-Pierre Audy
Article 8 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. This section shall apply to harmonised radio spectrum for wireless broadband communications.

1. This section shall apply to harmonised radio spectrum for wireless broadband communications, in accordance with Articles 8a and 9 of Directive 2002/21/EC.

Or.

Amendment 391[modifier]

Giles Chichester
Article 8 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. This section shall apply to harmonised radio spectrum for wireless broadband communications.

1. This section shall apply to harmonised radio spectrum.


Amendment 392[modifier]

Petra Kammerevert
Article 8 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(2) This section shall be without prejudice to the right of the Member States to benefit from fees imposed to ensure the optimal use of radio spectrum resources in accordance with Article 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC and to organise and use their radio spectrum for public order, public security and defence.

(2) This section shall be without prejudice to the right of the Member States to benefit from fees imposed to ensure the optimal use of radio spectrum resources in accordance with Article 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC and to organise and use their radio spectrum for public order, public security, defence and general interest purposes, such as promoting cultural and linguistic diversity and media diversity, e.g. by providing radio and TV programmes.


Amendment 393[modifier]

Sabine Verheyen, Doris Pack
Article 8 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. This section shall be without prejudice to the right of the Member States to benefit from fees imposed to ensure the optimal use of radio spectrum resources in accordance with Article 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC and to organise and use their radio spectrum for public order, public security and defence.

2. This section shall be without prejudice to the right of the Member States to benefit from fees imposed to ensure the optimal use of radio spectrum resources in accordance with Article 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC and to organise and use their radio spectrum for public order, public security and defence, taking into account general interest objectives such as cultural diversity and media pluralism, as well as the interests of all radio spectrum users.


Amendment 394[modifier]

Jean-Pierre Audy
Article 8 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. This section shall be without prejudice to the right of the Member States to benefit from fees imposed to ensure the optimal use of radio spectrum resources in accordance with Article 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC and to organise and use their radio spectrum for public order, public security and defence.

2. This section shall be without prejudice to the right of the Member States to benefit from fees imposed to ensure the optimal use of radio spectrum resources in accordance with Article 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC and to organise and use their radio spectrum for public order, public security and defence, as well as to pursue general interest objectives, in particular in the context of audiovisual and media policies.

Or.

Amendment 395[modifier]

Angelika Niebler
Article 8 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(2) This section shall be without prejudice to the right of the Member States to benefit from fees imposed to ensure the optimal use of radio spectrum resources in accordance with Article 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC and to organise and use their radio spectrum for public order, public security and defence.

(2) This section shall be without prejudice to the right of the Member States to benefit from fees imposed to ensure the optimal use of radio spectrum resources in accordance with Article 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC and to organise and use their radio spectrum for public order, public security and defence, and in addition to the pursuit of objectives of general interest, in particular regarding audio-visual and media policy.


Amendment 396[modifier]

Catherine Trautmann, Patrizia Toia, Teresa Riera Madurell, Edit Herczog
Article 8 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. This section shall be without prejudice to the right of the Member States to benefit from fees imposed to ensure the optimal use of radio spectrum resources in accordance with Article 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC and to organise and use their radio spectrum for public order, public security and defence.

2. This section shall be without prejudice to the right of the Member States to benefit from fees imposed to ensure the optimal use of radio spectrum resources in accordance with Article 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC and to organise and use their radio spectrum for public order, public security and defence, or to pursue general interest objectives such as cultural diversity and media pluralism.


Amendment 397[modifier]

Giles Chichester
Article 8 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. In the exercise of powers conferred in this section, the Commission shall take utmost account of any relevant opinion issued by the Radio Spectrum Policy Group (RSPG) established by Commission Decision 2002/622/EC[28] .

deleted

__________________

[28] Commission Decision 2002/622/EC of 26 July 2002 establishing a Radio Spectrum Policy Group (OJ L 198, 27.07.2002, p. 49).


Amendment 398[modifier]

Patrizia Toia
Article 8 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. In the exercise of powers conferred in this section, the Commission shall take utmost account of any relevant opinion issued by the Radio Spectrum Policy Group (RSPG) established by Commission Decision 2002/622/EC[28].

3. In the exercise of powers conferred in this section, the Commission shall take utmost account of any relevant opinion issued by the Radio Spectrum Policy Group (RSPG) established by Commission Decision 2002/622/EC[28] and of the indications and guidelines issued by BEREC on the matters within its competence.

__________________

__________________

[28] Commission Decision 2002/622/EC of 26 July 2002 establishing a Radio Spectrum Policy Group (OJ L 198, 27.07.2002, p. 49).

[28 ]Commission Decision 2002/622/EC of 26 July 2002 establishing a Radio Spectrum Policy Group (OJ L 198, 27.07.2002, p. 49).


Amendment 399[modifier]

Giles Chichester
Article 8 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. In the exercise of powers conferred in this section, the Commission shall take utmost account of any relevant opinion issued by the Radio Spectrum Policy Group (RSPG) established by Commission Decision 2002/622/EC[28].

3. In the exercise of powers conferred in this section, the Commission shall take utmost account of any relevant opinion issued by BEREC.

__________________

__________________

[28] Commission Decision 2002/622/EC of 26 July 2002 establishing a Radio Spectrum Policy Group (OJ L 198, 27.07.2002, p. 49).


Amendment 400[modifier]

Catherine Trautmann
Article 8 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Article 8 a

Harmonisation of certain aspects relating to transfer or lease of individual rights to use radio frequencies and their duration

1. Without prejudice to Directive 2002/21/EC and to the application of competition rules to undertakings, the following shall apply with respect to the transfer or lease of rights of use of spectrum, or parts thereof, identified in Article 6(8) of Decision No 243/2012/EU:

(a) Member States shall make current details of all such rights of use publicly available in a standardised electronic format;

(b) Member States may not refuse to allow a transfer or lease to an existing holder of such rights of use;

(c) in cases not covered by point (b), Member States may refuse a transfer only where it is found that there is a clear risk that the new holder would be unable to meet the existing conditions for the right of use;

(d) in cases not covered by point (b), Member States may not refuse a lease where the transferor undertakes to remain liable for meeting the existing conditions for the right of use.

2. Any administrative charge imposed on undertakings in connection with processing an application for the transfer or lease of spectrum shall, in total, cover only the administrative costs, including ancillary steps such as the issuance of a new right of use, incurred in processing the application. Any such charges shall be imposed in an objective, transparent and proportionate manner which minimises additional administrative costs and attendant charges. Article 12(2) of Directive 2002/20/EC shall apply to charges imposed under this paragraph.

3. All rights of use of spectrum shall be granted with a minimum duration of 20 years, and in any case for a duration appropriate to incentivise investment and competition, and discourage the under-use or "hoarding" of spectrum. Member States may grant rights of use of indefinite duration.

4. Member States may provide for proportionate and non-discriminatory withdrawal of rights in order to ensure the efficient use of spectrum including, but not limited to, spectrum management purposes; national security; breach of licence; harmonised change of use of a band; and non-payment of fees.

5. The duration of all existing rights of use of spectrum is hereby extended to 20 years from their date of grant, without prejudice to other conditions attached to the right of use and to rights of use of indefinite duration.

6. The introduction of minimum 20 year licence duration should not impede the ability of regulators to issue temporary licences and licences for secondary uses in a harmonised band.


Amendment 401[modifier]

Francesco De Angelis, Patrizia Toia
Article 8 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Article 8 a

Harmonisation of certain aspects relating to transfer, lease or sharing of individual rights to use radio frequencies and their duration

1. Without prejudice to the application of competition rules to undertakings, the following shall apply with respect to the transfer, lease or sharing of rights of use of spectrum, or parts thereof, identified in Article 6(8) of Decision No 243/2012/EU:

(a) Member States shall make current details of all such rights of use publicly available in a standardised electronic format;

(b) Member States may not refuse to allow a transfer or lease to an existing holder of such rights of use;

(c) in cases not covered by point (b), Member States may refuse a transfer only where it is found that there is a clear risk that the new holder would be unable to meet the existing conditions for the right of use;

(d) in cases not covered by point (b), Member States may not refuse a lease where the transferor undertakes to remain liable for meeting the existing conditions for the right of use.

(e) Member States should promote licensed shared access to spectrum within the actual authorization regime. The sharing may be imposed by the member State in order to ensure efficient spectrum use.

2. Any administrative charge imposed on undertakings in connection with processing an application for the transfer, lease or sharing of spectrum shall, in total, cover only the administrative costs, including ancillary steps such as the issuance of a new right of use, incurred in processing the application. Any such charges shall be imposed in an objective, transparent and proportionate manner which minimises additional administrative costs and attendant charges. Article 12(2) of Directive 2002/20/EC shall apply to charges imposed under this paragraph.

Justification:
Sharing of spectrum should be encouraged in order to inflate competition into the market and maximize consumers' benefit and innovation. For the same reason, excessive or indefinite duration of spectrum's licenses should be excluded.

Amendment 402[modifier]

Giles Chichester
Article 8 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Article 8 a

Harmonisation of certain aspects relating to transfer or lease of individual rights to use radio frequencies and their duration

1. Without prejudice to the application of competition rules to undertakings, the following shall apply with respect to the transfer or lease of rights of use of spectrum, or parts thereof, identified in Article 6(8) of Decision No 243/2012/EU, Member States shall make current details of all such rights of use publicly available in a standardised electronic format;

2. Any administrative charge imposed on undertakings in connection with processing an application for the transfer or lease of spectrum shall, in total, cover only the administrative costs, including ancillary steps such as the issuance of a new right of use, incurred in processing the application. Any such charges shall be imposed in an objective, transparent and proportionate manner which minimises additional administrative costs and attendant charges. Article 12(2) of Directive 2002/20/EC shall apply to charges imposed under this paragraph.

3. All rights of use of spectrum shall be granted with a minimum duration of 30 years. Member States may grant rights of use of indefinite duration.

4. Member States may provide for proportionate and non-discriminatory withdrawal of rights, including those with a 30 year minimum duration, in order to ensure the efficient use of spectrum including, but not limited to, spectrum management purposes; national security; breach of licence; harmonised change of use of a band; and non-payment of fees.

The duration of all existing rights of use of spectrum is hereby extended to 30 years from their date of grant, without prejudice to other conditions attached to the right of use and to rights of use of indefinite duration.

5. The introduction of minimum 30 year licence duration should not impede the ability of regulators to issue temporary licences and licences for secondary uses in a harmonised band.

Justification:
It must still be possible to withdraw rights of use for legitimate reasons. Additionally the ability of regulators to issue temporary licences or licences for secondary uses in a harmonised band should not be undermined. This will ensure the efficient use of spectrum.

Amendment 403[modifier]

Giles Chichester
Article 9

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

[...]

deleted


Amendment 404[modifier]

Petra Kammerevert
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

The national competent authorities for radio spectrum shall contribute to the development of a wireless space where investment and competitive conditions for high-speed wireless broadband communications converge and which enables planning and provision of integrated multi-territorial networks and services and economies of scale, thereby fostering innovation, economic growth and the long-term benefit of end users.

Without prejudice to the protection of the common interest in accordance with Article 9(4) of Directive 2002/21/EC, the national competent authorities for radio spectrum shall contribute to the development of a wireless space where investment and competitive conditions for high-speed wireless broadband communications converge and which enables planning and provision of integrated multi-territorial networks and services and economies of scale, thereby fostering innovation, economic growth and the long-term benefit of end users. Due account shall be taken of the possibility of establishing multi-functional networks that combine broadcasting and mobile telephone technology on a single platform.


Amendment 405[modifier]

Catherine Trautmann, Patrizia Toia, Teresa Riera Madurell, Dimitrios Droutsas, Edit Herczog
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

The national competent authorities for radio spectrum shall contribute to the development of a wireless space where investment and competitive conditions for high-speed wireless broadband communications converge and which enables planning and provision of integrated multi-territorial networks and services and economies of scale, thereby fostering innovation, economic growth and the long-term benefit of end users.

Without prejudice to the safeguard of general interest objectives, the national competent authorities for radio spectrum shall contribute to the development of a wireless space where investment and competitive conditions for high-speed wireless broadband communications converge and which enables planning and provision of integrated multi-territorial networks and services and economies of scale, thereby fostering innovation, economic growth and the long-term benefit of end users.


Amendment 406[modifier]

Patrizia Toia, Francesco De Angelis
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

The national competent authorities for radio spectrum shall contribute to the development of a wireless space where investment and competitive conditions for high-speed wireless broadband communications converge and which enables planning and provision of integrated multi-territorial networks and services and economies of scale, thereby fostering innovation, economic growth and the long-term benefit of end users.

The national competent authorities for radio spectrum shall contribute to the development of a wireless space where investment and competitive conditions for high-speed wireless broadband communications converge and which enables planning and provision of integrated, interoperable, open multi-territorial networks and services, based on shared standards, and economies of scale, thereby fostering innovation, economic growth and the long-term benefit of end users.

Amendment 407[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

The national competent authorities shall refrain from applying procedures or imposing conditions for the use of radio spectrum which may unduly impede European electronic communications providers from providing integrated electronic communications networks and services in several Member States or throughout the Union.

deleted


Amendment 408[modifier]

Catherine Trautmann
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

The national competent authorities shall refrain from applying procedures or imposing conditions for the use of radio spectrum which may unduly impede European electronic communications providers from providing integrated electronic communications networks and services in several Member States or throughout the Union.

The national competent authorities shall refrain from applying procedures or imposing conditions for the use of radio spectrum which may unduly impede European electronic communications providers from providing integrated electronic communications networks and services in several Member States or throughout the Union and/or unduly impede, by creating interferences, the operation of existing services or applications in the concerned spectrum bands as well as in adjacent bands.


Amendment 409[modifier]

Jean-Pierre Audy
Article 9 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. The national competent authorities shall apply the least onerous authorisation system possible for allowing the use of radio spectrum, on the basis of objective, transparent, non-discriminatory and proportionate criteria, in such a way as to maximise flexibility and efficiency in radio spectrum use and to promote comparable conditions throughout the Union for integrated multi-territorial investments and operations by European electronic communications providers.

2. The national competent authorities shall apply a transparent process and apply the least onerous authorisation system possible offering all actors equal access conditions to the use of radio spectrum, on the basis of objective, transparent, non-discriminatory and proportionate criteria, in such a way as to maximise flexibility and efficiency in radio spectrum use and to promote comparable conditions throughout the Union for integrated multi-territorial investments and operations by European electronic communications providers


Amendment 410[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Article 9 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(2) The national competent authorities shall apply the least onerous authorisation system possible for allowing the use of radio spectrum, on the basis of objective, transparent, non-discriminatory and proportionate criteria, in such a way as to maximise flexibility and efficiency in radio spectrum use and to promote comparable conditions throughout the Union for integrated multi-territorial investments and operations by European electronic communications providers.

(2) The national competent authorities shall apply the most efficient authorisation system possible for allowing the use of radio spectrum, on the basis of objective, transparent, non-discriminatory and proportionate criteria, in such a way as to maximise flexibility and efficiency in radio spectrum use and to promote comparable conditions throughout the Union for integrated multi-territorial investments and operations by electronic communications providers.


Amendment 411[modifier]

Catherine Trautmann
Article 9 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. When establishing authorisation conditions and procedures for the use of radio spectrum, national competent authorities shall have regard in particular to equal treatment between existing and potential operators and between European electronic communications providers and other undertakings.

3. When establishing authorisation conditions and procedures for the use of radio spectrum, national competent authorities shall have regard in particular to equal treatment between existing and potential operators and between European electronic communications providers and other undertakings.

National competent authorities shall also ensure the coexistence between existing and new radio spectrum users. To this end, they should conduct a comprehensive impact assessment as well as consultations involving all stakeholders.


Amendment 412[modifier]

Françoise Castex
Article 9 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. When establishing authorisation conditions and procedures for the use of radio spectrum, national competent authorities shall have regard in particular to equal treatment between existing and potential operators and between European electronic communications providers and other undertakings.

3. When establishing authorisation conditions and procedures for the use of radio spectrum, national competent authorities shall have regard in particular to equal treatment between existing and potential operators and between European electronic communications providers and other undertakings. They shall also have regard to collective use of spectrum as well as shared and unlicensed use of spectrum.


Amendment 413[modifier]

Jean-Pierre Audy
Article 9 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. When establishing authorisation conditions and procedures for the use of radio spectrum, national competent authorities shall have regard in particular to equal treatment between existing and potential operators and between European electronic communications providers and other undertakings.

3. When establishing authorisation conditions and procedures for the use of radio spectrum, national competent authorities shall have regard in particular to objective, transparent and non-discriminatory treatment between existing and potential operators and between European electronic communications providers and other undertakings.


Amendment 414[modifier]

Salvador Sedó i Alabart
Article 9 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. When establishing authorisation conditions and procedures for the use of radio spectrum, national competent authorities shall have regard in particular to equal treatment between existing and potential operators and between European electronic communications providers and other undertakings.

3. When establishing authorisation conditions and procedures for the use of radio spectrum, national competent authorities shall have regard in particular to objectivity, transparency and non-discriminatory treatment between existing and potential operators and between European electronic communications providers and other undertakings.


Amendment 415[modifier]

Werner Langen
Article 9 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(3) When establishing authorisation conditions and procedures for the use of radio spectrum, national competent authorities shall have regard in particular to equal treatment between existing and potential operators and between European electronic communications providers and other undertakings.

(3) When establishing authorisation conditions and procedures for the use of radio spectrum, national competent authorities shall have regard in particular to transparent, non-discriminatory and objective equal treatment between existing and potential operators and between European electronic communications providers and other undertakings.


Amendment 416[modifier]

Gunnar Hökmark, Jens Rohde
Article 9 – paragraph 3 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3 a. Member States should promote licensed shared access to spectrum within the actual authorization regime. The sharing may be imposed by the Member State in order to ensure efficient spectrum use.


Amendment 417[modifier]

Catherine Trautmann
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

b) ensuring the most efficient use and effective management of radio spectrum;

b) ensuring the most efficient use and effective management of radio spectrum as well as availability of unlicensed spectrum;


Amendment 418[modifier]

Werner Langen
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(c) ensuring predictable and comparable conditions to enable the planning of network investments and services on a multi-territorial basis and the achievement of scale economies;

(c) ensuring predictable and comparable conditions to enable long-term, sustainable network investments and services on a multi-territorial basis and the achievement of scale economies;


Amendment 419[modifier]

Werner Langen
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – point d

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

d) ensuring the necessity and proportionality of the conditions imposed, including through an objective assessment of whether it is justified to impose additional conditions which could be in favour of or to the detriment of certain operators;

d) ensuring the necessity and proportionality of the conditions imposed, including through a transparent, objective assessment of whether it is justified to impose additional conditions which could be in favour of or to the detriment of certain operators;


Amendment 420[modifier]

Petra Kammerevert
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – point e

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(e) ensuring wide territorial coverage of high-speed wireless broadband networks and a high level of penetration and consumption of related services.

deleted


Amendment 421[modifier]

Sabine Verheyen, Doris Pack
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – point e

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

e) ensuring wide territorial coverage of high-speed wireless broadband networks and a high level of penetration and consumption of related services.

e) ensuring efficient use of spectrum to meet the increasing demand for high-speed wireless broadband networks, at the same time taking account of the public interest and the social, cultural and economic value of spectrum as a whole.


Amendment 422[modifier]

Petra Kammerevert
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – point e a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(ea) preventing harmful interference, including the possibility of imposing obligations to resolve interference problems with other users and to assume the costs thereby incurred.


Amendment 423[modifier]

Angelika Niebler
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – point e a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(ea) preventing harmful interference, including the possibility of imposing obligations to resolve instances of interference with other frequency users and to assume the costs incurred.


Amendment 424[modifier]

Jean-Pierre Audy
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – point e a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(ea) preventing any harmful interference, including the possibility of imposing obligations to resolve interference with other radio spectrum users and to cover the costs incurred;

Or.

Amendment 425[modifier]

Sabine Verheyen, Doris Pack
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – point e a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

e a) ensuring that any change in policy with regard to the efficient use of spectrum takes account of its impact on the public interest in terms of interference and costs.


Amendment 426[modifier]

Catherine Trautmann, Patrizia Toia, Teresa Riera Madurell, Edit Herczog
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – point e a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

e a) preventing any harmful interference


Amendment 427[modifier]

Salvador Sedó i Alabart
Article 9 – paragraph 5 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5a. National competent authorities shall ensure that information is available on authorisation conditions and procedures for the use of radio spectrum, and allow stakeholders to present their views during the process.

Amendment 428[modifier]

Jean-Pierre Audy
Article 9 – paragraph 5 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5 a. National competent authorities shall ensure that timely information is available on authorisation conditions and procedures for the use of radio spectrum, and allow interested parties to submit their views in the process.


Amendment 429[modifier]

Giles Chichester
Article 10

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

[...]

deleted


Amendment 430[modifier]

Jean-Pierre Audy
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. When determining the amount and type of radio spectrum to be assigned in a given procedure for granting rights of use for radio spectrum, the national competent authorities shall have regard to the following:

1. When determining the amount and type of radio spectrum to be assigned in a given procedure for granting rights of use for radio spectrum, the national competent authorities shall have regard to the technical characteristics of different available radio spectrum bands.


Amendment 431[modifier]

Petra Kammerevert
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) the technical characteristics of different available radio spectrum bands,

(a) the technical characteristics and the current and planned use of different available radio spectrum bands;


Amendment 432[modifier]

Herbert Reul
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) the technical characteristics of different available radio spectrum bands,

(a) the technical characteristics and the current and planned use of different available radio spectrum bands;


Amendment 433[modifier]

Petra Kammerevert
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(aa) the efficient use of radio spectrum bands already allocated for use by mobile broadband;


Amendment 434[modifier]

Jean-Pierre Audy
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) the possible combination in a single procedure of complementary bands; and

deleted


Amendment 435[modifier]

Herbert Reul
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(ba) the efficient use of radio spectrum bands already allocated for mobile broadband;


Amendment 436[modifier]

Jean-Pierre Audy
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(c) the relevance of coherent portfolios of radio spectrum rights of use in different Member States to the provision of networks or services to the entire Union market or a significant part thereof.

deleted


Amendment 437[modifier]

Petra Kammerevert
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) the most efficient use of the radio spectrum in accordance with Article 9(4)(b), taking into account the characteristics of the band or bands concerned;

(a) the most efficient use of the radio spectrum in accordance with Article 9(4)(b), taking into account the characteristics of the band or bands concerned and their current and planned use;


Amendment 438[modifier]

Jean-Pierre Audy
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) the most efficient use of the radio spectrum in accordance with9Article (4)(b), taking into account the characteristics of the band or bands concerned;

(a) the most efficient use of the radio spectrum in accordance with Article 9(4)(b), taking into account the characteristics and current and planned use of the band or bands concerned;

Or.

Amendment 439[modifier]

Petra Kammerevert
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point a a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(aa) that the costs incurred by the existing user in clearing the spectrum range are taken into consideration;


Amendment 440[modifier]

Herbert Reul
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(ba) taking into account the costs incurred by the user in clearing the spectrum range.


Amendment 441[modifier]

Werner Langen
Article 10 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

National competent authorities shall ensure that the fees for rights of use for radio spectrum, if any:

National competent authorities shall ensure that the fees for rights of use for radio spectrum which serve to balance excess demand and shortages (by means of auctions or administratively), if any:


Amendment 442[modifier]

Jean-Pierre Audy
Article 10 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

National competent authorities shall ensure that the fees for rights of use for radio spectrum, if any:

National competent authorities shall ensure that the fees for rights of use for radio Spectrum of all types, if any


Amendment 443[modifier]

Jean-Pierre Audy
Article 10 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) appropriately reflect the social and economic value of the radio spectrum, including beneficial externalities;

(a) appropriately reflect the social, cultural and economic value of the radio spectrum, including beneficial externalities, and do not exceed market value;


Amendment 444[modifier]

Werner Langen, Herbert Reul
Article 10 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) appropriately reflect the social and economic value of the radio spectrum, including beneficial externalities;

(a) appropriately reflect the social and economic value of the radio spectrum, including beneficial externalities, and do not exceed the market value;


Amendment 445[modifier]

Jean-Pierre Audy
Article 10 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point a a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(aa) take into account the costs entailed in evicting current radio spectrum users, where applicable;

Amendment 446[modifier]

Catherine Trautmann
Article 10 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point d

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(d) achieve an optimal distribution between immediate and, if any, periodic payments, having regard in particular to the need to incentivise rapid network roll-out and radio spectrum utilisation in accordance with Article 9(4)(b) and (e).

(d) achieve an optimal distribution between upfront and, preferably, periodic payments, having regard in particular to the need to incentivise rapid network roll-out and radio spectrum utilisation in accordance with Article 9(4)(b) and (e).


Amendment 447[modifier]

Werner Langen
Article 10 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point d a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(da) must be paid only when providers actually use radio spectrum. Where radio spectrum is assigned by auction, its technical and regulatory conditions must be determined before the start of the auction. Preliminary technical tests may be necessary in certain cases.


Amendment 448[modifier]

Catherine Trautmann
Article 10 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point d a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(d a) are paid not more than one year before operators can start using the radio spectrum


Amendment 449[modifier]

Gunnar Hökmark, Jens Rohde
Article 10 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point d a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(d a) are due to be paid when operators are effectively able to exploit the spectrum.


Amendment 450[modifier]

Catherine Trautmann
Article 10 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

The technical and regulatory conditions attached to the rights of use for radio spectrum are defined and available to the operators and stakeholders prior the start of the auction process;


Amendment 451[modifier]

Werner Langen
Article 10 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

This paragraph shall be without prejudice to the application of paragraph 5 as regards any conditions resulting in differentiated fees between operators which are laid down with a view to promoting effective competition.

deleted


Amendment 452[modifier]

Jean-Pierre Audy
Article 10 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

This paragraph shall be without prejudice to the application of paragraph 5 as regards any conditions resulting in differentiated fees between operators which are laid down with a view to promoting effective competition.

deleted


Amendment 453[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Article 10 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

This paragraph shall be without prejudice to the application of paragraph 5 as regards any conditions resulting in differentiated fees between operators which are laid down with a view to promoting effective competition.

deleted


Amendment 454[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Article 10 – paragraph 4 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(4) National competent authorities may impose obligations to reach minimum territorial coverage only when they are necessary and proportionate, in accordance with9Article (4)(d), to achieve specific objectives of general interest determined at national level. When imposing such obligations, the national competent authorities shall have regard to the following:

(4) National competent authorities may impose obligations to reach minimum territorial coverage, to achieve specific objectives of general interest determined at national level. When imposing such obligations, the national competent authorities shall have regard to the following:


Amendment 455[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Article 10 – paragraph 4 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) the minimisation of the number of operators potentially subject to such obligations;

deleted


Amendment 456[modifier]

Werner Langen, Herbert Reul
Article 10 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

When deciding whether to apply restrictions for mobile access obligations, national authorities must justify their decisions by means of a comprehensive evaluation of market characteristics and provide proof of market failure. In addition, the decision must precede an impact assessment of the network operators’ investments; there must be regular reviews of commitments undertaken.


Amendment 457[modifier]

Jean-Pierre Audy
Article 10 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

When determining whether to impose any mobile access obligations, competent national authorities shall justify their decision by a thorough assessment of the market conditions showing a market failure and an impact assessment on investment made by network operators. They shall review any obligations imposed regularly.


Amendment 458[modifier]

Gunnar Hökmark
Article 10 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

National competent authorities shall determine conditions under which undertakings may transfer or lease part or all of their individual rights to use radio spectrum to other undertakings, including the sharing of such radio spectrum. When determining those conditions, national competent authorities shall have regard to the following:

National competent authorities shall within a year from the date of entry into force of this regulation determine conditions under which undertakings may transfer or lease part or all of their individual rights to use radio spectrum to other undertakings, including the sharing of such radio spectrum. When determining those conditions, national competent authorities shall have regard to the following:


Amendment 459[modifier]

Gunnar Hökmark, Jens Rohde
Article 10 – paragraph 7 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

7 a. Pursuant to the objective to allocate at least 1200 MHz suitable spectrum for wireless broadband as set out in decision no 243/2012, national competent authorities shall within a year from the date of entry into force of this regulation identify harmonised wireless spectrum suitable for liberalisation and determine the conditions under which undertakings in possession of rights of use for wireless spectrum may change the destination and use of such harmonised wireless spectrum.


Amendment 460[modifier]

Giles Chichester
Article 11

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

[...]

deleted


Amendment 461[modifier]

Angelika Niebler
Article 11 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(1) Where the technical conditions for the availability and efficient use of harmonised radio spectrum for wireless broadband communications make it possible to use the relevant radio spectrum under a general authorisation regime, national competent authorities shall avoid imposing any additional condition and shall prevent any alternative use from impeding the effective application of such harmonised regime.

(1) Where the technical conditions for the availability and efficient use of harmonised radio spectrum for wireless broadband communications make it possible to use the relevant radio spectrum under a general authorisation regime, national competent authorities shall avoid imposing any additional condition and shall prevent any alternative use from impeding the effective application of such harmonised regime. This shall be without prejudice to Article 2(2)(8).

Justification:
This is to ensure a focus on the use of spectrum designated as primary.

Amendment 462[modifier]

Herbert Reul
Article 11 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(1) Where the technical conditions for the availability and efficient use of harmonised radio spectrum for wireless broadband communications make it possible to use the relevant radio spectrum under a general authorisation regime, national competent authorities shall avoid imposing any additional condition and shall prevent any alternative use from impeding the effective application of such harmonised regime.

(1) Where the technical conditions for the availability and efficient use of harmonised radio spectrum for wireless broadband communications make it possible to use the relevant radio spectrum under a general authorisation regime, national competent authorities shall avoid imposing any additional condition and shall prevent any alternative use from impeding the effective application of such harmonised regime. Article 2(2)(8) shall be excluded from this rule.


Amendment 463[modifier]

Petra Kammerevert
Article 11 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(1) Where the technical conditions for the availability and efficient use of harmonised radio spectrum for wireless broadband communications make it possible to use the relevant radio spectrum under a general authorisation regime, national competent authorities shall avoid imposing any additional condition and shall prevent any alternative use from impeding the effective application of such harmonised regime.

(1) Where the technical conditions for the availability and efficient use of harmonised radio spectrum for wireless broadband communications make it possible to use the relevant radio spectrum under a general authorisation regime, national competent authorities shall avoid imposing any additional condition and shall prevent any alternative use from impeding the effective application of such harmonised regime. This shall be without prejudice to Article 2(2)(8).


Amendment 464[modifier]

Werner Langen
Article 11 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

The national competent authorities shall consider the need to fix appropriate minimum technology performance levels for different bands in accordance with Article 6(3) of Decision No 243/2012/EC with a view to improving spectral efficiency and without prejudice to measures adopted under Decision No 676/2002.

The national competent authorities shall consider the need to fix appropriate minimum technology performance levels for different bands in accordance with Article 6(3) of Decision No 243/2012/EC, without prejudice to measures adopted under Decision No 676/2002/EC.


Amendment 465[modifier]

Werner Langen
Article 11 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) have regard to the cycles of technology development and of renewal of equipment, in particular terminal equipment; and

deleted

Amendment 466[modifier]

Gunnar Hökmark, Jens Rohde
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

The duration of the rights of use or the dates for subsequent renewal shall be set well in advance of the relevant procedure included in the timetable referred to in the first subparagraph. The timetables, durations and renewal cycles shall take account of the need for a predictable investment environment, the effective possibility to release any relevant new radio spectrum bands harmonised for wireless broadband communications and of the period for amortisation of related investments under competitive conditions.

The duration of the rights of use or the dates for subsequent renewal shall be set well in advance of the relevant procedure included in the timetable referred to in the first subparagraph. The timetables, durations and renewal cycles shall take account of the need for a predictable investment environment, the effective possibility to release any relevant new radio spectrum bands harmonised for wireless broadband communications and of the period for amortisation of related investments under competitive conditions. National competent authorities shall apply a minimum duration of thirty (30) years for granting of radio spectrum.


Amendment 467[modifier]

Jolanta Emilia Hibner
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

The duration of the rights of use or the dates for subsequent renewal shall be set well in advance of the relevant procedure included in the timetable referred to in the first subparagraph. The timetables, durations and renewal cycles shall take account of the need for a predictable investment environment, the effective possibility to release any relevant new radio spectrum bands harmonised for wireless broadband communications and of the period for amortisation of related investments under competitive conditions.

Without prejudice to Article 8a(3), the duration of the rights of use or the dates for subsequent renewal shall be set well in advance of the relevant procedure included in the timetable referred to in the first subparagraph. The timetables, durations and renewal cycles shall take account of the need for a predictable investment environment, the effective possibility to release any relevant new radio spectrum bands harmonised for wireless broadband communications and of the period for amortisation of related investments under competitive conditions.


Amendment 468[modifier]

Gunnar Hökmark, Jens Rohde
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Member States may provide for proportionate and non-discriminatory withdrawal of rights, including those with a 30 year minimum duration, in order to prevent any accumulation of rights that might distort competition


Amendment 469[modifier]

Gunnar Hökmark, Jens Rohde
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

The introduction of minimum 30 year licence duration should not impede the ability of regulators to issue temporary licences and licences for secondary uses in a harmonised band


Amendment 470[modifier]

Jolanta Emilia Hibner
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

In order to ensure a coherent implementation of paragraph 1 throughout the Union and in particular to enable the synchronised availability of wireless services within the Union, the Commission may, by way of implementing acts:

In order to ensure a coherent implementation of paragraph 1 throughout the Union and in particular to enable the synchronised availability of wireless services within the Union, the Commission shall, by way of implementing acts, the first of which shall be adopted within one year from the date of entry into force of this Regulation:


Amendment 471[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

In order to ensure a coherent implementation of paragraph 1 throughout the Union and in particular to enable the synchronised availability of wireless services within the Union, the Commission may, by way of implementing acts:

In order to ensure a coherent implementation of paragraph 1 throughout the Union and in particular to enable the synchronised availability of wireless services within the Union, the Commission may propose legislative measures for:


Amendment 472[modifier]

Giles Chichester
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

In order to ensure a coherent implementation of paragraph 1 throughout the Union and in particular to enable the synchronised availability of wireless services within the Union, the Commission may, by way of implementing acts:

In order to ensure a coherent implementation of paragraph 1 throughout the Union and in particular to enable the synchronised availability of wireless services within the Union, BEREC shall, by way of guidelines:


Amendment 473[modifier]

Seán Kelly
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) establish a common timetable for the Union as a whole, or timetables appropriate to the circumstances of different categories of Member States, the date or dates by which individual rights of use for a harmonised band, or a combination of complementary harmonised bands, shall be granted and actual use of the radio spectrum shall be allowed for exclusive or shared provision of wireless broadband communications throughout the Union;

(a) establish a common deadline for the Union as a whole, or deadlines appropriate to the circumstances of different categories of Member States, the date or dates by which individual rights of use for a harmonised band, or a combination of complementary harmonised bands, shall be granted and actual use of the radio spectrum shall be allowed for exclusive or shared provision of wireless broadband communications throughout the Union;

Justification:
Whereas certain member states have specific requirements which complicate the release of certain bands of spectrum, nevertheless it is important to establish deadlines for release of spectrum in order to provide greater bandwidth, with derogations agreed with member states on an exceptional basis in recognition of their particular situation.

Amendment 474[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) establish a common timetable for the Union as a whole, or timetables appropriate to the circumstances of different categories of Member States, the date or dates by which individual rights of use for a harmonised band, or a combination of complementary harmonised bands, shall be granted and actual use of the radio spectrum shall be allowed for exclusive or shared provision of wireless broadband communications throughout the Union;

(a) a common timetable for the Union as a whole, or timetables appropriate to the circumstances of different categories of Member States, the date or dates by which individual rights of use for a harmonised band, or a combination of complementary harmonised bands, shall be granted and actual use of the radio spectrum shall be allowed for exclusive or shared provision of wireless broadband communications throughout the Union;


Amendment 475[modifier]

Catherine Trautmann
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) determine a minimum duration for the rights granted in the harmonised bands;

(b) determine a minimum duration for the rights granted in the harmonised bands that is no less than 20 years, and in any case for a duration appropriate to incentivise investment and competition, and discourage the under-use or ‘hoarding’ of spectrum; or determine that the rights are to be granted for an indefinite duration.

Amendment 476[modifier]

Seán Kelly
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) determine a minimum duration for the rights granted in the harmonised bands;

(b) determine a minimum duration for the rights granted in the harmonised bands with the most effective timescale for incentivising continued investment and competition, and which would discourage the under-use of spectrum by licence holders.

Justification:
National regulatory authorities should be able to balance the need to incentivise investment through optimal licence durations with ensuring that the spectrum will be used as efficiently and fully as possible in their licensing conditions and preventing the tendency to ‘hoard’ spectrum.

Amendment 477[modifier]

Ioannis A. Tsoukalas
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) determine a minimum duration for the rights granted in the harmonised bands;

(b) determine a minimum duration for the rights granted in the harmonised bands which will be appropriate to incentivise and speed up investment, innovation and competition, and discourage the under-use or ‘hoarding’ of spectrum by licence holders.

Amendment 478[modifier]

Edit Herczog
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) determine a minimum duration for the rights granted in the harmonised bands;

(b) determine a duration for the rights granted in the harmonised bands which will be appropriate to incentivise investment and competition, and discourage the under-use or ‘hoarding’ of spectrum by licence holders.

Justification:
In the current state of continued increase in the demand for spectrum for wireless broadband communications, it is of the utmost importance that spectrum is used fully, by licence holders and by those using unlicensed spectrum, and if not, that this spectrum is traded urgently so that it can be used by others to respond to the growing need for wireless Internet access. National regulatory authorities need to balance in their licensing conditions the need to incentivise investment through optimal license durations, while ensuring that the spectrum will be used as efficiently and fully as possible. Giving indefinite durations for licences can encourage ‘hoarding’ of spectrum, whereby the licence holder sees no incentive to maximise the use of the spectrum they hold, nor do they see an interest in trading unused spectrum, because not doing so would keep new market entrants and competitors at bay.

Amendment 479[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) determine a minimum duration for the rights granted in the harmonised bands;

(b) a minimum duration for the rights granted in the harmonised bands;

Amendment 480[modifier]

Sabine Verheyen, Doris Pack
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point d

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(d) define the date of expiry of any existing rights of use of harmonised bands other than for wireless broadband communications, or, in the case of rights of indefinite duration, the date by which the right of use shall be amended, in order to allow the provision of wireless broadband communications.

deleted

Amendment 481[modifier]

Petra Kammerevert
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point d

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(d) define the date of expiry of any existing rights of use of harmonised bands other than for wireless broadband communications, or, in the case of rights of indefinite duration, the date by which the right of use shall be amended, in order to allow the provision of wireless broadband communications.

deleted

Amendment 482[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point d

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(d) define the date of expiry of any existing rights of use of harmonised bands other than for wireless broadband communications, or, in the case of rights of indefinite duration, the date by which the right of use shall be amended, in order to allow the provision of wireless broadband communications.

(d) the date of expiry of any existing rights of use of harmonised bands other than for wireless broadband communications, or, in the case of rights of indefinite duration, the date by which the right of use shall be amended, in order to allow the provision of wireless broadband communications.

Amendment 483[modifier]

Giles Chichester
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 33(2).

deleted

Amendment 484[modifier]

Catherine Trautmann
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 33(2).

Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 33(2) as well as without prejudice to the provisions set in article 9 (3) and (4) of Directive 2002/21/EC

Amendment 485[modifier]

Petra Kammerevert
Article 12 – paragraph 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(2a) Paragraph 2 shall not affect the provisions of Article 9(3) and (4) of Directive 2002/21/EC.

Amendment 486[modifier]

Giles Chichester
Article 12 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. The Commission may also adopt implementing acts harmonising the date of expiry or renewal of individual rights to use radio spectrum for wireless broadband in harmonised bands, which already exist at the date of adoption of such acts, with a view to synchronising throughout the Union the date for renewal or reassignment of rights of use for such bands, including possible synchronisation with the date of renewal or reassignment of other bands harmonised by implementing measures adopted in accordance with paragraph 2 or with this paragraph. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 33(2).

deleted

Where implementing acts provided for in this paragraph define a harmonised date for renewal or reassignment of rights of use of radio spectrum which falls after the date of expiry or renewal of any existing individual rights of use of such radio spectrum in any of the Member States, the national competent authorities shall extend the existing rights until the harmonised date under the same previously applicable substantive authorisation conditions, including any applicable periodic fees.

Where the extension period granted in accordance with the second subparagraph is significant in comparison with the original duration of the rights of use, national competent authorities may subject the extension of rights to any adaptations of the previously applicable authorisation conditions which are necessary in the light of the changed circumstances, including the imposition of additional fees. These additional fees shall be based on an application pro rata temporis of any initial fee for the original rights of use which was expressly calculated by reference to the originally foreseen duration.

The implementing acts provided for in this paragraph shall not require the shortening of the duration of existing rights of use in any Member State except in accordance with Article 14(2) of Directive 2002/20/EC and shall not apply to existing rights of indefinite duration.

Where the Commission adopts an implementing act pursuant to paragraph 2, it may apply the provisions of this paragraph mutatis mutandis to any rights of use of the harmonised band concerned for wireless broadband.

Amendment 487[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Article 12 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

The Commission may also adopt implementing acts harmonising the date of expiry or renewal of individual rights to use radio spectrum for wireless broadband in harmonised bands, which already exist at the date of adoption of such acts, with a view to synchronising throughout the Union the date for renewal or reassignment of rights of use for such bands, including possible synchronisation with the date of renewal or reassignment of other bands harmonised by implementing measures adopted in accordance with paragraph 2 or with this paragraph. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 33 (2).

The Commission may also propose legislative action to harmonise the date of expiry or renewal of individual rights to use radio spectrum for wireless broadband in harmonised bands, which already exist at the date of adoption of such acts, with a view to synchronising throughout the Union the date for renewal or reassignment of rights of use for such bands, including possible synchronisation with the date of renewal or reassignment of other bands harmonised by implementing measures adopted in accordance with paragraph 2 or with this paragraph.

Amendment 488[modifier]

Jolanta Emilia Hibner
Article 12 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

The Commission may also adopt implementing acts harmonising the date of expiry or renewal of individual rights to use radio spectrum for wireless broadband in harmonised bands, which already exist at the date of adoption of such acts, with a view to synchronising throughout the Union the date for renewal or reassignment of rights of use for such bands, including possible synchronisation with the date of renewal or reassignment of other bands harmonised by implementing measures adopted in accordance with paragraph 2 or with this paragraph. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 33(2).

Subject to the second subparagraph of Article 8a(3), the Commission shall also adopt implementing acts where possible within one year from the date of entry into force of this Regulation, harmonising the date of expiry or renewal of individual rights to use radio spectrum for wireless broadband in harmonised bands, which already exist at the date of adoption of such acts, with a view to synchronising throughout the Union the date for renewal or reassignment of rights of use for such bands, including possible synchronisation with the date of renewal or reassignment of other bands harmonised by implementing measures adopted in accordance with paragraph 2 or with this paragraph. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 33(2).

Amendment 489[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Article 12 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Where implementing acts provided for in this paragraph define a harmonised date for renewal or reassignment of rights of use of radio spectrum which falls after the date of expiry or renewal of any existing individual rights of use of such radio spectrum in any of the Member States, the national competent authorities shall extend the existing rights until the harmonised date under the same previously applicable substantive authorisation conditions, including any applicable periodic fees.

deleted

Amendment 490[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Article 12 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Where the extension period granted in accordance with the second subparagraph is significant in comparison with the original duration of the rights of use, national competent authorities may subject the extension of rights to any adaptations of the previously applicable authorisation conditions which are necessary in the light of the changed circumstances, including the imposition of additional fees. These additional fees shall be based on an application pro rata temporis of any initial fee for the original rights of use which was expressly calculated by reference to the originally foreseen duration.

deleted

Amendment 491[modifier]

Jolanta Emilia Hibner
Article 12 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Where the extension period granted in accordance with the second subparagraph is significant in comparison with the original duration of the rights of use, national competent authorities may subject the extension of rights to any adaptations of the previously applicable authorisation conditions which are necessary in the light of the changed circumstances, including the imposition of additional fees. These additional fees shall be based on an application pro rata temporis of any initial fee for the original rights of use which was expressly calculated by reference to the originally foreseen duration.

Where the extension period granted in accordance with the second subparagraph is significant in comparison with the original duration of the rights of use, national competent authorities may subject the extension of rights to any adaptations of the previously applicable authorisation conditions which are necessary in the light of the changed circumstances. Where such adaptations include the imposition of additional fees, such fees shall not exceed an application pro rata temporis of any initial fee for the original rights of use which was expressly calculated by reference to the originally foreseen duration.

Amendment 492[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Article 12 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

The implementing acts provided for in this paragraph shall not require the shortening of the duration of existing rights of use in any Member State except in accordance with Article 14(2) of Directive 2002/20/EC and shall not apply to existing rights of indefinite duration.

deleted

Amendment 493[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Article 12 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Where the Commission adopts an implementing act pursuant to paragraph 2, it may apply the provisions of this paragraph mutatis mutandis to any rights of use of the harmonised band concerned for wireless broadband.

deleted

Amendment 494[modifier]

Giles Chichester
Article 12 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. When adopting the implementing acts provided for in paragraphs 2 and 3, the Commission shall have regard to:

deleted

(a) the regulatory principles set out in Article 9 ;

(b) objective variations across the Union in the needs for additional radio spectrum for wireless broadband provision, while taking into account common radio spectrum needs for integrated networks covering several Member States;

(c) the predictability of operating conditions for existing radio spectrum users;

(d) the take-up, development and investment cycles of successive generations of wireless broadband technologies;

(e) end-user demand for high-capacity wireless broadband communications.

In determining timetables for different categories of Member States which have not already granted individual rights of use and allowed actual use of the harmonised band in question, the Commission shall have due regard to any submissions made by Member States regarding the way radio spectrum rights have been historically granted, the grounds of restriction provided for in in Article 9(3) and (4) of Directive 2002/21/EC, the possible need to vacate the band in question, the effects on competition or geographical or technical constraints, taking into account the effect on the internal market. The Commission shall ensure that implementation is not unduly deferred and that any variation in timetables between Member States does not result in undue differences in the competitive or regulatory situations between Member States.

Amendment 495[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Article 12 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

When adopting the implementing acts provided for in paragraphs 2 and 3, the Commission shall have regard to:

When adopting the measures provided for in paragraph 2, the Commission shall have regard to:

Amendment 496[modifier]

Giles Chichester
Article 12 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5. Paragraph 2 shall be without prejudice to the right of the Member States to grant rights of use for and to allow actual use of a harmonised band before the adoption of an implementing act in respect of that band, subject to compliance with the second subparagraph of this paragraph, or in advance of the harmonised date established by an implementing act for that band.

deleted

Where national competent authorities grant rights of use in a harmonised band before the adoption of an implementing act in respect of that band, they shall define the conditions of such grant, and in particular those relative to duration, in such a way that beneficiaries of the rights of use are made aware of the possibility that the Commission would adopt implementing acts in accordance with paragraph 2 establishing a minimum duration of such rights or a synchronised expiry or renewal cycle for the Union as a whole. This subparagraph shall not apply to the grant of rights of indefinite duration.

Amendment 497[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Article 12 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Paragraph 2 shall be without prejudice to the right of the Member States to grant rights of use for and to allow actual use of a harmonised band before the adoption of an implementing act in respect of that band, subject to compliance with the second subparagraph of this paragraph, or in advance of the harmonised date established by an implementing act for that band.

deleted

Amendment 498[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Article 12 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Where national competent authorities grant rights of use in a harmonised band before the adoption of an implementing act in respect of that band, they shall define the conditions of such grant, and in particular those relative to duration, in such a way that beneficiaries of the rights of use are made aware of the possibility that the Commission would adopt implementing acts in accordance with paragraph 2 establishing a minimum duration of such rights or a synchronised expiry or renewal cycle for the Union as a whole. This subparagraph shall not apply to the grant of rights of indefinite duration.

deleted

Amendment 499[modifier]

Giles Chichester
Article 12 – paragraph 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6. For the harmonised bands for which a common timetable for granting rights of use and allowing actual use has been established in an implementing act adopted in accordance with paragraph 2, national competent authorities shall provide timely and sufficiently detailed information to the Commission on their plans to ensure compliance. The Commission may adopt implementing acts defining the format and procedures for the provision of such information. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 33(2).

deleted

Where the Commission considers, upon reviewing such detailed plans provided by a Member State, that it is unlikely that the Member State in question will be able to comply with the timetable applicable to it, the Commission may adopt a decision by means of implementing act requiring that Member State to adapt its plans in an appropriate way to ensure such compliance.

Amendment 500[modifier]

Jolanta Emilia Hibner
Article 12 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

For the harmonised bands for which a common timetable for granting rights of use and allowing actual use has been established in an implementing act adopted in accordance with paragraph 2, national competent authorities shall provide timely and sufficiently detailed information to the Commission on their plans to ensure compliance. The Commission may adopt implementing acts defining the format and procedures for the provision of such information. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 33(2).

For the harmonised bands for which a common timetable for granting rights of use and allowing actual use has been established in an implementing act adopted in accordance with paragraph 2, national competent authorities shall provide timely and sufficiently detailed information to the Commission on their plans to ensure compliance. The Commission shall adopt an implementing act defining the format and procedures for the provision of such information if possible within one year from the date of entry into force of this Regulation. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 33(2).

Amendment 501[modifier]

Werner Langen
Article 12 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

For the harmonised bands for which a common timetable for granting rights of use and allowing actual use has been established in an implementing act adopted in accordance with paragraph 2, national competent authorities shall provide timely and sufficiently detailed information to the Commission on their plans to ensure compliance. The Commission may adopt implementing acts defining the format and procedures for the provision of such information. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 33 (2).

For the harmonised bands for which a common timetable for granting rights of use and allowing actual use has been established in an implementing act adopted in accordance with paragraph 2, national competent authorities shall provide timely and sufficiently detailed information to the Commission on their plans to ensure compliance. The Commission should adopt implementing acts defining the format and procedures for the provision of such information within one year from the date of entry into force of this Regulation. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 33 (2).

Amendment 502[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Article 12 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

For the harmonised bands for which a common timetable for granting rights of use and allowing actual use has been established in an implementing act adopted in accordance with paragraph 2, national competent authorities shall provide timely and sufficiently detailed information to the Commission on their plans to ensure compliance. The Commission may adopt implementing acts defining the format and procedures for the provision of such information. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 33 (2).

For the harmonised bands for which a common timetable for granting rights of use and allowing actual use has been established in an implementing act adopted in accordance with paragraph 2, national competent authorities shall provide timely and sufficiently detailed information to the Commission on their plans to ensure compliance. The Commission may adopt delegated acts defining the format and procedures for the provision of such information. Those delegated acts shall be adopted in accordance with Article 32.

Amendment 503[modifier]

Werner Langen
Article 12 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

In examining Member States’ detailed plans, the Commission should take into account the limited number of experts and advisers available for national regulatory authorities and providers to call on for the rights allocation procedures.

Amendment 504[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Article 12 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Where the Commission considers, upon reviewing such detailed plans provided by a Member State, that it is unlikely that the Member State in question will be able to comply with the timetable applicable to it, the Commission may adopt a decision by means of implementing act requiring that Member State to adapt its plans in an appropriate way to ensure such compliance.

deleted

Amendment 505[modifier]

Gunnar Hökmark, Jens Rohde
Article 12 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Article 12a

Joint authorisation process to grant individual rights of use of radio spectrum

1. Two or several Member States may cooperate with each other, and with the Commission, in meeting their obligations under Article 6 and 7 of the Authorisation Directive with a view to establish a joint authorisation process to grant individual rights of use of radio spectrum, in line, where applicable, with any common timetable established in accordance with Article 12(2). The joint authorisation process shall meet the following criteria:

(a) the individual national authorisation processes shall be initiated and implemented by the national competent authorities according to a common schedule;

(b) it shall provide where appropriate for common conditions and procedures for the selection and granting of individual rights among the Member States concerned;

(c) it shall provide where appropriate for common or comparable conditions to be attached to the individual rights of use among the Member States concerned inter alia allowing operators to be granted consistent spectrum portfolios with regard to the spectrum blocks to be assigned.

Amendment 506[modifier]

Gunnar Hökmark, Jens Rohde
Article 12 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Article 12b

(a) the individual national authorisation processes shall be initiated and implemented by the national competent authorities according to a common schedule;

Amendment 507[modifier]

Gunnar Hökmark, Jens Rohde
Article 12 c (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Article 12c

(b) it shall provide where appropriate for common conditions and procedures for the selection and granting of individual rights among the Member States concerned;

Amendment 508[modifier]

Gunnar Hökmark, Jens Rohde
Article 12 d (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Article 12d

(c) it shall provide where appropriate for common or comparable conditions to be attached to the individual rights of use among the Member States concerned inter alia allowing operators to be granted consistent spectrum portfolios with regard to the spectrum blocks to be assigned.

Amendment 509[modifier]

Werner Langen
Article 13

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

[...]

deleted

Amendment 510[modifier]

Petra Kammerevert
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Where a national competent authority intends to subject the use of radio spectrum to a general authorisation or to grant individual rights of use of radio spectrum, or to amend rights and obligations in relation to the use of radio spectrum in accordance with Article 14 of Directive 2002/20/EC, it shall make accessible its draft measure, together with the reasoning thereof, simultaneously to the Commission and the competent authorities for radio spectrum of the other Member States, upon completion of the public consultation referred to in Article 6 of Directive 2002/21/EC, if applicable, and in any event only at a stage in its preparation which allows it to provide to the Commission and the competent authorities of the other Member States sufficient and stable information on all relevant matters.

Where a national competent authority intends to subject the use of radio spectrum to a general authorisation or to grant individual rights of use of radio spectrum, or to amend rights and obligations in relation to the use of radio spectrum for wireless broadband services in accordance with Article 14 of Directive 2002/20/EC, it shall make accessible its draft measure, together with the reasoning thereof, simultaneously to the Commission and the competent authorities for radio spectrum of the other Member States, upon completion of the public consultation referred to in Article 6 of Directive 2002/21/EC, if applicable, and in any event only at a stage in its preparation which allows it to provide to the Commission and the competent authorities of the other Member States sufficient and stable information on all relevant matters.

Amendment 511[modifier]

Catherine Trautmann
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(c) the duration of the rights of use;

(c) the duration of the rights of use, which is no less than 20 years, and in any case which is appropriate to incentivise investment and competition, and discourage the under-use or ‘hoarding’ of spectrum.

Amendment 512[modifier]

Françoise Castex
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – point i

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(i) the reservation of radio spectrum for certain types of operators, or the exclusion of certain types of operators;

(i) the reservation of radio spectrum for certain types of operators, including operators in the not-for-profit sector, or the exclusion of certain types of operators;

Amendment 513[modifier]

Françoise Castex
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – point k

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(k) the possibility to use radio spectrum on a shared basis;

(k) the possibility to use radio spectrum on a shared basis, including on an unlicensed basis;

Amendment 514[modifier]

Gunnar Hökmark, Jens Rohde
Article 13 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1a. Where Member States intend to establish a joint authorisation process according to Article 12a, the national competent authorities concerned shall simultaneously make their draft measures accessible to the Commission and the competent authorities.

Amendment 515[modifier]

Giles Chichester
Article 13 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. National competent authorities and the Commission may make comments to the competent authority concerned within a period of two months. The two-month period shall not be extended.

deleted

When assessing the draft measure in accordance with this Article, the Commission shall have regard in particular to:

(a) the provisions of Directives 2002/20/EC and 2002/21/EC and Decision No. 243/2012/EC;

(b) the regulatory principles set out in Article 9;

(c) the relevant criteria for certain specific conditions set out in Article 10 and the additional provisions set out in Article 11;

(d) any implementing act adopted in accordance with Article 12;

(e) coherence with recent, pending or planned procedures in other Member States, and possible effects on trade between Member States.

If, within this period, the Commission notifies the competent authority that the draft measure would create a barrier to the internal market or that it has serious doubts as to its compatibility with Union law, the draft measure shall not be adopted for an additional period of two months. The Commission shall also inform the competent authorities of the other Member States of the position it has taken on the draft measure in such a case.

Amendment 516[modifier]

Giles Chichester
Article 13 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. Within the additional two-month period referred to in paragraph 2, the Commission and the competent authority concerned shall cooperate closely to identify the most appropriate and effective measure in the light of the criteria referred to in paragraph 2, whilst taking due account of the views of market participants and the need to ensure the development of consistent regulatory practice.

deleted

Amendment 517[modifier]

Giles Chichester
Article 13 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. At any stage during the procedure, the competent authority may amend or withdraw its draft measure taking utmost account of the Commission's notification referred to in paragraph 2.

deleted

Amendment 518[modifier]

Giles Chichester
Article 13 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5. Within the additional two-month period referred in paragraph 2, the Commission may:

deleted

a) present a draft decision to the Communications Committee requiring the competent authority concerned to withdraw the draft measure. The draft decision shall be accompanied by a detailed and objective analysis of why the Commission considers that the draft measure should not be adopted as notified, together where necessary with specific proposals for amending the draft measure; or

b) take a decision changing its position in relation to the draft measure concerned.

Amendment 519[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Article 13 – paragraph 5 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) present a draft decision to the Communications Committee requiring the competent authority concerned to withdraw the draft measure. The draft decision shall be accompanied by a detailed and objective analysis of why the Commission considers that the draft measure should not be adopted as notified, together where necessary with specific proposals for amending the draft measure; or

deleted

Amendment 520[modifier]

Giles Chichester
Article 13 – paragraph 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6. Where the Commission has not presented a draft decision referred to in paragraph 5(a) or takes a decision referred to in paragraph 5(b), the competent authority concerned may adopt the draft measure.

deleted

Where the Commission has presented a draft decision referred to in accordance with paragraph 5(a), the draft measure shall not be adopted by the competent authority for a period not exceeding six months from the notification sent to the competent authority pursuant to paragraph 2.

The Commission may decide to change its position in relation to the draft measure concerned at any stage of the procedure, including after the submission of a draft decision to the Communications Committee.

Amendment 521[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Article 13 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Where the Commission has not presented a draft decision referred to in paragraph 5(a) or takes a decision referred to in paragraph 5(b), the competent authority concerned may adopt the draft measure.

Where the Commission has not presented a draft decision referred to in paragraph 5, the competent authority concerned may adopt the draft measure.

Amendment 522[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Article 13 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Where the Commission has presented a draft decision referred to in accordance with paragraph 5(a), the draft measure shall not be adopted by the competent authority for a period not exceeding six months from the notification sent to the competent authority pursuant to paragraph 2.

Where the Commission has presented a draft decision referred to in accordance with paragraph 5, the draft measure shall not be adopted by the competent authority for a period not exceeding two months from the notification sent to the competent authority pursuant to paragraph 2.

Amendment 523[modifier]

Giles Chichester
Article 13 – paragraph 7

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

7. The Commission shall adopt any decision requiring the competent authority to withdraw its draft measure by means of implementing acts. Those implementing act shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 33(2).

deleted

Amendment 524[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Article 13 – paragraph 7

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(7) The Commission shall adopt any decision requiring the competent authority to withdraw its draft measure by means of implementing acts. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 33 (2).

deleted

Amendment 525[modifier]

Giles Chichester
Article 13 – paragraph 8

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

8. Where the Commission has adopted a decision in accordance with paragraph 7, the competent authority shall amend or withdraw the draft measure within six months of the date of notification of the Commission's decision. When the draft measure is amended, the competent authority shall undertake a public consultation where appropriate, and shall make the amended draft measure accessible to the Commission in accordance with paragraph 1.

deleted

Amendment 526[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Article 13 – paragraph 8

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(8) Where the Commission has adopted a decision in accordance with paragraph 7, the competent authority shall amend or withdraw the draft measure within six months of the date of notification of the Commission's decision. When the draft measure is amended, the competent authority shall undertake a public consultation where appropriate, and shall make the amended draft measure accessible to the Commission in accordance with paragraph 1.

deleted

Amendment 527[modifier]

Giles Chichester
Article 13 – paragraph 9

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

9. The competent authority concerned shall take the utmost account of any comments of competent authorities of the other Member States and the Commission and may, except in cases covered by the third sub-paragraph of paragraph 2, by the second sub-paragraph of paragraph 6 and by paragraph 7, adopt the resulting draft measure and where it does so, shall communicate it to the Commission.

deleted

Amendment 528[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Article 13 – paragraph 9

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(9) The competent authority concerned shall take the utmost account of any comments of competent authorities of the other Member States and the Commission and may, except in cases covered by the third sub-paragraph of paragraph 2, by the second sub-paragraph of paragraph 6 and by paragraph 7, adopt the resulting draft measure and where it does so, shall communicate it to the Commission.

(9) The competent authority concerned shall take the utmost account of any comments of competent authorities of the other Member States and the Commission and may, except in cases covered by the third sub-paragraph of paragraph 2 and by the second sub-paragraph of paragraph 6, adopt the resulting draft measure and where it does so, shall communicate it to the Commission.

Amendment 529[modifier]

Giles Chichester
Article 13 – paragraph 10

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

10. The competent authority shall inform the Commission of the results of the procedure to which its measure relates once that procedure has been concluded.

deleted

Amendment 530[modifier]

Jean-Pierre Audy
Article 13 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Article 13a

Coverage obligation

The European Union and the Member States shall adopt measures guaranteeing access for European citizens and entities, public or private, to the single market for electronic communications, as regards both quality of service and market prices, wherever they are within the European Union;

Amendment 531[modifier]

Jean-Pierre Audy
Article 14 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. National competent authorities shall allow the provision of access through radio local area networks to the network of a provider of electronic communications to the public as well as the use of the harmonised radio spectrum for such provision, subject only to general authorisation.

1. National competent authorities shall allow the provision of access through radio local area networks to the network of a provider of electronic communications to the public as well as the use of the harmonised radio spectrum for such provision, subject to general authorisation, and compliance with rules applied to license exempt spectrum especially regarding interferences and competition rules.

Amendment 532[modifier]

Françoise Castex
Article 14 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. National competent authorities shall not restrict the right of end users to allow reciprocally or more generally access to their radio local area networks by other end users, including on the basis of third-party initiatives which federate and make publicly accessible the radio local area networks of different end users.

4. National competent authorities shall not restrict the right of end users to allow reciprocally or more generally access to their radio local area networks by other end users, including on the basis of third-party initiatives which federate and make publicly accessible the radio local area networks of different end users. They shall also apply the legal framework so as to foster the spread of cellular base stations and wireless mesh networks.

Amendment 533[modifier]

Giles Chichester
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

National competent authorities shall allow the deployment, connection and operation of unobtrusive small-area wireless access points under the general authorisation regime and shall not unduly restrict that deployment, connection or operation through individual town planning permits or in any other way, whenever such use is in compliance with implementing measures adopted pursuant to paragraph 2.

National competent authorities shall allow the deployment, connection and operation of unobtrusive small-area wireless access points and shall not unduly restrict that deployment, connection or operation through individual town planning permits or in any other way, whenever such use is in compliance with implementing measures adopted pursuant to paragraph 2.

Justification:
In order to safeguard existing rights of use, network integrity and network performance, small cells deployed in licensed spectrum should be operated under the exclusive license.

Amendment 534[modifier]

Giles Chichester
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

This paragraph is without prejudice to the authorisation regime for the radio spectrum employed to operate small-area wireless access points.

(a) the existing rights of use for licensed spectrum, for which the existing leasing and sharing regimes referred to in Art. 10(6) shall apply.

(b) the authorisation regime for the radio spectrum employed to operate small-area wireless access points.

Amendment 535[modifier]

Giles Chichester
Article 15 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

For the purposes of the uniform implementation of the general authorisation regime for the deployment, connection and operation of small-area wireless access points pursuant to paragraph 1, the Commission may, by means of an implementing act, specify technical characteristics for the design, deployment and operation of small-area wireless access points, compliance with which shall ensure their unobtrusive character when in use in different local contexts. The Commission shall specify those technical characteristics by reference to the maximum size, power and electromagnetic characteristics, as well as the visual impact, of the deployed small-area wireless access points. Those technical characteristics for use of small-area wireless access points shall at a minimum comply with the requirements of Directive 2013/35/EU[30] and with the thresholds defined in Council Recommendation No 1999/519/EC.[31]

For the purposes of the uniform implementation of the deployment, connection and operation of small-area wireless access points pursuant to paragraph 1, the Commission may, by means of an implementing act, specify technical characteristics for the design, deployment and operation of small-area wireless access points, compliance with which shall ensure their unobtrusive character when in use in different local contexts. The operation of small-area wireless access points in spectrum with dedicated granted usage rights shall be managed by the respective authorised person or undertaking. The Commission shall specify those technical characteristics by reference to the maximum size, power and electromagnetic characteristics, as well as the visual impact, of the deployed small-area wireless access points. Those technical characteristics for use of small area wireless access points shall at a minimum comply with the requirements of Directive 2013/35/EU and Directive 1999/5/EC taking into account the thresholds defined in Council Recommendation No 1999/519/EC.[31]

__________________

__________________

[30] Directive 2013/35/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (electromagnetic fields) (20th individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) and repealing Directive 2004/40/EC (OJ L 179, 29.6.2013, p. 1).

[30] Directive 2013/35/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (electromagnetic fields) (20th individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) and repealing Directive 2004/40/EC (OJ L 179, 29.6.2013, p. 1).

[31] Recommendation 1999/519/EC of the Council of 12 July 1999 on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300 GHz) (OJ L 1999, 30.7.1999, p. 59).

[31] Recommendation 1999/519/EC of the Council of 12 July 1999 on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300 GHz) (OJ L 1999, 30.7.1999, p. 59).

Amendment 536[modifier]

Werner Langen
Article 15 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

For the purposes of the uniform implementation of the general authorisation regime for the deployment, connection and operation of small-area wireless access points pursuant to paragraph 1, the Commission may, by means of an implementing act, specify technical characteristics for the design, deployment and operation of small-area wireless access points, compliance with which shall ensure their unobtrusive character when in use in different local contexts. The Commission shall specify those technical characteristics by reference to the maximum size, power and electromagnetic characteristics, as well as the visual impact, of the deployed small-area wireless access points. Those technical characteristics for use of small-area wireless access points shall at a minimum comply with the requirements of Directive 2013/35/EU[30] and with the thresholds defined in Council Recommendation No 1999/519/EC[31].

For the purposes of the uniform implementation of the general authorisation regime for the deployment, connection and operation of small-area wireless access points pursuant to paragraph 1, the Commission should, within one year from the date of entry into force of this Regulation, by means of an implementing act, specify technical characteristics for the design, deployment and operation of small-area wireless access points, compliance with which shall ensure their unobtrusive character when in use in different local contexts. At the same time, small-area wireless access points already covered by existing user rights may continue to be used in accordance with those rights. The Commission shall specify the technical characteristics by reference to the maximum size, power and electromagnetic characteristics, as well as the visual impact, of the deployed small-area wireless access points. Those technical characteristics for use of small-area wireless access points shall at a minimum comply with the requirements of Directive 2013/35/EU30 and with the thresholds defined in Council Recommendation No 1999/519/EC31.

__________________

__________________

[30] Directive 2013/35/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (electromagnetic fields) (20th individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) and repealing Directive 2004/40/EC (OJ L 179, 29.6.2013, p. 1).

Directive 2013/35/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (electromagnetic fields) (20th individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) and repealing Directive 2004/40/EC (OJ L 179, 29.6.2013, p. 1).

[31 ]Recommendation 1999/519/EC of the Council of 12 July 1999 on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300 GHz) (OJ L 1999, 30.7.1999, p. 59).

Recommendation 1999/519/EC of the Council of 12 July 1999 on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300 GHz) (OJ L 1999, 30.7.1999, p. 59).

Amendment 537[modifier]

Jolanta Emilia Hibner
Article 15 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

For the purposes of the uniform implementation of the general authorisation regime for the deployment, connection and operation of small-area wireless access points pursuant to paragraph 1, the Commission may, by means of an implementing act, specify technical characteristics for the design, deployment and operation of small-area wireless access points, compliance with which shall ensure their unobtrusive character when in use in different local contexts. The Commission shall specify those technical characteristics by reference to the maximum size, power and electromagnetic characteristics, as well as the visual impact, of the deployed small-area wireless access points. Those technical characteristics for use of small-area wireless access points shall at a minimum comply with the requirements of Directive 2013/35/EU[30] and with the thresholds defined in Council Recommendation No 1999/519/EC.[31]

For the purposes of the uniform implementation of the general authorisation regime for the deployment, connection and operation of small-area wireless access points pursuant to paragraph 1, the Commission shall, by means of an implementing act to be adopted if possible within one year from the date of entry into force of this Regulation, specify technical characteristics for the design, deployment and operation of small-area wireless access points, compliance with which shall ensure their unobtrusive character when in use in different local contexts. The Commission shall specify those technical characteristics by reference to the maximum size, power and electromagnetic characteristics, as well as the visual impact, of the deployed small-area wireless access points. Those technical characteristics for use of small-area wireless access points shall at a minimum comply with the requirements of Directive 2013/35/EU30 and with the thresholds defined in Council Recommendation No 1999/519/EC.31

__________________

__________________

[31] Recommendation 1999/519/EC of the Council of 12 July 1999 on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300 GHz) (OJ L 1999, 30.7.1999, p. 59).

[31] Recommendation 1999/519/EC of the Council of 12 July 1999 on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300 GHz) (OJ L 1999, 30.7.1999, p. 59).

Amendment 538[modifier]

Jean-Pierre Audy
Article 15 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

For the purposes of the uniform implementation of the general authorisation regime for the deployment, connection and operation of small-area wireless access points pursuant to paragraph 1, the Commission may, by means of an implementing act, specify technical characteristics for the design, deployment and operation of small-area wireless access points, compliance with which shall ensure their unobtrusive character when in use in different local contexts. The Commission shall specify those technical characteristics by reference to the maximum size, power and electromagnetic characteristics, as well as the visual impact, of the deployed small-area wireless access points. Those technical characteristics for use of small-area wireless access points shall at a minimum comply with the requirements of Directive 2013/35/EU[30] and with the thresholds defined in Council Recommendation No 1999/519/EC.[31]

For the purposes of the uniform implementation of the general authorisation regime for the deployment, connection and operation of small-area wireless access points pursuant to paragraph 1, the Commission may, by means of an implementing act, specify technical characteristics for the design, deployment and operation of small-area wireless access points, compliance with which shall ensure their unobtrusive character when in use in different local contexts. The Commission shall specify those technical characteristics by reference to the maximum size, power and electromagnetic characteristics, as well as the visual impact, of the deployed small-area wireless access points. Those technical characteristics for use of small-area wireless access points shall at a minimum comply with the requirements of Directive 2013/35/EU[30] and Directive 1999/5/EC, taking into account the thresholds defined in Council Recommendation No 1999/519/EC.[31]

__________________

__________________

[30] Directive 2013/35/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (electromagnetic fields) (20th individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) and repealing Directive 2004/40/EC (OJ L 179, 29.6.2013, p. 1).

[30] Directive 2013/35/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (electromagnetic fields) (20th individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) and repealing Directive 2004/40/EC (OJ L 179, 29.6.2013, p. 1).

[31] Recommendation 1999/519/EC of the Council of 12 July 1999 on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300 GHz) (OJ L 1999, 30.7.1999, p. 59).

[31] Recommendation 1999/519/EC of the Council of 12 July 1999 on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300 GHz) (OJ L 1999, 30.7.1999, p. 59).

Amendment 539[modifier]

Giles Chichester
Article 15 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

The characteristics specified in order for the deployment, connection and operation of small-area wireless access point to benefit from paragraph 1 shall be without prejudice to the essential requirements of Directive 1999/5/EC of the European Parliament and the Council relative to the placing on the market of such products.[32]

The technical characteristics specified in order for the deployment, connection and operation of small-area wireless access point to benefit from paragraph 1 shall be without prejudice to the essential requirements of Directive 1999/5/EC of the European Parliament and the Council relative to the placing on the market of such products.[32]

__________________

__________________

[32] Directive 1999/5/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity (OJ L 91, 7.4.1999, p. 10).

[32] Directive 1999/5/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity (OJ L 91, 7.4.1999, p. 10).

Amendment 540[modifier]

Lambert van Nistelrooij
Article 16 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Without prejudice to their obligations under relevant international agreements including ITU Radio Regulations, the national competent authorities shall ensure that the use of radio spectrum is organised on their territory, and shall in particular take all necessary radio spectrum allocation or assignment measures, in order that no other Member State is impeded from allowing on its territory the use of a specific harmonised band in accordance with Union legislation.

1. Without prejudice to their obligations under relevant international agreements including ITU Radio Regulations, the national competent authorities shall ensure, with a view in particular to securing the implementation of Article 12, that the use of radio spectrum is organised on their territory, and shall in particular take all necessary radio spectrum allocation or assignment measures, in order that no other Member State is impeded from allowing on its territory the use of a specific harmonised band for wireless broadband communications in accordance with Union legislation.

Amendment 541[modifier]

Christian Ehler
Article 16 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Member States shall cooperate with each other in the cross-border coordination of the use of radio spectrum in order to ensure compliance with paragraph 1 and to ensure that no Member State is denied equitable access to radio spectrum.

2. In order to guarantee the smooth functioning of the single market and the implementation of the provisions laid down in this Regulation Member States shall cooperate with each other in the cross-border coordination of the use of radio spectrum in order to ensure compliance with paragraph 1 and to ensure that no Member State is denied equitable access to radio spectrum.

Amendment 542[modifier]

Lambert van Nistelrooij
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Any concerned Member State may invite the Radio Spectrum Policy Group to use its good offices to assist it and any other Member State in complying with this Article.

Any concerned Member State may invite the Radio Spectrum Policy Group to use its good offices to assist it and any other Member State in complying with paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article.

Amendment 543[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

The Commission may adopt implementing measures to ensure that coordinated outcomes respect the requirement of equitable access to radio spectrum among the relevant Member States, to resolve any practical inconsistencies between distinct coordinated outcomes between different Member States, or to ensure the enforcement of coordinated solutions under Union law. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 33(2).

deleted

Amendment 544[modifier]

Jean-Pierre Audy
Chapter 3 – section 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

[...]

deleted

Amendment 545[modifier]

Catherine Trautmann
Article 17 – title

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

European virtual broadband access product

High-quality access products for the provision of pan-European business communications services

Amendment 546[modifier]

Catherine Trautmann
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. The provision of a virtual broadband access product imposed in accordance with Article 8 and 12 of Directive 2002/19/EC shall be considered as the provision of a European virtual broadband access product if it is supplied in accordance with the minimum parameters listed in one of the Offers set out in Annex I and cumulatively meets the following substantive requirements:

1. Providers of electronic communications services designated in accordance with article 16 of Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework directive) as having significant market power in a relevant market relating to the provision of wholesale high-quality electronic communications services shall ensure the publication of a wholesale reference offer containing at least the elements listed in Annex I.

Amendment 547[modifier]

Gunnar Hökmark
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. The provision of a virtual broadband access product imposed in accordance with Article 8 and 12 of Directive 2002/19/EC shall be considered as the provision of a European virtual broadband access product if it is supplied in accordance with the minimum parameters listed in one of the Offers set out in Annex I and cumulatively meets the following substantive requirements:

1. Where undertakings are found to have SMP in a defined relevant market and where access obligations are imposed in accordance with Article 8 and 12 of Directive 2002/19/EC they shall offer wholesale access products meeting at least the specifications set out in Annex 1, without prejudice to the imposition of physical access obligations and cumulatively meets the following substantive requirements:

Amendment 548[modifier]

Catherine Trautmann
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) ability to be offered as a high quality product anywhere in the Union;

deleted

Amendment 549[modifier]

Catherine Trautmann
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) maximum degree of network and service interoperability and non-discriminatory network management between operators consistently with network topology;

deleted

Amendment 550[modifier]

Catherine Trautmann
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(c) capacity to serve end-users on competitive terms;

deleted

Amendment 551[modifier]

Catherine Trautmann
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point d

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(d) cost-effectiveness, taking into account the capacity to be implemented on existing and newly built networks and to co-exist with other access products that may be provided on the same network infrastructure;

deleted

Amendment 552[modifier]

Catherine Trautmann
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point e

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(e) operational effectiveness, in particular in respect of limiting to the extent possible implementation obstacles and deployment costs for virtual broadband access providers and virtual broadband access seekers;

deleted

Amendment 553[modifier]

Catherine Trautmann
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point f

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(f) respect of the rules on protection of privacy, personal data, security and integrity of networks and transparency in conformity with Union law.

deleted

Amendment 554[modifier]

Gunnar Hökmark
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1a. Except where objectively justified in light of prevailing competitive conditions in the relevant wholesale market relating to business access, charges for modern interface leased lines as identified in Annex 1 part 3 shall be cost oriented.

Amendment 555[modifier]

Catherine Trautmann
Article 17 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 32 in order to adapt Annex I in light of market and technological developments, so as to continue to meet the substantive requirements listed in paragraph 1.

2. The Commission shall, following consultation with BEREC, be empowered to adopt implementing acts in order to adapt Annex I in light of market and technological developments.

Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 33.

Amendment 556[modifier]

Catherine Trautmann
Article 18

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

[...]

deleted

Amendment 557[modifier]

Gunnar Hökmark
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

A national regulatory authority which has previously imposed on an operator in accordance with Articles 8 and 12 of Directive 2002/19/EC any obligation to provide wholesale access to a next-generation network shall assess whether it would be appropriate and proportionate to impose instead an obligation to supply a European virtual broadband access product which provides at least equivalent functionalities to the currently imposed wholesale access product.

A national regulatory authority which has previously imposed on an operator in accordance with Articles 8 and 12 of Directive 2002/19/EC any obligation to provide wholesale access to a next-generation network shall assess whether it would be appropriate and proportionate to impose or in addition to an obligation to supply a European virtual broadband access product which provides at least equivalent functionalities to the currently imposed wholesale access product.

Amendment 558[modifier]

Gunnar Hökmark
Article 18 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

When assessing pursuant to paragraphs 1, 2 or 3 whether to impose a European virtual broadband access product instead of any other possible wholesale access product, the national regulatory authority shall have regard to the interest in convergent regulatory conditions throughout the Union for wholesale access remedies, the current and prospective state of infrastructure-based competition and the evolution of market conditions towards provision of competing next-generation networks, to investments made respectively by the operator designated as having significant market power and by access-seekers, and to the amortisation period for such investments.

When assessing pursuant to paragraphs 1, 2 or 3 whether to impose a European virtual broadband access product instead of any other possible wholesale access product, the national regulatory authority shall have regard to the interest in convergent regulatory conditions throughout the Union for wholesale access remedies, the current and prospective state of infrastructure-based competition and the evolution of market conditions towards provision of competing next-generation networks, to investments made respectively by the operator designated as having significant market power and by access-seekers, and to the amortisation period for such investments. However, European virtual broadband access products shall not be given priority when physical unbundled access is available.

Amendment 559[modifier]

Catherine Trautmann
Article 19

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

[...]

deleted

Amendment 560[modifier]

Ivo Belet
Article 19

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

[...]

deleted

Amendment 561[modifier]

Amelia Andersdotter
Article 19

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

[...]

deleted

Amendment 562[modifier]

Marietje Schaake
Article 19

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

[...]

deleted

Amendment 563[modifier]

Petra Kammerevert
Article 19

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

[...]

deleted

Amendment 564[modifier]

Catherine Trautmann
Article 20 – title

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Measures relating to European access products

Measures relating to high-quality access products for the provision of pan-European business communications services

Amendment 565[modifier]

Catherine Trautmann
Article 20 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. The Commission shall adopt by 1 January 2016 implementing acts laying down uniform technical and methodological rules for the implementation of a European virtual broadband access product within the meaning of Article 17 and of Annex I, point 1, in accordance with the criteria and parameters specified therein and in order to ensure the equivalence of the functionality of such a virtual wholesale access product to next-generation networks with that of a physical unbundled access product. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 33(2).

1. The Commission shall adopt by 1 January 2016 implementing acts laying down uniform principles for the definition and analysis of wholesale markets for the provision of high-quality electronic communications in accordance with article 16 of Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework directive), as well as consistent specifications for remedies meeting business needs in such markets in accordance with Annex I. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 33(2).

Amendment 566[modifier]

Catherine Trautmann
Article 20 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. The Commission may adopt implementing acts laying down uniform technical and methodological rules for the implementation of one or more of the European access products within the meaning of Articles 17 and 19 and of Annex I, points 2 and 3, and Annex II, in accordance with the respective criteria and parameters specified therein. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 33(2).

deleted

Amendment 567[modifier]

Marietje Schaake
Article 20 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. The Commission may adopt implementing acts laying down uniform technical and methodological rules for the implementation of one or more of the European access products within the meaning of Articles 17 and 19 and of Annex I, points 2 and 3, and Annex II, in accordance with the respective criteria and parameters specified therein. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 33(2).

2. The Commission may adopt implementing acts laying down uniform technical and methodological rules for the implementation of one or more of the European access products within the meaning of Articles 17 and of Annex I, points 2 and 3, in accordance with the respective criteria and parameters specified therein. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 33(2).

Amendment 568[modifier]

Amelia Andersdotter
Chapter 4 – title

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Harmonised rights of end-users

Users' rights to open internet access

Amendment 569[modifier]

Christian Ehler
Article 21 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. The freedom of end-users to use public electronic communications networks or publicly available electronic communications services provided by an undertaking established in another Member State shall not be restricted by public authorities.

1. Digital freedoms and cross-border trade shall go hand in hand in order to create and optimise business opportunities for European companies and consumer protection in the global digital economy. The freedom of end-users to use public electronic communications networks or publicly available electronic communications services provided by an undertaking established in another Member State shall not be restricted by public authorities.

Justification:
In line with the Transatlantic Dialogue (TLD) Non-Paper ‘Cyber security and Internet issues - Establishing framework for Transatlantic action’.

Amendment 570[modifier]

Petra Kammerevert
Article 21 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(1) The freedom of end-users to use public electronic communications networks or publicly available electronic communications services provided by an undertaking established in another Member State shall not be restricted by public authorities.

(1) The right of end-users to use public electronic communications networks or publicly available electronic communications services provided by an undertaking established in another Member State shall not be restricted by public authorities.

Amendment 571[modifier]

Christian Ehler
Article 21 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Providers of electronic communications to the public shall not apply any discriminatory requirements or conditions of access or use to end-users based on the end-user's nationality or place of residence unless such differences are objectively justified.

2. Providers of electronic communications to the public shall not apply any discriminatory requirements or conditions of access or use to end-users based on the end-user's nationality or place of residence unless such differences are objectively justified. Unrestricted access to an open internet and the free flow of information and related services shall be ensured, in accordance with existing legislation.

Amendment 572[modifier]

Jean-Pierre Audy
Article 21 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Providers of electronic communications to the public shall not apply any discriminatory requirements or conditions of access or use to end-users based on the end-user's nationality or place of residence unless such differences are objectively justified.

2. Providers of electronic communications to the public shall not apply any discriminatory requirements or conditions of access or use to end-users based on the end-user's nationality or Member State of residence unless such differences are objectively justified.

Amendment 573[modifier]

Jean-Pierre Audy
Article 21 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. Providers of electronic communications to the public shall not apply tariffs for intra-Union communications terminating in another Member State which are higher, unless objectively justified:

deleted

(a) as regards fixed communications, than tariffs for domestic long-distance communications;

(b) as regards mobile communications, than the euro-tariffs for regulated voice and SMS roaming communications, respectively, established in Regulation (EC) No 531/2012.

Amendment 574[modifier]

Jürgen Creutzmann
Article 21 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. Providers of electronic communications to the public shall not apply tariffs for intra-Union communications terminating in another Member State which are higher, unless objectively justified:

deleted

(a) as regards fixed communications, than tariffs for domestic long-distance communications;

(b) as regards mobile communications, than the euro-tariffs for regulated voice and SMS roaming communications, respectively, established in Regulation (EC) No 531/2012.

Justification:
The market for international calls has been deregulated since 2007 as, already back then, it had been considered competitive. Ever since the market has become even more competitive with minutes bundles, flat rates and MVNOs providing alternative offers complemented by voice over IP services, such as Skype, making even calls worldwide for free possible. There appears therefore little reason to regulate this market.

Amendment 575[modifier]

Róża Gräfin von Thun und Hohenstein
Article 21 – paragraph 3 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. Providers of electronic communications to the public shall not apply tariffs for intra-Union communications terminating in another Member State which are higher, unless objectively justified:

3. From 1 of July 2016, providers of electronic communications to the public shall not apply tariffs for intra-Union communications terminating in another Member State which are higher, unless objectively justified:

Amendment 576[modifier]

Róża Gräfin von Thun und Hohenstein
Article 21 – paragraph 3 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) as regards mobile communications, than the euro-tariffs for regulated voice and SMS roaming communications, respectively, established in Regulation (EC) No 531/2012.

(b) as regards mobile communications, than the mobile communications services at domestic level.

Amendment 577[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Article 21 – paragraph 3 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(3a) Billing shall be done both in the currency of the end-user's Member State and in euro, in order to provide transparency and make it easier to compare tariffs.

Amendment 578[modifier]

Lambert van Nistelrooij
Article 21 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Article 21a

By December 31 2014 BEREC shall adopt a single value for each of fixed and mobile termination rates calculated in accordance with Recommendation C(2009) 3359 final of 7.5.2009 on the Regulatory Treatment of Fixed and Mobile Termination Rates in the EU.

By 30 June 2015 all National Regulatory Authorities (NRAs) shall ensure that operators designated by them as having significant market power on the markets for wholesale voice call termination on individual public telephone networks as a result of a market analysis carried out in accordance with Directive 2009/140/EC shall levy the termination rates determined by BEREC in this paragraph.

Amendment 579[modifier]

Petra Kammerevert
Article 23 – title

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Freedom to provide and avail of open internet access, and reasonable traffic management

Open internet access, specialised services and reasonable, justified traffic management

Amendment 580[modifier]

Sabine Verheyen, Doris Pack
Article 23 – title

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Freedom to provide and avail of open internet access, and reasonable traffic management

Open internet access, specialised services, and reasonable traffic management

Amendment 581[modifier]

Giles Chichester
Article 23 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

End-users shall be free to access and distribute information and content, run applications and use services of their choice via their internet access service.

End-users shall be free to access and distribute information and content, run applications and use services of their choice, irrespective of their origin or destination, via their internet access service.

Internet access service providers shall not restrict or prevent the use by end-users of any terminal equipment to access and distribute information and content via their internet access service. This is without prejudice to the rights of Member States to grant individual rights of use under Article 5 of Directive 2002/20/EC.

Providers of electronic communications to the public shall ensure that end-users are able to run any application utilising the electronic communication function of the internet without any form of restriction on the content exchanged, except for the purposes of reasonable traffic management measures or to implement a court order.

Amendment 582[modifier]

Petra Kammerevert
Article 23 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

End-users shall be free to access and distribute information and content, run applications and use services of their choice via their internet access service.

(1) Open internet access shall be fully guaranteed in accordance with Article 2(14), so as to enable end-users to access and distribute any information and content they choose, run applications and use services and terminal devices of their choice via their open internet access service, irrespective of the source or destination of such information, content, applications or services.

Access network operators shall be subject to a general forwarding obligation in accordance with the best-effort principle.

Amendment 583[modifier]

Françoise Castex
Article 23 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

End-users shall be free to access and distribute information and content, run applications and use services of their choice via their internet access service.

End-users have the right to access and distribute information and content, run applications and use services and devices of their choice via their internet access service.

In order to guarantee a genuine users' freedom of choice, internet service providers shall not discriminate, restrict or interfere with the transmission of Internet traffic.

Amendment 584[modifier]

Amelia Andersdotter
Article 23 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

End-users shall be free to access and distribute information and content, run applications and use services of their choice via their internet access service.

Users shall have the right to access and distribute information and content, run and provide applications and services and use devices of their choice via an internet access.

Internet service providers shall not discriminate, restrict or interfere with the transmission of Internet traffic.

Amendment 585[modifier]

<MB>Catherine Trautmann, Patrizia Toia, Teresa Riera Madurell, Dimitrios Droutsas, Edit Herczog</MB> Article 23 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

|- |width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;"| Text proposed by the Commission |width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;"| Amendment |- |width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;"| End-users shall be free to access and distribute information and content, run applications and use services of their choice via their internet access service. |width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;"| End-users shall be free to access and distribute information and content, run applications and use services and devices of their choice, irrespective of their origin or destination, via their internet access service. |}

Amendment 586[modifier]

Jürgen Creutzmann
Article 23 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

End-users shall be free to access and distribute information and content, run applications and use services of their choice via their internet access service.

End-users shall be free, using devices of their choice, to access and distribute information and content, run applications and use services of their choice, irrespective of their origin or destination, via their internet access service.

Amendment 587[modifier]

Marietje Schaake, Nadja Hirsch
Article 23 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

End-users shall be free to access and distribute information and content, run applications and use services of their choice via their internet access service.

End-users have the right to access and distribute information and content, run applications and use services or devices of their choice via their internet access service, in accordance with the principle of net neutrality.

Amendment 588[modifier]

Ioannis A. Tsoukalas
Article 23 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

End-users shall be free to access and distribute information and content, run applications and use services of their choice via their internet access service.

End-users shall be free to access and distribute information and content, run applications and use services and devices of their choice via their internet access service.

Amendment 589[modifier]

Jürgen Creutzmann
Article 23 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

End-users shall be free to enter into agreements on data volumes and speeds with providers of internet access services and, in accordance with any such agreements relative to data volumes, to avail of any offers by providers of internet content, applications and services.

deleted

Justification:
The added value of this provision is unclear. Naturally, users are free to enter into contracts. Furthermore, whether these contracts provide for data volumes, speeds or e.g. service quality characteristics is entirely a question of offer and demand and requires no regulation.

Amendment 590[modifier]

Sabine Verheyen, Doris Pack
Article 23 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

End-users shall be free to enter into agreements on data volumes and speeds with providers of internet access services and, in accordance with any such agreements relative to data volumes, to avail of any offers by providers of internet content, applications and services.

End-users shall be free to enter into agreements on data volumes and speeds with providers of internet access services. Providers of Internet access services shall advertise with the minimum guaranteed data volume and speed they can provide for, not the maximum speed.

Amendment 591[modifier]

Petra Kammerevert
Article 23 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

End-users shall be free to enter into agreements on data volumes and speeds with providers of internet access services and, in accordance with any such agreements relative to data volumes, to avail of any offers by providers of internet content, applications and services.

End-users shall be free to enter into agreements on data volumes and speeds with providers of internet access services.

Amendment 592[modifier]

Teresa Riera Madurell
Article 23 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

End-users shall be free to enter into agreements on data volumes and speeds with providers of internet access services and, in accordance with any such agreements relative to data volumes, to avail of any offers by providers of internet content, applications and services.

End-users shall be free to enter into agreements on data volumes and speeds with providers of internet access services. Users shall always be informed in advance of these agreements and shall give their explicit consent to their conclusion. End-users shall be free in accordance with any such agreements to avail of any offers by providers of internet content, applications and services.

Amendment 593[modifier]

Marietje Schaake, Nadja Hirsch
Article 23 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

End-users shall be free to enter into agreements on data volumes and speeds with providers of internet access services and, in accordance with any such agreements relative to data volumes, to avail of any offers by providers of internet content, applications and services.

With due account to the principle of net neutrality, end-users shall be free to enter into agreements on data volumes and speeds with providers of internet access services, provided they freely and explicitly give their informed consent, and to avail of any offers by providers of internet content, applications and services.

Amendment 594[modifier]

Amelia Andersdotter
Article 23 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

End-users shall be free to enter into agreements on data volumes and speeds with providers of internet access services and, in accordance with any such agreements relative to data volumes, to avail of any offers by providers of internet content, applications and services.

Provided that they freely give their explicit, specific and informed consent, end-users shall be free to enter into agreements on data volumes and speeds with providers of internet access services and to avail of any offers by providers of internet content, applications and services.

Amendment 595[modifier]

Françoise Castex
Article 23 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

End-users shall be free to enter into agreements on data volumes and speeds with providers of internet access services and, in accordance with any such agreements relative to data volumes, to avail of any offers by providers of internet content, applications and services.

Provided that they freely give their explicit, specific and informed consent, end-users shall be free to enter into agreements on data volumes and speeds with providers of internet access services and to avail of any offers by providers of internet content, applications and services.

Amendment 596[modifier]

Angelika Niebler
Article 23 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

End-users shall be free to enter into agreements on data volumes and speeds with providers of internet access services and, in accordance with any such agreements relative to data volumes, to avail of any offers by providers of internet content, applications and services.

End-users shall be free to enter into agreements on data volumes and speeds, as well as general performance characteristics, with providers of internet access services and, in accordance with any such agreements, to avail of any offers by providers of internet content, applications and services.

Amendment 597[modifier]

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Article 23 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

End-users shall be free to enter into agreements on data volumes and speeds with providers of internet access services and, in accordance with any such agreements relative to data volumes, to avail of any offers by providers of internet content, applications and services.

End-users shall be free to enter into agreements on data volumes and speeds with providers of internet access services and, in accordance with any such agreements relative to data volumes, to avail of any offers by providers of internet content, applications and services. The tariffs may not exceed the eurotariffs.

Amendment 598[modifier]

Petra Kammerevert
Article 23 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Where agreements on data volumes and speeds are entered into, specific content, services or applications may not be omitted from the calculation of volume use or exempted from ‘throttling’ when the agreed data volume limit is reached.

Amendment 599[modifier]

Petra Kammerevert
Article 23 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(1a) It shall not be permissible for providers to impose any form of restriction on access to communication networks, content, applications or services on the basis of end-users’ using terminal equipment not supplied or recommended by the provider.

Amendment 600[modifier]

Seán Kelly
Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

End-users shall also be free to agree with either providers of electronic communications to the public or with providers of content, applications and services on the provision of specialised services with an enhanced quality of service.

Providers of electronic communication services or providers of content, applications and services shall be allowed to offer specialised services with an enhanced quality of service in addition to internet access services, provided that such offers are not detrimental to internet access services or their performance, affordability or quality.

Take-up by end-users and application and commercial service providers of specialised services should thus be on a voluntary and non-discriminatory basis.

Justification:
Having regard to BEREC’s conclusion that user control should prevail wherever possible, it is important that the Regulation clarifies that end-users and application and commercial service providers are not faced with suboptimal conditions and quality of internet access such that they are obliged to agree a contract for specialised services. Take-up of specialised services should thus be absolutely voluntary.

Amendment 601[modifier]

Petra Kammerevert
Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

End-users shall also be free to agree with either providers of electronic communications to the public or with providers of content, applications and services on the provision of specialised services with an enhanced quality of service.

Providers of electronic communications to the public or providers of content, applications and services may provide specialised services, via a closed, electronic communications network, to a limited user group, access to which is controlled. Specialised services may not be marketed or used as substitutes for the internet and may not be identical to content, applications or services available on the open internet.

Amendment 602[modifier]

Jürgen Creutzmann
Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

End-users shall also be free to agree with either providers of electronic communications to the public or with providers of content, applications and services on the provision of specialised services with an enhanced quality of service.

Providers of electronic communications to the public and providers of content, applications and services shall be free to provide to end-user specialised services with an enhanced quality of service, the provision of which shall not impair in a recurring or continuous manner the general quality of internet access services. National regulatory authorities shall ensure that end-users are free to access these specialised services.

Justification:
Redrafting to put the elements into logical order, i.e. first providers are free to offer specialised services and, if they do so, then users should be free to benefit from these. Again, what is important is not the fact that users are free to use these services - since they would be even without this provision. Rather it is important to stress that these rights should be enforced by regulatory authorities.

Amendment 603[modifier]

Marietje Schaake, Nadja Hirsch
Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

End-users shall also be free to agree with either providers of electronic communications to the public or with providers of content, applications and services on the provision of specialised services with an enhanced quality of service.

End-users shall also be free to agree with either providers of electronic communications to the public or with providers of content, applications and services on the provision of specialised services with an enhanced quality of service. Where such agreements are concluded with the provider of internet access services, that provider shall ensure that the enhanced quality of service is not to the detriment of the performance, affordability or quality of internet access services, in accordance with the principle of net neutrality.

Amendment 604[modifier]

<MB>Catherine Trautmann, Patrizia Toia, Teresa Riera Madurell, Dimitrios Droutsas, Edit Herczog</MB> Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1

|- |width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;"| Text proposed by the Commission |width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;"| Amendment |- |width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;"| End-users shall also be free to agree with either providers of electronic communications to the public or with providers of content, applications and services on the provision of specialised services with an enhanced quality of service. |width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;"| End-users shall also be free to agree with either providers of electronic communications to the public or with providers of content, applications and services on the provision of specialised services operated in closed electronic networks with an enhanced quality of service. |- |width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;"| |width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;"| Providers of electronic communications to the end-user shall not discriminate against contents, services or applications from other sources that are competing with their own specialised services. |}

Amendment 605[modifier]

Patrizia Toia
Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

End-users shall also be free to agree with either providers of electronic communications to the public or with providers of content, applications and services on the provision of specialised services with an enhanced quality of service.

End-users shall also be free to agree with either providers of electronic communications to the public or with providers of content, applications and services on the provision of specialised services with an enhanced quality of service, provided that this does not undermine the overall quality of internet access, unless in emergency conditions or due to a genuine substantiated need.

Amendment 606[modifier]

Jean-Pierre Audy
Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

End-users shall also be free to agree with either providers of electronic communications to the public or with providers of content, applications and services on the provision of specialised services with an enhanced quality of service.

End-users shall also be free to access specialised services with an enhanced quality of service.

Amendment 607[modifier]

Amelia Andersdotter
Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

End-users shall also be free to agree with either providers of electronic communications to the public or with providers of content, applications and services on the provision of specialised services with an enhanced quality of service.

Users shall also have the right to agree with either providers of electronic communications to the public or with providers of content, applications and services on the provision of specialised services with an enhanced quality of service.

Amendment 608[modifier]

Angelika Niebler
Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

End-users shall also be free to agree with either providers of electronic communications to the public or with providers of content, applications and services on the provision of specialised services with an enhanced quality of service.

End-users shall also be free to agree with either providers of electronic communications to the public or with providers of content, applications and services on the provision of specialised services for closed user groups with an enhanced quality of service.

Amendment 609[modifier]

Jürgen Creutzmann
Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

In order to enable the provision of specialised services to end-users, providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public shall be free to enter into agreements with each other to transmit the related data volumes or traffic as specialised services with a defined quality of service or dedicated capacity. The provision of specialised services shall not impair in a recurring or continuous manner the general quality of internet access services.

deleted

Justification:
As with the preceding provisions, the added value of the first sentence is unclear as providers are anyway free to agree amongst each other on specialised services. The important element of non-impairment of general internet access services was integrated in the amendment to the preceding paragraph.

Amendment 610[modifier]

Catherine Trautmann
Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

In order to enable the provision of specialised services to end-users, providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public shall be free to enter into agreements with each other to transmit the related data volumes or traffic as specialised services with a defined quality of service or dedicated capacity. The provision of specialised services shall not impair in a recurring or continuous manner the general quality of internet access services.

In order to enable the provision of specialised services to end-users, providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public shall be free to enter into agreements with each other to transmit the related data volumes or traffic as specialised services with a defined quality of service or dedicated capacity. Providers of electronic communications shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the effect of the provision of specialised services through their network is always transparent and does not impair the general quality of internet access services in terms of performance, affordability and availability. In so doing, they should maintain internet access services of sufficient capacity and quality to accommodate the advertised internet speeds offered to their end users without congestion.

In order for national regulatory authorities to be able to assess such potential impairment, providers of electronic communications to the public shall make available, upon request, precise information explaining how capacities are assigned to the two types of services, and if necessary provide justifications about the measures put in place to prevent impairment of internet access services by the specialised services.

Amendment 611[modifier]

Angelika Niebler
Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

In order to enable the provision of specialised services to end-users, providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public shall be free to enter into agreements with each other to transmit the related data volumes or traffic as specialised services with a defined quality of service or dedicated capacity. The provision of specialised services shall not impair in a recurring or continuous manner the general quality of internet access services.

Where such agreements with internet access providers are entered into, the provider shall ensure that the higher quality of service does not impair the general quality of internet access services. Providers of specialised services who are also network operators or providers of internet access services may not discriminate against other providers who are reliant on the network operator’s forwarding services, and they shall be required to charge for forwarding in a transparent manner and at fair market prices.

Amendment 612[modifier]

Petra Kammerevert
Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

In order to enable the provision of specialised services to end-users, providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public shall be free to enter into agreements with each other to transmit the related data volumes or traffic as specialised services with a defined quality of service or dedicated capacity. The provision of specialised services shall not impair in a recurring or continuous manner the general quality of internet access services.

The provision of specialised services shall not impair the quality of internet access services. Neither shall these services impair existing, generally recognised technical standards and their development. Specialised services shall thus be permissible only if there is a demonstrable technical and specific need for them, beyond economic self-interest, as a means of providing genuinely time-critical applications, or applications with a particular security requirement, at a particular level of quality.

Amendment 613[modifier]

Sabine Verheyen
Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

In order to enable the provision of specialised services to end-users, providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public shall be free to enter into agreements with each other to transmit the related data volumes or traffic as specialised services with a defined quality of service or dedicated capacity. The provision of specialised services shall not impair in a recurring or continuous manner the general quality of internet access services.

Providers of electronic communication services or providers of content, applications and services may offer specialised services to end users provided they are offered in addition to an open internet access service at a level of quality that reflects the technical progress and provided that they do not impair the general performance, affordability, or quality of open internet access services. Specialised services shall only be offered if the network capacity is sufficient to provide such services in addition to the open internet access. Take-up by end-users or by content and application providers of commercial offers to support managed services should be on a voluntary and non-discriminatory basis.

Amendment 614[modifier]

Giles Chichester
Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

In order to enable the provision of specialised services to end-users, providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public shall be free to enter into agreements with each other to transmit the related data volumes or traffic as specialised services with a defined quality of service or dedicated capacity. The provision of specialised services shall not impair in a recurring or continuous manner the general quality of internet access services.

Providers of electronic communication services or providers of content, applications and services shall be allowed to offer specialised services provided that such offers are in addition to internet access services and are not to the material detriment of their affordability or quality.

Amendment 615[modifier]

Marietje Schaake, Nadja Hirsch
Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

In order to enable the provision of specialised services to end-users, providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public shall be free to enter into agreements with each other to transmit the related data volumes or traffic as specialised services with a defined quality of service or dedicated capacity. The provision of specialised services shall not impair in a recurring or continuous manner the general quality of internet access services.

In order to enable the provision of specialised services to end-users, providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public shall be free to enter into agreements with each other to transmit the related data volumes or traffic within closed electronic communications networks as specialised services with a defined quality of service or dedicated capacity, which are not functionally identical to services available over the public internet access service. The provision of specialised services shall not impair the quality of internet access services. Where network capacity is shared between internet access services and specialised services, the provider of these services shall publish clear and unambiguous criteria based on which network capacity is shared.

Amendment 616[modifier]

Ioannis A. Tsoukalas
Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

In order to enable the provision of specialised services to end-users, providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public shall be free to enter into agreements with each other to transmit the related data volumes or traffic as specialised services with a defined quality of service or dedicated capacity. The provision of specialised services shall not impair in a recurring or continuous manner the general quality of internet access services.

In order to enable the provision of specialised services to end-users, providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public shall be free to enter into agreements with each other to transmit the related data volumes or traffic as specialised services with a defined quality of service or dedicated capacity. The provision of specialised services shall not impair in a recurring or continuous manner the general quality of internet access services. Take-up by end-users or by providers of content, applications and services of commercial offers for specialised services should be on a voluntary and non-discriminatory basis.

Amendment 617[modifier]

Amelia Andersdotter
Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

In order to enable the provision of specialised services to end-users, providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public shall be free to enter into agreements with each other to transmit the related data volumes or traffic as specialised services with a defined quality of service or dedicated capacity. The provision of specialised services shall not impair in a recurring or continuous manner the general quality of internet access services.

In order to enable the provision of specialised services to users, providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public may enter into agreements with each other to transmit the related data volumes or traffic as specialised services with a defined quality of service or dedicated capacity. The provision of specialised services shall not impair the quality of internet access services.

Amendment 618[modifier]

Ivo Belet
Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

In order to enable the provision of specialised services to end-users, providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public shall be free to enter into agreements with each other to transmit the related data volumes or traffic as specialised services with a defined quality of service or dedicated capacity. The provision of specialised services shall not impair in a recurring or continuous manner the general quality of internet access services.

In order to enable the provision of specialised services to end-users, providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public shall be free to enter into agreements with each other to transmit the related data volumes or traffic as specialised services with a defined quality of service or dedicated capacity. The provision of specialised services shall not impair the general quality of internet access services.

Amendment 619[modifier]

Teresa Riera Madurell
Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

In order to enable the provision of specialised services to end-users, providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public shall be free to enter into agreements with each other to transmit the related data volumes or traffic as specialised services with a defined quality of service or dedicated capacity. The provision of specialised services shall not impair in a recurring or continuous manner the general quality of internet access services.

In order to enable the provision of specialised services to end-users, providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public shall be free to enter into agreements with each other to transmit the related data volumes or traffic as specialised services with a defined quality of service or dedicated capacity. The provision of specialised services shall not impair the quality of internet access services.

Amendment 620[modifier]

Jean-Pierre Audy
Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

In order to enable the provision of specialised services to end-users, providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public shall be free to enter into agreements with each other to transmit the related data volumes or traffic as specialised services with a defined quality of service or dedicated capacity. The provision of specialised services shall not impair in a recurring or continuous manner the general quality of internet access services.

In order to enable the provision of specialised services to end-users, providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public shall be free to enter into agreements with each other to transmit the related data volumes or traffic as specialised services with a defined quality of service or dedicated capacity. The provision of specialised services shall not impair the quality of internet access services.

Amendment 621[modifier]

Petra Kammerevert
Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Access network providers who simultaneously offer or market specialised services shall be subject to the same provision obligation as an open internet access service, in accordance with Article 2(14). They may not discriminate against other content providers who are reliant on the network operator’s forwarding services, and they shall be required to charge for forwarding in a transparent manner and at fair market prices.

Amendment 622[modifier]

Giles Chichester
Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

For national authorities to be able to assess such potential material detriment, providers of electronic communications services or providers of content, applications and services shall transmit to the national authorities, upon request, precise information regarding the capacities assigned to the two types of services.

Amendment 623[modifier]

Jean-Pierre Audy
Article 23 – paragraph 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2a. Vertically integrated providers of electronic communications to the public shall not discriminate in any way against traffic from providers of content, applications or services offering content, services or applications competing with their own services or with services provided under exclusive arrangements;

Amendment 624[modifier]

Amelia Andersdotter
Article 23 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. This Article is without prejudice to Union or national legislation related to the lawfulness of the information, content, application or services transmitted.

deleted

Amendment 625[modifier]

Róża Gräfin von Thun und Hohenstein
Article 23 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. This Article is without prejudice to Union or national legislation related to the lawfulness of the information, content, application or services transmitted.

deleted

Justification:
Together with the implementation of a legislative provision as a ground for traffic management this would give green light to discriminating against, degrading or blocking any content deemed unlawful under the EU or national legislation. Such measures could disproportionately affect end-users' rights to confidentiality of communications, privacy and data protection.

Amendment 626[modifier]

Petra Kammerevert
Article 23 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(3) This Article is without prejudice to Union or national legislation related to the lawfulness of the information, content, application or services transmitted.

deleted

Amendment 627[modifier]

Sabine Verheyen
Article 23 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. The exercise of the freedoms provided for in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be facilitated by the provision of complete information in accordance with Article 25(1), Article 26 (2), and Article 27 (1) and (2).

4. End-users as well as content, application, and service providers, including the media and cultural industries and governments at all levels, shall be provided with complete information in accordance with Article 20 (2), Article 21 (3) and Article 21a of Directive 2002/22/EC, including information on any reasonable traffic management measures applied that might affect access to and distribution of information, content, applications and services as specified in paragraphs 1 and 2.

Amendment 628[modifier]

Petra Kammerevert
Article 23 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(4) The exercise of the freedoms provided for in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be facilitated by the provision of complete information in accordance with Article 25(1), Article 26 (2), and Article 27 (1) and (2).

(4) The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be facilitated by the provision of complete information in accordance with Article 25(1), Article 26 (2), and Article 27 (1) and (2).

Amendment 629[modifier]

Edit Herczog
Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Within the limits of any contractually agreed data volumes or speeds for internet access services, providers of internet access services shall not restrict the freedoms provided for in paragraph 1 by blocking, slowing down, degrading or discriminating against specific content, applications or services, or specific classes thereof, except in cases where it is necessary to apply reasonable traffic management measures. Reasonable traffic management measures shall be transparent, non-discriminatory, proportionate and necessary to:

5. Providers of Internet access services shall not restrict the freedoms provided for in paragraph 1 by discriminating against, restricting, or otherwise interfering with the transmission of Internet traffic except in cases where it is necessary to apply reasonable traffic management measures or to implement a court order. Traffic management measures shall be deemed reasonable when they are deployed to more efficiently manage traffic on the network in order to preserve the integrity and security of the network, and more efficiently manage traffic on the network in demonstrated punctual cases of acute congestion, provided that equivalent types of traffic are treated equally. These measures should be shown to comply with the general criteria of relevance, proportionality, efficiency, non-discrimination between parties and transparency, and in accordance with existing laws, including inter alia, privacy and data protection.

Reasonable traffic management shall only entail processing of data that is necessary and proportionate to achieve the purposes set out in this article.

Justification:
It is important to capture the various ways in which the access and use of Internet content, applications and services is being discriminated against (and is at risk of being discriminated against), beyond mere blocking and degradation, in order to address undue preference for an ISP’s own or affiliated Internet-based content, applications and services. Concerning reasonable traffic management, if itemising every possible case would risk being incomplete, cumbersome and not future-proof, there remains a need for all involved to have a very clear scope of what is deemed to be ‘reasonable’ traffic management. The amendment suggested draws on regulatory best practice, notably wording from French NRA ARCEP, to provide this scope. Reference to the need for traffic management to respect freedoms and obligations under privacy and data protection legislation are also highlighted, in line with the several opinions of the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) and others on this subject.

Amendment 630[modifier]

Petra Kammerevert
Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Within the limits of any contractually agreed data volumes or speeds for internet access services, providers of internet access services shall not restrict the freedoms provided for in paragraph 1 by blocking, slowing down, degrading or discriminating against specific content, applications or services, or specific classes thereof, except in cases where it is necessary to apply reasonable traffic management measures. Reasonable traffic management measures shall be transparent, non-discriminatory, proportionate and necessary to:

(5) Providers of internet access services shall not restrict the rights provided for in paragraph 1 by:

(a) deleting, blocking, slowing down, degrading or discriminating against specific content, applications, services or terminal devices, or specific classes thereof,

(b) prioritising specific content, applications, services or terminal devices, or specific classes thereof, or

(c) concluding special pricing agreements with the end-user which make accessing particular content, applications, services or terminal devices or specific classes thereof seem less economically attractive,

except in cases where it is necessary to apply justified and reasonable traffic management measures. Such measures shall be transparent, non-discriminatory, proportionate and necessary to:

Amendment 631[modifier]

Angelika Niebler
Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Within the limits of any contractually agreed data volumes or speeds for internet access services, providers of internet access services shall not restrict the freedoms provided for in paragraph 1 by blocking, slowing down, degrading or discriminating against specific content, applications or services, or specific classes thereof, except in cases where it is necessary to apply reasonable traffic management measures. Reasonable traffic management measures shall be transparent, non-discriminatory, proportionate and necessary to:

Within the limits of any contractually agreed data volumes or speeds for internet access services, providers of internet access services shall not restrict the freedoms provided for in paragraph 1 by limiting or otherwise impairing the flow of internet traffic, e.g. by blocking, slowing down or degrading it or by means of discrimination, except in cases where it is necessary to apply reasonable traffic management measures. Reasonable traffic management measures should not be applied in a manner directed against particular providers’ content or applications or which downgrades particular providers. Reasonable traffic management measures shall be transparent, non-discriminatory and proportionate and shall include inter alia the processing of data in order to:

Amendment 632[modifier]

Sabine Verheyen, Ivo Belet
Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Within the limits of any contractually agreed data volumes or speeds for internet access services, providers of internet access services shall not restrict the freedoms provided for in paragraph 1 by blocking, slowing down, degrading or discriminating against specific content, applications or services, or specific classes thereof, except in cases where it is necessary to apply reasonable traffic management measures. Reasonable traffic management measures shall be transparent, non-discriminatory, proportionate and necessary to:

Providers of internet access services shall not restrict the freedoms provided for in paragraph 1 by blocking, slowing down, degrading or discriminating against, restricting specific content, applications or services, or specific classes thereof, except in cases where it is necessary to apply reasonable traffic management measures or to implement a court order. Traffic management measures shall be considered reasonable when they are deployed to more efficiently manage traffic on the network in order to preserve the integrity and security of the network, and more efficiently manage traffic on the network in demonstrated punctual cases of acute congestion, provided equivalent types of traffic are treated equally. These measures shall be transparent, non-discriminatory, and proportionate.

Amendment 633[modifier]

Marietje Schaake, Nadja Hirsch
Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Within the limits of any contractually agreed data volumes or speeds for internet access services, providers of internet access services shall not restrict the freedoms provided for in paragraph 1 by blocking, slowing down, degrading or discriminating against specific content, applications or services, or specific classes thereof, except in cases where it is necessary to apply reasonable traffic management measures. Reasonable traffic management measures shall be transparent, non-discriminatory, proportionate and necessary to:

Providers of internet access services shall treat all internet traffic in accordance with the principle of net neutrality, except in cases where it is necessary to apply reasonable traffic management measures. Reasonable traffic management measures shall be transparent, non-discriminatory, proportionate, subject to clear, comprehensible and accessible redress mechanisms and necessary to:

Amendment 634[modifier]

Ioannis A. Tsoukalas
Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Within the limits of any contractually agreed data volumes or speeds for internet access services, providers of internet access services shall not restrict the freedoms provided for in paragraph 1 by blocking, slowing down, degrading or discriminating against specific content, applications or services, or specific classes thereof, except in cases where it is necessary to apply reasonable traffic management measures. Reasonable traffic management measures shall be transparent, non-discriminatory, proportionate and necessary to:

Within the limits of any contractually agreed data volumes or speeds for internet access services, providers of internet access services shall not restrict the freedoms provided for in paragraph 1 by blocking, slowing down, degrading or discriminating against specific content, applications or services, or specific classes thereof, except in cases where it is necessary to apply reasonable traffic management measures.

These measures should be shown to comply with the general criteria of relevance, proportionality, efficiency, non-discrimination between parties and transparency, and in accordance with existing laws, including inter alia, privacy and data protection.

Reasonable traffic management measures shall be transparent, non-discriminatory, proportionate and necessary to:

Amendment 635[modifier]

Jean-Pierre Audy
Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Within the limits of any contractually agreed data volumes or speeds for internet access services, providers of internet access services shall not restrict the freedoms provided for in paragraph 1 by blocking, slowing down, degrading or discriminating against specific content, applications or services, or specific classes thereof, except in cases where it is necessary to apply reasonable traffic management measures. Reasonable traffic management measures shall be transparent, non-discriminatory, proportionate and necessary to:

Providers of internet access services shall not block, slow down or discriminate against specific content, applications or services, or specific classes thereof, except in cases where it is necessary to apply reasonable traffic management measures. Reasonable traffic management measures shall be transparent, non-discriminatory, proportionate and necessary to:

Amendment 636[modifier]

Giles Chichester
Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Within the limits of any contractually agreed data volumes or speeds for internet access services, providers of internet access services shall not restrict the freedoms provided for in paragraph 1 by blocking, slowing down, degrading or discriminating against specific content, applications or services, or specific classes thereof, except in cases where it is necessary to apply reasonable traffic management measures. Reasonable traffic management measures shall be transparent, non-discriminatory, proportionate and necessary to:

5. Within the limits of any contractually agreed data volumes or speeds for internet access services, providers of internet access services shall not restrict the freedoms provided for in paragraph 1 by blocking, slowing down, degrading or discriminating against specific content, applications or services, or specific classes thereof, except in cases where it is necessary to apply reasonable traffic management measures. Furthermore, traffic management measures shall not be applied in such a way as to discriminate against services competing with those offered by the provider of internet access.

Reasonable traffic management measures shall be transparent, non-discriminatory, proportionate

Amendment 637[modifier]

Gunnar Hökmark
Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Within the limits of any contractually agreed data volumes or speeds for internet access services, providers of internet access services shall not restrict the freedoms provided for in paragraph 1 by blocking, slowing down, degrading or discriminating against specific content, applications or services, or specific classes thereof, except in cases where it is necessary to apply reasonable traffic management measures. Reasonable traffic management measures shall be transparent, non-discriminatory, proportionate and necessary to:

Within the limits of any contractually agreed data volumes or speeds for internet access services, providers of internet access services shall not restrict the freedoms provided for in paragraph 1 by blocking, slowing down, degrading or discriminating against specific content, applications or services, or specific classes thereof, except in cases where it is necessary to apply reasonable traffic management measures. Traffic management measures shall not be applied in such a way as to discriminate against services competing with those offered by the provider of internet access. Reasonable traffic management measures shall be transparent, non-discriminatory, proportionate and necessary to:

Amendment 638[modifier]

Amelia Andersdotter
Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Within the limits of any contractually agreed data volumes or speeds for internet access services, providers of internet access services shall not restrict the freedoms provided for in paragraph 1 by blocking, slowing down, degrading or discriminating against specific content, applications or services, or specific classes thereof, except in cases where it is necessary to apply reasonable traffic management measures. Reasonable traffic management measures shall be transparent, non-discriminatory, proportionate and necessary to:

Providers of internet access services shall not restrict the right provided for in paragraph 1 by blocking, slowing down, degrading, altering or discriminating against specific content, applications or services, or specific classes thereof, except in certain special cases where it is necessary to apply reasonable traffic management measures. Reasonable traffic management measures shall be transparent, non-discriminatory, and strictly proportionate and necessary to:

Amendment 639[modifier]

Françoise Castex
Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Within the limits of any contractually agreed data volumes or speeds for internet access services, providers of internet access services shall not restrict the freedoms provided for in paragraph 1 by blocking, slowing down, degrading or discriminating against specific content, applications or services, or specific classes thereof, except in cases where it is necessary to apply reasonable traffic management measures. Reasonable traffic management measures shall be transparent, non-discriminatory, proportionate and necessary to:

Providers of internet access services shall not restrict the right provided for in paragraph 1 by blocking, slowing down, degrading or discriminating against specific content, applications or services, or specific classes thereof, except in cases where it is necessary to apply reasonable traffic management measures. Reasonable traffic management measures shall be transparent, non-discriminatory, proportionate and necessary to:

Amendment 640[modifier]

Jean-Pierre Audy
Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Within the limits of any contractually agreed data volumes or speeds for internet access services, providers of internet access services shall not restrict the freedoms provided for in paragraph 1 by blocking, slowing down, degrading or discriminating against specific content, applications or services, or specific classes thereof, except in cases where it is necessary to apply reasonable traffic management measures. Reasonable traffic management measures shall be transparent, non-discriminatory, proportionate and necessary to:

Within the limits of any contractually agreed data volumes or speeds for internet access services, providers of internet access services shall not restrict the freedoms provided for in paragraph 1 by blocking, slowing down, degrading or discriminating against specific content, applications or services, or specific classes thereof, except in cases where it is necessary to apply reasonable traffic management measures. Reasonable traffic management measures shall be transparent, non-discriminatory, proportionate and efficient. Reasonable traffic management includes the processing of data to:

Amendment 641[modifier]

Jürgen Creutzmann
Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Within the limits of any contractually agreed data volumes or speeds for internet access services, providers of internet access services shall not restrict the freedoms provided for in paragraph 1 by blocking, slowing down, degrading or discriminating against specific content, applications or services, or specific classes thereof, except in cases where it is necessary to apply reasonable traffic management measures. Reasonable traffic management measures shall be transparent, non-discriminatory, proportionate and necessary to:

Within the limits of any contractually agreed data volumes, speeds or general quality characteristics for internet access services, providers of internet access services shall not restrict the freedoms provided for in paragraph 1 by discriminating against specific content, applications or services, or specific classes thereof, except in cases where it is necessary to apply reasonable traffic management measures. Reasonable traffic management measures shall be transparent, non-discriminatory, proportionate and necessary, in particular, to:

Justification:
Simpler drafting and opening of the list of reasons for traffic management. It is not predictable whether there might be a need for traffic management in other situations in future. Since several layers of safeguards have been built in in the Regulation with regards to traffic management, making the list non-exhaustive does not appear to allow for abuses.

Amendment 642[modifier]

Giles Chichester
Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) implement a legislative provision or a court order, or prevent or impede serious crimes;

deleted

Amendment 643[modifier]

Edit Herczog
Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) implement a legislative provision or a court order, or prevent or impede serious crimes;

deleted

Amendment 644[modifier]

Petra Kammerevert
Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) implement a legislative provision or a court order, or prevent or impede serious crimes;

deleted

Amendment 645[modifier]

Sabine Verheyen, Ivo Belet
Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) implement a legislative provision or a court order, or prevent or impede serious crimes;

deleted

Justification:
Deletion due to new Article 23 - paragraph 5 - subparagraph 1 - introductory part.

Amendment 646[modifier]

Amelia Andersdotter
Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) implement a legislative provision or a court order, or prevent or impede serious crimes;

(a) implement a court order;

Justification:
A traffic management measure cannot result in the involvement of the liability of an electronic communication provider who is not qualified or entitled either to implement a legislative provision nor prevent or impede a serious crime. This shall be performed by a judge in order to guarantee the rule of law.

Amendment 647[modifier]

Françoise Castex
Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) implement a legislative provision or a court order, or prevent or impede serious crimes;

(a) implement a court order;

Amendment 648[modifier]

Marietje Schaake
Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) implement a legislative provision or a court order, or prevent or impede serious crimes;

(a) implement a legislative provision or a court order;

Amendment 649[modifier]

Jürgen Creutzmann
Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) implement a legislative provision or a court order, or prevent or impede serious crimes;

(a) implement a legislative provision or a court order;

Justification:
It should be underlined that for any such measures a legal basis or a court order is always required.

Amendment 650[modifier]

Giles Chichester
Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) preserve the integrity and security of the network, services provided via this network, and the end-users' terminals;

deleted

Amendment 651[modifier]

Edit Herczog
Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) preserve the integrity and security of the network, services provided via this network, and the end-users' terminals;

deleted

Amendment 652[modifier]