Difference between revisions of "Paquet Telecom 2017/forces/en"

From La Quadrature du Net
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Page créée avec « '''Universal Service Obligations<ref>What it is: http://www.arcep.fr/index.php?id=8102 </ref>:''' * Having regards for the USO, ETNO tries to come back on the mere princip... »)
(Page créée avec « '''Read the letter''' »)
 
(42 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 36: Line 36:
  
  
'''Droits des utilisateurs finals<ref>Oui, on dit comme ça. Le jargon&nbsp;…</ref>&nbsp;:'''
+
'''End-users rights:'''
* ETNO ayant une position dominante tente de s’assurer que ses clients resteront dans son giron. Pour cela rappelle l’importance d’aider le développement de l’innovation peut importe le type de fournisseur de service, de s’assurer d’une concurrence égale entre services équivalents, augmenter la protection des consommateurs dans la numérisation des services&nbsp;;
+
* ETNO having a dominant position tries to ensure that its clients will keep their positions. For that, it reminds the importance to help the development of innovation no matter the type of ISP, to ensure an equal competition between equivalent services, to improve the protection of consumers in the digitalisation of the services.
* Convergence:&amp;nbsp; comme vu plus haut, ETNO voit que le futur sera entièrement basé sur IP (numerbing ou non-numbering), rendant le réseau téléphonique obsolète. Raison de plus d’investir dans le marché de la fibre afin d’assurer une position solide&nbsp;;
+
* Convergence: as seen earlier, ETNO sees the future as IP-based (numbering or non-numbering based services), making the telephonic network obsolete. One more reason to intervene in the fibre market to ensure a firm position.
* Offrir des “bundles” intégrés&nbsp;: diminuer la régulation spécifique à des secteurs pour offrir des services intégrés inter-sectoriel. Cette proposition est particulièrement dangereuse, car elle pourrait permettre de contourner le règlement sur les télécommunications (par rapport à la neutralité du Net, par exemple) en donnant la possibilité pour des opérateurs ou des fournisseurs de services d’offrir des services partenaires au client. Cela mènerait à une balkanisation de l’Internet auquel l’utilisateur aurait accès&nbsp;;
+
* Offering integrated "bundles": to diminish the sector specific regulation to offer integrated cross-sector services. This proposition is quite dangerous as it allow to bypass the Telecommunication Regulation (especially the one on Net Neutrality) opening the field for operators and IAP to offer to clients their third partner services. This will lead to a balkanisation of the Internet that the client will access.
* De la même manière, ETNO entend s’assurer que les régulations soient les moins reliées aux secteurs pour des services équivalents, donnant un champ le plus large possible.
+
* In the same manner, ETNO wants to ensure less sector specific regulations for equivalent services making the scope the largest possible
  
  
'''Position sur le rapport de la rapporteuse'''&nbsp;: [https://etno.eu/news/etno/2017/905 site].
+
'''Position on rapporteur's report''': [https://etno.eu/news/etno/2017/905 website]
  
 
==== ECTA ====
 
==== ECTA ====
* Positionnement ([[media&nbsp;:ECTA comments on the draft new code 8-12-2016.pdf|pdf]]) datant du 8 décembre 2016.
+
* Position paper ([[media:ECTA comments on the draft new code 8-12-2016.pdf|pdf]]) from 8 December 2016
''' Résumé&nbsp;: '''
+
''' Summary: '''
ECTA [http://www.ectaportal.com/en/ABOUT/About-ECTA/ rassemble] les opérateurs et fournisseurs de services dits « alternatifs » (Bouygues, Illiad, Netflix…). Leur objectif principal est l’accès au marché tenu par les opérateurs dit « historiques » qui sont [https://etno.eu/home/about-us/our-members-and-observers représentés] par ETNO (British Telecom, Deutsch Telecom, Proximus, Orange…). Leurs angles d’approches sont donc motivés par une ouverture du marché et de la concurrence, du développement du marché interne. Dans leur positionnement, ils soulignent l’importance pour tous les acteurs d’investir dans le marché (via des critiques du modèle de co-investissement tel que proposé) et rappellent le risque de trop de dérégulations (qui leur sera néfaste, car elle renforcera la position des opérateurs historiques).
+
ECTA [http://www.ectaportal.com/en/ABOUT/About-ECTA/ gathers] "alternative" operators and service providers (Bouyguers, Illiad, Netflix...). Their main objective is the access to the market owned by the incumbent operators that are mainly [https://etno.eu/home/about-us/our-members-and-observers represented] by ETNO (British Telecom, Deutsch Telecom, Proximus, Orange...). Their approaches are motivated by the openness of the market and the competition, the development of the internal market. In their position paper, they underline the importance for all actors to be able to invest in the market (through critics of the current co-investment model) and emphasize the too big risk of too much deregulation (that would be unfavourable for them as it will reinforce the incumbent operators).
  
  
Ils rassemblent leurs demandes sous plusieurs points&nbsp;:
 
* '''Accès physique'''<ref>Les opérateurs qui ont l’infrastructure vendent deux types d’accès à d’autre opérateurs ou fournisseurs de services&nbsp;: un accès « passif » où une ligne est fournie mais l’opérateur ou le fournisseur de service doit installer du matériel sur la dernière section et un accès « actif » où la bande-passante est louée et il n’y a pas besoin de poser du matériel.</ref>&nbsp;: ECTA rappelle que bien que la fourniture d’accès « actif » a été déterminant pour de nombreux acteurs, il ne peut pas substituer un accès « passif » et demande que le code soit plus clair sur ce sujet là&nbsp;;
 
* '''Revue du concept de compétition'''&nbsp;: dans la version actuelle du code, deux acteurs sont suffisants pour établir une concurrence satisfaisante. ECTA n’est, évidemment, pas d’accord avec cette proposition&nbsp;;
 
* ''' ''Significant Market Power'' '''&nbsp;: ECTA demande une approche égale lors de prise de décisions de régulation afin de ne pas soutenir des acteurs historiques ou monopolistiques face à des acteurs alternatifs&nbsp;;
 
* '''Dérégulation et accord de co-investissement'''&nbsp;: ECTA rappel que le risque de dérégulation du marché de la fibre (et particulièrement FTTH) doublé de la position dominante des opérateurs historiques sur ce marché mènerait à l’exclusion d’acteurs plus petits du marché notamment dans le cadre d’accord de co-investissement&nbsp;;
 
* '''Marché du détail'''&nbsp;: Le marché du détail doit tout aussi être régulé “a priori” que le marché de gros afin d’éviter l’abus de position dominante et ne pas attendre une régulation “a posteriori” &nbsp;;
 
* '''Spectre'''&nbsp;: Le spectre doit être disponible à tous et pas seulement être distribué à des grands acteurs&nbsp;;
 
* '''Simplification du [http://www.arcep.fr/index.php?id=8102 service universel des communications électroniques]'''&nbsp;: Les dispositions présentes dans le code sont soutenues par ECTA&nbsp;;
 
* '''Marché transnationaux'''&nbsp;: ECTA souligne le manque d’initiative dans les positions de compétitions dans les offres commerciales (B2B) et les dispositions présentes conserveraient la concentration des marchés.
 
  
 +
Their positions in several points:
 +
* '''Physical access''' <ref> Operators who have the infrastructure sell two types of access to other operators or service providers: 'passive' access where a line is provided but the operator or the service provider must install hardware on the last section and an "active" access where the bandwidth is leased and there is no need to install hardware.</ref> ECTA reminds that although the supply of "active" access has been decisive for many actors, it can not substitute for "passive" access and asks for the code to be clearer on this subject.
 +
* '''Review of the concept of competition' ': in the current version of the code, two players are sufficient to establish satisfactory competition. ECTA does not, of course, agree with this proposal.
 +
* '''Significant Market Power ''': ECTA demands an equal approach when making regulatory decisions in order not to support incumbent or monopolistic actors against alternative actors.
 +
* '''Deregulation and co-investment agreement''': ECTA reminds that the risk of deregulation of the fibre market (and particularly FTTH) coupled with the dominant position of the incumbents in this market would lead to the exclusion of "smaller players in the market, particularly in the context of a co-investment agreement".
 +
* '''Retail market''': The retail market must be regulated ''a priori'' as well as the wholesale market in order to avoid the abuse of a dominant position and not to wait for regulation ''Posteriori''.
 +
* '''Spectrum''': The spectrum must be available to all and not only be distributed to major players.
 +
* '' 'Simplification of the [http://www.arcep.fr/index.php?id=8102 universal service of electronic communications]' '': The provisions present in the code are supported by ECTA.
 +
* '''Transnational market''': ECTA emphasizes the lack of initiative in competitive positions in commercial offers (B2B) and the present provisions would retain the concentration of markets.
 +
 +
 +
'''Position on rapporteur's report''': [http://www.ectaportal.com/en/NEWS/ECTA-Press-Releases/2017/Competition-the-missing-element-of-the-European-Parliament-s-draft-report-on-the-proposed-EECC/ website]
  
'''Position sur le rapport de la rapporteuse'''&nbsp;: [http://www.ectaportal.com/en/NEWS/ECTA-Press-Releases/2017/Competition-the-missing-element-of-the-European-Parliament-s-draft-report-on-the-proposed-EECC/ sur le site].
 
  
 
==== DIGITALEUROPE ====  
 
==== DIGITALEUROPE ====  
  
 
==== BEUC ====
 
==== BEUC ====
Position sur le rapport de la rapporteuse&nbsp;: [http://www.beuc.eu/publications/beuc-x-2017-028_consumer_protection_in_the_communications_sector.pdf PDF]
+
Position on the rapporteur's report : [http://www.beuc.eu/publications/beuc-x-2017-028_consumer_protection_in_the_communications_sector.pdf PDF]
  
== Secteur public ==
+
== Public Sector ==
=== Parlement européen ===
+
=== European Parliament ===
Page de procédure pour le code européen des communications électroniques&nbsp;: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?lang=&reference=2016/0288%28COD%29.
+
Procedure page  on the European Code of Electronic Communications: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?lang=&reference=2016/0288%28COD%29
  
 
==== ITRE (lead) ====
 
==== ITRE (lead) ====
 +
* Main rapporteur: Pilar DEL CASTILLO VERA (PPE - ES) - [https://memopol.lqdn.fr/representatives/pilar-del-castillo-vera-1952-07-31/votes/ Memopol Card] - [http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/28390/PILAR_DEL+CASTILLO+VERA_home.html Card on the website of the European Parliament]
  
===== Amendements de compromis =====
+
===== Compromise amendments =====
* [[media:20170607_Spectrum_compromise_amendements.pdf|Spectre]]
+
* [[media:20170607_Spectrum_compromise_amendements.pdf|Spectrum]]
 
* [[media:20170607_VHC_compromise_amendement.pdf|Very High Capacity Networks]]
 
* [[media:20170607_VHC_compromise_amendement.pdf|Very High Capacity Networks]]
  
  
  
* Amendements&nbsp;:
+
* Amendments :
** [http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2f%2fEP%2f%2fNONSGML%2bCOMPARL%2bPE-601.017%2b01%2bDOC%2bPDF%2bV0%2f%2fEN 1 à 144] – Rapporteur principal du texte&nbsp;: Pilar DEL CASTILLO VERA (PPE – ES) – [https://memopol.lqdn.fr/representatives/pilar-del-castillo-vera-1952-07-31/votes/ Fiche uMemopol] – [http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/28390/PILAR_DEL+CASTILLO+VERA_home.html Fiche sur le site du Parlement européen]&nbsp;;
+
** [[media:AM_CODE_145_a_295_Recitals.pdf|145 to 295]]
** [[media:AM_CODE_145_a_295_Recitals.pdf|145 à 295]] – version non traduite&nbsp;;
+
** [[media:AM_CODE_296_582_ab_art_1.pdf| 296 to 582]]
** [[media:AM_CODE_296_582_ab_art_1.pdf| 296 à 582]] – version non traduite&nbsp;;
+
** [[media:AM_CODE_583_832_art_42_65.pdf| 583 to 832]]
** [[media:AM_CODE_583_832_art_42_65.pdf| 583 à 832]] – version non traduite&nbsp;;
+
** [[media:AM_CODE_833_1152.pdf|833 to 1152]]
** [[media:AM_CODE_833_1152.pdf|833 à 1152]] – version non traduite.
 
  
  
'''Shadow rapporteurs&nbsp;:'''
+
'''Shadow rapporteurs :'''
* Groupe S&D&nbsp;:
+
* S&D Group :
** Miapetra KUMPULA-NATRI (FI) [https://memopol.lqdn.fr/representatives/miapetra-kumpula-natri-1972-05-19/votes/ Fiche Memopol] [http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/fr/124735/MIAPETRA_KUMPULA-NATRI_home.html Fiche sur le site du Parlement européen].
+
** Miapetra KUMPULA-NATRI (FI) - [https://memopol.lqdn.fr/representatives/miapetra-kumpula-natri-1972-05-19/votes/ Memopol Card] - [http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/fr/124735/MIAPETRA_KUMPULA-NATRI_home.html On the website of the European Parliament]
  
* Groupe ECR&nbsp;:
+
* ECR Group:
** Evžen TOŠENOVSKÝ (CZ) [https://memopol.lqdn.fr/representatives/evzen-tosenovsky-1956-02-26/votes/ Fiche Memopol] [http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/96713/EVZEN_TOSENOVSKY_home.html Fiche sur le site du Parlement européen].
+
** Evžen TOŠENOVSKÝ (CZ) - [https://memopol.lqdn.fr/representatives/evzen-tosenovsky-1956-02-26/votes/ Memopol Card] - [http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/96713/EVZEN_TOSENOVSKY_home.html Card on the website of European Parliament]
  
* Groupe ALDE&nbsp;:
+
* ALDE Group:
** Kaja KALLAS (ET) [https://memopol.lqdn.fr/representatives/kaja-kallas-1977-06-18/votes/ Fiche Memopol] [http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/124697/KAJA_KALLAS_home.html Fiche sur le site du Parlement européen].
+
** Kaja KALLAS (ET) - [https://memopol.lqdn.fr/representatives/kaja-kallas-1977-06-18/votes/ Memopol Card] - [http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/124697/KAJA_KALLAS_home.html Card on the website of the European Parliament]
  
* Groupes Greens/EFA&nbsp;:
+
* Greens/EFA Group:
** Michel REIMON (AU) [https://memopol.lqdn.fr/representatives/michel-reimon-1971-07-11/votes/ Fiche Memopol] [http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/124935/MICHEL_REIMON_home.html# Fiche sur le site du Parlement européen].
+
** Michel REIMON (AU) - [https://memopol.lqdn.fr/representatives/michel-reimon-1971-07-11/votes/ Memopol Card] - [http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/124935/MICHEL_REIMON_home.html# Card on the website of the European Parliament]
  
* Groupe GUE-NGL&nbsp;:
+
* GUE-NGL Group:
 
**  
 
**  
  
  
* Groupe EFDD&nbsp;:
+
* EFDD Group:
** David BORRELLI (IT) [https://memopol.lqdn.fr/representatives/david-borrelli-1971-04-28/votes/ Fiche Memopol] [http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/124796/DAVID_BORRELLI_home.html Fiche sur le site du Parlement européen].
+
** David BORRELLI (IT) - [https://memopol.lqdn.fr/representatives/david-borrelli-1971-04-28/votes/ Memopol Card] - [http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/124796/DAVID_BORRELLI_home.html Card on the website of the European Parliament]
 +
 
 +
* ENF Group:
 +
** Barbara KAPPEL (AU) - [https://memopol.lqdn.fr/representatives/barbara-kappel-1965-02-16/votes/ Memopol Card] - [http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/125024/BARBARA_KAPPEL_home.html Card on the website of the European Parliament]
  
* Groupe ENF&nbsp;:
 
** Barbara KAPPEL (AU) – [https://memopol.lqdn.fr/representatives/barbara-kappel-1965-02-16/votes/ Fiche Memopol] – [http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/125024/BARBARA_KAPPEL_home.html Fiche sur le site du Parlement européen].
 
  
==== IMCO (avis) ====  
+
==== IMCO (opinion) ====  
  
* Amendements
+
* Amendments
 
** [https://wiki.laquadrature.net/images/0/08/AM_164-301.doc AM 164-301] – Version non traduite ;
 
** [https://wiki.laquadrature.net/images/0/08/AM_164-301.doc AM 164-301] – Version non traduite ;
 
** [https://wiki.laquadrature.net/images/1/18/AM_302-535.doc AM 302-535] – Version non traduite ;
 
** [https://wiki.laquadrature.net/images/1/18/AM_302-535.doc AM 302-535] – Version non traduite ;
Line 121: Line 124:
 
'''Rapporteur'''
 
'''Rapporteur'''
  
* Rapporteur principal&nbsp;: Dita CHARANZOVÁ (ALDE CZ) [https://memopol.lqdn.fr/representatives/dita-charanzova-1975-04-30/votes/ Fiche Memopol] [http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/124708/DITA_CHARANZOVA_home.html Fiche sur le site du Parlement européen]&nbsp;;
+
* Main rapporteur: Dita CHARANZOVÁ (ALDE - CZ) - [https://memopol.lqdn.fr/representatives/dita-charanzova-1975-04-30/votes/ Memopol Card] - [http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/124708/DITA_CHARANZOVA_home.html Card on the website of the European Parliament]
* Rapport de la rapporteur&nbsp;: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2f%2fEP%2f%2fNONSGML%2bCOMPARL%2bPE-602.838%2b01%2bDOC%2bPDF%2bV0%2f%2fEN.
+
* Report of the rapporteur: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2f%2fEP%2f%2fNONSGML%2bCOMPARL%2bPE-602.838%2b01%2bDOC%2bPDF%2bV0%2f%2fEN
  
==== CULT (avis) ====
+
==== CULT (opinion) ====
* Rapporteur principal&nbsp;:  Curzio MALTESE (GUE-NGL IT) [https://memopol.lqdn.fr/representatives/curzio-maltese-1959-03-30/votes/ Fiche Memopol] [http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/125192/CURZIO_MALTESE_home.html Fiche sur le site du Parlement européen].
+
* Main Rapporteur:  Curzio MALTESE (GUE-NGL - IT) - [https://memopol.lqdn.fr/representatives/curzio-maltese-1959-03-30/votes/ Memopol Card] - [http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/125192/CURZIO_MALTESE_home.html Card on the website of the European Parliament]
  
==== LIBE (avis) ====
+
==== LIBE (opinion) ====
* Rapporteur principal&nbsp;:  Morten Helveg PETERSEN (ALDE DK) [https://memopol.lqdn.fr/representatives/morten-helveg-petersen-1966-09-14/votes/ Fiche Memopol] [http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/124872/MORTEN+HELVEG_PETERSEN_home.html Fiche sur le site du Parlement européen]&nbsp;;
+
* Main Rapporteur:  Morten Helveg PETERSEN (ALDE - DK) - [https://memopol.lqdn.fr/representatives/morten-helveg-petersen-1966-09-14/votes/ Memopol Card] - [http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/124872/MORTEN+HELVEG_PETERSEN_home.html Card on the website of the European Parliament]
* Rapport du rapporteur&nbsp;: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2f%2fEP%2f%2fNONSGML%2bCOMPARL%2bPE-602.838%2b01%2bDOC%2bPDF%2bV0%2f%2fEN.
+
* Report of the rapporteur : http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2f%2fEP%2f%2fNONSGML%2bCOMPARL%2bPE-602.838%2b01%2bDOC%2bPDF%2bV0%2f%2fEN
  
==== JURI (pour avis sur la technique de la refonte) ====
+
==== JURI (on the recast technique) ====
* Rapporteur principal&nbsp;: Heidi HAUTALA (Greens FI) [https://memopol.lqdn.fr/representatives/heidi-hautala-1955-11-14/votes/ Fiche Memopol] - [http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/fr/2054/HEIDI_HAUTALA_home.html Fiche sur le site du Parlement européen].
+
* Rapporteur principal : Heidi HAUTALA (Greens - FI) - [https://memopol.lqdn.fr/representatives/heidi-hautala-1955-11-14/votes/ Memopol Card] - [http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/fr/2054/HEIDI_HAUTALA_home.html Card on the website of the European Parliament]
  
=== Conseil de l’Union européenne ===
+
=== Council of the European Union ===
Compromis de la présidence maltaise du 31 mars 2017 : [[media:20170331 Compromis Malte code telecom marche.pdf|pdf]].
+
Compromise of the Maltese presidency from 31 March 2017: [[media:20170331 Compromis Malte code telecom marche.pdf|pdf]].
  
=== Commission européenne ===  
+
=== European Commission ===  
  
* [[media:Cellar_c5ee8d55-7a56-11e6-b076-01aa75ed71a1.0001.02_DOC_3.pdf|Texte]] de la commission&nbsp;;
+
* [[media:Cellar_c5ee8d55-7a56-11e6-b076-01aa75ed71a1.0001.02_DOC_3.pdf|Text]] of the Commission&nbsp;;
 
* [[media:Cellar_c5ee8d55-7a56-11e6-b076-01aa75ed71a1.0001.02_DOC_4.pdf|Annexes]].
 
* [[media:Cellar_c5ee8d55-7a56-11e6-b076-01aa75ed71a1.0001.02_DOC_4.pdf|Annexes]].
  
== Associatif ==
+
== NGO ==
=== Fédération FDN ===  
+
=== FDN Federation ===
* Positionnement ([https://www.ffdn.org/fr/etude/2016-11-14/note-danalyse-sur-le-paquet-telecom site web]) datant du 14 novembre 2016.
+
* Position paper ([https://www.ffdn.org/fr/etude/2016-11-14/note-danalyse-sur-le-paquet-telecom web site]) from 14 November 2016
''' Résumé&nbsp;:'''
+
* Summary:
  
FFDN est un regroupement de fournisseurs à Internet (FAI) associatifs. La Fédération aborde le Paquet Télécom (PT) sous un angle double&nbsp;: le déploiement de boucles locales de fibre optique et le regroupement de fréquences utilisées pour le mobile. Ces deux modernisations sont nécessaires et reconnues comme étant nécessaires au développement et à l’accès des services du futur.  
+
FFDN is a federation of associative Internet Service Providers (ISP). The Federation's analysis of the Telecom Package (TP) is two-fold: the deployment of local loop access via optical fibre and the defragmentation of radio frequencies used for mobile. Both modernisations are important and recognise as necessary to the development of future access services.  
  
En ce qui concerne le déploiement d’une boucle locale de fibre optique, FFDN propose le déploiement d’une boucle par localité qui serait la propriété d’une puissance publique qui en proposerait la location. Limiter les situations où différents opérateurs ont la propriété de différentes boucles au même endroit (à Paris par exemple) ainsi que de permettre à des fournisseurs de services qui ne sont pas propriétaires d’une boucle locale de fibre de quand même proposer des services sur cette boucle. Les conséquences seront, pour FFDN, bénéfiques pour l’ouverture du marché de la fibre, bénéfiques socialement pour l’accès à des plus petits fournisseurs de services à la fibre particulièrement en brisant le fonctionnement oligarchique du marché actuel de la fibre et permettraient une meilleure régulation locale de la boucle.  
+
Concerning the deployment of a local loop access via optical fibre, FFDN proposes the deployment of a loop through locality that would be the property of a public power who would offer it for rental. Limiting the situation where different operator have the property of different loop at the same place (like in Paris for instance) and allow service providers that are not owners of the local loop access to offer services on this loop. The consequences would be, according to FFDN, favourable for the openness of the fibre market, favourable for the access of smaller service providers to the fibre especially through breaking the oligarchic system of the current fibre market and allow a better regulation of the local loop access.  
  
Le regroupement des fréquences devra permettre l’ouverture des-dites fréquences au plus grand nombre d’acteur. FFDN propose la distribution de ces fréquences via un grand service public européen qui louerait les fréquences de façon équitable et transparente.  
+
Defragmentation of frequencies would allow the opening of the frequencies to the largest number of actors. FFDN proposes the distribution of those frequencies through a large European public service that would rent the frequencies in fair and transparent way.  
  
Essentiellement, et autant en ce qui concerne la fibre que les fréquences mobiles, FFDN propose une séparation entre la propriété de l’infrastructure et la fourniture de services sur la-dite infrastructure afin de permettre un accès le plus équitable et ouvert à tout type d’acteur.
+
Essentially, as much for fibre than frequencies, FFDN proposes a separation between the ownership of the infrastructure and the providing of services on the infrastructure in order to allow the most fair and open access to all type of actors.
  
Résumé des propositions&nbsp;:  
+
Summary of the proposals:  
* chaque boucle locale fibre, zone par zone, doit être contrôlée par la puissance publique&nbsp;;
+
* each local fibre loop, area by area, must be controlled by the public power;
* la boucle locale radio doit être déployée au niveau européen, en regroupant les fréquences, pour la plus grande efficacité technique&nbsp;;
+
* the local radio loop must be deployed at the European level, by bundling frequencies, for a better technical efficiency;
* l’entité chargée du déploiement et de la maintenance d’une boucle locale doit se voir interdire d’opérer dessus, et doit obéir à des règles publiques et transparentes de commercialisation à destination de tous les opérateurs d’Europe qui le souhaitent&nbsp;;
+
* the entity in charge of the deployment and the maintenance of a local loop must be forbidden to operate it and must obey public and transparent rules for the marketing towards all European operators that are interested;
* ces boucles locales doivent permettre de diffuser des accès au réseau dans toute l’Europe, pour tous les citoyens.
+
* those local loops must allow to broadcast network access in all Europe, for all citizens.
  
FFDN souligne l’échec du PT d’atteindre ces objectifs mais ouvre dans sa note d’analyse la proposition d’une régulation asymétrique qui se baserait sur la taille des acteurs du marché. Partant du constat qu’il existe deux types d’acteurs&nbsp;: propriétaires de la boucle locale et ceux qui sont assez grands pour créer leur propre marché, FFDN propose une cohabitation entre les différents acteurs par une mutualisation de l’infrastructure et la possibilité de n’importe quel acteur européen, où qu’il soit, de proposer des services sur une boucle.
+
FFDN underlines that the TP falls short of those objectives but opens in its position paper the proposal for an asymmetric regulation based not on the size of the actors of the market. Based on the observation that there exists two type of actors: owners of local loop and those big enough to create their own market, FFDN proposes a cohabitation between the different actors through a mutualisation of the infrastructure and the possibility for any EU actor, based wherever, to provide services on a local loop.
  
 
=== Net Commons ===
 
=== Net Commons ===
Après de nombreuses discussions avec de nombreux réseaux communautaires Européens (RC), les chercheurs de netCommons sont heureux de présenter un projet de lettre ouverte sur les « recommandations politiques pour soutenir les réseaux communautaires ». La lettre s’adresse aux décideurs européens, qui ont récemment commencé à travailler sur une refonte du cadre réglementaire des télécommunications.
+
After many discussions with many European Community Networks (CNs), researchers from netCommons are happy to present a draft open letter on "policy recommendations for sustaining Community Networks". The letter is targeted at European policy-makers, who recently started working on an overhaul of the telecom regulatory framework.
 +
 
 +
 
 +
This letter, drafted in collaboration with several European CNs and advocacy groups, is meant to offer a collective voice to this growing movement. Until March 15th, we would like to collect signatures from as many European CNs as possible, as well as other supporting organizations (be they advocacy groups, research projects, non-profits, SMEs, local authorities, etc.).
 +
 
 +
After this consultation period and the collection of signatures, we would like to send the letter to members of EU Parliament, national delegations at the Council of the EU, as well as to key officials from the EU Commission.
 +
 
 +
 
 +
Several outcomes can be expected, including:
  
Cette lettre, rédigée en collaboration avec plusieurs RC et groupes européens de défense des droits, est destinée à offrir une voix collective à ce mouvement croissant. Jusqu’au 15 mars, nous souhaitons recueillir les signatures du plus grand nombre possible de RC européens, ainsi que d’autres organisations de soutien (groupes de défense, projets de recherche, organismes sans but lucratif, PME, autorités locales, etc.).
+
* The publication of a joint press release by all signatories to disseminate the open letter as widely as possible (by the end of March).
 +
* Proposals for amendments reflecting the recommendations of this open letter, to be sent to key members of the EU Parliament before the first crucial vote on the Telecoms Package in late April.
 +
* A policy workshop to be organized later this year in Brussels.
  
Après cette période de consultation et la collecte des signatures, nous souhaitons envoyer la lettre aux membres du parlement européen, aux délégations nationales au Conseil de l’UE, ainsi qu’aux responsables clés de la Commission européenne.
 
  
On peut s’attendre à plusieurs résultats, notamment :
+
Of course, all of these potential outcomes will depend upon the involvement of signatory organizations, and in particular of the willingness of CNs to work together.
* La publication d’un communiqué de presse conjoint de tous les signataires pour diffuser la lettre ouverte le plus largement possible (fin mars)&nbsp;;
 
* Propositions d’amendements reflétant les recommandations de cette lettre ouverte, à transmettre aux principaux membres du parlement européen avant le premier vote crucial sur le Paquet Télécom fin avril&nbsp;;
 
* Un atelier sur les législations sera organisé plus tard cette année à Bruxelles.
 
  
Bien sûr, tous ces résultats possibles dépendront de la participation des organisations signataires, et en particulier de la volonté des RC de travailler ensemble.
+
But first, we are sharing the draft to a wider circle of CNs and other people interested in their activities for consultation and potential amendments to the text. Until March 15th, you can read and comment on the draft letter, offer corrections and suggest changes or additions by using co-ment, an online tool for collaborative writing. You can access the letter at the bottom of this page.
  
Mais d’abord, nous partageons le projet avec un cercle plus large de RC et d’autres personnes intéressées par leurs activités de consultation et d’amendements éventuels au texte. Jusqu’au 15 mars, vous pouvez lire et commenter le projet de lettre, offrir des corrections et suggérer des modifications ou des ajouts en utilisant co-ment, un outil en ligne pour l’écriture collaborative. Vous pouvez accéder à la lettre au bas de cette page.
+
If and when you agree to sign the letter, please send the name of your organization, the country where it is based and its high-resolution logo to:advocacy@netcommons.eu
  
Si vous acceptez de signer la lettre, veuillez envoyer le nom de votre organisation, le pays où il est basé et son logo à haute résolution à&nbsp;: advocacy@netcommons.eu.
 
  
'''[[Paquet_Telecom_2017/lettre_NetCommons|Lire la lettre]]'''
+
'''[[Paquet_Telecom_2017/lettre_NetCommons|Read the letter]]'''

Latest revision as of 11:24, 9 June 2017

Other languages:
English • ‎français

Operating forces

Private sector

Telcos Lobbies

GSMA

  • Answer to the public consultation (web site et pdf) from December 2015
  • Press release (web site) from September 2016

ETNO

  • PR 7 June 2017 on spectrum and 5G ;
  • Common letter ETNO/GSMA from 3 May 2017 ;
  • Position paper (pdf) from 25 January 2017
  • Summary: ETNO is a lobby representing incumbent operators (British Telecom, Orange, Proximus...). Their position tends, of course, towards reinforcing their position in the European Telecom market, limiting the risks of regulation "harming" innovation, increasing connectivity, reinforcing infrastructure competition, avoiding regulation model where they'd be trapped (especially those linked to the topography of certain areas...).


Networks:

  • Increase investment opportunities (especially for 5G and Next Generation Access (NGA)), which will open the prospect of new markets
  • Infrastructure-based competition [1] rather than service-based competition. A comfortable position for incumbent players who already have the majority of infrastructures. In addition, ETNO regrets that the text is not vague enough with the technology (technology-neutral), betting on a future technology evolution (future-oriented).
  • Deployment of optic fibre
  • Interesting position on "distortion of competition" in heterogeneous markets in certain regions and localities. Under the cover of arguments to ensure competition, ETNO sees the presence of well-established local players with access to very high-speed broadband as a thread to their business model.
  • Role of cable operators - to develop
  • Convergence: regular point in the position of ETNO where the postulate is that in the future all the services will be based on IP and therefore ETNO pushes towards a homogenisation of the regulations on these services. Only, it is not desirable and it would close the market access to actors not having, for example, fibre.
  • New actors: new actors, service providers, arrived on the market changing the rules. These are called OTTs (over the top players). The texts of the telecom package refer more to a differentiation numbering based services and non-numbering based services.


Spectrum:

  • ETNO recalls that there will be a lot of data shared in the future, nothing new
  • Allocation of frequencies: ETNO welcomes the current measures that have harmonized the technical use of frequencies, in particular for electronic communications networks. But regrets that the fragmentation of regulations makes the granting of frequencies and licenses too complicated.
  • More coordination for granting frequency ranges
  • A policy of granting simpler frequency ranges, particularly in the resale of the spectrum and minimizing conditions that distorted competition. In other words, more freedoms for the dominant actors who can sell and resell ranges and to ignore measures to protect competition when small players find themselves faced with larger players.


Universal Service Obligations[2]:

  • Having regards for the USO, ETNO tries to come back on the mere principle of this concept: the funding by private operators of a public service. The scope would be too wide, the regular reviews too numerous and too expensive. ETNO proposes even than a public service should be funded by public money[3]. In other words, if it doesn't have a profit, it isn't interesting.


End-users rights:

  • ETNO having a dominant position tries to ensure that its clients will keep their positions. For that, it reminds the importance to help the development of innovation no matter the type of ISP, to ensure an equal competition between equivalent services, to improve the protection of consumers in the digitalisation of the services.
  • Convergence: as seen earlier, ETNO sees the future as IP-based (numbering or non-numbering based services), making the telephonic network obsolete. One more reason to intervene in the fibre market to ensure a firm position.
  • Offering integrated "bundles": to diminish the sector specific regulation to offer integrated cross-sector services. This proposition is quite dangerous as it allow to bypass the Telecommunication Regulation (especially the one on Net Neutrality) opening the field for operators and IAP to offer to clients their third partner services. This will lead to a balkanisation of the Internet that the client will access.
  • In the same manner, ETNO wants to ensure less sector specific regulations for equivalent services making the scope the largest possible


Position on rapporteur's report: website

ECTA

  • Position paper (pdf) from 8 December 2016

Summary: ECTA gathers "alternative" operators and service providers (Bouyguers, Illiad, Netflix...). Their main objective is the access to the market owned by the incumbent operators that are mainly represented by ETNO (British Telecom, Deutsch Telecom, Proximus, Orange...). Their approaches are motivated by the openness of the market and the competition, the development of the internal market. In their position paper, they underline the importance for all actors to be able to invest in the market (through critics of the current co-investment model) and emphasize the too big risk of too much deregulation (that would be unfavourable for them as it will reinforce the incumbent operators).


Their positions in several points:

  • Physical access [4] ECTA reminds that although the supply of "active" access has been decisive for many actors, it can not substitute for "passive" access and asks for the code to be clearer on this subject.
  • Review of the concept of competition' ': in the current version of the code, two players are sufficient to establish satisfactory competition. ECTA does not, of course, agree with this proposal.
  • Significant Market Power : ECTA demands an equal approach when making regulatory decisions in order not to support incumbent or monopolistic actors against alternative actors.
  • Deregulation and co-investment agreement: ECTA reminds that the risk of deregulation of the fibre market (and particularly FTTH) coupled with the dominant position of the incumbents in this market would lead to the exclusion of "smaller players in the market, particularly in the context of a co-investment agreement".
  • Retail market: The retail market must be regulated a priori as well as the wholesale market in order to avoid the abuse of a dominant position and not to wait for regulation Posteriori.
  • Spectrum: The spectrum must be available to all and not only be distributed to major players.
  • 'Simplification of the universal service of electronic communications' : The provisions present in the code are supported by ECTA.
  • Transnational market: ECTA emphasizes the lack of initiative in competitive positions in commercial offers (B2B) and the present provisions would retain the concentration of markets.


Position on rapporteur's report: website


DIGITALEUROPE

BEUC

Position on the rapporteur's report : PDF

Public Sector

European Parliament

Procedure page on the European Code of Electronic Communications: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?lang=&reference=2016/0288%28COD%29

ITRE (lead)

Compromise amendments



Shadow rapporteurs :

  • GUE-NGL Group:



IMCO (opinion)

Rapporteur

CULT (opinion)

LIBE (opinion)

JURI (on the recast technique)

Council of the European Union

Compromise of the Maltese presidency from 31 March 2017: pdf.

European Commission

NGO

FDN Federation

  • Position paper (web site) from 14 November 2016
  • Summary:

FFDN is a federation of associative Internet Service Providers (ISP). The Federation's analysis of the Telecom Package (TP) is two-fold: the deployment of local loop access via optical fibre and the defragmentation of radio frequencies used for mobile. Both modernisations are important and recognise as necessary to the development of future access services.

Concerning the deployment of a local loop access via optical fibre, FFDN proposes the deployment of a loop through locality that would be the property of a public power who would offer it for rental. Limiting the situation where different operator have the property of different loop at the same place (like in Paris for instance) and allow service providers that are not owners of the local loop access to offer services on this loop. The consequences would be, according to FFDN, favourable for the openness of the fibre market, favourable for the access of smaller service providers to the fibre especially through breaking the oligarchic system of the current fibre market and allow a better regulation of the local loop access.

Defragmentation of frequencies would allow the opening of the frequencies to the largest number of actors. FFDN proposes the distribution of those frequencies through a large European public service that would rent the frequencies in fair and transparent way.

Essentially, as much for fibre than frequencies, FFDN proposes a separation between the ownership of the infrastructure and the providing of services on the infrastructure in order to allow the most fair and open access to all type of actors.

Summary of the proposals:

  • each local fibre loop, area by area, must be controlled by the public power;
  • the local radio loop must be deployed at the European level, by bundling frequencies, for a better technical efficiency;
  • the entity in charge of the deployment and the maintenance of a local loop must be forbidden to operate it and must obey public and transparent rules for the marketing towards all European operators that are interested;
  • those local loops must allow to broadcast network access in all Europe, for all citizens.

FFDN underlines that the TP falls short of those objectives but opens in its position paper the proposal for an asymmetric regulation based not on the size of the actors of the market. Based on the observation that there exists two type of actors: owners of local loop and those big enough to create their own market, FFDN proposes a cohabitation between the different actors through a mutualisation of the infrastructure and the possibility for any EU actor, based wherever, to provide services on a local loop.

Net Commons

After many discussions with many European Community Networks (CNs), researchers from netCommons are happy to present a draft open letter on "policy recommendations for sustaining Community Networks". The letter is targeted at European policy-makers, who recently started working on an overhaul of the telecom regulatory framework.


This letter, drafted in collaboration with several European CNs and advocacy groups, is meant to offer a collective voice to this growing movement. Until March 15th, we would like to collect signatures from as many European CNs as possible, as well as other supporting organizations (be they advocacy groups, research projects, non-profits, SMEs, local authorities, etc.).

After this consultation period and the collection of signatures, we would like to send the letter to members of EU Parliament, national delegations at the Council of the EU, as well as to key officials from the EU Commission.


Several outcomes can be expected, including:

  • The publication of a joint press release by all signatories to disseminate the open letter as widely as possible (by the end of March).
  • Proposals for amendments reflecting the recommendations of this open letter, to be sent to key members of the EU Parliament before the first crucial vote on the Telecoms Package in late April.
  • A policy workshop to be organized later this year in Brussels.


Of course, all of these potential outcomes will depend upon the involvement of signatory organizations, and in particular of the willingness of CNs to work together.

But first, we are sharing the draft to a wider circle of CNs and other people interested in their activities for consultation and potential amendments to the text. Until March 15th, you can read and comment on the draft letter, offer corrections and suggest changes or additions by using co-ment, an online tool for collaborative writing. You can access the letter at the bottom of this page.

If and when you agree to sign the letter, please send the name of your organization, the country where it is based and its high-resolution logo to:advocacy@netcommons.eu


Read the letter

  1. This is an important point that is related service-based competition, seen later in the position
  2. What it is: http://www.arcep.fr/index.php?id=8102
  3. The more obnoxious, the better
  4. Operators who have the infrastructure sell two types of access to other operators or service providers: 'passive' access where a line is provided but the operator or the service provider must install hardware on the last section and an "active" access where the bandwidth is leased and there is no need to install hardware.