Telecoms Package 2017/forces

From La Quadrature du Net
< Paquet Telecom 2017
Revision as of 11:22, 9 June 2017 by Piks3l (talk | contribs) (Page créée avec « 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 la... »)
Jump to navigationJump to search
Other languages:
English • ‎français

Operating forces

Private sector

Telcos Lobbies


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


  • 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...).


  • 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.


  • 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


  • 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



Position on the rapporteur's report : PDF

Public Sector

European Parliament

Procedure page on the European Code of Electronic Communications:

ITRE (lead)

Compromise amendments

Shadow rapporteurs :

  • GUE-NGL Group:

IMCO (opinion)


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


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.

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.

Résumé des propositions :

  • chaque boucle locale fibre, zone par zone, doit être contrôlée par la puissance publique ;
  • la boucle locale radio doit être déployée au niveau européen, en regroupant les fréquences, pour la plus grande efficacité technique ;
  • 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 ;
  • ces boucles locales doivent permettre de diffuser des accès au réseau dans toute l’Europe, pour tous les citoyens.

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 : 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.

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.

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.).

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 :

  • La publication d’un communiqué de presse conjoint de tous les signataires pour diffuser la lettre ouverte le plus largement possible (fin mars) ;
  • 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 ;
  • 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.

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.

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 :

Lire la lettre

  1. This is an important point that is related service-based competition, seen later in the position
  2. What it is:
  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.