ITRE Amendments on Single Market Regulation

=Amendment 154=

=Amendment 155=

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=

=Amendment 157=

Justification: In line with the Transatlantic Dialogue (TLD) Non-Paper "Cyber security and Internet issues - Establishing framework for Transatlantic action". =Amendment 158=

=Amendment 159=

=Amendment 160=

=Amendment 161=

=Amendment 162=

=Amendment 163=

=Amendment 164=

=Amendment 165=

=Amendment 166=

=Amendment 167=

=Amendment 168=

=Amendment 169=

=Amendment 170=

=Amendment 171=

=Amendment 172=

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=

=Amendment 174=

=Amendment 175=

=Amendment 176=

=Amendment 177=

=Amendment 178=

=Amendment 179=

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=

=Amendment 181=

=Amendment 182=

=Amendment 183=

=Amendment 184=

=Amendment 185=

=Amendment 186=

=Amendment 187=

=Amendment 188=

=Amendment 189=

=Amendment 190=

=Amendment 191=

=Amendment 192=

=Amendment 193=

=Amendment 194=

Or.

=Amendment 195=

=Amendment 196=

=Amendment 197=

=Amendment 198=

=Amendment 199=

=Amendment 200=

=Amendment 201=

=Amendment 202=

=Amendment 203=

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=

=Amendment 205=

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=

=Amendment 207=

=Amendment 208=

=Amendment 209=

=Amendment 210=

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=

=Amendment 212=

=Amendment 213=

=Amendment 214=

=Amendment 215=

=Amendment 216=

=Amendment 217=

=Amendment 218=

=Amendment 219=

Justification: In line with the Transatlantic Dialogue (TLD) Non-Paper "Cyber security and Internet issues - Establishing framework for Transatlantic action". =Amendment 220=

=Amendment 221=

=Amendment 222=

=Amendment 223=

=Amendment 224=

=Amendment 225=

=Amendment 226=

=Amendment 227=

=Amendment 228=

=Amendment 229=

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=

=Amendment 231=

=Amendment 232=

=Amendment 233=

=Amendment 234=

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=

=Amendment 236=

=Amendment 237=

=Amendment 238=

=Amendment 239=

=Amendment 240=

=Amendment 241=

Or.

=Amendment 242=

=Amendment 243=

=Amendment 244=

=Amendment 245=

=Amendment 246=

=Amendment 247=

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=

=Amendment 249=

=Amendment 250=

=Amendment 251=

=Amendment 252=

=Amendment 253=

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=

=Amendment 255=

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=

=Amendment 257=

=Amendment 258=

Or.

=Amendment 259=

=Amendment 260=

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=

=Amendment 262=

=Amendment 263=

=Amendment 264=

=Amendment 265=

=Amendment 266=

=Amendment 267=

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=

=Amendment 269=

=Amendment 270=

=Amendment 271=

=Amendment 272=

=Amendment 273=

=Amendment 274=

=Amendment 275=

=Amendment 276=

=Amendment 277=

=Amendment 278=

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=

=Amendment 280=

=Amendment 281=

=Amendment 282=

=Amendment 283=

=Amendment 284=

=Amendment 285=

=Amendment 286=

=Amendment 287=

=Amendment 288=

=Amendment 289=

=Amendment 290=

=Amendment 291=

=Amendment 292=

=Amendment 293=

=Amendment 294=

=Amendment 295=

=Amendment 296=

=Amendment 297=

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=

=Amendment 299=

=Amendment 300=

=Amendment 301=

=Amendment 302=

=Amendment 303=

=Amendment 304=

=Amendment 305=

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=

=Amendment 307=

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=

=Amendment 309=

=Amendment 310=

=Amendment 311=

=Amendment 312=

=Amendment 313=

=Amendment 314=

=Amendment 315=

Justification: Giving the EU regulation the new objective of promoting the EU's global competitiveness will increase legal uncertainty. =Amendment 316=

=Amendment 317=

=Amendment 318=

=Amendment 319=

=Amendment 320=

=Amendment 321=

=Amendment 322=

=Amendment 323=

=Amendment 324=

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=

=Amendment 326=

=Amendment 327=

=Amendment 328=

=Amendment 329=

=Amendment 330=

=Amendment 331=

=Amendment 332=

=Amendment 333=

=Amendment 334=

=Amendment 335=

Or.

=Amendment 336=

=Amendment 337=

=Amendment 338=

=Amendment 339=

=Amendment 340=

=Amendment 341=

=Amendment 342=

=Amendment 343=

=Amendment 344=

=Amendment 345=

=Amendment 346=

=Amendment 347=

=Amendment 348=

=Amendment 349=

Or.

=Amendment 350=

=Amendment 351=

=Amendment 352=

Justification: Further clarification with regards to different devices. =Amendment 353=

=Amendment 354=

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=

=Amendment 356=

=Amendment 357=

=Amendment 358=

=Amendment 359=

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=

=Amendment 361=

=Amendment 362=

=Amendment 363=

=Amendment 364=

=Amendment 365=

=Amendment 366=

=Amendment 367=

=Amendment 368=

=Amendment 369=

=Amendment 370=

=Amendment 371=

=Amendment 372=

=Amendment 373=

=Amendment 374=

=Amendment 375=

=Amendment 376=

=Amendment 377=

=Amendment 378=

=Amendment 379=

=Amendment 380=

=Amendment 381=

=Amendment 382=

=Amendment 383=

=Amendment 384=

=Amendment 385=

=Amendment 386=

=Amendment 387=

=Amendment 388=

=Amendment 389=

=Amendment 390=

Or.

=Amendment 391=

=Amendment 392=

=Amendment 393=

=Amendment 394=

Or.

=Amendment 395=

=Amendment 396=

=Amendment 397=

=Amendment 398=

=Amendment 399=

=Amendment 400=

=Amendment 401=

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=

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=

=Amendment 404=

=Amendment 405=

=Amendment 406=

=Amendment 407=

=Amendment 408=

=Amendment 409=

=Amendment 410=

=Amendment 411=

=Amendment 412=

=Amendment 413=

=Amendment 414=

=Amendment 415=

=Amendment 416=

=Amendment 417=

=Amendment 418=

=Amendment 419=

=Amendment 420=

=Amendment 421=

=Amendment 422=

=Amendment 423=

=Amendment 424=

Or.

=Amendment 425=

=Amendment 426=

=Amendment 427=

=Amendment 428=

=Amendment 429=

=Amendment 430=

=Amendment 431=

=Amendment 432=

=Amendment 433=

=Amendment 434=

=Amendment 435=

=Amendment 436=

=Amendment 437=

=Amendment 438=

Or.

=Amendment 439=

=Amendment 440=

=Amendment 441=

=Amendment 442=

=Amendment 443=

=Amendment 444=

=Amendment 445=

=Amendment 446=

=Amendment 447=

=Amendment 448=

=Amendment 449=

=Amendment 450=

=Amendment 451=

=Amendment 452=

=Amendment 453=

=Amendment 454=

=Amendment 455=

=Amendment 456=

=Amendment 457=

=Amendment 458=

=Amendment 459=

=Amendment 460=

=Amendment 461=

Justification: This is to ensure a focus on the use of spectrum designated as primary. =Amendment 462=

=Amendment 463=

=Amendment 464=

=Amendment 465=

=Amendment 466=

=Amendment 467=

=Amendment 468=

=Amendment 469=

=Amendment 470=

=Amendment 471=

=Amendment 472=

=Amendment 473=

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=

=Amendment 475=

=Amendment 476=

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=

=Amendment 478=

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=

=Amendment 480=

=Amendment 481=

=Amendment 482=

=Amendment 483=

=Amendment 484=

=Amendment 485=

=Amendment 486=

=Amendment 487=

=Amendment 488=

=Amendment 489=

=Amendment 490=

=Amendment 491=

=Amendment 492=

=Amendment 493=

=Amendment 494=

=Amendment 495=

=Amendment 496=

=Amendment 497=

=Amendment 498=

=Amendment 499=

=Amendment 500=

=Amendment 501=

=Amendment 502=

=Amendment 503=

=Amendment 504=

=Amendment 505=

=Amendment 506=

=Amendment 507=

=Amendment 508=

=Amendment 509=

=Amendment 510=

=Amendment 511=

=Amendment 512=

=Amendment 513=

=Amendment 514=

=Amendment 515=

=Amendment 516=

=Amendment 517=

=Amendment 518=

=Amendment 519=

=Amendment 520=

=Amendment 521=

=Amendment 522=

=Amendment 523=

=Amendment 524=

=Amendment 525=

=Amendment 526=

=Amendment 527=

=Amendment 528=

=Amendment 529=

=Amendment 530=

=Amendment 531=

=Amendment 532=

=Amendment 533=

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=

=Amendment 535=

=Amendment 536=

=Amendment 537=

=Amendment 538=

=Amendment 539=

=Amendment 540=

=Amendment 541=

=Amendment 542=

=Amendment 543=

=Amendment 544=

=Amendment 545=

=Amendment 546=

=Amendment 547=

=Amendment 548=

=Amendment 549=

=Amendment 550=

=Amendment 551=

=Amendment 552=

=Amendment 553=

=Amendment 554=

=Amendment 555=

=Amendment 556=

=Amendment 557=

=Amendment 558=

=Amendment 559=

=Amendment 560=

=Amendment 561=

=Amendment 562=

=Amendment 563=

=Amendment 564=

=Amendment 565=

=Amendment 566=

=Amendment 567=

=Amendment 568=

=Amendment 569=

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

=Amendment 570=

=Amendment 571=

=Amendment 572=

=Amendment 573=

=Amendment 574=

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=

=Amendment 576=

=Amendment 577=

=Amendment 578=

=Amendment 579=

=Amendment 580=

=Amendment 581=

=Amendment 582=

=Amendment 583=

=Amendment 584=

=Amendment 585= Catherine Trautmann, Patrizia Toia, Teresa Riera Madurell, Dimitrios Droutsas, Edit Herczog 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, irrespective of their origin or destination, via their internet access service.
 * width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;"|
 * width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;"|
 * width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;"|
 * width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;"|
 * width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;"|
 * width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;"|
 * }

=Amendment 586=

=Amendment 587=

=Amendment 588=

=Amendment 589=

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=

=Amendment 591=

=Amendment 592=

=Amendment 593=

=Amendment 594=

=Amendment 595=

=Amendment 596=

=Amendment 597=

=Amendment 598=

=Amendment 599=

=Amendment 600=

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=

=Amendment 602=

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=

=Amendment 604= Catherine Trautmann, Patrizia Toia, Teresa Riera Madurell, Dimitrios Droutsas, Edit Herczog 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 operated in closed electronic networks with an enhanced quality of service. 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.
 * width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;"|
 * width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;"|
 * width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;"|
 * width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;"|
 * width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;"|
 * width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;"|
 * width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;"|
 * width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;"|
 * width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;"|
 * }

=Amendment 605=

=Amendment 606=

=Amendment 607=

=Amendment 608=

=Amendment 609=

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=

=Amendment 611=

=Amendment 612=

=Amendment 613=

=Amendment 614=

=Amendment 615=

=Amendment 616=

=Amendment 617=

=Amendment 618=

=Amendment 619=

=Amendment 620=

=Amendment 621=

=Amendment 622=

=Amendment 623=

=Amendment 624=

=Amendment 625=

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=

=Amendment 627=

=Amendment 628=

=Amendment 629=

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=

=Amendment 631=

=Amendment 632=

=Amendment 633=

=Amendment 634=

=Amendment 635=

=Amendment 636=

=Amendment 637=

=Amendment 638=

=Amendment 639=

=Amendment 640=

=Amendment 641=

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=

=Amendment 643=

=Amendment 644=

=Amendment 645=

Justification: Deletion due to new Article 23 - paragraph 5 - subparagraph 1 - introductory part.

=Amendment 646=

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=

=Amendment 648=

=Amendment 649=

Justification: It should be underlined that for any such measures a legal basis or a court order is always required.

=Amendment 650=

=Amendment 651=

=Amendment 652=

Justification: Deletion due to new Article 23 - paragraph 5 - subparagraph 1 - introductory part.

=Amendment 653=

=Amendment 654=

=Amendment 655=

=Amendment 656=

=Amendment 657=

=Amendment 658=

=Amendment 659=

Justification: Deletion due to new Article 23 - paragraph 5 - subparagraph 1 - introductory part.

=Amendment 660=

=Amendment 661=

Justification: It is general practice that providers filter spam. Requiring explicit agreement from individual users is not possible in practice.

=Amendment 662=

=Amendment 663=

=Amendment 664=

=Amendment 665=

=Amendment 666=

Justification: Deletion due to new Article 23 - paragraph 5 - subparagraph 1 - introductory part.

=Amendment 667=

Justification: In order to preserve net neutrality, the internet service provider shall primarily solve the congestion by ensuring that no specific internet applications, content or service will be subject to discrimination.

=Amendment 668=

=Amendment 669=

=Amendment 670=

=Amendment 671=

=Amendment 672=

=Amendment 673=

Justification: Following the original wording, paradoxically, providers could only mitigate already existing congestion but not take measures to prevent them in the first place. Pro-active and preventing measures should not be excluded.

=Amendment 674=

=Amendment 675=

=Amendment 676=

=Amendment 677=

=Amendment 678=

=Amendment 679=

Justification: The definition of what constitutes reasonable or acceptable/necessary traffic management will change over time, as the technology continues to develop rapidly and network capacity increases. It is therefore preferable for guidance on what constitutes ‘reasonable traffic management’ to be produced (and kept up to date) by those closest to the markets i.e. regulators acting collectively through BEREC.

=Amendment 680=

=Amendment 681=

Justification: Traffic management measures shall not be based on intrusive communications inspection technique as Deep Packet Inspection (DPI). This provision is extremely necessary to protect freedoms of the European citizens regarding the respect for their private and family life and the protection of personal data, in accordance to article 7 and 8 of the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

=Amendment 682=

=Amendment 683=

=Amendment 684=

Justification: This is a safeguard against data cap leverage scenario where ISP has very low data caps on public internet access but offers unlimited data for specialised services. This amendment is inspired by the Dutch net neutrality law.

=Amendment 685=

=Amendment 686=

=Amendment 687=

Justification: National Regulatory Authorities’ role must be better defined to guarantee the enforcement mechanism and properly enforce the net neutrality principle, guarantee the freedom of expression and information of users, as well as competition and innovation in the digital economy. The European data protection supervisor should be able to monitor on how specialised services can impact the data protection of European citizens.

=Amendment 688=

=Amendment 689=

Justification: It is important to have a continuous monitoring of the quality of service of the internet, including the regular assessment of internet speeds so that the vast majority of users can benefit from an ever improving internet and that such innovations as are likely to happen in the coming years are not siphoned off into specialised or premium services.

=Amendment 690=

Justification: Cultural diversity is not a legal concept, nor is it objectively measurable in a consistent way across Member States, and it is not matched to any power that NRAs could rely on to address any concerns they might identify.

=Amendment 691=

=Amendment 692=

=Amendment 693=

Justification: It should be monitored how specialised services increase competition on the market. Those reports should be accessible to the public.

=Amendment 694=

=Amendment 695=

=Amendment 696=

=Amendment 697=

=Amendment 698=

=Amendment 699=

=Amendment 700=

=Amendment 701=

=Amendment 702=

=Amendment 703=

=Amendment 704=

=Amendment 705=

Justification: Uniform application needed.

=Amendment 706=

=Amendment 707=

=Amendment 708=

=Amendment 709=

=Amendment 710=

=Amendment 711=

=Amendment 712=

=Amendment 713=

Justification: This provision completes the framework and better guarantees the rights of the European citizens regarding the respect for their private life and their protection of personal data, according to articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

=Amendment 714=

=Amendment 715=

=Amendment 716=

=Amendment 717=

Justification: To allow for trustworthy comparison the methodology and software implementation has to be open for review. In order to allow oversight over the whole range of internet products the means for average users to confirm their internet product is delivering the contractually agreed specifications, those tools have to be free of charge. To allow the creation for independent comparison facilities the network monitoring data has to be provided by the principle of open data, e.g. easily machine readable, standardised and under a free licence.

=Amendment 718=

=Amendment 719=

=Amendment 720=

=Amendment 721=

=Amendment 722=

=Amendment 723=

=Amendment 724=

=Amendment 725=

=Amendment 726=

=Amendment 727=

=Amendment 728=

=Amendment 729=

Justification: In order to provide telecommunications companies with the necessary legal, planning and investment security, the guaranteed minimum contract period must be of adequate duration. This would be effectively undermined by a six-month limit. 

=Amendment 730=

=Amendment 731=

=Amendment 732=

=Amendment 733=

Justification: Restoral of status quo.

=Amendment 734=

Justification: Consumers must have the option of terminating their contracts, but only if they are modified in a manner which is detrimental to their interests or has not been mutually agreed. If consumers were authorised to terminate their contracts arbitrarily, even where the modifications were arguably to their advantage, this would create a climate of uncertainty for undertakings in terms of planning and investment.

=Amendment 735=

=Amendment 736=

=Amendment 737=

=Amendment 738=

=Amendment 739=

=Amendment 740=

=Amendment 741=

=Amendment 742=

Justification: Since the adoption of the EU regulatory framework (2002), the telecommunications market has changed significantly, with the convergence of the formerly separate markets occupied by traditional telecom and Internet service providers respectively. In order to uphold uniform consumer rights, transparency provisions and privacy requirements regarding the use of communications services, the rules governing traditional telecommunications services should apply to Internet service providers also.

=Amendment 743=

=Amendment 744=

=Amendment 745=

=Amendment 746=

=Amendment 747=

=Amendment 748=

=Amendment 749=

Justification: Price regulation can only be justified where end-users need to be protected from monopoly pricing, i.e. in the presence of a so-called ‘persistent bottleneck’, which is not subject to price constraints from either competing retail offers or regulated offers on another network. Embedding the principle in EU law provides much-needed legal certainty.

=Amendment 750=

(http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:081:0007:0017:EN:PDF)

=Amendment 751=

=Amendment 752=

(http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2002:108:0033:0033:DE:PDF)

Justification: The 2002 definition of electronic communications services is now outdated and must accordingly be must be widened to take account of the fact that the market now encompasses both traditional telecom operators and the over-the-top players.

=Amendment 753=

(http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2002:108:0033:0033:EN:PDF)

Justification: Since the time of adoption of the EU regulatory framework in 2002 the communications market has significantly changed and is today characterized by the convergence of formerly more separated markets of traditional telecommunications services and Internet Protocol based services. Migration to all IP will blur the distinction between IP based services and telecommunications services. Today, many text, voice or video communication is increasingly substituted by software Applications or data platform providers. To preserve basic consumer rights, transparency requirements, privacy and to cater for basic security requirements like the provision of emergency services, rules established for traditional telecommunications services must also apply for these alternative service provisioning. Otherwise, we will leave European Citizen increasingly without any basic protection and preserve an imbalance between service providers on the electronic communications markets. It is therefore high time to extend the scope of application of the framework rules protecting our Citizen to all service providers who provide similar services to the consumer.

=Amendment 754=

Justification: In order to prevent detrimental effects on end users, it is necessary to reaffirm the competence of national authorities with regard to the task of harmonizing the application of specific provisions of this - and other specific - Directives.

=Amendment 755=

=Amendment 756=

=Amendment 757=

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 758=

=Amendment 759=

=Amendment 760=

=Amendment 761=

=Amendment 762=

=Amendment 763=

=Amendment 764=

=Amendment 765=

Justification: With the Commission’s proposal the separate sale of roaming services in Europe has in actuality been chocked due to the market uncertainty it brings about until its adoption. Against the background of the abolishment of roaming charges, as proposed by the rapporteur, the decoupling facilities are no longer of use, which is why providers should not be required to further dedicate resources to this.

=Amendment 766=

=Amendment 767=

=Amendment 768=

=Amendment 769=

=Amendment 770=

=Amendment 771=

=Amendment 772=

=Amendment 773=

=Amendment 774=

Justification: With the Commission’s proposal the separate sale of roaming services in Europe has in actuality been chocked due to the market uncertainty it brings about until its adoption. Against the background of the abolishment of roaming charges, as proposed by the rapporteur, the decoupling facilities are no longer of use, which is why providers should not be required to further dedicate resources to this.

=Amendment 775=

=Amendment 776= Jens Rohde, Phil Bennion, Catherine Bearder, Fiona Hall, Bill Newton Dunn, Sarah Ludford, Rebecca Taylor, Edward McMillan-Scott, George Lyon, Graham Watson, Andrew Duff, Judith A. Merkies Article 37 – point 3 a (new)

<DOC2>Regulation (EU) No 531/2012</DOC2> <ART2>Article 6a</ART2>;

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (3a) Article 37 point 4 (new) the following article is inserted:</B> Article 6a </B>
 * width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;"|
 * width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;"|
 * width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;"|
 * width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;"|
 * width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;"|
 * width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;"|
 * width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;"|
 * width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;"|
 * width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;"|

Abolition of retail roaming charges</B> 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 customers 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.</B>
 * width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;"|
 * width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;"|
 * width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;"|
 * width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;"|
 * width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;"|
 * width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;"|
 * }

Justification: This amendment brings the abolishment of the roaming surcharges in line with the European Parliament`s 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.By including MMS messages in this provision we address unexpectedly high bills as an emerging issue (often the consumer thinks they have sent an SMS but it is actually an MMS for which separate charges apply). As this article very specifically refers to the individual types of services offered, the inclusion of wording ‘or any general charge to enable the terminal equipment or service to be used abroad’ seeks to prevent the introduction of more general charges for, e.g. ‘enabling the phone to be used abroad’ (some operators require consumers to contact them before they will enable roaming on handsets).

=Amendment 777=

=Amendment 778=

Justification: NOTE: MMS included to avoid a situation where there was scope for operators to apply a surcharge for MMS when roaming.

=Amendment 779=

(http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:172:0010:0035:EN:PDF)

Justification: In a number of Member States average retail 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. Therefore the wholesale prices for voice should be further decreased in order to allow for a greater competition. Roaming mobile termination rates should be decreased in order to avoid market distortions

=Amendment 780=

(http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:172:0010:0035:EN:PDF)

Justification: Without creating a wholesale market in which the smaller players can compete, new legislation could distort competition and lead to the eviction of smaller and dynamic players from the market for international roaming. This amendments reduces wholesale roaming caps to a level which enables each provider who so wishes to offer retail services including ‘roam like at home’ in the short term. In addition, maximum wholesale charges are reduced in line with cost reductions, while leaving a reasonable margin in relation to capped retail charges to encourage market entry. This will enable market-led development of retail offers, and is certain to achieve the policy objective of putting an end to retail roaming tariffs by 2015, by enabling all providers to supply ‘roam like at home’ to mobile user. The levels of the revised wholesale roaming caps put forward are not below cost, as is evidenced by: (i) existing retail offers on domestic markets, (ii) existing domestic MVNO access offers and agreements, and (iii) a small number of bilateral wholesale roaming agreements between mobile network operators. Furthermore, the September BEREC benchmark report, which analysed the average EU roaming retail and wholesale rates for the first quarter of 2013, indicated the following margins:• Voice a) retail: 0.324 cents per minute, b) wholesale: 0.113 cents per minute.• SMS a) retail:0.084 cents per SMS, b) wholesale: 0.025 cents per SMS.• Data a) retail:0.482 cents per MB, b) wholesale:0.069 cents per MB. These numbers therefore demonstrate margins of 286% for voice, 336% for SMS and 698% for data.

=Amendment 781=

=Amendment 782=

=Amendment 783=

=Amendment 784=

Justification: It is proposed to abolish retail roaming charges from July 2016 on. However, in order to allow for this, BEREC should adopt guidelines on measures to prevent abuse and arbitrage effects which could otherwise negatively impact domestic markets and incentives for investment.

=Amendment 785=

(http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:172:0010:0035:EN:PDF)

=Amendment 786=

=Amendment 787=

(http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:172:0010:0035:EN:PDF)

Justification: Without creating a wholesale market in which the smaller players can compete, new legislation could distort competition and lead to the eviction of smaller and dynamic players from the market for international roaming. This amendments reduces wholesale roaming caps to a level which enables each provider who so wishes to offer retail services including ‘roam like at home’ in the short term. In addition, maximum wholesale charges are reduced in line with cost reductions, while leaving a reasonable margin in relation to capped retail charges to encourage market entry. This will enable market-led development of retail offers, and is certain to achieve the policy objective of putting an end to retail roaming tariffs by 2015, by enabling all providers to supply ‘roam like at home’ to mobile user. The levels of the revised wholesale roaming caps put forward are not below cost, as is evidenced by: (i) existing retail offers on domestic markets, (ii) existing domestic MVNO access offers and agreements, and (iii) a small number of bilateral wholesale roaming agreements between mobile network operators. Furthermore, the September BEREC benchmark report, which analysed the average EU roaming retail and wholesale rates for the first quarter of 2013, indicated the following margins:• Voice a) retail: 0.324 cents per minute, b) wholesale: 0.113 cents per minute.• SMS a) retail:0.084 cents per SMS, b) wholesale: 0.025 cents per SMS.• Data a) retail:0.482 cents per MB, b) wholesale:0.069 cents per MB. These numbers therefore demonstrate margins of 286% for voice, 336% for SMS and 698% for data.

=Amendment 788=

(http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:172:0010:0035:EN:PDF)

=Amendment 789=

(http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:172:0010:0035:EN:PDF)

Justification: Without creating a wholesale market in which the smaller players can compete, new legislation could distort competition and lead to the eviction of smaller and dynamic players from the market for international roaming. This amendments reduces wholesale roaming caps to a level which enables each provider who so wishes to offer retail services including ‘roam like at home’ in the short term. In addition, maximum wholesale charges are reduced in line with cost reductions, while leaving a reasonable margin in relation to capped retail charges to encourage market entry. This will enable market-led development of retail offers, and is certain to achieve the policy objective of putting an end to retail roaming tariffs by 2015, by enabling all providers to supply ‘roam like at home’ to mobile user. The levels of the revised wholesale roaming caps put forward are not below cost, as is evidenced by: (i) existing retail offers on domestic markets, (ii) existing domestic MVNO access offers and agreements, and (iii) a small number of bilateral wholesale roaming agreements between mobile network operators. Furthermore, the September BEREC benchmark report, which analysed the average EU roaming retail and wholesale rates for the first quarter of 2013, indicated the following margins:• Voice a) retail: 0.324 cents per minute, b) wholesale: 0.113 cents per minute.• SMS a) retail:0.084 cents per SMS, b) wholesale: 0.025 cents per SMS.• Data a) retail:0.482 cents per MB, b) wholesale:0.069 cents per MB. These numbers therefore demonstrate margins of 286% for voice, 336% for SMS and 698% for data.

=Amendment 790=

(http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:172:0010:0035:EN:PDF)

=Amendment 791=

=Amendment 792=

=Amendment 793=

=Amendment 794=

=Amendment 795=

=Amendment 796=

=Amendment 797=

=Amendment 798=

=Amendment 799=

(http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:172:0010:0035:EN:PDF)

=Amendment 800=

(http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:172:0010:0035:EN:PDF)

=Amendment 801= Catherine Trautmann, Patrizia Toia, Teresa Riera Madurell, Dimitrios Droutsas, Edit Herczog</MB> Article 38 – point 1 a (new) <DOC2>Regulation (EU) No 531/2012</DOC2> <ART2>Article 4 – paragraph 6a (new)</ART2>;

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (1a) In Article 3, a new paragraph 2a is added:</B> BEREC’s advisory role upstream of any legislative proposals affecting the electronic communications sector should be made methodical</B>
 * width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;"|
 * width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;"|
 * width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;"|
 * width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;"|
 * width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;"|
 * width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;"|
 * width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;"|
 * width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;"|
 * width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;"|
 * }

=Amendment 802=

Justification: The current fee structure employed in the majority of cases across the Union is characterised by large up-front payments which do not align well with the timing profile of the required network investments, nor with the timing of revenue generation that the use of the allocated spectrum allows. A more balanced approach, which consider the full impact that alternative fee structures have on investments and innovation.

=Amendment 803=

=Amendment 804=

Justification: In its Communication accompanying this legislative proposal the Commission acknowledges the transitory nature of SMP based asymmetric ex-ante regulation and the need to establish a level playing field with so called ‘over the top’ online services in a converging all IP market. These are two basic requirements to provide for competitive framework conditions for the European ICT industry and we cannot afford to postpone these changes, essential for the recovery of our strategically important ICT sector. When the next revised framework will enter into force, we will have experienced two decades of transitory sector specific ex-ante SMP regulation. Already today we clearly observe that telecommunications markets are competitive and with the underlying market structure and established wholesale markets competition rules are already today able to sufficiently guarantee the competitive functioning of telecommunications markets in Europe. This does not mean that we do not need to continue to provide for symmetric rules, applicable to all market players independent of any SMP to ensure basic security requirements and to sufficiently protect consumers. Well established principles which have proven their value in protecting consumers and keeping markets open for competition like any-to-any-communication, portability, non-discrimination, openness of platforms, transparency and the like should be applied in an appropriate way to all players in the converging all IP world.

=Amendment 805=

=Amendment 806=

=Amendment 807=

=Amendment 808=

=Amendment 809=

Justification: The potential modification of the current regulatory and competition model of the EU must be carried out under a comprehensive review, public consultation and impact assessment. This Regulation or implementing acts of the Commission should not prejudice such a review, in this context the modification of the currently applicable list of relevant markets cannot be justified before the co-legislators will have agreed upon it following the review.

=Amendment 810=

=Amendment 811=

=Amendment 812=

=Amendment 813=

=Amendment 814=

=Amendment 815=

=Amendment 816=

=Amendment 817=

=Amendment 818=

=Amendment 819=

=Amendment 820=

=Amendment 821=

=Amendment 822=

=Amendment 823=

=Amendment 824=

=Amendment 825=

=Amendment 826=

=Amendment 827=

=Amendment 828=

=Amendment 829=

=Amendment 830=