The Council took
note, in a public session, of a progress report on a draft
roaming regulation and discussed this proposal on the basis of the
presidency questionnaire. The proposal aims at revising the current
regulation by introducing pro-competitive structural measures
and extending its validity until 30 June 2022. The proposed
structural measures aim to tackle the lack of competition and
consumer choice, which causes the high roaming prices. The
intention is to open the market to different types of providers and
raise consumers' awareness of roaming prices, as well as increase
choice by allowing them to purchase roaming also as a standalone
service.
The current
roaming regulation will expire on 30 June 2012. The aim of the
incoming Danish presidency will be to achieve a first-reading
agreement with the European Parliament early 2012.
The presidency's progress report is intended to
inform ministers of the work done so far and to identify issues,
which will need more in-depth consideration.
The working party
discussed the proposal at several meetings on the basis of three
clusters which cover the main elements of the proposal:
- structural
measures;
- price caps;
- transparency,
- safeguards
and
- supervision.
Most delegations
welcomed the proposal. However, most sought clarification with
regard to the exact scope of the wholesale access
obligation, and inquired about the technical and practical
feasibility of de-coupling domestic mobile services and
international roaming services, and about the implementation
time-frame for particular actions indicated in the regulation. The
delegations also expressed some concerns about the level of the
proposed price caps and the margin of the price caps at wholesale
and retail level.
- Structural
measures: many delegations enquired about the level of the
envisaged effects of the structural measures: would they indeed
meet the Digital Agenda target of narrowing or closing the gap
between current roaming prices and domestic prices? In addition,
concerns were expressed about the envisaged costs regarding the
implementation of the structural solutions, which, as assumed by
some delegations, could be substantially higher than the EUR 300
million estimated by the industry, as indicated in the
Commission’s impact assessment. Delegations put detailed
questions on how the wholesale access obligation would work in
practice, e.g. according to which criteria should mobile network
operators have to meet "reasonable requests" for wholesale roaming
access. Some delegations believe that the text of the Regulation
should better clarify the scope of access (direct wholesale roaming
and wholesale roaming resale) as well as the maximum period for
granting access. Many delegations believed that the scope of the
wholesale access obligation should cover wholesale inbound roaming
in the visited network as well as resale wholesale roaming in the
home network.
- Role of the
BEREC (Body of European Regulators for Electronic
Communications): delegations also questioned the process for
the BEREC to publish guidelines on wholesale access conditions for
the delivery of roaming services and some delegations argued that a
deadline should be put to BEREC to produce such guidelines. Issues
requiring further discussion on the wholesale access obligation
concern the scope of the access obligation, the pricing rules
related to the access and a time period for granting access.
Regarding the price for the access, some delegations pointed out
that, in order to recover costs not directly related to wholesale
access, network operators should be allowed to levy a charge to
cover a reasonable part of the costs separately from the price for
the actual roaming service.
- The issue of
competition: delegations appear to support the approach of
granting end-users the right to select an alternative roaming
provider as facilitating the availability of roaming as a
stand-alone service would address structural problems by raising
consumer awareness of roaming prices, allowing distinct consumer
choice concerning roaming services and thus increasing
competitive pressure on the demand side. In
this context, however, delegations did question the proposed
technical solution for de-coupling, which needs to be put in place
in order to meet the objectives of the structural measures. Many
delegations are not yet convinced at this stage about one or the
other technical solution for decoupling and are therefore reluctant
to predetermine the technical solution in the Regulation. A
number of delegations proposed to clearly set out general
principles in the Regulation in order to provide BEREC with
sufficient guidance, whilst at the same time retaining
flexibility to future-proof the Regulation in light of rapid market
and technological developments. Many delegations referred to
the need to fully involve BEREC in the definition of a technical
solution. The Regulation could consequently set out criteria
according to which BEREC and industry could work out guidelines for
technical solutions, which could be made binding in the EU through
the adoption of implementing acts. In this regard, the Regulation
could include, for example, the following criteria: the ability to
effectively foster competition, user-friendliness,
cost-effectiveness, network integrity and time constraints for
implementation. In this regard, BEREC is currently investigating
less complex solutions, such as roaming resale and local break out
for data, which would deliver benefits to different consumer
segments, quickly and without undue expenditure of time and
resources on implementation. According to BEREC, the Commission's
parallel proposals to reduce wholesale prices and introduce a
general right of wholesale access for roaming purposes, can already
be expected to deliver material competition benefits in the medium
term.
- Wholesale and
retail price caps: discussions focussed on the proposed level
of these caps and the linkage between the levels of the wholesale
and retail caps. In general, some delegations believed that the
level of retail caps could possibly be set lower so that the margin
between the wholesale and retail caps could be reduced and the
retail prices would not be more than three times the wholesale
prices. With regard to the caps generally and the retail caps
for data roaming particularly, the issue appears to be finding the
right balance between the interests of consumers, who are looking
for cheaper prices, and offering opportunities for potential new
market entrants, who might refrain from entering the market where
price caps are set too low. In general, delegations appeared to
prefer to start a detailed examination of the level of the caps
once discussions on the structural measures have advanced.
Delegations seemed to agree that, in order to determine the most
adequate level for the various caps, due consideration should be
given to the need to create incentives for alternative providers to
enter the market so that market dynamics would yield more
competitive prices, while at the same time ensuring that consumers
are protected from excessive price levels.
- Price cap
withdrawal mechanism: delegations put questions regarding the
proposed date for their expiration (2016 for retail caps), which
for some delegations would be premature as the structural solutions
might not yet be fully in place and competition might not yet be
sufficiently developed in the roaming market. Whereas some
delegations were not clear about the need for a threshold, other
delegations questioned the level of 75% for the threshold for
earlier removal of the caps, i.e. if average wholesale charges
based on off-net unbalanced traffic would fall to 75% or less of
the caps they will be withdrawn. Some delegations plead in favour
of tightening the threshold to 50% rather than 75% of the retail
price cap as the proposed price caps may be too high to indicate
competition across the EU.
- Review
mechanism: many delegations felt that the proposed date of 30
June 2015 for the Commission to report on the functioning of the
Regulation would be too early to usefully assess the impact of the
structural measures on competition. Concerning the review of
the Regulation, various delegations submitted initial views as to
its scope and timing but also pointed out that these suggested
adjustments would depend on the Council's final position regarding
the level and duration of the price caps.
- Transparency
and safeguard mechanism: delegations appeared to agree with the
new possibility in the Roaming proposal to easily opt out from the
automatic message service as certain customers might be well
informed about roaming charges. With regard to bill-shocks and the
cut-off limit, some delegations pointed out that, although certain
pre-paid customers know the amount of credit available to them and
are therefore less likely to suffer from bill shocks, there could
still be a need to apply the cut-off limit to other pre-paid
customers. A considerable number of delegations called for an
extension of the information requirements and the transparency
mechanism provided for in the draft Regulation to the use of data
roaming services outside the Union.