While Wouter waits for his clearance to post... Begin forwarded message:
> From: Wouter van Hulten <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [connect-bof] Regulation proposed by European Commission > Date: 29 October, 2013 18:32:09 CET > To: Gordon Lennox <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" > <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > Thanks for this clear summary. > > I contacted the ITRE Secretariat last week. Whilst the deadline for the > feedback is 5 november, the ITRE Secretariat indicated that they will only > send the documents to translation on 14 november. Also, they are keen to > receive feedback from RIPE community: “Please make comments”, and "the text > is very complex, technical, political”. > > Also, Dutch MEP Marietje Schaake has kindly offered to arrange a meeting in > Brussels with the ITRE Rapporteur, Mrs Del Castillo Vera. (You may have > noticed that she wrote the preface to Report of the Dynamic Coalition in > support of Net Neutrality.) Her assistant has written to ITRE rapporteur > that "Ms Schaake would like to see whether it would be possible to set up a > meeting between Mrs Del Castillo Vera, herself and a small delegation (max 5 > persons) of [representatives] from the RIPE Internet Community in order to > discuss the Connected Continent proposal.” Tentative dates are 11 november > after 1pm, or 12 november 1-2pm. > > Legislative package: > http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/connected-continent-legislative-package > Impact assessment: > https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/impact-assessment-connected-continent > > What’s next? Please submit feedback via WG Chair or the list. If you are > able to join the meeting, please also send a message. > That’s all for now, more news to follow from the WG Chair, if I’m not > mistaken. > > Wouter > > > http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/itre/home.html > Public stakeholder consultation on Telecoms Regulation > Ms Pilar del Castillo (EPP), the newly appointed ITRE Rapporteur on the > recently proposed Telecoms Regulation is launching a public stakeholder > consultation to benefit from the input of consumers, national regulators, > industry stakeholders and other interested parties, not least NGOs, in the > work of the ITRE Committee. The Rapporteur would welcome this stakeholder > input on the Commission proposal by 5 November 2013. > For more information on the proposal consult EC website > <http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/connected-continent-single-telecom-market-growth-jobs> > > > > On 22/10/13 12:55, "Gordon Lennox" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Just before Athens and in the margins of the meeting itself I had various >> brief exchanges on this and so I thought it useful to bring the various >> things together and to try and give some pointers. >> >> I am not sure which group is better. So I am sending it to both the >> Cooperation WG and the Connect BOF at this stage. >> >> ------- >> >> The basic Brussels problem is that they still have not managed to do >> Internet and telecoms policy as a coherent whole. >> >> People there tend not come to RIPE, or any similar Internet meetings. The >> few who do internet-related things have tended to go to ICANN, where of >> course the emphasis has been on new gTLDs, and to the IGF, which was defined >> as having "no negotiated outcomes". Which can all seen as adequate as there >> is no intention to regulate the Internet in the EU! >> >> Meanwhile there is a much larger group working on EU telecoms regulation >> which is done without significant reference to the Internet and yet with >> serious lobbying from ETNO and GSMA. Even ETSI has its Brussels person. >> >> The result has been texts and proposals that Internet people have found >> confusing or even potentially dangerous. >> >> Confusing? A few years ago there was a major study on "IP Interconnection". >> Because there were major problems with IP interconnection? If I remember >> correctly the way in was given by Daniel Karrenberg who suggested that if >> you changed the title of the study it made more sense. It was not about IP >> interconnection: it was about the interconnection of telecoms services over >> IP networks. Not exactly the same thing. >> >> Dangerous? I think it was folk from the CENTR community who saw the problem. >> While the Commission said they had no intent of regulating certain Internet >> things, and so had not looked in that direction, CENTR lawyers felt their >> text could be interpreted as applying to the DNS and TLDs. The problem is >> though that regulations are for regulators and the courts to interpret. And >> they are not going to run back to Brussels and ask what they really meant. >> >> So now we have a new proposed regulation. >> >> I should mention that once "regulations" are adopted by the European >> Parliament and the Council that is it. "Regulations" are unlike "directives" >> where Member States then have to transpose the texts into their national >> legislation. There is also the point that next year sees elections for the >> Parliament and a new Commission which will obviously influence the timetable. >> >> There are a number of aspects which should be of interest to this community: >> ** the Commission's view of the sector. The telecoms sector is in a bad way? >> But if helped it will do good things? >> ** market consolidation. This is a big part of the answer? >> ** interconnection. Needs to be regulated? But at which layer and between >> who? >> ** network neutrality & the open internet v. specialised services >> ** ... and so on >> >> The press release or "memo" provide perhaps the easier ways in: >> http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-828_en.htm >> http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-779_en.htm >> >> But the "communication" is probably better: >> https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/communication-commission-european-parliament-council-european-economic-and-social-committee-a-0 >> >> Then the proposed Regulation is where the meat is: >> https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/regulation-european-parliament-and-council-laying-down-measures-concerning-european-single >> >> If you only read one text though then the proposed Regulation is the best. >> >> There is a link to the text of the new Regulation, and all the other various >> associated documents, here: >> http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/connected-continent-single-telecom-market-growth-jobs >> >> ------ >> >> So the formal title and a few semi-random extracts: >> >> Brussels, 11.9.2013 >> COM(2013) 627 final >> 2013/0309 (COD) >> >> Proposal for a >> REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL >> laying down measures concerning the European single market for electronic >> communications and to achieve a Connected Continent, and amending Directives >> 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC and 2002/22/EC and Regulations (EC) No 1211/2009 and >> (EU) >> No 531/2012 >> >> <<Today, Europe is fragmented into 28 separate national communications >> markets, each with a >> limited number of players. As a consequence, while no operator is present in >> more than half >> of the Member States, most in far fewer, overall more than 200 operators >> serve a market of >> 510 million of customers. EU rules on, for example, authorisations, >> regulatory conditions, >> spectrum assignment and consumer protection are implemented in diverging >> ways. This >> patchy scenario raises barriers to entry and increases the costs for >> operators wanting to >> provide cross-border services thereby impeding their expansion. This stands >> in stark contrast >> with the US or China who have one single market of 330 and 1400 million >> customers >> respectively, served by four to five large operators, with one legislation, >> one licensing system, >> and one spectrum policy.>> >> >> <<A right for electronic communications providers to offer and access on >> reasonable >> terms harmonised connectivity products with assured service quality to >> enable new >> types of online services.>> >> >> <<In a context of progressive migration to 'all IP networks', the lack of >> availability of >> connectivity products based on the IP protocol for different classes of >> services with >> assured service quality that enable communication paths across network >> domains and >> across network borders, both within and between Member States, hinders the >> development of applications that rely on access to other networks, thus >> limiting >> technological innovation. Moreover, this situation prevents the diffusion on >> a wider >> scale of efficiencies which are associated with the management and provision >> of IP-based >> networks and connectivity products with an assured service quality level, in >> particular enhanced security, reliability and flexibility, >> cost-effectiveness and faster >> provisioning, which benefit network operators, service providers and end >> users. A >> harmonised approach to the design and availability of these products is >> therefore >> necessary, on reasonable terms including, where requested, the possibility >> of crosssupply >> by the electronic communications undertakings concerned.>> >> >> <<"assured service quality (ASQ) connectivity product" means a product that >> is made >> available at the internet protocol (IP) exchange, which enables customers to >> set up an IP >> communication link between a point of interconnection and one or several >> fixed network >> termination points, and enables defined levels of end to end network >> performance for the >> provision of specific services to end users on the basis of the delivery of >> a specified >> guaranteed quality of service, based on specified parameters;>> >> >> >> ----- >> >> So one might ask what "four to five large operators" would mean for the >> public Internet in this region. >> The second point says an awful lot in a few words! >> The third point may not make sense if you think in Internet terms. But if >> you sprinkle "telecoms" throughout then you may see better where they are >> coming from. >> Point four? An "internet protocol (IP) exchange" is not an IXP? >> There are other points elsewhere that you might find more interesting of >> course. >> >> ----- >> Meanwhile from the European Parliament web-site: >> >> <<Public stakeholder consultation on Telecoms Regulation >> >> Ms Pilar del Castillo (EPP), the newly appointed ITRE Rapporteur on the >> recently proposed Telecoms Regulation is launching a public stakeholder >> consultation to benefit from the input of consumers, national regulators, >> industry stakeholders and other interested parties, not least NGOs, in the >> work of the ITRE Committee. >> The Rapporteur would welcome this stakeholder input on the Commission >> proposal by 5 November 2013. >> For more information on the proposal consult EC website. >> ITRE Secretariat contacts: Peter Traung and Elina Kaartinen>> >> http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/itre/home.html >> >> ---- >> >> So suggestions. >> >> I would hope others will take the time to read at least some of the >> material. And with a red-pen or text-marker! By the way the texts are >> available in other languages. >> >> I think though leaving any community discussion to Warsaw is probably taking >> a risk. >> >> I think a discussion here would be much better. >> >> If people then feel they have concerns then there are two approaches: >> >> ** individuals and organisation contacting their Ministry/Regulator and/or >> MEP. >> >> ** or a community input with the help of NCC. >> >> One does not preclude the other. But even putting down a marker can be >> useful. >> >> Enough for now? >> >> Gordon >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> connect-bof mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/connect-bof >> >
