Yes. Thank you for this. I had started to wonder whether BEREC was not acting in some ways like a "stalking horse" for Council.
It will get even more interesting. Gordon On 20 May, 2014, at 16:54, Innocenzo Genna <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello all, > > the ’90 telecoms liberalization was made with (flexible) directives, not > (rigid) regulations. Also the european regulatory framework for electronic > communications services consists of directives, not regulations (the only > exception were ULL, for certain time, and then roaming). > Berec is implicitly challenging the legal instrument chosen by Kroes for the > Single Market, i.e. a regulation. In the past Berec made various analysis > about net neutrality infringements throughout Europe, and the result showed > quite a diversified situation being caused by absence of rules rather then by > the existence of different national legislations. This is the reason why > Berec would consider adequate to regulate this matter via a directive rather > than a regulation.* > > However, the original sin (i.e. Kroes’s regulation covering a plurality of > different areas) is there and there is no room to change it, in my opinion. > However, it could be possible that the Council cut out the entire NN reform > and decides that it will be part of the program of the next Commissions. The > latter option has been already proposed for other areas of the Single Market > proposal. > > I am following the working groups of the Council in the matter of the Single > Market and I see that many member States are reiterating their objections > against both the proposal of the Commission and the amendments of the > Parliament. Thus, the situation is not very promising for the proposal, which > will be radically reduced. > > Inno > > * The use of a regulation is quite intrusive and it has been challenged > frequently by national authorities: for example, a proposed regulation for > the roll-out and reduction of costs for high-speed networks was converted > into directive by the Council and the Parliament. The same challenge was made > against the new privacy regulation of Commissioner Reding. In the latter > case, however, reding was able to resist because an harmonized directive > already existed (95/46/EC), therefore the escalation into a regulation could > be justified. >
