4. Liberalisation of Telecommunications Services Markets and Regulation of Universal Service in the European Union

See Council Directive 77/62/EEC of 21 December 1976 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts, OJ L 13/1 of 15.01.1977, p. 1; Council Directive 71/305/EEC of 26 July 1971 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, OJ L 185/5 of 16.08.1971, p. 5; comments by Weiss 1993, p. 65 et seq.

Sandholtz 1993, p. 245.

Schneider et al. 1994, p. 484.

Sandholtz 1998, p. 142; Simon 1996, p. 220.

Sandholtz 1998, p. 143.

Idem, p. 144.

Nihoul and Rodford 2004, p. 34.

Goodman 2006, p. 56.

Schneider et al. 1994, p. 484; Schmidt 1998, p. 104.

Simon 1996, p. 220.

Schneider et al. 1994, p. 481; Goodman 2006, p. 162.

Goodman 2006, p. 54.

Communication from the Commission to the Council on Telecommunications: Lines of Action, COM(83) 573 final of 29 September 1983.

Schneider et al. 1994, p. 485.

Goodman 2006, p. 59.

Communication from the Commission. Towards a Dynamic European Economy—Green Paper on the Development of the Common Market for Telecommunications Services and Equipment. COM(87) 290 final of 30 June 1987.

Idem, p. 27.

Idem, pp. 66–67.

Idem, p. 2.

The INTUG is an umbrella organisation for national groups of telecommunications users and the Global ICT User Group EVUA. These organisations in their turn unite such major telecommunications clients as e.g. Accenture, Cisco Systems, Johnson & Johnson, L'OREAL, Linklaters, Marriott International, Motorola, Pfizer, Philip Morris, PSA Peugeot Cintroen, Renault, Volvo, Zurich Financial Services Group and others. More information available under http://​intug.​org/​members/​our-members/​.

On the 23rd of January 2007 it was renamed in Confederation of European Businesses “BusinessEurope” Among its members are e.g. the following national industrial associations: Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie e.V. (BDI), Bundesvereinigung der Deutschen Arbeigeberverbände e.V. (BDA), Confederazione Generale dell' Industria Italiana (CONFINDUSTRIA), Mouvement des Entreprises de France (MEDEF, previously known as Conseil National du Patronat Français). More information available under http://​www.​businesseurope.​eu/​content/​default.​asp?​PageId=​415.

Schneider et al. 1994, pp. 485–486.

Cram 1997, pp. 139–140.

Sandholtz 1993, p. 262; Sandholtz 1998, pp. 151–152.

For a detailed survey of standard-setting by the ETSI see Schultheiß 2004.

Cram 1997, p. 92.

Idem, pp. 92, 118–119.

Drake 1994, p. 89.

Sandholtz 1993, p. 264.

Thatcher 1999.

Thatcher 1999.

Sandholtz 1993, p. 265.

Thatcher 2004, p. 771.

Thatcher 2001, pp. 11, 19.

Commission Directive 88/301/EEC of 16 May 1988 on competition in the markets in telecommunications terminal equipment, OJ L 131/73 of 27.05.1988.

Commission Directive 90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990 on competition in the markets for telecommunications services, OJ L 192/10 of 24.07.1990.

C-202/88, (1991) ECR I-1223.

Joined cases C-271/90, C-281/90 and C-289/90, (1992) ECR I-5833.

1st headnote, C-202/88.

France v Commission, C-202/88, (1991) ECR I-1223, para 25.

Idem, para 24; Klotz 2009, pp. 58–60.

Holmes and Young 2002, pp. 13–14.

Woodrow and Sauvé 1994, p. 105; Thatcher 1999, 2001; Goodman 2006, p. 167.

Schmidt 1998, p. 130.

Nihoul and Rodford 2004, p. 37.

Cram 1997, pp. 92–93.

Thatcher 1999.

Idem.

Woodrow 1994, p. 109; Thatcher 2001, p. 12.

Behrens and Werle 2003, p. 26.

Communication from the Commission. Towards a Dynamic European Economy—Green Paper on the Development of the Common Market for Telecommunications Services and Equipment. COM(87) 290 final of 30 June 1987, pp. 73–74.

Schmidt 1998, p. 145.

See e.g. para 3 Council Resolution 88/C 257/01 of 30 June 1988 on the development of the common market for telecommunications services and equipment up to 1992, OJ C 257/1 of 4.10.1988; Article 3 Commission Directive 90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990 on competition in the markets for telecommunications services, OJ L 192/10 of 24.07.1990.

Harker et al. 2013, p. 16.

Goodman 2006, p. 171.

Idem, pp. 172–173.

Communication from the Commission. 1992 Review of the Situation in the Telecommunications Services Sector. SEC (92) 1048 final of 21 October 1992.

Idem, p. 23.

Idem, p. 31.

Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee. Developing universal service for telecommunications in a competitive environment. COM(93) 543 final of 15 November 1993.

Council Resolution of 7 February 1994 on universal service principles in the telecommunications sector, OJ C 48/1 of 16.02.1994.

Council Resolution of 22 December 1994 on the principles and timetable for the liberalisation of telecommunications infrastructures, OJ C 379/4 of 31.12.1994.

Thatcher 1999.

See Directive 95/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1995 on the application of Open Network Provision (ONP) to voice telephony, OJ L 101/24 of 30.12.1995.

OJ L 101/24 of 01.04.1998.

OJ L 199/32 of 26.07.1997.

Nihoul and Rodford 2004, pp. 573–579.

Sandholtz 1993, pp. 248, 256 et seq.; Goodman 2006, p. 60.

For a detailed analysis of the sector-specific regulation and its comparison to the competition law approach, both demonstrated with the example of the telecommunications sector in the EU, see Buigues 2006.

Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Towards a new framework for Electronic Communications infrastructure and associated services—The 1999 Communications Review. COM(1999) 539 final of 10 November 1999, p. 6.

See, for instance, Bavasso 2004; Buigues 2006; Herrera-González and Castejón-Martín 2009; Möschel 2009; Richards 2006.

The Commission claimed to have started phasing out the sector-specific regulation by, for instance, reducing the number of markets subject to ex ante regulation (see Commission Recommendation of 17 December 2007 on relevant product and service markets within the electronic communications sector susceptible to ex ante regulation in accordance with Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services, 2007/879/EC, OJ L 344/65 of 28.12.2007). However, against the background of the overall decrease in regulation, some scholars observe a rapid increase of regulation in individual sub-sectors of the telecommunications market, namely mobile communications and fixed broadband, as well as the wholesale market (see, e.g. de Streel 2005, pp. 9–10).

Commission Directive 2002/77/EC of 16 September 2002 on competition in the markets for electronic communications networks and services, OJ L 249/21 of 17.09.2002.

Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities, OJ L 108/7 of 24.04.2002; Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services, OJ L 108/21 of 24.04.2002; Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector, amended by Directive 2006/24/EC of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data gathered or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks, OJ L 201/37 of 31.07.2002.

Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services, amended by Regulation (EC) No. 717/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2007 on roaming on public mobile telephone networks within the Community, OJ L 108/33 of 24.04.2002.

Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services, OJ L 108/51 of 24.04.2002.

de Streel 2003, p. 194.

For an analysis of the Reference Paper see Sect. 3.​2.​3.

Fetzer 2011, p. 708. Compare the wording of the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. A Digital Agenda for Europe. COM(2010) 245 final of 15 May 2010.

Cawley 2001, p. 2.

Article 2(h) and (n) of the Framework Directive.

Directive 97/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 on Interconnection in Telecommunications with regard to ensuring Universal Service and Interoperability through Application of the Principles of Open Network Provision, OJ L 199/32 of 26.07.1997; Directive 98/10/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 26 February 1998 on the application of ONP to Voice Telephony and Universal Service for telecommunications in a competitive environment, OJ L 101/24 of 01.04.1998; Council Directive 92/44/EC of 5 June 1992 on the application of open network provision to leased line with amendments by Directive 97/51/EC, OJ L 165/27 of 19.06.92 and others.

The distinction is made on the basis of the Universal Service Directive and following de Streel 2003.

The Queen v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Secretary of State for Health, ex parte: Fedesa and others, C-331/88 (1990), ECR I-4023.

On the proportionality principle in European law see Craig and de Búrca 2008, pp. 544–551; Chalmers et al. 2010, pp. 367–372; Tridimas 2006, pp. 136–241.

Cawley 2001, p. 3.

See, for example, Chalmers et al. 2010, pp. 1013–1049.

de Streel 2003, p. 206.

de Streel 2005, in Fn. 59.

Idem, p. 142.

First mentioned in the Green Paper on the convergence of the telecommunications, media and information sectors, and the implications for regulations. Towards an information society approach, COM(1997) 623 final of 3 December 1997. For more on the introduction of the technological neutrality principle see van der Haar 2007, pp. 3–4.

Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Towards a new framework for Electronic Communications infrastructure and associated services—The 1999 Communications Review. COM(1999) 539 final of 10 November 1999, p. 15.

For a summary and examples see van der Haar 2007, pp. 4–13.

van der Haar 2007, pp. 24–25.

Idem, p. 3.

On the other hand, it can lead to overregulation as it extends regulation to hitherto unregulated markets. This may decrease legal certainty for undertakings. See van der Haar 2007, pp. 23–24.

van der Haar 2007, pp. 21–22.

Idem, p. 26.

See especially Recital 8 Directive 97/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 on interconnection in telecommunications with regard to ensuring universal service and interoperability through application of the principles of Open Network Provision, OJ L 199/32 of 26.07.1997.

See Recital 8 of the Universal Service Directive.

Cawley 2001, p. 4.

Following Nihoul and Rodford 2004, p. 505.

Conclusions de l’Avocat general, Affair C-1/14, Base Company NV et Mobistar NV contre Ministerraad, para 50.

See Sect. 4.2.3.4 below.

Base Company NV, Mobistar NV v Ministerraad, C-1/14, not yet published, paras 41–42.

Cawley 2001, p. 6.

Nihoul and Rodford 2004, pp. 505–510.

See e.g. Hills 1989; Mueller 1993; Blackman 1995.

Sawhney and Jayakar 2007b.

Besides telephone, broadcast or various wireless networks, even a powerline can be used.

Compare Implementation of the revised Universal Service Directive: internet-related aspects of Article 4, Communications Committee Working document COCOM10-31 final, 10 January 2011, pp. 5–6.

Article 4(1) USD concerns itself with the provision of connection, Article 4(3) USD deals with the provision of telephone service over this connection.

From Higgins International Telecom Dictionary. http://​www.​faxswitch.​com/​Definitions/​telecom_​dictionary_​c.​html; Webster’s telecommunications dictionary refers only to the physical aspects of connection: Horak 2007, p. 110.

Implementation of the revised Universal Service Directive: internet-related aspects of Article 4, Communications Committee Working document COCOM10-31 final, 10 January 2011, p. 6.

See, for example, Bohlin and Teppayayon 2009; Cave et al. 2006.

Cawley 2001, p. 5.

Fetzer 2011, p. 708; Schumacher 2011, p. 713.

See Implementation of the revised Universal Service Directive: internet-related aspects of Article 4, Communications Committee Working document COCOM10-31 final, 10 January 2011, p. 3.

Originally suggested in COCOM11-10 Working Document. Draft Commission Recommendation on certain elements of the revised Universal Service Directive of 05.05.2011 (not published). This suggestion is briefly repeated in Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Universal service in e-communications: report on the outcome of the public consultation and the third periodic review of the scope of in accordance with Article 15 of Directive 2002/22/EC. COM(2011) 795 final of 23.11.2011, p. 10.

Schumacher 2011, p. 714.

BEREC Input and Opinion on Universal Service, BoR(12) 25; BEREC Brief Note on the European Commission’s Draft Recommendation on Implementing Universal Service for Digital Society, BoR(13) 27.

BEREC Input and Opinion on Universal Service, BoR(12) 25, pp. 4–5.

Idem, pp. 5–6.

Base Company NV, Mobistar NV v Ministerraad, C-1/14, not yet published, paras 36–37.

Nihoul and Rodford 2004, Fn. 25, p. 506.

See Recital 15 Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 amending Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services, Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector and Regulation (EC) No. 2006/2004 on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws, OJ L 337/11 of 18.12.2009.

See Sect. 4.2.3.1.

de Smet and van Cayseele 2011.

Deutsche Telekom v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, C-543/09, (2011) ECR I-3441, paras 33, 42.

Idem, paras 33–36.

KPN Telecom BV v Onafhankelijke Post en Telecommunicatie Autoriteit (OPTA), C-109/03, (2004) ECR I-11273, paras 38–40; Deutsche Telekom v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, C-543/09, (2011) ECR I-3441, para 20.

KPN Telecom BV v Onafhankelijke Post en Telecommunicatie Autoriteit (OPTA), C-109/03, (2004) ECR I-11273, para 36.

OJ L 201/37 of 31.07.2002.

Deutsche Telekom v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, C-543/09, (2011) ECR I-3441, para 65.

Nihoul and Rodford 2004, pp. 515–516.

On the definition of “special social needs” see Sect. 4.2.4.1.

The Commission noted that since the framework did not mandate the imposition of specific measures, the depth of those measures as well as the results achieved depended on the individual Member State, Commission Staff Working document SEC(2008) 356 of 19 March 2008, Vol. 1, p. 57. The Commission-ordered study “Measuring Progress of eAccessibility in Europe” from October 2007 revealed that disabled users are still confronted with many limitations in their possibility to use telecommunications products and services and that the situation in the EU as a whole does not withstand comparison with the U.S., Canada, or Australia and varies greatly from Member State to Member State. See MeAC—Measuring Progress of eAccessibility in Europe. Assessment of the Status of eAccessibility in Europe. Executive summary, October 2007. http://​ec.​europa.​eu/​information_​society/​activities/​einclusion/​docs/​subgroupmtg_​jan10/​meac_​study/​meac_​report_​exec_​sum_​05_​11.​pdf.

The documents of the Commission’s legislative proposal indicate that originally even more enhanced obligations were envisaged for Member States as regards disabled users. It was proposed that they have to ensure that in any event there is at least one undertaking on the market which can meet the needs of specific groups of disabled users. The wording of the proposal signifies the legislators’ attempt to distinguish between end-users with different disabilities. Thus, there is no requirement that one undertaking should provide services to all disabled end-users, which could be a very challenging economic task. Different undertakings may provide services to different groups, thus specialising. According to the proposal, the necessary specific measures shall be determined by the NRA taking into consideration not only national conditions, but also specific disability requirements. The measures shall be aimed at guaranteeing freedom to choose undertakings and service providers by the disabled users and at the promotion of the availability of appropriate terminal equipment. See the amended proposal by the Commission for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2002/22/EC on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks, Directive 2002/58/EC concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector and Regulation (EC) No. 2006/2004 on consumer protection cooperation, COM(2008) 723 final, 6 November 2008, p. 9, Amendment 53.

Nihoul and Rodford 2004, p. 515.

See List of standards and/or specifications for electronic communications networks, services and associated services (interim issue), OJ C 331/32 of 31.12.2002.

ITU-T Recommendation V.18 (11/2000). DCE means Data Communications Equipment.

ETSI ETR 333 of May 1998.

ETSI TR 101 806 V 1.1.1 (2000-06).

ETSI EG 202 116 V 1.2.1 (2002-09).

Ritter 2011, p. 171.

E.g. Nihoul and Rodford 2004, p. 519.

After the adoption of the 2002 regulation package for electronic communications services, which introduced the 3-year periodical review, three such reviews were undertaken by the Commission, namely in 2005, 2008 and in 2011. The next review was due in 2014, but at the time of writing the review has not been completed and its results have not been published. For the outcome of the previous reviews see respectively Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Report regarding the outcome of the Review of the Scope of Universal Service in accordance with Article 15(2) of Directive 2002/22/EC. COM(2006) 163 final of 7 April 2006; Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Second periodic review of the scope of universal service in electronic communications networks and services in accordance with Article 15 of Directive 2002/22/EC. COM(2008) 572 final of 25 September 2008; Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Universal service in e-communications: report on the outcome of the public consultation and the third periodic review of the scope of in accordance with Article 15 of Directive 2002/22/EC. COM(2011) 795 final of 23.11.2011.

Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Report regarding the outcome of the Review of the Scope of Universal Service in accordance with Article 15(2) of Directive 2002/22/EC. COM(2006) 163 final of 7 April 2006, pp. 2–4.

Idem, pp. 4–5.

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Second periodic review of the scope of universal service in electronic communications networks and services in accordance with Article 15 of Directive 2002/22/EC. COM(2008) 572 final of 25 September 2008, p. 4.

Idem, p. 5.

DAE Scoreboard of 2013, p. 47. https://​ec.​europa.​eu/​digital-agenda/​sites/​digital-agenda/​files/​DAE%20​SCOREBOARD%20​2013%20​-%20​2-BROADBAND%20​MARKETS%20​.​pdf.

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Second periodic review of the scope of universal service in electronic communications networks and services in accordance with Article 15 of Directive 2002/22/EC. COM(2008) 572 final of 25 September 2008, p. 7.

Idem, p. 8.

Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Universal service in e-communications: report on the outcome of the public consultation and the third periodic review of the scope of in accordance with Article 15 of Directive 2002/22/EC. COM(2011) 795 final of 23.11.2011, p. 9.

Idem, p. 6.

Idem, p. 7.

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Second periodic review of the scope of universal service in electronic communications networks and services in accordance with Article 15 of Directive 2002/22/EC. COM(2008) 572 final of 25 September 2008, p. 5, Fn. 12.

Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Report regarding the outcome of the Review of the Scope of Universal Service in accordance with Article 15(2) of Directive 2002/22/EC. COM(2006) 163 final of 7 April 2006, p. 6.

Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Universal service in e-communications: report on the outcome of the public consultation and the third periodic review of the scope of in accordance with Article 15 of Directive 2002/22/EC. COM(2011) 795 final of 23.11.2011, p. 8; Teligen Strategy Analytics, Report on Telecoms Price developments from 1998 to 2010, 2010, p. 111. http://​ec.​europa.​eu/​digital-agenda/​sites/​digital-agenda/​files/​voice_​tariff_​1998_​2010.​pdf .

Final report on the Impact of EU Policy options for revision of the universal service provision, submitted to the Commission by the consortium lead by Van Dijk Management Consultants et al., 25 October 2010.

Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Universal service in e-communications: report on the outcome of the public consultation and the third periodic review of the scope of in accordance with Article 15 of Directive 2002/22/EC. COM(2011) 795 final of 23.11.2011, p. 7.

Idem, p. 9.

Idem, pp. 6–7.

See the note on the BEREC website: http://​berec.​europa.​eu/​eng/​document_​register/​subject_​matter/​berec/​reports/​4479-ec-questionnaire-on-the-implementation-and-application-of-the-universal-service-provisions-8211-a-synthesis-of-the-results.

For definitions see Niels et al. 2011, pp. 189–192, 195–197.

Jones and Sufrin 2011, pp. 392–393, 407.

Cawley 2001, p. 12.

See Recitals 7 and 10, Article 9(3) USD.

Nihoul and Rodford 2004, fn 62, p. 532.

Riordan 2001, pp. 424–477.

Cheffert 2000, pp. 241–249.

de Streel 2003, pp. 209–210.

For a detailed analysis see Sect. 4.2.6.

de Streel 2003, p. 213.

BEREC also uses the technical definitions by the ITU and ETSI: BEREC Guidelines for quality of service in the scope of net neutrality, BoR(12) 131, pp. 14–15. See additionally ETSI Guide on Speech Processing, Transmission and Quality Aspects (STQ): User related QoS parameter definitions and measurements (Part 1), ETSI EG 202 057-1 V1.3.1 (2008-07), p. 10; Network Aspects (NA); General aspects of Quality of Service (QoS) and Network Performance (NP), ETSI Technical Report ETSI-ETR003, October 1994, p. 8.

Currently, Recommendation ITU-T E.800 uses a different definition of quality of service.

Network Aspects (NA); General aspects of Quality of Service (QoS) and Network Performance (NP), ETSI Technical Report ETSI-ETR003, October 1994, pp. 8–9; ETSI EG 202 009-1, p. 6.

Network Aspects (NA); General aspects of Quality of Service (QoS) and Network Performance (NP), ETSI Technical Report ETSI-ETR003, October 1994, pp. 10–11; Quality of telecommunications services: concepts, models, objectives and dependability planning—Terms and definitions related to the quality of telecommunications services, Recommendation ITU-T E.800 (09/2008), p. 2.

According to Webster’s telecommunications dictionary, latency means delay or “the total time required for a signal to travel from one point to another, generally from a transmitter through a network to a receiver”. Latency is conditioned by the nature of the electro-magnetic signal, the distance between the two points, the density of the medium, and the presence of passive devices such as loading coils. Latency is increased by processing time associated with devices such as repeaters, transponders, concentrators, multiplexers, switches and routers as they variously transmit and retransmit, amplify and reamplify, encrypt and decrypt, and otherwise process signals and manipulate data as well as by the time that data packets spend in queues because of network congestion, and any time needed to retransmit packets corrupted or lost in transmission. Horak 2007, p. 281.

Packet loss rate means the disappearance of packets or other message units in network transit over a given period of time. It can be caused by errors in address fields, which affect the ability of the various network switches, routers and other devices to properly forward message units. It can also be caused if devices are overfilled which leads to the erasure of message units. Horak 2007, p. 295.

Jitter refers to the state of the network when data packages arrive without a synchronised rhythm. Jitter can be caused by variations in such characteristics of the signal as amplitude, the interval between the pulses and others. For more explanations see, for example, Internet Traffic Prioritisation: An Overview, OECD Working Party on Telecommunication and Information Services Policies, DSTI/ICCP/TISP(2006)4/Final, 6 April 2007, p. 19 et seq.

Quality of telecommunications services: concepts, models, objectives and dependability planning—Terms and definitions related to the quality of telecommunications services, Recommendation ITU-T E.800 (09/2008), p. 2.

BEREC Framework for Quality of Service in the Scope of Net Neutrality. BoR(11) 53, p. 7.

In accordance with ETSI EG 202 057-1, para 5.1.1, supply time for initial connection means the duration from the instant when a valid service order in any acceptable form is received by a direct service provider, to the instant when a working service is made available for use.

According to ETSI EG 202 057-1, para 5.4.1, fault rate per access line can be defined as a total number of valid faults reported by customers originating from disrupted or degraded services attributable to the network of the service provider per fixed access line.

In ETSI EG 202 057-1, para 5.5.1, fault repair time is defined as the duration from the instant a fault report has been made to the instant when the service element or service has been restored to normal working order.

Pursuant to ETSI EG 202 057-2, para 5.2.1, call set-up time means the time period from the moment when the network receives the address information required for setting up a call until the moment when the calling party receives the called party’s busy tone or ringing tone or answer signal.

ETSI EG 202 057-1, para 5.11.1, defines the bill correctness complaints parameter as the proportion of bills resulting in customer complaint about the correctness (inaccuracy) of a received bill. A bill correctness complaint is, therefore, different from a billing query (a request for information) and from a fault report (report of a disrupted or degraded service).

According to ETSI EG 202 057-2, para 5.1.1, unsuccessful call ratio means the ratio of unsuccessful calls to the total number of call attempts in a specified period of time, while an unsuccessful call is a call attempt to a valid number, properly dialled, where neither the called party’s busy tone, nor ringing tone, nor answer signal, is recognised at the access of the calling user within 30 s after dialling the last digit.

Response times for directory enquiry services are defined in ETSI EG 202 057-01, para 5.7.1, as the duration from the instant when the address information required for setting up a call is received by the network to the instant when the human operator or an equivalent voice-activated response system answers the calling user to provide the number information requested. This duration includes waiting times and times for going through voice response systems to reach the point where the enquiry can be handled, but excludes the time of the enquiry itself.

For other parameters see ETSI EG 202 057-2, ETSI EG 202 057-3, ETSI EG 202 057-4 and other standards.

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee. A strategic vision for European standards: Moving forward to enhance and accelerate the sustainable growth in European economy by 2020. COM(2011) 311 final of 1 June 2011, paras 1.1 and 5.

BEREC has been actively engaged in the study of this issue, but without any specific focus on universal service. See, for example, BEREC Framework for Quality of Service in the Scope of Net Neutrality. BoR(11) 53; BEREC Guidelines for quality of service in the scope of net neutrality, BoR(12) 131.

Marsden 2010, 2013, pp. 421–422.

Net neutrality cannot be fully and effectively provided without the respective guarantees at the application and content layers that do not constitute electronic communications networks and services and are, therefore, beyond the scope of this research. For a comprehensive overview of the relevant problems see Marsden 2010, 2013.

BEREC Guidelines for quality of service in the scope of net neutrality, BoR(12) 131, suggest necessary approaches and methodology for NRAs.

A detailed account of the specific measures taken by NRAs under the Authorisation Directive is given in Sect. 4.2.7.

This Section focuses on violations within the scope of universal service provision and in relation to end-users in the first place. For remedies in the case of anticompetitive behaviour, especially in the presence of significant market power, see BEREC Guidelines for quality of service in the scope of net neutrality, BoR(12) 131, pp. 12–13.

Nihoul and Rodford 2004, p. 521.

The Number (UK) Ltd and Conduit Enterprises Ltd v Office of Communications and British Telecommunications plc, C-16/10, (2011) ECR I-691, paras 30–31.

OJ L 134/114 of 30.04.2004.

Compare Recital 5–7 Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating procurement procedures of entities operating in water, energy, transport and postal services sectors, OJ L 134/1 of 30.04.2004, which repealed Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors.

Commission des Communautés européenne contre République française, C-220/07, (2008) ECR I-95, paras 32–33.

Jaag and Trinkner 2009, p. 7.

Idem, p. 7.

Mason 2005, p. 3.

Commission européenne contre République portugaise, C-154/09, (2010) ECR I-127.

Idem, paras 5–14.

Idem, para 44.

Idem, paras 48–49.

IRG, Universal Service Designation: A report on designation mechanisms for universal service providers in different IRG countries and evaluation of the impact of divergences on the internal market, October 2003, pp. 3, 6–7.

Mason 2005, pp. 11–13.

Nett 1998, p. 664.

Jaag and Trinkner 2009, p. 6.

Nett 1998, pp. 665–666.

A seminal work is Milgrom 1996. See also Nett 1998; Weller 1999; Bahtsevanoglou 2010, pp. 60–67.

Choné et al. 2002, p. 1271.

Weller 1999, p. 656; Mason 2005, p. 10.

Weller 1999, p. 657.

Idem, p. 657.

de Streel 2003, p. 211.

Mason 2005, p. 13.

Bahstevanoglou 2010, p. 71.

For an analysis of the factors to be assessed by undertakings in the universal cost calculation and for the implications of a wrong calculation see Jaag and Trinkner 2009, pp. 8–13.

Jaag and Trinkner 2009, p. 14.

Mason 2005, pp. 4–6.

For particulars and alternatives see Mason 2005, pp. 4–6.

Jaag and Trinkner 2009, p. 6.

Idem, p. 10.

The Number (UK) Ltd and Conduit Enterprises Ltd v Office of Communications and British Telecommunications plc, C-16/10, (2011) ECR I-691, paras 33, 37.

Idem, paras 32, 36–38.

See case The Number (UK) Ltd and Conduit Enterprises Ltd v Office of Communications and British Telecommunications plc, C-16/10, (2011) ECR I-691.

Cawley 2001, p. 7.

Gaultier and Wauthy 2012.

Harker et al. 2013, p. 77.

Communication from the Commission. Assessment Criteria for National Schemes for the costing and financing of universal service in telecommunications and Guidance for the Member States on operation of such Schemes. COM(96) 608 final of 27 November 1996, p. 3.

Communication from the Commission. Assessment Criteria for National Schemes for the costing and financing of universal service in telecommunications and Guidance for the Member States on operation of such Schemes. COM(96) 608 final of 27 November 1996, p. 3.

European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium, C-222/08, (2010) ECR I-9017, para 44.

Communication from the Commission. Assessment Criteria for National Schemes for the costing and financing of universal service in telecommunications and Guidance for the Member States on operation of such Schemes. COM(96) 608 final of 27 November 1996, p. 13.

European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium, C-222/08, (2010) ECR I-9017, para 47.

Annex IV, Part A, para 2 USD.

de Streel 2003, p. 212; Communication from the Commission. Assessment Criteria for National Schemes for the costing and financing of universal service in telecommunications and Guidance for the Member States on operation of such Schemes. COM(96) 608 final of 27 November 1996, pp. 12–13.

For various costing methodologies and difficulties in precisely estimating the cost of universal service provision see Neu et al. 1997.

Communication from the Commission. Assessment Criteria for National Schemes for the costing and financing of universal service in telecommunications and Guidance for the Member States on operation of such Schemes. COM(96) 608 final of 27 November 1996.

Idem, p. 10.

Idem, p. 11.

C-146/00, (2001) ECR I-9767.

Commission v France, C-146/00, (2001) ECR I-9767, paras 37–40.

Idem, para 50.

Idem, para 60.

European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium, C-222/08, (2010) ECR I-9017, para 48; the ECJ confirmed its interpretation of Article 13 USD in the judgement Base NV and others v Ministerraad, C-389/08, (2010) ECR I-9073, which was delivered on the same day as the judgement in the case C-222/08, see in particular paras 36–37.

European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium, C-222/08, (2010) ECR I-9017, para 50.

Idem, para 49.

Idem, para 58.

Idem, para 50.

Idem, para 49.

Final report on the Impact of EU Policy options for revision of the universal service provision, submitted to the Commission by the consortium led by Van Dijk Management Consultants et al., 25 October 2010, p. 18.

Cawley 2001, p. 7.

Xavier and Ypsilanti 2007, p. 28; de Streel 2003, p. 213; Wellenius 2000, p. 10.

Surprisingly, not only telecommunications operators and content providers, but also some governments support this idea, especially in the context of an extension of the scope of universal service to broadband. See, for example, responses submitted by BUSINESSEUROPE, Deutsche Telekom, European Satellite Operators Association, Rundfunk- und Telekom-Regulierungs-GmbH (RTR-GmbH) von Österreich, Deutsches Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie. http://​ec.​europa.​eu/​information_​society/​policy/​ecomm/​library/​public_​consult/​universal_​service_​2010/​comments/​index_​en.​htm.

Peha 1999, p. 365.

Xavier and Ypsilanti 2007, p. 28.

More on the compliance of compensation schemes using public funds with the State aid rules can be found in Nihoul and Rodford 2004, pp. 550–559.

See Altmark Trans GmbH v Nahverkehrsgesellschaft Altmark GmbH, C-280/00, (2003) ECR I-7747, paras 88–93.

Nihoul and Rodford 2004, pp. 559–560; Scanlan and Neu 2000, pp. 45–46, 61–62.

Harker et al. 2013, p. 18; OECD (2006) Rethinking Universal Service for a Next Generation Network Environment. OECD Digital Economy Papers No. 113, pp. 20–21.

Nihoul and Rodford 2004, p. 565.

Cited in Cawley 2001, p. 9.

See Recital 10 USD.

See, for instance, contributions from Telefónica S.A., Orange France Telecom Group, British Telecom, Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni (AGCOM), Public Utilities Commission of Latvia, Ministry of Infrastructure of Poland, Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology of Slovenia to the public consultation on universal service principles in e-communications in the spring of 2010. http://​ec.​europa.​eu/​information_​society/​policy/​ecomm/​library/​public_​consult/​universal_​service_​2010/​comments/​index_​en.​htm. See also Final report on the Impact of EU Policy options for revision of the universal service provision, submitted to the Commission by the consortium led by Van Dijk Management Consultants et al., 25 October 2010, p. 19.

See also Recital 21 USD.

Nihoul and Rodford 2004, p. 561.

Cawley 2001, pp. 8–9.

See Sect. 4.2.4.

See Sect. 4.2.6.2 of this book; Commission v Belgium, C-222/08, (2010) ECR I-9017, paras 48 et seq.; Base NV and others v Ministerraad, C-389/08, (2010) ECR I-9073, paras 41–43.

Recital 10 and Article 1 para 7 Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 amending Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services, Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector and Regulation (EC) No. 2006/2004 on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws, OJ L 337/11 of 18.12.2009.

Regulation (EC) No. 1211/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 establishing the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) and the Office, OJ L 337/11 of 18.12.2009.

Combined data from Commission Staff Working Document. Implementation of the EU regulatory framework for electronic communications—2014. SWD(2014) 249 final of 14.07.2014, p. 18, and BEREC Report on Universal Service—reflections for the future, BoR (10) 35, June 2010, p. 25.

See the respective country reports in the Commission Staff Working Document. Implementation of the EU regulatory framework for electronic communications—2014. SWD(2014) 249 final of 14.07.2014.

BEREC Report on Universal Service—reflections for the future, BoR (10) 35, June 2010, p. 26.

Idem, pp. 27–28.

For examples see BEREC Report on Universal Service—reflections for the future, BoR (10) 35, June 2010, p. 27.

Commission Staff Working Document. Implementation of the EU regulatory framework for electronic communications—2014. SWD(2014) 249 final of 14.07.2014, p. 20.

BEREC Monitoring Quality of Internet Access Services in the Context of Net Neutrality, BoR (14) 117 of 25.09.2014.

Commission Staff Working Document. Implementation of the EU regulatory framework for electronic communications—2014. SWD(2014) 249 final of 14.07.2014, p. 41.

BEREC, Report on Universal Service—reflections for the future, BoR (10) 35, June 2010, p. 28.

For examples see BEREC Report on Universal Service—reflections for the future, BoR (10) 35, June 2010, p. 28.

See the respective country reports in the Commission Staff Working Document. Implementation of the EU regulatory framework for electronic communications—2014. SWD(2014) 249 final of 14.07.2014. For a historical account on Finland see Noam 1992, pp. 212–219; in Hungary operators were financially independent, but structurally units of the Ministry of Transport and Communications and therefore not completely autonomous, see Whitlock and Nyevrikel 1992.

See the respective country reports in the Commission Staff Working Document. Implementation of the EU regulatory framework for electronic communications—2014. SWD(2014) 249 final of 14.07.2014.

BEREC Report on Universal Service—reflections for the future, BoR (10) 35, June 2010, p. 29.

Idem, p. 31.

Idem, p. 31.

Portugal was brought before the ECJ by the Commission within the infringement procedure for a failure to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3(2) and 8(2) USD; also see European Commission v Portuguese Republic, C-154/09, (2010) ECR I-127.

Compare to the respective country reports in the Commission Staff Working Document. Implementation of the EU regulatory framework for electronic communications—2014. SWD(2014) 249 final of 14.07.2014.

BEREC Report on Universal Service—reflections for the future, BoR (10) 35, June 2010, p. 31.

See the respective country reports in the Commission Staff Working Document. Implementation of the EU regulatory framework for electronic communications—2014. SWD(2014) 249 final of 14.07.2014.

BEREC Report on Universal Service—reflections for the future, BoR (10) 35, June 2010, p. 31.

Idem, pp. 35–40.

Some of these factors are the costs and revenues of the undertaking in question and the ratio between them, traffic volumes, the number of subscribers, market shares of the electronic communications providers and their financial positions etc. See BEREC Report on Universal Service—reflections for the future, BoR (10) 35, June 2010, p. 42.

The latest implementation report indicates that requests for compensation—for various periods of universal service provision—have been filed in eight Member States. See Commission Staff Working Document. Implementation of the EU regulatory framework for electronic communications—2014. SWD(2014) 249 final of 14.07.2014.

Combined data from Commission Staff Working Document. Implementation of the EU regulatory framework for electronic communications—2014. SWD(2014) 249 final of 14.07.2014, and Commission Staff Working document. SEC(2010) 630 final/2 of 25 August 2010, Part 1, p. 58.

Commission Staff Working Document. Implementation of the EU regulatory framework for electronic communications—2014. SWD(2014) 249 final of 14.07.2014, p. 29.

See the country reports in the Commission Staff Working Document. Implementation of the EU regulatory framework for electronic communications—2014. SWD(2014) 249 final of 14.07.2014.

Impact of EU Policy options for revision of the universal service provision. Final report submitted to the Commission by the consortium led by Van Dijk Management Consultants et al., 25 October 2010, p. 23.

For more examples see Commission Staff Working Document. Implementation of the EU regulatory framework for electronic communications—2014. SWD(2014) 249 final of 14.07.2014 and Commission Staff Working document. SEC(2010) 630 final/2 of 25 August 2010, Part 1, pp. 60–61.

Commission Staff Working document. SEC(2010) 630 final/2 of 25 August 2010, Part 1, p. 61.

For a summary see Sect. 4.1.3.

Eliassen and From 2009, p. 247.

Regulation (EC) No. 717/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2007 on roaming on public mobile telephone networks within the Community and amending Directive 2002/21/EC, OJ L 171/33 of 29.06.2007.

Article 26 USD.

Article 27a USD.

See Commission Decision of 14 February 2007 on the harmonised use of radio spectrum in the 2 GHz frequency bands for the implementation of systems providing mobile satellite services, OJ L 43/32 of 15.02.2007.

See also Batura 2011, pp. 267–275.

See the Preamble to the Marrakech Agreement establishing the WTO of 15 April 1994.

The industrial origins and character of the EU information society policy, of which telecommunications policy is part, are convincingly disclosed in Leith 2012, pp. 103–105; 2011, pp. 99–113; Simpson 2011, pp. 3–5.

The “rise of statutory regulation in Europe” was described by Majone 1996, see esp. at pp. 47–60.

See Leith 2012, pp. 105–106.

For details see Batura 2014.