View
502
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
EUI Florence October 29, 2012 Prof Annetje Ottow Universiteit Utrecht http://cmpf.eui.eu/events/policy-conference.aspx
Citation preview
Universiteit Utrecht
The difference between telecoms & media regulators
October 29, 2012
Prof Annetje Ottow
Florence
Universiteit Utrecht
Institutional design (1)
• NO single model of institutional design
• Correlation between regulation and institutional design
• The existence of the current structure is the result of historical and political factors and the old market structure
Universiteit Utrecht
Institutional design (2)
• Important: distinction between institution/authority and the power/authority to intervene
• Integrated regulator does not necessarily mean integration of regulation and actions
Universiteit Utrecht
Institutional design (3)
• OPTA: telecom and post regulator
• Commissariaat voor de Media: media regulator
• Regulatory competition?
• How to divide the tasks between the regulators?
Universiteit Utrecht
Traditional view on regulation
• Structural division of networks: TV (media) and telecommunications
• No cross overs: complete isolation of both regimes
• Content regulation vs. Transmission (netwok) regulation
Universiteit Utrecht
Traditional view on supervision
Media:
• content
• Services delivered over networks
Communications:
• Transmission of the
content by signals
• Netwoks and facilities
Universiteit Utrecht
Traditional view on the market
• Source: Rand Report (2008), figure 1
Universiteit Utrecht
Different models of institutional design
MODEL I: coordination model
--� different supervisors coordinate their interventions
MODEL II: convergence model
--� one integrated supervisor acts on the basis of converged regulation
Universiteit Utrecht
Model I: coordination model
• Traditional model: existing structures remain in place
• Coordination instruments are used:
- consultation
- coordination procedures
- giving advice in the decision making process
Universiteit Utrecht
Principle of coordination
media communications
Coordination protocol:
* overlapping competences?
* coordination of procedures
* complex procedures and decisions
Universiteit Utrecht
Model II: convergence model
• Integrated policy, powers and instruments
• Concept of concurrent powers
• Less coordination: internal coordination is still required (different cultures!)
Universiteit Utrecht
Case of OFCOM
• Convergence model of the institutional design
• Mix of activities and responsabilities:
* has powers to intervene at all levels of the information delivery chain
* including spectrum allocation and management
* general convergence policy (”regulation for convergence”)
Universiteit Utrecht
Importance of integration
• Importance of spectrum policy: competitive and innovative instrument in the near future
• Net neutrality: capacity problems may cause discrimination on the networks
• Coordination of policy instruments will be necessary!!!
Universiteit Utrecht
Institutional design and convergence
• Due to technical developments the market landscape is changing:
CONVERGENCE
------� but this is not always followed by restructering the institutional and regulatory landscape
Universiteit Utrecht
Defining Convergence
• Tendency for services to merge into one offering that combines the features of the original product
• Convergence of companies: active on different markets coming together
• In transmission context: integrated delivery via one single channel/network
• User perspective: one single platform or device
• Regulatory convergence: one single framework
Universiteit Utrecht
Framework Directive 2002/21/EC and 2009/140/EC
Recital 5:
(i) The convergence of telecommunications, media and information technologymeans all transmission networks and services should be covered by a single regulatory framework
(ii) It is necessary to separate the regulation of transmission from the regulation of content
Universiteit Utrecht
Problem of distinction (1)
• How to divide between media and communication regulation?
• Dutch EU infringement procedure by the European Commission
Universiteit Utrecht
Problem of distinction (2)
content publisherConnection
providerDevices consumer
usagetransmission
Media/TV programs
Universiteit Utrecht
Regulation of cable TV networks NL (1)
Private agreement
• Content regulation
• Price regulation on
the basis of contract
• Framework directive
is not applicable: OPTA has no
authority
Public regulation
• Framework Directive
is applicable (OPTA,
European Commission,
administrative Court)
• Intervention is not
appropriate (retail and whole sale
regulation)
Universiteit Utrecht
Regulation of cable TV networks NL (2)
• New legislation introduced by Parliament: media regulator is obliged by law to impose access obligations on the TV cable providers on cost based tariffs
• Commissariaat has to implement this
• European Commission: contrary to EU law, started infraction procedure against the NL
• Transmission and not content
Universiteit Utrecht
UPC case in The Netherlands
Main question: is the communications regulation applicable?
• Sale of the cable network in Amsterdam by the council to UPC
• Price cap agreed in the sale agreement
• UPC claims that this agreement is nul and void (in conflict with Framework Directive)
• Preliminary question to the European Court of Justice: hearing