{"change_dates":[],"dossier":{"amendments":[],"changes":{"2014-11-10T05:25:34":[{"data":[{"body":"EC","commission":[],"date":"1995-07-19T00:00:00","docs":[{"celexid":"CELEX:51995PC0379:EN","text":["
The rapporteur, Mrs Read (PSE, UK), said that most of the\n amendments were of a technical nature, though this did not mean that they\n were not based on a coherent philosophy: the aim of the directive was to\n ensure a universal service for telephone users at an acceptable cost and in\n accordance with a set of clear rules for the industry. Commissioner Bangemann\n began by declaring that the Commission could take over 45 of the 70\n amendments tabled. He went on to point out that the universal service did not\n mean a public service and with this in mind he supported the rapporteur’s\n definition by emphasising that the universal service should provide each\n citizen with the same quality of service at an affordable price. Mr Bangemann\n also said that there was no contradiction between a universal service and the\n rules of the market, since the latter was not a jungle where there were no\n holds barred. Rather the market could be regarded as an instrument that\n formed an integral part of a mass of instructions that were fixed in relation\n to other objectives lying outside the sphere of the market, such as social\n justice and the protection of the environment. He also gave examples of the\n deregulation and improvement of the universal service, as in the case of\n Scotland and Sweden. With regard to interconnection, he declared that he was\n in favour of environmental considerations being included when setting up new\n installations. This was why Amendment No 44 was preferable to Amendment No\n 70, because it provided that the interconnection agreements would include\n conditions on compliance with town and country planning requirements.\n Finally, the Commissioner reaffirmed his confidence in the new technical\n opportunities being made available, provided they proved to be of more\n practical use to consumers than had been the case in the past.
\nThe rapporteur, Mrs Read, again presented the amendments\n that had not been taken over by the Council, namely those relating to the\n cost and financing of the universal service, the cost of interconnection,\n environmental protection, telephone numbering and the setting-up of a\n European regulatory authority. Commissioner Bangemann declared that the\n establishment of a regulatory authority was absolutely essential. He assured\n the rapporteur that Amendments Nos 5 and 27 on number portability would be\n acceptable and that Amendment No 10 would also be taken over if it could be\n re-worded.
\nThe Council established that it was not in a position to\n take over all of Parliament’s amendments to its common position of 17 June\n 1996 concerning the proposal for a directive relating to interconnection in\n the telecommunications sector. The Conciliation Committee would therefore be\n convened under the terms of Article 189b of the Treaty.
\nCommissioner Fischler welcomed the fact that Parliament and\n Council had agreed on the funding of the universal service, the cross-border\n arbitration process, cost-based pricing, reasonable pricing and number\n ‘portability’. In this last respect, the Commission agreed that the\n subscriber should be able to have any telephone call made to him at the\n former company transferred in return for a reasonable fee. The Commissioner\n also confirmed that Article 7(1) of the ‘Interconnection’ Directive\n would be applied to all organisations operating the public telecommunications\n networks and/or publicly available telecommunications services as set out in\n Annex 1.
\nThe rapporteur, Mrs Read (PSE, UK), said that most of the\n amendments were of a technical nature, though this did not mean that they\n were not based on a coherent philosophy: the aim of the directive was to\n ensure a universal service for telephone users at an acceptable cost and in\n accordance with a set of clear rules for the industry. Commissioner Bangemann\n began by declaring that the Commission could take over 45 of the 70\n amendments tabled. He went on to point out that the universal service did not\n mean a public service and with this in mind he supported the rapporteur’s\n definition by emphasising that the universal service should provide each\n citizen with the same quality of service at an affordable price. Mr Bangemann\n also said that there was no contradiction between a universal service and the\n rules of the market, since the latter was not a jungle where there were no\n holds barred. Rather the market could be regarded as an instrument that\n formed an integral part of a mass of instructions that were fixed in relation\n to other objectives lying outside the sphere of the market, such as social\n justice and the protection of the environment. He also gave examples of the\n deregulation and improvement of the universal service, as in the case of\n Scotland and Sweden. With regard to interconnection, he declared that he was\n in favour of environmental considerations being included when setting up new\n installations. This was why Amendment No 44 was preferable to Amendment No\n 70, because it provided that the interconnection agreements would include\n conditions on compliance with town and country planning requirements.\n Finally, the Commissioner reaffirmed his confidence in the new technical\n opportunities being made available, provided they proved to be of more\n practical use to consumers than had been the case in the past.
\nThe rapporteur, Mrs Read, again presented the amendments\n that had not been taken over by the Council, namely those relating to the\n cost and financing of the universal service, the cost of interconnection,\n environmental protection, telephone numbering and the setting-up of a\n European regulatory authority. Commissioner Bangemann declared that the\n establishment of a regulatory authority was absolutely essential. He assured\n the rapporteur that Amendments Nos 5 and 27 on number portability would be\n acceptable and that Amendment No 10 would also be taken over if it could be\n re-worded.
\nThe Council established that it was not in a position to\n take over all of Parliament’s amendments to its common position of 17 June\n 1996 concerning the proposal for a directive relating to interconnection in\n the telecommunications sector. The Conciliation Committee would therefore be\n convened under the terms of Article 189b of the Treaty.
\nCommissioner Fischler welcomed the fact that Parliament and\n Council had agreed on the funding of the universal service, the cross-border\n arbitration process, cost-based pricing, reasonable pricing and number\n ‘portability’. In this last respect, the Commission agreed that the\n subscriber should be able to have any telephone call made to him at the\n former company transferred in return for a reasonable fee. The Commissioner\n also confirmed that Article 7(1) of the ‘Interconnection’ Directive\n would be applied to all organisations operating the public telecommunications\n networks and/or publicly available telecommunications services as set out in\n Annex 1.
\n