PhoneAbility

1. Summary

PhoneAbility’s primary interest in EU Electronic Communications legislation is in the effect which it is likely to have upon accessibility for disabled and elderly people. With this in mind, the main features of the proposals put forward by the European Commission on 13th November, for a revised set of Directives, are:

• A revised definition of a Publicly Available Telephone Service
• Inclusion of Accessibility in the Quality of Service data-set
• Emphasis upon access to 112 emergency services
• Obligatory provision of facilities for disabled users
• Extension of scope to include some aspects of terminal equipment
• Establishing a European Regulatory Authority

In parallel, there is a reduction in the number of regulated market sectors from 18 to 7, by decision of the Commission following a review in 2007.

PhoneAbility has considered these proposals and offers comments as follows.

The revised definition of a Publicly Available Telephone Service (PATS) is important in that it removes an anomaly whereby a service that does not offer access to the emergency services cannot be considered as a PATS and is therefore exempt from the obligations applied to such services.  It will therefore become possible for Regulators to demand such access as well as other facilitiesfrom services which in all other respects would be regarded now as PATS.

While the obligations upon Member States to provide access to emergency services through the 112 number appear to be strengthened, this would seem to be simply an increased emphasis upon existing requirements rather than the introduction of any new ones. In particular, in the absence of a definition of ‘access to emergency services’ coupled with a re-statement of the existing definition of a network (to exclude the terminal equipment), it is clear that the obstacles faced by disabled users in communicating with the emergency services are not being addressed.

Making Article 7 of the Universal Service Directive (USD) into an obligation, rather than an enabling power, is meaningless by itself.  Permitting Member States to introduce various unspecified facilities for disabled users has been a very valuable component of the existing Directives, but to make it an obligation without setting out the nature of the expected facilities adds nothing whatsoever. In similar vein, extending the scope of the Framework Directives to cover some aspects of terminals without being more specific, and without adjusting the definition of a network in like fashion, leaves the situation exactly as at present. These two amendments only begin to have meaning in the context of a European Regulatory Authority – which might be established under a revised Directive.

Apart from some responsibilities for radio spectrum management, the proposed European Authority is intended to play a role in improving accessibility. It could therefore have a role to play in defining the facilities which would become obligatory under the revised Article 7 of the USD, and in dealing with accessibility issues related to terminals. The amendments to the Directive covering these two topics can be seen as necessary to confer important powers upon the new Authority. It is unfortunate that this aspect of the proposals is not set out in more detail, as these powers already exist and are simply transferred to the proposed new structure.  It is not at all clear how the proposed Authority could help matters if the present holders of those powers – which, in the case of terminal equipment, include the Commission – have not been able to exercise them.

The reduction in the number of regulated markets comes about through eliminating some and combining others, in an approach which underlines the emphatic de-regulatory strategy adopted overall in the proposals for revised Directives. This is not an area in which PhoneAbility feels equipped to comment, save to note firstly that the European Regulators Group (ERG) has expressed a degree of disquiet over some aspects of the reduction and, secondly, that this de-regulatory stance contrasts oddly with the proposal for a further tier of statutory regulatory intervention. PhoneAbility is satisfied that the withdrawal of regulated market status means only that national regulators would no longer have to apply rigorous surveillance and enforcement measures; it does not mean that market sectors are removed from scope (of the Framework Directives), which would have resulted in other, non-economic, measures ceasing to apply.

 

Contents

Next