PhoneAbility

8. A European Regulatory Authority

A third legislative reform proposal contained in the package of proposed revisions to the Framework would create a new European Regulatory Authority – the European Electronic Communications Market Authority (EECMA). This is surprising in a package which sets out to be determinedly de-regulatory and it is therefore crucial to examine what added value this extra tier of regulation might bring. It is claimed to be in line with the Better Regulation programme, strengthening consumers’ and users’ rights, and delivering a more consistent set of regulatory decisions and interpretations. The EECMA would have limited powers itself, but would act as adviser to the Commission, which would itself implement decisions through the use of existing procedures. Two areas of activity have received specific mention – the management of radio spectrum in the EU and the fostering of inclusivity.

Radio spectrum allocations in Europe are determined by the CEPT and managed in each Member State by the NRAs. There are some inconsistencies in the use made of available spectrum in each territory but it is difficult to see why these could not be resolved through a CEPT mechanism. Furthermore, there are inconsistencies which can only be resolved at a global level, because they relate to the use of radio equipment which is inherently personal – such as cochlear implants and programmable heart stimulators, whose users may travel around the globe. The need for a further European spectrum management body is not clear.

The Commission has done much to foster inclusivity in the ‘Information Society’ but not through regulatory processes. Creation of awareness, development of accessibility tools and repeated exhortations aimed across a wide section of science, commerce and industry have had a significant impact. The Commission has had some regulatory powers, for example under article 3.3(f) of the RTTE Directive, for over 10 years and has failed to make use of them in spite of determined efforts by various groups. There is a growing view, especially in industry, that such regulatory powers are valueless because of the difficulty in defining any regulations that could address the diversity of access problems, and then in enforcing them in a de-regulated environment. As a result, even the threat of regulation has little effect and a more positive way forward should be through a collaboration with the relevant parts of industry. This is an approach that PhoneAbility would strongly support and we are in fact working towards this end. It is also an approach which does not require a further regulatory body, as the less formal and more cost-efficient ERG is well constituted to act in this way, in concert with the Commission and COCOM. Although PhoneAbility does see a need for device regulation in respect of labelling, to indicate which accessibility features are present, it is clear that this could be brought about within the present structure.

As the information provided about the EECMA is very limited, PhoneAbility takes the view that the case for a new Authority has not yet been made. A particular concern must be that a cross-EU Regulatory body would be constrained to run at the speed of the slowest Member States, whereas the scope for improved accessibility and inclusivity in equipment and services should be defined by the most innovative. We believe that this scope is greatest when full information about best practice solutions and initiatives can be shared and discussed freely, and introduced ‘in the light of national conditions’ without waiting upon EU-wide regulation.