The rebates, which consist in granting a lump sum discount to the ...

) Coordinated introduction of services with pan-European potential;c) Better co-ordination between national courts in national appeals matters.Benefits related this option:The benefits linked to this option depend of the real degree of coordination among the NARs; if theNRAs have the incentive to coordinate their action in the light to guarantee a consistent applicationof regulatory framework, the benefits will be similar to that of option 2.In conclusion comparing the option 2 and 3 (the first option is considered unrealistic), the preferredoption, according to the analysis of the Commission seem to be the option 2 that better address theproblem of consistency of regulation preserving at the same time the decentralized nature of theregulatory system. In fact the option 3 required that the NRAs commit themselves to followcommon guidelines and voluntarily agreed on pursuing the objective of more consistent applicationof remedies. At the same time the option 2 is able to improve the provision of services with pan-European potential, assuring a right regulation also for domestic services thank the presence of adecentralized structure.In the table below a summary of the principal impacts and risks related to the option 2 and 3,as showed by IA of CommissionIMPACTS ANDRISKSOption 2 – European Authority, stronger Community powersECONOMICOption 3 – Better co-ordination betweenMember StatesInvestment and +/O Facilitates launching of cross border services and services with pan- In principle Option 3 could improveinnovation European potential → more investment. Concerning approval of remedies, consistency in market reviews, butmore regulatory consistency should facilitate investment across nationalborder.uncertainty as to whether voluntary coordinationwill lead to more consistency.Does not facilitate cross-border investmentand deployment of new innovative crossborderservices.Competition +/O Level playing field for operators where competition can develop.Facilitates cross-border competition and encourages competition from newcross-border services. Outcome depends on implementation (especiallyconcerning national appeals and remedies).Uncertainty as to whether voluntary coordinationwill lead to more consistency.Competition would continue to developpredominantly in national markets, limitedcross-border competition and difficulties forservices with pan-European potential tocompete across the EU.Internal market,regulatory+/− Improvements in regulatory consistency of remedies, more efficient,harmonized procedures and conditions for services with pan-EuropeanNo material changes to institutional balance.Lower probability of achieving regulatoryconsistency potential, less differences in national appeals. Implies more co-ordination consistency; lengthy and cumbersomeand transfer of some powers to the EU level;procedures for authorization of services withpan-European potential.EU competitiveness +Could enhance competitiveness by facilitating deployment of new cross- Risk of fragmented regulatory approach and81