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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Economicoperators' costsand benefitsAdministrativecosts, simplificationConsumer benefitsSocial and digitalinclusionEmployment andlabor marketborder services and creating favorable environment for investment.+Positive impact on service providers operating in several MS, or thoseoffering services with pan-European potential, less divergent regulatoryenvironment, more legal certainty.+/O Overall reduction due to streamlining measures, fewer markets in theRecommendation and a common authorization conditions for services withpan-European potential. More time and resources needed for Commissionapproval of remedies and for setting up the European authority, but stronglypositive cost-benefit assessment. Integrating ENISA to the new entitywould provide operational efficiencies and reduce overall admin costs+/O Indirect impact on consumers. Increased availability of new innovativeproducts and services across the EU, positive impact on consumer choice.Better and cheaper connectivity for business customers across borders.SOCIAL+/O Impact will depend on accompanying measures, such as the upcomingreview of the universal service concept. Positive impact of co-ordination onregulatory consistency should have positive effect on digital inclusionacross the EU. Increased effectiveness of ENISA in the interests of citizens.+/O Difficult to determine. Stronger EU powers could lead to someconsolidation of the market but positive spill-over effects on other sectorscan be expected due to innovation and deployment of cross-border services.Source: European Commission, Impact Assessment on the review of regulatory framework, 2007cumbersome procedures for services withpan-European potential put Europe in adisadvantaged position vis-à-vis thirdcountries. A Recommendation on remedieswould guide NRAs and inform them of bestpractice in the areaSome improvements in legal certainty and theoverall regulatory environment for operatorsdue to better co-ordination of market reviews.Providers of services with pan-Europeanpotential could not benefit from a moreconsistent regulatory environment.Overall reduction due to streamliningmeasures and fewer relevant markets in theRecommendation. No major simplificationfor providers of services with pan-EuropeanpotentialIndirect impact on consumers. Outcomedepends on the efficiency of voluntary coordination.Slow up-take of cross-borderservices and services with pan-Europeanpotential.Impact will depend on accompanyingmeasures, such as the upcoming review of theuniversal service concept. Digital divide maypersist in some countries if voluntary coordinationis not effective.No significant change on labor markets,positive spill-over effects rather limited.2.3 The Analysis in the IA of 2006: What has changed in One Year?The possibility to introduce a single European regulatory body for electronic communications isalready present in the Impact Assessment implemented by the Commission in 2006. This option istaken into account in order to assure consistency to the NRAs different approach to the Europeanregulatory framework, consolidating in this way the European Single Market for electroniccommunications.In particular the 2006 IA evaluates the possible impacts of three different option:1. The so-called “option zero”, that means no policy change;2. the creation of European Regulator;3. the strengthening of Commission powers: this option foresees the attribution to theCommission of a veto power on remedies imposed by NRAs and a Commission approval of82
actions taken by NRAs with regard to access and interconnection, in order to contribute to amore harmonized approach across the EU 74 .In the evaluation of the impacts, the Commission recognizes that the introduction of an EuropeanRegulator means a complete centralization of electronic communication regulation at EU level;from an institutional point of view this means a revolutionary chance in the current regulatorysystem and the possible arise of strong national resistances due to the fact that a trans-national bodywas regulating domestic issues.In the 2006 IA the Commission rejected the option of the European Regulator considering theinstitution of the new body as “another layer of regulation which would increase the overalladministrative burden” 75 , stating that “the option of a European regulator may offer the bestprospects for creating a truly single market in e-Communications, but until Europe had truly pan-European electronic services, it is unlikely that a pan-European regulator will be justified 76 ”.What has changed in one years to justify the complete change in the evaluation of the optionspresent in 2007 Impact Assessment?The new approach followed by the Commission in the 2007 IA found an economic justification inthe cost-benefit-analysis commissioned by the DG for Information Society and Media to EuropeanEvaluation Consortium, in order to better evaluate the potential cost and benefit to institute the newregulatory body 77 .According with the results of the CBA, the new entity has the potential to produce economicbenefits exceeding its budgetary cost by a factor of 10-30 times. In the next page the table with74 The previous Article 7 procedure assigns to the Commission only a veto power on the market definition andassessment of Significant Market Power notified by the NRAs, while on the remedies it foresees only the possibility tocomment.75 European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, theEuropean Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Review of the EU RegulatoryFramework for electronic communications networks and services, Impact Assessment, 29 June 200676 European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, theEuropean Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Review of the EU RegulatoryFramework for electronic communications networks and services, Impact Assessment, 29 June 200677 See European Evaluation Consortium, “Cost-Benefit Analysis of Options for Better Functioning of the InternalMarket in Electronic Communication”, Final Report prepared for the Commission, 22 October 200783
Page 1 and 2:
LUISS GUIDO CARLIDOTTORATO DI RICER
Page 5 and 6:
a form-based approach 4 . In partic
Page 7:
Guidance Paper is the result of a r
Page 10 and 11:
In the following section are analyz
Page 12:
The rebate schemes were individuali
Page 15 and 16:
The analysis takes into considerati
Page 17 and 18:
documents or data that the dominant
Page 19 and 20:
which apply only to some type of cu
Page 21 and 22:
to capture. Then it compares these
Page 23 and 24:
References:DG Competition, DG Compe
Page 25 and 26:
Secondo quanto stabilito dalla giur
Page 27 and 28:
L’autonomia di fattispecie abusiv
Page 29 and 30:
Difatti DT era soggetta a specifici
Page 31 and 32: L’applicazione dei criteri sopra
Page 33 and 34: 1.3 La sentenza TeliaSonera: un sal
Page 35 and 36: A parere dunque dell’avvocato gen
Page 37 and 38: Le pronunce comunitarie hanno accre
Page 39 and 40: profitmargins 30 ”. Medesime conc
Page 41 and 42: BIBLIOGRAFIACase C-52/09, Konkurren
Page 44 and 45: REGULATORY IMPACT ASSESSMENT INTELE
Page 46 and 47: IntroductionRegulatory Impact Asses
Page 48 and 49: technical nature of RIA tool was pr
Page 50 and 51: correct evaluation of the costs and
Page 52 and 53: counter political development that
Page 54 and 55: each "major rule" pending, subject
Page 56 and 57: compelling public need; the first s
Page 58 and 59: the effort of the other department
Page 60 and 61: 3. The Development of RIA: the Euro
Page 62 and 63: Commission initiatives included in
Page 64 and 65: But there is another aspect of the
Page 66 and 67: SECTION BAn Empirical Analysis of T
Page 68 and 69: With the adoption of New Regulatory
Page 70 and 71: The Commission evaluates the impact
Page 72 and 73: The document of Commission gives ve
Page 74 and 75: following are summarized the main p
Page 76 and 77: The electronic communications secto
Page 78 and 79: In order to reach this objective th
Page 80 and 81: 2) this would have a positive impac
Page 84 and 85: costs and benefits related to the e
Page 86 and 87: 3. Third Case Study - The Commissio
Page 88 and 89: According to the ERG Common Positio
Page 90 and 91: architecture implemented by an SMP
Page 92 and 93: same time Ofcom believes that this
Page 94 and 95: In order to understand how the RIA
Page 96 and 97: What is possible learned from the a
Page 98 and 99: - European Commission, Draft Recomm
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?