 GLOBAL REGULATIONS
January 1, 2004
by Gerry Oberst
Back in May 2001, we reported on an European initiative to streamline licensing of satellite services and networks. That initiative was labeled the "One Stop Shop" (OSS) and the column warned that the satellite industry had to use it or lose it. Now, more than two years later, the bureaucratic cogs of European regulators are now even closer to "losing" the OSS if the industry does not fly to the defense of this administrative innovation.
The OSS concept dates back more than a decade to studies from the European Commission (EC) on how to make licensing of pan-European satellite networks more efficient across national boundaries. More recently, the EC led a successful legislative effort to reform the entire system of licensing of all communications networks and services through the Electronic Communications Framework suite of directives that replaced the 2001 rules.
The European Conference of Post and Telecommunication Administrations (CEPT) undertook the actual development on an OSS structure nearly five years ago, with the lukewarm enthusiasm of some national members. The CEPT now covers a larger number of countries--46 at last count with the addition of Belarus. The same mixed enthusiasm from national bureaucracies remains, however, and now threatens to end the small innovative OSS approach toward satellite licensing.
The members of CEPT working on communications issues do so through the revamped Electronic Communications Committee (ECC). The ECC looked at OSS most recently at its sixth meeting in mid-October 2003. That meeting, held on the small Danish island of Bornholm, discussed whether there remains a need for the OSS after the introduction of the new European Union (EU) telecommunications regime. The meeting concluded not to invest any ECC resources in further development of the shop but to investigate only what would be needed to maintain the database.
This conclusion was anomalous on several levels. At the outset, several ECC members expressed support for continuing the OSS, but apparently only the loudest opposition from the German administration--which never supported the OSS--was taken into account. Moreover, arguing that the new EU telecoms regime is a solution to OSS issues is misplaced, especially from a country that is being taken to court by the EC for missing legal deadlines to implement the new regime.
The EU now covers 15 countries, soon to be 25 when new accession countries join. The CEPT covers the whole of Europe, including many countries outside the EU where the OSS could be of the greatest value. Neither the CEPT nor the ECC devote any great resources to the OSS other than the initial investment in the OSS database, which the EC funded.
The most important reason to continue the OSS is that it serves a small but important role for pan-European satellite networks. The new EU electronic communications regime does not prevent the need for satellite licensing. Because satellite systems use radio spectrum, they usually still need some European licenses or authorizations. Even for applications requiring only registrations under new European rules, the OSS serves a worthy function.
Promoting OSS is a basis to harmonize the conditions that apply to satellite and enforce a pan-European notification regime applying to all countries, with the spectrum rights still assigned at the national level. This approach would be fully in line with that taken at the EU level to harmonize conditions for telecoms authorizations in general.
Today, the heart of the problem and one reason the OSS is not perceived in better terms is that it is not used as frequently as the industry predicted, and the follow-up to it has not produced progress on the regulators' side. Partially, this reflects the fact that not all CEPT countries have implemented the OSS. Those countries presenting the most troublesome national bureaucracy typically are also the last ones to fully implement CEPT decisions which, unlike EU directives, are not legally binding. The countries that first implemented the OSS were typically those with the more efficient licensing structures.
Thus, the OSS has become the proverbial "chicken and egg," where companies do not use it as often as predicted because not enough countries have put it into place, which causes countries that have implemented it to say it is not worth the bother.
Back in May 2001, the OSS was seen as a step forward, "if only" European countries actually adopted the approach. Regulators and industry alike need to focus on the value of this tool--and avoid the risk of losing it if the latest ECC reaction is translated into harsh reality.
Gerry Oberst is a partner in the Brussels office of the Hogan & Hartson law firm. His email address is geoberst@hhlaw.com.
|
Print This Page
Email This Page
Archives
Copyright Permissions