The wheels come off the telecoms gravy train in Europe

Martyn - I can't let this go. Your piece might have been written by Deutsche Telekom or France Telecom, or another of the unreconstructed monopolists in the EU. What the Commission was trying to do was to progress the single market in telecoms services, so that EU business consumers can better compete globally with the likes of their US couterparts. For example, Fiat has over 800 contracts throughout the EU in order to run a telecoms service for its external offices and dealerships. A US car manufacturer needs only a handful to do the same thing in its home market. And given that most of the EU incumbents are owned at least in part by their governments, and those same governments appoint and control their regulators, wouldn't it make sense to set up even a quasi-independent regulatory authority to ensure everyone applies and plays by the rules? I think you've overlooked the huge lobbying effort that the entrenched incumbents have been pouring into the Parliament over the past year. Whatever next? - will you be opposing reductions in international roaming rates?

Fair point Mr. H. Heaven forfend that I should be an apologist for old-style (or even new-style) monopoly telcos - and I'm not!

And I do understand (and support) the business argument you outline in your comment, what I was trying to point out, probably clumsily, is that: A) for once the European Parliament has managed to rein-in the Commission's evident and oft-proven penchant for building a palace when a semi-detached house would do. B) that national regulators will have a strong role in at least policing the new body and C) that a citizen's right to Internet services and content will, hopefully, not be subject to arbitrary individual disconnection pushed through by unaccountable self-interested lobbyists on behalf of a reactionary factions within the content industry.

I am well aware of the power the likes of DT, FT and others still wield in the corridors of power and I am sure that we shall be critique any further excesses as and when they happen - and happen they will, I'm quite sure about that.

And as for opposing reductions in international roaming rates - that was a bit of a low blow and it hurt. You know me better than that. Take a look at the TTV archives. Martyn Warwick.

I am glad David Harrington picked this up.This is very biased reporting and does not do justice to your normally good work. Disappointed. rgds Ajit

That's what it says on the Telecom TV tin and it's what we do. One's man's biased comment is another's objectivity and if you think the pendulum swings too far from time to time, be assured that its will swing back.

sorry .. what does it say on the tin?

Like David, I think you are confusing the INTENT behind this. I am not for a large beuracracy either - but that was not the intention. the intention was to actually make it easier for the end user .. and for companies ..

and then you say ..
>>>
It seems that, from time to time, democracy can work over on this side of the Atlantic too.
<<<
The whole thing really had a WTF moment for me and I had to read it twice to verify what you were trying to say .. and it did sound one sided.
I will blog about this as well
rgds
Aj

From this side of the Atlantic Harrington's view makes a lot of sense - Europe needs to overcome its national monopolies and nation al politics. But Warwick's point about the overreaching attempt by copyright interests to use the telecoms package to unjustly regulate consumers is well taken. So greater federalism, centralization and transnationalization can have its problems as well as benefits. What I can't understand is why you fragment spectrum management into little territories. (Does Luxembourg gets its own spectrum policy?)
;-)