1 / 19

Jean Monnet Professor for European Integration Technical University Berlin

Prof. Dr. iur. Bernd Lutterbeck. Jean Monnet Professor for European Integration Technical University Berlin Department of Computer Science. Lithuania's future role in the European information society – the challenge of the «Acquis Communautaire»*. Vilnius, October 23 th, 2000.

odell
Télécharger la présentation

Jean Monnet Professor for European Integration Technical University Berlin

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Prof. Dr. iur. Bernd Lutterbeck Jean Monnet Professor for European Integration Technical University Berlin Department of Computer Science Lithuania's future role in the European information society – the challenge of the «Acquis Communautaire»* Vilnius, October 23 th, 2000 * Slides from Presentations of Commissioner Liikanen – should be read together with my talk at http://ig.cs.tu-berlin.de/bl055/index.html

  2. Commission’s top eEurope priorities for Lisbon: 1. All schools to be connected to the Internet by 2001 2. To open local access markets for Competition by the end of 2000 (Unbundling of the local loop) 3. Agreement during 2000 on pending e-commerce legislation

  3. B 2 B - or not to Be

  4. Objectives • bring every citizen, school, business and administration on-line - quickly • create a digitally literate and entrepreneurial Europe • ensure an inclusive information society 7

  5. Mobiles: EU ahead of the US Mobile subscribers per 100 inhabitants (December 1999) EU average Source: FT Mobile Communications USA: Cellular Telecoms Industry Association 5

  6. Internet penetration in Europe and elsewhere Internet penetration per 100 inhabitants (Year-end 1999) Spain Sweden UK Japan USA Finland France Germany Italy Canada The Netherlands 4 Source: Computer Industry Almanach Inc.

  7. PCs: Europe behind the US PC penetration in homes (October 1999) EU average Source: European Commission / EOS Gallup Europe USA: DG INFSO calculation from US DoC 3

  8. Internet penetration in EU homes (%)(October 1999) EU average Source: European Commission / EOS Gallup Europe

  9. Internet penetration vs. Access Cost Source: Booz Allen & Hamilton

  10. Mobile phone penetration Million subscribers EU EU mobile liberalisation USA Source: FT Mobile Communications USA: Cellular Telecoms Industry Association

  11. Mobile subscribers per 100 inhabitants(December 1999) EU average Source: FT Mobile Communications USA: Cellular Telecoms Industry Association

  12. Simplification, clarification Services Directive (90/388/EEC) extended to: Satellite (94/46/EC) Cable (95/51/EC) Mobile (96/2/EC) Full competition (96/19/EC) Cable ownership (1999/64/EC) ONP Framework Directive (90/387/EEC amended by 97/51/EC) Licensing Directive (97/13/EC) GSM Directive (87/372/EEC) ERMES Directive (90/544/EC) DECT Directive (91/287/EEC) S-PCS Decision (97/710/EC) UMTS Decision (99/128/EC) European Emergency Number Decision (91/396/EC) International Access Code Decision (92/264/EEC) ONP leased lines Directive (92/44/EEC amended by 97/51/EC) TV standards Directive (95/47/EC) Interconnection Directive(97/33/ EC amended by 98/61/EC) Voice telephony Directive (98/10/EC) Telecoms data protection Directive (97/66/EC) Liberalisation Directive Framework Directive Authorisation Directive Access & Interconnection Directive Unbundled local loop Regulation Users’ Rights Directive Data protection Directive Erkki Liikanen - 12/07/2000

  13. Authorisation Directive Access & Interconnection Directive Unbundled local loop Regulation Users’ Rights Directive Data Protection Directive The new package Liberalisation Directive (Art. 86) Framework Directive (Art. 95) Spectrum Decision (Art. 95) Erkki Liikanen - 12/07/2000

  14. Policy objectives Framework Authorisations Access &Interconnection Unbundled local loop Universal service Data protection Flexibility Legal certainty Technologicalneutrality Harmonisation Simple marketentry Clear obligationsfor dominant players More competition Cheaper & fasterInternet access Consumer rights Privacy protection Erkki Liikanen - 12/07/2000

  15. Monopoly Towards fullcompetition Rely increasingly on competition rules Amount of regulation Pro-competitive sectorial telecoms Laws Competition Law 1990 1998 2001 Erkki Liikanen - 12/07/2000

  16. backbone networks Unbundled local loopA harmonised legal basis • New entrants are duplicating backbone networks but not local access networks Incumbent’slocal loop • Local loop unbundling will lead to lower tariffs and widespread high-speed Internet Erkki Liikanen - 12/07/2000

  17. Recommendations for the European Dimension EU-1: When the institutions of the Eastern European countries adopt electronic signatures, they should be well informed on the European Community frameworks for IT, without loss of cultural and national identity.Therefore, they have to define national conditions and then develop national politics, which has the opportunity for regulating the development of electronic signatures taken into consideration special national sensitivities. 17

  18. Recommendations for the European Dimension EU-2: Enhance conditions for the emergence of a balance between government regulation and self-regulation in the area of electronic signatures. Both kinds of regulation should take into account a global perspective. 18

  19. Recommendations for the European Dimension EU-3: It should be guaranteed through binding rules of competitiveness, that market position can not be abused for enforcement of certain models of electronic signatures. That also means that the price formation can not be monopolized. 19

More Related