EUSurvey     All public surveys   
Login | |
system message icon

Published Results: TelecomFrameworkRevi...

Export
For performance reasons you can only set a maximum of 3 filters
Question 1: You answer as:([ID10])
Please specify business sector (if applicable) or if "other"([ID13])
Question 2: Is your organisation registered in the Transparency Register of the European Commission and the European Parliament?([ID11])
If yes, please indicate your organisation's registration number in the Transparency Register.([ID15])
Please enter the name of your institution/organisation/business.([ID14])
If you object to publication of the personal data on the grounds that such publication would harm your legitimate interests, please indicate this below and provide the reasons of such objection([ID18])
Question 3: What is your country of residence? (In case of legal entities, please select the primary place of establishment of the entity you represent)([ID12])
If other, please specify([ID16])
Question 4: To what extent has the regulatory framework effectively achieved its objectives of: : a) the development of internal market ([ID29])
Question 4: To what extent has the regulatory framework effectively achieved its objectives of: : b) the promotion of competition ([ID30])
Question 4: To what extent has the regulatory framework effectively achieved its objectives of: : c) the promotion of the interests of the EU citizens, including citizens with disabilities ([ID31])
Please explain your responses, in particular the reasons for the levels of achievement and if there are factors other than the regulatory framework which have contributed to those objectives.([ID34])
(continue here if necessary)([ID818])
Question 5: As regards the efficiency of the regulatory framework, if you compare the administrative and regulatory costs borne by your organisation with the results achieved, how do you rate the cost-benefit ratio at scale 1 to 5 (1=costs exceed significantly benefits, 5= benefits exceed significantly costs)?([ID35])
Please explain your response.([ID42])
(continue here if necessary)([ID824])
Question 6: Could you give an estimate of annual direct costs for your organisation in applying the regulatory framework? Please indicate, if possible, the cause of these costs.([ID36])
(continue here if necessary)([ID826])
Question 7: Have you identified any areas in the regulatory framework where in your view there is room for improvement in terms of simplification, elimination of regulatory burden or reduction of associated costs? Please explain.([ID37])
(continue here if necessary)([ID825])
Question 8: As regards the relevance of the regulatory framework, to what extent is a regulatory framework for electronic communications at EU level still necessary for EU citizens and businesses in the following areas: : a) Market analysis and access regulation ([ID43])
Question 8: As regards the relevance of the regulatory framework, to what extent is a regulatory framework for electronic communications at EU level still necessary for EU citizens and businesses in the following areas: : b) Universal service and end-users' protection ([ID44])
Question 8: As regards the relevance of the regulatory framework, to what extent is a regulatory framework for electronic communications at EU level still necessary for EU citizens and businesses in the following areas: : c) Management of scarce resources (such as numbering, spectrum access) ([ID45])
Question 8: As regards the relevance of the regulatory framework, to what extent is a regulatory framework for electronic communications at EU level still necessary for EU citizens and businesses in the following areas: : d) Authorisation ([ID46])
Question 8: As regards the relevance of the regulatory framework, to what extent is a regulatory framework for electronic communications at EU level still necessary for EU citizens and businesses in the following areas: : e) Network and service security ([ID47])
Question 8: As regards the relevance of the regulatory framework, to what extent is a regulatory framework for electronic communications at EU level still necessary for EU citizens and businesses in the following areas: : f) Other areas ([ID48])
Please explain your responses.([ID51])
(continue here if necessary)([ID827])
Question 9: To what extent are the policy objectives as defined in Article 8 of the Framework Directive (developing the internal market, promoting competition and promoting the interests of EU citizens) still relevant? : a) the development of internal market ([ID804])
Question 9: To what extent are the policy objectives as defined in Article 8 of the Framework Directive (developing the internal market, promoting competition and promoting the interests of EU citizens) still relevant? : b) the promotion of competition ([ID805])
Question 9: To what extent are the policy objectives as defined in Article 8 of the Framework Directive (developing the internal market, promoting competition and promoting the interests of EU citizens) still relevant? : c) the promotion of the interests of the EU citizens, including citizens with disabilities ([ID806])
Please explain your responses.([ID58])
(continue here if necessary)([ID828])
Question 10: As regards the internal coherence of the regulatory framework, to what extent have the different elements (legislative and non-legislative) which form part of the regulatory framework contributed coherently to the policy objectives of developing the internal market, promoting competition and promoting the interests of EU citizens in the following areas: : a) Market analysis and access regulation ([ID63])
Question 10: As regards the internal coherence of the regulatory framework, to what extent have the different elements (legislative and non-legislative) which form part of the regulatory framework contributed coherently to the policy objectives of developing the internal market, promoting competition and promoting the interests of EU citizens in the following areas: : b) Universal service and end-users' protection ([ID64])
Question 10: As regards the internal coherence of the regulatory framework, to what extent have the different elements (legislative and non-legislative) which form part of the regulatory framework contributed coherently to the policy objectives of developing the internal market, promoting competition and promoting the interests of EU citizens in the following areas: : c) Management of scarce resources (such as numbering, spectrum access) ([ID65])
Question 10: As regards the internal coherence of the regulatory framework, to what extent have the different elements (legislative and non-legislative) which form part of the regulatory framework contributed coherently to the policy objectives of developing the internal market, promoting competition and promoting the interests of EU citizens in the following areas: : d) Authorisation ([ID66])
Question 10: As regards the internal coherence of the regulatory framework, to what extent have the different elements (legislative and non-legislative) which form part of the regulatory framework contributed coherently to the policy objectives of developing the internal market, promoting competition and promoting the interests of EU citizens in the following areas: : e) Network and service security ([ID67])
Question 10: As regards the internal coherence of the regulatory framework, to what extent have the different elements (legislative and non-legislative) which form part of the regulatory framework contributed coherently to the policy objectives of developing the internal market, promoting competition and promoting the interests of EU citizens in the following areas: : f) Other areas ([ID68])
Please explain your responses.([ID71])
(continue here if necessary)([ID829])
Question 11: To what extent is the regulatory framework for electronic communications coherent with other EU policies, in particular: : a) Competition policy and state aid ([ID73])
Question 11: To what extent is the regulatory framework for electronic communications coherent with other EU policies, in particular: : b) Data protection and privacy ([ID74])
Question 11: To what extent is the regulatory framework for electronic communications coherent with other EU policies, in particular: : c) Audiovisual policy ([ID75])
Question 11: To what extent is the regulatory framework for electronic communications coherent with other EU policies, in particular: : d) Rules applicable to online service providers under the e-Commerce Directive ([ID76])
Question 11: To what extent is the regulatory framework for electronic communications coherent with other EU policies, in particular: : e) Other EU policies ([ID77])
Please explain your responses and indicate if you have identified specific areas for improvement.([ID79])
(continue here if necessary)([ID830])
Question 12: As regards EU added value of the regulatory framework, to what extent is there still a need to continue action at EU level by maintaining/establishing sector specific legislation for: : a) Market analysis and access regulation ([ID85])
Question 12: As regards EU added value of the regulatory framework, to what extent is there still a need to continue action at EU level by maintaining/establishing sector specific legislation for: : b) Universal service and end-users' protection ([ID86])
Question 12: As regards EU added value of the regulatory framework, to what extent is there still a need to continue action at EU level by maintaining/establishing sector specific legislation for: : c) Management of scarce resources (such as numbering, spectrum access) ([ID87])
Question 12: As regards EU added value of the regulatory framework, to what extent is there still a need to continue action at EU level by maintaining/establishing sector specific legislation for: : d) Authorisation ([ID88])
Question 12: As regards EU added value of the regulatory framework, to what extent is there still a need to continue action at EU level by maintaining/establishing sector specific legislation for: : e) Network and service security ([ID89])
Question 12: As regards EU added value of the regulatory framework, to what extent is there still a need to continue action at EU level by maintaining/establishing sector specific legislation for: : f) Other areas ([ID90])
Please explain your responses.([ID494])
(continue here if necessary)([ID831])
Question 13: In your opinion, what is the additional value resulting from the implementation of the EU regulatory framework for electronic communications? Please explain your responses.([ID91])
(continue here if necessary)([ID832])
Question 14: As regards the policy objectives included in Article 8 of the Framework Directive and taking into account the need to reflect adequately and completely the main European policy priorities in the electronic communications field, and more generally in the digital sector: : a) Should any policy objective be withdrawn or amended? ([ID98])
Question 14: As regards the policy objectives included in Article 8 of the Framework Directive and taking into account the need to reflect adequately and completely the main European policy priorities in the electronic communications field, and more generally in the digital sector: : b) Should any additional policy objective be included? ([ID99])
Please explain your responses.([ID106])
(continue here if necessary)([ID833])
Question 15: Should those primary policy objectives explicitly include the promotion of investment in and wide take-up of very high-performance fixed and mobile broadband infrastructure corresponding to the future needs of the European digital economy and society?([ID102])
Please explain your responses.([ID101])
(continue here if necessary)([ID835])
Question 16: Have you identified regulatory or any other type of obstacles which could constrain fixed-line networks from fully contributing to the provision of full ubiquitous and accessible very high-speed connectivity across the EU?([ID107])
Please explain your responses, outlining any obstacles you have identified.([ID108])
(continue here if necessary)([ID836])
Question 17: Have you identified regulatory or any other type of obstacles which could constrain advanced wireless technologies from fully contributing to the provision of full ubiquitous and accessible very high-speed connectivity across the EU?([ID109])
Please explain your responses, outlining any obstacles you have identified.([ID110])
(continue here if necessary)([ID837])
Question 18: In your view, should there be a prioritisation amongst the current and/or future policy objectives?([ID100])
Please explain your response and describe possible conflicts which may have been experienced between the objectives. If your answer is yes, please explain how any conflicts between such priorities should be resolved.([ID103])
(continue here if necessary)([ID838])
Question 19: To what extent has the access regulatory regime overall contributed to deliver the three objectives set in Article 8 of the Framework Directive: : a) Competition in the provision of electronic communications networks, electronic communications services and associated facilities and services? ([ID119])
Question 19: To what extent has the access regulatory regime overall contributed to deliver the three objectives set in Article 8 of the Framework Directive: : b) The development of the internal market? ([ID120])
Question 19: To what extent has the access regulatory regime overall contributed to deliver the three objectives set in Article 8 of the Framework Directive: : c) The interests of the citizens of the European Union? ([ID121])
Please explain your responses.([ID124])
(continue here if necessary)([ID839])
Question 20: Within the current model of access regulation, to what extent have the rules to determine whether a market should be regulated, based on the definition and analysis of relevant markets, on the three criteria test used to identify markets susceptible to ex ante regulation under the Recommendation on relevant markets, and on the identification of Significant Market Power (SMP) operators, been effective in: : a) Promoting competition? ([ID131])
Question 20: Within the current model of access regulation, to what extent have the rules to determine whether a market should be regulated, based on the definition and analysis of relevant markets, on the three criteria test used to identify markets susceptible to ex ante regulation under the Recommendation on relevant markets, and on the identification of Significant Market Power (SMP) operators, been effective in: : b) Maximising incentives for different types of operators to innovate and invest efficiently, in respect of both networks and services? ([ID132])
Question 20: Within the current model of access regulation, to what extent have the rules to determine whether a market should be regulated, based on the definition and analysis of relevant markets, on the three criteria test used to identify markets susceptible to ex ante regulation under the Recommendation on relevant markets, and on the identification of Significant Market Power (SMP) operators, been effective in: : c) Delivering the desired level of availability of electronic communications networks and services, as well as quality of connectivity, throughout the Union? ([ID133])
Question 20: Within the current model of access regulation, to what extent have the rules to determine whether a market should be regulated, based on the definition and analysis of relevant markets, on the three criteria test used to identify markets susceptible to ex ante regulation under the Recommendation on relevant markets, and on the identification of Significant Market Power (SMP) operators, been effective in: : d) Promoting to the extent possible take-up of high-quality services by end-users? ([ID134])
Question 20: Within the current model of access regulation, to what extent have the rules to determine whether a market should be regulated, based on the definition and analysis of relevant markets, on the three criteria test used to identify markets susceptible to ex ante regulation under the Recommendation on relevant markets, and on the identification of Significant Market Power (SMP) operators, been effective in: : e) Ensuring efficiency, bearing in mind in particular the impact of compliance costs on providers of electronic communications networks and services? ([ID135])
Please explain your responses.([ID122])
(continue here if necessary)([ID840])
Question 21: To what extent has the definition of the type of networks and services to which SMP regulation can be applied, been effective in : : a) Promoting competition? ([ID141])
Question 21: To what extent has the definition of the type of networks and services to which SMP regulation can be applied, been effective in : : b) Maximising incentives for different types of operators to innovate and invest efficiently, in respect of both networks and services? ([ID142])
Question 21: To what extent has the definition of the type of networks and services to which SMP regulation can be applied, been effective in : : c) Delivering the desired level of availability of electronic communications networks and services, as well as quality of connectivity, throughout the Union? ([ID143])
Question 21: To what extent has the definition of the type of networks and services to which SMP regulation can be applied, been effective in : : d) Promoting to the extent possible take-up of high-quality services by end-users? ([ID144])
Question 21: To what extent has the definition of the type of networks and services to which SMP regulation can be applied, been effective in : : e) Ensuring efficiency, bearing in mind in particular the impact of compliance costs on providers of electronic communications networks and services? ([ID145])
Please explain your responses.([ID146])
(continue here if necessary)([ID841])
Question 22: To what extent have the provisions of Directive 2009/19/EC (Access Directive) concerning the principles that guide the imposition of remedies on SMP operators, as well as the description of the types of remedies that can be imposed, been effective in: : a) Promoting competition? ([ID153])
Question 22: To what extent have the provisions of Directive 2009/19/EC (Access Directive) concerning the principles that guide the imposition of remedies on SMP operators, as well as the description of the types of remedies that can be imposed, been effective in: : b) Maximising incentives for different types of operators to innovate and invest efficiently, in respect of both networks and services? ([ID154])
Question 22: To what extent have the provisions of Directive 2009/19/EC (Access Directive) concerning the principles that guide the imposition of remedies on SMP operators, as well as the description of the types of remedies that can be imposed, been effective in: : c) Delivering the desired level of availability of electronic communications networks and services, as well as quality of connectivity, throughout the Union? ([ID155])
Question 22: To what extent have the provisions of Directive 2009/19/EC (Access Directive) concerning the principles that guide the imposition of remedies on SMP operators, as well as the description of the types of remedies that can be imposed, been effective in: : d) Promoting to the extent possible take-up of high-quality services by end-users? ([ID156])
Question 22: To what extent have the provisions of Directive 2009/19/EC (Access Directive) concerning the principles that guide the imposition of remedies on SMP operators, as well as the description of the types of remedies that can be imposed, been effective in: : e) Ensuring efficiency, bearing in mind in particular the impact of compliance costs on providers of electronic communications networks and services? ([ID157])
Please explain your responses.([ID843])
(continue here if necessary)([ID844])
Question 23: To what extent is the current scope of the symmetric obligations (i.e. imposed irrespective of SMP) of co-location and sharing of network elements and associated facilities for providers of electronic communications networks as established in Article 12 of the Framework Directive effective?([ID158])
Please explain your responses.([ID164])
(continue here if necessary)([ID842])
Question 24: Should access and interconnection to electronic communications networks and services continue to be regulated ex-ante?([ID161])
Please explain your responses.([ID168])
(continue here if necessary)([ID845])
Question 25: Will the current access regime model, including the analysis of relevant markets and the identification of Significant Market Power (SMP) operators as well as the three criteria test used to identify markets susceptible for ex ante regulation, continue to be the appropriate operational tool in determining the threshold for ex ante regulatory intervention beyond 2020, in all types of geographic areas and economic conditions?([ID169])
Please explain your responses.([ID170])
(continue here if necessary)([ID846])
Question 26: Do you consider that the current ex ante regulatory approach gives regulatory authorities adequate tools to map and reflect in their analysis the local variations in infrastructure availability, investment and competition within many Member States?([ID171])
Please explain your responses.([ID172])
(continue here if necessary)([ID847])
Question 27: Should the regulatory framework indicate more clearly that the absence of effective retail competition is the justification for regulatory intervention?([ID52])
Please explain your responses. In case of a positive reply, please indicate what should be the mechanism for determining such intervention.([ID807])
(continue here if necessary)([ID848])
Question 28: In 2020 and beyond, will the essential inputs that an access seeker would need to effectively compete downstream in the retail market be the same as they are today, when legacy copper networks still play an important role? If not, which will be those vital inputs?([ID163])
Please explain your responses.([ID165])
(continue here if necessary)([ID849])
Question 29: Should the number of wholesale products providing access to SMP networks be reduced?([ID166])
Please explain your responses. If you agree with the above, what are the most relevant access products?([ID167])
(continue here if necessary)([ID850])
Question 30: What will be the appropriate type, layer and number of wholesale access products that would ensure that investment is incentivised and that retail competition thrives in new and enhanced infrastructures, such as NGA networks? Should the answer to this question take into account the interest in incentivising all market participants – historic incumbents and alternative operators – to invest in the highest capacity networks, instead of more incremental upgrades, in areas where infrastructure competition is possible?([ID178])
Please explain your responses.([ID179])
(continue here if necessary)([ID851])
Question 31: Should NRAs have the powers to address access bottlenecks in relation to other inputs, whether or not these relate to electronic communications services and networks, if such inputs are considered to be decisive for the development of the retail market (i.e. such as for example access to content)?([ID175])
Please explain your responses.([ID176])
(continue here if necessary)([ID852])
Question 32: Are incremental upgrades to copper networks likely to be exposed to such a level of investment risk in 2020 and beyond, that specific regulatory incentives will continue to be justified for all NGA technologies?([ID180])
If not, should regulators provide specifically targeted incentives for operators that choose to roll out the most advanced NGA networks up to, or very close to, the premises of the customer?([ID775])
Please explain your response, and indicate which incentives you would consider appropriate (e.g. continued application of the Non-Discrimination and Costing Recommendation to Fiber-to-the-premise (FTTP) networks only (or equivalent), improved access to passive infrastructure, adaptation of wholesale access products to SMP networks, lifting of access obligations to the highest capacity SMP networks if a credible anchor access product is made available, or others).([ID186])
(continue here if necessary)([ID853])
Question 33: Should incentives linked to an adaptation of regulated wholesale access to the highest-capacity SMP networks (lifting of access in the presence of an anchor, or regulated access without direct price controls) – which would be principally directed to the SMP operator – be conditional upon the offer to alternative operators of reasonable co-investment opportunities in such infrastructure roll-out?([ID187])
Please explain your responses.([ID188])
(continue here if necessary)([ID854])
Question 34: To what extent will connections provided via purely copper-based access points continue to represent effective access points for competitive market entry (inter alia, as a competitive anchor vis-à-vis the most advanced NGA networks) in face of network upgrades?([ID189])
Please explain your response. If your response is negative, and in the absence of other infrastructures that could serve as a credible competitive anchor, could regulators require intermediate wholesale NGA access products that could serve a similar function?([ID190])
(continue here if necessary)([ID855])
Question 35: Should copper switch-off be promoted to increase the speed of transition to NGA networks, and if so, within what time frame and geographic range and by what means?([ID1])
If so, should any unintended effects of such switch-off (e.g. potentially higher costs for some users who would not voluntarily migrate) be mitigated, and if so by what means? What transitional measures might be necessary in case of copper switch-off to safeguard sunk investments by access seekers and existing levels of access-based competition? Please explain your response.([ID181])
(continue here if necessary)([ID856])
Question 36: Is access to fixed-line back-haul capacity for denser wireless networks likely to constitute a bottleneck in future, to which wholesale access regulation should be extended?([ID183])
Please explain your response, including what market developments are likely to have an impact on fixed backhaul needs and availability if any.([ID184])
(continue here if necessary)([ID857])
Question 37: If wireless high-capacity broadband were facilitated by commercial or regulated access to backhaul on an SMP operator's fixed-line network, would the resulting competitive constraint justify a relaxation of wholesale access regulation for the purposes of provision of competitive fixed-line services?([ID185])
Please explain your response.([ID191])
(continue here if necessary)([ID858])
Question 38: Will obligations to grant access to ducts and civil engineering infrastructures play a role in enabling the rollout of new and enhanced infrastructures (such as NGA networks), irrespective of whether or not they are associated to the provision of access to other network elements?([ID193])
Please explain your response. If yes, how and what adjustments in this regard are needed in order to facilitate rollout, and is sector specific regulation required?([ID194])
(continue here if necessary)([ID859])
Question 39: Should in your view the NRAs be empowered to impose obligations set out in Articles 9 to 13 of the Access Directive on operators irrespective of whether they hold SMP, in circumstances other than those listed in Article 5 of the Access Directive?([ID196])
Please explain your response. If your answer is yes, please specify these circumstances.([ID197])
(continue here if necessary)([ID860])
Question 40: Is the current procedure envisaged for supervising the application of symmetric remedies effective, or could a more efficient procedure be envisaged?([ID198])
Please explain your response and indicate possible improvements.([ID199])
(continue here if necessary)([ID861])
Question 41: Are current rules in the Framework Directive, in the Access Directive and in the Cost Reduction Directive (2014/61/EU) sufficient to ensure that operators that roll out networks to a building have access to entries to buildings and to building wiring, for example where that wiring is not owned by an operator?([ID776])
Please explain your response.([ID792])
(continue here if necessary)([ID862])
Question 42: Should there be exceptions to the principle that ex ante access regulation can only be imposed in circumstances where regulators can demonstrate SMP, individual or joint?([ID201])
Please explain your response. In the case of a positive response, please indicate the additional circumstances under which wholesale access remedies should in your view be possible (which retail market conditions, a broader wholesale market structure test, generalised symmetric wholesale access obligations, or other).([ID202])
(continue here if necessary)([ID863])
Question 43: In the event that the wholesale access market in a given area is deemed no longer subject to SMP, or that access remedies are no longer deemed appropriate in that area, by virtue of ongoing infrastructure-based competition on quality and price between a limited number of operators, would you consider it justified in the interests of market stability and existing levels of competition to maintain for some period wholesale access comparable to that previously enjoyed by access-based operators?([ID203])
Please explain your response. In the case of a positive response, please indicate under which conditions (e.g. what degree of infrastructure competition, nature of the transitional access product, duration, etc.)([ID204])
(continue here if necessary)([ID864])
Question 44: Should periods of review longer than the current three years be systematically considered for certain markets which are less likely to change?([ID206])
Please explain your response. If you agree, which markets do you consider to be suitable for such longer review periods.([ID207])
(continue here if necessary)([ID866])
Question 45: If so, should this be subject to certain criteria (for example to binding regulatory commitments and agreements between access providers and access seekers) in the interest of legal predictability and certainty for the market and/or to specific investment or other performance criteria required to the SMP operator?([ID208])
Please explain your response.([ID209])
(continue here if necessary)([ID867])
Question 46: Should key principles of the non-binding guidance provided in Commission Recommendations on EU-wide regulatory approaches in respect of wholesale access regulation be made binding?([ID210])
Please explain your response.([ID211])
(continue here if necessary)([ID868])
Question 47: Is it necessary to establish regulatory incentives to speed up the migration to "all IP" networks?([ID213])
Please explain your response.([ID214])
(continue here if necessary)([ID869])
Question 48: Would a common EU approach be required to ensure that the migration towards "all IP" networks in the EU contributes to the achievement of the single market objectives?([ID215])
Please explain your response.([ID216])
(continue here if necessary)([ID870])
Question 49: Will the on-going virtualisation of communication network infrastructures have an impact on the future demand for wholesale access products for the provision of connectivity services?([ID218])
Please explain your response and provide examples.([ID219])
(continue here if necessary)([ID871])
Question 50: Will the virtualisation of network infrastructures and services have a role to play in the provision of pan-European services?([ID220])
Please explain your response and provide examples.([ID221])
(continue here if necessary)([ID872])
Question 51: What is the relevant timeframe you foresee by when the biggest impact of virtualisation will be reached?([ID222])
Please explain your response and provide examples.([ID223])
(continue here if necessary)([ID873])
Question 52: Will the current voluntary and market-driven approach in standardisation remain valid and efficient enough to cope with the future needs of stakeholders in 2020 and beyond, while taking into account the community interest, including of EU citizens?([ID225])
Please explain your response and provide examples.([ID226])
(continue here if necessary)([ID874])
Question 53: Will regulatory safeguards as provided under the regulatory framework for electronic communications (in particular the competences to encourage and ultimately to mandate the use of standards) still be needed in the future to preserve service interoperability across the EU and improve the freedom of choice of end users in addition to the general purpose EU legislative mechanisms on ICT standardisation in place?([ID227])
Please explain your response and provide examples.([ID228])
(continue here if necessary)([ID875])
Question 54: Is there a need for common access and interconnection products that can operate across the EU with a view to foster the emergence of high-quality connectivity services, including at pan-European level?([ID230])
Please explain your response.([ID231])
(continue here if necessary)([ID876])
Question 55: How can service interoperability with end-to-end assured quality level between networks be best guaranteed for the development of services with specific needs in the Digital Single Market? Please explain.([ID232])
(continue here if necessary)([ID877])
Question 56: Should access regulation aim at addressing network coverage needs in all geographic areas?([ID234])
If so, which alternative regulatory models should be considered to give greater security to investments in areas unlikely to be served by the market under current regulatory conditions, with the overall aim of promoting the fullest possible coverage of new and enhanced infrastructures, such as NGA networks, across the EU and how should such challenge areas be defined by NRAs (e.g. classic market definition with additional criteria, State Aid like mapping exercise, other)?([ID235])
(continue here if necessary)([ID878])
Question 57: Is there a need for regulatory measures and/or incentives to better secure the benefits of investing in challenging areas for the first mover, and should this be conditional on the type of network improvements that have been undertaken?([ID236])
Please explain your response and what these measures/incentives could be (e.g. exclusive protection subject to reasonable access terms for a limited period of time, other). Please see also question 130.([ID237])
(continue here if necessary)([ID879])
Question 58: Should any such regulatory measures and/or incentives to secure the first-mover investment benefit be subject to conditions in the interest of service competition (e.g. reasonable  wholesale access requests)?([ID173])
Please explain your response.([ID174])
(continue here if necessary)([ID880])
Question 59: Should specific measures be devised to prevent strategic overbuild of new NGA or very high capacity NGA networks? If so what are possible regulatory means to do so, and under what conditions as to safeguarding of competition and end-user interests?([ID238])
Please explain your response.([ID239])
(continue here if necessary)([ID881])
Question 60: Can the following investment models contribute to foster investment incentives and promote deployment of NGA or very high capacity NGA networks in challenge areas: : a) Co-investment models ([ID244])
Question 60: Can the following investment models contribute to foster investment incentives and promote deployment of NGA or very high capacity NGA networks in challenge areas: : b) Wholesale-only models ([ID245])
If so, what would be the most important features of such models, and how can they be accommodated by the regulatory framework without compromising other objectives? Please explain your responses.([ID249])
(continue here if necessary)([ID882])
Question 61: Should regulatory requirements regarding access to NGA or high-capacity NGA networks be made lighter if the network owner sought co-investment on reasonable terms at the time of the roll-out or the upgrade?([ID250])
Please explain your responses. If your response is positive, is it contingent on being applied in a challenge area / natural monopoly area, or would you apply such an approach more generally to SMP access regulation?([ID251])
(continue here if necessary)([ID883])
Question 62: Do you consider that wholesale-only network operators have stronger incentives and opportunities to develop new NGA or very high-capacity NGA networks to serve long-term needs?([ID252])
Please explain your response.([ID253])
(continue here if necessary)([ID884])
Question 63: If your response to question 62 is positive, should there be regulatory incentives for voluntary structural or functional separation of existing vertically integrated SMP operators?([ID254])
Please explain your response, in particular what kind of regulatory incentives could be considered (e.g. in terms of wholesale access terms).([ID255])
(continue here if necessary)([ID885])
Question 64: The regulatory principles and policy objectives applicable to spectrum allocation, assignment and use in the EU are based on the regulatory framework for electronic communications (ECRF), the Radio Spectrum Decision 676/2002/EC (RSD) and the 2012 Radio Spectrum Policy Programme (RSPP). To what extent has the fact that electronic communications and other spectrum users are addressed in different legislative instruments (ECRF, RSPP) impeded their effective interpretation and/or implementation?([ID259])
Please explain your response.([ID260])
(continue here if necessary)([ID886])
Question 65: Do you see the need for better coordination of EU spectrum policies beyond ECS to maximise the benefits of spectrum use throughout the economy? ([ID262])
Please explain your response.([ID263])
(continue here if necessary)([ID887])
Question 66: Which of the following policy areas require a more active common approach to EU spectrum policy to benefit from economies of scale? : a) Transport ([ID270])
Question 66: Which of the following policy areas require a more active common approach to EU spectrum policy to benefit from economies of scale? : b) Audiovisual ([ID271])
Question 66: Which of the following policy areas require a more active common approach to EU spectrum policy to benefit from economies of scale? : c) Energy ([ID272])
Question 66: Which of the following policy areas require a more active common approach to EU spectrum policy to benefit from economies of scale? : d) R&D ([ID273])
Question 66: Which of the following policy areas require a more active common approach to EU spectrum policy to benefit from economies of scale? : e) Satellite ([ID274])
Question 66: Which of the following policy areas require a more active common approach to EU spectrum policy to benefit from economies of scale? : f) Internet of Things / M2M ([ID275])
Question 66: Which of the following policy areas require a more active common approach to EU spectrum policy to benefit from economies of scale? : g) Other (specify) ([ID276])
Please specify or explain your response.([ID277])
(continue here if necessary)([ID888])
Question 67: Do you consider that the currently applicable regime for coordinating spectrum policy approaches in the EU has contributed to ensuring harmonised conditions with regard to the availability and efficient use of spectrum necessary for the establishment and functioning of the internal market in electronic communications?([ID278])
Please specify or explain your response.([ID808])
(continue here if necessary)([ID889])
Question 68: Do you consider that the currently applicable regime for granting spectrum usage rights based on general or individual authorisations and setting out spectrum assignment conditions has been effective in: : a) Providing market operators with sufficient transparency and regulatory predictability? ([ID285])
Question 68: Do you consider that the currently applicable regime for granting spectrum usage rights based on general or individual authorisations and setting out spectrum assignment conditions has been effective in: : b) Ensuring an appropriate balance in terms of administrative burden? ([ID286])
Question 68: Do you consider that the currently applicable regime for granting spectrum usage rights based on general or individual authorisations and setting out spectrum assignment conditions has been effective in: : c) Promoting competition in the provision of electronic communications networks and services? ([ID287])
Question 68: Do you consider that the currently applicable regime for granting spectrum usage rights based on general or individual authorisations and setting out spectrum assignment conditions has been effective in: : d) Contributing to the development of the internal market? ([ID288])
Question 68: Do you consider that the currently applicable regime for granting spectrum usage rights based on general or individual authorisations and setting out spectrum assignment conditions has been effective in: : e) Promoting the interests of the citizens of the EU? ([ID289])
Question 68: Do you consider that the currently applicable regime for granting spectrum usage rights based on general or individual authorisations and setting out spectrum assignment conditions has been effective in: : f) Ensuring an effective and efficient use of spectrum? ([ID290])
Please explain your response.([ID291])
(continue here if necessary)([ID890])
Question 69: To what extent have selection processes for limiting the number of rights of use been coherently applied by authorities in charge in the Member States and only where strictly needed?([ID292])
Please explain your response.([ID293])
(continue here if necessary)([ID891])
Question 70: What type of spectrum assignment process has proven most effective for assigning spectrum for wireless broadband, having regard to the objectives listed in question 68?([ID294])
Please explain your response.([ID295])
(continue here if necessary)([ID892])
Question 71: To what extent does the lack of coordination across Member States regarding the current methods to select spectrum right holders create obstacles to or difficulties for the development of electronic communications?([ID296])
Please explain your response.([ID297])
(continue here if necessary)([ID893])
Question 72: To what extent does the lack of coordination across Member States regarding the current system for setting out spectrum assignment conditions create obstacles or difficulties for the development of electronic communications?([ID298])
Please explain your response.([ID299])
(continue here if necessary)([ID894])
Question 73: Would more consistency in spectrum management across Europe increase legal certainty and the overall value of spectrum in the Digital Single Market?([ID302])
Please explain your response and provide examples.([ID303])
(continue here if necessary)([ID895])
Question 74: Is it necessary to remove barriers to access to harmonised spectrum across the EU in order to foster economies of scale for wireless innovations and to promote competition and investment?([ID304])
Please explain your response and provide examples.([ID305])
(continue here if necessary)([ID1053])
Question 75: Do you see benefits in integrating the objectives and principles relating to spectrum management for both electronic communications services (ECS) and other spectrum users in a single legislative instrument (see question 65 above)?([ID306])
Please explain your response.([ID307])
(continue here if necessary)([ID897])
Question 76: To what extent does the spectrum assignment process in Member States determine the mobile markets and the competitive landscape for mobile electronic communications, including wireless broadband, such as the number and type of operators in the market and their economic models?([ID309])
Please explain your response and provide examples of the impact.([ID310])
(continue here if necessary)([ID898])
Question 77: Could greater coordination of methods for granting spectrum usage rights and of selection processes achieve greater consistency in the Union, thereby removing barriers to entry and promoting further competition and investment?([ID311])
Please explain your response and provide examples.([ID312])
(continue here if necessary)([ID899])
Question 78: Could more consistent spectrum assignment processes throughout the Union, based on greater harmonisation of the choice of selection or award methods on the basis of experience and best practice: : a) ease the process for national administrations? ([ID319])
Question 78: Could more consistent spectrum assignment processes throughout the Union, based on greater harmonisation of the choice of selection or award methods on the basis of experience and best practice: : b) increase the predictability and planning sought by investors? ([ID320])
Please explain your response and provide examples of the impact.([ID321])
(continue here if necessary)([ID900])
Question 79: Do you see benefits of greater coordination with regard to the elements of the spectrum assignment processes (listed in the table below) and if so, what would be the appropriate level of such coordination: A: General Approximation: setting only common or harmonised general objectives and principles, leaving the definition of exact criteria and solutions to Member States.  B: Partial harmonisation: setting out common or harmonised general objectives and principles, as well as specific solutions for some of the items below (to be indicated) while leaving room for additional national conditions.  C: Full harmonisation: setting out common objectives, principles and specific solutions for specific bands or types of wireless communications, with no room for national exceptions or additional conditions (e.g. definition of identical criteria and conditions for all Member States, creation of a common authorisation format or single common or totally synchronised selection process as used for mobile satellite systems). Please tick the relevant boxes in the table below. If you consider that none of these assignment parameters would benefit from greater coordination, please explain your response. : Determination of need for selection process ([ID326])
Question 79: Do you see benefits of greater coordination with regard to the elements of the spectrum assignment processes (listed in the table below) and if so, what would be the appropriate level of such coordination: A: General Approximation: setting only common or harmonised general objectives and principles, leaving the definition of exact criteria and solutions to Member States.  B: Partial harmonisation: setting out common or harmonised general objectives and principles, as well as specific solutions for some of the items below (to be indicated) while leaving room for additional national conditions.  C: Full harmonisation: setting out common objectives, principles and specific solutions for specific bands or types of wireless communications, with no room for national exceptions or additional conditions (e.g. definition of identical criteria and conditions for all Member States, creation of a common authorisation format or single common or totally synchronised selection process as used for mobile satellite systems). Please tick the relevant boxes in the table below. If you consider that none of these assignment parameters would benefit from greater coordination, please explain your response. : Level of transparency to the market regarding the selection process and conditions ([ID327])
Question 79: Do you see benefits of greater coordination with regard to the elements of the spectrum assignment processes (listed in the table below) and if so, what would be the appropriate level of such coordination: A: General Approximation: setting only common or harmonised general objectives and principles, leaving the definition of exact criteria and solutions to Member States.  B: Partial harmonisation: setting out common or harmonised general objectives and principles, as well as specific solutions for some of the items below (to be indicated) while leaving room for additional national conditions.  C: Full harmonisation: setting out common objectives, principles and specific solutions for specific bands or types of wireless communications, with no room for national exceptions or additional conditions (e.g. definition of identical criteria and conditions for all Member States, creation of a common authorisation format or single common or totally synchronised selection process as used for mobile satellite systems). Please tick the relevant boxes in the table below. If you consider that none of these assignment parameters would benefit from greater coordination, please explain your response. : Determination of selection process type (auction, beauty contest, first come first served, hybrid model) ([ID328])
Question 79: Do you see benefits of greater coordination with regard to the elements of the spectrum assignment processes (listed in the table below) and if so, what would be the appropriate level of such coordination: A: General Approximation: setting only common or harmonised general objectives and principles, leaving the definition of exact criteria and solutions to Member States.  B: Partial harmonisation: setting out common or harmonised general objectives and principles, as well as specific solutions for some of the items below (to be indicated) while leaving room for additional national conditions.  C: Full harmonisation: setting out common objectives, principles and specific solutions for specific bands or types of wireless communications, with no room for national exceptions or additional conditions (e.g. definition of identical criteria and conditions for all Member States, creation of a common authorisation format or single common or totally synchronised selection process as used for mobile satellite systems). Please tick the relevant boxes in the table below. If you consider that none of these assignment parameters would benefit from greater coordination, please explain your response. : Objectives pursued by the selection process ([ID330])
Question 79: Do you see benefits of greater coordination with regard to the elements of the spectrum assignment processes (listed in the table below) and if so, what would be the appropriate level of such coordination: A: General Approximation: setting only common or harmonised general objectives and principles, leaving the definition of exact criteria and solutions to Member States.  B: Partial harmonisation: setting out common or harmonised general objectives and principles, as well as specific solutions for some of the items below (to be indicated) while leaving room for additional national conditions.  C: Full harmonisation: setting out common objectives, principles and specific solutions for specific bands or types of wireless communications, with no room for national exceptions or additional conditions (e.g. definition of identical criteria and conditions for all Member States, creation of a common authorisation format or single common or totally synchronised selection process as used for mobile satellite systems). Please tick the relevant boxes in the table below. If you consider that none of these assignment parameters would benefit from greater coordination, please explain your response. : The appropriateness of an ex ante competition assessment ([ID331])
Question 79: Do you see benefits of greater coordination with regard to the elements of the spectrum assignment processes (listed in the table below) and if so, what would be the appropriate level of such coordination: A: General Approximation: setting only common or harmonised general objectives and principles, leaving the definition of exact criteria and solutions to Member States.  B: Partial harmonisation: setting out common or harmonised general objectives and principles, as well as specific solutions for some of the items below (to be indicated) while leaving room for additional national conditions.  C: Full harmonisation: setting out common objectives, principles and specific solutions for specific bands or types of wireless communications, with no room for national exceptions or additional conditions (e.g. definition of identical criteria and conditions for all Member States, creation of a common authorisation format or single common or totally synchronised selection process as used for mobile satellite systems). Please tick the relevant boxes in the table below. If you consider that none of these assignment parameters would benefit from greater coordination, please explain your response. : The national authority which is responsible for the ex-ante competition assessment ([ID332])
Question 79: Do you see benefits of greater coordination with regard to the elements of the spectrum assignment processes (listed in the table below) and if so, what would be the appropriate level of such coordination: A: General Approximation: setting only common or harmonised general objectives and principles, leaving the definition of exact criteria and solutions to Member States.  B: Partial harmonisation: setting out common or harmonised general objectives and principles, as well as specific solutions for some of the items below (to be indicated) while leaving room for additional national conditions.  C: Full harmonisation: setting out common objectives, principles and specific solutions for specific bands or types of wireless communications, with no room for national exceptions or additional conditions (e.g. definition of identical criteria and conditions for all Member States, creation of a common authorisation format or single common or totally synchronised selection process as used for mobile satellite systems). Please tick the relevant boxes in the table below. If you consider that none of these assignment parameters would benefit from greater coordination, please explain your response. : The need for specific measures (spectrum caps/floors, new entrant spectrum reservation) ([ID333])
Question 79: Do you see benefits of greater coordination with regard to the elements of the spectrum assignment processes (listed in the table below) and if so, what would be the appropriate level of such coordination: A: General Approximation: setting only common or harmonised general objectives and principles, leaving the definition of exact criteria and solutions to Member States.  B: Partial harmonisation: setting out common or harmonised general objectives and principles, as well as specific solutions for some of the items below (to be indicated) while leaving room for additional national conditions.  C: Full harmonisation: setting out common objectives, principles and specific solutions for specific bands or types of wireless communications, with no room for national exceptions or additional conditions (e.g. definition of identical criteria and conditions for all Member States, creation of a common authorisation format or single common or totally synchronised selection process as used for mobile satellite systems). Please tick the relevant boxes in the table below. If you consider that none of these assignment parameters would benefit from greater coordination, please explain your response. : Selection timetable ([ID334])
Question 79: Do you see benefits of greater coordination with regard to the elements of the spectrum assignment processes (listed in the table below) and if so, what would be the appropriate level of such coordination: A: General Approximation: setting only common or harmonised general objectives and principles, leaving the definition of exact criteria and solutions to Member States.  B: Partial harmonisation: setting out common or harmonised general objectives and principles, as well as specific solutions for some of the items below (to be indicated) while leaving room for additional national conditions.  C: Full harmonisation: setting out common objectives, principles and specific solutions for specific bands or types of wireless communications, with no room for national exceptions or additional conditions (e.g. definition of identical criteria and conditions for all Member States, creation of a common authorisation format or single common or totally synchronised selection process as used for mobile satellite systems). Please tick the relevant boxes in the table below. If you consider that none of these assignment parameters would benefit from greater coordination, please explain your response. : Timing of advanced information to market participants. ([ID335])
Question 79: Do you see benefits of greater coordination with regard to the elements of the spectrum assignment processes (listed in the table below) and if so, what would be the appropriate level of such coordination: A: General Approximation: setting only common or harmonised general objectives and principles, leaving the definition of exact criteria and solutions to Member States.  B: Partial harmonisation: setting out common or harmonised general objectives and principles, as well as specific solutions for some of the items below (to be indicated) while leaving room for additional national conditions.  C: Full harmonisation: setting out common objectives, principles and specific solutions for specific bands or types of wireless communications, with no room for national exceptions or additional conditions (e.g. definition of identical criteria and conditions for all Member States, creation of a common authorisation format or single common or totally synchronised selection process as used for mobile satellite systems). Please tick the relevant boxes in the table below. If you consider that none of these assignment parameters would benefit from greater coordination, please explain your response. : Frequencies covered, packaging of lots ([ID336])
Question 79: Do you see benefits of greater coordination with regard to the elements of the spectrum assignment processes (listed in the table below) and if so, what would be the appropriate level of such coordination: A: General Approximation: setting only common or harmonised general objectives and principles, leaving the definition of exact criteria and solutions to Member States.  B: Partial harmonisation: setting out common or harmonised general objectives and principles, as well as specific solutions for some of the items below (to be indicated) while leaving room for additional national conditions.  C: Full harmonisation: setting out common objectives, principles and specific solutions for specific bands or types of wireless communications, with no room for national exceptions or additional conditions (e.g. definition of identical criteria and conditions for all Member States, creation of a common authorisation format or single common or totally synchronised selection process as used for mobile satellite systems). Please tick the relevant boxes in the table below. If you consider that none of these assignment parameters would benefit from greater coordination, please explain your response. : Spectrum valuation and pricing, fees, charges. ([ID337])
Question 79: Do you see benefits of greater coordination with regard to the elements of the spectrum assignment processes (listed in the table below) and if so, what would be the appropriate level of such coordination: A: General Approximation: setting only common or harmonised general objectives and principles, leaving the definition of exact criteria and solutions to Member States.  B: Partial harmonisation: setting out common or harmonised general objectives and principles, as well as specific solutions for some of the items below (to be indicated) while leaving room for additional national conditions.  C: Full harmonisation: setting out common objectives, principles and specific solutions for specific bands or types of wireless communications, with no room for national exceptions or additional conditions (e.g. definition of identical criteria and conditions for all Member States, creation of a common authorisation format or single common or totally synchronised selection process as used for mobile satellite systems). Please tick the relevant boxes in the table below. If you consider that none of these assignment parameters would benefit from greater coordination, please explain your response. : Payment modalities. ([ID338])
Question 79: Do you see benefits of greater coordination with regard to the elements of the spectrum assignment processes (listed in the table below) and if so, what would be the appropriate level of such coordination: A: General Approximation: setting only common or harmonised general objectives and principles, leaving the definition of exact criteria and solutions to Member States.  B: Partial harmonisation: setting out common or harmonised general objectives and principles, as well as specific solutions for some of the items below (to be indicated) while leaving room for additional national conditions.  C: Full harmonisation: setting out common objectives, principles and specific solutions for specific bands or types of wireless communications, with no room for national exceptions or additional conditions (e.g. definition of identical criteria and conditions for all Member States, creation of a common authorisation format or single common or totally synchronised selection process as used for mobile satellite systems). Please tick the relevant boxes in the table below. If you consider that none of these assignment parameters would benefit from greater coordination, please explain your response. : Enforcement and ex post auction assessment and enforcement. ([ID339])
Please explain your response(s).([ID341])
(continue here if necessary)([ID901])
Question 80: Is there a need for more consistent assignment criteria and conditions between Member States, in particular with regard to those criteria and conditions which have the greatest economic significance for investment predictability and business decision-making, for driving competition and for achieving the future connectivity needs in the EU?([ID342])
Please explain your response and provide examples of the impact.([ID343])
(continue here if necessary)([ID902])
Question 81: What spectrum assignment conditions (among those listed in the table below or others) have the greatest economic significance for investment predictability and business decision-making, for driving competition and for promoting the Single Market, in respect of electronic communications?([ID362])
(continue here if necessary)([ID903])
Question 82: For which of the following assignment conditions (listed in the table below) would you see benefits of greater coordination or harmonisation and what would be the appropriate level of such coordination or harmonisation: A: General Approximation: setting only common or harmonised general objectives and principles, leaving the definition of exact criteria and solutions to Member States.  B: Partial harmonisation: setting out common or harmonised general objectives and principles, as well as specific solutions for some of the items below (to be indicated) while leaving room for additional national conditions.  C: Full harmonisation: setting out common objectives, principles and specific solutions for specific bands or types of wireless communications, with no room for national exceptions or additional conditions (e.g. definition of identical criteria and conditions for all Member States, creation of a common authorisation format or single common or totally synchronised selection process as used for mobile satellite systems). Please tick the relevant boxes in the table below. If you consider that none of these assignment parameters would benefit from greater coordination, please explain your response. : Licence duration ([ID349])
Question 82: For which of the following assignment conditions (listed in the table below) would you see benefits of greater coordination or harmonisation and what would be the appropriate level of such coordination or harmonisation: A: General Approximation: setting only common or harmonised general objectives and principles, leaving the definition of exact criteria and solutions to Member States.  B: Partial harmonisation: setting out common or harmonised general objectives and principles, as well as specific solutions for some of the items below (to be indicated) while leaving room for additional national conditions.  C: Full harmonisation: setting out common objectives, principles and specific solutions for specific bands or types of wireless communications, with no room for national exceptions or additional conditions (e.g. definition of identical criteria and conditions for all Member States, creation of a common authorisation format or single common or totally synchronised selection process as used for mobile satellite systems). Please tick the relevant boxes in the table below. If you consider that none of these assignment parameters would benefit from greater coordination, please explain your response. : Prior notice, timing and conditions of renewal ([ID350])
Question 82: For which of the following assignment conditions (listed in the table below) would you see benefits of greater coordination or harmonisation and what would be the appropriate level of such coordination or harmonisation: A: General Approximation: setting only common or harmonised general objectives and principles, leaving the definition of exact criteria and solutions to Member States.  B: Partial harmonisation: setting out common or harmonised general objectives and principles, as well as specific solutions for some of the items below (to be indicated) while leaving room for additional national conditions.  C: Full harmonisation: setting out common objectives, principles and specific solutions for specific bands or types of wireless communications, with no room for national exceptions or additional conditions (e.g. definition of identical criteria and conditions for all Member States, creation of a common authorisation format or single common or totally synchronised selection process as used for mobile satellite systems). Please tick the relevant boxes in the table below. If you consider that none of these assignment parameters would benefit from greater coordination, please explain your response. : Possibility to trade or lease assigned spectrum, and related conditions ([ID351])
Question 82: For which of the following assignment conditions (listed in the table below) would you see benefits of greater coordination or harmonisation and what would be the appropriate level of such coordination or harmonisation: A: General Approximation: setting only common or harmonised general objectives and principles, leaving the definition of exact criteria and solutions to Member States.  B: Partial harmonisation: setting out common or harmonised general objectives and principles, as well as specific solutions for some of the items below (to be indicated) while leaving room for additional national conditions.  C: Full harmonisation: setting out common objectives, principles and specific solutions for specific bands or types of wireless communications, with no room for national exceptions or additional conditions (e.g. definition of identical criteria and conditions for all Member States, creation of a common authorisation format or single common or totally synchronised selection process as used for mobile satellite systems). Please tick the relevant boxes in the table below. If you consider that none of these assignment parameters would benefit from greater coordination, please explain your response. : Coverage obligations ([ID352])
Question 82: For which of the following assignment conditions (listed in the table below) would you see benefits of greater coordination or harmonisation and what would be the appropriate level of such coordination or harmonisation: A: General Approximation: setting only common or harmonised general objectives and principles, leaving the definition of exact criteria and solutions to Member States.  B: Partial harmonisation: setting out common or harmonised general objectives and principles, as well as specific solutions for some of the items below (to be indicated) while leaving room for additional national conditions.  C: Full harmonisation: setting out common objectives, principles and specific solutions for specific bands or types of wireless communications, with no room for national exceptions or additional conditions (e.g. definition of identical criteria and conditions for all Member States, creation of a common authorisation format or single common or totally synchronised selection process as used for mobile satellite systems). Please tick the relevant boxes in the table below. If you consider that none of these assignment parameters would benefit from greater coordination, please explain your response. : Necessity of wholesale access conditions (e.g. MVNO) ([ID353])
Question 82: For which of the following assignment conditions (listed in the table below) would you see benefits of greater coordination or harmonisation and what would be the appropriate level of such coordination or harmonisation: A: General Approximation: setting only common or harmonised general objectives and principles, leaving the definition of exact criteria and solutions to Member States.  B: Partial harmonisation: setting out common or harmonised general objectives and principles, as well as specific solutions for some of the items below (to be indicated) while leaving room for additional national conditions.  C: Full harmonisation: setting out common objectives, principles and specific solutions for specific bands or types of wireless communications, with no room for national exceptions or additional conditions (e.g. definition of identical criteria and conditions for all Member States, creation of a common authorisation format or single common or totally synchronised selection process as used for mobile satellite systems). Please tick the relevant boxes in the table below. If you consider that none of these assignment parameters would benefit from greater coordination, please explain your response. : Limits under technology neutrality principles ([ID354])
Question 82: For which of the following assignment conditions (listed in the table below) would you see benefits of greater coordination or harmonisation and what would be the appropriate level of such coordination or harmonisation: A: General Approximation: setting only common or harmonised general objectives and principles, leaving the definition of exact criteria and solutions to Member States.  B: Partial harmonisation: setting out common or harmonised general objectives and principles, as well as specific solutions for some of the items below (to be indicated) while leaving room for additional national conditions.  C: Full harmonisation: setting out common objectives, principles and specific solutions for specific bands or types of wireless communications, with no room for national exceptions or additional conditions (e.g. definition of identical criteria and conditions for all Member States, creation of a common authorisation format or single common or totally synchronised selection process as used for mobile satellite systems). Please tick the relevant boxes in the table below. If you consider that none of these assignment parameters would benefit from greater coordination, please explain your response. : Requirements on technical performance characteristics ([ID355])
Question 82: For which of the following assignment conditions (listed in the table below) would you see benefits of greater coordination or harmonisation and what would be the appropriate level of such coordination or harmonisation: A: General Approximation: setting only common or harmonised general objectives and principles, leaving the definition of exact criteria and solutions to Member States.  B: Partial harmonisation: setting out common or harmonised general objectives and principles, as well as specific solutions for some of the items below (to be indicated) while leaving room for additional national conditions.  C: Full harmonisation: setting out common objectives, principles and specific solutions for specific bands or types of wireless communications, with no room for national exceptions or additional conditions (e.g. definition of identical criteria and conditions for all Member States, creation of a common authorisation format or single common or totally synchronised selection process as used for mobile satellite systems). Please tick the relevant boxes in the table below. If you consider that none of these assignment parameters would benefit from greater coordination, please explain your response. : Extent of services allowed and limits to service neutrality ([ID356])
Question 82: For which of the following assignment conditions (listed in the table below) would you see benefits of greater coordination or harmonisation and what would be the appropriate level of such coordination or harmonisation: A: General Approximation: setting only common or harmonised general objectives and principles, leaving the definition of exact criteria and solutions to Member States.  B: Partial harmonisation: setting out common or harmonised general objectives and principles, as well as specific solutions for some of the items below (to be indicated) while leaving room for additional national conditions.  C: Full harmonisation: setting out common objectives, principles and specific solutions for specific bands or types of wireless communications, with no room for national exceptions or additional conditions (e.g. definition of identical criteria and conditions for all Member States, creation of a common authorisation format or single common or totally synchronised selection process as used for mobile satellite systems). Please tick the relevant boxes in the table below. If you consider that none of these assignment parameters would benefit from greater coordination, please explain your response. : Possibility to share and pool assigned spectrum or mobile network as a whole ([ID357])
Question 82: For which of the following assignment conditions (listed in the table below) would you see benefits of greater coordination or harmonisation and what would be the appropriate level of such coordination or harmonisation: A: General Approximation: setting only common or harmonised general objectives and principles, leaving the definition of exact criteria and solutions to Member States.  B: Partial harmonisation: setting out common or harmonised general objectives and principles, as well as specific solutions for some of the items below (to be indicated) while leaving room for additional national conditions.  C: Full harmonisation: setting out common objectives, principles and specific solutions for specific bands or types of wireless communications, with no room for national exceptions or additional conditions (e.g. definition of identical criteria and conditions for all Member States, creation of a common authorisation format or single common or totally synchronised selection process as used for mobile satellite systems). Please tick the relevant boxes in the table below. If you consider that none of these assignment parameters would benefit from greater coordination, please explain your response. : In general, any condition covered by the Annex to the Authorisation Directive ([ID358])
Question 82: For which of the following assignment conditions (listed in the table below) would you see benefits of greater coordination or harmonisation and what would be the appropriate level of such coordination or harmonisation: A: General Approximation: setting only common or harmonised general objectives and principles, leaving the definition of exact criteria and solutions to Member States.  B: Partial harmonisation: setting out common or harmonised general objectives and principles, as well as specific solutions for some of the items below (to be indicated) while leaving room for additional national conditions.  C: Full harmonisation: setting out common objectives, principles and specific solutions for specific bands or types of wireless communications, with no room for national exceptions or additional conditions (e.g. definition of identical criteria and conditions for all Member States, creation of a common authorisation format or single common or totally synchronised selection process as used for mobile satellite systems). Please tick the relevant boxes in the table below. If you consider that none of these assignment parameters would benefit from greater coordination, please explain your response. : 'Use it or lose it' clause ([ID359])
Question 82: For which of the following assignment conditions (listed in the table below) would you see benefits of greater coordination or harmonisation and what would be the appropriate level of such coordination or harmonisation: A: General Approximation: setting only common or harmonised general objectives and principles, leaving the definition of exact criteria and solutions to Member States.  B: Partial harmonisation: setting out common or harmonised general objectives and principles, as well as specific solutions for some of the items below (to be indicated) while leaving room for additional national conditions.  C: Full harmonisation: setting out common objectives, principles and specific solutions for specific bands or types of wireless communications, with no room for national exceptions or additional conditions (e.g. definition of identical criteria and conditions for all Member States, creation of a common authorisation format or single common or totally synchronised selection process as used for mobile satellite systems). Please tick the relevant boxes in the table below. If you consider that none of these assignment parameters would benefit from greater coordination, please explain your response. : Refarming conditions ([ID360])
Please explain your response(s).([ID363])
(continue here if necessary)([ID904])
Question 83: Are there situations where regional selection processes involving a group of Member States, either combining national or providing pluri-national licences, for example for regions straddling several Member States which share similar characteristics in terms of economic or electronic communications development, could bring more value and a better development of electronic communications?([ID364])
Please explain your response and provide examples.([ID365])
(continue here if necessary)([ID905])
Question 84: In which market circumstances would pan-EU spectrum selection processes and/or usage rights contribute to the development of electronic communications services in light of public-policy objectives in respect of coverage, choice, accessibility and take-up of high-performance wireless connectivity? Please give and explain your response.([ID366])
(continue here if necessary)([ID834])
Question 85: Will a more flexible and/or shared access to spectrum be needed to meet the future demand for spectrum?([ID368])
Please explain your response.([ID369])
(continue here if necessary)([ID865])
Question 86: Will shared access to spectrum on the basis of general authorisation be necessary for: : a) The availability of sufficient wireless backhaul capacity? ([ID376])
Question 86: Will shared access to spectrum on the basis of general authorisation be necessary for: : b) The development of the Internet of Things? ([ID377])
Question 86: Will shared access to spectrum on the basis of general authorisation be necessary for: : c) The development of M2M applications? ([ID378])
If other, please specify and explain your response and provide examples.([ID380])
(continue here if necessary)([ID906])
Question 87: Is there a need to better protect the use of spectrum for applications that rely on shared use of spectrum (such as Wi-Fi or short range devices), including in regard to out of band emissions?([ID381])
Please explain your response.([ID382])
(continue here if necessary)([ID907])
Question 88: Is there a need for a common approach amongst Member States for documenting sharing conditions/rules and for granting shared spectrum access authorisations in the Digital Single Market?([ID383])
Please explain your response.([ID384])
(continue here if necessary)([ID908])
Question 89: Could a more flexible use of spectrum be achieved through any of the following: : a) Tradability and lease of spectrum ([ID391])
Question 89: Could a more flexible use of spectrum be achieved through any of the following: : b) Use of white spaces ([ID392])
Question 89: Could a more flexible use of spectrum be achieved through any of the following: : c) Infrastructure sharing, including spectrum pooling ([ID393])
Question 89: Could a more flexible use of spectrum be achieved through any of the following: : d) Incentive auctions ([ID394])
If other, please specify and explain your responses. If yes, should any of these measures be further promoted from a regulatory point of view and how?([ID395])
(continue here if necessary)([ID912])
Question 90: So far, mechanisms such as trading and leasing of spectrum have been used only to a limited extent in the EU. Under what market and regulatory circumstances, would these mechanisms be more attractive for spectrum users? Please give your response and provide examples.([ID396])
(continue here if necessary)([ID913])
Question 91: Should spectrum refarming be further facilitated in the future? If so, is there a need to adopt measures to: : a) further protect existing right holders ([ID404])
Question 91: Should spectrum refarming be further facilitated in the future? If so, is there a need to adopt measures to: : b) further support prospective spectrum users ([ID405])
Question 91: Should spectrum refarming be further facilitated in the future? If so, is there a need to adopt measures to: : c) maximise flexibility in spectrum management ([ID406])
Question 91: Should spectrum refarming be further facilitated in the future? If so, is there a need to adopt measures to: : d) allow new incentivising methods ([ID407])
Question 91: Should spectrum refarming be further facilitated in the future? If so, is there a need to adopt measures to: : e) further protect competition ([ID408])
Question 91: Should spectrum refarming be further facilitated in the future? If so, is there a need to adopt measures to: : f) clarify compensation conditions ([ID409])
Question 91: Should spectrum refarming be further facilitated in the future? If so, is there a need to adopt measures to: : g) apply 'use it or lose it' clauses ([ID410])
Please explain your responses. Please indicate any specific criteria which you would regard as an important component of co-ordinated measures (e.g. in the case of 'use it or lose it' types of triggering conditions)([ID412])
(continue here if necessary)([ID914])
Question 92: Should the withdrawal or significant modification of rights by public authorities be excluded where the application of service or technology neutrality principles and/or the trading and leasing mechanisms are sufficient to ensure spectrum refarming?([ID379])
Please explain your response.([ID411])
(continue here if necessary)([ID915])
Question 93: In light of the increasing demand for mobile services in urban areas and the resulting densification of networks, do you foresee any obstacles in the roll-out of the corresponding infrastructure such as access points for small cells?([ID414])
Please explain your response and provide examples.([ID415])
(continue here if necessary)([ID916])
Question 94: Should the deployment, connection or operation of unobtrusive small-area wireless access points be possible under a general authorisation regime, without undue restrictions through individual town planning permits or in any other way, whenever such use is in compliance with a harmonised technical characteristics for the design, deployment and operation of such equipment?([ID416])
Please explain your response.([ID417])
(continue here if necessary)([ID917])
Question 95: Should end-users be entitled to share the access to their Wi-Fi connection with others, as a key prerequisite for the sustainable deployment of denser small cell networks in licence-exempt bands?([ID418])
Please explain your response and provide examples.([ID419])
(continue here if necessary)([ID918])
Question 96: Should the deployment of commercial/municipal Wi-Fi networks in public premises (e.g. public transportation, hospitals, public administrations) be facilitated and if so, in what way?([ID420])
Please explain your response and provide examples.([ID421])
(continue here if necessary)([ID919])
Question 97: Is there a need for more unlicensed spectrum for M2M applications?([ID422])
Please explain your response.([ID423])
(continue here if necessary)([ID920])
Question 98: Improved mobile communications networks could to a certain extent ensure public protection and disaster relief (PPDR) communications, as well as safety systems for utilities and intelligent transport services (ITS) for road and rail (as reported in a 2014 study). Would you consider it appropriate to include in the licence conditions for spectrum (or for certain spectrum bands), or otherwise to impose on (certain) mobile network operators, obligations in terms of quality of service, resilience of network infrastructure and hardening to enable such dual use of commercial mobile networks?([ID425])
Please explain your response.([ID426])
(continue here if necessary)([ID921])
Question 99: To what extent has the current regulatory framework for electronic communications, as last amended in 2009, contributed to effectively achieving the goal of ensuring a high level of consumer protection in the electronic communications sector across the EU?([ID431])
Please explain your response and indicate the provisions which have contributed the most/less to this goal.([ID432])
(continue here if necessary)([ID922])
Question 100: Are there any provisions which constitute a particular administrative or operational burden? If so, please explain why and provide a quantitative estimate of additional burden.([ID433])
(continue here if necessary)([ID923])
Question 101: As regards sector-specific end-user rights provisions, have you identified sector-specific end-user rights provisions in the current framework which are not relevant and should in your view be repealed (deleted) because they are wholly or substantially covered by general EU consumer protection law?([ID793])
If your answer is yes, should also all corresponding sector specific rules on the national level be repealed (deleted)?([ID794])
Please specify the provision(s) and provide an explanation.([ID800])
(continue here if necessary)([ID924])
Question 102: As regards sector-specific end-user rights provisions, have you identified existing sector-specific end-user rights provisions in the current framework which need to be adapted or amended? For each provision you mention, please give reasons for its relevance (problems in the application; commercial or technological changes, including those which resolve the initial concern; new challenges for end-users; other, please specify):([ID801])
(continue here if necessary)([ID925])
Question 103: The regulatory framework has among its policy objectives and regulatory principles ensuring that users, including disabled users, elderly users, and users with special social needs, derive maximum benefit in terms of choice, price and quality (Article 8 of the Framework Directive). With respect to disabled users, the Universal Service Directive contains specific requirements under the universal service obligation (Article 7) and regarding the equivalence in access and choice (Article 23a). To what extent has the current regulatory framework been effective in achieving the goal of providing equivalent access to persons with disabilities in terms of choice, price and quality?([ID434])
Please explain your response and illustrate with examples. If you identified any shortcomings, how could the effectiveness of the provisions be improved and what would be the related benefits and costs?([ID435])
(continue here if necessary)([ID926])
Question 104: Number portability is part of the numbering resource management and also an important tool to remove barriers to switching. It thereby facilitates end-users' choice and change of providers and stimulates competition. To what extent do the current provisions on number portability as established in Article 30 of the Universal Service Directive allow for their efficient implementation?([ID436])
Please explain your answer and specify any problems you may have encountered (delays, disruption, loss of service, cost for end-users, slamming (telephone service changed without subscriber's consent), burden for operators, etc.).([ID437])
(continue here if necessary)([ID927])
Question 105: To what extent do you consider the scope and requirements established in Article 26 of the Universal Service Directive still relevant in order to ensure an effective access to emergency services?([ID442])
Please explain your response, and indicate possible areas for amendments.([ID443])
(continue here if necessary)([ID928])
Question 106: Do you consider that the rules on integrity and security of networks and services (Articles 13 and 13a of the Framework Directive) have been effective in achieving their objectives?([ID440])
Please explain your response.([ID445])
(continue here if necessary)([ID929])
Question 107: Do you consider that there is a need to improve provisions reffered to in the previous question to make sure that they are in line with modern technology and security threats?([ID446])
Please explain your response.([ID447])
(continue here if necessary)([ID896])
Question 108: Do you consider that there is still a need for sector-specific regulation of communications services in the EU?([ID450])
Please explain your response.([ID451])
(continue here if necessary)([ID930])
Question 109: As regards the current definition of electronic communications services (ECS): : a) Do you consider that the current definition of electronic communications services should be reviewed? ([ID458])
Question 109: As regards the current definition of electronic communications services (ECS): : b) If the current definition of ECS is reviewed, do you consider that the "conveyance of signals" should continue to remain a necessary element of the definition of electronic communications services subject to sector-specific regulation? ([ID459])
Question 109: As regards the current definition of electronic communications services (ECS): : c) If the current definition of ECS is reviewed, do you consider that "transmission services in networks used for broadcasting" should continue to be considered as ECS? ([ID460])
Please explain your responses.([ID462])
(continue here if necessary)([ID931])
Question 110: If the current definition of ECS is reviewed, do you consider that the definition of services subject to sector-specific regulation  should take into account the question whether a service is: : a) managed or subject to best-efforts online provision only? ([ID469])
Question 110: If the current definition of ECS is reviewed, do you consider that the definition of services subject to sector-specific regulation  should take into account the question whether a service is: : b) Remunerated through monetary payment (directly or as part of a bundle)? ([ID470])
Question 110: If the current definition of ECS is reviewed, do you consider that the definition of services subject to sector-specific regulation  should take into account the question whether a service is: : c) Remunerated by other means (advertising supported, provision of data by users, etc.)? ([ID471])
Please explain your responses.([ID473])
(continue here if necessary)([ID932])
Question 111: If sector-specific service regulation is maintained, do you consider that it should be limited to the IAS?([ID461])
Please explain your response.([ID474])
(continue here if necessary)([ID933])
Question 112: If a distinction is made between IAS and other communications services, do you agree in principle that the definition of IAS in the draft Telecoms Single Market legislative text could be used for this purpose, namely "a publicly available electronic communications service that provides access to the internet, and thereby connectivity to virtually all end points of the internet, irrespective of the network technology and terminal equipment used."([ID475])
Please explain your response.([ID476])
(continue here if necessary)([ID934])
Question 113: Which sector-specific (end-user and other) provisions should apply to IAS? Please indicate these provisions (if already present in the current framework) or describe the content of such rights and obligations, and explain your response and the measures you suggest.([ID477])
(continue here if necessary)([ID935])
Question 114: In relation to IAS, is there a need for any further end-user rights in addition to those included in the provisionally agreed Telecoms Single Market Regulation? In case you strongly agree or agree, what should be the level of harmonisation? : (i) Contractual information (e.g. related to quality parameter other than speed) ([ID484])
Question 114: In relation to IAS, is there a need for any further end-user rights in addition to those included in the provisionally agreed Telecoms Single Market Regulation? In case you strongly agree or agree, what should be the level of harmonisation? : (ii) Transparency measures ([ID485])
Question 114: In relation to IAS, is there a need for any further end-user rights in addition to those included in the provisionally agreed Telecoms Single Market Regulation? In case you strongly agree or agree, what should be the level of harmonisation? : (iii) Independent price and quality comparison tools ([ID486])
Question 114: In relation to IAS, is there a need for any further end-user rights in addition to those included in the provisionally agreed Telecoms Single Market Regulation? In case you strongly agree or agree, what should be the level of harmonisation? : (iv) Control of consumption ([ID488])
Question 114: In relation to IAS, is there a need for any further end-user rights in addition to those included in the provisionally agreed Telecoms Single Market Regulation? In case you strongly agree or agree, what should be the level of harmonisation? : (v) Contract duration ([ID489])
Question 114: In relation to IAS, is there a need for any further end-user rights in addition to those included in the provisionally agreed Telecoms Single Market Regulation? In case you strongly agree or agree, what should be the level of harmonisation? : (vi) Measures facilitating switching (receiving operator-led process; protection of end-users throughout the switching process, compensation in case of delay and abuse in the switching process) ([ID490])
Question 114: In relation to IAS, is there a need for any further end-user rights in addition to those included in the provisionally agreed Telecoms Single Market Regulation? In case you strongly agree or agree, what should be the level of harmonisation? : (vii) Measures to guarantee the effectiveness of end-user rights (in particular contract termination and switching) in relation to bundles of services ([ID491])
Question 114: In relation to IAS, is there a need for any further end-user rights in addition to those included in the provisionally agreed Telecoms Single Market Regulation? In case you strongly agree or agree, what should be the level of harmonisation? : (viii) Measures eliminating restrictions and discrimination based on nationality or place of residence ([ID492])
Please provide a brief explanation for each of your responses.([ID493])
(continue here if necessary)([ID936])
Question 115: Do you think that traditional electronic communications services (such as voice or video telephony, SMS/text messages, e-mails operated by telecoms providers, other services) can be functionally substituted by OTT services or platforms with communication elements (e.g. internet telephony services, web messaging services, webmail services, social media platforms, other)? : Voice telephony ([ID819])
Question 115: Do you think that traditional electronic communications services (such as voice or video telephony, SMS/text messages, e-mails operated by telecoms providers, other services) can be functionally substituted by OTT services or platforms with communication elements (e.g. internet telephony services, web messaging services, webmail services, social media platforms, other)? : Video telephony ([ID820])
Question 115: Do you think that traditional electronic communications services (such as voice or video telephony, SMS/text messages, e-mails operated by telecoms providers, other services) can be functionally substituted by OTT services or platforms with communication elements (e.g. internet telephony services, web messaging services, webmail services, social media platforms, other)? : Sms/text messages ([ID821])
Question 115: Do you think that traditional electronic communications services (such as voice or video telephony, SMS/text messages, e-mails operated by telecoms providers, other services) can be functionally substituted by OTT services or platforms with communication elements (e.g. internet telephony services, web messaging services, webmail services, social media platforms, other)? : e-mails provided by telecom operators ([ID822])
Question 115: Do you think that traditional electronic communications services (such as voice or video telephony, SMS/text messages, e-mails operated by telecoms providers, other services) can be functionally substituted by OTT services or platforms with communication elements (e.g. internet telephony services, web messaging services, webmail services, social media platforms, other)? : Other traditional telecommunications services ([ID823])
Please explain each of your responses and provide examples of such OTT services.([ID495])
(continue here if necessary)([ID937])
Question 116: Should all communications services (mainly provided over the IAS) which are functionally substitutable to existing ECS fall under a new common definition for such communications services (which would be different from that of IAS and from the current definition of ECS)?([ID496])
If you disagree, is it possible and appropriate to identify the relevant addressees of each communications-specific rule provision-by-provision? Please explain your response.([ID497])
Please explain your response.([ID810])
(continue here if necessary)([ID938])
Question 117: What should be the essential elements of a functional definition of communications services? Please explain your response.([ID507])
(continue here if necessary)([ID939])
Question 118: Which types of communications services, possibly including services currently not subject to sector-specific rules, should be encompassed by such a definition? Please explain your response.([ID508])
(continue here if necessary)([ID940])
Question 119: Should a definition of communications services include (several answers possible):([ID509])
Please explain your response.([ID510])
(continue here if necessary)([ID941])
Question 120: Which sector-specific provisions (end-user and other, such as requirements for reasonable interconnection, or on integrity and security) should apply to communications services as newly defined in the light of your responses to the previous questions? Please indicate these provisions (in the current framework) or describe the content of such future rights and obligations, and explain your response.([ID511])
(continue here if necessary)([ID942])
Question 121: In light of the broad choice of communications services which have become available, is it still justified that providers of communications services as newly defined would be potentially subject to the exceptional ex-ante regulatory regime based on markets and significant market power identified in accordance with competition principles?([ID499])
Please explain your response.([ID500])
(continue here if necessary)([ID943])
Question 122: Do the markets for termination of calls to numbers allocated in accordance with a numbering plan have characteristics (e.g. application of wholesale termination charges rather than peer exchange or bill & keep) that are likely to continue to justify ex ante regulation in the period up to and beyond 2020?([ID501])
If your response is positive, should regulation continue to be applied in accordance with competition principles (market definition, identification of SMP, assessment of remedies, i.e. cost-based price controls), or can a simplified approach be considered (symmetric regulation of termination charges, European benchmark termination rate, other)? Please give substantiated examples.([ID503])
Please explain your response.([ID502])
(continue here if necessary)([ID944])
Question 123: Should providers of communications services as newly defined benefit from a general authorisation, without any attendant notification formalities, as is the case for information society service providers under the eCommerce Directive?([ID504])
Please explain your response.([ID505])
(continue here if necessary)([ID945])
Question 124: Should all services covered by a new definition of communications services benefit from rights currently attached to the status of ECS provider (e.g. access to numbering resources for their own services, interoperability and interconnection)?([ID506])
Please explain your response.([ID512])
(continue here if necessary)([ID946])
Question 125: In relation to communications services other than IAS, is there a need for any further end-user rights? In case you strongly agree or agree, what should be the level of harmonisation? : (i) Contractual information (e.g. related to quality parameter other than speed) ([ID520])
Question 125: In relation to communications services other than IAS, is there a need for any further end-user rights? In case you strongly agree or agree, what should be the level of harmonisation? : (ii) Transparency measures ([ID521])
Question 125: In relation to communications services other than IAS, is there a need for any further end-user rights? In case you strongly agree or agree, what should be the level of harmonisation? : (iii) Independent price and quality comparison tools ([ID522])
Question 125: In relation to communications services other than IAS, is there a need for any further end-user rights? In case you strongly agree or agree, what should be the level of harmonisation? : (iv) Control of consumption ([ID523])
Question 125: In relation to communications services other than IAS, is there a need for any further end-user rights? In case you strongly agree or agree, what should be the level of harmonisation? : (v) Contract duration ([ID524])
Question 125: In relation to communications services other than IAS, is there a need for any further end-user rights? In case you strongly agree or agree, what should be the level of harmonisation? : (vi) Measures facilitating switching (receiving operator-led process; protection of end-users throughout the switching process, compensation in case of delay and abuse in the switching process) ([ID525])
Question 125: In relation to communications services other than IAS, is there a need for any further end-user rights? In case you strongly agree or agree, what should be the level of harmonisation? : (vii) Measures to guarantee the effectiveness of end-user rights (in particular contract termination and switching) in relation to bundles of services ([ID526])
Question 125: In relation to communications services other than IAS, is there a need for any further end-user rights? In case you strongly agree or agree, what should be the level of harmonisation? : (viii) Measures eliminating restrictions and discrimination based on nationality or place of residence ([ID527])
Please provide a brief explanation for each of your responses.([ID528])
(continue here if necessary)([ID947])
Question 126: Does the particular nature or importance of voice services for end-users still require specific rules?([ID529])
If so, in what should they consist?([ID530])
Please explain your response.([ID531])
(continue here if necessary)([ID948])
Question 127: Are there any other communications services showing specific features or risks related to their usage which would require or justify specific end-user protection or other rules?([ID532])
(continue here if necessary)([ID949])
Question 128: Should any obligations related to access to emergency services (112) or to quality of service requirements apply to all providers of communications services in the same way, irrespective of whether they are provided as managed services or subject to best-effort (Internet access services)?([ID533])
Please explain your response.([ID534])
(continue here if necessary)([ID950])
Question 129: Do you consider that there are new or emerging sector-specific end-user protection issues (resulting inter alia from technological or commercial developments) which need to be addressed?([ID537])
Please explain your response. If your response is positive, please indicate the areas where you see a need for enhanced sector-specific end-user protection and whether such issues should be addressed at EU or at Member States level.([ID538])
(continue here if necessary)([ID951])
Question 130: Do you consider that derogations should be possible, in challenging areas, from the generally applicable maximum contract duration (currently 24 months pursuant to Article 30 USD) in order to diminish the risk of providers who are the first movers investing in very high capacity networks in such areas?([ID540])
Please explain your response; in particular describe how such areas could be defined and how any such derogation could be implemented.([ID541])
(continue here if necessary)([ID952])
Question 131: Should the scope of the number portability regime be adapted to new technology and market developments and apply also to elements other than telephone numbers which may be obstacles to the switching of providers of communications services, for instance to allow moving content stored by end-users with communications service providers?([ID542])
Please explain your response.  Would your answer be affected by the question whether the scope of application of any such obligations would extend beyond providers of electronic communications services as currently defined, e.g. also to providers of online inter personal communications services, or to online service providers do not provide communications services (e.g. cloud-based services, online intermediaries)?([ID543])
(continue here if necessary)([ID953])
Question 132: Is there a need to adapt the current rules on change of provider (switching) in view of the increasing importance of bundled offers consisting of (i) several communications services or (ii) a combination of communications services and other services?([ID544])
If yes, what amendments should be envisaged? Please specify.([ID545])
(continue here if necessary)([ID954])
Question 133: The current sector-specific end-user provisions are based on the principle of minimum harmonisation. This approach provides Member States more flexibility and allows them to maintain or adopt more protective measures. But it also leads to a fragmented level of end-user protection across the EU and additional complications for the cross-border provision of services. The Consumer Rights Directive of 2011[1] therefore adopted a full harmonisation approach. Should any (maintained, amended or new) sector-specific end-user provisions aim at:([ID535])
Please explain your response.([ID546])
(continue here if necessary)([ID955])
Question 134: In your view, is it important to ensure access to 112 from all connected devices at the end-user's disposal and from any newly defined communications services, including in a private corporate network environment?([ID549])
Please explain your response.([ID550])
(continue here if necessary)([ID966])
Question 135: Would it be appropriate, having regard to the division of responsibility in the Union regarding civil protection, for the EU electronic communications framework to regulate not only the means of connection to emergency services, but also the performance criteria of those services (e.g. the data processing capabilities and minimum performance levels of the Public Safety Answering Points)?([ID551])
Please explain your response.([ID552])
(continue here if necessary)([ID967])
Question 136: In your opinion have the provisions related to harmonised numbers for harmonised services of social value proven to have EU-level added value, and should they be maintained at the EU level?([ID554])
If so, should they be reinforced in order to overcome the difficulties in promoting take-up and raising public awareness?([ID556])
Please explain your response.([ID557])
(continue here if necessary)([ID968])
Question 137: Under the current framework, only undertakings providing electronic communications networks or services may be granted rights of use for numbers under the general authorisation. These numbers are however not available to other undertakings using on (very) large scale electronic communications services as an ancillary component to their products and services (e.g. connected objects). Is the scope of assignees of rights of use of numbers still relevant?([ID558])
Please explain your response.([ID559])
(continue here if necessary)([ID969])
Question 138: Should the electronic communications framework address in a coherent manner other aspects of identification and authentication of M2M networks, i.e. not only numbering but also IP addressing and cognitive identifiers?([ID560])
Please explain your response.([ID561])
(continue here if necessary)([ID970])
Question 139: In the face of the above issues, are national numbering plans a suitable way of administering numbers for Machine-to-machine (M2M) communications services of pan-European or global scale?([ID562])
Please explain your response. If your response is negative, would you consider a European attribution system for M2M communications to have adequate geographic scope?([ID563])
(continue here if necessary)([ID971])
Question 140: Will there be demand for SIM cards to be more easily provisionable over the air, for both M2M communications and end-users' own devices?([ID566])
Please explain your response.([ID567])
(continue here if necessary)([ID972])
Question 141: Should over-the-air provisioning of SIM cards be promoted by regulation?([ID568])
Please explain your response. If your response is positive, please indicate in which circumstances and by what means this should be promoted.([ID569])
(continue here if necessary)([ID973])
Question 142: Regarding digital content considered relevant for general interest objectives such as pluralism, freedom of speech or cultural diversity typically provided by public services broadcasters, but also by some designated private broadcasters and potentially by other sources, please indicate whether you have experienced (several answers possible):([ID570])
Please explain your response and provide concrete examples([ID575])
(continue here if necessary)([ID974])
Question 143: Is there a need to adapt or change the provisions on: : 'Must carry' ([ID580])
Question 143: Is there a need to adapt or change the provisions on: : Electronic Programme Guides (EPG) ([ID581])
Please explain your response.([ID583])
(continue here if necessary)([ID975])
Question 144: To what extent has the current universal service regime, both as defined at EU level and implemented at national level, been effective in ensuring: : a) the availability ([ID594])
Question 144: To what extent has the current universal service regime, both as defined at EU level and implemented at national level, been effective in ensuring: : b) affordability ([ID595])
Question 144: To what extent has the current universal service regime, both as defined at EU level and implemented at national level, been effective in ensuring: : c) and accessibility of electronic communications services to all EU citizens? ([ID596])
Please explain your response.([ID600])
(continue here if necessary)([ID976])
Question 145: From your experience, is the current universal service regime, both as defined at EU level and implemented at national level, efficient taking into account administrative and regulatory costs and the (positive and negative) effects produced?([ID601])
Please explain your response, and indicate if you have suggestions for improvement.([ID602])
(continue here if necessary)([ID977])
Question 146: Has the universal service regime been an efficient policy tool to ensure that end-users are safeguarded from the risk of social exclusion?([ID571])
Please explain your response.([ID572])
(continue here if necessary)([ID978])
Question 147: Is the current universal service regime coherent with other provisions and underlying principles of the EU telecom regulatory framework and other EU policies (such as state aid)?([ID573])
Please explain your response.([ID574])
(continue here if necessary)([ID979])
Question 148: To what extent have the current rules regarding universal service obligations contributed to EU policy objectives and the interest of the citizens of the EU, in particular citizens at risk of economic and social exclusion?([ID579])
Please explain your response.([ID582])
(continue here if necessary)([ID980])
Question 149: Will a universal service regime still be needed in the future to ensure that a minimum set of electronic communications services are made available to all users at an affordable price at a fixed location?([ID599])
Please explain your response.([ID603])
(continue here if necessary)([ID981])
Question 150: Does universal service have a role in future in the sectorial context of electronic communications in order to provide a safety net for disabled end-users, as opposed to being left to general law?([ID604])
Please explain your response, in particular what should be the elements which should be considered.([ID605])
(continue here if necessary)([ID982])
Question 151: Do you consider the current universal service scope adequate in the light of latest as well as expected future market, technological and social developments?([ID608])
Please explain your response.([ID609])
(continue here if necessary)([ID983])
Question 152: In the light of recent and expected future technological and market developments, is the requirement for the provision of telephony services at a fixed location necessary?([ID610])
What reassurances are needed that for example VoIP or mobile telephony can provide reliability, quality and security on par with such services? Please explain your response.([ID611])
(continue here if necessary)([ID984])
Question 153: In light of future market and technology developments and user expectations, would you consider that the provision of connection to a network under the universal service should be targeted towards providing connectivity to end-users anywhere rather than to households/at primary location?([ID613])
Please explain your response, also by reference to alternative tools such as coverage requirements in spectrum licences. What could be the possible implications in terms of likely designated universal service operators, the costs, the impact on private investments and on other regulatory measures?([ID614])
(continue here if necessary)([ID985])
Question 154: Given the latest and expected future market and regulatory developments related to provision of the following services, is it justified to maintain them in the scope of universal service? : a) public payphones ([ID622])
Question 154: Given the latest and expected future market and regulatory developments related to provision of the following services, is it justified to maintain them in the scope of universal service? : b) comprehensive directories ([ID623])
Question 154: Given the latest and expected future market and regulatory developments related to provision of the following services, is it justified to maintain them in the scope of universal service? : c) comprehensive directory enquiry services  ([ID624])
Please explain your response.([ID625])
(continue here if necessary)([ID986])
Question 155: Would it be reasonable to require mandatory measures for disabled end-users to be imposed on all undertakings providing electronic communications services (strengthening Article 23a of the Universal Service Directive) as opposed to only those with a universal service obligation (Article 7 of the Universal Service Directive)?([ID627])
Please explain your response.([ID628])
(continue here if necessary)([ID987])
Question 156: Should universal service play a role in future to help realising public interest objectives (such as very high-capacity connectivity for schools, public buildings such as libraries, and university/research hubs)?([ID630])
Please explain your response. If yes, what kind of solutions would be the most suitable (i.e. hotspots, fixed internet access)? And should such internet services in PIAC be offered free of charge to all users?([ID631])
(continue here if necessary)([ID988])
Question 157: Do you see reasons for or against explicitly including access to a broadband network connection allowing functional Internet access within the scope of universal service at EU level?([ID633])
Please explain your response, in particular what would be the possible implications for the economy and society.([ID637])
(continue here if necessary)([ID989])
Question 158: If included in the universal service, how should the broadband connection be defined in a manner that would allow sufficient flexibility to cope with different Member State situations? Or should it be defined in a way that enables end-users to use certain categories of services (i) used by the majority of end-users or (ii) considered as essential for the participation in the digital economy and society?([ID638])
Please explain your response.([ID640])
(continue here if necessary)([ID990])
Question 159: If broadband connection were to be included in the universal service regime and defined "by services used", what would be such 'essential' minimum online Internet services? (more than one answer is possible)([ID634])
Please explain your response.([ID656])
(continue here if necessary)([ID991])
Question 160: Can it be ensured that broadband under universal service obligations is provided in a cost-effective manner causing the least market distortions, on a forward looking basis?([ID657])
Please explain your response.([ID658])
(continue here if necessary)([ID992])
Question 161: Is the inclusion of broadband in universal service likely to have a disruptive impact on commercial broadband investment plans and usage of other policy tools to drive broadband deployment?([ID659])
Please explain your response. If your response is positive, what could be the appropriate protective mechanisms against such crowding out effects?([ID660])
(continue here if necessary)([ID993])
Question 162: Considering the disruptive effects that universal service obligations may have on the market, should other public policy tools (state aid, demand promotion measures) be used to foster broadband deployment, either as an alternative or as a complement to universal service obligations?([ID661])
Please explain your response.([ID662])
(continue here if necessary)([ID994])
Question 163: What is the most appropriate and equitable way of financing the universal service, in particular in light of a possibility to include broadband into universal service scope, taking into account all those who benefit from its provision?([ID664])
Please explain your response.([ID671])
(continue here if necessary)([ID995])
Question 164: As regards individual contributions by relevant undertakings, how should they be calculated? ([ID672])
Please explain your response.([ID673])
(continue here if necessary)([ID996])
Question 165: As regards individual contributions by relevant undertakings: : a) Should there be any minimum/maximum contribution? ([ID680])
Question 165: As regards individual contributions by relevant undertakings: : b) Should certain small market players/certain groups of end-users be excluded from contributions in order to safeguard against undue financial burden? ([ID681])
Please explain your response.([ID683])
(continue here if necessary)([ID997])
Question 166: In view of helping to close the digital divide across the EU, could a new universal service funding mechanism set at EU level and made up of contributions from across Member States be considered an appropriate tool to facilitate sharing of the costs involved?([ID684])
Please explain your response. Does your response depend on the source of the contributions (public general budget; electronic communications sector; providers of content, applications and services; all end-users)?([ID685])
(continue here if necessary)([ID998])
Question 167: Are the current rules regarding the political independence of the NRAs, as set out following the 2009 review in Article 3(3a) of the Framework Directive, complete and clear enough and have they been effective in attaining the objective of ensuring that in the exercise of its tasks, a national regulatory authority is protected against external intervention or political pressure liable to jeopardise its independent assessment of matters coming before it?([ID641])
Please explain your response. If possible, please specify what improvements, if any, could be envisaged to reinforce the political independence of the NRAs([ID642])
(continue here if necessary)([ID999])
Question 168: In your view, has the current EU consultation process under Article 7/7a of the Framework Directive been effective in achieving a consistent application of the EU rules for market regulation in the electronic communications sector?([ID643])
Please explain your response.([ID644])
(continue here if necessary)([ID1000])
Question 169: To what extent has BEREC efficiently achieved its main objective, i.e. contributing to the development and better functioning of the internal market for electronic communications networks and services by aiming to ensure a consistent application of the EU regulatory framework for electronic communications?([ID645])
Please explain your response.([ID646])
(continue here if necessary)([ID1001])
Question 170: To what extent have the current rules on resolving disputes between undertakings by the NRAs, as set out in Articles 20 and 21 of the Framework Directive, been efficient in their outcome?([ID647])
Please explain your response.([ID648])
(continue here if necessary)([ID1002])
Question 171: In your view, to what extent is there a sufficient degree of coherence in the application of the regulatory framework by the various institutional players (NRAs, BEREC, the European Commission) to ensure the fulfilment of the policy objectives established in Article 8 of the Framework Directive?([ID649])
Please explain your response (in doing so, please set out in which areas increased consistency would bring improved outcomes and would help fostering the single market for electronic communications).([ID650])
(continue here if necessary)([ID1003])
Question 172: In your opinion, would a common EU approach (i.e. a more prescriptive EU framework which would further foster regulatory harmonization) add value in addressing the differences in the regulatory approach chosen by NRAs for individual markets in similar circumstances?([ID651])
Please explain your response. When doing so please set out what you consider to be the main variables, whether there are any justifications for such differences, where you see areas with less consistency and how you consider the EU governance process may influence the outcome.([ID652])
(continue here if necessary)([ID1004])
Question 173: Do you consider that there are areas, in which the current requirement to undergo an EU consultation process pursuant to Article 7 of the Framework Directive does no longer add value with regards to furthering the Single Market for electronic communications?([ID653])
Please explain your response.([ID654])
(continue here if necessary)([ID1005])
Question 174: To what extent has the Radio Spectrum Policy Group (RSPG) efficiently achieved its role of assisting and advising the Commission on radio spectrum policy issues, on coordination of policy approaches, on the preparation of RSPPs and on harmonised conditions with regard to the availability and efficient use of spectrum?([ID655])
Please explain your response and provide areas for improvement as appropriate.([ID665])
(continue here if necessary)([ID1006])
Question 175: To what extent has the current governance for spectrum efficiently and effectively contributed to the provision of electronic communication services across the EU?([ID666])
Please explain your response.([ID667])
(continue here if necessary)([ID1007])
Question 176: Do you consider that the current institutional set-up at EU level should be revised in order better to ensure legal certainty and accountability?([ID670])
Please explain your response. In doing so, please consider the Common Approach on decentralised agencies and indicate whether in your view there are examples of institutional arrangements in other sectors which could serve as a model for the electronic communications sector. Please express also your views as to how to ensure that BEREC has greater medium-term strategic direction and can devise positions which pursue the common EU interest, going beyond a lowest common denominator approach.([ID682])
(continue here if necessary)([ID1008])
Question 177: Do you consider that establishing an EU Agency with regulatory decision-making powers within a clear framework of rules could positively contribute to achieving regulatory harmonisation in the EU telecoms single market in any of the following areas: : a) market regulation ([ID693])
Question 177: Do you consider that establishing an EU Agency with regulatory decision-making powers within a clear framework of rules could positively contribute to achieving regulatory harmonisation in the EU telecoms single market in any of the following areas: : b) spectrum management in the EU ([ID694])
Question 177: Do you consider that establishing an EU Agency with regulatory decision-making powers within a clear framework of rules could positively contribute to achieving regulatory harmonisation in the EU telecoms single market in any of the following areas: : c) end user protection ([ID695])
Question 177: Do you consider that establishing an EU Agency with regulatory decision-making powers within a clear framework of rules could positively contribute to achieving regulatory harmonisation in the EU telecoms single market in any of the following areas: : d) other ([ID696])
Please explain your response and specify if other. ([ID697])
(continue here if necessary)([ID1009])
Question 178: Should BEREC be given more executive tasks or binding powers in specific areas, for example numbering or addressing?([ID698])
Please explain your response. In particular, please specify the tasks or powers you would consider appropriate to confer on BEREC.([ID699])
(continue here if necessary)([ID1010])
Question 179: As regards the enforcement of EU communications sector-specific end-user rights, should the enforcement of EU communications sector-specific end-user rights at national level fall within the core competence of the independent national regulatory authorities for communications?([ID700])
Please explain your response.([ID701])
(continue here if necessary)([ID1011])
Question 180: As regards the enforcement of EU communications sector-specific end-user rights, should other national authorities (also) be competent for the enforcement of EU communications sector-specific end-user rights?([ID702])
Please explain your response and specify which authorities and for which provisions.([ID703])
(continue here if necessary)([ID1012])
Question 181: As regards the enforcement of EU communications sector-specific end-user rights, does the degree of harmonisation of the EU communications sector-specific end-user rights (maximum/minimum harmonisation) play a role in your reply to the previous questions?([ID704])
Please explain your response.([ID705])
(continue here if necessary)([ID1013])
Question 182: As regards the enforcement of EU communications sector-specific end-user rights, should the authority or authorities in charge of enforcement of EU communications sector-specific end-user rights at national level be able to cooperate among themselves to enforce EU communications sector-specific end-user rights cross-border in the EU (e.g. when consumers and providers are located in two different Member States, or when the same practices are encountered in several Member States)?([ID706])
Please explain your response.([ID707])
(continue here if necessary)([ID1014])
Question 183: Have you identified any provision related to BEREC and the BEREC Office which in your opinion should be revised in terms of i) set-up (structure, composition, etc.), ii) mandate (objectives, roles, tasks, evaluation, etc.), iii) deliverables (powers, type of acts, content, timely delivery, etc.) and iv) functioning (procedures, working methods, internal rules, etc.)?([ID708])
Please explain your response.([ID709])
(continue here if necessary)([ID1015])
Question 184: Have you identified any provision in the regulatory framework (including the BEREC Regulation), which in your opinion should be revised in order to ensure that individual NRAs more systematically follow BEREC's opinions and guidance?([ID710])
Please explain your response. If your answer is yes, please specify which provisions would benefit from a revision.([ID711])
(continue here if necessary)([ID1016])
Question 185: Have you identified any provision in the regulatory framework, which in your opinion should be revised as regards NRAs' independence and powers?([ID713])
Please explain your response.([ID714])
(continue here if necessary)([ID1017])
Question 186: Should the NRAs have a role in mapping areas of investment deficit, or infrastructure presence (including for State Aid purposes)?([ID547])
Please explain your response.([ID811])
(continue here if necessary)([ID1018])
Question 187: Should the provisions established in Article 3 of the Framework Directive be revised in order to adequately ensure that NRAs enjoy budgetary autonomy and adequate human and financial resources to carry out the tasks assigned to them?([ID716])
Please explain your response.([ID717])
(continue here if necessary)([ID1019])
Question 188: Do the current rules on the accountability of the NRAs (i.e. Article 3(3a) of the Framework Directive on "supervision in accordance with national constitutional law" and Article 4 on the exercise of effective judicial control) strike the right balance between independence and accountability of NRAs?([ID718])
Please explain your response, and develop, if applicable, in which direction should this balance be altered, such as for example, by prescribing in more detail the scope of judicial review (minimum, maximum control), or how can the NRA accountability be reinforced while guaranteeing independence.([ID719])
(continue here if necessary)([ID1020])
Question 189: Taking into account the current EU Guidelines on state aid, should any provision of the current regulatory framework for electronic communications be revised in order to improve the outcome of these processes?([ID721])
Please explain your response.([ID722])
(continue here if necessary)([ID1021])
Question 190: Do you think that the current roles and responsibilities of the individual actors in the consultation process, in particular BEREC and the Commission, should be amended?([ID724])
Please explain your response.([ID725])
(continue here if necessary)([ID1022])
Question 191: Do you consider that there are any ways in which the current EU consultation process could be streamlined in order to reduce the burden for all actors involved?([ID726])
Please explain your response (When doing so please set out what you consider to be the most burdensome parts of the current EU consultation process for the stakeholders involved and how the burden could be reduced).([ID727])
(continue here if necessary)([ID1023])
Question 192: Are there any current conditions attached to the general authorisation for the provision of electronic communications services and networks (as listed in the Annex of the Authorisation Directive and/or specified at national level) which should be revised in order not to hinder the cross-border provision of electronic communications services and networks?([ID728])
Please justify your response by indicating, if applicable, which kind of services are most affected.([ID729])
(continue here if necessary)([ID1024])
Question 193: According to the national provisions as well as your experience, should national notification requirements under the general authorisation regime be revised in order to allow that they are fulfilled in practice by operators non-established in the country of provision of the service?([ID730])
Please explain your response if possible by indicating also which kind of obstacles, if any, occur.([ID731])
(continue here if necessary)([ID1025])
Question 194: Under the general authorisation regime, an undertaking which intends to provide electronic communications networks and or services may be required to submit a notification whose content is limited to what is necessary for the identification of the provider. Based on your experience, would it generate added value if notification requirements were standardised at EU level (in a standard template) and if the notification on such a standard template was centralised at BEREC or equivalent level, without this being a prerequisite for commencement of activity?([ID777])
Please explain your response.([ID732])
(continue here if necessary)([ID1026])
Question 195: To what extent have you experienced changes of financial and competitive conditions attached to rights of use having a significant impact on the structure of the market and/or the financial sustainability of the provision of services?([ID733])
Please explain your response by indicating, if applicable, specific examples of changes of market conditions and of related impacts.([ID734])
(continue here if necessary)([ID1027])
Question 196: Are there regulatory obligations (including general conditions attached to the general authorisation or to rights of use as well as specific obligations imposed on operators) that would benefit from technical harmonisation at EU level, in order to reduce red tape in general, costs of cross-border provision and more generally to exploit economies of scale?([ID735])
Please explain your response by indicating, if applicable, also which kind of regulatory obligations and/or services would benefit most from such harmonisation and, if available, any quantification of these benefits.([ID736])
(continue here if necessary)([ID1028])
Question 197: To what extent is the current applicable regime to define technical harmonisation parameters based on Commission Mandates to CEPT: : a) Satisfactorily transparent in regard to the way the necessary technical studies are conducted? ([ID745])
Question 197: To what extent is the current applicable regime to define technical harmonisation parameters based on Commission Mandates to CEPT: : b) Efficient and timely in responding to technology developments and/or market demand? ([ID746])
Question 197: To what extent is the current applicable regime to define technical harmonisation parameters based on Commission Mandates to CEPT: : c) Effective in terms of providing legal certainty to operators throughout the EU? ([ID747])
Question 197: To what extent is the current applicable regime to define technical harmonisation parameters based on Commission Mandates to CEPT: : d) Successful to spur the benefits of wireless innovation in the EU? ([ID748])
Please explain your response.([ID749])
(continue here if necessary)([ID1029])
Question 198: How significant for your organisation are the resources needed to follow and contribute to the CEPT procedures in response to a Commission Mandate?([ID750])
Please explain your response, including how satisfactory your find the CEPT process in general from your organisation's point of view.([ID751])
(continue here if necessary)([ID1030])
Question 199: For SMEs, how do you view the current CEPT technical spectrum harmonisation process ? (several answers possible)([ID752])
Please explain your response and provide suggestions for improvement if any.([ID757])
(continue here if necessary)([ID1031])
Question 200: Are specific measures necessary to ensure access of small and medium sized enterprises to harmonised spectrum?([ID753])
Please explain your response.([ID754])
(continue here if necessary)([ID1032])
Question 201: Given the current upstream involvement of CEPT, ETSI and other stakeholders in the preparation of technical studies for future spectrum harmonisation measures, to what extent is it possible to protect commercial secrets of an innovative wireless application, when aiming at harmonised spectrum access in the EU?([ID755])
Please explain your response.([ID756])
(continue here if necessary)([ID1033])
Question 202: Do you see a need to accelerate or streamline the Radio Spectrum Committee/CEPT process, with a view to coping with rapid market and technological changes and improving "time to market" for wireless innovations in the EU?([ID758])
Please explain your response. If yes, please provide suggestions.([ID759])
(continue here if necessary)([ID1034])
Question 203: In order to serve the future wireless connectivity needs of the EU, would a common EU approach to governing spectrum access as a strategic resource in the Digital Single Market be necessary, while taking into account the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and the character of spectrum as a national asset?([ID761])
Please explain your response and provide examples.([ID762])
(continue here if necessary)([ID1035])
Question 204: Do you see the need for more transparency in the preparatory steps before the Commission takes binding technical harmonisation decisions to ensure legal certainty for spectrum access in the EU, i.e before and after the Commission issues a Mandate to CEPT?([ID763])
Please explain your response and provide examples.([ID764])
(continue here if necessary)([ID1036])
Question 205: Do you agree that a common and transparent fast-track procedure for undertaking technical compatibility and sharing studies would be a benefit for both administrations and stakeholders?([ID765])
Please explain your response and provide examples.([ID766])
(continue here if necessary)([ID1037])
Question 206: Would you see the benefits of supporting the current contribution-driven process with the services of independent full-time technical experts that could be called upon to perform technical studies as input to preparatory steps needed before the Commission can take binding technical harmonisation decisions?([ID767])
Please explain your response and provide examples.([ID768])
(continue here if necessary)([ID1038])
Question 207: Given the overall lack of vacant spectrum and the increasing need for all users to use spectrum efficiently, do you agree that NRA's responsible for spectrum management should monitor the actual usage of bands listed in their inventory of existing use?([ID769])
Please explain your response and provide examples.([ID770])
(continue here if necessary)([ID1039])
Question 208: Can the Radio Spectrum Decision process, including the preparatory steps in CEPT, be accelerated and/or simplified, with a view to cope with the rapid market and technological changes?([ID771])
Please explain your response and provide examples.([ID772])
(continue here if necessary)([ID1040])
Question 209: Should Member States take a common approach when designing spectrum assignment procedures and conditions, with the aim to deliver the required regulatory predictability and consistency in the internal market while reflecting local market specificities?([ID773])
if yes, how?([ID774])
Please explain your response and provide examples.([ID778])
(continue here if necessary)([ID1041])
Question 210: What would be the most important features of an EU-level body, which could support and develop in particular peer-review based guidance on assignment procedures and conditions, in order to promote network coverage and wireless connectivity in the Digital Single Market?([ID779])
Please explain your response and provide examples. Hybrid responses are also possible.([ID780])
(continue here if necessary)([ID1042])
Question 211: Do you see the need for binding guidance on certain aspects of assignment procedures and conditions to increase regulatory predictability and legal certainty for spectrum rights holders?([ID781])
Please explain your response and provide examples.([ID782])
(continue here if necessary)([ID1043])
Question 212: In view to the harmonisation or coordination of assignment conditions and/or procedural aspects, would you consider appropriate that the Commission exercise its power under Article 19 of the Framework Directive to issue recommendations?([ID783])
If agree, what would be the most appropriate EU level body to advise the Commission in this area, any of the existing ones (BEREC, RSPG, COCOM) or others newly created?([ID784])
Please explain your response.([ID785])
(continue here if necessary)([ID1044])
Question 213: Do you consider that regarding certain key assignment parameters, a mechanism similar to that set by Article 4 of the Radio Spectrum Decision should be available, whereby common rules would be set in implementing measures by the Commission assisted by a committee of Member States representatives?([ID786])
Please explain your response and provide examples.([ID787])
(continue here if necessary)([ID1045])
Question 214: Should such powers also cover the question whether the assignment of a given band should be conducted on a national, regional or EU-wide basis?([ID788])
Please explain your response.([ID789])
(continue here if necessary)([ID1046])
Question 215: Do you consider that, in addition to general EU-level guidance or rules on assignment, individual national authorities would benefit from consultations with the Commission and with their peers on all aspects of spectrum assignment procedures being prepared by them, and that this would favour the development of more efficient and convergent spectrum assignment proceedings across the EU?([ID790])
If you agree, when would be the best moment for such consultations?([ID791])
Please explain your response.([ID1051])
(continue here if necessary)([ID1052])
Question 216: Given the potential cross-border implications of spectrum refarming decisions in Member States, do you consider that the outcomes of cross-border coordination efforts between Member States, such as those facilitated via the "good office" service of the Radio Spectrum Policy Group, should guarantee equitable access to harmonised radio spectrum among the relevant Member States and can be enforceable under Union law?([ID795])
Please explain your response and provide examples.([ID796])
(continue here if necessary)([ID1047])
Question 217: Do you see a need to establish a greater role for co-regulation and self-regulation in areas of the current regulatory framework?([ID798])
Please explain your response and indicate the areas concerned.([ID799])
(continue here if necessary)([ID1049])
Question 218: Do you have any further comments or suggestions on the future scope and/or content of possible rules in the sector? Please explain your response.([ID812])
(continue here if necessary)([ID1050])
All Values
Apply Filter
Private individual
Consumer association or user association
Business (please specify sector)
Electronic communications network or service provider
Internet content provider
Government authority
National Regulatory Authority
Other public bodies and institutions (please specify)
Other (please specify)
All Values
Apply Filter
Yes
No
Not applicable (I am replying as an individual in my personal capacity)
All Values
Apply Filter
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
The Netherlands
United Kingdom
Other
All Values
Apply Filter

significantly

moderately

little

not at all

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

significantly

moderately

little

not at all

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

significantly

moderately

little

not at all

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter
1
2
3
4
5
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter

significantly

moderately

little

not at all

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

significantly

moderately

little

not at all

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

significantly

moderately

little

not at all

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

significantly

moderately

little

not at all

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

significantly

moderately

little

not at all

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

significantly

moderately

little

not at all

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

significantly

moderately

little

not at all

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

significantly

moderately

little

not at all

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

significantly

moderately

little

not at all

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

significantly

moderately

little

not at all

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

significantly

moderately

little

not at all

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

significantly

moderately

little

not at all

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

significantly

moderately

little

not at all

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

significantly

moderately

little

not at all

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

significantly

moderately

little

not at all

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

significantly

moderately

little

not at all

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

significantly

moderately

little

not at all

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

significantly

moderately

little

not at all

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

significantly

moderately

little

not at all

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

significantly

moderately

little

not at all

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

significantly

moderately

little

not at all

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

significantly

moderately

little

not at all

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

significantly

moderately

little

not at all

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

significantly

moderately

little

not at all

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

significantly

moderately

little

not at all

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

significantly

moderately

little

not at all

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

yes

no

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

yes

no

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter
yes
no
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
yes
no
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
yes
no
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
yes
no
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter

significantly

moderately

little

not at all

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

significantly

moderately

little

not at all

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

significantly

moderately

little

not at all

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

significantly

moderately

little

not at all

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

significantly

moderately

little

not at all

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

significantly

moderately

little

not at all

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

significantly

moderately

little

not at all

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

significantly

moderately

little

not at all

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

significantly

moderately

little

not at all

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

significantly

moderately

little

not at all

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

significantly

moderately

little

not at all

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

significantly

moderately

little

not at all

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

significantly

moderately

little

not at all

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

significantly

moderately

little

not at all

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

significantly

moderately

little

not at all

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

significantly

moderately

little

not at all

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

significantly

moderately

little

not at all

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

significantly

moderately

little

not at all

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter
significantly
moderately
little
not at all
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
significantly
moderately
little
not at all
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
5 years
5-10 years
> 10 years
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
significantly
moderately
little
not at all
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter
significantly
moderately
little
not at all
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter

significantly

moderately

little

not at all

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

significantly

moderately

little

not at all

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

significantly

moderately

little

not at all

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

significantly

moderately

little

not at all

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

significantly

moderately

little

not at all

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

significantly

moderately

little

not at all

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter
significantly
moderately
little
not at all
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
Licence exemption/general authorisation ('Wi-Fi bands')
Comparative administrative licensing ('beauty contests')
Auctions
Hybrid models
Other
All Values
Apply Filter
significantly
moderately
little
not at all
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
significantly
moderately
little
not at all
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
significantly
moderately
little
not at all
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

This issue should not be covered by the Review: National measures adopted are sufficient, no need for legal certainty at EU level.

A - General Approximation

B- Partial harmonisation

C - Full harmonisation

All Values
Apply Filter

This issue should not be covered by the Review: National measures adopted are sufficient, no need for legal certainty at EU level.

A - General Approximation

B- Partial harmonisation

C - Full harmonisation

All Values
Apply Filter

This issue should not be covered by the Review: National measures adopted are sufficient, no need for legal certainty at EU level.

A - General Approximation

B- Partial harmonisation

C - Full harmonisation

All Values
Apply Filter

This issue should not be covered by the Review: National measures adopted are sufficient, no need for legal certainty at EU level.

A - General Approximation

B- Partial harmonisation

C - Full harmonisation

All Values
Apply Filter

This issue should not be covered by the Review: National measures adopted are sufficient, no need for legal certainty at EU level.

A - General Approximation

B- Partial harmonisation

C - Full harmonisation

All Values
Apply Filter

This issue should not be covered by the Review: National measures adopted are sufficient, no need for legal certainty at EU level.

A - General Approximation

B- Partial harmonisation

C - Full harmonisation

All Values
Apply Filter

This issue should not be covered by the Review: National measures adopted are sufficient, no need for legal certainty at EU level.

A - General Approximation

B- Partial harmonisation

C - Full harmonisation

All Values
Apply Filter

This issue should not be covered by the Review: National measures adopted are sufficient, no need for legal certainty at EU level.

A - General Approximation

B- Partial harmonisation

C - Full harmonisation

All Values
Apply Filter

This issue should not be covered by the Review: National measures adopted are sufficient, no need for legal certainty at EU level.

A - General Approximation

B- Partial harmonisation

C - Full harmonisation

All Values
Apply Filter

This issue should not be covered by the Review: National measures adopted are sufficient, no need for legal certainty at EU level.

A - General Approximation

B- Partial harmonisation

C - Full harmonisation

All Values
Apply Filter

This issue should not be covered by the Review: National measures adopted are sufficient, no need for legal certainty at EU level.

A - General Approximation

B- Partial harmonisation

C - Full harmonisation

All Values
Apply Filter

This issue should not be covered by the Review: National measures adopted are sufficient, no need for legal certainty at EU level.

A - General Approximation

B- Partial harmonisation

C - Full harmonisation

All Values
Apply Filter

This issue should not be covered by the Review: National measures adopted are sufficient, no need for legal certainty at EU level.

A - General Approximation

B- Partial harmonisation

C - Full harmonisation

All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter

This issue should not be covered by the Review: National measures adopted are sufficient, no need for legal certainty at EU level.

A - General Approximation

B- Partial harmonisation

C - Full harmonisation

All Values
Apply Filter

This issue should not be covered by the Review: National measures adopted are sufficient, no need for legal certainty at EU level.

A - General Approximation

B- Partial harmonisation

C - Full harmonisation

All Values
Apply Filter

This issue should not be covered by the Review: National measures adopted are sufficient, no need for legal certainty at EU level.

A - General Approximation

B- Partial harmonisation

C - Full harmonisation

All Values
Apply Filter

This issue should not be covered by the Review: National measures adopted are sufficient, no need for legal certainty at EU level.

A - General Approximation

B- Partial harmonisation

C - Full harmonisation

All Values
Apply Filter

This issue should not be covered by the Review: National measures adopted are sufficient, no need for legal certainty at EU level.

A - General Approximation

B- Partial harmonisation

C - Full harmonisation

All Values
Apply Filter

This issue should not be covered by the Review: National measures adopted are sufficient, no need for legal certainty at EU level.

A - General Approximation

B- Partial harmonisation

C - Full harmonisation

All Values
Apply Filter

This issue should not be covered by the Review: National measures adopted are sufficient, no need for legal certainty at EU level.

A - General Approximation

B- Partial harmonisation

C - Full harmonisation

All Values
Apply Filter

This issue should not be covered by the Review: National measures adopted are sufficient, no need for legal certainty at EU level.

A - General Approximation

B- Partial harmonisation

C - Full harmonisation

All Values
Apply Filter

This issue should not be covered by the Review: National measures adopted are sufficient, no need for legal certainty at EU level.

A - General Approximation

B- Partial harmonisation

C - Full harmonisation

All Values
Apply Filter

This issue should not be covered by the Review: National measures adopted are sufficient, no need for legal certainty at EU level.

A - General Approximation

B- Partial harmonisation

C - Full harmonisation

All Values
Apply Filter

This issue should not be covered by the Review: National measures adopted are sufficient, no need for legal certainty at EU level.

A - General Approximation

B- Partial harmonisation

C - Full harmonisation

All Values
Apply Filter

This issue should not be covered by the Review: National measures adopted are sufficient, no need for legal certainty at EU level.

A - General Approximation

B- Partial harmonisation

C - Full harmonisation

All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
significantly
moderately
little
not at all
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
yes
no
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
yes
no
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
significantly
moderately
little
not at all
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
significantly
moderately
little
not at all
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
significantly
moderately
little
not at all
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

Full harmonisation

Minimum harmonisation

All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

Full harmonisation

Minimum harmonisation

All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

Full harmonisation

Minimum harmonisation

All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

Full harmonisation

Minimum harmonisation

All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

Full harmonisation

Minimum harmonisation

All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

Full harmonisation

Minimum harmonisation

All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

Full harmonisation

Minimum harmonisation

All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

Full harmonisation

Minimum harmonisation

All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
one-to-one communications between persons
interactive communications between several persons (e.g. via social media)
communications between persons and machines (e.g. confirmation received by emails or SMS)
communications between machines (e.g. M2M, IoT, eCalls)?
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

Full harmonisation

Minimum harmonisation

All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

Full harmonisation

Minimum harmonisation

All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

Full harmonisation

Minimum harmonisation

All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

Full harmonisation

Minimum harmonisation

All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

Full harmonisation

Minimum harmonisation

All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

Full harmonisation

Minimum harmonisation

All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

Full harmonisation

Minimum harmonisation

All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

Full harmonisation

Minimum harmonisation

All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
minimum harmonisation
full harmonisation
minimum harmonisation at a very high level
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
cases where availability of such content could be (or risks to be) prevented or restricted
cases where finding such content could be(or risks to be) made unreasonably burdensome for viewers
cases where finding and enjoying such content could be (or risks to be) unreasonably burdensome for disabled viewers
cases where such content is only available in a form which is modified or compromised by a third party beyond the control and without the consent of the broadcaster/source
All Values
Apply Filter

significantly

moderately

little

not at all

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

significantly

moderately

little

not at all

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

significantly

moderately

little

not at all

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter
significantly
moderately
little
not at all
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
significantly
moderately
little
not at all
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
significantly
moderately
little
not at all
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
significantly
moderately
little
not at all
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
For including
Against including
both
All Values
Apply Filter
By requiring a minimum download/upload speed
By enabling the use of certain services
By speed AND service use
Other parameters
All Values
Apply Filter
Sending/receiving E-mails
Voice communication over the internet
Access to information (online news; information about goods and services)
General Web browsing
cloud services
E-Government
Internet banking
E-health
E-learning
E-Commerce/ online shopping
Social Networking
Maps and transport
Streaming music/internet radio
Streaming video/video on demand
Other Multimedia
Gaming
Assistive tools for persons with disabilities
Other
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
public funding
electronic communications sector
providers of online content, applications and services
all end-users (e.g. by an extra charge on their monthly invoice)
a combination of public funding and industry funding
other sectors
All Values
Apply Filter
fixed fee per contributor
volume-based fee
transaction-based fee
market share
revenue share
other
All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
significantly
moderately
little
not at all
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
significantly
moderately
little
not at all
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
significantly
moderately
little
not at all
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
significantly
moderately
little
not at all
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
significantly
moderately
little
not at all
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
significantly
moderately
little
not at all
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
yes
no
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
significantly
moderately
little
not at all
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
significantly
moderately
little
not at all
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

do not know

All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
yes, it is the most important factor
yes, it is one of several factors considered
no
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
yes
no
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
yes
no
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
yes
no
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
yes
no
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
yes
no
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
strongly agree
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
significantly
moderately
little
not at all
do not know
All Values
Apply Filter
significantly
moderately
little
not at all
do not know