Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-28-Speech-3-124"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010228.7.3-124"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should first like to thank the three rapporteurs most warmly for their excellent work and for their first-class manner of cooperation. I believe that this is exemplary in this House.
Finally, Mrs Niebler’s report. She has produced an excellent report, and I should like to draw attention expressly to the amendment in which we are now trying to formulate criteria designed to ensure that in the distribution of frequencies Member States take account of the fact that we live in a Europe-wide market.
We are discussing three important reports and at the same time we are talking about a sector characterised by a great degree of uncertainty. In every conceivable kind of article in magazines and newspapers we even see prophets of doom sowing the seeds of doubt on the question of whether the 3G sector is at all viable. I believe that the Commission and the Swedish Presidency have an important role to play in the run-up to the informal summit that will take place in Stockholm on 23 and 24 March 2001. It would be very good if a plan of action could be agreed there. I should like to mention here a number of elements, which strike me as important in this context.
In the first place, the Heads of Government should state expressly at the summit that they consider the 3G sector to be of prime importance for high-quality employment in the European Union, and that they are also prepared to work towards a single Europe-wide market.
Secondly, it would be very wise if the two countries that bear the greatest responsibility for the high auction results, the United Kingdom and Germany, were prepared to consider other sources of finance. Perhaps they will also be willing to postpone this financing for a little while, so that the financing burden on telecom companies would ease, with all the accompanying stabilising effects that that can bring about on the financial markets.
Thirdly, it would be a very good thing if Commissioner Liikanen were to sit round the table with all these companies to discuss the question of how the public at large can be better informed about the achievements and potential of the 3G sector, and particularly to examine collectively how, for example through collocation, more effective use can be made of transmission masts, etc., resulting in a reduction in infrastructure costs.
Fourthly, it would be a very significant step if the Member States that have benefited greatly from those auctions were prepared to boost demand by stimulating the need for 3G, for example in the field of e
governance projects, and to do more in areas such as education, in-service training of teachers, etc.
Finally, as part of the sixth Framework Programme we should use a significant part of our financial resources to solve questions such as the new internet protocol 6 (IP 6)
banking standards, etc. I hope that the Commissioner will respond to the recommendations I have just made.
To return to the reports. In the first instance to the report of Mr Brunetta: I think it is an excellent report. It is very important that we should establish now that Parliament, in cases where open competition does not yet work and there is emphatic evidence of problem areas in the market, has the courage to take a position and to opt for the consumer. A well-known example is that of the international roaming tariffs. We have seen a Commission report of last December, from which it is apparent that there is actually a closed system, that there is too little price competition, that there is too much disguising of costs and that it is vital that there should be transparency.
With regard to the report of Mr Paasilinna I want to make the comment that the suggestion that we should strive for greater competition is supported by our group. We must indeed work towards a Europe-wide electronic communications market. Fifteen separate national electronic communications markets cannot work. A Europe-wide market must be created and that is why it is so important that the role of the Commission is maintained. I appeal passionately to the House not to support the amendment of Mrs Niebler, because that amendment misrepresents matters. We must ensure that the Commission is able to fulfil its task in that area and to guarantee that true competition is created and that a Europe-wide market becomes a reality. That is the priority. To that end we need a clear division of tasks and responsibilities between the Commission and NRAs, as is rightly advocated in Mr Paasilinna’s report."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"e-"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples