Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-02-13-Speech-2-308"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070213.21.2-308"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, I have to compliment the European Parliament, in particular the rapporteur, Mrs Hall, for realising the importance of the choices Europe is about to make with regard to radio spectrum policy.
This is an area where political decisions have a direct impact on the quality of jobs and growth in the European economy. Services dependent on radio spectrum represent around 2 to 3% of Europe’s GDP. There have been studies for the World Bank and for the OECD which clearly link the development of electronic communication services to economic growth. An econometric study made for the Commission tentatively associated better spectrum break relation with 0.1% of extra GDP growth per year. This would quickly cumulate to deliver real benefits.
The urgency of the matter can be summed up in the word ‘convergence’. Practically all communications are quickly becoming digital and there is an increasing number of infrastructures competing to carry services. The old categories are disappearing and we need to respond with a regulation that permits the spectrum users to choose the mix of services and technologies that they prefer and that in many cases permits them to buy and sell spectrum rights to each other.
The reasons for regulation are still strong. We have to manage interference. We need to ensure that the rights to use spectrum are clearly defined and we need to ensure a level playing field. The report that we are debating tonight is in most aspects in line with this policy vision and I want to thank the rapporteur for her efforts.
One area of divergence concerns including spectrum for terrestrial broadcasting distribution in the planned reforms. We are not questioning the importance of the television companies’ public service function, nor their contribution to cultural and linguistic diversity. We should, however, think very carefully before we privilege one specific form of broadcasting distribution without regard to the costs to our society in terms of opportunity.
A case in point: the report quite rightly highlights wireless broadband as a tool for rural development and for breaching the digital divide. This requires tough choices about the balance between broadcasting and other services. There are necessary decisions to be made to safeguard the resources and functioning of public service broadcasting, but we should not use spectrum policy as a substitute for real debate. The amendment gives a more balanced approach by mentioning the need to secure stability and security for media services and the importance of a level playing field for new entrants and new technologies.
I have one final point to make: on the basis of the full analysis, the choice of the national regulators is to award spectrum to broadcasters. These users must also have the same obligation as any other users to be good stewards of a public resource and use it as effectively as possible. We think that our reform proposal would help to implement this principle."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples