Europe missing its ultrafast targets

With only 20% of European customers adopting broadband services over 100 Mbps, the European Commission is falling behind its own targets with six months to go.

While the targets are certainly ambitious, the European Commission has decided it would like to have 50% of all broadband customers across the bloc subscribing to 100 Mbps by 2020. With only 20% subscribing to an ultrafast service, it looks like it is becoming a big ask as we head towards the mid-point of the year.

There will of course be numerous reasons for a lack of adoption. Some will suggest the telcos are not deploying suitable infrastructure to enough people, while others will say they are charging too much. That said, a more sensible explanation is that irrelevant as to how cheap a 100 Mbps service is, it is still too much; why would a normal person need such speeds today? Without the applications, customers would be paying for redundant speed.

What is worth noting is that connectivity is improving on the whole. The availability of ultrafast broadband has increased to 60% across Europe, up from 57% in 2017, while there have been gains on the mobile side as well. The DESI Report claims that 4G coverage is now almost universal in European homes, while rural coverage is also increasing.

Vodafone Germany tries to placate regulators via wholesale cable deal with Telefónica

Telefónica Deutschland will be able to sell services that run on the combined Vodafone and Unitymedia cable network in Germany, as a remedy measure taken by Vodafone to satisfy EU’s competition concern over its proposed acquisition of Liberty Global.

The two companies announced that they have entered into a definite “cable wholesale agreement” in Germany, whereby Telefónica Deutschland will offer its customers broadband services that use both the Vodafone fixed network and that of Unitymedia. The combined networks cover 23.7 million households and represent a significant upgrade to whatever Telefónica Deutschland customers are currently getting.

“The cable agreement will enable us to connect millions of additional households in Germany with high-speed internet in the future,” said Markus Haas, CEO of Telefónica Deutschland. “By adding fast cable connections, we now have access to an extensive infrastructure portfolio and can offer to even more O2 customers attractive broadband products – including internet-based TV with O2 TV – for better value for money.”

Vodafone’s plan to acquire Liberty Global in Germany (where it trades under the brand Unitymedia), the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Romania, has run into difficulty at the European Union, which raised competition concerns at the end of last year. The Commission was particularly worried that the combined business would deprive the consumers in Germany of access to high speed internet access, and the OTT services carried over it. Vodafone expressed its confidence that it would be able to satisfy the Commission’s demand. Opening its fixed internet access to its competitor is clearly one of the remedies. Also included in the remedy package Vodafone submitted to the Commission was its commitment to ensure sufficient capacity is available for OTT TV distribution.

“Our deal with Liberty Global is transformational in many ways. It is a significant step towards a Gigabit society, which will enable consumers & businesses to access the world of content & digital services at high speeds. It also creates a converged national challenger in four important European countries, bringing innovation & greater choice,” said Nick Read, CEO of Vodafone Group. “We are very pleased to announce today our cable wholesale access agreement with Telefonica DE, enabling them to bring faster broadband speeds to their customers and further enhancing infrastructure competition across Germany.”

Vodafone believed the remedial measures it put in place should sufficiently reassure the Commission that competitions will not suffer after its acquisition of Liberty Global. The company now expects the Commission to undertake market testing of the remedy package it submitted, and to give the greenlight to the acquisition deal covering the four countries by July 2019. It plans to complete the transaction by the end of July. The merger between Vodafone’s and Liberty Global’s operation in The Netherlands was approved by the EU in 2016.

Europe approves new internet rules designed to rein in Amazon and co

As part of the overall Digital Single Market programme, the European Parliament has voted to approve new regulations claiming to protect European businesses and consumers when using online platforms to trade.

The “Regulation on platform-to-business trading practices” has been almost two years in the making since the publication of a document titled “Online Platforms and the Digital Single Market: Opportunities and Challenges for Europe” by the European Commission in May 2016.

The EU executives were understandably happy with the passing of the new rules. “We are delighted by the overwhelming support to the new rules on online platforms’ trading practices among the members of the European Parliament. As the first-ever regulation in the world that addresses the challenges of business relations within the online platform economy, it is an important milestone of the Digital Single Market and lays the ground for future developments. Not only will it improve trust, predictability and legal certainty, it will also offer new and accessible options for redress and resolution of disputes between businesses and platforms,” said the official statement, jointly signed off by Andrus Ansip, the Commission’s Vice-President for the Digital Single Market, Elżbieta Bieńkowska, Commissioner for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, and Mariya Gabriel, Commissioner for Digital Economy and Society.

What drove the Commission to undertake such an initiative two years ago was the understanding that there is a lack of a redress mechanism when the European SMEs encounter problems when trading on the global platforms (companies singled out include Booking.com, Facebook, eBay, and Amazon), for example, “delisting without statement of reasons or sudden changes of Terms and Conditions”. The Commission has also assessed the effectiveness of legislative vs. non-legislative measures, but believed an EU-wide legislation is necessary.

The Regulation is aimed to achieve three main objectives as are outlined in the Impact Assessment Summary published a year ago:

  1. To ensure a fair, transparent and predictable treatment of business users by online platforms
  2. To provide business users with more effective options for redress when they face problems
  3. To create a predictable and innovation-friendly regulatory environment for online platforms within the EU

Although it has been approved by the European Parliament, the regulation still needs to be formally passed by the Council of the European Union, which represents the governments of the member states and can be roughly seen as another “chamber” of the union’s legislature. There is no definite timeline on when the Council will make the decision. However, by the reading of the press statement where the Commissioners thanked the member states “for their great efforts to reach a good compromise in a very short period of time. This is yet another positive development ahead of the upcoming European elections,” the Council may not be able to vote on it before the European Parliamentary election in May. After the final approval, the regulation will enter into force 12 months after it is published in the Official Journal.

This is the latest internet-related legislation the EU has made recently. On 15 April the Council passed the updated Copyright Directive “fit for the digital age”, which has proved controversial.  There are also legislation and regulation updates in member states. France has started levying 3% income tax on digital companies with sales in excess of €25 million in France and €750 million globally, without waiting for an EU-wide tax regime as part of the Digital Single Market. The UK, still an EU member state at the time of writing, has not only considered setting up a new regulator to oversee the digital world and started the consultation process of a “code of practice for online services” to protect children, but will also formally introduce the “porn block” on 15 July, which has been called “One of the Worst Ideas Ever” by some critics.

Nick Clegg defends Facebook’s business model from EU’s privacy regulation

Facebook’s head of PR reportedly had a series of meetings with EU and UK officials aiming to safeguard the social network’s business model heavily relying on targeted advertising.

Sir Nick Clegg, the former UK Deputy Prime Minister, now Facebook’s VP for Global Affairs and Communications, met three EU commissioners during the World Economic Forum in Davos and shortly after the event in Brussels, according to a report by the Telegraph. These commissioners’ portfolios include Digital Single Market (Andrus Ansip), Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality (Věra Jourová), and Research, Science and Innovation (Carlos Moedas). Clegg’s mission, according to the Telegraph report, was to present Facebook’s case to defend its ads-based business model in the face of new EU legislation related to consumer privacy.

According to a meeting minutes from the Ansip meeting, seen by the Telegraph, “Nick Clegg stated as main Facebook’s concern the fact that the said rules are considered to call into question the Facebook business model, which should not be ‘outlawed’ (e.g. Facebook would like to measure the effectiveness of its ads, which requires data processing). He stated that the General Data Protection Regulation is more flexible (by providing more grounds for processing).”

In response, Ansip defended the proposed ePrivacy Regulation as a complement to GDPR and it is primarily about protecting the confidentiality of consumers’ communications. In addition, the ePrivacy Regulation will be more up to date and will provide more clarity and certainty, compared with the current ePrivacy Directive, which originated in 2002 and last updated in 2009. Member states could interprete and implement the current Directive more restrictively, Ansip warned.

Facebook’s current security setup makes it possible to access users’ communication and able to target them with advertisements based on the communications. Under the proposed Regulation, platforms like Facebook need to get explicit consent from account holders to access the content of their communications, for either advertisement serving, or effectiveness measuring.

There are two issues with Facebook’s case. The first one is, as Ansip put it, companies like Facebook would still be able to monetise data after obtaining the consent of users. They just need to do it in a way more respectful of users’ privacy, which 92% of EU consumers think important, according to the findings of Eurobarometer, a bi-annual EU wide survey.

Another is Facebook’s own strategy announced by Zuckerberg recently. The new plan will make it impossible for Facebook to read users’ private communications with its end-to-end WhatsApp-like encryption. This means, even if consumers are asked and do grant consent, Facebook in the future will not be able to access the content for targeted advertising. Zuckerberg repeatedly talked about trade-offs in his message. This would be one of them.

On the other hand, last November the EU member states’ telecom ministers agreed to delay the vote on ePrivacy Regulations, which means it will be highly unlikely that the bill will be passed and come into effect before the next European Parliament election in May.

The office of Jeremy Wright, the UK’s Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, did not release much detail related to the meeting with Clegg, other than claiming “We are at a crucial stage in the formulation of our internet safety strategy and as a result we are engaging with many stakeholders to discuss issues pertinent to the policy. This includes discussions with social media companies such as Facebook. It is in these crucial times that ministers, officials and external parties need space in which to develop their thinking and explore different options in a free and frank manner.”

The Telegraph believed Clegg’s objective was to minimise Facebook’s exposure to risks from the impending government proposals that could “place social media firms under a statutory duty of care, which could see them fined or prosecuted” if they fail to protect users, especially children, from online harms.

It is also highly conceivable that the meeting with the UK officials was related to influence post-Brexit regulatory setup in the country, when it will not longer be governed by EU laws. Facebook may want to have its voice heard before the UK starts to make its own privacy and online regulations.

EU set to proceed with controversial new online copyright rules

Inevitably the EU Copyright Directive, complete with its widely despised Articles 11 and 13, is continuing its glacial progress along the European rubber-stamping conveyor belt.

Last month we reported that the directive appeared to have hit a road bump, but this turned out to be a fleeting inconvenience, resolved by the most token of concessions. Yesterday both the European Commission and European Parliament announced a breakthrough in the fraught negotiations, from which a miraculous consensus was reached.

“To finally have modern copyright rules for the whole of EU is a major achievement that was long overdue,” said VP for the Digital Single Market Andrus Ansip. “The negotiations were difficult, but what counts in the end is that we have a fair and balanced result that is fit for a digital Europe: the freedoms and rights enjoyed by internet users today will be enhanced, our creators will be better remunerated for their work, and the internet economy will have clearer rules for operating and thriving.”

“This deal is an important step towards correcting a situation which has allowed a few companies to earn huge sums of money without properly remunerating the thousands of creatives and journalists whose work they depend on,” said MEP Axel Voss, who seems to speak for the European Parliament on this stuff.

“At the same time, this deal contains numerous provisions which will guarantee that the internet remains a space for free expression. These provisions were not in themselves necessary because the directive will not be creating any new rights for rights holders. Yet we listened to the concerns raised and chose to doubly guarantee the freedom of expression. The ‘meme’, the ‘gif’, the ‘snippet’ are now more protected than ever before.”

As you can see both spokespeople are doing a heavy sell on the directive because they know it’s unpopular. Not that it really matters because In place of actual democratic accountability, the EU has a self-reinforcing system of largely opaque bodies. This is apparently done to create the impression of rigorous due process but it’s very rare for the real power in Brussels – the European Commission – to receive any significant internal resistance once it has decided on a course of action.

The most unpopular part of the Directive is Article 13, which requires sites to either seek licenses for, or pre-emptively block the upload of, any material that may be copyright protected, or face the consequences of any breach themselves. Close second in terms of public derision is Article 11, which will require a license to reproduce all but the shortest snippets of written content and may apply to things like link previews.

Appropriately enough none of the announcements linked directly to the test of the agreement, but once more we indebted to MEP Julia Reda, who quickly blogged on the matter. “The history of this law is a shameful one,” she wrote. “From the very beginning, the purpose of Articles 11 and 13 was never to solve clearly-defined issues in copyright law with well-assessed measures, but to serve powerful special interests, with hardly any concern for the collateral damage caused.”

The special interests she referred to are big publishers, who she reckons have lobbied the EU to protect their traditional revenue streams. This theory would appear to be supported by the fact that smaller publishers and rights holders seem far less keen on the new rules. Reda, who you can see alongside a small number of other dissenting MEPs in the video below, thinks the Directive can still be stopped if the European Parliament can be persuaded to oppose it but this seems like a forlorn hope.

Zoey Forbes, Technology, Media and Entertainment Associate at law firm Harbottle & Lewis, offers another perspective. “On the surface, the agreed text was an early Valentine’s Day present for creatives and the wider content industry,” she said. “Copyright holders will receive additional revenues from the use of their works online as well as greater protection from online copyright infringement.

“However, as with all things, the devil is in the detail and some stakeholders feel the safeguards offered to the tech industry have not only watered down the EU’s original objectives but will actually leave copyright holders worse off. Conversely, the tech industry and those advocating for freedom of expression are not appeased by these safeguards and continue to oppose the directive on an ideological level.”

The EU is positioning all this as protecting the European little guy from voracious Silicon Valley giants who profit from traffic driven by third party content. There is some merit to that position, but it doesn’t seem to have consulted many little guys, nor thought more deeply about the mechanics of the internet, which rely heavily on the viral sharing of stuff. It’s not at all clear that the stated beneficiaries of this set of rules will, in fact, benefit, but the EU supertanker isn’t about to change course over such minor concerns.

 

Potential return of roaming premiums causes latest Brexit flap

UK parliament has drafted new legislation that would release UK operators from their commitments not to charge extra for roaming in Europe.

The scoop was grabbed by the Huffington Post, which notes that the government will probably release operators from this obligation in the event of a ‘no deal’ Brexit. The apparent rationale is that, since the UK will no longer be able to oblige European operators not to charge UK operators a wholesale premium for roaming, it wouldn’t be fair to prevent them from passing that cost onto their customers.

Those opposed to Brexit have inevitably seized on this latest development as further evidence of what a catastrophe the whole thing will be. Labour MP Tom Watson brought it up in the house of commons and exploited the opportunity for a spot of scripted grandstanding to the fullest, which you can see at the bottom of this piece.

Wholesale carrier service provider BICS reckons it’s unlikely we’ll see a return to the bad old days, however, because operators on both sides of the channel will be aware of how unpopular such a move would be.

“The prospect of a ‘no deal’ in March has fuelled speculation about whether we’ll see the return of roaming charges, and post-holiday ‘bill shock’,” said Mikaël Schachne, VP of Mobility Solutions and IoT Business at BICS. “But with LTE/4G data roaming traffic in Europe surging by 600-800% after the implementation of Roam Like at Home, it would be exceptionally unwise for operators to go against such clear demand.

“In its abolition of roaming charges, the EU set a major precedent, and motivated other operators to offer competitive international tariffs. Most of us have now grown accustomed to using our mobile phones – and all of those data-intensive apps and services – when we’re abroad, to a similar degree as when we’re in the UK. In taking that away, operators risk alienating their customer base, and risk haemorrhaging subscribers to those offering more cost-efficient roaming packages.

“In the event that all UK operators decide to opt out of Roam Like at Home following a no-deal, we’re still unlikely to see the high tariffs that once existed. Roaming packages promote and drive subscriber loyalty, and encourage the use of all manner of mobile services and apps, helping operators to market and deliver additional services, making it in service providers’ best interests to stay competitive.”

Last summer UK operators indicated they have no intention of bringing back roaming, but as the prospect of ‘no deal’ grows only Three seems to be categorically ruling out any kind of hike. That could get interesting for Three if their wholesale roaming partners start getting funny ideas and our advice would be to publicly name and shame any such opportunistic European operators.

There will certainly be all sorts of bureaucratic chaos when Brexit finally happens, but you can’t undo decades of co-dependence overnight. Still, on the plus side, thanks to anticipated shortages of Mars bars, McDonald’s and Magnums we’ll probably all lose loads of weight and look great on the beach. Shame we won’t be able to afford to show off about it on social media, but you can’t have everything can you?

 

Europe set to impose upload filters on nearly all websites

After a brief interruption it’s business as usual for the EU Copyright Directive, with Article 13 set to go ahead and oblige websites to adopt burdensome content filters.

Last month we reported that Article 13 of the directive, which seeks to block the upload of any content that could possibly infringe copyright, was being held up by disagreement among some members of one of the many layers of eurocracy required to rubber-stamp new trans-continental laws.

Well as is so often the case in Brussels, a token compromise was reached that allowed everyone to do what they’re told while offering what minimal face-saving they needed to salve their capitulation. Once more the best information and analysis on this latest development comes from Pirate Party MEP Julia Reda.

Reda reports that everyone was pretty much in favour of insisting on the use of algorithmic upload filters intended to prevent copyrighted material even being uploaded in the first place without a license fee first being paid. The only sticking point concerned exemptions for smaller websites, to stop innovation being suffocated by the cost of all this fresh red tape.

The solution that apparently placated even the most fervent SMB champion was to spare websites this extra hassle so long as they’ve been going for less than three years, have an annual turnover of less than €10 million and have fewer than five million monthly unique visitors. To be clear if any single one of these apply then it’s upload filter time, so since nearly all websites are older than three that means pretty much all of them. Nice exemption.

As Reda concludes, this is EU corporatism being imposed on the internet by favouring the largest websites, for whom the additional bureaucratic burden is much less significant, and thus discouraging innovation. It will probably result in blanket blocks on European users by non-European sites that don’t feel like installing upload filters.

She calls on people to pressure their local candidates in the forthcoming European elections to oppose this move but we fear she’s being naïve. The European Union considers the democratic will of its constituents to be at best irrelevant and at worst antagonistic to its corporate interests and prospective members of European parliament know it.

Europe pats US internet giants on the head for being good censors

In just the third year of the EU’s Orwellian online speech purge it looks like the major platforms are largely submitting to its will.

The EU Code of Conduct on countering illegal hatespeech online has been going since 2016 as “an effort to respond to the proliferation of racist and xenophobic hate speech online.” The EU seemed to have decided that if you stop people saying horrid things online then you’ll also stop them having horrid thoughts and doing horrid things.

To implement this theory the EU needed the cooperation of the major platforms run by Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter and Google. It will have done the usual thing of threatening vindictive regulatory action if they didn’t comply so sensibly they have. They are now assessing 89% of content flagged as hatespeech within 24 hours and removing 72% of it.

Definitions of hatespeech seem to be pretty consistent across the EU, which is presumably no coincidence. Here’s the European Commission’s one:

Certain forms of conduct as outlined below, are punishable as criminal offences:

  • public incitement to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined on the basis of race, colour, descent, religion or belief, or national or ethnic origin;
  • the above-mentioned offence when carried out by the public dissemination or distribution of tracts, pictures or other material;
  • publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivialising crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes as defined in the Statute of the International Criminal Court (Articles 6, 7 and 8) and crimes defined in Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, when the conduct is carried out in a manner likely to incite violence or hatred against such a group or a member of such a group.

Instigating, aiding or abetting in the commission of the above offences is also punishable.

With regard to these offences listed, EU countries must ensure that they are punishable by:

  • effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties;
  • a term of imprisonment of a maximum of at least one year.

With regard to legal persons, the penalties must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive and must consist of criminal or non-criminal fines. In addition, legal persons may be punished by:

  • exclusion from entitlement to public benefits or aid;
  • temporary or permanent disqualification from the practice or commercial activities;
  • being placed under judicial supervision;
  • a judicial winding-up order.

The initiation of investigations or prosecutions of racist and xenophobic offences must not depend on a victim’s report or accusation.

Hate crime

In all cases, racist or xenophobic motivation shall be considered to be an aggravating circumstance or, alternatively, the courts must be empowered to take such motivation into consideration when determining the penalties to be applied.

If you couldn’t be bothered to read all that, the TL;DR is that you can’t say horrid things online if race, nationality, belief, etc comes into it, or even join in if someone else does. If you do all sorts of punishments will be inflicted on you, including a year in prison (as maximum of at least one year? That doesn’t make sense). The victim of such hatespeech doesn’t even need to have accused you of anything and the court reserves the right to determine your motivation for doing stuff.

“Today’s evaluation shows that cooperation with companies and civil society brings results,” said Andrus Ansip, Vice-President for the Digital Single Market. “Companies are now assessing 89% of flagged content within 24 hours, and promptly act to remove it when necessary. This is more than twice as much as compared to 2016. More importantly, the Code works because it respects freedom of expression. The internet is a place people go to share their views and find out information at the click of a button. Nobody should feel unsafe or threatened due to illegal hateful content remaining online.”

“Illegal hate speech online is not only a crime, it represents a threat to free speech and democratic engagement,” said Vĕra Jourová, Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality. “In May 2016, I initiated the Code of conduct on online hatespeech, because we urgently needed to do something about this phenomenon. Today, after two and a half years, we can say that we found the right approach and established a standard throughout Europe on how to tackle this serious issue, while fully protecting freedom of speech.”

Those statements are perfectly Orwellian, insisting as they do that censorship is free speech. The really chilling thing is that they clearly believe that imposing broad and vague restrictions on online speech is vital to protect the freedom of nice, compliant non-hateful people. The EC even had the gall to berate the platforms for not offering enough feedback to those it censors. This could easily be resolved with a blanket statement along the lines of “We’re just following orders.”

As you can see from the tweet below extracted from the full report, the types of things that qualify as hatespeech have increased since the above definition was written. This kind of mission creep is made all the more inevitable by the complicity of Silicon Valley and complete absence of dissenting media, so there’s every reason to assume the definition of hatespeech will continue to expand indefinitely.

 

Europe struggles to get support for Article 13 digital copyright laws

The most controversial part of the EU Copyright Directive, known as Article 13, is struggling to pass through Europe’s Byzantine bureaucracy.

German MEP Julia Reda recently reported that the process of passing Article 13, which seeks to block the uploaded of content that may infringe copyright, as well as Article 11, which seeks to make people pay when they even share a link, had stalled.

This roadblock was thrown up by the European Council, in which several countries rejected a compromise recently proposed to the wording of all this stuff. Last September the directive was approved by the European Parliament, having previously been rejected. It also looks like pretty much everyone else hates it too, including the content producers it claims to be trying to protect.

“This surprising turn of events does not mean the end of Link Tax or censorship machines, but it does make an adoption of the copyright directive before the European elections in May less likely,” wrote Reda. “The Romanian Council presidency will have the chance to come up with a new text to try to find a qualified majority, but with opposition mounting on both sides of the debate, this is going to be a difficult task indeed.

“The outcome of today’s Council vote also shows that public attention to the copyright reform is having an effect. Keeping up the pressure in the coming weeks will be more important than ever to make sure that the most dangerous elements of the new copyright proposal will be rejected.”

Reda is quite rightly anticipating the standard MO of the EU, which is to keep putting decisions to the vote until it gets the result it wanted from the beginning. Usually there is presumably some degree of horse-trading behind the scenes followed by just enough of a cosmetic tweak to the issue to allow those who change their mind to save face. Let’s see if it’s any different this time.

EU passed new telecom rules to promote 5G

The telecom ministers gave final approval to the new European Electronic Communications Code to encourage competition, promote new technologies, as well as protect consumer interests.

It has been a busy couple of weeks in Brussels. The telecom configuration of the Council of the European Union, composed of the government ministers whose portfolios cover telecom, gave the final seal of approval to the European Electronic Communications Code. This came after the European Parliament (composed of elected MEPs) voted in favour of the Code in mid-November, and after a year after the European Council (composed of heads of governments) reached an agreement on the rules.

More than two years in the making, the Code covers mainly four areas: the ubiquitous and unconstrained connectivity; the harmonisation of the competences of national regulatory authorities (NRAs); the harmonisation of spectrum-related issues, and revised rules on services. While harmonisation is the key to regulator operations and the rules governing radio frequencies across all member states, a few specific points stood out:

  • When it comes to 5G, the Code advocates for “binding and enforceable rules for enhancing coordination of spectrum management in the EU with greater focus on adapting spectrum rules to the future 5G challenges”. The European Commission (the executive branch responsible for the day-to-day operation of the EU) and NRAs will “review elements of individual Member States’ planned national assignment procedures which have more impact on market and business developments. Moreover, this option will place greater emphasis on the investment environment for dense 5G networks.”
  • On services, all member states will set up a public warning system to further strengthen the protection of residents. A ‘reverse 112′ system will be put into place send alerts to people’s mobile phones in the event of a natural disaster, terrorist attack or other major emergency in their area. It needs to be in operation within three-and-a-half years of the Code entering into force (see below).
  • On consumer rights protection, the Code will extend the same applicability of the rules to services provided over the internet, for example mobile apps. “Member States will also have to establish rules for compensation in case of misconduct by providers of electronic communications networks or services.”

The Council also approved the new remit of the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC), the EU-wide telecom regulator. The office is tasked to create “an investment-friendly and pro-competitive framework which will lay the groundwork for the development of 5G across Europe.” New rules on cross-country calls and messages were also passed: the retail price of intra-EU mobile or fixed calls from the consumer’s home country to another EU country will be capped at 19 cents per minute. The cap for intra-EU text messages will be 6 cents per message.

Both regulations approved by the council of ministers are to be signed by the European Council and the European Parliament on 12 December and published in the EU Official Journal on 17 December. Both acts will enter into force 3 days after publication. Member states will have two years’ transition period before the Code needs to be transposed into national laws.

The Council also reviewed the progress of the ePrivacy Regulation. The proposal is aimed to aligned with GDPR and to cover applications such as instant messaging, VoIP, and other web-based communication tools. In November the telecom ministers agreed to delay the vote on the bill, which means the regulation is unlikely to be adopted before the next European election in May 2019.