Discuto is Loading your document from Drive

It can take a while depending on the size of the document..please wait

Discuto is submitting your document

It might take a while depending on the size of the document you uploaded..

Discuto is creating your discussion

Please do not close this window.

Discuto is submitting your comment

Did you know you can vote on comments? You can also reply directly to people's comments.

Your invites are being queued for sending

This might take some time depending on the number of invites, please do not close this window.

Discuto

Discuto

Best practices to support the defining of adequate broadband internet access service

Starting: 10 Dec Ending

0 days left (ends 27 Jan)

Go to discussion, participate and give your opinion

description

Further info

LATEST ACTIVITY

LEVEL OF AGREEMENT

    • 0%
    • (0 positive votes)
    • 0%
    • (0 negative votes)
  • 0 votes in total
  • Most voted: 0
  • Most commented: 0
  • Most controversial: 0
  • Already decided: 0
  • In voting: 0
  • Supported: 0
  • My contributions: 0

MOST DISCUSSED PARAGRAPHS

No activity yet

LATEST COMMENTS

No activity yet

MOST ACTIVE USERS

No activity yet
Status: Closed
Privacy: Public

CONTRIBUTORS (5)

Share:
<< Previous paragraphs


Figure 16: Affordability measures - 9 MS

P22

Funding

You agreeCan't vote

Add comment

P23

In three MS the cost of broadband USO is currently funded through industry (Slovenia, Spain, and United Kingdom). A public funding mechanism is in place in three MS (Finland, Latvia, and Sweden). Belgium has not designed a USP and in Croatia no fund has yet been established. Broadband USO funding applications have not yet been received by MCA. Accordingly the funding mechanism has yet to be defined.

The funding mechanism to support the broadband USO has only been activated in Spain and Latvia. The Latvian USP has previously received public funds to finance the affordable universal service for disabled end-users.

In Spain service providers with a gross annual operating income of more than €100 million have to contribute to an industry fund. In Croatia providers who have a share of more than 2% of the retail market are obliged to make contributions to the fund. The reimbursement of the net costs may not be required by the USP if its share in the total revenue generated in the market of USO services is bigger than 70%. Since the incumbent’s share exceeds 70% such a fund has not yet been established

In Finland, the USP is compensated by state funds if the financial burden is found to be unfair. However, compensation has not been requested to date by the USP.

You agreeCan't vote

Add comment


Figure 17: Funding - public or industry

P24

Work is currently underway in a number of other BEREC Working Groups which may be relevant to the delivery of the adequate broadband report on best practices:

- 1.9 Guidelines for geographical surveys of network deployments

- 4.3 BEREC Net Neutrality measurement tool

- 5.4 Guidelines detailing quality of service parameters

Figure 18 & 19 provide an overview of these work streams, deliverables and the linkages with the report on best practices. This BEREC work and associated outputs will need to be taken into consideration in the next iteration of this report in order to ensure a consistent approach to the definition and application of BEREC Guidelines and at BEREC level.

In accordance with Article 84(3), this report will be updated regularly in order to reflect technological advances and changes in consumer usage patterns.

Future reports may incorporate a wider range of topics following the transposition of Directive (EU) 2018/1972 and following the defining of adequate broadband IAS by MS. Future reports may therefore draw from and include a wider range of examples and practices.

You agreeCan't vote

Add comment


Figure 18
: Other BEREC WG work streams relevant to this report

P25


Figure 19: Other BEREC WG work streams relevant to this report (continued)

P26

The objective of this consultation, is to seek the views of stakeholders, including end-users, representative organisations and service providers on the draft BEREC report on MS best practices to support the defining of adequate broadband internet access service.[26] This consultation will enable BEREC to take into account stakeholders’ feedback in EU Directive 2018/1972 Article 84(3), and will inform the completion of the report before final approval and publication by BEREC in June 2020.

BEREC invites all stakeholders to submit their observations and contributions regarding the draft best practices report. The public consultation is open from 11 December 2019 to 15 January 2020.

Stakeholders are invited to submit their contributions via the BEREC online public consultation tool. The contributions can also be sent to the following e-mail address: PC_Adequate_BB_IAS@berec.europa.eu  by 17:00 CET 15 January 2020.

In accordance with the BEREC policy on public consultations, BEREC will publish a summary of all received contributions, respecting confidentiality requests. All contributions will be published on the BEREC website, taking into account requests for confidentiality and publication of personal data. Any such requests should clearly indicate which information is considered confidential.

Stakeholders, who request confidentiality of all or part of the documents submitted to a public consultation, shall indicate this upon submission of the materials. If there is no clear indication that all or part of the documents are confidential, BEREC will presume that the documents can be made available to the public.

Following the consultation period, BEREC will analyse and consider the responses received prior to issuing its final report on MS best practices to support the defining of the adequate broadband internet access service. Respondents are requested to provide all relevant information to ensure that responses can be fully analysed.

You agreeCan't vote

Add comment

P27

Consultation Question 1

You agreeCan't vote

Add comment

P28

Consultation Question 2

You agreeCan't vote

Add comment

P29

Consultation Question 3

You agreeCan't vote

Add comment

P30

Consultation Question 4

You agreeCan't vote

Add comment

P31

Consultation Question 5

You agreeCan't vote

Add comment