UN launches Broadband Commission

The International Telecommunications Union, an arm of the UN, has set up a Broadband Commission whose aims will be to define strategies for rolling out broadband networks worldwide and to examine the applications for the improvement in the delivery of a wide range of social services.

An impressive list of global private sector business leaders, UN agencies, regulatory bodies and politicians, including the European Commissioner for the Digital Agenda, Neelie Kroes, are to sit on the Commission, which will present findings to the UN’s Millennium Development Goals review summit in September. The Commissioners are intended to provide ‘expert input’ alongside an analysis of the deployment of broadband at all stages of economic development, with the ultimate intention of providing ‘practical recommendations on the possible routes towards the goal of high-speed networks at affordable prices.’

Hamadoun Touré, Secretary-General of the ITU, commented that:

In the 21st century, affordable, ubiquitous broadband networks will be as critical to social and economic prosperity as networks like transport, water and power… Not only does broadband deliver benefits across every sector of society, but it also helps promote social and economic development, and will be key in helping us get the Millennium Development Goals back on track.

There’s nothing much wrong with that, and it helps to reinforce the notion that the developing world does – perhaps controversially – need modems and routers just as much as it needs other basic essentials as a means of delivering the social and economic benefits that will improve life expectancy and the social situation. So, the initiative is welcome, although it is important to emphasise that it needs indeed to look at the full range of ‘possible routes’. Whether decent debate about the range of ways of potentially achieving these goals is likely to ensue from the Commission’s appointments, and the short time-scale for its work to be concluded, is a moot point. Alternative visions than ones based on deregulation and the removal of barriers, and on a centre stage for competition, are both possible and need to be explored if the initiative is to achieve its aims.

Monti report proposes more centralised regulation

In an announcement somewhat overshadowed by EU finance ministers’ agreement on a €500bn package for member states with solvency problems and to provide support to the euro as a currency, as well as in the UK by the will they-won’t they tea dance going on in Whitehall as I write, former European Commissioner Mario Monti has presented a report to current EU President, Jose Manual Barroso, on a new strategy and direction for the EU’s single market.

Monti was commissioned to write the report back in October 2009, and its aim is to motivate a renewed political determination around the concepts of the EU’s single market and to provide a fresh impetus for the principles which underpin it. What seems to be high up in the Commission’s thinking is the need to assess the state of play in the single market in time for the 20th anniversary of its establishment, in 1992, while the context is also clearly rooted in fears for the direction and commercial success of the EU associated with any retreat into economic nationalism arising from national-level responses to the economic and financial crisis. The report will be the basis for a Commission initiative to relaunch the Single Market as a key strategic objective and, following internal discussion, the Commission will emerge with a ‘balanced, broad and fair’ vision of what the single market should look like in the future some time in July.

This is a hugely significant report and the timing of the announcement of the publication could not be worse (though this is unlikely to inhibit a serious discussion in time of the report’s focus). The thrust of the Monti report is that a system of national regulators sees to it that the EU ‘falls short of its commercial promise‘ in the communications and e-commerce areas, and that the response should be for the EU to have stronger powers over national regulators. Some of the conclusions – for example on an EU-wide spectrum licencing regime – look somewhat behind the play given the round of advanced spectrum auctions which have been concluded in the Netherlands and in the Nordic countries, and are currently well underway in Germany. But what looks inescapable is Monti’s views on the need for a revision of regulation in the communications sector so as to create an EU-wide market for electronic and communications and to drive the growth of Europe’s digital economy.

Given the recent conclusion (in 2009) to the last round of revision of telecoms regulation at EU level, the sigh of ‘here we go again’ is equally inescapable. Nevertheless, this is a report that will need serious consideration, both in terms of its political significance as well as in terms of the impact of the measures that it proposes will have on workers in the sector.

Ofcom lowers the rate

As if needing to prove what good value for money it represents, Ofcom followed up yesterday’s announcement of its annual plan and budget with its long-awaited proposals on mobile termination rates. These will see termination rates – the costs levied on other network providers when calls made from their networks land (or ‘terminate’) on mobile networks – fall steadily over the lifetime of the next period of mobile regulation (between 2011 and 2015) from 4.3p/minute now (and 4.6p on 3’s network) to 0.5p/minute. Termination rates were 23p/minute in 1995.

Ofcom believes that this cut will lead to cheaper calls and, although it is a little shy of giving figures, partly because there is no regulatory compulsion on operators to pass on the savings, other than via other regulated products (as well as via the weight of Ofcom’s publicly-expressed expectations in this area), the newspapers (e.g. here and here) have happily done them for it (although as The Guardian‘s version suggests, this is likely somewhat to overstate the case). Nevertheless, the suggested annual costs stripped out by the move represent some six times Ofcom’s total annual budget.

In contrast to yesterday’s announcement of the outcome of its investigation into the pay TV market, there was no subsequent wailing and gnashing of teeth from those subject to the announcement (though Orange has had one or two things to say [registration required; limited viewing time]; while, in contrast, Terminate the Rate, supported by 3 and BT, amongst others, was clearly rather chuffed). Mobile operators are likely to challenge the proposals during the consultation period but, publicly, there has been little reaction from them. This could be because operators have already discounted the cuts – which have been long expected, given their origins within EU attempts to lower mobile termination rates under Viviane Reding, the previous Commissioner – or because, as Robert Peston suggests on his BBC blog, they are likely to respond by shifting their business model to accommodate them. It is also true that, as the next charge control period comes to an end, pressure on these rates is likely still to be present, as Ofcom believes that:

As the market adapts [i.e. to the current proposed reductions], we believe that further reductions in termination rates will promote competition, the development of innovative tariff packages and the growth of genuinely converged fixed and mobile services. [para 1.13]

The review of termination rates – these are proposals and, as such, are subject to consultation – will conclude with a statement later in the year.

Robin Hood goes to Strasbourg

The European Parliament yesterday debated a financial transactions tax via an oral question put up by Sharon Bowles, a Liberal Democrat MEP who chairs the Parliament’s Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee, followed by a debate on a formal motion.

The motion was, essentially, a shoo-in (the vote is scheduled for tomorrow), since it is supported by the four largest party groupings in the Parliament, including the Socialists & Democrats; the Greens – European Free Alliance; Liberals and Democrats; and the centre-right European People’s Party (which excludes those parties which are further to the right, including the UK Tories). Between them, these four party groupings control something like 80% of MEPs. Conssequently, such a wide cross-party consensus on the motion for debate adds tremendously to the power of what it calls for.

[Edit 11 March: the resolution was approved with 536 votes in favour – 87% of those voting.]

The motion recalls:

The importance of renewing the economic and social contract between financial institutions and the society they serve,

and seeks to remind G20 leaders of their:

Collective responsibility to mitigate the social impact of the crisis, both in their member states and in developing countries, which have been hard-hit by the indirect effects of the crisis.

The motion identifies the European Parliament behind the EU having its own strategy on a financial transactions tax to take to G20 summit meetings, and for the need to adopt a common position at the G20 on the issue based on:

The options as to how the financial sector should make a fair and substantial contribution towards paying for any burden which it has caused to the real economy or which is associated with government interventions to stabilise the banking system.

(Here, the motion cleverly borrows from the leaders’ declaration from the G20 meeting Pittsburgh last September – see point 16.) In moving towards the definition of such a common position, the motion urges the Commission to elaborate an impact assessment of the potential of a global financial transactions tax both to generate revenues as well as to stabilise markets (here, in particular, the oral question correctly approaches the issue from the perspective of assisting with the development of a much needed long-term orientation to the financial system); of the benefits and drawbacks of such a tax; and of the need for the tax to be sufficiently well designed to mitigate any side-effects.

The motion has been well thought-out and put together, and its powerful language belies the political disparities between the political groupings uniting behind the motion (where the product of establishing such a wide-ranging consensus is frequently anaemic language and commitments). Ultimately, it will provide a further contribution to the body of evidence, on top of that currently being put together by the G20, on what such a tax could look like, and achieve, and is to be welcomed. In this respect, it’s also a good sign of the value of MEPs and the work they do.

Clearly, it does not yet commit the EU to a policy on the tax; it simply asks the EU to investigate the case. Nevertheless, should the impact assessment come out favourably in support of a financial transactions tax, that will give greater power to the elbows of those arguing that the EU should adopt such a tax and would represent a significant, valuable and high profile breakthrough for financial transactions tax campaigners.

EU consultation on universal service

The European Commission has announced its long-awaited consultation on universal service principles in the communications industry. Existing rules at the European level, put in place ten years ago (although regularly reviewed since), seek to ensure on the basis of social exclusion that everyone has access to the public telephone network services and basic internet access. The Commission is now seeking views on whether these should be updated for the digital age – particularly concerning whether they should be extended to cover fast broadband service.

Hat-tip: Roger Darlington’s Comms Watch blog.

This is an interesting development for us in the UK, not least in the light of the government’s intention to have a separate and distinct universal service broadband commitment, on the basis of a minimum access speed of 2 Mbps, in place by 2012; whereas the Tories want to roll this up with their other plans for fast broadband services, letting the market take charge.

This is the first consultation produced under the EU’s new Digital Agenda commission under Neelie Kroes. The Connect Sector of Prospect will be responding to the consultation, which closes on 7 May, both directly and via our partners in UNI.

There are eight major questions on which the consultation is seeking views and the main principles under which the Connect Sector will be developing its response are likely to be as follows:

– the market is an insufficient mechanism to deliver access for all on the basis of widely-accepted principles of social inclusion

– universal service principles should encompass broadband internet access, on the basis of decent minimum speeds which are regularly reviewed to ensure continuing relevancy and which encompass upload speeds as well as download ones

– the burden of providing universal service coverage needs to be met from within a specific fund levied across communications service providers more widely: increasingly, this is likely to lend itself to broader definitions of players in the industry

– there needs to be particular attention to the needs of people with disability in terms of access to communications services.

If members have any comment on these principles, we’ll ensure they’ll be taken into account when we draft our response – so, let fly with a reply!

EU private consultation on T-Orange concessions

Mobile companies in the UK, plus BT, are reported to have received questionnaires from the European Commission concerning the concessions [registration required; limited viewing time] which Deutsche Telekom and France Telecom are (again) said to have made as a means of winning regulatory support for the merger of their UK interests.

Citing the old stand-by of ‘a person familiar with the situation’, but who appears to be a representative of the parent companies, the report states that the concessions include the sale of part of their combined radio spectrum and the provision of some network sharing guarantees to 3 UK, which has a network sharing agreement with T-Mobile. (It probably helps the spread of such rumours that more than half the mobile world is at a congress this week in Barcelona. Nevertheless, this seems to be a serious story, having also appeared in The Observer on Sunday.) The purpose of the EU questionnaires, which are due back with the Commission by the end of the week, is to assess whether the concessions on offer are sufficient to allay rivals’ concerns over the impact of the merger on competition.

Few of those involved – from the operators to the Commission – can thus far be found who will comment.

Those responsible for the appearance of the story are thought to believe that allaying the concerns of rivals might be sufficient to persuade the UK’s Office of Fair Trading to withdraw its request for the competition aspects of the joint venture to be examined in the UK – thus leading to a potentially shorter period in which the merger is officially reviewed.

Three comments, really:

1. Since when did the leading subjects of competition policy assume responsibility for determining its direction? Perhaps something of a naive question, and no doubt the questionnaires are consultative only and that the Commission will take into account the views of others, including the UK’s Office of Fair Trading, but competition policy cannot, as a matter of principle, be determined on the basis of what other companies in the industry think. Did consumer organisations receive a questionnaire? Did the Connect sector of Prospect and the CWU? (Slightly rhetorical questions, these.) Policy must be made on the basis of clear (and transparent) principles (and also in line with the principles of democratic accountability), not subject to a laissez faire carve-up between the major operators. Of course, the views of rivals are important ones, but this process is currently back to front.

2. The concessions which are reported to have been made are a matter of public concern and need to be made public. While they remain secret confidential, they have, in terms of the policy-making process, no validity. Policy is made on the basis of public consultation and that essential principle needs to be re-asserted.

3. The joint venture concerns only the UK interests of Deutsche Telekom and France Telecom. It thus concerns only the UK. The EU has clear rules of subsidiarity in terms of decision-making, with the result that the primary location for the determination of the policy issues behind whether such a joint venture should be allowed to proceed is the UK. Furthermore, where there is little or no direct interest in the outcome of decision-making, i.e. little or no stake in its outcome, how valid is that decision-making process in the first place, and how reliable are the decisions that result from it? Consequently, it is the Office of Fair Trading, not the EU, which ought to have the final authoritative say.

Perhaps it will. And perhaps the view of rival companies will be just one component in the decision-making, rather than what appears to be its sole determinant. Indeed, this may simply be another battle in Deutsche Telekom and France Telecom’s intentions to get the merger examined in Brussels – that if, by planting the story, they appear to assert the primacy of the European Commission’s role, via the apparent (though this may not be actual) by-passing of the UK authorities in this questionnaire process, the ‘logic’ of the venture being examined in Brussels will follow on.

This would, however, be a dangerous way to see both this story and the discomforting aspects of the policy-making process that it embodies.

Europe’s sticky iron curtain

The European Commission’s annual report on the social situation in the EU has just been published, revealing not only striking differences between EU member states but also divergent trends between them in the period since the EU was expanded to cover the new member states in central and eastern Europe. For the majority of them (i.e. all of them except Romania and Bulgaria), 2009 saw the fifth anniversary of their accession – time enough, you would have thought, for views to be less, not more, divergent.

The report is supported by a Eurobarometer attitude survey on the social climate, based on the views of around 1,000 adults in each of the 27 EU member states, plus in the three candidate countries of Croatia, (Former Yugoslav Republic of) Macedonia and Turkey, conducted in May/June 2009 and intended to be the first in a series of such surveys. It is striking that people in EU member states in northern and western Europe – regardless of the social measure used, be it within their personal situation, the general situation or in the area of social protection and inclusion – tend to report the highest levels of satisfaction with their current situation and prospects, while people in states to the central and eastern half of the continent (i.e. the new member states) reported the most dissatisfaction.

The reasons why the transition in former communist countries – even those untouched by war – has been so difficult are many, and the tough economic recession, with fragile economies in central and eastern Europe remaining particularly vulnerable, has clearly not helped. Social change, including large-scale population movements, has presented particular challenges. Nevertheless, it is equally true that, twenty years on from the start of the transition, with a whole generation of people not knowing what life was like in the former times, people living in those countries remain much less satisfied with their situation and prospects than is the rule across the rest of the continent. Life remains tough and the potential for disillusion is clear.

In this context, the words of Vladimír Špidla, the outgoing EU Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities are important:

Today’s report shows once again the importance of our efforts to promote jobs and growth in Europe so as to guarantee people’s social well-being in the future. We must continue these efforts as part of our future 2020 strategy to make the EU a smarter and greener social market economy.

Trade unionists, or European socialists more generally, are unlikely to find much to disagree with there.

What is required, however, is a greater sense of the need to do something more positive on behalf of people in countries in ‘the other half’. In this direction, it is interesting that the new Commissioner, taking the place of Vladimír Špidla, is to be László Andor, a Hungarian whose appointment, therefore, is likely to continue the perspective on the needs in this direction of what were formerly known as transition countries (and which perhaps might still need to be thought of in such a way); Špidla is Czech and, thus, also with a perspective informed by transition. Andor is an economist without much of an evident political background, although his past does appear to have some colour in it, and his appearance in the European Parliament hearings of the new Commissioners have been differently reported (see here and here). At the very least, however, he looks to be a safe pair of hands – and he does appear to be on board with issues on the EU’s social agenda. His tenure at the Commission needs to see greater, and specifically practical, attention paid to the social problems of countries from central and eastern Europe.

EU hearing no picnic for Kroes

European Voice reported yesterday that Neelie Kroes, the Dutch politician who is currently EU Competition Commissioner and who has been nominated to head the new department of the digital agenda, has written to the European Parliament’s industry, research and energy committee to clarify points raised in her hearing, which took place on Thursday last week.

Kroes’s letter is, according to European Voice, intended to stave off concerns over whether she is sufficiently prepared for the job following the ‘disappointment and frustration‘ [registration required; limited viewing time] of the members of the committee over her performance. It has been reported that Kroes was ‘off her game‘ at the hearing, which was also reported as having been one of the tougher ones, no doubt prompted by Kroes’s own reputation, and that Kroes had done herself no favours by sticking to her desk at Competition since the announcement of the new Commission rather than on playing the political game. Kroes’s appearance before the parliament seems to have been marked by a broad-brush, with little details emerging other than a commitment to net neutrality and to free online expression, to tightening up Europe’s diverse online copyright laws and to building a single digital market, and to the principle of mobile roaming, but without a coherent legislative programme tying it all together. To be fair, the brief on the digital agenda is a new one. It has also been suggested that European People’s Party members have been under instructions not to sanction Kroes’s appointment until their own Commissioner nominees had been approved.

The committee has not written its formal evaluation and it has been suggested that Kroes will receive an invitation to a second hearing, likely to be held this morning at 11 am in camera although this had not been confirmed as of last night. Parliament was due to vote on the new Commission on January 26th, although this now looks likely to be postponed until the second week of February following the withdrawal from the process of Rumiana Jeleva, the much-criticised Bulgarian Commissioner-designate.

Spectrum issues and the T-Orange JV

The Financial Times reported this week that O2 and 3 have told the European Commission that it is the UK authorities that are best placed to review the T-Orange joint venture, while Vodafone has also publicly commented on its view that the UK authorities are keen to review the spectrum aspects of the merger, an issue to which O2 also points.

These pages have declared their view on these issues already – it should be investigated in the UK, as the joint venture affects only the UK market and there are thus strong subsidiarity-related reasons why the EU should choose not to get involved – but the most interesting part of the FT‘s story is the bit relating to spectrum allocations.

Last summer’s report by the Independent Spectrum Broker included a useful chart documenting existing spectrum allocations, which I have reproduced below:

Vodafone and O2, as the two earliest operators from the mid 1980s, have some frequencies at the 1800 MHz level but frequencies here are otherwise dominated by T-Mobile and Orange, which appeared on the scene in the early 1990s. Vodafone and O2 have the only spectrum awarded at the 900MHz level while frequencies at 2.1 Ghz are the ones allocated for 3G services, which is where 3 comes in – it has none of the lower frequencies allocated earlier.

The key to understanding spectrum issues is that lower frequencies (like 900 Mhz) lend themselves well to quick network roll out because they cover longer distances, and thus requires less infrastructure (base stations and masts), and because their signals penetrate buildings better than those at higher frequencies (like 1800 MHz), which require more infrastructure and which are better suited to providing capacity in denser populated, urban areas. The less good penetration of signals at higher frequencies is the reason why 3G services are, in principal, suitable for mobile services outdoors and are much less suited to fixed installations inside buildings.

Ensuring a more even allocation of frequencies was the aim of Kip Meek, the Independent Spectrum Broker, on the grounds that allowing operators to trade frequencies between them would allow them all to choose the combination of spectrum that best suited their needs and which, as a result, would improve services (and access speeds). By ending the legal challenges by operators over policy on 2.6GHz frequencies (best suited for so-called 4G services), it would allow Ofcom to catch up with European counterparts on allocation.

The dominance of the T-Orange JV at the 1800 MHz level, and thus its ability to dictate the terms of spectrum trading between the operators, is the reason why the argument has been raised that the JV should concede 1800 MHz spectrum. Without necessarily going too far down that road, it is easy to see why the JV would blow apart the work done by the Independent Spectrum Broker in reaching his conclusions on spectrum trading. It thus becomes easier to see why it is the UK authorities that need to investigate this proposed JV: these are issues that properly concern the UK, not the EU.

Kroes confirmed in post

The European Commission has confirmed the rumours of the shift of Neelie Kroes, the Dutch People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy politician, from the Competition policy directorate to a new Digital Agenda brief. Kroes will also become a Vice-President of the Commission (as will Viviane Reding, her predecessor).

The post is designed to provide a greater focus on digital issues from the ‘information society’ brief of the previous role. Much of the online comment about Kroes’s switch is directed towards the apparent downgrading that this is held to represent, pretty much in line with the lowest common denominator-type arguments that accompanied the appointments earlier in November of Herman van Rompuy and Baroness Ashton, but it’s sure that she will bring a tenacity and single-mindedness to the role. Consequently, she may well be a very good advocate for, dare I say, Digital Europe – although whether we need advocacy or practical action at this point to effect a Digital Europe is a moot point. As we’ve seen in the UK, digitalisation is a huge subject touching areas which are the responsibility of several different departments and bringing all that together into a coherent agenda perhaps demands more the skill of a consensus builder than one whose reputation comes with added steel.

Ms Kroes’s appointment – as with each of the members of the Commission – is subject to the approval of the European Parliament at individual hearings due to take place in January.

Kroes to be new telecoms Commissioner?

Neelie Kroes, the existing European Commissioner on competition issues, is being strongly rumoured [subscription required; limited viewing time] as the replacement Commissioner for Viviane Reding when the Commission receives its long-awaited re-shuffling next month in time for the start of 2010.

It had been indicated back in July that Reding would not keep the telecoms post in the re-shuffle. The Commission maintains that a final decision on specific posts has not yet been made, so the story is still rumour although it does appear to have more than a degree of credibility.

The EU’s telecoms policy, including the establishment of BEREC (the EU-wide regulatory authority), is set in place for the foreseeable future, now that the compromise procedure agreement on the package of directives has been approved by Parliament, but Kroes, the Dutchwoman who has been in charge of the EU’s competition policy directorate for the last five-year term, is likely otherwise to bring a fearsomely strident approach to telecoms policy regulation, based on the hardline approach she has adopted in competition policy in the last period (which includes a facing down of Microsoft). This would seem to encompass BEREC, the appointment of whose key personnel is likely to be an early task for the new Commissioner.

Once she has been confirmed in post (if indeed she is), an early reminder to her of the reasons why the UK government is seeking to engender a statutory duty to take into account in regulatory decision-making the impact on investment as well as on competition might well be in order…

EU telecoms reform package approved by Parliament

The European Parliament has approved, by a strong majority across all party groupings, the conciliation procedure agreement reached earlier this month. The reforms will enter into force next month and, following transposition by individual member states, become law across the EU by June 2011.

The principles covered by the package of directives are many but are most recently summarised in the Commission’s press release welcoming Parliament’s vote (where there is also a specific link to the 12 most important of the reforms in the package).

UNI, which works on behalf of 20m workers in the industry worldwide, worked hard and with no little success to gain a union voice and perspective concerning the main provisions of the package and their impact on workers’ rights. It has also welcomed the vote regarding the importance of investment in high-speed broadband services as a major factor in economic growth and employment, not least in a time of recession – as indeed does Connect. Nevertheless, now that the package is in place and regulatory certainty a little more established thereby, it is imperative that European countries and telecoms companies do indeed move swiftly so that its potential benefits as regards investment and jobs can be realised.

20 jahre Mauerfall: after the party is over

One more item of reflection in contrast to the celebrations caught my eye in The Guardian‘s ‘Comment is free’ section today. Adam Michnik was an adviser to the Polish Solidarity trade union and social movement, and a key Solidarity adviser to the round table that set up the partially free 1989 elections.

Writing from the perspective of events after 1989 in Poland, Michnik refers to the dissatisfaction with which many people greeted the practical ffects of the transition, which were shared by many people across the eastern bloc, and which have led many, and not just in Poland, to view the transition with some ambivalence. Quoting at length:

In Poland, it was the workers in the great factories who won change, their strikes forcing the authorities to give way. But those same factories were also the first victims of the ensuing transformation. Modernised to compete in the marketplace, they cut their workforces. Instead of a miracle of freedom, people found themselves staring redundancy in the face.

The revolutions of 1989 had not mentioned mass privatisation or social inequalities; or sudden growth in crime, corruption and mafia activity; or, worst of all, permanent unemployment. This was the reality of the post-communist period offered up to the Poles and their neighbours. Political freedom, a free-market economy, the end of censorship and the opening of borders, had not been enough to effect a balance. The destruction of a despotic regime had led not just to liberal democratic values – it had also marked the start of a wild rush for wealth…

… In some post-communist countries an aggressive ethnic nationalism is on the rise. In others, religion is being used by those in power as an anti-democratic ideology, an instrument of intolerance and exclusion. Post-communist transformation creates not just winners, but many losers: those who are unemployed, rejected, pushed into poverty. The often brutally greedy new elites are slow to learn democratic habits, respect for the law of the land, pluralism or tolerance…

Michnik is right to quote the disappointing social effects of the transition and to yearn for a ‘better’ home country despite the cherished ‘normal democracy’ it has become. Freedom, democracy and liberalisation were undeniably attractive concepts in central and eastern Europe in 1989 and clearly gave the impetus to protest movements. Nevertheless, the timing of the transition could not have been poorer from a workers’ perspective, coming at the time of the espousal of these concepts by an increasingly hegemonic right-wing ideology and, at the time of trade union weakness, with at least the UK trade union movement being beset by its own problems in the face of that onslaught, the necessary social dialogue aspects of the transition were missing. Not the concept as much – most countries established social and economic councils in this period – as its effectiveness in practice.

Workers are still paying the price of that lack of dialogue and of the predominance of management by diktat and, twenty years later, despite a deep recession which continues to throw more people out of work whether in the eastern or western half of the continent, we are nowhere near establishing economies (or, at least, models of economies) which are run in the interests of people. If we can’t use the background of that recession and its root causes to establish practical alternatives that are viable and credible, then we really are in trouble.

20 years after the Berlin Wall: Europe undivided?

A bit off piste here, but it’s a personal interest of mine, so here we go.

Today marks the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent unification of Germany – you can find much information from the usual news media sources but a special nod to the coverage in The Guardian, where amongst other things you can read the ever-excellent Timothy Garton Ash, and to Transitions Online’s specific 20-year anniversary portal.

The European Parliament is also holding a special event too, with a formal sitting involving 89 people born in November 1989 discussing what Europe means to them. (Incidentally, I note from the perspective of what follows here that all 89 are from current, as opposed to prospective, EU members – an opportunity missed there, I feel.)

It’s to be hoped that they spend some time discussing the future, for let’s not kid ourselves that this is a unified Europe:

1. large parts of south-east Europe – most of which we used to call Yugoslavia – remain outside the EU. Slovenia joined the EU in 2004 and Croatia is likely join in 2010 now that the Lisbon Treaty has been approved – but Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia i Herzegovina, Macedonia, Kosovo and Albania all remain outside, some with evidently better chances of (eventual) accession than others. It would be nonsense to pretend that there is an invisible wall dividing these states from the rest of the EU, as much as it would be nonsense to pretend that the EU and Europe are synonymous terms. Serious mistakes have been made on all sides, both in the economic and political arenas, during the last twenty years but the will on the one side to join the EU, and the lack of appetite for them to do so on the other, remains a palpable reminder of the divisions that remain on the continent.

2. outside this part of south-east Europe, other countries with a perspective on the EU exist – both to the south and to the east. Turkey first applied to join the EU in 1960 and yet there remains ambivalence, on both sides; others exist (Moldova, Ukraine, Georgia… ) with differing degrees of desire to access the EU but which remain within Moscow’s purview. It’s impossible to say whether the war between Russia and Georgia last year over the territory of South Ossetia would or would not have happened had Georgia been in the EU at that point. Had it still had happened in that scenario, the EU would have been in direct confrontation with Russia. So, some aspects of the iron curtain remain – on the basis of a line drawn a little further to the east – and it is clear that the European Union needs to sort out its relationship with Russia, as well as with countries to the other side of that line. This is clearly a job for the new High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy – and for the new President of the EU, whoever that might be.

3. central and eastern European countries has been hit particularly hard by the global financial crisis – most of them members of the EU. The crisis lingers to a greater or lesser extent in Latvia, Romania, Poland and elsewhere but most of all in Hungary. There is no doubt some sort of role in re-flotation for the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development but its overall input is likely to be small. Countries in central and eastern Europe are likely to struggle with the aftermath of these problems for years – like the UK, Ireland and Spain, evidently – but frequently on the basis of economies that, as a result of the short history since 1989, are evidently less stable and less secure and, as a result, less able to withstand such economic shocks.

Much to ponder. And much to hope that the warnings from many sides of the dangers of complacency about the divisions that remain across Europe do not become realised.

Lloyds to be compelled to give up HBOS?

This morning’s Times is carrying the story that Neelie Kroes, the EU’s Competition Commissioner, is seeking ‘draconian penalties’ on Lloyds as payback for the ‘state aid’ it has received in taking over the struggling HBOS Group last autumn – largely as an alternative to the nationalisation of HBOS.

A final decision has yet to be made but Kroes is believed to have rejected Lloyds’s compromise position that it would sell Cheltenham and Gloucester and make some limited disposals in Scotland (Halifax having taken over the Bank of Scotland some years previously). Lloyds is believed to be desperate to hang on to HBOS as an entity (or, apparently, at least a large part of it) and appears to be playing a long game given the impending installation of a new European Commission.

The Times story focuses on the state aid aspects of this case, warning of other decisions recently made by the Commission and other investigations underway into the government sponsored rescues of banks which took place last autumn and the concomitant liquidity assistance and guarantees, and this is clearly part of the background (though part of the story is also quite clearly political). However, it also remains true that the merged Lloyds-HBOS group has a one-third share of the UK market and that clearly contravenes competition rules (the merger could only be approved following special dispensation). Indeed, back in July, the Commission issued advice on the state aid aspects of restructuring aid to banks, reminding of the importance of the fundamentals of competition policy and advising of the desire to see as quick a return to viability as possible for the European banking sector.

In the telecoms context, the story is a useful reminder of the prevalence of competition rules in the light of the proposed joint venture of the UK interests of T-Mobile and Orange. If prevailing competition rules are to be reinstated as soon as possible in the European banking sector, then a joint venture in an industry whose very existence was much less threatened by the recession has no chance of proceeding where it carries with it such a large market share without a similarly large programme of disposals.

The story also provides a useful opportunity to remind ourselves that those who bear the heaviest costs of such disposals and the surrounding speculation and uncertainty in the corporate merger game are, first and foremost, the workers in the industry.

French court backs judicial approach to illegal downloading

The French constitutional court has ruled that only a judge in a court of law may act to suspend an internet access subscription (www.totaltele.com reference; limited viewing time).

This issue is important since the French government had sought to implement an alternative administrative procedure under which a government body would request illegal downloaders to stop, first by e-mail and then by registered mail, before cutting off access in cases of continued non-compliance – a sort of ‘three strikes and you’re out’ rule. This had caused potential confrontation within European regulatory circles since the European Parliament last month backed an amendment to the forthcoming telecoms regulatory package requiring a prior ruling from the relevant judicial authorities before an individual citizens’ internet access could be cut-off.

French insistence on a shorter, non-judicial process may well have derailed the EU package, which has taken several years of effort to produce, including with lobbying from Connect via Union Network International on issues such as the need for consultation with employees on functional separation, and for trade unions to be seen as stakeholders, and the establishment of regulatory predictability to encourage infrastructure investment. UNI had previously published a statement regretting the loss of the package prior to the Parliamentary elections, over the specific issue of internet users’ rights in France, which would have required the review of the legislation and, potentially, the new Parliament starting the process afresh.

The decision of France’s constitutional court, however, may well facilitate a more rapid approval of the package than had otherwise been expected in the conciliation process now underway, thus saving the legislation from the need for review by the new Parliament.

Telecoms ministers approve cheaper roaming

At yesterday’s meeting of the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council, EU ministers gave formal approval to the new EU rules on mobile roaming which were proposed by the European Commission last September and approved by the European Parliament in April.

The new rules, which will apply from 1 July, will cap the cost of text messages sent while abroad at €0.11 (£0.096), compared to a current average cost of €0.28; cap the cost of making a call at €0.43, and receiving one at €0.19, both with further reductions from 1 July in 2010 and 2011; and cap the cost data calls at €1 per megabyte, compared to a current average of €1.68. Furthermore, consumers will be given the right to cut off calls once a bill limit of €50 has been reached, with measures to be put in place to achieve this by next March, while mobile operators must now charge on a per second basis after the first 30 seconds of a call made while abroad (and immediately for received calls).

The purpose of the Roaming Regulation, which has direct effect in EU member states without the need for secondary legislation, is to prevent ‘bill shocks’ for consumers returning home from trips abroad within the EU, as well as cutting the cost of mobile calling, a long-standing aim of Viviane Reding, the EU’s telecoms commissioner. Roaming bills are expected to fall by 60% as a result of the moves.

The Regulation will be formally signed on 18 June and published in the EU’s Official Journal a few days later.

Some of the mobile operators have launched summer pricing plans which pre-empt the Regulation; others have evidently still to make their move.

Pan-EU music licensing regime to be established

European Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes said this week following the publication of the report of last September’s Online Commerce Roundtable that key organisations representing music rights holders have committed to concluding an agreement on a pan-European licensing regime.

Currently, online music retailers restrict music sales to the country in which they are based, or where the purchaser is resident, because of the complex system of copyright fees and restrictive licensing arrangements which applies across the continent. Furthermore, EU countries each have their own collection society for the purpose of collecting royalties in respect of the music of songwriters in that country, a percentage of which is then passed to the artist who has contracted the society to protect copyright. The EU has previously criticised this system as having established 27 monopolies.

Kroes said that she would ‘encourage’ the major players to ‘move quickly’ and would be reviewing progress at the next Roundtable that she would be organising ‘shortly’. Comments on the sections of the report on the licensing solutions which would foster legal offerings of online music in Europe are welcome by 30 June.

Agreement between rights holders on a pan-European regime would, therefore, allow music fans to purchase online music wherever they happen to be. Perfect for when you’ve just got the name of that track you’ve been hearing all holiday and which you know you’re going to have forgotten by the time you get back home…