Decisions on public funding in the broadband sector for PTA... · Decisions on public funding in...
Transcript of Decisions on public funding in the broadband sector for PTA... · Decisions on public funding in...
Decisions on public funding in the
broadband sector
Ketill Einarsson
21 May 2014
Please note that any views or opinions expressed in this presentation are strictly personal
and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the EFTA Surveillance Authority
• Own initative
• Complaints
• Notifications
• Co-operation with the
European Commission
What makes the Authority react?
• Pre-notifications
(2 months)
• Notifications (2 months)
• Complaints (12 months)
• Transparency,
predictability and
efficiency
Procedural rules and Best Practice
European Commission
• 130 Decisions (since 2003)
• Mostly notifications
Statistics – Broadband cases
EFTA Surveillance Authority
• 5 Cases (3 Decisions)
• 3 Notifications, 2 Complaints
Broadband cases
• NGA (FTTH/FTTB) network
• Rural areas (white NGA)
• Market consultation
• Mapping and coverage
analysis
• Open tender
• 94 million NOK (11 million €)
The Tromsø case – 2011
March 2011 – Pre-notification
19 April 2011 – Notification
6 June 2011 – Formal request for information
17 June 2011 – Reply from Norway
13 July 2011 – The Authority adopts a decision
Procedure (Tromsø case)
White NGA Area – no plans by private operators
Well-defined objective of common interest
Proportionality
Strict wholesale access obligations
Wholesale pricing requirements
= Balancing test fulfilled
Compatibility (Tromsø case)
“Projects of financial support by the EFTA States
to roll-out high speed broadband networks based
on the newest technology, if carefully designed,
in particular by making use of a public tender
procedure, can benefit from the Authority's
approval under the state aid rules,”
- Ms Oda Sletnes, President of the Authority
Conclusion (Tromsø case)
• “Háhraðanettengingar til allra
landsmanna”
• Administered by the
Telecommunications Fund
• 1 118 White buildings identified
• Later additional 670 buildings
• Tender by the State Trading Centre
Broadband in rural areas of Iceland - 2013
• February 2011 – Complaint received
• October 2011 – An interested party
submits additional information
• 2011-2013 – The Authority gathers
information from the Icelandic
authorities
• 10 July 2013 – Formal investigation
opened (Decision 302/13/COL)
Procedure (Rural areas of Iceland)
• Well-defined objective of common interest
• Aid was the appropriate instrument
• Adequate mapping and coverage analysis
However:
• Questions concerning the expansion of the project
• Wholesale access requirements unclear
Compatibility assessment (Rural areas of Iceland)
(Preliminary views in Decision 302/13/COL)
• “[…] the Authority’s preliminary conclusion is that it
cannot exclude that the lack of a clear and
effective wholesale access obligation with clearly
defined pricing principles gave the network
operator a disproportionate advantage that may
cause distortions of competition.”
= Necessary to open a formal investigation
Preliminary conclusion (Rural areas of Iceland)
• Complaint – Ábótinn ehf.
• Small municipality (172 homes)
• Co-financing by the
Municipality and Landsvirkjun
• Network operated by a ”SPV”
Fjarskiptafélag Skeiða- og
Gnúpverjahrepps
Skeiða- og Gnúpverjahreppur – 2013
• 28 November 2012 –
Complaint received
• Two information requests
• 13 November 2013 –
Positive Decision adopted
• Decision 444/13/COL
Procedure (Skeiða- og Gnúpverjahreppur)
• White NGA area
• Objective of common interest
• Tender procedure
• Technologically neutral
• Passive, neutral and open
Assessment (Skeiða- og Gnúpverjahreppur)
Conclusion (Skeiða- og Gnúpverjahreppur)
“When state resources are used to finance such
projects, it is important to ensure thriving
competition on the subsidised networks, so that
citizens and local businesses can benefit from
continuously improving broadband services at
competitive prices,”
- Ms Oda Sletnes, President of the Authority
• Lease of NATO optical fibres
• Tender procedure – Vodafone
successful
• Míla complained
• In November 2012 ESA found
that there was no aid involved –
market price was paid
Míla v EFTA Surveillance Authority
• Judgment 27 January 2014
• “[Price] was accorded a relative weight of
just 15%. Moreover, […], the remaining
selection criteria appear to reflect public
policy or regulatory considerations. They
do not appear to be criteria that a similarly
situated private operator would consider
relevant when tendering out a lease.”
• The Authority’s decision was
annulled
Findings of the EFTA Court (Míla)
• Two notifications
received this year
• Iceland – Regional
projects
• Norway – Nationwide
scheme
• Increased awareness
Other cases
Consulting with the Authority at an early stage
A proper mapping analysis and market consultation
An open and transparent tender procedure
Clear wholesale access and pricing obligations
Regional projects v nationwide schemes
New General Block Exemption Regulation
Main insights
www.eftasurv.int