Jean Monnet Professor for European Integration Technical University Berlin Department of Computer Science Lithuania's future role in the European information society – the challenge of the «Acquis Communautaire»* Vilnius, October 23 th, 2000 * Slides from Presentations of Commissioner Liikanen – should be read together with my talk at Prof. Dr. iur. Bernd Lutterbeck

Commission’s top eEurope priorities for Lisbon: 1. All schools to be connected to the Internet by To open local access markets for Competition by the end of 2000 (Unbundling of the local loop) 3. Agreement during 2000 on pending e-commerce legislation

B 2 B - or not to Be

bring every citizen, school, business and administration on-line - quickly create a digitally literate and entrepreneurial Europe ensure an inclusive information society Objectives 7

Mobiles: EU ahead of the US Mobile subscribers per 100 inhabitants (December 1999) EU average Source: FT Mobile Communications USA: Cellular Telecoms Industry Association 5

Internet penetration in Europe and elsewhere Internet penetration per 100 inhabitants (Year-end 1999) Finland 4 Source: Computer Industry Almanach Inc. FranceGermanyItaly JapanSweden The Netherlands UKSpain Canada USA

PCs: Europe behind the US PC penetration in homes (October 1999) EU average Source: European Commission / EOS Gallup Europe USA: DG INFSO calculation from US DoC 3

Internet penetration in EU homes (%) (October 1999) Source: European Commission / EOS Gallup Europe EU average

Internet penetration vs. Access Cost Source: Booz Allen & Hamilton

Mobile phone penetration Source:FT Mobile Communications USA: Cellular Telecoms Industry Association EU mobile liberalisation EU USA Million subscribers

Mobile subscribers per 100 inhabitants (December 1999) Source:FT Mobile Communications USA: Cellular Telecoms Industry Association EU average

Simplification, clarification Services Directive (90/388/EEC) extended to: Satellite (94/46/EC) Cable (95/51/EC) Mobile (96/2/EC) Full competition (96/19/EC) Cable ownership (1999/64/EC) ONP Framework Directive (90/387/EEC amended by 97/51/EC) Licensing Directive (97/13/EC) GSM Directive (87/372/EEC) ERMES Directive (90/544/EC) DECT Directive (91/287/EEC) S-PCS Decision (97/710/EC) UMTS Decision (99/128/EC) European Emergency Number Decision (91/396/EC) International Access Code Decision (92/264/EEC) ONP leased lines Directive (92/44/EEC amended by 97/51/EC) TV standards Directive (95/47/EC) Interconnection Directive (97/33/ EC amended by 98/61/EC) Voice telephony Directive (98/10/EC) Telecoms data protection Directive (97/66/EC) Liberalisation Directive Framework Directive Authorisation Directive Access & Interconnection Directive Unbundled local loop Regulation Users ’ Rights Directive Data protection Directive Erkki Liikanen - 12/07/2000

Spectrum Decision (Art. 95) The new package Liberalisation Directive (Art. 86) Framework Directive (Art. 95) Authorisation Directive Access & Interconnection Directive Users ’ Rights Directive Data Protection Directive Unbundled local loop Regulation Erkki Liikanen - 12/07/2000

Policy objectives Flexibility Legal certainty Technological neutrality Harmonisation Framework Authorisations Access & Interconnection Unbundled local loop Universal service Data protection Simple market entry Clear obligations for dominant players More competition Cheaper & faster Internet access Consumer rights Privacy protection Erkki Liikanen - 12/07/2000

Rely increasingly on competition rules Towards full competition Monopoly Amount of regulation Competition Law Pro-competitive sectorial telecoms Laws Erkki Liikanen - 12/07/2000

Unbundled local loop A harmonised legal basis Local loop unbundling will lead to lower tariffs and widespread high-speed Internet Incumbent ’ s local loop backbone networks New entrants are duplicating backbone networks but not local access networks Erkki Liikanen - 12/07/2000

17 Recommendations for the European Dimension EU-1: When the institutions of the Eastern European countries adopt electronic signatures, they should be well informed on the European Community frameworks for IT, without loss of cultural and national identity. Therefore, they have to define national conditions and then develop national politics, which has the opportunity for regulating the development of electronic signatures taken into consideration special national sensitivities.

18 Recommendations for the European Dimension EU-2: Enhance conditions for the emergence of a balance between government regulation and self-regulation in the area of electronic signatures. Both kinds of regulation should take into account a global perspective.

19 Recommendations for the European Dimension EU-3: It should be guaranteed through binding rules of competitiveness, that market position can not be abused for enforcement of certain models of electronic signatures. That also means that the price formation can not be monopolized.