OXFORD, United Kingdom-Reiner Liebler’s young son enjoys playing with his radio-controlled car. It’s his favorite toy. But it’s also the cause of family disharmony when visits are made to grandparents.
The Lieblers live in Germany. The grandparents in question, although only a short drive away, live in The Netherlands. The radio-controlled car in question is licensed for use in one country but not the other.
Reiner Liebler’s young son cannot understand why he has to leave his car at home. But his father understands the problem very well. As chairman of the Frequency Management Working Group of the European Radiocommunications Committee (ERC), Reiner Liebler is well aware of the issues surrounding the licensing and free circulation of radio communications equipment in Europe.
The ERC is the body responsible for developing radio communications policy, coordinating frequency, and addressing regulatory and technical issues throughout Europe. It is part of the Conference Europeenne des Administrations des Postes et des Telecommunications (CEPT) and so covers the whole of Europe, with 43 member countries ranging from Iceland in the west to the Russian Federation in the east. This broad constituency means the CEPT plays a complementary role to the European Union (EU), which only has 15 member states, all of whom also belong to the CEPT.
The CEPT reaches parts that EU regulators cannot reach. In particular, the CEPT is the body that defends the European position in the world’s telecommunications forums. It is the ERC that develops European Common Proposals on spectrum issues for input to the World Radiocommunications Conferences.
Without the ERC’s work on harmonizing spectrum use, Europe would remain a patchwork quilt of small markets with widely different radio regulatory and frequency regimes. Harmonized spectrum allocations for specific applications across Europe not only create a huge potential market, but also give manufacturers confidence to invest in and develop the necessary technology. The success of GSM (Global System for Mobile communications) is a testimony to the ultimate benefits of this harmonized approach.
So the work of the ERC is vital to the future of wireless solutions in Europe, for both suppliers and users. But the ERC has a problem. Unlike the EU, the ERC has no teeth.
The main instrument for implementing ERC policies is the Decision. Almost by definition, ERC decisions can only be effective if they are implemented widely by the telecom administrations of the member countries. But commitment to implement ERC decisions by administrations is purely voluntary. Even when a commitment is made, administrations have only a moral obligation to convert the decision into national legislation; the ERC has no legal powers to enforce implementation.
Some administrations have an abysmal track record of implementing ERC decisions. And now there is concern the whole process is grinding to a halt.
“Simply developing recommendations, decisions and reports is not enough,” said Willem Schwertman, chairman of the Radio Regulatory Working Group of the ERC. “It is much more important that as many administrations as possible implement these decisions. This is an important point of attention for the ERC.”
Delegates at the recent CEPT Radio Conference in Copenhagen focused on the problems faced by Herr Liebler’s son as an illustration of the inadequacy of the current situation. Schwertman pointed to the ERC decision on free circulation of radio equipment adopted in December 1995. The current status of implementing that and related decisions meant a German radio-controlled toy car could freely be taken to The Netherlands. Once there, however, it could not be used. No one volunteered to explain that situation to the young Herr Liebler.
Patrick Carey, ERC chairman, reported that a Reflection Group had been looking at the policy goals and procedures of the ERC. The implementation of decisions has become a major concern, noted Carey: “The lack, or apparent lack, of implementation of ERC decisions by some administrations, particularly EU member countries, has been the subject of adverse comment in responses to the Reflection Group Report as it is only by widespread implementation of the decisions that true European harmonization will be achieved.”
Sometimes administrations can have valid reasons for not formally adopting ERC decisions. There may be national legal difficulties associated with implementation, or the entire frequency band covered by a decision may not be available. But such situations are unlikely to be a significant contributory factor.
The source of the problem, suspects Carey, may lie within the administrations themselves. Many national regulatory authorities are newly formed or constituted and are facing an unprecedented workload resulting from deregulation and the introduction of competition and new players into the market. They have neither the experience nor the resources to cope.
That is not a situation that can be resolved quickly, even if adequate resources and support were suddenly made available. It presents a real barrier for the ERC in its attempts to harmonize the use of spectrum in Europe and promote the development of an open and competitive market.
Barriers, however, can be overcome. Representatives of the Dutch regulatory authority at the Copenhagen conference rapidly drafted a special license for Reiner Liebler’s young son. He will be delighted. What his grandparents will think is another matter entirely.
