Appendix

Austria

Considers that there is no unfair burden where the USP market share exceeds 80%.

Germany

According to the legal framework, regulatory intervention only takes place where the market is not able to provide the service. So far, the market has provided the US on its own, and thus an USP has not been yet designated. Consequently, no regulatory measure has been yet applied, including the definition of unfair burden.

Bulgaria

Considers that there should not be any compensation where the USP market share, measured on the basis of revenues, is equal to or exceeds 80% and where less that 17% of total USP subscribers use price packages for economic reasons.

Croatia

Considers that there should not be any compensation where the USP market share, measured on the basis of revenues, exceeds 80%.

Spain

It was considered that the USP did not incur in a significant competitive disadvantage from 2000 to 2002 on account of the provision of US, and thus no compensation was paid. As far as 2003 and the subsequent years are concerned, the Regulator considered that an unfair burden occurred due to the telecommunications market evolution and interdependence between the fixed telephone service and mobile services.

Finland

The Regulator has never calculated CLSU nor defined the notion of unfair burden. According to the legislation, the definition of unfair burden must consider the ratio between the size and volume of the business. 

France

The Regulator has always considered CLSU to constitute an unfair burden. It assesses whether CLSU are considered an unfair burden on the basis of a set of elements, namely: i) the weight of CLSU v.s. financial risks entered in the accounts and annual report of the France Télécom Group; and ii) the comparison of the value of CLSU and the implementation and management costs of the financing mechanism.

Ireland

Comreg has recently published a public consultation indicating that it intends to assess whether US burden are unfair, on the basis of static and dynamic criteria, such as, among other, price variations, profitability and financial indicators. It also refers that the possible existence of "cherry picking" demonstrates a level of competition that prevents the USP from internalizing costs with the US provision.

Italy

The Regulator has always acknowledged the existence of unfair burden, having declared in 2002 that it has used data provided by operators to assess the level of competition in the telecommunications market. The results of the analysis showed that the level of competition had improved, in opposition to the preceding years. More specifically, the market share of Telecom Italia’s telephony traffic volume has decreased from 82% in 2000 to 79% in 2001. The same tendency was identified in market revenues of Telecom Italia’s telephony traffic which, for the same period, decreased from 81% to 77%. The general telecommunications market, in terms of revenues, fell 1% against the increase in 7% of traffic volume.

Lithuania

Considers that there is an unfair burden where the USP market share in former markets 1 and 2 of EC Recommendation, measured on the basis of revenues, is lower than 80%.

United Kingdom

Until 2006, the regulator considered that there was no unfair burden, referring that "BT's overall level of profitability, after taking into account the costs of US, exceeded what BT needed to cover its full costs and make reasonable return". The Regulator in analysing now the matter for the subsequent years.

Czech Republic

The total value of CLSU is considered to be an unfair burden.

The assessment of unfair burden applies the following criteria: i) a comparison between USP’s net costs and pre-tax results and ii) a comparison between USP's net costs and total sum of revenues arising from the USP performance in communications activities.

Romania

The total value of CLSU is considered to be an unfair burden.

Sweden

In June 2008, the Regulator decided not to impose any US obligation (even though there are zones of the country where the service is not provided).