In the 2010 edition of this Report, a new format was adopted, providing ''a more integrated view of ICP-ANACOM's performance and accomplishments which is in line with the generally integrated view that citizens have of its activity, given that its decisions, whatever their nature, are usually referred to as having been taken by the ‘Regulator’''.
It was anticipated, however, that ''the challenge posed by this restructuring is large and difficult, but we hope that this exercise will contribute to giving greater transparency to ICP-ANACOM's activities, with a more integrated perspective.''
Anticipation of the difficulty of the challenge was shown to be prescient and the singular nature of 2011 was an acid test of ICP-ANACOM's ability to overcome this challenge.
Indeed, the juncture of a set of circumstances might have given rise not to an integrated and transparent view of the activities of ICP-ANACOM, but rather a syncretism leading to a diffuse, and not in the least translucent, assessment of ICP-ANACOM's activities and, therefore, of its level of performance.
Among the many circumstances it is worth noting:
i) the holding of early elections and the entry of a new Portuguese Government;
ii) the signing of the Stability and Growth Pact and the presence of the "Troika" in Portugal, with considerable focus on the national agenda as regards communications;
iii) the beginning of the deployment of DTT in Portugal;
iv) the deteriorating economic and financial situation and crisis.
The change of Government immediately impacted ICP-ANACOM's scheduled activity with the postponed replacement of four of five members of the Management Board, introducing an element of uncertainty that extended to the end of the year and persisted even into 2012. It is evident, despite best efforts to continue to act as if everything remained as planned - and at this point a sincere "thank you" must go to ICP-ANACOM's staff, who demonstrated the embodiment of this spirit, overcoming any sense of uncertainty - the lack of a definite horizon meant that actions had to be prioritised on a short term basis, which may imply a less dynamic performance.
This pressure on the definition of priorities was intensified with the legitimate and undeniable determination to accomplish the actions stipulated in the Memorandum of Understanding signed with the 'Troika', which, while essentially in line with the objectives already established by ICP-ANACOM for the communications sector, inevitably involved some timetabling adjustments, with a consequent change in priorities; this required obvious changes in scheduling and some reallocation of resources.
This circumstance also entailed a significant increase in activities related to advising the Government, with a heavy demand on availability to accomplish current and strategic actions in specific fields of regulation and oversight.
This pressure was intensified with the natural development (and resulting demand for active participation by ICP-ANACOM) of BEREC and the ERPG (post) and the RSPG (spectrum) in Europe; these bodies were seen, and continue to be seen, as having increasingly integrated and important roles in these areas.
ICP-ANACOM's normal functioning was further complicated by the deployment of DTT which, once scheduled, demanded unexpected resources and attention given the ensuing reactions (virtually nonexistent throughout the preparation process, the various public consultations and numerous meetings weighed on activities), including the permanent uncertainties created as regards its accomplishment on the scheduled date - an essential commitment, not only stemming from European obligations, but most pressingly from decisions already taken in terms of releasing spectrum to support the development of 4G mobile technologies.
Finally, but no less important, the economic and financial crisis, together with certain Government decisions have opened the door to instability in ICP-ANACOM's situation and among its staff, resulting from a number of contradictions between the objective laid down in the Memorandum of Understanding and those of the Government Programme - claimed as strengthening regulator independence and capacity for action - and also from budgetary decisions that have clearly jeopardised that independence (and still do), in clear disregard of what is upheld in the Statutes (not repealed).
It is with great satisfaction and gratitude that we found - and this report is irrefutable proof of this - that even if the door was opened, no instability was reflected in the results accomplished, not because our staff have not been affected by and concerned about the changes we have faced and may face, but because, with commitment, dedication and team spirit, they knew how the difficulties that confronted them could be overcome.
However, looking at most of the news circulating about ICP-ANACOM, the huge challenges that it faced, which are fundamentally challenges of regulation and supervision, were almost omitted or ignored.
This is a further reason that the adoption of a report of this type ends up being warranted only, and truly, for those who want a complete, integrated and transparent of ICP-ANACOM's activity.
As such, it is possible to identify all aspects of activity, in particular the increasing challenge of participation in BEREC (with all the contradiction that arises between universal and individual decisions, where the objectives of the European project clash with certain national interests), as well as new challenges raised by NGN, both fixed and mobile, with significant implications for market definitions, and achievement (or otherwise) of competition between infrastructure, when failure to achieve competition opens the door to a threat of near monopolisation of markets with significant effects on regulation. Issues such as functional, or even structural, separation cannot therefore be but properly addressed.
The recent liberalisation of postal services opens new fronts in the regulation pursued by ICP-ANACOM and, on another plane, accessibility of content in terms of net neutrality presses the need to confront, without hesitation, the problem of the role of OTT (over the top).
With flexibility, lifelong learning and humility, ICP-ANACOM must be prepared to address these challenges, and it will surely succeed, provided its capability and potential is not undermined by decisions (or lack of decisions) which fail to respect its competencies and independence, as guarantors of impartiality and responsibility over time.
