Opinion of the Advisory Council of ICP-ANACOM on the Regulation Report, Supervision and Other Activities 2012

ICP-ANACOM Advisory Council

Report on Regulation, Supervision and Other Activities 2012



ICP-ANACOM's Report on Regulation, Supervision and Other Activities results, for the third year, from the combination of the former Regulation Report and Activities Report. Although ICP-ANACOM's Statutes, currently the subject of thorough review, point to the existence of two separate documents, the adopted model contributes significantly to a better understanding of the Regulator's activity. Likewise, the inclusion of an executive summary, Section A, provides an immediate comprehensive and integrated view of the tasks of regulation and other associates tasks.

Furthermore, as regards the formal aspects of the Report on Regulation and Other Activities, it is considered that the presentation of a quantified assessment as to the evolution of the sector during the year covered by the document would add value to the Report, enabling an understanding of the scope of the regulatory measures implemented. The Council is also of the view that the organisation of activities undertaken according to the goals set for the same time period, indeed, the structure of the 2011 Report, would also contribute to a better understanding of regulatory activity and to increased interaction between Regulator and those targeted by regulation.


It would be important to know, in the view of the Regulator, the impact of the measures taken in the State of Communications, particularly in the following areas:

  • Development of infrastructure
  • Innovation of services
  • Diversity of offers
  • Quality of service
  • Pricing levels
  • Contestability of markets

It is important that a careful analysis is made with respect to each accomplished and unaccomplished objective. To report only a degree of compliance of 78% does not appear sufficient. In any case, the rate of accomplishment of the strategic actions completed during 2012 was 78% (76% in 2011), which represents a further improvement in this indicator. It is true that 2012 was largely dedicated to the resolution of complex dossiers with accumulated delays of several years in the past; in our view, the results achieved by the Regulator are positively relevant.

Finally, it is recommended that the Report should contain quantified references to resources (human, material and financial) used in the activities undertaken by ANACOM, enabling an assessment of the costs of regulation and supervision and of ANACOM as a whole.

It is also recommended that, since the report is an extensive document with a strong technical focus, the current chapter on ANACOM's Mission and Activity, comprising the framework and executive summary, could be made independent, to enable its separate distribution. This would allow knowledge of the Regulator's activity to be extended over a wider base.

Regulatory Activity

1. Following previous opinion, it is our view that the report should devote more space to the new realities of communications:

  • Internet Sustainability/Net Neutrality/ OTT (Over The Top)
  • Social Networks
  • Cloud computing
  • E-health, E-education, E-work
  • Digital Single Market
  • Convergence
  • M2M Communications

2. In the context of DTT (Digital Terrestrial Television), to better promote open and competitive markets, and also to protect the rights of users and citizens, notwithstanding all the effort of regulation, the following aspects warrant the Regulator's careful attention:

  • Analysis of the quality of signal distribution on the current Multiplexer A.
  • Public identification of radio spectrum available after the switch-off.
  • Public consultation on the future use of the radio spectrum that will be available following the switch-off, in particular for the audiovisual sector.

3. The failure to fully accomplish objectives such as analyses of relevant markets 1, 2 and 3 - that were planned for the 1st quarter of 2011 - given the number of years that have passed since the last review (in 2004) and the fact that ICP-ANACOM has already been asked by the EC to repeat these analyses should constitute a source of major concern for the regulator.

4. In this context, ICP-ANACOM also reveals some difficulty in setting priorities, with time and resources taken up by less important aspects of the reference interconnection offer - RIO (as related to Relevant Markets 2 and 3).

These are the aspects that we are bound to emphasise in relation to the 2012 Report, within a general framework of recommendations that seek to raise the profile and enhance the predictability of regulatory activity, as well as ensure its accountability.

21 October 2013