On 15 September 2015, the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) published its opinion on the serious doubts raised by the European Commission (EC) pursuant to Article 7A of Directive 2002/21/EC as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC.
ANACOM has expressed reservations on the opinion, approved by a majority, having voted against it, particularly because from its point of view the following had not been properly considered:
- The specific circumstances and dynamics of the Portuguese market related to investment and development of competition in the broadband market, demonstrated by the highest fibre coverage in Western Europe (and the third largest in the EU).
- The imposition of access obligations on the MEO fibre network in areas where, today, there is virtually no fibre coverage, is not appropriate, proportionate or justifiable.
- The strong wholesale measures imposed by ANACOM in terms of access to ducts and posts, which reduced barriers to expansion and fostered competition based on next generation access networks infrastructure, and are, according to ANACOM, sufficient to promote investment and competition in the areas identified as not competitive, thus ensuring a level playing field.
- The possible negative impact that the imposition of fibre network access obligations may have in terms of overall investment in non-competitive areas.
- The fact that the decision not to impose fibre network access obligations in non-competitive areas is extensively justified in the draft measure, as well as the fact that the BEREC’s draft opinion is not clear about the type of additional information required.
- Important changes in the Portuguese market and the commitment by ANACOM to monitor closely its evolution, especially in non-competitive areas, and to act quickly in imposing additional measures required by the market if this imposition is justified.
- BEREC adopted Opinion on Phase II investigation (PT/2016/1888 and 1889) http://berec.europa.eu/eng/news_and_publications/whats_new/4056-berec-adopted-opinion-on-phase-ii-investigation-pt20161888-and-1889