Proposition 51K1425

Projet de loi relatif aux communications électroniques.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

Nov. 4, 2004

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Directive consumer protection competition protection of privacy electronic mail telecommunications

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA MR FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Luc Goutry (CD&V) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

⚠️ Possible data error ⚠️

This proposition could possibly include unrelated discussions due to a heuristic extraction bug in propositions prior to 2007. As soon as I've got time to fix it, these will be removed when they're not supposed to be here.

Discussion ¶

April 21, 2005 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the present draft has been the subject of a thorough discussion. Therefore, in this report I will necessarily limit myself to the main lines, in particular the framework, the general discussion of the draft and the articles that have been discussed most thoroughly in the committee.

Colleagues, I invite you all to read the comprehensive report, which was created, in part thanks to the services and under my responsibility. I would like to thank the services in particular for the work done.

At the end of the 1990s, the telecommunications sector was liberalized under European impulse. Liberalization has brought a significant momentum and significant changes within the sector concerned. For these reasons, the regulatory framework was adapted at European level in 1999. This resulted in six directives over the course of 2002. These are five harmonisation directives and one specific directive on competition in the markets for electronic communications services.

The new electronic communications regulatory framework presented here concerns the transposition of the five harmonisation directives and that one competition directive into Belgian law. These include the Framework Directive, the Authorisation Directive, the Access Directive, the Universal Service Directive, the Privacy Directive and, subsequently, the European Commission Directive on competition in the markets for electronic communications networks and services. They all date from 2002.

Colleagues, there are a number of findings underlying that new European regulatory framework. There is the convergence of the sectors of telecommunications, broadcasting and information technology. The future discussion will show that this convergence also creates some specific problems in our Belgian model. There is the large number of competent authorities and regulations that apply. There is also the very rapid and unpredictable evolution of technology and the market situation. There is the growth of the number of new market players and the development of competition. There is the globalization of technology and markets, as well as the increasing number of transnational and trans-European services and operators. Finally, there is the finding that the increasing penetration of mobile applications across all market segments is a fact.

The harmonisation directives should already have been transposed in July 2003. The European Court of Justice has already placed Belgium in default due to a late transposition. Adjustments should be made in particular in the law of March 1991 on the control of autonomous public undertakings, which includes a telecommunications chapter under the head of Belgacom, and in the law of July 1979 on radio broadcasting, a matter that has now been largely transferred to the Communities.

The four strength lines of the draft under discussion are as follows. First, there is the optimization of competition. Second, there is a simplification of access to the sector for the benefit of market players. Third, there is the protection of the users, of the consumers. Fourth, there is the guarantee of universal service.

The first two strength lines were discussed by the Minister of Economy, Energy, Foreign Trade and Science Policy, Mr. Marc Verwilghen.

The last two were dealt with by the Minister of Labour and Consumer Affairs, Ms. Van den Bossche.

The committee discussed the draft in seven meetings, the first of which took place on 17 November 2004.

The first strength line of the design is to optimize the competition. The Minister of Economy pointed out in his introductory presentation that the telecommunications market is evolving rapidly. The dominant market players, in this case especially the historic operator Belgacom, are imposed in the draft a series of additional obligations. An example of such obligations is the possibility of imposing "cost-based" works.

The additional obligations for the dominant market players are intended to create a level playing field — a playing field — allowing more players to enter the market and should eventually reduce telecommunications costs for citizens. It is essential to give the regulator, the BIPT, a greater role so that it can optimally promote competition. The Minister of Economy pointed out that in the event of competition distortion, the BIPT currently has insufficient legal instruments to act.

The second force line of the design is the simplification of access conditions. Access conditions will be eased. The transposition of the Authorisation Directive ends the system in which the performance of a telecommunications activity was subject to an authorisation or a declaration. From now on, it will be sufficient for an enterprise to submit a relatively summary notification to the Institute before starting.

The third force line of the design is about protecting users. Another purpose of the design is to better inform the consumer. Model contracts and general conditions should be made public on the operator’s website and should also be available on simple request. Essential changes will be notified to the user one month in advance. Upon receipt of the invoice, the user will have another month to terminate his contract without having to pay any form of compensation. The information provided on the tariffs must be similar so that the user can still see the forest through the trees. On the website of the BIPT a list of the offer will be published so that one will be able to make the best choice in terms of rates and offer based on his own user profile. Each operator shall have a telephone emergency service accessible via a geographical number. Different payment facilities should be allowed. It is necessary to provide for the possibility of number blocking and localization provided that one has given his prior consent and the service can be discontinued on simple request, of course both for commercial use and use by the police.

The information about the consumer will be regulated through the so-called out principle. One is not included in a repertoire if one has expressed that wish. So far it was in principle. One had to declare that one wanted to be included in a certain repertoire. Infestation of users with unsolicited services, better known under the term "slamming", will only be possible provided that one has given written permission to do so.

In order to monitor compliance with the rules, the draft proposal prioritizes the establishment of a telecommunications ethics committee, which will, among other things, lay down the rules relating to payments. This was already determined in the past, but the new design differs in that one no longer needs the blessing of the West.

A fourth strength line of the design is guaranteeing the universal services.

The Minister of Labour and Consumer Affairs pointed out in its introductory explanation that Belgium is the European leader with 1 pay phone per 700 inhabitants. However, these phone cells are often the prey of vandalism and are being used less and less. This is mainly due to the rise of mobile phones. Therefore, the design provides that the number of telephone cells will be linked to the coverage and spread rate of the mobile phone and thus sensitively decomposed.

Mobile telephony will play an increasingly important role in the knowledge economy. The design aims to ensure that there is no new digital divide in this area. Social tariffs will have to be offered by all operators for both fixed and mobile telephony. At the moment only Belgacom as a universal service provider must offer social rates on the fixed lines.

In the draft, it was opted to apply the universal service throughout the entire Belgian territory. Every Belgian must have access, at the same price and to the same quality of the universally respected services.

When the universal service provider is designated, no operator shall be excluded a priori. Only in the event that no offer is submitted, will the allocation be carried out by office, in order not to leave the rightholders in the cold.

The Universal Service Fund will be activated and established by the operators according to their market share. The BIPT will monitor the incurred costs and check whether the incurred service obligations are also effectively fulfilled.

For each individual element of the universal service, with the exception of the social tariffs, which will now be able to be offered by all operators, a different operator may be designated. This applies to both payment phones and the universal intelligence service and the universal telephone guide.

During the general discussion, I pointed out that the absence of a stable framework has hampered investments. With our group, we are also convinced of this. Since the entry into force of various articles is subject to implementing decisions and that secondary legislation is an integral part of the obligation to transpose the directives, I was of the opinion that the adoption of the draft is not sufficient to create a clear and coherent legal framework.

I also pointed out that legal certainty would be served by the prior conclusion of a cooperation agreement between the federal government and the Communities. In that sense, I referred to a judgment of the Arbitration Court of July 2004, in which a part of the Act of January 2003 relating to the status of the regulator of the Belgian postal and telecommunications sector was annulled on grounds of excess of competence. The judgment obliged the government to conclude a cooperation agreement by the end of December 2005.

I asked whether the adoption of the present draft for the conclusion of the cooperation agreement would not involve the risk that important provisions would be destroyed immediately after the entry into force of the law.

I also expressed concern that the draft is incomplete. The radio communications of the Brussels broadcasters, which are not directed to a single Community, will not be regulated, while it is, in my opinion, a federal competence.

I also argued that the establishment of an ethical committee and the adoption of an ethical code were long anticipated. I wonder if the government will implement it following the present draft.

Ms. Karine Lalieux of the PS emphasizes the importance of the bill. A coherent and stable regulatory framework is essential for the sector to function well and for the competition to benefit the consumer, thanks in particular to technological progress.

In addition to encouraging fair competition, sufficient attention should be paid to universal service. In the current context, the existing service must be preserved. Expansion to other technologies may be considered later.

The ruling of the Arbitration Court already cited is also, for Ms. Lalieux, worrying. If no agreement is reached with the Communities by the end of 2005, the IBPT will lose part of its competence.

Regarding universal service, she believed that many elements were still inaccurate.

Mrs Lalieux asked the following questions: - What content will be given to the fixed geographic component? How will it be determined which market player provides a service?

The intervening party expresses itself in favour of the rapid creation of a compensation fund. She asked the cause of this report. Mr Philippe De Coene of the sp.a-spirit group saw the transposition of the directives as an opportunity to put his own accents in the draft. He pointed out that other countries may have transposed the directives faster than in a less ambitious way. According to Mr De Coene, the delay in the conversion has not hampered the innovation, as he deduces, among other things, the evolution in broadband. He also advocated an adjustment of the original design on several points, such as a rapid activation of the Compensation Fund once the actual cost of the universal service has been quantified in a transparent manner, an improved comparability of rates, an enhanced security of internet traffic and a universal service that accompanies social and technological developments. M is Damien Yzerbyt, du cdH, a souligné la nature extrémement technique du projet de loi. It was favorable to the organization of audits with the sector and demanded that the government put at the disposal a synoptic table showing the concordancy between the European directives and the project. The Minister of Economy pointed out that Belgium in the interim European evaluation report on the Lisbon Strategy scores weak on the transposition of the telecommunications directives. He also referred to the delay in part to the state structure. The delay, according to him, is not a disadvantage, when one grips them to let something mature.

According to the Minister, the issue concerning the Brussels broadcasters must be settled, but according to him it is still somewhat separate from the proposed drafts.

As regards the articles of this draft, as discussed in the committee, I would like to limit myself to the main discussions.

A major amendment to delete Articles 24 to 32, which relate to the installation of equipment such as cables, antennas, supports, etc., was submitted by Mr De Padt. Mr De Padt of the VLD clarified that it was best to omit Articles 24 to 32 of the draft, in order to avoid potential conflicts of jurisdiction with the Regions and the resulting legal uncertainty. On the contrary, I found it useful to maintain the framework in the draft. I was of the opinion that the omission is not necessary. The problem of competence can be resolved by subjecting the entry into force of the relevant provisions to a prior cooperation agreement with the Regions. The Minister of Economy agreed to the removal. The Committee adopted the amendment. The articles were therefore removed.

Several amendments from my hand, on Article 37, concerning the administrative contributions of operators to the operation of the BIPT, aim to allow a correction to be made if the operators would contribute more than the costs of the BIPT. I pointed out that at present, according to the January 2003 law regarding the regulator’s status, the excess deposited goes to the federal state. Mr Yzerbyt of the CDH referred to amendments aiming at the same correction. The Minister of Economy agreed to establish a limiting list of cost factors for which the contributions could be used, but opposed the proposed correction of the contribution itself. According to the ministers, this would require the establishment of a new administration for the clearing and processing of contributions. According to the Minister, the BIPT has sufficient qualified staff to correctly estimate the contributions. The amendments were rejected by the committee and the article was adopted. The old regulation remains in force.

On Article 41 several amendments were submitted by colleague Guido De Padt. They created the possibility of preventing the use of telecommunications equipment, in particular mobile toast phones, in prisons. However, the placement of equipment that blocks the prohibited calls was subject to strict conditions. The Minister of Economy approved the amendments. The article was adopted by the committee. The blocking of cell phone calls from detainees can thus be made more effective.

Several amendments to article 68 of the draft draft by Mr. Yzerbyt and myself, were aimed at not bringing it to the King to determine under which proposals and in what manner the BIPT can impose the conduct of separate accounts. Mr De Padt submitted an amendment explaining that the King is therefore responsible for defining the accounting model in general. On the other hand, only the BIPT should be empowered to impose a separate accounting measure on an operator. The Minister of Economy supported Mr De Padt’s amendment. The article was amended.

I myself submitted an amendment to Article 79 in order to make it possible for the fixed geographical element of the universal service to divide the territory into different geographical areas with potentially different providers. The Minister of Consumer Affairs spoke out against a division into geographical areas because it considers Belgium to be a small country and because the Chamber spoke out against a division in its resolution on the provision of the universal telecommunications service. I replicated that I was of the opinion that the Minister thus gives a wrong reading of the aforementioned resolution. In my opinion, it merely means to stipulate that the price and quality must be the same throughout the whole territory, but not that each operator must serve the whole country if he wishes to be taken into account for that universal service. The article was adopted with the rejection of the aforementioned amendment. A candidate universal service provider for fixed telephony should thus be able to offer its services throughout the Belgian territory.

On Article 82 of the draft, several amendments were submitted by Mr. Yzerbyt, De Coene and myself. Mr Yzerbyt considered it desirable that the social tariffs should be limited to the services offered through fixed public telephone networks. According to him, fixed telephony was preferred among socially vulnerable persons because its tariffs are lower than for mobile telephony and because internet connections can also be established through a fixed telephony line. Mr Yzerbyt also pointed out that, in his view, some operators must bear an excessive burden of universal service while the contribution of other operators is low or nonexistent. To avoid this, Mr. Yzerbyt advocated that all operators would provide a financial contribution in a fair manner.

The Minister of Consumer Affairs defended the government’s option to let the target groups freely choose a social rate on the fixed or on the mobile phone. The draft would indeed indicate a distribution of the burden of universal service among the operators on the basis of their respective market share. Operators who do not or insufficiently provide universal service must pay a compensatory contribution.

Mr De Coene proposed that the compensation mechanism should take effect immediately as soon as the relevant data were known and not after five years as provided for in the original draft. I subsequently pointed out that the opinion of the State Council does not provide the possibility of obliging all operators to offer social tariffs.

I referred to the Directive which, in my opinion, did not opt for a general obligation. I also asked how this observation of the State Council was followed. I also defended the option of paying the compensation contribution with public funds and not always putting them at the expense of the operators. In this context, Mr De Coene argued that the Directive does not indeed stipulate that the cost of social tariffs for mobile telephony shall be borne by the operator, but that it also does not prohibit this. The speaker is in favor of funding by the operators. The Minister of Consumer Affairs stated that he had a different reading of the State Council than my lecture. Since the government has the possibility to designate operators for the universal service, it may also decide to designate all operators. Nor does the directive exclude the imposition of social tariffs on mobile telephony and the reporting of costs on the sector. Finally, Mr Yzerbyt expressed his support for the immediate entry into force of the compensation mechanism. The article was adopted by the committee. It shall provide for an immediate compensation mechanism by which an operator is required to make an additional contribution if it has fewer social subscribers than its market share and is reimbursed if it has more social subscribers than its market share. The consumer will be given the choice between a social rate on the fixed and mobile phone.

Several amendments were submitted to Article 116 of the draft which completes the continuation of the i-line project, a project that aims to make the internet more accessible for schools, libraries and hospitals. I considered the proposed provision problematic in three respects.

First, operators other than Belgacom can only participate in the project after the King has given permission, which, in my opinion, does not comply with the principles of the Competition Directive. Their

Secondly, unlike in the old regulation, the provision does not refer to an appendix containing the technical conditions. In my opinion, this was not a good method. As long as the King does not establish technical conditions, which, among other things, relate to quality, Belgacom may, I think, freely determine the conditions and choose for example to lower the quality standards.

Third, I called for an opening up to lower schools and digital opportunity activities, social organizations that want to reduce the digital gap, that want to reduce the digital gap and that focus on opportunity groups such as disadvantaged young people, long-term unemployed and/or people with disabilities. These categories should also be able to be included in the i-line project.

Collega De Padt pointed out that the amendment he submitted partially responds to my own criticism. More specifically, he wanted to ⁇ that the i-line project would be opened to other operators than Belgacom. This amendment was subsequently approved by the Minister of Consumer Affairs. The Minister of Consumer Affairs stated that he fully supports some of my amendments but rejects other aspects. It stated that it would attempt to conclude a cooperation agreement in connection with the i-line project, but it did not wish to undertake any prior obligation as, in its view, this would imply that the federal government would not be competent to pay fees under this project.

For the minister, an extension to lower schools was also a possibility. She wanted the value added of the project to be evaluated first for the newly set target groups.

The Minister, on the other hand, stated that it would not agree to the opening of the project for digital opportunity work, as it believes that this could lead to a high degree of abuse. The committee finally approved the thus amended article, which eliminated the mandatory participation of Belgacom I-line. For the tariff conditions, the reference was introduced to the Annexes, in which they are further described.

In connection with the provision of information to citizens in the field of invoicing, amendments were submitted by Mr De Coene and myself to Article 120 of the draft. I was of the opinion that the detailed invoice should be the rule and a basic invoice the exception. Only if the subscriber does not want a detailed invoice, the operator should provide a basic invoice. Furthermore, my amendment meant that the operator would place an indication on each invoice to his customer if he does not have the most favourable tariff plan. On the edge, I also suggested changing the suicide prevention phone number to a non-geographic number so that the number would not appear on the invoice.

Mr De Coene acknowledged that, in his opinion, in the event of serious dispute on an invoice, the customer should receive a detailed invoice free of charge. A compulsory detailed invoice was not desirable. He referred to the views of consumer organisations.

The Minister of Consumer Affairs believed that the detailed invoice for all customers and in all cases the clarity would not benefit. In case of controversy, the Minister considered such an invoice meaningful. It agreed to an annual listing of the most favourable tariff plan, as this, in its view, increases tariff transparency. The indication of the most favourable tariff scheme on each invoice did not exclude the approval of the Minister, as the use of the consumer may fluctuate significantly over the course of the year. The article was approved by the committee in such a way that the consumer receives a free basic invoice and in case of dispute a more specified invoice. Emergency numbers will not be listed on the invoice. At least once a year, the operator shall indicate on the invoice to its subscriber the tariff plan most favourable for him, taking into account his individual usage pattern.

There were majority and opposition amendments, including from myself, aimed at enabling the joint offering of products in the telecommunications sector. The different applicants defended the possibility of offering different services together. According to Mr. De Padt and me, the telecommunications market is seeing more and more converging services, which combine different technologies and applications. The applicants argued that the government is doing well not to hinder the development of converging technologies. However, they pointed out that an easing of the joint offering of products is only acceptable under a set of conditions, such as the obligation for operators to also offer the various elements of their package separately.

The Minister of Consumer Affairs expressed its approval of the proposed amendments, pointing out the special nature of the sector and the technological developments. The Commission finally approved the authorisation for linked sales under strict conditions in the telecommunications sector.

I submitted an amendment to introduce an article 121ter to provide a signal when calling to another, more expensive network. I argued that by introducing number portability, the consumer can no longer know whether his call is being forwarded to another network.

I therefore suggested introducing an unambiguous, spoken message, announcing the transfer to another network, unless the customer would explicitly choose to disable this function or option. The Minister of Consumer Affairs agreed with this viewpoint, but proposed to replace the unambiguous spoken message with a simple bite signal, in order to avoid annoying some individuals. I voted in favour and submitted a sub-amendment with the amendment proposed by the Minister.

Colleague De Coene pointed out in this regard the fundamental problem of tariff differences, depending on the network of the destination. Collega Lalieux stated to be in favour of reciprocity of interconnection tariffs. Waiting for a support for this, it does agree to the introduction of the beating signal as proposed by me in the opt-out principle. In the end, the Commission did not accept the introduction of this new article. Their

Several amendments by Mr De Coene to Articles 122 and 123 of the draft draft were aimed at ensuring secure access to the Internet. A colleague explained that he wants to give the BIPT a coordination role in favour of a more proactive treatment of the security issues on the Internet. Operators should also provide similar information to end-users on the quality and secure access to the Internet. He also wanted to expand the responsibility of electronic communications service providers for the security of their services. Operators and software providers shall offer their subscribers free of charge the services enabling end-users to prevent any form of unwanted electronic communications.

I myself expressed my support for the objectives, but I doubted whether companies were able to deliver truly closing solutions. In my view, the adoption of the amendments should not have resulted in undertakings being held liable for viruses which, despite careful vigilance, they would not have detected in a timely manner. I feared that the broad definition would not be consistent with European regulation and asked whether new obligations would not increase the price of certain services.

Collega De Padt wanted to avoid the burden for the operators becoming excessively heavy. For him, the proposal should therefore be understood as a resource commitment, not as a result commitment. Collega De Coene confirmed that the operators will only have a resource commitment. He referred to the words used "taking into account the state of the technique and the costs of its implementation". He stressed that the amendment aims to establish a fair balance between the development of the market and the protection of consumers. The Minister of Consumer Affairs endorsed the amendment and indicated that the operators can only have a resource commitment. The article was, thus amended by the proposal of Mr De Coene, adopted by the committee.

The amendments submitted by colleagues Yzerbyt, De Padt, Casaer and myself were submitted to article 144 of the draft, which regulates the protection of users against unlawful activation of a preselection service and the transfer of a number. I was of the opinion that obtaining the express prior consent for the activation of a pre-selection service is not sufficient. I think the consumer should also be informed of the consequences associated with this activation. The Minister of Consumer Affairs agreed to this, provided that the amendments I had submitted were effectively interpreted as an expansion of the protection of consumers.

Colleague De Coene expressed his concern that the access operator, when disabling the pre-selection service of a non-payer by the pre-selection operator, would experience all the disadvantages associated with the bad side.

Collega Casaer pointed out that its amendment was aimed at clarifying that the provider of the pre-selection service has the right, in the event that the user fails to comply with its obligations, to cease to offer that service. In this case, the user returns to the minimum service of the operator. The user has the right to conclude a contract with another operator, as stated.

Collega Yzerbyt clarified that through his amendments he intended to include in the law that a victim of "slamming," in which the user is unwantedly forced a paid service, is in no case obliged to pay his call costs to the person who made himself guilty of it.

The Minister supported Mr Yzerbyt’s amendment but requested that it be supplemented by a refund scheme for victims who have already paid. They should be repaid immediately. Mr Yzerbyt amended his amendment in accordance with the Minister’s comments.

The committee ultimately opted to adopt the amendments proposed by several colleagues.

There were also amendments related to the ASTRID system for emergency and security services. Since there are some problems in the legal drafting, the Council of State in its opinion stated the following, and I quote: "The text is several points unclear so that it could not be properly and with knowledge of the matter examined whether the amendments to the principle of equality and to the European directive are met." The committee agreed that the ASTRID system, under the conditions determined by the King, would be able to cooperate in contracts of general interest.

The obligation on semaphony was also adopted.

So far, the discussions about the many articles of the law.

This law also contains non-essential annexes. As regards those annexes, in the definitions, I called for a more stringent definition of the concept of "active penetration rate of the mobile telephone service", which is determining the minimum number of public telephone cells in the future. I expressed the fear that in the short term the number of phone cells could fall to 4,000 or even 2,000, depending on the calculation method and criteria. I therefore insisted on using a more realistic description of the group of active users. The Minister of Consumer Affairs stated that the definition of "active penetration rate" as used by her is generally common. The committee chose to take both concepts unchanged from the draft.

With an amendment of my hand, on Article 8 of the Annex, I advocated for disabled persons, sick persons, persons in need of special care and persons with disabilities, to limit the maximum time for repairing a disruption to 24 hours. I asked why the draft gives veterinarians a higher priority in terms of recovery time than the aforementioned groups.

The Minister of Consumer Affairs defended the differentiation between emergency services, priority services, hospitals, doctors, pharmacists and veterinarians, on the one hand, and disabled, sick and disabled persons, on the other. In order not to compromise the Sunday rest too much, the latter group receives a lower degree of urgency.

According to the Minister, for animals an urgent intervention of a veterinarian may be necessary. The article was eventually adopted by the committee unchanged.

On Article 22 of the Annex concerning the categories of beneficiaries of the social rate, several amendments were submitted by Mr De Padt and myself.

I had to advocate for the introduction of a social tariff on the broadband internet for people with motor disabilities to take place effectively. The minister did not accept this, but said he would advocate, within the European Union, for a more voluntary policy in the face of broadband internet.

Mr De Padt stated that he was in favour of a two-year control of persons who do not have the right to a social rate. I would point out that this is not feasible as long as there is no database at the BIPT for that purpose. The Minister of Consumer Affairs agreed to the proposed control.

I myself was of the opinion that a social rate would rather not be limited to the beneficiaries who cohabit with children and grandchildren who have not reached the age of the end of compulsory schooling, as stated in the current criteria and conditions. I thought — rightly and reasonably, I thought — that this provision is outdated. A beneficiary who cohabits with his or her adult children studying in higher education should be able to have a greater right to a social rate. The Minister of Consumer Affairs agreed to the removal of the condition related to the age of termination of the obligatory schooling.

Our committee accepted the article, giving all categories of rightholders the same maximum discount in the future. The condition concerning the age of termination of the compulsory schooling will expire, and a two-year check will be possible for the social subscribers.

Then I also submitted an amendment to include Article 26a in the annexes, with the aim of making telephone cells more accessible for persons with disabilities and for older persons. For this purpose, I proposed that the King should set the basic requirements that phones must meet no later than one year after the entry into force of the law. The Minister of Consumer Affairs agreed to the amendment, but set the condition that it would be to re-locate public telephone cells, which, of course, contains an important nuance.

Later, another amendment was submitted that allows the King to decide what should be understood by "newly placed" phones. That amendment states that the King must elaborate the further modalities. The Commission has opted for the inclusion of that new article.

On Article 37 of the Annex, which contained the financial conditions of the social rates, several amendments were submitted by me and by Mr Casaer.

I found that the article included a fixed amount of discount on the subscription fee, thereby reducing the discount in real terms when the universal service provider increases its rates. Therefore, I expressed unwaveringly my preference for a percentage reduction and submitted an amendment in that regard.

Mr Casaer’s amendment clarified the article on several points. Mr. Casaer wanted to ⁇ the following. Providers who offer their customers a free subscription are, of course, not required to provide a discount, and if a consumer has his subscription with one provider and his calls with another, he receives a discount of 23 euros per two-month period of time on the cost of the call.

The Minister of Consumer Affairs expressed its support for the adjustments proposed by Mr. Casaer.

It also advocated the inclusion of the discount amounts in the law because alert consumers are encouraged in this way to choose operators that provide a greater discount than the amount specified in the law. I have expressed my doubts. In fact, I strongly doubt whether the alternative operators will be willing to incorporate social responsibility simply by offering a discount that is higher than what was stipulated by law.

The committee adopted the article aiming to ensure that a beneficiary of the social rate receives a 50% discount on his connection when it comes to fixed telephone. If the rightholder for both the subscription and the call costs is attached to the same operator, one receives a social compensation on the subscription fee and on the call costs. If the rightholder for both the subscription and the call costs is connected to 2 different operators, the full coverage shall be borne by the operator of the call costs.

Dear colleagues, as far as I am concerned, my report. The text was unanimously adopted in the committee. Personal comments and comments, also on behalf of my group, I will subsequently present to the Chamber.

Mr. Deseyn, you can do that now. Let me first applaud your report. (Applause) You now have the word on behalf of your group.

The objective facts and the discussions that took place in the committee. However, I still have many comments and questions regarding the draft which I would like to submit to you on behalf of my group, Mr. President, Mrs. Minister, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues.

The draft legislation presented here concerns the transposition of European directives. I mentioned them in my report. They should have already been converted in July 2003. So, more than ever, we are facing a conviction, despite repeated warnings from the European Court of Justice. As already stated in the discussion of the draft, Belgium, together with Greece and Luxembourg, is the only one involved in the draft. Greece and Luxembourg are telecommunications dwarfs compared to Belgium. The impact on the sector and the economy as a whole has, of course, been far greater for us. I can assure you that the players in the telecommunications sector are speaking to the new Belgian law, which some colleagues may argue about it.

Former federal minister Moerman himself gave all the importance. I quote her: “The swift and faithful transposition of the European directives into Belgian law is of crucial importance for the evolving telecommunications sector, otherwise the market will increasingly face issues and problems for which the old framework no longer provides a solution.” She said that a long time ago. It is strange that it all took so long.

Fortunately, today there is a draft law. Otherwise, we can be sure of this, the output was in the meantime also linked to BrusselHalle-Vilvoorde, given the various tensions in the majority. Not only the industry has suffered. For the consumer, too, the delayed transposition of the directives was a costly thing when one makes the bill. Just think of the absence of the free number block, a scheme for the expensive 0900 payment lines, the absence of the free detailed invoice, the expensive interconnection rates.

The upcoming law will intensify the competition struggle and it will – we admit that – provide better protection for users. Therefore, the absence of the law has had consequences not only for the operators who did not know what the future would bring and thus likely took other options or delayed investments, but also for the people who ⁇ paid too much.

The reason for the delay lies in fundamental disagreements between liberals and socialists on universal service. We were able to look at a preliminary design made under Minister Daems in the middle of 2003 and this shows — we are almost two years away — to match up to 90 percent with the current design. Only the chapter on universal service has undergone some fundamental changes, which, we believe, can be judged to the worse than to the better. This leaves less room for competition. There is no division in geographical areas. I cannot get rid of the impression, colleagues, that the PS, out of a strange, Belgian nostalgia, has permeated this unity thought, which actually benefits no one, works in a way that inhibits innovation and creates more burdens for the sector. The sector fully finances the universal service and also the social rates, where in an initial draft there was still a partial intervention. The defense of the majority that the delay also provided opportunities, I must regrettably answer with the observation that these opportunities were hardly exploited.

Despite this overwhelming approach — that long path of suffering — the CD&V has chosen a strongly constructive approach for the discussion in the committee. With technical corrections and proposed measures for the benefit of operators, industry and users, we reached a total of more than one hundred CD&V amendments. We think that we could have enriched the design and ⁇ also the discussion.

Furthermore, during the discussion in the committee, it was noted that majority parliamentarians and sometimes even ministerial officials had insufficiently read the draft so that majority corrections to the draft — imagine — sometimes in turn had to be corrected or at least addressed by the opposition.

Unfortunately, we often reacted picky — the chairman will be able to testify — when we in good faith proposed these corrections. Unlike members of her group, the Minister of Consumer Affairs sometimes responded thoughtfully and positively to our intentions. It is a pity that the government’s approval sometimes did not translate into the vote. Maybe it was due to a lack of preparation or it was not well known what the amendments contained.

You are knocking. I remember the heroic interrogations we had about this in the committee and the amendments that constantly referred to other articles, so your shit is not at all in place here. We did this from a constructive approach and I had the impression that your minister was also often grateful for it and could approach things more positively than from a cramped majority response against the opposition.

CD&V has mainly intervened in order to prevent us from dealing with all kinds of lawsuits in the shortest possible time because the directives have not been properly transposed. A law that provides legal certainty is essential for the development of the sector.

When reading the present draft, a few things came to the eye. There is the fact that in the draft law the practical entry into force of numerous articles depends on a royal decree to be drawn up or on opinions, which are yet to come from the BIPT. We estimate that advice to about 200. That is no less and requires a special discipline and a ⁇ strict timeline, which will have to be dismissed by the government, if this law really wants to change something in the field.

A second point that comes to light is the State Council’s constant emphasis on the need for a preliminary cooperation agreement with the Communities.

Regarding the fact that the practical entry into force of numerous articles will take a long time, I would like to say again that for Europe the transposition is not complete until the secondary legislative work is also completed. It’s not about making an empty box because one doesn’t even touch the internal on certain points. Therefore, one will have to choose a direction. The positive aspects contained herein will have their effect if there is sufficient action after the vote tonight.

Then there is the cooperation agreement. The need for this was painfully confirmed by the decision of the Arbitration Court a few months ago. Mrs. Minister, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues of the majority, thankfully provided this latter in a period in which you will have a little more time to come to cooperation. You will be more specific until the end of 2005.

The current telecommunications law relies on such an agreement for a significant part, but apparently it has also penetrated to the majority. The principle of the cooperation agreement would now finally be approved, in extremis. This is about the events of yesterday, Wednesday.

We also called for the draft to take into account the text adopted by this committee on the universal telecommunications service. It is right to say that the work done six months ago had to be validated here in this design.

Is this law intended for the garbage cart? Let us hope that it is not so. However, there are reasons for concern. In July 2004, the Court of Arbitration abolished Article 14 of the Act relating to the status of the regulator of the Belgian postal and telecommunications services, which constituted the abolition of the powers of the BIPT, the federal regulator. He did so on the basis of the following statement. The powers of the Federal State and the Communities in the field of electronic communications infrastructure as a result of technological development have become so intertwined that they can only be exercised in cooperation with each other.

On September 28, 2004, a second bomb fell. In response to the preliminary draft Telecommunications Act for the German-speaking Community, the State Council stated that the German-speaking Community was not competent to unilaterally adopt the rules relating to electronic communications networks and the regulator responsible for them.

The conclusion is that no new legislative text can be drafted without a prior cooperation agreement. Otherwise, as in the case of the draft of the German-speaking Community, a decision on incompetence must be taken.

New legislative initiatives, such as the current Telecom Act, are therefore only possible after the conclusion of a cooperation agreement.

Paars actually just went on, not to mention yesterday’s quarrel, although it was known that the law was otherwise condemned for the garbage cart. Fortunately, during the discussion, we were able to make this awareness penetrate a little more.

Ultimately, only yesterday, under the pressure of the law presented today, the government approved the principles of the agreement and ceded to the Flemish requirement to make decisions only on the basis of consensus and not on the basis of a majority.

Until the end, the federal government had not wanted to give in to the requirement of a consensus decision. Fortunately, the time pressures and the stiff leg of the Flemish government have ensured that decisions cannot be decided by a majority over the head of Flanders, but the subject must be a consensus.

Colleagues, also the Flanders demand that the agreement should be seen as part of a global arrangement, which also includes the ether police and the frequency coordination, could be pushed through. After all, colleagues, you realize how big the problems are for the various radio stations, where we notice that the large, Flemish broadcasters are systematically hindered in their broadcast by a different fulfillment of the frequency plan in the other part of the country. This needs to be resolved urgently, not through the simple pressure of the majority but through consultation by consensus within the college of the various regulators that our country is rich.

The Flemish government, in this matter under the leadership of Minister Bourgeois, has also made the proposal to repair the article on the BIPT, which was suspended. She says that the case must be settled by 31 December 2005. The adjustment necessary for this purpose in the law on the statute of the regulator, we expect here today from the majority.

I do not know what the Minister’s plans are, but I would like to ask the question explicitly. What will the Government do to repair the article, so as to meet the suspension, as decided by the Arbitration Court, and thus give the regulator sufficient powers, respecting the powers of the Regions and Communities? I hope that I will soon receive a clear and unambiguous answer from you.

Mrs. Minister, you refer to your colleague Verwilghen. Mr. Minister, will the Government carry out the repair through an amendment submitted by the now ruling majority to the present law or will it draw up a bill on the status of the regulator, in order to repair the law of January 2003? It curious me to a great extent. If all of the above is arranged together, it is an important victory for the interests of the Flemish telecommunications sector, which was not recognized at all wrongly by the non-division of the geographical area. However, it is also a victory for legal certainty in general.

Is the design an empty box? Let us again hope not. However, again there is reason to be concerned. A list of the necessary implementing decisions was established. The number of mandatory implementing decisions is 83. Including the optional decisions, there are almost 200.

I’ll give you a snap of the issues that still need to be settled, but whose principle is already included in the draft law.

The rules concerning number portability have yet to be defined, according to CD&V the warning needed when switching to another network.

The technical and financial conditions for the special telephone tariff for hospitals, schools and libraries; the rules relating to the cooperation of operators with the emergency services; the fixing of consumer rights in the case of an unpaid account; the rules relating to the free number blocking and the rules relating to priority in repairs. The priority groups have yet to be defined.

Further regulations still need to be made: the recording of the data that police services may keep and the fixing of the deadlines within which the consumer must comply with the measures imposed by the operator in order not to be closed.

It should also be regulated: the establishment of the conditions for the commercialization of equipment. In addition, we expect the recording of the number of payment phones per municipality, of the period and the precise manner of designation of the universal service providers, of the rules related to the payment lines and of the contributions to the operators.

I can continue this way for a while.

These are essential matters, which are absolutely necessary, before one can give effect and force to this draft and this future law.

Colleagues, the cherry on the cake of purple creativity and the accompanying powerlessness, is the provision that one can postpone the entry into force of articles. The matters that are arranged and not referred to a decision to be made can be postponed, you do not believe it, for an indefinite period of time. There is therefore reason for concern.

The ministers were pleased to emphasize that the law will be very beneficial to the consumer. I would like to believe it, but due to the many shifts in time it will take some time for this category to notice something of it. The conversion, colleagues, is incomplete. The revision of the provisions of the law of March 1995, concerning the networks for the distribution of broadcasting and the exercise of broadcasting activities in the bilingual area Brussels-Capital, remains necessary. A satisfactory response to this gap by the minister is lacking, as well as a concrete timing for the arrangement.

More amendments were submitted than the law counts articles. CD&V itself submitted the majority, more than 100, of the amendments. None of the majority parties have been very actively curved over the design, as testifies the fact that many errors in the text were simply not noticed.

From the socialist side, support was expected for our proposals aimed at improving consumer protection. From the liberal side, support was expected for our proposals aimed at opening the market. Some of the promises made by Minister Van den Bossche were subsequently, in the article-by-article vote, rejected by her own party or at least heavily weakened. The credibility of the socialists has been damaged. The promises were broken again. The liberals have easily rolled themselves on key points for them. Consider the division in the different geographical areas.

I will give a small overview of the main CD&Vam conclusions, without doing it extensively, and the response to it by the majority.

I will start with the special internet tariff for the lower schools. Currently, colleagues, only hospitals, libraries and secondary or higher schools can enjoy a sharply reduced rate of broadband internet access, the so-called I-line project. Our proposal was an extension of I-line to lower schools, including by adjusting the definition of what a school is, an extension to social organizations that provide PC or internet training to disabled people, seniors and/or people with disabilities and an opening to other providers than Belgacom alone. This can play the competition and decrease government compliance.

When it comes to restricting the interconnection tariffs, anyone who follows the telecom discussion knows that this is an essential point in pushing prices and achieving greater transparency. Today, non-dominant operators charge advertising costs when determining their cost structure. Based on the costs incurred, the price for interconnection can be determined. A consequence of this is, for example, that for a call from Belgacom to other operators very high interconnection rates apply. I also refer to the recent study of Test Purchase.

The CD&V proposal also included excluding non-dominant operators from advertising costs, so that the interconnection tariffs could be lower and at the level of neighboring countries. Compared to our neighbors, our telecommunications bills are far too expensive. The Minister’s response was that it would not deviate from the draft, since the consensus had finally been reached. It is a pity that there was no further discussion possible on such an important, such an exceptional point. That is regrettable.

For the social rates, we say, after an evaluation of the terrain: not cents but percentages!

( ... )

It is an old slogan that applies to this particular domain. De Crem colleague, I will immediately explain why.

What is there now? What has been done? The social tariffs will apply to fixed and mobile phones. That is good. The latter is, by the way, a proposal that we submitted in early 2004 through a resolution from former colleague Vervotte and myself. The majority successfully accepted this. Paars wants to set a fixed rate for the accommodation. As a result, when the total price of the subscription increases, the share of the satisfaction decreases. The CD&V proposal, on the other hand, consisted in fixing the social rate as a percentage of the total price. Thus, the response remains up-to-date and on the level.

Let me explain from the facts why this is so. In theory, of course, one could say that it can also go in the other direction. What do we see? At the time of drafting the bill, the price of the standard subscription of Belgacom was 16.80 euros per month. In the bill, therefore, an amount of 8.40 euros, which is 50%, was predetermined as a discount on the subscription fee. Meanwhile, however, the price of the standard subscription has risen to 17.15 euros, so the discount has become less interesting. The social subscription has become less social. By asserting that the satisfaction must be 50% it evolves with the price of the subscription.

Positive in the draft is that all categories of rightholders on the social rate will now receive the highest discount. Letting the consumer choose between a social rate on the fixed or on the mobile phone is one of the more important, if not the most important realization of the design. We are pleased that one year after the submission of our proposal on this subject, that now will become reality.

By the way, what colleague Casaer has proposed brings very strange results. The draft submitted by the government provided for a social benefit of EUR 23 per two-month period when there are only call costs to be paid. This is not about a subscription. Due to an amendment by the socialist Casaer and consorts, that in the adopted text fell to 6.2 euros. The reasoning of the amendment does not clearly explain why this happened. I admit that we have only recently obsolete its effects. I wonder if that was really the intention of our socialist colleagues. In any case, they have made the final text much less social than the original. We did not expect that from that side.

I illuminate this for a moment. A meeting in the call costs of 6.2 euros in two months is, of course, an alms. After all, when using the mobile phone, the cost of calling is much higher than when using the fixed line.

I would therefore like to ask the Minister of Consumer Affairs whether this was really the intention of the amendment. Can you confirm or deny that this is a mistake? I do not know if you would like to respond immediately. If you draw out the scenarios according to the strict interpretation of the last coordinated version, we find very specific for that category where there are only call costs, and there is no need to be paid for a flat rate for a subscription, that they get rid of a lot more bad. What do we learn? As a result of the amendment of Casaer and consounds, they receive 100 euros a year less.

I did not agree. I had my reserves in this mathematics. If you read it correctly, you can see that we abstained in the vote on this amendment. If I look at things in detail... You must understand it. If all the amendments are submitted so late, you will forgive me. I can hardly believe that this was intended. I think this must be a mistake. That is my second very concrete question to the government. Or my third, I already have two for Mrs. Van den Bossche and one for Minister Verwilghen.

In connection with the social rates, I would also like to know when the central database of the BIPT will start. Apparently, some of the alternative operators are already receiving phone calls from people who want to become social subscribers with the operator of their choice. As long as there is no central database, the operators will have to forward these people to the historical operator. This already leads to dissatisfaction among several customers.

The operators, of course, also fear a negative image of the sector. I would emphasize that the alternative operators would like to offer social subscriptions where appropriate, but for the time being they simply cannot. Should the situation settle and the alternative operators have to refer, the historical operator’s share of the social subscribers will be very high in the calculation of the ratio of the social subscribers versus the market share.

Compensation is predictable. The BIPT has already had a consultation with the operators about the modalities a few months ago but since then, they say to me, it remains silent and nobody actually knows how it is now. I would have asked the Minister for a response. Can you say against when this database, yet a very essential element in the success of one of the most essential matters of this law,... I hope that people will be heard, that the operators can follow the choice made by the consumer at this point.

Let me go back to the competition by dividing it into geographical areas. Now it is so. The draft considers Belgium as a single geographical area. This has as a consequence that in practice only Belgacom will be able to offer the universal services such as telephone cell, fixed line, telephone guide and intelligence service, one could say grosso modo because only it covers the entire territory.

In a previous draft, however, the division into geographical areas was provided, but this was apparently achieved under pressure from the socialist parties. Our proposal was to divide into different geographical areas so that, for example, Telenet and Belgacom could compete in Flanders. This would have resulted in a price drop and the contribution of other operators to the fund could be reduced to a minimum. The majority voted against this proposal. The illustration, colleague De Padt, of liberal ideas was taken here under the pressure of the socialists.

And then again—this disturbs me—from a wrong motivation, from an outdated unity thought and systematically defended by a liberal, you, Mr. De Padt. It does not fit here and leaves the government behind with more costs. From the spirit of your group, I do not understand why you have systematically advocated this. That he had to, I think, is the most plausible explanation.

I come to the social broadband rate for people with motor disabilities, for CD&V an important point. At the moment, the universal service is limited to telephone lines, payment phones, guide and intelligence services. There is no adjustment possible of what we understand by universal service. Broadband internet is not included and will prove essential in the coming years. For people with motor disabilities — I expressly give it — the Internet is a necessary condition for getting in touch with others. Several of these Internet-related, IP-related technologies have been implemented in their utility equipment. Sp.a makes important statements on this subject. When are these statements made? The answer is: once the vote in the committee is behind. It is a missed opportunity.

Our proposal was to allow a social broadband rate for people with motor disabilities. They cannot be deprived of a technology that is so essential for their contact with the outside world, also important for communication within the target audience, for transactions with government agencies or with a supermarket that can deliver at home. In this way, one does not have to do the displacement, which is very difficult in itself, and it can be avoided.

Our proposal is also wider. It can also be thought of telecare applications in which one can communicate with a healthcare provider via a webcam. Kortrijk has already developed examples in this regard years ago that are finding their way in with growing success. All this promotes the self-sufficiency of people with motor disabilities.

In addition, we also proposed an annual review of the services that should be covered by the universal service. The BIPT shall annually report on a possible extension. We propose such an extension for broadband internet. It was not an extreme proposal at all. It would have opened the door for better social legislation and the development of better technological frameworks for these target groups that are vulnerable and dear to us as Christian Democrats. However, the door was closed and they didn’t even want to consider it. It was not even intended to provide in the law that the BIPT could draw up that updated listing.

Mr. Deseyn, in the committees one may speak unlimited, I have opinions to hear. If you can make decisions slowly but surely? I know your knowledge on this subject, but in a plenary session it is usually 30 minutes. It doesn’t come in a few minutes, you know, Mr. Van Parys. Not with me. I have sinned enough, you know. If you could decide, Mr. Deseyn, it would be interesting.

... ...

I usually have knowledge.

That is of course painful.

For the others usually, yes.

I can guess why the president is intervening now. He may also be surprised that around this time, after the discussion in the committee, we could read in the newspaper that a socialist member of the committee launched such a proposal and declared that the social broadband rate would be fully advocated.

“They’re going to be quite disturbing in Europe,” it was stated. Could one have forgotten that one can also pre-finance the matter, if one wants to? Then we would rush away from the good example. What do we say to the Christian Democratic Group, Mr. President? No faith without works.

As for the listing of the most advantageous tariff plan on the invoice: in Belgium, people pay, relatively, too much for their telecom subscription. This was also demonstrated in the study of TestA purchase, which suggested that it was a surplus of 910 million euros for the GSM users alone. Of course, consumers are lost in the tariff plans. I do not want to come back in extension to the discussion we have had around the invoice. We therefore supported the colleague’s amendment and that was actually even more extensive than our proposal on this subject.

Can I let you interrupt by Mr. De Coene? I hear that you are also defending your amendments and that allows a little more flexibility.

First of all. I think you may leave Mr. Deseyn to speak long for us, because we ourselves will be ⁇ short.

Here, Mr. Deseyn, you really take a walk with reality. You have also done this several times during the treatment in the committee. You say that when it comes to the entry on the invoice, your proposal goes beyond ours.

... ...

You expressed yourself incorrectly.

That is right. Mr. De Coene is right.

I say now formally: we acknowledge that this is more extensive than our proposal on this subject. This is how I edited the text today. I would not dare to oppose a self-declared architect of the telecommunications law dating back to before you sat in the Chamber.

It will probably be a personal fact.

Mr. Deseyn, stop doing so childish! Let me speak for a moment. I have never declared myself an architect of anyone or something, as much as we have copied with the majority of your amendments. We are not doing politics at that level. You know that very well. Why are you sitting here now so polemizing, actually ignoring the real ground and content of those amendments?

Your group leader says in a debate on the Seventh Day that this Parliament has become nothing, because we do not take any initiative and do not submit any amendment. What did we do with the majority? We consulted and submitted a number of fundamental amendments. That is all we have done: no more, no less. For the rest, we have not sinned at any great speech.

If certain things have not been realized, including where you refer to the broadband technology chapter, you know very well with me that we have done this because in the construction we have in mind the operators pay for the compensation and not the government, because that is your proposal.

You say that we are chasing the government at the expense. But it is precisely with your amendment that you would have the Universal Service Fund paid by the taxpayer. Who is chasing the government, who is chasing the taxpayer, then on costs? From our concept, we say: Let’s wait, because we know that in 2005 the European Commission is reviewing the directives on universal service on the telecommunications market. The European Commission knows that technological developments such as broadband and internet technologies must be incorporated. If that happens, we can make an adjustment very quickly so that broadband technology can become socially tarified, not only for persons with motor disabilities but also for the 400,000 people who are currently eligible for a tariff reduction via a social phone tariff.

Mr. Speaker, I have to thank our colleague, because I find it really fantastic what is now being brought to light. From CD&V we always say: a reliable government and legal certainty. If you want to do something more for certain social categories, don’t just turn it off on the market players. Then I can also make the reasoning: sp.a is a big advocate of "free" for certain categories; free public transport, for example. Are you going to do that on the bus companies? and no. It is not about expanding their network, but about a linear free policy, which you fortiori turn off on the taxpayer. I think that sp.a with its free policy must be the last one who can say that here additional costs are transferred to the taxpayer.

As for your other comment, I can only parafrase you in my answer: let us all be mature. Regarding the content, you ⁇ do not have to blame CD&V that we would not have bowed ourselves over the concrete content, because I think we are the only faction that has word for word passed through all of the present draft.

I will return to my speech on behalf of my group.

We did a huge job in the committee and there were a lot of amendments from the majority. It is a pretense on your part to say that you are the only one who is concerned with this bill. This is to hide all the work provided by your colleagues. You were not the only and the only one. We were 17 in the committee and we really worked a lot on this government project, submitting amendments that changed it from bottom to bottom, as you said. I ask you to give back to Caesar what belongs to Caesar.

Mrs. Lalieux, I admit that we are not the unique and the only ones who have passed the draft word for word. But I can tell you — that’s really true, you can’t dispute it — that with our many amendments and corrections we may have been the only group that improved the systematically wrong references to previous legislation.

By the way, not only I say that. Things are still coming to light. Read the communique of the VVSG, which states that by an incorrect reference, again to a law on subsistence minimum tractors, actually now the lifelongers are excluded — imagine — from the social rate. I read in communiqués that with the amendment of Mr De Coene this is still settled in extremis today. I also hear about technical corrections.

I must admit that we all worked hard. However, you should not say that we were just polemizing.

I was also pressured about this at the committee meeting, when Mr. De Coene said: “Let’s just stop systematically giving the impression that we are looking over the shoulder.” I then — rightly, I think — replicated that, if it should be so, there could be a peaceful meeting in the cabinet, the committee meeting should not be held anymore, and that everything could be arranged among each other.

We are here from the opposition. Our job is to expose things. We will continue to do that consistently, for 100% in the Flemish majority, and for 200% here in the opposition. This is the purpose of Parliament.

Mr. Deseyn, now you have to decide. You have a lot over your speech time, if I ask you now. The regulation also counts for something.

I have a few amendments. I suggest that I incorporate them now and then stop speaking during the article-based discussion.

That is good.

There are 10 amendments. For a reasonable period, however, by amendment, I may use that period now.

Then I will later say that you refer to your argument in defense of your amendments. well well ? Do we talk that way?

and agreed. We talk about it like that.

If you want to be concise, please.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk now about the free helpdesk for network problems. That is again such a point.

Colleagues, I will agree to tell you something from the committee, before the anecdote. Colleague De Crem, colleagues of the group, it is about cooperation. Here it is said that there must be collaboration with CD&V. What is happening? Minister Van den Bossche agrees with one aspect of my amendment and also with an amendment by Mr De Padt. She says that she does not dislike those amendments and suggests submitting them together. Colleague De Padt and I do that, listening to the good advice of the minister. Working together is also submitting together. However, this was not in the line of the socialist group. These amendments were signed by a CD&V! The amendment was withdrawn and submitted again by a majority. These are the great principled attitudes! This is what the helpdesk is about.

Mr. Deseyn, this is not right now. You say, “Go to meetings in the cabinet.”

What is your technique? Your technique is that you submit an amendment. You so-called agree with the minister — at least you say that in the newspaper — and you get an agreement from the minister.

However, you do not speak to your fellow MPs. No No No No No No! Your parliamentary approach is one where you say, “I have an agreement with the minister on an amendment.” So why do you accuse us that we would meet in the cabinet?

By the way, that was a personal interpretation, because in the debate afterwards we asked the minister how it was with that agreement. It turned out to be a highly personal interpretation of you.

In all honesty, Mr Deseyn, we have approved or not approved your amendments according to our assessment of them. That may be a party-political assessment, undoubtedly based on insights and our program, but we never voted against amendments because accidentally your name was on them. Furthermore, if we had voted against them, we would not have approved any amendment from you. We did not do that.

Mr. De Padt, regarding the problem of the helpdesk for network problems you were a sporty player. It is only a pity that you had to let yourself do this.

When it comes to accessible payment phones, people with disabilities experience many problems with phone cells. The cabin is not accessible to those in a wheelchair and for those with reduced vision, usually the seniors, the letters on the screen are too small. According to the draft, the King may, on the advice of the Institute, impose additional basic requirements for certain equipment. The possibility offered in the present design is not mandatory. The word “can” is used. Our intention was therefore to provide for a more compulsory obligation.

I would like to say something more about the expensive paylines that need to be suspended. In the press, this is called the hot Nancy file. Since mid-2004, there has been a non-binding code of conduct that payment line providers must abide by. CD&V pointed out that the sanctions annex was empty. Mrs. Minister, you remember the blanco fax with which I swung at that time. You stated that it was a forgetfulness. On a survey in October 2004, the appendix was still not completed. In fact, Minister Van den Bossche stated that for effective sanctions will wait until 2005. Meanwhile, the appendix has been filled in, but a lot of people have already received a pepperdure account.

Our proposal is to provide for the immediate entry into force of the Code of Ethics for Payment Lines. This has a much more compelling character than a code of conduct. However, the majority did not want to commit to a specific date regarding the entry into force of the Ethics Committee and the associated code.

As for the information for the caller, as for the tariff, the following. The tariff is unclear. After all, by an incorrect or unclear display of the rate at the service or by number transfer, one can no longer deduce from the number what the costs of a call will be. We believe that a clear and unambiguous bi-signal should be introduced. This proposal was supported by the Minister, but was rejected. So you notice, Mr. De Coene, that it can be all sides afterwards.

What specific issues do we support? You will be glad that I am now taking the positive turn. What do we think are the most important things that come into effect immediately? We consider it very important that new potential providers can play on the market through a simple notification and thus, through competition, ensure a reduction of the tariffs so that the threshold of the authorisation system is removed. We are pleased that rightholders will be able to enjoy a social rate at an operator of their choice, on the fixed line or on the GSM, although this does not come into effect immediately. We find it appropriate that all categories of rightholders on a social rate are entitled to the highest compensation, abstract from my comment on that matter. It is good that the easing we have proposed, of the conditions for the elderly with adult children, has disappeared. It is good for the consumer that the link sales will be possible. This may be a benefit for the consumer, while there are sufficient guarantees to prevent abuse.

We welcome the fact that the consumer will need to be informed about the most advantageous tariff plan, as well as the implementation of the tariff simulator on the website of the BIPT. It is also good to work on the entry into force of the Universal Service Fund so that the operators’ helpdesk can be reached via a common geographical number. It’s a pity that it hasn’t gone so far for problems that are due solely to free the operator, but it’s still an important step to put an end to the expensive help lines.

Also in the free antivirus protection we see bread, but it will need to be sufficiently solidly supported.

As was the case with the old telecommunications law, a number of things have been postponed and a number of essential points must be completed at a later time.

We are still waiting for the establishment of the Ethics Committee and the associated development of the Code of Ethics. We are still waiting for the rules related to number blocking. We would like to open I-Line to other providers, primary schools, digital opportunities, and so on. The amount of the administrative contributions remains uncertain, but I will not go further on that. The remaining payment phones in municipalities are a not to be underestimated gap. Colleague Casaer, you know that those cells would be reduced, but to certain categories — such as the lifelongers — a prepaid card will be given for the public telephone cells. I wonder how this reduction is linked.

Mrs. Minister, if I get your attention, is the prepaid card — if there is a technical correction for those lifelongers — only applicable to the public telephone cells or can it be prepaid cards that can also be accessed, among other things, in mobile telephony? This is a very important question to which we will have an answer tonight. I am somewhat concerned about this because I had also put that question in the committee. This gave the impression that it was about pay phone in cells on the street or in the public domain, while I suddenly heard left and right statements that this would not be the case.

I will briefly review, as announced, the submitted amendments. There is a twelve.

I would like to advocate the expansion of I-Line so that even lower schools can enjoy a more favourable rate. I think the motivation is quite simple. There is an attitude and knowledge cultivated and with it one can start better from the first degree, in the lower education, as evidenced by the studies. CD&V considers the access to the information society and the prevention of children from becoming backward at an early age important. It sometimes seems a little too much hype thinking, but we see that in many environments there are still many families who do not have a PC.

Colleagues, in fact, the discussion – if one wants to work on it – is no longer about the further penetration of the number of broadband users in relation to the total population of Internet users, but is the PC ownership the critical success factor for building, among other things, an e-government and ⁇ also to do more work of the digital opportunity work or close the digital gap. This expansion of I-Line is therefore not without effect.

Regarding the exclusive and special rights favouring certain undertakings — which should therefore be banned — it is regrettable that Minister Verwilghen is no longer present.

Sorry, Mr. Minister, I didn’t see you.

It is underestimated that you did not see him.

One of the main objectives of these competition laws was precisely to prohibit or eliminate such matters. It is really a pity that the Minister has had to get involved on this not insignificant point.

The amendment to Article 29, aimed at ensuring that operators contribute to the costs of the BIPT on the basis of actual costs and that they reimburse them in the event of an excess, I have already cited in my argument earlier.

Then we come to the division of the fixed geographical element of the universal service. The VLD has been forced to revive this pronounced liberal idea. It seems to be the red thread in the discussion of the design.

The amendment to add an article that advocates a bi-signal in the transition to another, more expensive network and on which there was an agreement in the heads, but which was not approved in the committee, I have already explained for a bit.

I also advocate an opt-out system. According to the minister, some things can cause irritation in certain people. A simple request should therefore be sufficient to deactivate the service. Colleague Lalieux also spoke in favor of our amendment. I swear to the ⁇ unpretentious colleague Karine Lalieux in this special praise. Therefore, there is another amendment to add Article 120a. This article prevents the reverse billing. I want to stand still for a minute. Consumers and citizens should be able to easily decide whether or not to receive paying text messages. The principle seems logical, but practice teaches the opposite. Many people are unaware of the fact that one can be billed not only for outgoing but also for often unsolicited incoming text messages.

The latter is not legally permitted, but malicious companies are too often lashing down the law. Mr. Minister, we recently had a discussion in the committee on www.sms.ac. You are also conducting an investigation on this.

Not all operators offer the option to prevent paying incoming text messages, the so-called reverse billing. Our proposal is to require all operators to offer this simple but effective option. This is an entirely new idea. It is a problem that develops very quickly. Colleagues, it’s actually incredible how many emails with requests and complaints about those explicitly malafide practices have been sent over the last few weeks. They then ask for your password, which gives them access to your mailbox and your address files. It gives the impression that your friends are contacting you. In fact, all contacted persons are the dupe.

This is a new amendment. We have not yet been able to explain it in the committee. We need the support of the opposition and the majority.

There is an amendment to the article 135a. We want to clearly inform consumers about the price of a call to a expensive so-called infokiosk number. We must recognize it. I took the test on the sum. In practice, we see that the advertisements do not correctly state the prices. The operators usually charge more than what is stated in the ad. Sometimes this can be charged to the operators. Often it is the service providers who are responsible for this. The problem can only be solved by distinguishing between the cost of the information, the content and handling of the call, the traffic costs. In publicity, the cost of the information should then be indicated alongside the notification that the operator also charges traffic costs. It should be clear to the caller which tariff or fees are due for the use of the infokiosk services.

It would actually be good that, if a caller calls to such a sensitive number, he will first hear an objective message saying the price, after which he will have a few seconds to hang in, without being tarified at the specified rate.

In the case of repeated or major infringements, we believe it is advisable to withdraw the numbers of the infokiosk services so that they are no longer accessible.

I hope that the majority can support this very consumer-friendly amendment.

The amendment to Article 8 of the Annex concerns the priority of repairs. In my report, I highlighted the Minister’s point of view. However, I think it is important to note that for persons with disabilities, patients who need special care and persons with disabilities, a communication connection is more essential than for the other categories.

There has been a lot of discussion about veterinarians. We cannot defend your claim that Sunday rest should be guaranteed and that veterinarians would otherwise have lasting priority. We can understand your motivation somewhere. Nevertheless, your defence wraps. Therefore, we would have preferred to have other, in our opinion, more correct priorities.

On the social broadband tariff for people with motor disabilities I will not go back. This discussion is already behind us.

The amendment to Article 27 of the Annex concerns payment phones. We would like to make payment phones compulsory to meet accessibility requirements for people with disabilities, for visually impaired and hard-hearing. The obligation is partly included in the law, but is too non-binding. Nor was it clearly defined which new cells could be subject to the obligation. We advocate that the original proposal, as developed in consultation with the associations committed to the target groups, be adopted by amendment.

Also the discussion about the percentage, about the percentage and the cents, we have fed and illustrated. This topic was also addressed this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, with this I slowly come to the conclusion, still in the conviction that I can expect some answers from the Minister on questions on matters that have not yet or have not been properly regulated in the current law. It is not about political options, but about matters that are problematic and undermine well-intentioned intentions during the drafting of the law.

Colleagues, in the discussion of the new telecommunications law, CD&V received the support of Minister Van den Bossche in a number of important matters, such as making the help desk free for problems entirely due to the operator, adapting within the year the telephone cells to the needs of seniors and people with disabilities, informing the consumer about the price of a call with an infokiosk number and the bibi signal when someone calls to another, more expensive network.

During the voting on the articles in the committee, we saw that the members of the Chamber, including from their own group, voted against these points or submitted amendments that postpone their implementation in the long run. By submitting some amendments — still not 10% of our original number of amendments — we hope for a possible change of attitude, so that the House still contributes to our vision and the vision of the minister.

During the discussion in the committee, the chamber members of sp.a and VLD, when point by point came, rejected certain matters or, due to the multitude of articles, there was not always a crystallized discussion. That is regrettable. Hopefully we can continue the discussion, even after the vote on the law. Sometimes the monologues are too long. I admit that. However, I would have liked to see a bigger debate about the law.

As the discussion shows, despite the missed opportunities, there are, fortunately, many things included in the law that will benefit consumers and ⁇ . Therefore, CD&v has supported the design and will continue to do so later. However, we continue to regret that the file has been drawn so long by internal disagreement between the majority factions, especially since the draft was already 90% ready two years ago.

Meanwhile, it has come to the point that operators are almost begging to approve the design so that they can finally work within a regulatory framework and better oversee liberalization.

Finally, I would like to once again advocate for an urgent expansion of the BIPT workforce. It is this authority that will be involved in enforcing the law, but now struggles with a significant backwardness. I think we should admit this too. There is consensus about the expansion, but I hope that the Minister of Economy will also quickly release the resources.

That was our view on the draft.

Mr Deseyn, I have noted that you defended your amendments — they were numerous and interesting — after your general presentation. This can eventually ease the work at the appropriate time.

First of all, I would like to thank my colleague Mr. Deseyn for his exhaustive report, ⁇ less for his monologue that we had already heard in the committee.

Dear colleagues, we are finally here! After a few months of delay — this has been stressed — our country is about to vote on the telecom package. Not only will we be in order before the European courts but, most importantly, we will have a liberalized market with a clear legal framework. It is absolutely indispensable that this liberalized market, where competition is fierce, impressive investments as well as the money earned, be framed by clear, univocal and precise rules. These provide operators with a long-awaited legal certainty, necessary for their development and growth in our country.

This project transposing various telecom directives had been delayed. Not only do I want to blame the government, but I also want to emphasize that this long review has enabled, on the one hand, Mr. Deseyn, to avoid strong institutional barriers specific to our country and, on the other hand, to improve this project by guaranteeing universal service, strengthening consumer protection and supporting technological innovations. Not bad for a bill.

As an institutional backbone, Mr. Deseyn, you have recalled the difficulty of distributing competences between the federal state and the Communities, with electronic communications and new technologies obviously not perfectly aligned with our institutional complexity. That is the least we can say.

Mr. Deseyn, you were not the only one to recall the existence of an institutional problem. In fact, as part of the general discussion, I was not the only one—Mr. De Coene did the same – having warned the government that this project could not be voted out without a cooperation agreement and the ministers directly set out to work to reach a consensus with the Communities and Regions. We now have this consensus and we must welcome the work done. But, I repeat, we were unanimous in saying this from the beginning.

In any case, both the sector and the communities showed interest. We also want to respect the competences of the Communities and not to impair them or those of the regulators of the various sectors. We have succeeded and that is very good.

The Infrastructure Committee and all the members present helped improve this project, because transposing a directive, colleagues, does not mean simply transposing. In the transposition of directives, there are political choices that we can make, we can weigh politically.

In this regard, Mr. Deseyn, you highlighted the differences between the majority parties. Personally, I believe that differences, if taken into account, enrich the debate and enable projects to improve. The time when parliament only had to approve, without saying anything, a project proposed by the government, this time has passed. Fortunately for us, we have worked to improve this project for citizens and operators based on our values and our own choices.

In fact, we have come to something coherent at the level of this bill. The PS Group is ⁇ pleased to have transformed the project — along with many of its colleagues, especially those of sp.a — into a triple concern to concrete the financing of a universal service of quality across the whole territory — a point on which I will return — to strengthen consumer protection and to secure the internet.

When it comes to universal service, I will not be long because many things have already been said. In particular, it has been said that the Socialists have rejected any veil of regionalization of the universal service. Thro ⁇ the whole project they excluded any reference to a regional or geographical divide that could give rise to a two-speed universal service — that was our concern and our fear, Mr. Deseyn — or even three-speed, six-speed, ten-speed; operators, we know them — and they are right, they are there to make a profit — rushing over the most profitable big cities at the expense of the general interest which does not have to suffer from the notion of profitability. This was an important point for our fellow citizens: there was no need for citizens to be left behind for a universal service.

Colleague Lalieux, please do not misunderstand me. I would not want the quality to be compromised in those different geographical areas, because the standard can be determined universally, unambiguously, uniquely. The realisation of the splitting can produce different providers who can do their thing according to the same quality standards but possibly through a diversified technology. I am therefore of the opinion that the split from a certain convulsion was wrongly welcomed on the basis of fear, which, however, disrupts technology and innovation. For me, there is no state structural or ideological motivation. I’m talking about more benefits for players and consumers, because one can keep the standard uniform, but therefore it doesn’t have to be organized by the same provider. That is actually my point.

The criteria must be uniform. However, if a Region or part of a Region is not served, it will be served by default and, if necessary, it will be deficitary for the choice (we know who it falls on) and for the State. In any case, there were scratches at the level of a regional breakdown.

With regard to universal service, the important thing is that the law guarantees that every service provided by the chosen operator must be provided on the same terms throughout the entire territory.

Another important point: the Compensation Fund for the Social Component of Universal Service is created and will be activated immediately. This is a great victory for us! This fund is activated and financed at the sector level, not at the state level, and a profit-making sector can effectively participate in a social function in society.

In terms of consumer protection, we have supported and extended the work of Minister Freya Van den Bossche. As you mentioned, the law allows the customer to terminate his contract without penalty, when he does not agree with a contractual change. It will therefore need to be individually informed of changes and the possibility to terminate the contract, which is of paramount importance especially in a sector where the information is not always very transparent. In order to be able to knowingly challenge his basic invoice, the customer will also be able to receive a detailed invoice free of charge, which is fundamental. Furthermore, in response to the Test-Achats survey, the customer will receive, once a year, on his invoice, the most advantageous tariff plans or plans that the operator has established according to his particular profile, with the help of the IBPT.

Finally, the commission also influenced the project in terms of information society.

The law obliges the Internet provider and the software provider to take all technical and organizational measures to ensure the security of the network. It is fundamental. Internet and software providers will also be required to offer their subscribers free of charge, taking into account technological developments, appropriate security services to prevent any form of unwanted electronic communication, such as viruses, spyware, etc. This information will be transmitted to the IBPT, which will publish it on its own website, which will allow consumers to compare the levels of safety between the different market players.

After a long discussion - at first, we were not quite convinced - to help develop and expand what is now called the "triple play", that is, the technology that knocks at the doors of our homes - phone, internet and television together - the joint offering will be allowed for sellers active in the sector of telecommunications, information and media technologies for telephone, internet and television services. Since there were many questions on the subject, I would like to clarify that the joint offer is only valid for "triple play" and that therefore it is not a question of using it for a gsm or for an internet subscription.

These are the advances we wanted.

Mr Deseyn, you talked about access to the Internet for people with disabilities. In this regard, Mr. De Coene has already answered you. I am pleased to see that Mr. and Mrs. The ministers are present, because it is up to us to advocate at the European level for a change in the telecommunications directives so that the universal service is extended there. Access to ADSL or broadband should effectively be a right for all, be recognised in the universal service and benefit from intra- and intersectoral financing.

These project advances are significant, both for operators and regulators, and especially for consumers. We will soon vote on this bill with great pleasure.

First and foremost, I would like to join the congratulations of the previous speaker to Mr Deseyn for the completeness of his report. I would also like to congratulate Mr Deseyn for his expertise in this area. I thought at first, Mr. Deseyn, when I heard you dealing with that matter at the beginning, that you were coming from one or another operator, but that turned out later, when I read your curriculum, not to be the case.

Ladies and gentlemen, today we discuss one of the more important bills of recent years. This is important since it is a very important sector for our economy. It is important for consumers, the citizens. It is important in the context of the development of the knowledge society. And it is also important because the transposition of the European directives on this subject had to be carried out urgently.

The importance of the draft law can also be deducted from the extent of the thorough discussion that was held and the large number of amendments due to the opposition, but also from the large number of amendments submitted by the majority. Despite the scale and balanced nature of the bill, substantial improvements have yet to be made.

The result of the implementation of the draft is that our country may in the future have a modern and progressive framework on electronic communications, where the liberalization of the market, on the one hand, and the protection of the consumer, on the other, are not only reconciled but strengthen each other. Competition and consumer protection do not contradict each other. On the contrary, competition works for the benefit of consumers. It is a basic prerequisite for establishing consumer protection.

In what follows, I will emphasize some liberal accents in the design.

First, the design removes all unnecessary conditions for entering the market. From now on, a candidate operator will no longer be required to apply for an authorisation with the BIPT. Instead, he will only be expected to submit a notification and, in addition to his intention to operate a service or network, the operator is only required to communicate a minimum number of data to the BIPT. A general authorisation replaces the existing authorisation scheme. Any operator who submits such notification shall be entitled to offer its services to the public. Only if he needs numbers or frequencies for his services must he wait for a decision of the BIPT.

As a result of majority amendments, the ban on link sales in the telecommunications sector is lifted. As a result of technological developments, certain products and services increase each other. For the provider, it becomes increasingly difficult and artificial to offer different but convergent services separately. Thus now allowing bundled offers will enable him to compile packages, tailored to the needs of consumers. For consumers, the lifting of the ban on linked sales will most likely also lead to price advantages. Nevertheless, it should be emphasized that providers still have to offer each of the packaged products or services individually so that the consumer still has the option of choosing whether to receive a package of services from a customer or rather a specific service.

Subsequently, the draft provides that all broadband providers can go to schools, hospitals and libraries to make subsidised broadband offer via I-line. Previously, only Belgacom was able to bring broadband offerings to schools, hospitals and libraries through this project.

The draft law also provides the necessary legal certainty. The new law transforms a set of legislation that has been amended several times over the years into a transparent and coherent whole. Creating a stable and simple legal framework for the electronic communications sector is important. The regulation is adapted to the market situation: no rules if none are needed. The core of the draft law on market definition and market analysis is flexibility. The rules are adapted to the constantly changing market situation. If a market is sufficiently competitive, specific rules are no longer needed on that market. Only the rules on fair competition will apply. However, where undertakings have a strong position on the market and thus threaten to disturb the smooth functioning of the market, additional obligations remain necessary. Specifically, the BIPT will only intervene in the market behavior of undertakings if two cumulative conditions are met. First, there is a competition problem in a particular market. Second, European and Belgian competition law are not sufficient to solve this problem.

It is also important to note that the BIPT as a sector-specific regulator and the general competition authority, the Competition Council, should work together in order to provide a coherent and streamlined approach.

The bill also takes into account new technological and social developments. Due to the yet significant increase in the number of GSM users, there is less and less need for a expensive cell on every corner of the street. A first decomposition of the phone cell park will be able to begin after its entry into force. Further degradation will be linked to a further increase in GSM penetration. Thus, in that area as well as in other areas, the universal service can evolve with the changing technological possibilities and societal requirements.

The social service, which in fact must be distinguished from the universal service, is anchored and expanded by the design. Social rates are no longer limited to the fixed line. In the future, the beneficiary may choose to enjoy his social rate with his mobile operator rather than on his fixed line. Social rates can, colleagues, be a useful supplement to the free market. However, they should not disturb the functioning of the market. It should ⁇ not distract us from the essence of the matter, namely that it is precisely the competition that enables low rates and a quality supply, even for the less wealthy. The latter also benefit from the dynamism present in the sector, a dynamism that also ensures that the government itself does not have to press on the financing of social services. That too can sometimes be said.

Of course, the necessary rules will still need to be adopted in order to exclude abuses and to ensure a balanced and equitable sharing of the burden among the different providers. In this context, Mrs. Minister, I had a question. The draft stipulates that the compensation will take place as soon as the Universal Service Fund for Social Tariffs is operational and at the latest during the year following the entry into force of the article. However, it seems to me obvious that the database of users of social rates will have to be operational before the compensation mechanism can come into force, otherwise its abuses may not be excluded. Is this also your view, Mr. President? In other words, does the Minister agree with me that compensation can only be provided after the database is set up?

Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Minister, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the VLD group considers the present draft positive. It will frame and further promote the development of a dynamic market for electronic communications. In particular, the consumer will have the greatest advantage in terms of price, quality, service and network security. We will approve this draft. I thank you.

First of all, I would like to thank our colleague Deseyn for his comprehensive and detailed report.

The transposition into domestic law of a European directive is a procedure that, on the level of parliamentary work, is not supposed to create too many surprises since it is, a priori, a legal exercise. When it comes to transposing into Belgian law a set of directives relating to electronic communications, the exercise becomes delicate as European standards must fit into an institutional framework whose evolution has not followed that of the regulatory framework for telecommunications.

In 1980, when the special law of 8 August attributed to the Communities the competence in the fields of broadcasting and television, it was unthinkable that the Régie, which then exercised the monopoly in the field of telephony, would, twenty-five years later, broadcast television programs through its infrastructure originally created for telephony.

This large gap between an institutional system, which this year celebrates its first quarter-century, and a European regulation that adapts to the technological evolution of telecommunications appeared during the consideration of the draft law on electronic communications. The European vocabulary for "electronic communications" encompasses both telecommunications, including the Internet, and teledistribution.

Very soon, this project had to be eased by a number of articles due to a cooperation agreement that was still to be negotiated between the federal and the Communities.

As my colleagues have specified, we also welcome the conclusion of this agreement, in the form of a concertation committee, an agreement that puts an end to the dispute that had led to the Court of Arbitration to annul, at the request of the Flemish Community, Article 14 of the IBPT Organic Law which fixed the tasks of the Institute. From now on, nothing is opposed to the IBPT regaining its full competence.

Through the cooperation agreement, the federal regulator of the telecommunications sector is finally recognised by its Community counterparts. Therefore, the regulation of the sector as a whole will gain in effectiveness to the benefit of all stakeholders, whether consumers or operators. The adoption of this bill will contribute to increasing the readability of telecommunications legislation. This text, which is presented to us today, has the merit of bringing together provisions which, until now, were scattered into several separate laws. From now on, a commercial telephony operator will no longer have to consult the 1991 Public Companies Act that governs its main competitor in order to know its rights and obligations in this sector of activity. The inconsistency, which required that in 1997 the provisions on the liberalization of the telecommunications market be incorporated into the law fixing the public status of Belgacom, is now removed.

Satisfaction is therefore at stake, both from the operators in the sector and from consumers who should benefit, in general, from the positive effects of increased competition and, in particular, from the strengthening of the universal service. The satisfaction of seeing a distant promise come true – the directives date, it should be recalled, from 2002 – is tired by the long wait that has worn out the patience of operators who, since July 2003, planned to take advantage of the new regulatory framework to develop their activities.

Belgium may not be the last to have transposed this directive, but there is no reason to rejoice, especially since the Belgian state has just been convicted, on 10 March, by the Court of Luxembourg for failure to fulfill its obligations of transposition.

We must not neglect the deadlines for transposition in the face of passing despite us for eurosceptics. It is not because our fellow citizens are deprived of the legitimate right to give their opinion on the draft European Constitution that they should also wait almost two years to benefit from the effects of the new regulation on communications, in terms of competition and better protection. However, it was the euro-optimism that presided over the discussions in the committee.

The optimism is such that with the amendment that introduces mobile telephony in the universal service, our assembly anticipates the revision of the Universal Service Directive which will open in July next year. This is a political signal to the negotiators who will be responsible for this revision. This signal will be even stronger if the bill, which has already been unanimous in the Infrastructure Committee, is adopted by a large majority and if the optimism of the House is then shared by the Senate. It is clear that the MR group will support this project. I thank you for your attention.

Mr. Speaker, members of the Government, respectable colleagues, I can be very brief, because I think that the rapporteur — and I would like to congratulate him for this — has explained quite thoroughly what is ultimately stated in the text and what work was done in the committee.

I don’t always agree with what he brought in the second part. That has nothing to do with authorship, for, Mr. Deseyn, I am not a supporter of the argumentum ad hominem that states that one judges something based on who it comes from. We have examined all your proposals and have examined whether we could stand behind them, regardless of whether or not you were the author. We found some of your proposals indisputable improvements.

You are right that we must make a technical correction even today, because otherwise the design would leave some people in the cold. Indeed, there has been a misconduct in the Annex and Article 22, which refers to a law. However, there should have been a reference to a more recent law, so that the social rate can also be applied to survivors, and that is about 80,000 people in this country. Let us improve that through a technical change and not really through an amendment.

You mentioned the text of the VVSG. The VVSG, of which I am also a member as a municipal mandatar in Kortrijk, has responded very late. We are working on the discussion for six to seven months and two days before the vote in the plenary session, she will come up with a response. It is good that we implement the change and therefore let us not argue about it anymore. No one had seen the problem until then, neither the State Council, nor the legislative secretariat, nor the eminent members who worked on it. Mrs Lalieux and others explained our amendments very well. I will definitely not repeat that. I think we are facing a number of challenges when this law comes into force. I am not so calm. We have all adopted a number of ambitious provisions that are slowly going beyond what was stated in the original draft.

Let me give one example. We approved a number of amendments on Internet security, which in fact added a chapter on Internet security. I am far from sure that the operators and other stakeholders will also apply the provisions as quickly. I think it will be the task of the MEPs to verify whether the provisions in that chapter and also in other chapters, for example, regarding the invoicing and the indication of the most favourable tariff scheme, are actually applied. I feel the resistance in this area also in the discussions with the field and the players in the market. All the time, one tries to weaken or interpret provisions in favor of a well-understood private interest and not the general interest.

I would like to speak to Mr. De Padt. I now learn that the entry into force of the Compensation Fund, according to some, must be absolutely related to and even preceded by the establishment of a database.

That may be good, provided that again it is not a forerunner, not a freelance to delay the entry into force of the compensation fund. After all, we know who it is; we know which persons are benefited by it, and we know grosso modo the cost price. The cost price is also compensated, or at least corrected by a number of indirect return effects. So we know — it is stated in the Annex — what should or should not be charged. Let us not again look for delay. The fact that we have proposed the direct compensation action has only to do with the fact that we are concerned about the consumers who are eligible for it. The faster an operator can be compensated if he actually perceives a greater portion than his market share of social tarification, the more motivated he will be to do so. On the one hand, we know that the beneficiary lists of the social tariff must undoubtedly be corrected, but on the other hand we know that social tariffs are sometimes allowed with long teeth.

Mr. Deseyn, I would like to get into the reasoning of cents or percentages. It is not a discussion of objectives, because I think that you and we are equally concerned with social tarification, more specifically the way it is applied, in cents or in percentages. I think we both, opposition and majority, have the same aim, in particular to make the telephone market and, in the long run, the internet market accessible to as many people as possible by applying social corrections on it. Then one can discuss how to ⁇ this.

I was also initially of the opinion, like some consumer organisations, that it is better to use a percentage basis. However, in this system there are a number of perfide effects. In this case, the general cost of, for example, a subscription or call costs is ignored. If it is a certain percentage of the invoice, it means that the one who deals with higher prices is corrected. However, this is not immediately more beneficial for the consumer, ⁇ not for the social beneficiary. After all, you know very well that there is a tension in the prices and subscription prices. In the end, the consumer may not benefit.

Now there is the advantage of clarity. One knows how much it costs and one will therefore automatically look for the operator with the best rates, which is actually a much better system.

I cannot follow you on that point. You talk about the percentage and the cost of the call. That percentage and the discussion about 50% or 8 euro discount, however, is about the share in the subscription: this is subscription related. In the event that there are no subscription fees, but only call costs, specific modules were incorporated into the law, such as in the Casaer amendment, resulting in a negative outcome.

So I do not understand your reasoning about the percentage of the cost price, if you charge the cost of the call. I have said that I am aware that with a price drop, the percentage discount is less advantageous. I thought that in this regard the article should be refined. We already notice, since the preliminary design, that the balance sheet is more negative for that category of consumers, if one works through the fixed amount, because it is based on 8, half of 16, while the basic subscription price is 18 and one should actually be entitled to 9, although it remains 8.

This is about the subscription prices. I do not understand your argument correctly. Of course, we are indeed in agreement on the purpose, but in fact the law article in question – we may do so later – needs to be refined. In fact, one must work with certain clicket systems that follow the fluctuation of the market price of a standard subscription, on which the definition of the social welfare system is based.

Mr. Deseyn, I am not convinced of this. But again, be sure, it is not a point of faith, it is just a certain methodology that we use. I think we might have to make another arrangement. When I say that we will have to follow a number of developments, once the law is in force, let us follow that part. If indeed it turns out that in the long run the consumers, and specifically that target group, get rid of it, then let us make the agreement that this is subject to change. Because the stupid thing would be to discuss resources where we would better discuss goals. It is a certain methodology that we are in favour of but should it turn out that it would eventually overcome its purpose or even have perverse effects, let us then have the flexibility to look at that eventually, as we will undoubtedly also have to look at a number of other things.

At some point, I got a response to the suggestions I had thrown on the table regarding internet security: is that the most ideal? I am convinced that in the current state of affairs one cannot say which proposals are the most ideal. We will also have to look at that.

Mr. De Padt was right when he said: it must be a commitment of "engagement", of "struggle to", and not of "reach." We saw it in the newspaper yesterday. When one sees the speed at which new viruses are fired on the computer system, one must at least ensure that those who are present on the market make sure that those products are as safe as possible. That is the least one can ask, just as one can ask that the government supervises it very actively and just as the consumer, or organisations that use digital telecommunications, should take the responsibility to protect themselves. It is actually a kind of triangular relationship, in which each partner in the market or in the Internet events assumes its responsibility.

Mr De Padt wishes to interrupt you briefly.

Very briefly, Mr President. Mr. De Coene, I have to go out for a non-electronic need. I did not hear the response to the question I asked the Minister, to link the entry into force of the compensation fund to the database. My colleague here next to me, however, said that you developed your vision for a moment and that you argued that something should not be delayed. I agree with it. The legislation is clear and sets a deadline for this. But I think that it should be all of our concerns to avoid any kind of abuse, abuse which, in my opinion, can only be addressed when one has all the data that may be available in this regard.

This requires, in my opinion, a database so that each operator — with the emphasis on each — could act with knowledge of matters and anticipate and respond to questions he would receive in this regard. So I just ask the minister the question: do you not think it is necessary that every operator knows what he is doing? That is just my question.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say the following, just to clarify, because I think there should be no problem at all. As soon as the law is approved, the BIPT receives a letter from me. That database already exists, which is now at Belgacom. The only thing that needs to happen is that BIPT takes over. This is quite quickly finished. Therefore, there is no risk that the database would not exist before all compensation comes into effect. So I think it is an inexistent problem.

Mr. De Padt, it is good that you warn of an abuse. But, you know, it is also an abuse if one operator would apply proportionally much more social rates and would not receive compensation for it. If we can make the link between no misuse of data and no misuse of system, then we are, I think, well. I would like to conclude with the following consideration.

Mr. Deseyn, something we have also lively discussed with you is the expansion of social tariffing in broadband technology. I think, very objectively, that a number of things need to be examined more closely. I think we are both in favor of this. I know that your social concern for this is very large.

First, we must at least have a definition of broadband technology. What is the correct flow that is meant by it? This must be recorded. I think it can. But not everyone agrees with this, you should understand.

Secondly, we differ on the concept of payment of that social invoice. We advocate that in a lucrative market the market players contribute as much as possible themselves and as little as possible the taxpayer. Suppose that we would intervene on your proposal, in which we indeed take the invoice on us, then we are in a kind of dual system in which we have one to pay by the market and the other to pay by the government. I suggest that we exercise some patience in this regard.

But you are right: it is a great concern. I recently spoke with people, including from the Multiple Sclerosis League, who explain to us how much they are actually attached to that device, how much they need it for their communication and exchange of data with anyone. That is a real concern.

I find — and I admit that it sounds somewhat provocative — a European condemnation is not always bad. It depends on what Europe condemns us for. If Europe condemned us because we are social for the disabled, because we are social for the people who are no longer out of their homes, then I would say — I admit: from a parliamentary bank, not from a ministerial bank — that we can risk such a condemnation. That would say more about Europe than about the one who took those measures.

By the way, we hope—don’t be sorry that I would like to comment on that—that the European People’s Party will adhere to this approach. I remember from my past as a member of the European Parliament. At that time, from the Socialist Group, I, together with Mr Willockx, submitted an amendment relating to the stage of Internet technology at that time — there was no broadband technology at that time — and I must tell you that I received only very partial support from the then EPP Group. If we work together here, we will also have to work together with all of us at European level.

I would like to thank you and I hope we can stay alert together.

Thank you, Mr De Coene.

Mr Van den Eynde, you are the last of the speakers in the general discussion of these bills. The Minister will then speak briefly. Then I will have the article-based discussion. After that, I will conclude the afternoon meeting, which is still a bit running out.

First and foremost, I would like to join the words of congratulations that have already been spoken to the reporter. This report was very comprehensive and accurate and, as Mr. De Padt said, very expert. It does not happen so often that we get a report of this quality. This can also be said.

I listened attentively to this debate. A first conclusion I have had to make is that the concept of time here has received a very relative and subjective dimension. Mr De Coene says the VVSG reacts very slowly. She has been in possession of this text for six to seven months and only then have they responded. I will be honest, it is again with Mr. Deseyn that I went over the counsel. Mr De Padt, on 17 November we started the discussion of this text in the committee. We have waited for a long time. If I say that we’ve been working on this for four months, I’m right. We have had to wait a long time for this text.

Mr. De Coene, that is not a problem. You were well caught on the subjectivity of the time concept today and overlooked by Mrs. Lalieux who said it took a few months. Sorry, but it took a few years. Not the text has taken a few years, but the adaptation to the European telecommunications directives. We are among the last of the class. I think we should not be proud of that. I think the comparison with Luxembourg would not be fair, but Belgium is therefore at the level of Greece. Mr. De Coene, you can say that sometimes it is not so bad to be condemned by Europe, but in this case this is not something to be proud of. If the country where the capital of Europe is located hangs so far behind, then I think there is something to be said about it.

Then something very strange happened to this design, something that surprised me because I haven’t experienced it so often. Everyone, the majority and the opposition, agreed that we should finish this as soon as possible. I don’t think anyone in this case felt that there had to be braking down and looking for small arguments to lose time.

It is very strange that this has lasted so long. Sometimes the government ignored it and sometimes the majority. It is, in my opinion, not wrong that we later — I believe it was Mr. Deseyn — have heard references to meetings in cabinets. Not that it is so dishonest or something one should be ashamed of — far from — but it was my impression, and I believe I wasn’t the only one, that during the whole evolution of the discussion of this draft in the Infrastructure Committee — a draft that everyone was convinced it should come soon — there were some tensions in the majority that had to be removed every time.

I would like to stay still for a very little while at one of those inhibitions or bottlenecks where the majority had to struggle and where, by the way, in the event that I refer, it has not passed. This is the geographical division. I don’t think anyone will contradict me in this hemisphere when I suggest that this is something else than a community division. It has to do with it, but it is something fundamentally different.

Some Flemish parties had won for a geographical division, also in the majority, but with all the strength the brake was set up by the French-speaking majority party PS. We have since heard Mrs. Lalieux once again defend this here. She began to state that it had nothing to do with ideology at all and that it had nothing to do with politics at all. Don’t apologize, but I had a strong impression that we were dealing here with a kind of Jacobine reflex. If it is not truly unitary in all meanings of the word and not only in Belgian (...) then we will face difficulties. There was clearly a fear of decentralization that I can only call ideological.

Let us admit, Mrs. Minister, that the geographical division has not really come. Not really . This has all to do with one of the most important tension fields we have experienced. If I say “meet-made”, that is also an euphemism, because in the committee we could not see so much of it. It has, in any case, occurred and the Flemish parties — as it usually happens — have to lay their thumbs.

Does that mean that my party will vote against it? and no. I tell you honestly that, however, without much effort, I could find a few other arguments to resist it hard, or at least to pretend. There is, for example, the whole case of radio communications in Brussels, which is not really solved.

On the other hand, I must admit that the whole sector is really impatiently waiting for the law. I mean the sector in a broad sense. We also consulted this sector. We have had regular consultations.

Therefore, it would be irresponsible to vote against this for purely political reasons. We will therefore vote yes, but with the reservation that I have formulated here afterwards.

Mr. Speaker, before I finish, I would still like to remain a moment at a message that my good colleague Mortelmans has given me. He has drawn my attention to and instructed me to draw the attention of the Chamber and of the Government to the Ethics Committee, more specifically to the task that the Ethics Committee can take on.

The ethics committee, which will be set up, will be charged with handling complaints relating to the telecommunications sector and drawing up a code that will define the conditions under which telecommunications must work ethically with us.

He draws attention to a case he has been following for a while and which is undoubtedly important, namely the problem of internet gambling. There is a lack of real figures. However, one knows from scientific figures that in 2003 in the Netherlands 5.3% of the population addicted - there is no other word for - was to internet gambling. This addiction will undoubtedly cause problems on the social level and also on the personal level in society. Therefore, it would be very good that the Ethics Committee would also interfere with this and seek a solution. After all, we cannot allow ourselves to continue living with that social disease – I have no other word for it. So far, very little has been said and even less done. With this urgent cry, I end my speech.

Mr. Speaker, colleague, ladies and gentlemen of the Parliament, the advantage of the rapporteur’s presentation is that, because he has gone quite in detail, we do not have to take some points back in the discussion here.

Allow me to say in general, political terms that through the European impulse, which was necessary to liberalize the telecommunications market in the 1990s, since then a number of spectacular changes have occurred in the telecommunications landscape. Consider the increase in GSM usage. In less than ten years, we have obtained a penetration rate of more than 80% of the population using that instrument.

Second, Belgium plays a leading role in broadband. With more than 1 million residential users, it is necessary to be able to further support technical development legally.

Third, there is the rise of the third generation of mobile telephony and the development of ever-new processes that accompany it.

Fourth, a ⁇ very important element is the significant increase in the number of players on the market.

In those circumstances, therefore, it was predictable that efforts would be made at the European level, which, by the way, resulted in the six directives that are now being transposed into Belgian law. These include five harmonisation directives and one specific directive on competition in the market for electronic communications services.

We have tried to implement the legislation as accurately as possible. At the same time, we have also tried to see the various interests involved — the interests of the consumer, of the alternative operator, but also of the former monopolyist and of the government — fulfilled in a more or less balanced manner.

The advantage of the operation is that we two wets will be able to execute. They are immersed in current wet. Het gaat met name om de wet van 21 March 1991 betreffende de hervorming van sommige, economische overheidsbedrijven en om de wet van 30 July 1979 betreffende de radioberichtgeving. On both wetten werd trouwens in het verleden zodanig gewerkt dat ze ontransparent in onsamenhangend waren geworden. I recall the four lines of strength, two of which will be presented by my colleague, Ms. Van den Bossche. The first line of strength is to optimize the rules of competition between operators through a more flexible regulatory system. The second aim is to simplify the conditions of access to the market. The other two themes, which will be addressed by Ms. Van den Bossche, respectively aim to better protect the consumer and guarantee a universal social service.

As regards the first element of my competence, namely optimising the rules of competition between operators through a more flexible regulatory system, the Act of 17 January 2003 already contained a substantial adaptation of the status of the sectoral regulator, the IBPT. The implementation of this law is being prepared. This bill provides for the development of a regulator that we wanted to be more efficient and that allows the IBPT to better regulate and control certain activities, knowing that the cornerstone of the new legislation is flexibility, that is, knowing how to adapt the rules to the constantly changing market.

In practice, the IBPT will only intervene, with companies, when two conditions are met. First, in the event that a problem of competition arises in a particular market. Secondly, when neither Belgian nor European competition law can solve the problem. With regard to the analysis of the relevant markets, the bill provides for a collaboration between the General Competition Authority – the Competition Council – and the IBPT as a sectoral regulator. I see time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time time.

In terms of simplifying the conditions for access to the market, it cannot actually be simpler, the general authorisation replaces the existing authorisation scheme. I think there is also an important simplification in this way.

To your satisfaction, Mr. Rapporteur, I would like to say, however, that we are ⁇ aware of the fulfillment to be given to Article 14 as a result of the judgment of the Arbitration Court. We can effectively reach an agreement with the Communities. We need to translate it now. We will not do that by adding an amendment here and there in this text. I think that this is not the appropriate method of work, but we will do this as soon as possible in the manner prepared by ourselves, so that this point is also resolved.

I can also reassure you that, with regard to the BIPT, efforts will be made to effectively allow the frameworks to do their work on the basis of this law. I think that the most important thing, after the adoption of the law, will be that we will make the royal decrees and the execution decrees operational as soon as possible, but this is already being worked with man and power.

I have received a number of more concrete questions that I would like to answer. I would like to start with the, in my opinion, smart amendment of the SP-A-Fraktion. Why Why ? Of course, you should read articles 2 and 3 together. If you know that there is a discount of 8.40 euros on a monthly subscription and a discount of 6.20 euros per two months on call fees, and you count 8.40 euros twice along with 6.20 euros, then you get exactly 23 euros per two months. That is exactly the same.

The only difference is, of course, that in one case it is the same provider and in the other case it is two different providers, so that, to keep it simple, it is the end-time provider, if I can describe it so, who charges the discount. That is exactly the same.

Why is there a split between subscription and call costs? Because there once, and let us therefore especially be happy, today there are operators that offer subscriptions in some cases free of charge. It would be pretty crazy to calculate that differently than separately on subscription and call costs.

Per ⁇ we will still decide, as regards the reading of this amendment. However, look at the original design and then the amended one. In the original design, there was a €23 discount on the cost of the call, per two months. Let us now look at the amendment. If there is one provider — a subscription and call fees or only call fees — the discount is EUR 8.40 on a subscription per month, if there is a subscription, and EUR 6.20 on call fees per two months. For different providers, one for the subscription and one for the call costs, the discount is 23 euros per two-month time period on the call costs.

I now look at the situation where only subscription fees must be paid. One refers, for example, to freephone, a situation with only subscription fees. It can be imagined that certain things are commercialized in this way. In situation 1, in the case of subscription fees and call fees with one provider, the discount is 23 euros per two months. In the case of subscription fees and call fees with different providers, the discount in the Act of 1991 was 23 euros per month and in the preliminary design 23 euros per two months, possibly with shared costs. Now it’s about 23 euros per two months, to be paid by the operator of the call costs.

The third option, only subscription fee, does not exist in the 1991 law. It would cost 8.4 euros per month. In the preliminary design is 8.4 euros per month. The amended text does not provide anything if only subscription fees are to be charged. A fourth situation, only conversation costs. The preliminary draft speaks of 23 euros per two months, the amended text of 6.2 euros per two months. It does not hit the 23 euros. The 6.2 euros per two months on the call costs and 50% on additional things such as subscription and connection, are situations about which the article does not really speak. That is the problem with this amendment.

In a situation with only call costs, in my opinion, in the preliminary draft is 23 euros per two months. After reading the amendment, one pays in this situation 6.2 euros per two months. (23 — 6) x6 — six periods of two months — represents a difference of 100 euros for this specific category.

One can argue that this should be read together. However, I am speaking specifically about the situation where only call costs must be paid and no subscription fees. However, there is a scheme for subscription fees plus call costs with one provider, also for call costs and subscription fees with different providers. However, there is no provision where only subscription fees must be charged. In the event that there are only call costs, the fee will be reduced to 6.2 euros per two months. This is the lecture I give about the different situations. It has been defined quite clearly for subscription fees and call costs at one provider and for subscription fees and call costs at different providers. If it is only about subscription fees or call fees — one of the two — the pre-design has been compromised and, in my opinion, there is no arrangement.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that Mr. Deseyn accuses a certain group in this Parliament of advocating for free. However, what you say, Mr. Deseyn is the following. It is very unfair not to get a discount on something that is free. You need to get a discount, even for free. I never dared to go so far. In all honesty, it seems to me a bit absurd to have a discount be charged on something that it does not apply because what the discount would apply to is not charged. Discount is to lower the price, Mr. Deseyn. I am afraid that we will not even talk about this.

I will continue with the following amendment. Why should some categories...

I do not want to re-enter the debate for each amendment.

Mr. Deseyn, I would say briefly and concisely.

You know this matter very well. We are all convinced of this.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to the Minister’s ruling on the discount on something that does not exist. However, one cannot assume that everyone automatically chooses the most advantageous tariff plan. I continue to repeat that in case only call fees need to be charged, 6.2 euros per two months will be paid. If there is only one provider for call fees and subscription fees, you will receive 23 euros per two months. If there are only call fees, they may be higher because no subscription fee can be charged. This is included in the final prices. In this case, the recognition will be more disappointed. Even in the situation of subscription money only, a final text is not provided. You can argue about what a discount is given, of course. We can continue to work on this for a long time. I only say that it would be better to change this as a technical correction. For me, this can be settled later. This point really needs to be investigated. I take this as a concern. I repeat that these people will come out of more anguish. For a certain category of the entire range of commercial formulas, there is no regulation in the amended text of Mr. Casaer cs.

I would also like to point out that, by the way, it is also in the formula of the multiple subscriptions, ⁇ with the link as provided in the law, a very problematically formulated article, "on which will still be paid a discount."

You shake in denial, Mr. Casaer, but it is about many people who will choose these formulas or conversation plans and who will actually have to constatate... It will be ⁇ problematic for operators, and it may be thought that consumers will not get better. I do not want to extend this now, but I ask the Cabinet or the majority to eventually make a technical correction. I ask you to look at these specific situations.

What is also related to your comment on this point is that the tariff transparency is ensured for the end user so that he can easily compare. Not only to make comparisons easier, but also because prices are likely to drop when the market is opened, we opt for a discount in cents and not in percentages as you suggest.

Why do I find it important that doctors and also veterinarians naturally have absolute priority in the repair of a defect? Because they must be able to take care of sick people or animals. This seems to me widespread. The same applies to emergency services and priority services. Which groups are also given a form of priority, but not 24 hours a day or on Sundays? These are disabled people, sick people, people with disabilities. It is obvious that these people should be given priority. It is also so. They are given priority in the repair of a defect. However, let us also be careful with Sunday rest.

What about the bi-tone on another network? I was very pleased with the reasoning behind your amendment. I therefore promise you formally to do through the KB number portability what I promised you. It only seems to me more logical to use the KB for this purpose and not the law. This was also the reasoning of several groups of the majority.

Adjustment of telephone cells. I agree with it when it comes to new telephone cells and telephone cells on which certain work takes place. You know that some cells are disappearing. We need to map which cells disappear and which ones remain. For those who remain, we need to check whether there are plans for repairs. It seems to me logical to come up with the plan to make adjustments in the shortest possible time where repairs or new boxes are planned. This is a bit phased.

I wonder what you forgot to say in seven committee meetings.

You who were previously responsible for this matter as a minister will understand that this is extremely complex and that it evolves from week to week. Between the committee meetings and the plenary session there are new facts, such as certain websites.

What are you going to do next week?

Mrs. Minister, a small clarification. You interpret “new” not restrictively. You’re talking about both the sites to be restored and the new sites. This is just a question for clarification. This is, therefore, a broad understanding of “new”.

This depends on the recovery. I think other people are better placed than me to determine in which cases of renewal and restoration this can be integrated. It is not up to me to be able to give a very technical explanation on this. It will happen anyway with renovations and in certain cases the same will happen with repairs. It depends on what needs to be repaired. Is it the door or is it the way one enters the phone cell?

Then I come to your question about reverse billing. I am not in favour of making it impossible for the consumer to choose certain services for payment. I think that the consumer should know what the conditions are, what the price is and how to stop the procedure. That’s where the shoe kneels and that’s why the ethical code is accepted. This will start in July for fixed telephony and in September for mobile telephony. This is also the reason why inspectors, on the basis of the Commercial Practices Act, monitor their application.

Finally, many for me have already pointed out, the broadband rate for people with disabilities. There is no definition yet. Let us work on this and let us play a leading role in this area, especially at European level. I have talked about this in the committee.

I have another question. You may have said it very quickly. As for those prepaid cards for people with the living wage, are those connected to the cells or are those also available for mobile telephony via GSM? That was an important question, and in the committee something was said differently than what I hear now.

For both, Mr Deseyn.

for both. That is fine. The definition of broadband...