Proposition 52K2005

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 13 juin 2005 relative aux communications électroniques en ce qui concerne le changement d'opérateur.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Roel Deseyn, Jef Van den Bergh

Submission date

May 26, 2009

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

consumer protection electronic mail Internet Internet access provider

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

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.

Discussion ¶

March 4, 2010 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, your committee examined from June 2009 and repeatedly the bill submitted by the colleagues MM. Deseyn and Van den Bergh amending the Law of 13 June 2005 on Electronic Communications as regards the change of operator.

An e-mail address is today an element identifying a person as can be his gsm number, his phone number, his postal address. While there are procedures for tracking postal mail in the event of moving, if today one can change a telephone operator without changing a number, it is still not possible to change an internet service provider without losing your email address. The bill aims to ensure that e-mail addresses and URLs remain accessible for the six months following the change of operator and to allow them to be redirected to new hosting sites.

Beyond the strictly practical aspect, the introduction of portability thus breaks down one of the obstacles that prevent the Internet user from changing Internet service provider. It allows for competition and, we hope, to move the market towards more favorable prices. The members of the committee all favorably welcomed this proposal, responding to a real need of the user, as noted by Mr. by Gilkinet.

However, questions quickly emerged, ⁇ in the head of President François Bellot, regarding operators active on the Belgian market without being established in our country. In favour of the proposal, the Minister considered, however, that some adjustments were necessary, in particular to avoid the transfer of spam to the new address. Some users change their email addresses to avoid unwanted emails.

The IBPT was therefore requested by the committee to examine these aspects and organise the consultation of the industry and consumer organisations. A report was prepared. Following this report, Mr. Deseyn submitted amendments to adapt the bill to the observations made by the Minister and the Institute.

The automatic transfer of e-mails to the new address is thus abandoned to avoid spam. A new mechanism is set up in order to allow the user, for at least six months, to access his old email. Additionally, the sender who sent a message to the old address may receive a message indicating that it is no longer active. In both cases, this is a free service that must be offered on request. It is also likely that operators will offer the possibility to extend this service against payment at the end of the six-month period.

The suggestion in the opinions to give operators the opportunity to develop a code of conduct in this area themselves was accepted. They would have 12 months to do so.

Somers expressed concerns about the cost for the operators of this new service. Ms. Plasman, on the other hand, expressed concern about the legal guarantees relating to free of charge for consumers.

If the wishes and spirit of the legislator were not satisfied, in particular in terms of gratuity, it would be up to the Minister, on the proposal of the IBPT, to intervene and fix definitively the provisions of implementation in an interest of consumer protection; which the Minister has subscribed to.

As a result, your committee unanimously adopted the amended bill.

Mrs. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, my first thanks goes to the rapporteur who presented a good report. This was not evident with the many changes in the text and the many adjustments following different opinions and wishes of the different factions.

I would like to explain when changing the system for Internet customers. It is intended that the providers, for example the Internet Service Providers, within a period of four months from the entry into force of the Code of Conduct, should include the following compulsory matters. When a customer decides to change operator, he must be given the choice. This choice is not determined by the consumer, but by the operator concerned. Either he gets the option of an automatic interception mechanism that forwardes his mail from the old to the new address or the customer gets the option that he gets access to the electronic mail that was sent to his old email address, possibly via an online web access.

Such rules can also be applied on websites. The information published on the website and the URL of the former provider will be accessible for another six months. If this code of conduct is not followed, if the sector remains in default, then it is up to the Minister to, following a proposal from the BIPT, impose the rules on the operators in such a way that they offer the facilities to consumers in an indirect manner.

This will be communicated. This is an integral part of this bill. At least once a year, the summary part of the invoice shall report on these possibilities. Upon termination of the contract, the customer will be offered information about the facilities regarding the availability of email and internet information so that he is aware of the new rights and facilities. This is the content component.

What do we aim for with this political initiative? More freedom of choice and more transparency. Internet customers should be able to better manage their subscriptions. He must, in other words, be able to change operator. The email address of course serves as a login for many sites. Passports are linked to it. A shift from Internet Service Provider encounters a lot of practical concerns. Now that that freedom of choice exists and the customer is not mortgaged by no longer being able to unlock his information, we believe that the sector is more encouraged to offer consumers better and individually tailored internet rates.

This is the intention of the proposers of this bill. We thank the groups in advance for their support.

First and foremost, I would like to thank Mr Deseyn for the good cooperation on this proposal, as he himself emphasized. Next, I would like to thank the rapporteur, who also correctly expressed our comments.

I would like to repeat one point. For us it was very important that it would be free and that is also guaranteed, for which thank you. If it doesn’t work, there’s a stick behind the door.