Proposition 53K3318

Projet de loi portant des dispositions diverses en matière de communications électroniques.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

Jan. 28, 2014

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Directive consumer protection telephone charges protection of privacy electronic mail data protection information technology information processing Internet telecommunications exchange of information

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo ∉ N-VA LDD VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (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.

Discussion ¶

Feb. 20, 2014 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to the written report.

Mr Deseyn, you have the floor on behalf of your group.

Mr. Speaker, with the draft we will approve tonight, there will be a lot of good for the consumer as well. Some gaps will also be filled and some adjustments to the latest technologies on the telecom level will be made.

Together with the commissioners and with the support of the Minister, we have indicated the importance of reducing the thresholds for consumers to change operators.

One of the elements that makes consumers somewhat reluctant to change operators is the fact that they lose their email address. The e-mail address is important for the login data on various services and sites. Therefore, we welcome the amendment of the various Parliamentary groups, which extends the transition period from six months to eighteen months. This specifically means that not only will the emails be forwarded and consumers will have access to their mailbox, but also that the web space that the consumer had with the previous provider can be retained for a long time. Thus, the consumer can easily arrange all practical administration. Thus, the deadline can no longer be an alibi to refrain from entering into a more interesting offer from a competing operator. The amendment will make it easier for users to change providers when they want to.

It is also important that telecom surveillance body BIPT, the Belgian Institute for Postal Services and Telecommunications, will have a more active role in resolving disputes between operators. This should enable a faster resolution of disputes rather than the situation in which the consumer must conduct a very long legal struggle and thus get lost in the Palace of Justice.

The impact of the BIPT was discussed in the committee. To make the BIPT truly impactful, it is important that it can not only work with short procedures, but also that it has sufficient deterrent agents. Where the BIPT imposes administrative sanctions or fines, they must be proportionate to the infringement and to the financial capacity of an operator in order to produce any deterrent effect.

The discussion on this subject is not yet closed. Fortunately, we were able to bring the matter back to the ground this week in the Infrastructure Committee. The BIPT was asked for a report on the subject, because it itself is of course the best position to say how it goes in practice and what tools are needed to be more impactful in the future. The Parliament will take care of the follow-up of the file and will try to influence the case positively. However, it is not yet the subject of the present draft.

What is part of it, and has been quite urgent for a while, is the availability of emergency services via Voice over IP. In the past, people were wondering how to deal with abuse when calling a nomadic number that is not linked to a physical location. We also asked various questions about this. In a modern company, however, the look and feel of telephone devices do not reveal what technology is used. Most connections to power plants and pipelines are now made via IP protocols. It was therefore no longer of this time to exclude such calls to reach the emergency services.

After all, in practice, the use of lappings was often used, in which one had to connect to a waiting post or a fixed number of the emergency services. This, of course, did not guarantee the best service in case of incidents. It was also problematic, since a person in need will rarely read the device’s manual or the entries on the invoice, about who can offer what and at what time.

The present draft legislation also stipulates that all data breaches and breaches of privacy must first be ⁇ to the Privacy Commission rather than to the BIPT. Mr. Minister, it is very important that very good working arrangements are made, so that in case of incidents cooperation can be made quickly and effectively. I have also defended several times that in case of a security incident it is good to report to a joint panel with not only people from the BIPT and the Privacy Commission, but also from the CERT and the security adviser of the Prime Minister.

It has now been chosen to give the Privacy Commission a more prominent role, which is not a bad thing in itself, as long as it is accompanied by a very good dispatch of information, so that telecom operators can guarantee rapid security when a problem with contamination effect occurs. Also the public service Fedict has a role to play in proper dispatching of the information, so that also the administrations can respond in the shortest time and decide whether they will secure or update their systems.

With the present draft, the BIPT will have to report even more clearly, including on the enforcement policy, which is also a very good thing. It is also important that we continue to prominently follow the themes of privacy, data protection, cybercrime and network security. This issue has increasingly profound implications in society. When we can read the relevant policy and the follow-up of each article and each measure in a structured report, we may no longer have to overload you, Mr. Minister, with many issues.

This follow-up is ⁇ necessary because in practice we also see that the different operators do not always apply the rules that we put out in the Telecommunications Act in 2005 with the same strictness, orthodoxy or rigour. This includes mandatory information about the invoice and the proposal for the cheapest tariff plan. It is therefore good that the policy can be explained and that we get insight into the priorities of the Institute.

The legislation on the communication of the most favourable tariff plan is being supplemented today. Very positive is that the BIPT will record the period, the format and the method by which the consumer can get acquainted with his usage pattern.

This brings us to the whole problem of tariff comparisons. Ideally, the invoice should contain a code, a numerical code, a barcode or a QR code that is scanned or retrieved on a website, thereby the data is automatically loaded into the tariff simulator, so that the customer no longer has to search for the respective sections on his invoice and no need to check how his own pattern is in place. This is also becoming increasingly difficult because the consumer, whether or not on paper or electronically, has to deal with freely stamped and highly compressed invoices, which sometimes contain only a minimum of data. With the latest technologies and with the pre-formatted information that the BIPT will collect, one will be able to better compare.

The BIPT website has been renewed. That is a good thing. However, the tariff simulator remains a complex beast. We should look at our northern neighbors. The simulator of their regulator was chosen as the site of the year. This can be an inspiring example.

An important, very good thing in the present draft is the refinement in the granting of the social rate. This is also a step forward. This is definitely not the last step, because the work is not yet finished.

Further steps can be taken in the automatic allocation of rights. The same applies to the Social Security Crosspoint Bank. I met people this afternoon. There is still a lot of relevant data that can be combined in a responsible way so that consumers can be informed about their rights and can be automatically allocated, as we want for the energy sector.

Per ⁇ we should start with a first modest step, by informing potential stakeholders about their rights. If we do not, we can carry out a beautiful social policy, but we create a mattheuse effect, where the most resilient find the way to the discounts.

The modalities of the social rate are not trivial. In this regard, I refer to the previous responses of the Minister.

So far our accents in the discussion of the Telecommunications Act.

First, let me give you a nuanced picture. The legislation contains a number of very good elements, such as the BIPT dispute settlement and the strengthening of the Ethics Committee. Nevertheless, I also identify a very large number of problems, the first of which is a fundamental problem.

For an entrepreneur, one thing is worse than high taxes and that is legal uncertainty about taxes. Not knowing in advance what is going on is the worst thing you can do to a business.

Every entrepreneur, the entire economy in this country, needs a stable legislation. This is ⁇ true in the telecom sector, where the margins are under pressure. This is largely due to increased competition, which has a beneficial effect.

However, one also feels the heavy weight of the uncertain regulation. This is also seen here.

We approved a large-scale telecommunications law, a major reform to transpose a European directive that included many other issues. One could expect the legislation to remain stable for a while after such a major reform. But what happens? After a very short time, just one and a half years later, there comes, Baf, a law containing various provisions with a whole bunch of small mess adjustments.

Again, some new provisions apply. There is instability again. New rules apply again.

Moreover, there is a difference in the way something goes. One could expect that such a reform will first be supported, that it will be tested by all stakeholders, and that everything is well prepared. However, one comes to Parliament with a law containing various provisions and the meeting shows that the majority submits at least as many amendments as there were articles in the bill. Many amendments were submitted by the majority and the government. Some items were added to the last nickname. This is nothing but well-prepared, good work.

I don’t know who the quote is from, but someone once said, “Laws are like sausages. You don’t want to know how they are made.”This is the case here more than ever. In the course of the route, a lot of amendments are still needed, even amendments that are explained while the votes on the articles are ongoing. This is not a serious way of working. This seriously compromises the quality of legislation and creates legal uncertainty.

I will be brief, but I have to object to the latter. Truth has its rights.

It would be unfortunate if Parliament could no longer change a bill submitted to Parliament. In fact, sometimes amendments are proposed by the majority at the request of the government, but in this draft amendments are concerned with overwhelming amendments arising from the individual concerns of political groups and members of Parliament, which have indeed been discussed by the majority and which have thus been introduced in a regular manner and early in the discussion in the committee.

I don’t know what your plea today is, but do you advocate that when a bill comes to Parliament, everything remains as it is and we can’t give our own intellectual input? It honors the Minister that he has demonstrated the openness to accept these amendments and to discuss them in a serious way. I find it very strange that you are advocating a status quo.

I only note that it is almost exclusively done with amendments that are added quickly from the majority, without review by the stakeholders, and never with amendments from the opposition. No serious debate can be devoted to them; they are simply twisted.

To give a good example: when it comes to the depolitization of the BIPT, there can be no mention of the disappearance of the two special commissioners, which were then added as the inheritance of the old political appointments. There’s another screen change to stop the appearance, but it’s still the same people, it’s still a compromise.

I will continue with my substantive criticism. The most important point of criticism of the legislation is that we take another step further in the bullying. That one sees on his invoice how much one consumes is the logic itself, of course. You can already see on your invoice for the Internet or phone how much you have consumed and that is good. However, I find it quite absurd that an operator must now point out a cheaper alternative to a customer who has consumed less than what he is entitled to. Imagine a salesman at the Autosalon advises potential customers to buy a larger car if they come with a smaller one. Do we want to go there? Is that the next step?

Do you want that during the soldering periods, when trousers are sold with the second trousers at half price, the seller asks if the customer needs a second trousers?

I note that some parties – Open Vld, not to name it by name – are constantly fighting the bullying. The alcohol plan was immediately shot down because of being too bullish, but what do they do here? Consumers are being harassed in the telecommunications sector. You really go too far; it can’t be for me.

I come to my final comment; I will keep it shorter than Mr. Deseyn, I hope. The BIPT will now have additional tasks and must each year transfer a part of the resources to the Treasury, but it may not even establish its own organogram. In addition, the Minister can set the priorities himself. Tasks that do not fit in it may drop the BIPT. The BIPT may drop orders, but must follow the priorities of the minister, of the government. In this way, however, there is a serious grip of the executive power on a regulator, which should be independent. Politization is only increasing here and we cannot support that. There are good elements in the bill, but also absolutely unacceptable: we will therefore abstain.

I naturally adhere to my amendments, which aim to further independence from the regulator BIPT. I, of course, count on the support of the parties that can be found for a stronger, independent regulator and who have always expressed themselves for depolitization and the proper functioning of the competition surveillance body.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Dedecker, I did not interrupt you during your speech because I now have the opportunity to give some answers.

You started your argument by saying that the entrepreneurs have received a lot of burden. At the time, at the beginning of the discussion of telecommunications legislation, we found that consumers who use this equipment in our country pay much more than in our neighboring countries. The starting point and the choice of this majority was to come to a reduction of the invoice. The BIPT confirmed two weeks ago that there has been a sharp price drop.

Your starting point was to leave it so and maintain stability. It is curious that a man who has the power of change on his banner here advocates for stability, in the sense that nothing should change and that prices must remain high in order to provide companies with no burden.

I have one last comment and then you can react immediately. I have noted four points and then you can replicate.

Mr Geerts, you shouldn’t put everything in the ridicule.

I said we had a reform in the beginning. Reforms take place at the beginning of a legislature. Then they put out the lines. I think, among other things, of the six-month period, which was a good thing, because there we allowed the competition to play and we were able to work at lower prices. That was good and I have always defended it.

However, I don’t think it is good to behave overwhelmingly. That’s a step too far, and it can’t. I find it briefly by the curve how you pull this into the ridiculous.

I only fixed what you said when you entered this speaker. We will review the report later or tomorrow. If you say I’m not right here, I’d like to accept that. This will be shown in the report.

You also say that the majority submitted a number of amendments at the meeting.

You have also submitted a lot of amendments, which is absolutely your right. I think everyone has given you the opportunity to discuss this. The Minister has answered. He doesn’t always have to agree, neither do we, but we have been able to have an open discussion.

It is true that subsequently amendments were submitted by the majority, but I think it is a good thing that we as MEPs can submit a number of amendments to a draft law. I do not see the problem. The only problem for me was that they took a lot of work, but that’s part of our job. I think we were able to talk openly.

Finally, I can’t afford to serve you as a replica when you talk about bullying. That is a difference in view. You say we are overwhelming because we require operators to provide additional information. If I listened carefully to the BIPT last week, one of the conclusions, for example for the “triple play” and other packages, was that many people today have a subscription that is far too heavy for them. Consumers should therefore, in full transparency, be given the option of opting for a different formula. What you call transparency, I call transparency.

This is probably the last debate in this legislature on further breaking the telecom legislation. What I remember, after the various laws containing various provisions discussed here in Parliament, is mainly the sharp decline in subscription prices and the rates for the use of the mobile. That’s a good thing, both for the younger and the less younger users. They can now use their GSM much cheaper.

The second point, of course, is the free shift from one operator to another. If you want to move a market, this is a good proposal. One can not be bound for more than 24 months, even in the case of depreciation if one gets a device.

Today I hear on the radio advertising about the fact that it is good that the bill shock is there, both for individuals and for entrepreneurs. For this reason, the entire week has been advertised for the journal of 18 am 00.

As for the Ethics Committee for Telecommunications, the following. In the end, some amendments were added, such as the Apple amendment. A manufacturer connects his device immediately to an operator, but that was not envisaged at the beginning of this legislature. It is therefore good that this amendment has been added.

Mr. Speaker, I will decide.

I may have different opinions on this, but I believe that this stage is a good thing in the context of regulating a number of elements and liberating competition, which can now fully play in this market. Does that mean that in the next legislature no additional initiatives can or should be taken? No, it will probably be because this segment is changing so quickly that the legislator must make sure not to go too far behind the facts.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to intervene briefly from my bank.

I would like to inform you that the work in the committee has been carried out in an intense and correct manner. We have held two meetings dedicated to this draft. During the first meeting, we reached the important article 20. Comments were made and questions were asked, and it was agreed with the Minister to review the answers to those questions at the next committee meeting, whatever happened.

Amendments were submitted by both the majority and the opposition. We also believe that the proposed draft is an important contribution to greater transparency and greater freedom for users to make informed choices.

We are also pleased that a number of amendments have been adopted, for example that not only the most favourable tariff plan is listed if there are multiple tariff plans, and that in addition to the tariff plans also the download rate and other relevant characteristics and possible consequences are listed when the customer chooses a combined offer. My group therefore gives its full support to the draft. I think the work has gone very well.

Mr. Speaker, can I give a brief answer to Mrs. Lahaye-Battheu, Chair of the Committee on Infrastructure?

You say that the work has gone very well. It is true that during the first meeting we discussed the first twenty articles of the draft. However, a number of comments were made on those articles, which were taken by the Minister and resulted in additional amendments to the first articles, which were discussed at the second meeting.

When are these amendments explained? during the voting on the articles. This is not a serious way of working. At the time of the vote, an amendment is explained. You don’t even have time to look at anything. I do not call that a serious way of working. This is sausage legislation. I’ve never seen such a “chickenpot” as that committee meeting. No one could still follow, and in addition, the numbers of the amendments were suddenly changed. Half of the committee at some point did not know which amendment was being discussed. You too were a little confused. It was nothing but an ordinary, good meeting where one knew what they were voting for.

This is the last law that we will vote on telecommunications.

In two and a half years, many parliamentary questions were asked on the subject. Both the first law and the current draft are very important. I would therefore like to thank Mrs. Speaker and all members of the committee for considering – unlike Mr. Dedecker – that we have worked in the committee in a fairly good, very open and transparent manner.

It could have been chaotic at certain times, but I don’t think one can say that there has been no open discussion in the committee between the majority and the opposition. I have had a lot of experience with committees in my long political life, but not in all committees is as much debate possible as in this committee was possible.

The fact that many amendments have been submitted by the majority is the logic itself. Over the course of the year, there have been many comments. The majority parties, like the opposition parties, put forward their desiderata at the time when a number of things needed to be changed. The fact that amendments were accepted primarily by the majority and less by the opposition is inherent in the fact that you are in the opposition and not in the majority. There is an advantage and a disadvantage, which is part of it. One cannot sit in the opposition and think that one can weigh on politics as much as the majority. This choice must be made in life.

We have indeed made a number of changes. That is obvious. There is almost nothing worse than instability, in it you are right, but it is even worse when the world changes while the rules remain the same. Either the rules should be avoided, or the telecommunications sector will become economically stagnant.

We have implemented a number of European rules. We had to do that.

Basically, we need to consider: what is support and what is support?

It is precisely in this sector that it is almost impossible for consumers to compare when they have to do it alone. The telecommunications industry is very complex. There are many formulas, there are many accents. Furthermore, the analysis of the BIPT shows that one of the problems of this sector is that people buy too much because they don’t know exactly what they buy. When someone goes to the bakery and buys seven loaves for a family of two, that is his own problem. He will be able to judge himself that he has bought too much. In the telecommunications sector, however, it is seen that many people buy a subscription that is not suitable for their use.

In other words, when they make an excessive purchase – we notice that such a purchase often occurs – and afterwards it turns out that they do not need it, then it is no hassle to point them at it. If necessary, it is about information, which is very important.

In this law, in my opinion, the most important measure we take is the obligation to obtain an electronic standard invoice. This method will allow the electronic invoice without inserting much own search work into the simulator and thus obtaining the conclusions based on the real data.

It is important that we can approve this law. I would therefore like to end by thanking all the people, both in the majority and in the opposition, who have worked on the telecom dossier for the past two and a half years. We have also had good discussions with the opposition, which, although to a lesser extent, have also resulted. In any case, I would like to thank them for their contribution.