EU통신위 "유선망 필수설비 분리추진"

"미래 통신서비스는 이용자가 원하는 정보를 빠르게 제공해야 한다. 그러려면 고속 네트워크 구축이 필수지만, 유럽 국영통신업체들의 네트워크 소유구조가 변화되지 않는 한 투자와 경쟁은 촉진될 수 없다."

유럽연합(EU)의 통신위원장 격인 비비안 레딩(Viviane Reding) 유럽위원회(EC) 정보사회미디어 집행위원은 국내 언론 최초로 가진 본지와의 이메일 인터뷰에서 유·무선 컨버전스 시대에는 필수설비인 유선가입자망을 분리해야 유효경쟁이 가능하다고 강조했다.

그는 "필수설비 조직분리가 해당 통신사업자들의 투자요인을 위축시키고 경영악화를 초래한다"는 주장에 대해 "지배적사업자들이 EU통신법 개혁에 찬성하지 않는 것은 자명하지만, 이는 경쟁과 투자를 위한 프로그램"이라고 단언했다.

그는 "통신시장에 새로 진입하는 사업자가 차별없이 동등하게 경쟁하고 사업하려면 EU 회원국간 시장 불균형부터 제거해야 한다"면서 "2009년 효력을 발휘하는 새로운 EU통신법에 필수설비의 조직분리를 포함시키려는 것도 이런 이유 때문"이라고 설명했다.

그는 "이런 차원에서 영국의 최대 통신업체인 브리티시텔레콤(BT)이 가입자 선로와 관로, 전주에 이르는 필수설비를 '오픈 리치'(Open Reach)로 조직분리한 것을 의미있게 지켜보고 있다"며 "무엇보다 조직분리후 영국이 초고속인터넷 이용률을 2배나 늘렸다는 사실이 주목된다"고 말했다.

그의 목표는 궁극적으로 EU 27개국 통신시장을 하나로 단일화시키는 것이다. 그는 "5억명의 잠재 이용자가 존재하는 유럽시장이 단일권으로 통합되면 유무선 통신서비스 경쟁은 더욱 활발해지고, 이는 궁극적으로 설비경쟁까지 촉진시켜 '투자의 사다리' 효과를 거둘 수 있다"는 주장을 펴고 있다.

【다음은 비비안 레딩과 이메일 인터뷰 원문】

Q. Communication service providers worldwide are combining basic service with IPTV and VOIP and packaging them into TPS and even QPS. The trend offers prospects of an additional source of income to a saturated market. However, it also raises concerns about the potential barriers of effective competition caused by the reinforced competitive advantage already enjoyed by the incumbent carriers who own the essential facilities and access networks. Access networks will become even more important when FMC merges with traditional broadcasting as anticipated. What role do you think the access networks will play and what differences do you see between those providers with and without access networks?

A. Access networks are crucial to delivering the high-bandwidth services that consumers and businesses are increasingly craving for. Europe therefore will continue to encourage investment in infrastructure so that future services are delivered quickly and effortlessly as and when they are needed. Whether it is a citizen relaxing at home wanting to watch the latest movie on demand, a surgeon wanting to receive the latest scans from a specialist unit or a company wanting to organise a virtual board meeting with members spread over the far corners of its business empire, high speed access will be essential in tomorrow's world.

As regards the role to be played by providers with and without access networks, we in Europe appreciate and encourage the investment made into the networks, but at the same time, we also believe that dominant companies can lead, in particular in the network economies, to results that are harmful for consumers and the economy at large. In order to guarantee investment in new, alternative networks, access regulation can therefore be an effective tool. Such regulated access to the networks of dominant companies allows new market entrants to gain market share first as service providers and then to climb up the "ladder of investment" which in the end should allow them to build their own network. We see in Europe first positive signs of this regulatory approach, in particular in the metropolitan areas such as Paris or London where we have already today several competing broadband infrastructures. Effective infrastructure competition is certainly the best result that access regulation can achieve.

Q. It's been reported that you strongly favor separation of network and service in each of the respective nations in Europe. Would you please discuss why you think so and what concerns you most about the absence of such separation?

A. We have noticed with interest the great gains that can be made with functional separation - this is a form of separation which does not change the ownership structure of a telecom operator, but requires the operator first to separate functionally its access business from its services business, and then to grant non-discriminatory access to third parties to its access network. In particular in the UK, such a functional separation was a great success unleashing a new wave of investment in the British telecoms industry when the former monopoly BT decided to separate out its network from its services. Broadband penetration in the UK has at least doubled as a result of this regulatory intervention. This model could be replicated elsewhere, and this is why I have proposed to include the remedy of functional separation in the new EU Telecom Rules that will take effect in 2009. This means that in the next years, functional separation will be an interesting option that national regulators, with the agreement of the EU Commission, could resort to, in particular, in markets where competing infrastructures can not be expected to evolve soon, such as in rural or non-metropolitan areas.

Q. Unlike their counterparts in France and Germany, and mandated by their respective national regulatory agencies and spurred by the BT model, TI (Italy) and Teliasonera (Sweden) and other providers with access networks are considering various forms of separation, structural and functional. It is crucial to determine whether these mandates can find legal support in their communication legislations. Italy enacted such legislations in 2002 and Sweden, reportedly is considering the same. As above, each country's regulations about functional separation are very different within EU area. You have recently begun to concentrate efforts to unify communication laws within EU and will reportedly introduce reform measures in the near future. Would you please discuss the general principles in the legislation in the works and the timeline on the introduction and the issue of the separation of network and service?

A. In general, since we began liberalising Europe's telecom sector in 1988, we have made a lot of progress in terms of competition, investment and tangible consumer benefits. Today, Europe's telecom sector is much more buoyant and competitive. Consumers and businesses have benefited. Europe has benefited. But yet, we're only halfway there. In many markets, such as broadband, incumbents still dominate, with market shares of around 60 per cent. And EU enlargement has served to increase disparities among member states.

We must therefore act with determination in Europe to level the playing field so new market entrants do not suffer competitive disadvantages and can climb the ladder of investment in building their own networks and infrastructures. We must also work to remove inconsistencies among national markets so that the emergence of a truly single telecoms market becomes reality and pan-European operators and services can flourish.

This is the background of the big reform of the EU Telecom reforms that I plan to propose before the end of the year. My main objective is to integrate the 27 national telecom markets of the 27 EU countries into a single EU telecom market for businesses and consumers. The establishment of a European Telecom Authority will help us achieving this important objective. Europe is a market with 500 million potential consumers - as from the year 2010 onwards, we will open this continental market for telecom operators, whether they provide fixed, mobile or wireless services.

Q. Concerns have been raised that the resulting separation of network and service as mandated by the regulations will cause reduced investments and negative economic consequences. How would you respond?

A. It is self-evident that companies which have today a dominant position on the market are not enthusiastic about my plans. However, telecom regulation is not made for the incumbent operators, but to promote competition. And competition is by far the best recipe for investment and innovation in the economy at large, and not only by a few players. Also, let us look at the facts. Functional separation is already today a reality in the United Kingdom - and look at the investment made in the UK, at the growth of broadband, and also look at the strong position of British Telecom today as challenger in other European markets. This is what I would like to achieve for the whole of Europe. This is why my Telecom Reform proposals are a programme for competition and investment.

Q. In Korea broadband market, incumbent carrier has relatively fewer dominant compared to Europe. Because there are competitive operator's networks and CATV networks. Nevertheless, the FMC market has shown considerable uneasiness regarding the potential dominance by these few. Having visited Korea several times, do you think that Korea needs to adopt policies to protect its convergence market? If so, what approach would be most effective in preserving fair competition?

A. Each country or region has to work out its own regulatory model based on the prevailing circumstances. I am a European Commissioner, and therefore my job description is to ensue competition on the European market. I am therefore not entitled to give advice to the authorities in Korea. We in Europe look at the structural competition problems on a given market. This means also that dominance is treated as dominance and addressed by regulators, whether it takes place in a DSL or a cable network. In the end, business and private consumer are interested in the broadband service they get - regardless of through which kind of pipes these services are delivered. Regulators with an economic approach should in my view do the same.