9 Amendments of Joachim ZELLER related to 2010/2304(INI)
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers that full tailor-made broadband coverage at affordable prices must be made a universal service, as it is essential to helping create equal living conditions in Europe;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that State aid for broadband, that is to say, the use of EU funding expressly for that purpose, is an appropriate option when broadband development cannot be shown to be economically worthwhile; given that the cost in administrative and planning terms of implementing national and European broadband support programmes is considerable;, calls, therefore, on the Commission and the Member States to simplify conditions for support as well as procedures as far as possible, in order to step up the flow of funds and, help accelerate broadband roll-out;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Calls on the Commission to apply more investment incentivised elements within the regulatory framework and provide stimulus to use synergies from infrastructure projects;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that European law on aid, as it currently stands, frequently leads in practice to legal uncertainty, hampering planned investment; calls, therefore, on the Commission to examine to what extent the rules could be simplified and made more investment-friendly and departures should be permitted from standard broadband support measures; considers that the broadband guidelines should, in addition, serve to clarify the application of the law on aid for the purposes of setting up public broadband companies or of cooperation between municipalities or PPP models;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Supports rapid expansion of broadband infrastructure and calls on the Member States to give effect without delay to the NGA recommendation aimed at improving legal certainty, investment, and competition; considers that regulators must ensure that all market players at any one time have sufficient incentives to enter into competition and invest;
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Points out that the definition of basic provision will have to be adjusted in future in line with changed requirements resulting from the ever increasing transmission rates being recorded by innovative Internet services such as eGovernment, eHealth, or eLearning; calls, therefore, on the Commission, in view of the likely failure of the market to supply rural areas with NGA networks, to incorporate new organisational models, providing in particular for the involvement of local authorities, for the provision and financing of high-speed and ultra-high-speed networks as an option into the broadband guidelines;
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Points to the goal of establishing a predictable regulatory environment for investment and competition to promote investment in high-speed networks and technically and economically sound non- discriminatory access and cooperation opportunities;
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Considers that, even at the current level of basic provision, the use of ‘digital dividend’ frequencies based on LTE technology will not solve the problem of gaps in NGA networks in rural areas in the long term; believes, therefore, that it would be appropriate to enable funding to be provided for ducts for NGA networks in these areas, giving priority to fibre optic- based broadband development, where this would be the most economical and sustainable solution in the long term.
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Maintains that satellite-based systems and other complementary technologies must be used to the best possible effect so as to enable rural areas to benefit from economically sustainable broadband provision at affordable prices.