Blog posts about digital single market

For the sake of order, until we return to the theme, here is a compilation of blog posts about the future European digital single market (DSM) on my Finnish, Swedish and English euroblogs:  

Eurooppaoikeus (in Finnish):

EU:n digitaalisten sisämarkkinoiden strategia

Digitaalisten sisämarkkinoiden strategia Euroopalle

Euroopan parlamentin roolista

EU:n digimarkkinastrategia Euroopan parlamentissa

Grahnblawg (in Swedish):

EU:s strategi för en digital inre marknad

Huvudpunkter för en digital inre marknad

En digital inre marknad: namnkrångel i Europaparlamentet

En verklig digital inre marknad: krav och potential

Digitala allmänningar (digital commons) i Europaparlamentet

Bloggartiklar kring strategin för en digital inre marknad  

Grahnlaw (in English)

The EU digital single market strategy

Main points of EU digital single market strategy

Digital single market litmus test

Elements of style: digital single market in European Parliament

Digital commons in the European Parliament

EP breaking down national silos in digital markets?

A union of shopkeepers?

It is fascinating to see, if Europeans still have the collective will and ability to succeed in interstate and international commerce and in the digital world, but before we return to these subjects, we are going to collect impressions in another policy area (energy) and in one EU member state (Denmark).

Ralf Grahn

EP breaking down national silos in digital markets?

In the blog posts Elements of style: digital single market in European Parliament and Digital commons in the European Parliament, we managed to evade what the EP had to say about the contents of the digital single market (DSM) to be.  

DSM preparation in EP

We remember that under the procedure file 2015/2147(INI) two rapporteurs, Kaja Kallas and Evelyne Gebhardt, had produced a joint report for two committees (the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy ITRE and the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection IMCO), adorned with opinions from six other committees.

The resulting report A8-0371/2015 on Towards a Digital Single Market Act, contained 78 pages, almost four times the number of pages in the DSM communication from the Commission (20 pages).

If we disregard the constant flak from the nationalists, who want the EU to fail at everything, the 19 January 2016 EP plenary debate on the DSM committee report was fairly positive and focused.

Benchmark

Now is the time to return to the DSM benchmark or litmus test, based on the political guidelines for the Commission, by president Jean-Claude Juncker:

I believe that we must make much better use of the great opportunities offered by digital technologies, which know no borders. To do so, we will need to have the courage to break down national silos in telecoms regulation, in copyright and data protection legislation, in the management of radio waves and in the application of competition law.

In short, if the European Union (EU) and the European Economic Area (EEA) want to catch up and overtake in order to become world leaders, digital single market (DSM) regulation has to become better and more uniform than in the advanced federal United States and Canada (as well as elsewhere).

Resolution P8_TA(2016)0009

The final European Parliament resolution P8_TA(2016)0009 of 19 January 2016 on Towards a Digital Single Market (still 28 pages) was adopted by 551 votes against 88 (with 39 abstentions).

Naturally, it is difficult to draw hard conclusions from kind words or a friendly reception, which often leave the level of engagement unclear and reservations or even active resistance unspoken.

The resolution was also long enough to make me content to pick a few random examples, hoping that they would offer some indication of where the European Parliament stands with regard to breaking down national silos.

Telecommunications

With regard to telecommunications rules the EP seems to favour competition, but it does not look clear if Parliament is speaking about national markets or a European telecoms market:

52. Emphasises that private investments in fast and ultra-fast communication networks are a requirement for any digital progress that must be incentivised by a stable EU regulatory framework enabling all players to make investments, including in rural and remote areas; considers that increased competition has been associated with higher levels of infrastructure investment, innovation, choices and lower prices for consumers and businesses; considers that little evidence exists of a link between consolidation of operators and increased investment and output in networks; considers that this should be carefully assessed, and competition rules enforced, to avoid excessive market concentration, the creation of oligopolies at European level and a negative impact for consumers;

Copyright

Even if the European Parliament (point 39) welcomes the Commissions commitment to modernise the current copyright framework (especially in order to remunerate right holders), the EP seems to dig in to defend the territoriality of copyright in Europe:

38. Cautions against indiscriminately promoting the issuing of mandatory pan-European licences since this could lead to a decrease in the content made available to users: highlights that the principle of territoriality is an essential element of the copyright system given the importance of territorial licensing in the EU;

Data protection

The EP mentioned a high level of general data protection often enough, but I have to leave until later to gauge the ambition of the Commission and the state of mind of the European Parliament with regard to current regulation.

Common standards appear to be a necessary condition for the conclusion of agreements on safe international data transfers:

128. Recognises the global nature of the data economy; recalls that the creation of the digital single market is dependent on the free flow of data within and outside the European Union; calls, therefore, for steps to be taken by the EU and its Member States in cooperation with third countries to ensure high standards of data protection and safe international data transfers, in compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation and the existing EU case law, when pursuing cooperation with third countries within the Digital Single Market Strategy;

Radio spectrum

Conceptually, how are radio waves more national than air? However, should we understand that member states defend their national radio spectrum silos to the utmost, while (the Commission and) the Parliament want to make at least some progress, as proposed in the Lamy report (High Level Group on the future of the UHF spectrum)? Anyway:  

59. Highlights that radio spectrum is a critical resource for the internal market for mobile, wireless broadband communications, as well as broadcasting, and is essential for the future competitiveness of the European Union; calls as a priority for a harmonised and pro-competitive framework for spectrum allocation and effective management to prevent delays in spectrum allocation, and for a level playing field for all market players, and in light of the Lamy report, for a long-term strategy on the future uses of the various bands of spectrum, which are necessary in particular for 5G deployment;

Competition law

The Commission and the European Parliament see eye to eye on competition in the digital single market, if we believe:

6. Supports the Commission's plan to ensure that EU competition policy applies fully to the digital single market, as competition gives consumers more choice but will also provide a level playing field, and regrets that the current lack of a European digital framework has highlighted the failure to reconcile the interests of large and small providers;

These were just first impressions. As regarding the single market in general, at some stage we have to follow up on individual proposals and responses regarding the EU and EEA digital single market.

However, if legislation and regulation on telecoms, copyright, data protection, radio waves (spectrum) and competition are federal matters in Canada and the United States, how does the European Union compare with regard to quality and uniformity?

Ralf Grahn

Digital commons in the European Parliament

After Elements of style: digital single market in European Parliament and mindful of the benchmark Digital single market litmus test, let us return to the EP on the digital single market (DSM).

European Parliament on DSM  

Under the procedure file 2015/2147(INI) we found that two rapporteurs, Kaja Kallas and Evelyne Gebhardt, had produced a joint report for two committees (the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy ITRE and the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection IMCO), regaled with opinions from six other committees.

The resulting report A8-0371/2015 on Towards a Digital Single Market Act contained 78 pages, almost four times the number of pages in the DSM communication from the Commission (20 pages).

Digital commons

Despite the eternal flak from the nationalists, who want the EU to fail at everything, the 19 January 2016 EP plenary debate on the DSM committee report was fairly positive and focused.

Naturally, some parliamentarians emphasised their concerns, inside and outside the committee report. I beg your leave for a detour to pick up one interesting viewpoint for EU citizens.

Julia Reda (Pirate Party), who spoke for The Greens / European Free Alliance  group, reminded the listeners of the need to complement the digital single market with a strategy for the digital commons, meaning freedom and opportunities for private users and creators:

Julia Reda, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, the Commission has titled this project ‘The Digital Single Market’ but we must not lose sight of the reason for tearing down the digital borders and for promoting the exchange of knowledge, goods and services in Europe. It is to empower people and to ensure that the technological projects of globalisation benefit all, and not just the few.

Parliament recalls in this report that is not just the market and profit-seeking enterprises that can provide solutions. The strategy will not be comprehensive if it does not take into account solutions based on the commons. There is open-source software that improves interoperability, security and control over technology. Community WiFi projects provide connectivity, even in remote areas, and crowd-funding allows communities to fund innovation without the dependence on big investors.

Finally, net neutrality and universal internet access are the basis for the Digital Single Market to function, so some regulation of the market is necessary to ensure that new technologies in commercial undertakings safeguard fundamental rights. But it is not necessary to reinvent the wheel when dealing with online intermediaries. In many areas, such as liability, we already have functioning legislation. We must recognise that the internet is more than just a big shopping centre. The successful digital strategy emphasises the strength of the internet: the free exchange of knowledge and collaboration. In summary, we must complement the digital single market with a digital commons strategy. This report makes a good step in this direction, and I would like to thank the rapporteurs for their important and collaborative work in this area.

Introduction to digital commons

Here are introductions to digital commons: in text from TechTarget and on YouTube by The Audiopedia, with a further visits to the creative commons network for free copyright licenses and the Open Science Repository.

In Sweden Peter Jakobsson wrote his 2012 doctoral thesis Öppenhetsindustrin (with an abstract in English) on the digital commons.

Ralf Grahn

Elements of style: digital single market in European Parliament

If better and more uniform regulation than elsewhere, such as the federal United States and Canada, is the Digital single market litmus test or benchmark for each measure, can we learn anything from the reception of the DSM communication COM(2015) 192 and the accompanying evidence paper SWD(2015) 100 in the European Parliament?

But first, let us discuss a few elements of style with regard to the European Parliament.

Monster committee report

Here, as in other cases, the key is to find the procedure reference - the Open Sesame - through the search page on  the Legislative Observatory of the European Parliament. Having found the procedure file 2015/2147(INI) it is plain sailing.

We notice that two rapporteurs, Kaja Kallas and Evelyne Gebhardt, produced a joint report for two committees (the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy ITRE and the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection IMCO), regaled with opinions from six other committees.

The resulting report A8-0371/2015 on Towards a Digital Single Market Act contained 78 pages, almost four times the number of pages in the DSM communication from the Commission (20 pages).

Since no legal act was proposed, the European Parliament prepared the report on its own initiative (INI).

I find it fair that the EP wants to exercise parliamentary scrutiny regarding developments in important policy areas, regardless of if the Parliament already has powers to legislate on concrete proposals, or if the Council or the governments of the member states have kept the powers. Parliamentary scrutiny contributes to openness (transparency), the fundamental principle evoked in Article 1 TEU.

I appreciate the good documentation of EP reports and resolutions, as one way to facilitate discussion.

But I wonder why the European Parliament has to say something about everything even remotely touching the subject at hand.

If and when the Parliament has an original contribution or different opinion, these tend to drown in an ocean of verbosity.

If the European Parliament chose to concentrate on the points it wants to make (and their reasons), would the plenary debates become a bit more focused and informative as well?     

What’s in a name?

Another thing I wondered at was the naming of the report: Towards a Digital Single Market Act.

The title reminds us of the communication:

Towards a Single Market Act - For a highly competitive social market economy - 50 proposals for improving our work, business and exchanges with one another; Brussels, 11.11.2010 COM(2010) 608 final/2

But this was a green paper, the basis for consultation; after the public hearing the European Commission published the Single Market Act (SMA) white paper communication, the equivalent of the DSM strategy:

Single Market Act - Twelve levers to boost growth and strengthen confidence -  "Working together to create new growth"; Brussels, 13.4.2011 COM(2011) 206 final   

  

The SMA later became the SMA I, when the Commission published its second strategy or package of measures, SMA II:

Single Market Act II - Together for new growth; Brussels, 3.10.2012 COM(2012) 573 final  

Admittedly, a seamless European digital single market is still unborn, but the strategy was a ready enough outline of promised actions and proposals, which is why I have failed to understand “Towards”.

The roadmap or package contained many actions, but I failed to understand the next phase as an “Act”, a word I found somewhat pompous with regard to the SMAs at the time.

What’s in a name? The contents matter, but still I am grateful if someone can explain these oddities to me.

Ralf Grahn

Digital single market litmus test

After the Main points of EU digital single market strategy we turn to the potential gains and necessary means, according to the digital single market (DSM) communication COM(2015) 192 and the evidence report SWD(2015) 100.

Potential DSM gains and conditions

If we try to find the  potential gains from a future digital single market, as well as the required means, this seems to be the core according to the official documents:

1 Huge growth potential

Europe has the capabilities to lead in the global digital economy but we are currently not making the most of them. Fragmentation and barriers that do not exist in the physical Single Market are holding the EU back. Bringing down these barriers within Europe could contribute an additional EUR 415 billion to European GDP.

2 Necessary conditions

I believe that we must make much better use of the great opportunities offered by digital technologies, which know no borders. To do so, we will need to have the courage to break down national silos in telecoms regulation, in copyright and data protection legislation, in the management of radio waves and in the application of competition law.

Growth potential

The estimated GDP growth potential of 415 billion euros was mentioned in the DSM communication (page 3), which referred to the staff working document SWD(2015) 100 with evidence. I quote one sentence and one paragraph (page 5):

Between 2001 and 2011, ICT accounted for 30% of GDP growth in the EU but for 55% in the US.

---

The DSM is an opportunity to close this gap. The potential contribution to European GDP from achieving such a fully functioning DSM has been estimated at EUR 415 billion. The long-run impact on GDP growth of the already observed digital reform efforts has been estimated at above 1%, while further efforts in line with the Digital Agenda for Europe targets would lead to an additional 2.1% of growth. Benefits from the current level of cross-border e-commerce are estimated at 0.27% of GDP. On the other hand, without a completed, secure and trustworthy DSM, new digital services for consumers and businesses, as well as services underpinning them (the Internet of Things, big data and cloud computing), may happen later or to a lesser extent in Europe.

The assertions of the staff working document were based on three studies offered as evidence:

European Parliament Research Service: Mapping the cost of Non-Europe, 2014-19, 2015

Lorenzani, D. and Varga, J.: The Economic Impact of Digital Structural Reforms, European Commission Economic Papers No 529, 2014

Francois, J. et al.: The Macro-economic Impact of Cross-border e-commerce in the EU, JRC/IPTS Digital Economy Working Paper No 2014-10, 2014

Breaking down national silos

Breaking down national silos in telecoms regulation, in copyright and data protection legislation, in the management of radio waves and in the application of competition law, in other words creating a seamless digital single market without national borders, was first mentioned in the political guidelines for the European Commission - see the publication A New Start for Europe - and reiterated in the DSM communication COM(2015) 192.

DSM litmus test

If the European Union and the European Economic Area want to catch up and overtake in order to become world leaders, digital single market regulation has to become better and more uniform than elsewhere, such as the federal United States and Canada.

This is the litmus test for each DSM proposal and reform in Europe.  Do the  governments of the member states, but also the European Commission and the European Parliament, have the political will and the ability to succeed?

Ralf Grahn

Main points of EU digital single market strategy

The Grahnblawg entry Bloggartiklar kring strategin för en digital inre marknad is a compilation of posts in Finnish and Swedish about the digital single market (DSM). The Grahnlaw article The EU digital single market strategy took us from the political guidelines to the communication and the supporting evidence from the European Commission:

A Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe; Brussels, 6.5.2015 COM(2015) 192 final (20 pages)  

A Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe - Analysis and Evidence; Brussels, 6.5.2015 SWD(2015) 100 final (109 pages)

Potential gains

I want to repeat the new estimate of potential gains for growth and jobs, according to the digital single market (DSM) communication (p. 3), referring to the commission staff working document (SWD). Breaking down all obstacles and unleashing the full digital potential of Europe fast enough would make a huge difference for the citizens of the union:

Europe has the capabilities to lead in the global digital economy but we are currently not making the most of them. Fragmentation and barriers that do not exist in the physical Single Market are holding the EU back. Bringing down these barriers within Europe could contribute an additional EUR 415 billion to European GDP.  

Three pillars

The DSM communication is structured into three pillars (p. 3-4):

• Better access for consumers and businesses to online goods and services across Europe – this requires the rapid removal of key differences between the online and offline worlds to break down barriers to cross-border online activity.

• Creating the right conditions for digital networks and services to flourish – this requires high-speed, secure and trustworthy infrastructures and content services, supported by the right regulatory conditions for innovation, investment, fair competition and a level playing field.

• Maximising the growth potential of our European Digital Economy – this requires investment in ICT infrastructures and technologies such as Cloud computing and Big Data, and research and innovation to boost industrial competiveness as well as better public services, inclusiveness and skills.

DSM actions

The pillars and planned actions are first discussed, then boiled down to a roadmap consisting of sixteen future legislative or non-legislative proposals (p. 20):

Better access for consumers and businesses to digital goods and services across Europe

Legislative proposals for simple and effective cross-border contract rules for consumers and businesses (2015)

Review the Regulation on Consumer Protection Cooperation (2016)

Measures in the area of parcel delivery (2016)

A wide ranging review to prepare legislative proposals to tackle unjustified Geo-blocking (2015)

Competition sector inquiry into e-commerce, relating to the online trade of goods and the online provision of services (2015)

Legislative proposals for a reform of the copyright regime (2015)

Review of the Satellite and Cable Directive (2015/2016)

Legislative proposals to reduce the administrative burden on businesses arising from different VAT regimes (2016)

Creating the right conditions for digital networks and services to flourish

Legislative proposals to reform the current telecoms rules (2016)

Review the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (2016)

Comprehensive analysis of the role of platforms in the market including illegal content on the Internet (2015)

Review the e-Privacy Directive (2016)

Establishment of a Cybersecurity contractual Public-Private Partnership (2016)

Maximising the growth potential of the Digital Economy

Initiatives on data ownership, free flow of data (e.g. between cloud providers) and on a European Cloud (2016)

Adoption of a Priority ICT Standards Plan and extending the European Interoperability Framework for public services (2015)

New e-Government Action Plan including an initiative on the 'Once-Only' principle and an initiative on building up the interconnection of business registers (2016)

***

Sixteen proposals may look like a great number, but my impression is that the Juncker Commission follows a clear strategic vision, based on the political guidelines. The total number of new legislative proposals is fairly low, and they are subjected to impact assessments, consultation etc.

The Commission submits existing EU law to Regulatory Fitness and Performance (REFIT) checks, according to its Better regulation agenda.

Ralf Grahn