FCC’s ‘unilateral’ action under International Settlement Policy i...
FCC’s “unilateral” action under International Settlement Policy is “contrary to the spirit and the letter of the WTO- GATS rules as well as GATS commitments made by the U.S.,” European Commission (EU) said in reply comments to FCC on…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
whether latter should review settlement charges. It said liberalization and procompetitive regulation of international settlement rates “must be achieved not by unilateral actions but by negotiations between countries… and by policy of assistance towards other countries” to reform their telecom regulations. EC applauded FCC’s initiative to review its rules on relations between U.S. and foreign carriers, but said the review would be only “first step towards a needed revision of the policies themselves in the light of the WTO rules.” EC expressed concerns that FCC was considering whether to take into account ownership structure of terminating dominant foreign operator, saying that criterion wasn’t relevant under WTO rules. It said competitive market would be achieved by applying appropriate procompetitive regulations, while insisting on privatization wouldn’t help process, but would “risk delaying the introduction of real competition.” EC also opposed idea to impose unilaterally regulatory obligations on mobile termination of international services: “This is no more warranted for mobile termination than for fixed termination of international services.” EC said issues raised by mobile termination demonstrated “practical risks of unilateral approach,” as lack of discussion with 3rd countries prevented understanding of their regulatory framework. For example, it said, application of “calling party pays” system in many countries had encouraged development of competitive mobile services and equipment markets. “The FCC cannot act in the place of national regulatory and competition authorities in 3rd countries, neither from a legal point of view nor from a practical point of view,” EC said: “However, the FCC may wish to share experiences with regulators from 3rd parties.” EC said it would “challenge the actions by the FCC” that weren’t compatible with WTO obligations.