THE PROSPECT of a pan-European telecoms regulator receded last night after research commissioned by Brussels itself condemned the idea.

A study conducted for the European Commission by Analysys, a telecoms consultancy, found that most companies were opposed to a transnational regulator.

The research, which will put pressure on the Commission to scrap the proposal, found that a super-regulator would be too distanced from the markets it regulated to understand the specific issues in each country.

The creation of a centralised body risked leaving smaller operators struggling for a hearing. The cable, mobile, satellite and other companies questioned said that a Euro-regulator could create extra bureaucracy and legal problems.

The idea of a super-regulator is one of several proposals being discussed under a review of the rules governing the €273 billion (£184 billion) electronic communications sector.

The review comes after the arrival of potentially disruptive technologies such as VoIP (voice-over-internet-protocol) and a massive upheaval as the distinction between telecoms and media companies blurs.

Other suggestions raised in the study, which is not binding on the Commission, include the introduction of a Europe-wide premium-rate number and the creation of tighter rules around services such as VoIP.

The proposal for a super- regulator, already privately condemned by some country regulators, has been spearheaded by Viviane Reding, the European Commissioner for Information Society and Media.

She argues that a central regulator alongside the national regulators, could ensure more effective competition. It could also deal better with pan-European issues such as roaming charges, the cost of calling on a mobile phone from abroad.

However, although some of the companies surveyed by Analysys argued that a single authority could create more legal certainty and cost less than 25 separate regulators, the report noted that “this may be an argument for more harmonisation rather than support for a [European regulator] per se”.

Most opposed the idea, with one operator arguing that a Euro regulator could not have “the level of information that is needed to consistently make correct decisions informed by market circumstances”.

Instead of establishing a central European agency, some suggested, the Commission should seek to explain its rights and obligations better to operators. Some feel this is unclear.

Times Recommends

• C&G axed - 1,660 jobs to be lost
• UK house prices rise 1.1% as buyers return
• Mixed reaction to US banks repaying bailouts