BEREC, which represents the EU’s 28 national regulatory authorities (NRAs), says proposals for a single telecoms market are “being rushed through the European legislature without proper explanation and full exploration of its potential consequences”.

No doubt miffed it didn’t play a bigger part in the consultation process to help shape the measures put forward by Neelie Kroes – EU’s digital chief – BEREC argues that the draft regulation may well jeopardise competition and investment.

While lauding the objectives of a single market, BEREC says the reforms represent “a shift away from the current approach [based on pro-competitive regulation] towards one that favours market consolidation”.

Curiously, however, there was nothing specific in Kroes’ reform package about making tie-ups between operators any easier.

BEREC nonetheless claimed the Europe telecoms sector was “not quite as bleak as has been suggested” and Kroes’ plans risked undermining the legal certainty needed by companies to invest.

(Quoting OECD figures (August 2012), BEREC points out that some of the most competitive markets in Europe offer mobile communication at half the price of the US.)

BEREC is also concerned that the proposals represent a “substantial shift” in the balance of power between the commission, member states and NRA in the commission’s favour.

“These proposals risk undermining the ability of national regulators, whether acting individually or collectively, to take appropriate and proportionate regulatory action in all the relevant markets,” stated BEREC.

In response to the criticisms, Kroes, quoted by the Financial Times, said all feedback would be carefully looked at: “BEREC’s input has been essential in the drafting of the regulation, and they’ll remain essential in the implementation, no doubt about it,” she said.

For its part, however, BEREC clearly felt it didn’t play an active role in the consultation process. “We would have welcomed the opportunity to cooperate with the commission during the conception and elaboration of this legislative initiative, which was also not subject to a public consultation, and therefore did not benefit from the input of consumers, industry players and national regulators,” said the body.

As a result, argues BEREC, the commission did not have the opportunity to test the extent to which its proposals would deliver on its stated objectives, or the extent to which they are operationally feasible or effective, or have unintended consequences.