3. If an alternative roaming provider intends to offer local data roaming services, domestic providers operating a terrestrial public mobile communication network shall, for this purpose, meet reasonable requests for wholesale roaming access from an alternative roaming provider and allow the provision of local data roaming services by the alternative roaming provider and the provision of the remaining roaming services (voice and SMS) by the roaming provider using a home network to the roaming customers concerned during the usage of local data roaming services.

1. For the purpose of enabling roaming customers to access regulated voice, SMS and data roaming services, provided as a bundle by any alternative roaming provider, domestic providers operating a terrestrial public mobile communication network shall provide the necessary network elements and the relevant services that allow for the resale of retail roaming services, to the domestic provider’s customers by the alternative roaming provider in parallel to domestic mobile communication services without the need for the roaming customers to change their SIM card or mobile device.

However, a technical modality that gives effect to the obligation on domestic providers and roaming providers not to prevent customers from accessing regulated data roaming services provided directly on a visited network by an alternative roaming provider puts alternative data roaming providers in a position to provide local data roaming services, i.e. data roaming services without relying on a wholesale data roaming service.

This Regulation should lay down detailed rules on this technical solution comprising the requirements for domestic providers to deploy network elements and to provide related services concerning each technical modality, in order to ensure access to these facilities necessary to allow alternative roaming providers to offer separate roaming services and to provide for the switching process between donor and recipient roaming providers.

4. Where the competent authority deciding on limitations in relation to one or more port services in a specific port is itself a provider of the same or a similar service or services or has direct or indirect control over a provider of the same or a similar service or services in that port, Member States shall without any delay designate a different and independent competent authority to decide on any appeal or complaint against the actions and decisions of the managing body of the port in relation to third service providers.

It is true that Council Directive 92/44/EEC of 5 June 1992 on the application of open network provision to leased lines, amended by Commission Decision 94/439/EC (8), harmonizes the basic principles regarding the provision of leased lines, but it only harmonizes the conditions of access and use of leased lines. The aim of that Directive is not to remedy the conflict of interest of the telecommunications organizations as infrastructure and service providers. It does not impose a structural separation between the telecommunications organizations as providers of leased lines and as service providers. Complaints illustrate that even in Member States which have implemented that Directive, telecommunications organizations still use their control ...[+++]of the access conditions to the network at the expense of their competitors in the services market. Complaints show that telecommunications organizations still apply excessive tariffs and that they use information acquired as infrastructure providers regarding the services planned by their competitors, to target clients in the services market. Directive 92/44/EEC only provides for the principle of cost-orientation and does not prevent telecommunications organizations to use the information acquired as capacity provider as regards subscribers' usage patterns, necessary to target specific groups of users, and on price elasticities of demand in each service market segment and region of the country. The current regulatory framework does not resolve the conflict of interest mentioned above. The most appropriate remedy to this conflict of interest is therefore to allow service providers to use own or third party telecommunications infrastructure to provide their services to the final customers instead of the infrastructure of their main competitor. In its resolution of 22 December 1994 the Council also approved the principle that infrastructure provision should be liberalized.