In 2010, as part of the consultation on the decision regarding refarming, ICP-ANACOM made clear "that, in view of the Directive and Decision referred to above , having awarded the operators the right to use systems other than GSM (with the safeguard mentioned above) in the 900 and 1800 MHz frequency bands, it makes no sense to continue to assess the obligations of these operators, in particular with respect to coverage obligations, while ignoring this new reality". It was added that "in failing to do so, ICP-ANACOM would be contributing to inefficient use of the radio spectrum, to the extent that it would be disregarding coverage (assessed under the 900 and 1800 MHz licenses) where achieved through use of frequencies at 2.1 GHz and data coverage (assessed under the 2.1 GHz licenses) where achieved through use of frequencies at 900 and 1800 MHz".
Under that procedure, ICP-ANACOM also saw fit to propose the withdrawal of the "obligations existing in respect of the quantity and location of infrastructure to be installed (including base stations), maintaining the coverage obligations laid down in the license - which is the essential instrument ensuring the geographic availability of the service in question - and avoiding the imposition of obligations in respect of the quantity of infrastructure, which might lead to sub-optimal solutions in terms of network management, without any positive impact for consumers and with potentially negative implications resulting from non-productive investment, in view, in particular, of the evolution of technology ".
In this respect, the draft unified titles submitted to consultation in 2010, in line with the provisions included in the "renewed" titles of Vodafone (in 2006) and TMN (in 2007), established that, in providing services of voice and data up to 9600 bps, undertakings shall ensure, in terms of population and geographical distribution, minimum coverage which is not inferior to the coverage prevailing as on the issue date of said titles and not inferior to the minimum defined in the previously issued licenses.
Additionally, and again in accordance with the obligations already applying to TMN and Vodafone, it was also stipulated that ICP-ANACOM may determine coverage of specific localities and areas where warranted, particularly to fulfil communication needs that support the interests of the population and economic and social development. For this purpose, determination of coverage of specific localities will be preceded by a prior hearing of the undertakings.
In the consultation report and in light of the comments presented by Sonaecom (as the company was named at that time), ICP-ANACOM, making clear in general terms that the process "had no underlying intention to extend the obligations of GSM/UMTS operators, including as regards coverage", adopted the premise, however, that "in the specific case of SONAECOM, it may result in an increase in coverage obligations with regard to services of voice and data up to 9600 bits per second (bps), [whereby] it opts to maintain the obligations included in the company's current GSM license, notwithstanding that these obligations may be subject to review upon renewal of the rights of use of GSM frequencies (900 - 1800) as allocated to the company, which renewal is due by November 2012" (emphasis added by author).
The same position was taken in the matter of additional coverage of specific localities and areas, in relation to which it was stated that the company's situation would be "set out upon renewing the respective rights of use of frequencies".
