Commission staff working document - Accompanying document to the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Future networks and the internet - Indexing Broadband Performance {COM(2008) 594} {SEC(2008) 2516}
Date: 2008-09-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Internet, competition policy, computer network, information technology, protection of privacy, transmission network

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 29.9.2008 
SEC(2008) 2507 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Accompanying document to the  

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

Future networks and the internet 

Indexing Broadband Performance  

{COM(2008) 594} 
{SEC(2008) 2516} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

1.3. 

2. 

3. 

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3 

Broadband take-up — and beyond............................................................................... 4 

Maximising broadband impacts ................................................................................... 6 

Methodological note .................................................................................................... 6 

Ranking and results ...................................................................................................... 9 

Indicators of success .................................................................................................. 11 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

In a short space of time, high-speed internet (broadband) has become fundamental to modern 
economies.  It  has  changed  the  way  we  access  the  internet  and  how  we  use  it.  It  has  made 
economic  activity  more  efficient  and  has  extended  social  interaction  in  previously 
unforeseeable ways.  

In the past, fixed telephone lines were used exclusively for voice telecommunications. Cable 
TV networks and satellite only transmitted television signals. With the development of ADSL 
and  other  broadband  technologies,  these  networks  can  transmit  a  wider  range  of  services. 
Operators increasingly provide bundles of voice, data and video-related services. ‘Triple-play’ 
and ‘multi-play’ offers are the first step towards a long-term evolution that will allow users to 
seamlessly access content and services through a variety of fixed and wireless networks.  

The diffusion of broadband has stimulated the migration to the participative web, or web 2.0, 
encouraging users to become content producers and the rise of more open innovation systems. 
It  has  offered  new  opportunities  for  professional  and  personal  activities  and  encouraged 
creation as well as more intensive uses of the internet.  

The European broadband market is developing rapidly and already outstrips that of the United 
States.  The  penetration  rate  reached  20%  of  the  population  in  January  2008,  a  threefold 
increase since enlargement in 2004, with Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands being world 
leaders.  In  the  course  of  2007  speeds  have  significantly  improved,  with  almost  half  of 
Europeans  accessing  speeds  above  2  Mbit/s.  Broadband  in  rural  areas  has  been  made 
available to 80% of population, up 7 percentage points over the previous year. However, there 
are some signs of fatigue: growth in penetration is slowing down and there are increasing gaps 
between  Member  States  in  terms  of  take-up,  speed,  price  and  coverage.  There  is  a  need  to 
analyse the underlying conditions in the Member States to assess the EU readiness to progress 
in the development of broadband.  

The  Council  Conclusions  of  12.06.2008  invite  the  Commission  to  ‘develop,  in  consultation 
with the Member States, a Broadband Performance Index, to be published together with the 
values  observed  for  each  of  its  component  indicators,  that  will  seek  to  compare  broadband 
developments  in  the  Member  States  and  their  propensity  to  further  take  up  of  advanced 
services and the benefits that arise from their use’. 

High-quality  monitoring  is  crucial  to  the  design  of  an  appropriate  policy  framework.  The 
Commission  has announced1 that it will benchmark the overall performance of the Member 
States  on  a  range  of  factors,  which  could  include  speeds,  rural  coverage,  affordability, 
innovation and other socio-economic dimensions. In consultation with the Member States, it 
has  developed  a  Broadband  Performance  Index  that  seeks  to  compare  broadband 
developments. This document details the results of this first exercise, which may be extended 
in future to other relevant indicators as data become available. Results show that France and 
the UK are now on a par with the Netherlands and other Nordic countries in having world-
class potential while large countries like Poland, Italy, Germany and Spain need to do more to 
bring their broadband economy up to speed. It also highlights the very important role played 
by the socio-economic context in furthering developments in several other Member States. 

1 

COM(2008) 199, ‘Preparing Europe’s digital future — i2010 Mid-Term Review’. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
1.1. 

Broadband take-up — and beyond 

Broadband  penetration,  i.e.  the  overall  number  of  broadband  lines  divided  by  the  national 
population,  has  been  traditionally  used  as  the  main  benchmark  for  setting  broadband 
objectives2.  The  2007  Strategic  Report  on  the  renewed  Lisbon  strategy3  calls  on  Member 
States to set national targets for high-speed internet usage, aiming for a 30% penetration rate 
in the EU by 2010. The June Council Conclusions add that all Member States should achieve 
a  penetration  rate  of  at  least  15%.  In  January  2008  the  EU  average  was  20%  (Figure  1). 
However, the gap between Member States with the highest and lowest penetration increased 
from 27.4 percentage points in January 2007 to 28 in January 2008. 

EU Broadband penetration rate (January 2008)

January 07

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

%
6
.
5
3

%
6
.
4
3

%
2
.
4
3

%
2
.
1
% 3
1
.
9
2

%
4
.
5
2

%
6
.
5
2

%
7
.
5
2

%
8

.

3
2

%
3

.

3
% 2
2

.

1
2

%
0

.

0
2

%
0

.

9
1

%
3

.

8
1

%
9

.

6
1

%
1

.

7
1

%
3

.

7
1

%
4

.

7
1

%
7
3
1

.

%
8

.

3
1

%
2

.

4
1

%
6
4
1

.

%
1

.

6
1

%
0

.

5
1

%
8

.

8

%
1

.

9

%
8

.

9

%
4

.

8

%
6
7

.

BG PL SK EL RO LT CY HU CZ LV PT MT IT SI

IE ES AT EU27 EE FR DE LU BE UK NO SE NL FI DK

Data for FR, NL, AT, EE and LT refer to October

Figure 1 Source: Communications Committee. The EU average does not include Norway. 

The penetration rate indicator is a useful tool for a number of reasons: 

•  It is very simple to construct, as it is calculated from primary indicators (fixed broadband 

lines and population). 

•  It  is  a  straightforward  measure,  being  relatively  easy  to  collect,  update,  understand  and 

communicate. 

•  It is widely collected and international comparisons are relatively easy. 

•  The  methodology  for  data  gathering  is  sufficiently tested and robust,  at  least for EU and 

other OECD countries. 

•  It facilitates target-setting. 

2 

3 

Data  for  the  European  Union  are  currently  collected  in  the  Communications  Committee  using  a 
harmonised methodology. 
COM(2007) 803. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
By its very nature, however, this indicator has a number of limitations, arising mainly from 
the fact that all broadband lines are considered a homogeneous product: 

•  It  does  not  give  the  split  between  business  and  residential  customers.  Countries  with 
similar penetration rates may follow completely different patterns, demand being led either 
by business or by residential customers.  

•  Differences  in  the  average  size  of  households  imply  that  the  real  gap  between  the  most 
advanced and the least developed countries may be smaller than the official figures based 
on population indicate. 

•  It does not indicate differences in speeds. Users in countries with similar penetration rates 

may experience very different levels of quality and innovation. 

•  The  current  measure  concerns  the  penetration  rate  of  fixed  lines  and  does  not  include 
wireless  solutions.  The  Communication  Committee  is  in  the  process  of  collecting  these 
data, but the exercise is proving cumbersome. 

•  Penetration rates do not provide information about the availability of broadband over the 

country as a whole. 

•  Penetration rates do not provide information on the drivers of growth. 

Different  factors  may  impact  on  the  take-up  of  broadband  services  and  result  in  increasing 
gaps between Member States. Differences are visible not only in terms of penetration rates but 
also in coverage, speeds, prices and level of usage, as a result of competition and other socio-
economic  factors.  The  result  is  that  the  overall  patterns  of  broadband  development  in  the 
European Union are increasingly fragmented. Close monitoring of broadband markets, taking 
into  account  all  relevant  variables,  is  crucial  to  provide  a  fair,  reliable  picture  of  how  the 
broadband market is evolving in each Member State and in the European Union.  

A composite indicator can be a useful tool to summarise multi-dimensional issues that cannot 
be captured by a single indicator, to compare broadband adoption among countries, to provide 
support for policy makers and to offer insights on the readiness of countries to progress in the 
development of broadband. It is easier to interpret and facilitates benchmarking. Information 
on  the  individual  components  of  a  composite  indicator  is  necessary  to  improve  the 
understanding of trends and identify policy responses. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
1.2.  Maximising broadband impacts 

While  the  rate  of  broadband  take-up  will  remain  a  crucial  measure  of  the  development  of 
broadband  markets,  the  Broadband  Performance  Index  (BPI)  provides  complementary 
information  on  barriers  to  and  drivers  of  growth.  In  particular,  the  BPI  ranks  the  EU-27 
countries plus Norway in terms of the supply and demand factors that affect the take-up and 
use of broadband.  

The index has three main objectives: 

•  To compare the relative performance of countries in the area of broadband, strengthening 

benchmarking. 

•  To identify the relative strengths and weaknesses of individual countries to facilitate and 

fine-tune policy making. 

•  To  assess  the  relative  propensity  of  the  EU  Member  States  to  progress  in  the  area  of 

broadband. 

1.3.  Methodological note 

Given  the  general  objectives  above,  the  framework  for  the  index  has  the  following 
components:  

•  Broadband coverage, reflecting developments in rural areas;  

•  Competition  by  coverage,  reflecting  countries’  innovative  capacity,  propensity  to  invest 
and  consumer  choice  (the  level  of  competition  as  corrected  by  the  relative  size  of  the 
market); 

•  Speeds, reflecting quality developments; 

•  Prices, reflecting affordability; 

•  Use of advanced services, reflecting the propensity of individuals and businesses to take up 

innovative services and the perception of trust;  

•  Socio-economic  context,  reflecting  factors  that  summarise  preferences,  skills  and  capital 
equipment that influence the propensity to use advanced communication technologies and 
services. While components may be partly correlated (as often happens for economic and 
social  phenomena),  each  adds  something  particular  to  the  index  and  to  overall 
performance4.  

Basic statistical indicators have been selected according to the following criteria: 

4 

The composite index can be thought of as a latent variable that cannot be observed directly but that can 
be calculated through a linear combination of basic indicators, gathered along some dimensions which 
may partly overlap, but which need to be included for the sake of exhaustiveness. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
•  Relevance with respect to the theoretical framework and the dimensions of the composite 

index; 

•  Availability, quality and coherence across the different EU Member States. 

All  the  indicators  have  been  collected  according  to  methodologies  agreed  at  EU  level.  The 
index  will  be  updated  as  new  data  become  available.  If  new  sources  of  measurement  that 
could be relevant to the index become available, the index will be revised accordingly. 

The outcome of the BPI is represented by a value ranging from 0 to 1, where the maximum 
and  minimum  values  of  the  scale  are  arbitrary  decisions  depending  on  the  selected 
normalisation  method.  The  value  has  no  meaning  in  itself  unless  compared  with  the  results 
obtained for other countries. It does not refer to any specific dimension that can be expressed 
with  usual  basic  or  derived  metrics.  The  composite  index  tells  whether  a  country  performs 
worse or better than other countries. 

Methodological issues 

Normalisation  is  required  prior  to  any  data  aggregation,  as  indicators  in  a  data  set  tend  to  have  different 
measurement units. We consider normalisation through re-scaling as the best option because it uses all available 
information and is easy to express and communicate. According to this methodology, indicators are normalised 
to an identical range of (0;1), according to the following formula: 

I

ci

=

x
ic
(max
c

min
−
)
x
−

x
c
(min
c

i

i

 for a given country c and indicator i 

x

i

)

One  main  methodological  issue  concerns  missing  data,  which  are  replaced  by  data  available  for  a  contextual 
variable highly correlated with the missing variable. 

For example, in the case of broadband prices, the composite indicator includes the monthly price of broadband 
products in the 1–2 Mbit/s and 2–8 Mbit/s brackets (currently the most used speed brackets). However, products 
with these speeds are not always available. When not available, prices are replaced by the prices of bundles in 
the same speed bracket (i.e. broadband access associated with other services such as telephony or TV) or, when a 
speed  bracket  is  simply  not  offered,  by  the  price  of  a  product  with  the  next  higher  speed,  which  can  then  be 
considered the entry level price for consumers. 

When contextual variables are not available, missing data have been replaced by the average normalised scores 
across the remaining variables. In practice this means assuming that the performance of one country for a single 
missing indicator is the same as for the remaining ones (for which data are available). This has been the case for 
the "competition by coverage" indicator for Bulgaria (because national coverage data were missing) and for ICT 
expenditure in Cyprus, Luxembourg and Malta.  

Weighting  is  the  last  element  that  needs  to  be  taken  into  account.  Each  of  the  dimensions  should  be  given  a 
weight in line with its political relevance. Weights are calculated as simple arithmetical averages of the opinions 
expressed by experts through a survey of Member States plus Norway5 (Table 1). 

5 

EN 

Experts 
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/i2010/high_level_group/index_en.htm. 

designated 

through 

i2010 

Level 

High 

were 

the 

Group, 

see 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
RURAL COVERAGE 

BB coverage in rural areas 

COMPETITION BY 
COVERAGE 

BROADBAND PRICE 

QUALITY 

TAKE-UP OF 
ADVANCED 
SERVICES 

SOCIO-ECONOMIC 
CONTEXT 

PLATFORM COMPETITION 
*NATIONAL COVERAGE 

BB ACCESS PRICES IN PPP -
Median price 1-2 Mbit/s 

BB ACCESS PRICES IN PPP – 
Median price 2-8 Mbit/s 

MEDIAN OF THE NORMALISED 
PRICE

AVERAGE SPEED 

% OF SUBSCRIBERS TO PRODUCTS 
WITH SPEEDS ABOVE 2 MBIT/S 

USE OF INTERNET SERVICES BY 
ENTERPRISES 

INDIVIDUALS DOWNLOADING 
SOFTWARE, MUSIC GAMES, E-GOV 

TRUST E-BANKING AND ONLINE 
PURCHASES (INDIVIDUALS) 

E-SKILLS (INDIVIDUALS) 

PC AND 3G PENETRATION 

ICT EXPENDITURE PER CAPITA 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
2. 

RANKING AND RESULTS 

The outcome of the BPI is represented by a value ranging from 0 to 1, higher values implying 
that  a  country  performs  better  than  others  in  terms  of  the  various  components.  Results  for 
EU27 Member States plus Norway are shown in Figure 2. The aim is to identify strengths and 
weaknesses that may stimulate or hamper further growth of broadband. 

BPI 

Socio-economic context

Take up of advanced services

Speeds

BB price

BB competition*coverage

BB coverage in rural areas

0,90

0,80

0,70

0,60

0,50

0,40

0,30

0,20

0,10

0,00

BG CY RO PL

EL

LT

SK

EE

IE

LV

HU

IT

CZ

PT MT

SI

LU

ES

DE

FI

AT

BE

FR NO UK DK

NL

SE

Figure 2 

The highest ranked is Sweden, followed by the Netherlands. Both countries have a favourable 
socio-economic  context,  with  a  high  propensity  to  use  advanced  services  and  a  competitive 
environment that has ensured affordable prices and high speeds.  

Denmark, UK, Norway, and France form a second cluster. France’s performance is very good 
in terms of supply-side indicators such as speeds and prices, but is limited by the take-up of 
advanced services (in particular by individuals) and the socio-economic context (in particular 
in terms of PC and 3G penetration). The other countries in the group are characterised by a 
positive  socio-economic  environment.  Denmark  has  strong  broadband  take-up,  driven  by  a 
favourable socio-economic context (in particular in terms of preferences and skills), a positive 
propensity to use advanced services, but limited competition which translates into high prices. 
Average speeds have improved significantly in the course of 2007, driven by strong demand. 
The UK performs well in most indicators but lags behind in speeds and take-up of advanced 
services,  in  particular  by  businesses,  although  trust  in  the  online  environment  is  generally 
positive.  

A  third  group  of  countries  includes  Belgium,  Austria,  Finland,  Germany  and  Spain.  In 
Finland broadband take-up is high and largely favoured by a positive socio-economic context 
that ensures a strong propensity to use ICT services. Broadband in Finland is widely available 
despite its scarcely populated regions. Relative to other countries, however, its performance is 
limited  by  the  degree  of  platform  competition,  high  prices  and  low  speeds.  The  socio-
economic environment in Belgium and Spain is less favourable as the penetration of PCs and 
3G (in Belgium in particular) is relatively limited. Moreover, their performance is constrained 
by high retail prices and a relatively low take-up of advanced services (by Spanish enterprises 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
in  particular),  despite  positive  results  for  broadband  coverage  and  speeds.  Relatively  low 
speeds are the main barrier to further developments in Germany and Austria. Competition in 
Germany and rural coverage in Austria are relatively weak. 

Luxembourg,  Slovenia,  Malta,  Portugal,  the  Czech  Republic  and  Italy  make  up  the  fourth 
cluster.  Luxembourg  and  Italy  have  a  favourable  socio-economic  context.  Citizens  and 
businesses  in  Luxembourg  have  a  positive  propensity  to  use  advanced  services,  while 
performance  in  competition  and  speeds  is  weak.  Use  of  advanced  services  in  Italy  is  more 
limited, in particular because of low usage of eGovernment and other purchasing activities by 
individuals,  as  well  as  relative  performance  in  platform  competition  and  prices.  The  Czech 
Republic, Portugal, Slovenia and Malta feature a weaker socio-economic context, in particular 
for  ICT  expenditure  and  skills,  with  limited  use  of  advanced  services  (due  in  particular  to 
trust-related indicators) as well as relatively high  prices and, in Malta and Slovenia,  limited 
speeds. 

A  fifth  cluster  groups  Latvia,  Hungary,  Ireland  and  Estonia.  The  socio-economic  context  is 
more  favourable  in  Ireland  than  in  the  other  countries,  but  relatively  high  prices  and  low 
speeds limit its performance, possibly as a result of weak competition. Relatively high prices, 
low speeds and limited rural coverage hold back performance for the whole group.  

The  remaining  seven  countries  are  more  scattered.  Their  performance  is  limited  in  most 
dimensions  by  the  socio-economic  context  and  by  high  prices  in  some  countries  (Slovakia, 
Lithuania,  Poland,  Cyprus).Romania  features  a  good  degree  of  platform  competition  but 
coverage  is  limited;  Cyprus  on  the  contrary  has  good  broadband  coverage;  Lithuania  a 
satisfactory degree of competition and Slovakia relatively high speeds.  

The BPI has been successful in illustrating elements that are not immediately apparent from a 
mere analysis of penetration rates. This was indeed the purpose of the BPI. Even in some of 
the  leading  countries,  the  results  highlight  weaknesses  (in  particular  prices  and  speeds), 
apparently due to a weak competitive environment. Elsewhere, competition has translated into 
low prices and high speeds, but users have a low propensity to take up advanced services. In 
several  Member  States,  the  socio-economic  context,  resulting  in  low  skills  and  a 
correspondingly  low  interest  in  advanced  services,  appears  to  be  an  important  barrier  to 
further development. By showing what is driving broadband take-up and in particular what is 
holding  it  back,  the  index  will  help  Member  States  and  the  Commission  to  design  and 
implement more targeted actions to improve take up. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
3. 

INDICATORS OF SUCCESS 

The list of components, indicators, their sources, weights (in italics) and rationale are listed in Table 1. Table 2 summarises the main results 
per country under each component. 

Table 1 

Component 

Indicator 

Source 

Ref. date 

Description 

Rationale 

Broadband 
coverage 
rural areas 

in 

Broadband 
coverage  in  rural 
areas 

IDATE 

31/12/07 

% of population in rural areas 
connected to a local exchange 
equipped with a DSLAM. 

This is a measure of the geographical digital divide. Because of sparse population and distance, 
rural areas suffer from underinvestment in broadband and coverage is limited. The indicator here 
measures the propensity of a country to provide broadband for all. 

(0.68) 

Competition 

(0.92) 

Platform 
competition 
* 
national coverage 

COCOM 
and 
IDATE 

1/01/08 

31/12/07 

*  Data  for  CZ,  EE,  RO  and 
BG are based on estimates 

Platform  competition  =  new 
entrants’  lines  (using  LLU, 
own  PSTN  and  non-DSL 
lines) over the total number of 
broadband 
lines  *  %  of 
national population connected 
to  a  local  exchange  equipped 
with a DSLAM 

*  Data 
available 

for  BG  are  not 

* Data on competition for NO 
are from Idate  

This is a measure of the level of competition as corrected by the size of the market.  

Stronger  platform  competition  is  assumed  to  lead  to  more  innovation,  investment  and  choice. 
Platform  competition  translates  into  high  penetration  rates  when  broadband  coverage  is 
generalised. Hence the geometrical average. 

EN 

11 

EN 

 
  
 
 
Prices 

(0.88) 

BB price  

Van Dijk 

1/04/2008  BB Price. Median offer in the 

[1 – 2] Mbit/s basket 

A  comparison  of  prices  for  BB  access  in  PPP  in  the  1  Mbit/s-2  Mbit/s  basket  (around  31%  of 
users in the EU subscribe to such products). 

1 Mbit/s-2 Mbit/s 

BB price  

Van Dijk 

1/04/2008  BB Price. Median offer in the 

(2 – 8] Mbit/s basket 

A comparison of prices for BB access in PPP in the 2 – 8 Mbit/s basket (34% of users in the EU 
subscribe to these products).  

2 Mbit/s-8 Mbit/s 

Price/speed 

EC  based 
on  Van 
Dijk 

1/04/2008  Median  of  the  price  divided 

by the download speed 

Calculated on the basis of all offers available in each market (including bundles), this indicator 
calculates the median of the monthly price in PPP divided by the advertised download speed and 
takes into account the availability of higher speed offers.  

Speeds6 

(0.99) 

Take-up 
speeds 

by 

EC  based 
on IDATE 

31/12/07  Weighted  average  of  national 
broadband 
speeds,  with 
weights  equal  to  the  take-up 
of each speed bracket  

Speeds provide a proxy for the quality of broadband.  

*  Data  for  CZ  and  EE,  are 
based on estimates 

%  of  subscribers 
to speeds above 2 
Mbit/s 

 IDATE 

31/12/07 

% of subscribers to speeds of 
2 Mbit/s or more 

High-speed  broadband  lines  are  required  to  deliver  advanced  services  such  as  IPTV.  Countries 
with a higher proportion of subscribers currently using high speeds are assumed to have a higher 
propensity to migrate to faster speeds. 

*  Data  for  CZ  and  EE,  are 
based on estimates 

6 

EN 

Experts from Member States agree on the need to improve the measurement of speeds, which is currently performed on the basis of advertised speeds rather than effective 
speeds. 

12 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
of 

eInvoicing  

Take-up 
advanced 
services 

(1.08) 

eGovernment 
take-up 
businesses  

by 

Downloads 
(games,  music, 
films) 

Downloads 
(software) 

eGovernment  by 
individuals 

Online 
purchases 

eBanking  

ESTAT 

(ICT 
survey  on 
ENT) 

ESTAT 

(ICT 
survey  on 
ENT) 

ESTAT 

(ICT 
survey  on 
HH) 

ESTAT 

(ICT 
survey  on 
HH) 

ESTAT 

(ICT 
survey  on 
HH) 

ESTAT 

(ICT 
survey  on 
HH) 

ESTAT 

(ICT 
survey  on 
HH) 

01/2007 

%  of  enterprises  sending  e-
invoices  

A measure of the propensity of enterprises to use advanced services 

2007 

%  of  enterprises  filling  in 
official forms online  

A measure of the propensity of enterprises to use advanced services 

1st  quarter 
2007 

% of individuals downloading 
(last  3 
music/video/games 
months) 

A measure of the propensity of individuals to use advanced services 

1st  quarter 
2007 

% of individuals downloading 
software (last 3 months) 

A measure of the propensity of individuals to use advanced services 

1st  quarter 
2007 

%  of  individuals  who  have 
used the internet, in the last 3 
months,  for  filling  in  official 
forms 

1st  quarter 
2007 

%  of  individuals  purchasing 
online (last 3 months) 

A measure of the propensity of individuals to use eGovernment services 

A measure of the propensity of individuals to make online transactions and therefore of trust 

1st  quarter 
2007 

%  of  individuals  using  e-
banking (last 3 months)  

A measure of the propensity of individuals to make online transactions and therefore of trust 

EN 

13 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Socio-economic 
context 

e-skills 

(0.95) 

Household  PC 
penetration 

ESTAT 

(ICT 
survey  on 
HH) 

ESTAT 

(ICT 
survey  on 
HH) 

1st  quarter 
2007 

In  using 

% of individuals with at least 
basic  skills 
the 
internet  (having  performed  at 
least 
internet-related 
activity) 

1 

A measure of the digital skills necessary for the take-up of services  

1st  quarter 
2007 

%  of  households  with  access 
to,  via  one  of  its  members,  a 
computer at home 

A measure of the level of equipment enabling the use of broadband applications  

Penetration 
3G handsets 

of 

EC  based 
on IDATE 

31/12/07 

Number  of  3G  subscribers  / 
national population 

A measure of the level of equipment enabling the use of broadband applications 

ICT expenditure 
per capita 

EITO 

2007 

ICT expenditure per capita 

A measure of preference for ICT  

*  Data  for  CY,  LU  and  MT 
are not available. 

EN 

14 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2 

e
g
a
r
e
v
o
c

l

a
r
u
r

B
B

100% 

0% 

75% 

100% 

88% 

73% 

73% 

50% 

88% 

97% 

82% 

80% 

65% 

68% 

100% 

80% 

99% 

99% 

81% 

43% 

86% 

25% 

86% 

39% 

91% 

90% 

96% 

94% 

BE 

BG 

CZ 

DK 

DE 

EE 

IE 

EL 

ES 

FR 

IT 

CY 

LV 

LT 

LU 

HU 

MT 

NL 

AT 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SI 

SK 

FI 

SE 

UK 

NO 

y
b

n
o
i
t
i
t
e
p
m
o
C

e
g
a
r
e
v
o
c

42% 

NA  

53% 

34% 

34% 

38% 

26% 

18% 

34% 

37% 

23% 

10% 

48% 

44% 

15% 

38% 

44% 

49% 

50% 

24% 

28% 

30% 

41% 

31% 

25% 

57% 

46% 

i

n
a
d
e
M

l

y
h
t
n
o
M

–

1
[

t
e
k
s
a
B

.
r
e
f
f
o

)

P
P
P

/
(

s
/
t
i
b
M

]
2

 46.44 

 36.38  

39.63  

29.14  

 37.59  

 19.62  

 29.39  

 25.86  

 36.34 

 26.25/  

 46.40  

 30.32 

 22.80  

 21.14  

 30.81  

 35.41  

 36.58  

 18.66  

 27.25  

 62.88  

 53.59  

 20.30  

 33.78  

 80.89  

 36.38  

 23.44  

 8.45  

38%  

 25.47  

i

n
a
d
e
M

l

y
h
t
n
o
M

—
2
(

t
e
k
s
a
B

.
r
e
f
f
o

)

P
P
P

/
(

s
/
t
i
b
M

]
8

 50.34  

 47.34  

 62.31  

 34.25  

 37.97  

 56.47  

 40.58  

 25.74  

 46.19  

 26.25  

 23.74  

 30.32  

 33.39  

 33.25  

 45.52  

 54.02  

 60.77  

 28.04  

 49.54  

 85.71  

 65.34  

 83.59  

 28.68  

 69.32  

 42.82  

 27.16  

 16.47  

 35.85  

EN 

f
o

d
e
e
p
s
/
e
c
i
r
p

i

n
a
d
e
M

)
s
/
b
k
(€/

s
d
e
e
p
s

p
u
-
e
k
a
T

)
s
/
b
k

l

d
a
o
n
w
o
d
(

o

t

s
r
e
b
i
r
c
s
b
u
s

f

o

%

h

t
i

w

2

e
v
o
b
a

s
t
c
u
d
o
r
p

s
d
e
e
p
s

s
/
t
i

b
M

f
o

%

(

i

i

g
n
c
o
v
n
I
-
e

)
s
e
s
i
r
p
r
e
t
n
e

55.99 

25.60 

55.68 

81.93 

157.49 

57.18 

43.97 

138.20 

53.92 

389.59 

161.15 

23.45 

71.75 

11.70 

188.77 

59.78 

67.49 

142.77 

147.33 

15.12 

135.46 

100.90 

165.35 

21.26 

58.21 

213.19 

197.06 

106.86 

7,672  

2,069  

3,439  

7,093  

3,262  

967  

2,014  

5,900  

5,000  

5,242  

5,619  

1,285  

2,791  

1,207  

1,620  

5,086  

2,439  

7,744  

3,069  

2,761  

4,720  

2,667  

3,027  

7,703  

4,016  

11,305  

3,644  

6,093  

91% 

7% 

43% 

48% 

32% 

4% 

19% 

30% 

83% 

55% 

45% 

9% 

32% 

14% 

12% 

45% 

29% 

63% 

43% 

8% 

55% 

33% 

17% 

48% 

32% 

57% 

47% 

62% 

8% 

4% 

14% 

25% 

11% 

11% 

15% 

4% 

5% 

7% 

10% 

5% 

7% 

5% 

7% 

2% 

13% 

6% 

8% 

3% 

9% 

12% 

4% 

9% 

16% 

12% 

8% 

10% 

%

(

t
n
e
m
n
r
e
v
o
G
-
e

)
s
e
s
i
r
p
r
e
t
n
e

f
o

37% 

29% 

34% 

61% 

43% 

58% 

69% 

77% 

38% 

59% 

35% 

14% 

26% 

60% 

35% 

44% 

49% 

73% 

54% 

56% 

66% 

20% 

61% 

56% 

78% 

55% 

40% 

61% 

15 

d
n
a

s
e
m
a
g

e
n

i
l

n
O

f
o

%

(

i

c
s
u
m

l

)
s
a
u
d
v
d
n

i

i

i

e
r
a
w

t
f
o
S

f
o

%

(

i

g
n
d
a
o
n
w
o
d

l

%

(

t
n
e
m
n
r
e
v
o
G
-
e

l

)
s
a
u
d
v
d
n

i

i

i

l

)
s
a
u
d
v
d
n

i

i

i

f
o

e
n

i
l

n
o

i

g
n
s
a
h
c
r
u
P

l

)
s
a
u
d
v
d
n

i

i

i

f
o
%

(

f
o
%

(

i

g
n
k
n
a
B

-
e

l

)
s
a
u
d
v
d
n

i

i

i

f
o
%

(

s

l
l
i

k
s
-
e

l

)
s
a
u
d
v
d
n

i

i

i

23% 

16% 

20% 

33% 

21% 

29% 

13% 

15% 

25% 

22% 

14% 

20% 

27% 

27% 

33% 

27% 

19% 

45% 

17% 

17% 

21% 

12% 

25% 

23% 

34% 

35% 

26% 

35% 

15% 

5% 

10% 

35% 

30% 

23% 

10% 

9% 

21% 

14% 

12% 

11% 

10% 

16% 

37% 

17% 

13% 

29% 

17% 

12% 

9% 

4% 

19% 

11% 

30% 

23% 

17% 

34% 

8% 

3% 

4% 

33% 

17% 

20% 

19% 

5% 

8% 

18% 

5% 

10% 

6% 

11% 

21% 

14% 

9% 

33% 

13% 

4% 

13% 

2% 

6% 

8% 

17% 

24% 

18% 

26% 

15% 

2% 

8% 

43% 

41% 

6% 

26% 

5% 

13% 

26% 

7% 

8% 

6% 

4% 

37% 

7% 

16% 

43% 

26% 

11% 

6% 

2% 

9% 

10% 

32% 

39% 

44% 

48% 

35% 

2% 

12% 

57% 

35% 

53% 

24% 

4% 

16% 

32% 

12% 

12% 

28% 

21% 

46% 

12% 

22% 

65% 

30% 

13% 

12% 

2% 

19% 

15% 

66% 

57% 

32% 

71% 

68% 

34% 

53% 

82% 

74% 

65% 

58% 

37% 

56% 

64% 

42% 

40% 

59% 

51% 

79% 

54% 

47% 

84% 

69% 

50% 

43% 

29% 

59% 

64% 

79% 

78% 

71% 

85% 

G
3

f
o

n
o
i
t
a
r
t
e
n
e
P

f
o
%

(

s
t
e
s
d
n
a
h

)
n
o
i
t
a
u
p
o
p

l

3.85% 

2.87% 

1.77% 

13.53% 

12.59% 

4.80% 

a
t
i
p
a
c

r
e
p
T
C

I

)
(€

e
r
u
t
i
d
n
e
p
x
e

1784  

268  

675  

2464  

1620  

610  

20.33% 

1649  

8.24% 

22.96% 

13.58% 

36.03% 

0.99% 

9.23% 

3.10% 

16.87% 

3.28% 

6.71% 

11.03% 

14.81% 

2.70% 

30.14% 

4.55% 

9.03% 

8.52% 

24.62% 

27.81% 

20.68% 

25.54% 

783  

1136  

1607  

1218  

NA  

476  

367  

NA 

608  

NA 

2056  

1779  

410  

915  

213  

828  

450  

1925  

2473  

2059  

2260  

l

C
P
d
o
h
e
s
u
o
H

n
o
i
t
a
r
t
e
n
e
p

67% 

23% 

43% 

83% 

79% 

57% 

65% 

40% 

60% 

62% 

53% 

53% 

49% 

46% 

80% 

54% 

63% 

83% 

71% 

54% 

48% 

34% 

66% 

55% 

74% 

83% 

75% 

82% 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
€
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
€
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EN 

16 

EN