COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on measures to reduce the cost of deploying high speed electronic communications networks
Date: 2013-03-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: engineering structure, industrial cooperation, investment cost, telecommunications industry, trans-European network, transmission network

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 26.3.2013  
SWD(2013) 74 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying the document 

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council 

on measures to reduce the cost of deploying high speed electronic communications 
networks 

{COM(2013) 147 final} 
{SWD(2013) 73 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying the document 

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council 

on measures to reduce the cost of deploying high speed electronic communications 
networks 

1. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

Smart, sustainable and inclusive growth as envisaged in the Europe 2020 Strategy will very 
much depend on the availability and widespread use of the high-speed Internet. A high quality 
digital infrastructure underpins virtually all sectors of a modern and innovative economy. It is 
the  backbone  of  the  Single  Market,  a  major  and  still  to  a  large  extent  untapped  source  of 
growth, and a key factor for the EU's competitiveness.  

The Digital Agenda for Europe, one of the flagship initiatives of the Europe 2020 Strategy, 
sets  ambitious  broadband  coverage  and  speed  targets.  Yet,  while  significant  investments  in 
the telecom sector are already undertaken by companies, it appears that the efforts to stimulate 
broadband rollout need to be reinforced.  

This  impact  assessment  accompanies  a  legislative  proposal  that  would,  if  adopted  by  the 
European  Parliament  and  the  Council,  make  the  deployment  of  high-speed  broadband 
networks  cheaper  and  easier.  It  would  do  so  by  ensuring  an  improved  access  to  passive 
infrastructure  suitable  for  broadband  rollout,  more  opportunities  for  cooperation  in  civil 
engineering  works,  streamlined  permit  granting  procedures,  and  more  buildings  high-speed 
ready.  The  proposal  has  been  prepared  following  a  call  from  the  2012  Spring  Council  for 
steps to be taken at EU level to achieve costs savings as part of efforts to complete the Digital 
Single Market by 2015. It forms part of the Single Market Act II.  

The  problem  addressed  by  this  initiative  derives  from  the  various  inefficiencies  and 
bottlenecks  in  the  process  of  rolling  out  broadband  networks.  These  inefficiencies  and 
bottlenecks lead to high costs and heavy administrative burdens for undertakings wishing to 
deploy networks. It should also be noted that the dominant cost (up to 80%) in deploying new 
networks is linked to civil engineering.  

Based  on  studies  and  extensive  feedback  from  stakeholders,  four  areas  of  action  have  been 
identified:  (1)  inefficiencies  or  bottlenecks  concerning  the  use  of  existing  passive 
infrastructure (such as for example ducts, conduits, manholes, cabinets, poles, masts, antennae 
installations,  towers  and  other  supporting  constructions),  (2)  bottlenecks  related  to  co-
deployment, (3) inefficiencies regarding administrative permit granting, and, (4) bottlenecks 
concerning in-building deployment in view of connecting customers.  

It  is  believed  that  savings  between  20  and  30%  could  be  achieved  by  adopting  a  set  of 
coherent and mutually reinforcing measures throughout these areas. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
2. 

ANALYSIS OF SUBSIDIARITY 

These  measures  are  necessary  at  the  level  of  the  Union  to  improve  the  conditions  for  the 
establishment  and  functioning  of  the  internal  market,  as  a  complement  to  the  regulatory 
framework for electronic communications, in order to: 

– 

– 

– 

remove barriers to the functioning of the Single Market caused by the patchwork of 
rules at national and sub-national levels, which impedes the further development and 
growth of European companies, has a negative impact on European competitiveness, 
and  creates  barriers  to  invest  and  operate  cross-border,  and  thus  obstructs  the 
freedom to provide electronic communications services and networks as guaranteed 
under existing Union legislation; 

stimulate  ubiquitous  broadband  coverage,  which  is  a  pre-condition  for  the 
development  of  the  Digital  Single  Market,  thus  contributing  to  the  removal  of  an 
important obstacle to the completion of the Single Market; 

realise  the  significant  untapped  potential  of  cost-reduction  and  facilitation  of 
broadband rollout. 

3. 

OBJECTIVES 

The  specific  objective  of  this  initiative  is  to  reduce  costs  and  increase  efficiency  in  the 
deployment  of  high-speed  broadband.  More  precisely,  the  costs  of  high-speed  broadband 
rollout should be reduced by 25%. At the same time, acting in this area at EU level will also 
consolidate the Single Market.  

This  twofold  specific  objective  must  be  seen  within  the  general  context  of  stimulating 
broadband rollout throughout the EU, in line with the Digital Agenda targets.  

The operational objectives of this initiative are as follows:  

(1)  Increasing  the  use  of  existing  passive  infrastructure  suitable  for  broadband  rollout,  by 
achieving more transparency concerning this infrastructure, as well as a more consistent and 
effective regulatory regime concerning access to it, regardless of the owner;  

(2) Increasing cooperation in civil engineering projects relevant for broadband rollout through 
the  EU,  in  particular  by  ensuring  transparency  and  by  increasing  legal  certainty  for  cross-
sector / cross-utility cooperation;  

(3) Streamlining the administrative procedures related to network rollout throughout the EU, 
mainly  by  increasing  the  transparency  and  coordination  of  the  permit  granting  processes, 
while  ensuring  the  enforcement  of  deadlines  as  well  as  minimum  standards  as  regards 
"reasonable conditions"; and  

(4) Increasing the provision of buildings with open high-speed ready infrastructure throughout 
the EU, so as to reduce the costs and burdens associated with retro-fitting 

4. 

POLICY OPTIONS 

Four  broad  policy  options  were  chosen  for  further  analysis,  based  upon  their  potential  to 
reduce  the  costs  of  broadband  rollout  and  facilitate  it,  upon  their  overall  coherence  and 
completeness, and finally upon the technologically neutral character.  

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
Under  Option  1,  the  Commission  would  proceed  doing  business  as  usual,  as  such  measures 
are not entirely new and best practices are already emerging. Action would include providing 
monitoring, enforcement of existing rules and further guidance on certain articles.  

Option  2  promotes  a  more  intensive,  coherent  and  harmonised  application  of  the  existing 
provisions and tools of the regulatory framework for electronic communications. Concretely, 
the  Commission  would  issue  a  Recommendation  clarifying  the  application  of  these 
provisions.  

Under  Option  3,  the  Commission  would  propose  more  holistic  and  more  ambitious  cost 
reduction  measures  throughout  the  EU,  applicable  to  non-telecom  players,  too.  Concretely, 
the following measures are proposed:  

(1)  a  general  right  to  offer  and  to  use  the  existing  physical  infrastructures  suitable  for  the 
deployment  of  broadband  under  fair  terms  and  conditions,  regardless  of  whether  they  are 
owned or used by electronic communications network providers. The terms of use would be 
left  to  commercial  negotiation,  with  the  possibility  for  intervention  by  a  dispute  settlement 
mechanism only where commercial negotiation fails without any reasonable justification;  

(2)  a  right  to  access  transparent  information  regarding  existing  physical  infrastructures 
suitable  for broadband  rollout,  regardless of their  owner  (telecom or  non-telecom  operators, 
private or public parties);  

(3)  specific  rights  and  obligations  aiming  at  enabling  an  increased  coordination  of  civil 
engineering  works  (a  general  right  to  negotiate  co-ordination  of  civil  engineering  works 
coupled  with  a  general  right  to  access  information  on  planned  civil  works;  additional 
obligations are foreseen in case of works financed with public money);  

(4) increased transparency and timeliness as regards permit granting procedures, coupled with 
safeguards  aimed  to  ensure  non-discriminatory,  transparent,  objectively  justified,  and 
proportionate requirements and/or conditions;  

(5)  an  obligation  to  provide  new  buildings  as  well  as  old  buildings  that  undergo  major 
renovation  works  with  high-speed-ready  in-building  physical  infrastructure  (e.g.  sufficient 
space  in  mini  ducts),  while  ensuring  technological  neutrality,  and  an  obligation  to  provide 
new  or  majorly  renovated  multi-dwelling  buildings  with  a  concentration  point  located  in  or 
outside the building. 

Option 3 further breaks down into two sub-options, 3a and 3b, which differ in function of the 
instrument proposed to implemented the measures described above.  

Under  Option  4,  the  Commission  would  propose  a  new  binding  instrument,  establishing 
infrastructure atlases following EU standards, mandated access to all infrastructures suitable 
for  broadband  rollout  at  cost-oriented  prices,  further  obligations  to  cooperate  in  civil 
engineering works, the creation of a full one-stop-shop concentrating all the permits needed 
for the deployment of new infrastructure, and mandatory provision of all buildings with high-
speed ready infrastructure by 2020.  

5. 

ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS 

As  this  initiative  is  mainly  of  an  economic  nature,  the  most  important  impacts  are  the 
economic ones. The social and environmental impacts have mostly indirect character as they 
depend on the resulting network investment and on the rest of the indirect economic impacts. 
The impact on fundamental rights of the proposed measures has been analysed. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
The  “business  as  usual”  scenario  (Option  1)  can  be  expected  neither  to  significantly  reduce 
the costs of broadband roll-out all over Europe, nor to have a strong effect on investment. As 
only  a  very  limited  impact  on  investment  is  anticipated  throughout  the  EU,  its  spill-over 
effects  would  also  be  limited.  In  addition,  it  is  very  likely  that  the  current  fragmentation  of 
rules  in  the  EU  will  increase.  Given  the  limited  impact  on  investment,  the  social  and 
environmental effects would be marginal, too. 

Given the costs and benefits for the main stakeholders involved and the stronger effects of a 
Recommendation as compared to guidance and exchange of best practice, an overall moderate 
positive  impact  on  investment  in  networks  is  expected  under  Option  2.  In  consequence,  a 
somewhat higher broadband coverage and competition can be expected. However, under this 
option,  the  full  cost-saving  potential  of  cross  utility  infrastructure  cooperation  (as  regards 
mapping  and  sharing  infrastructure  and  coordination  of  civil  works)  would  remain 
underexploited, affecting the cost-benefit ratio of the entire exercise. Moderate positive macro 
effects  on  the  economy  are  to  be expected  too.  As  far  as  the  Single  Market  is  concerned,  a 
Recommendation is likely to increase only to a certain extent, consistency across the EU since 
the implementation of the provisions of the regulatory framework would be further promoted. 
As far as social impacts are concerned, the moderate positive effect on investment in networks 
is expected to translate into a small positive effect on job creation. The increased transparency 
and  coordination  of  works  within  the  telecom  sector  would  also  lead  to  a  modest  positive 
impact on the environment (mainly due to avoiding duplication of works).  

Option 3 ("enabling efficiency gains") would create high net benefits for all EU undertakings 
wishing  to  deploy  broadband,  mainly  due  to  significant  capital  expenditure  savings  on 
network  investments  resulting  from  increased transparency,  opportunities  to  use  much  more 
existing  passive  infrastructure,  opportunities  to  co-deploy  across  sectors,  faster,  easier  and 
cheaper  deployment  including  through  streamlined  permits  and  high-speed  ready  buildings. 
For  owners  of  passive  infrastructure,  the  option  would  entail  an  obligation  to  provide 
information and to grant access on their infrastructures, which as such produces certain costs. 
Yet benefits would be higher than the costs, in particular given that access would be granted 
following  commercial  negotiations,  allowing  for  additional  revenues.  As  concerns  public 
authorities, although the costs of these measures seem high, there are many synergies between 
these  measures  and  other  measures  required  by  national  policy  (e.g.  disaster  prevention)  or 
EU law (e.g. INSPIRE Directive) which would reduce the overall costs.  

An overall significant positive impact on investment in high-speed networks can therefore be 
expected  under  Option  3,  and,  in  consequence,  a  higher  broadband  coverage  and  higher 
competition. Broadband networks would reach areas which would otherwise be thought of as 
being  commercially  unattractive.  Due  to  the  increased  network  investment,  positive  macro-
effects on the economy would become visible, both in terms of spillovers to related industries 
(equipment manufacturers, civil works companies), and increased innovation and productivity 
for  all  undertakings  including  SMEs.  This  could  have  a  positive  overall  effect  on  the  EU 
competitiveness  through  faster  smart  grid  and  intelligent  transportation  systems  deployment 
and related energy efficiency gains. 

Such  harmonisation  measures  would  also  lower  barriers  to  entry  especially  for  smaller 
operators and would significantly reduce fragmentation in the Digital Single Market. 

As  far  as  social  impacts  are  concerned,  Option  3  ensures  significant  positive  impacts  on 
investment  and  thus  also  on  the  labour  market.  The  increased  infrastructure  sharing  and 
coordination of civil works would also guarantee a reduction of public nuisance.  

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
Given the cross-sector character of the measure, increased synergies could lead furthermore to 
a significant environmental impact, through faster deployment of smart grids and intelligent 
transportation systems and therefore to energy efficiency gains. 

With  respect  to  the  impacts  of  Option  4,  mandating  access  to  passive  infrastructures  across 
utilities at cost oriented prices would maximise sharing, but would also bring a significant risk 
to dis-incentivise  investment in physical infrastructures. Additionally, some of the measures 
seem  too  difficult  to  implement  and  risk  duplicating  costs  and  administrative  efforts.  As  a 
result the economic impacts are estimated to be lower than under the previous policy option. 
On the other hand, this option presents clear benefits from a Single Market perspective.  

Positive social and environmental impacts are also expected under Option 4.  

6. 

COMPARISON OF OPTIONS 

The options were compared taking into account their effectiveness, their efficiency (including 
the costs and benefits described above), and their coherence (balance among economic, social 
and environmental effects, coherence with overarching EU policy objectives).  

In  view  of  this  lack  of  effectiveness,  therefore,  Option  1  falls  short  to  achieve  the  desired 
objectives and therefore does not appear proportionate.  

Option  2,  promoting  a  more  intensive,  coherent,  and  harmonised  application  of  the  existing 
provisions  and  tools  under  the  current  telecoms  regulatory  framework  would  have  some 
positive effects compared to the baseline scenario but would however not deliver the expected 
efficiency gains, in particular as it would leave untapped the cost reduction potential linked to 
cross-sector cooperation and to the coordination of the permit granting procedures.  

In contrast, Option 3 truly exploits the cost reduction potential by extending the scope of the 
binding measures across sectors and throughout the broadband deployment steps. At the same 
time, Option 3 would preserve commercial negotiations, an incentive on its own, and would 
respect  the  organisational  autonomy  of  Member  States.  The  implementation  costs  would 
depend very much on the structures and systems in place in Member States, therefore savings 
can be achieved. More importantly, these costs appear to be offset by the significant benefits 
expected in inscreasingly efficient broadband deployment by operators and better broadband 
coverage  for  the  society  as  a  whole.  Overall,  option  3  ensures  effectiveness  in  the  view  of 
identified objectives with a very good ratio of costs and benefits and coherence with general 
objectives of the EU policy (such as the Guidelines for Broadband State Aid and the INSPIRE 
Directive).  

Option  4  appears  to  maximise  the  benefits  for  undertakings  seeking  to  deploy  broadband 
networks.  However,  it  would  entail  a  number  of  obligations  and  constraints  which  may  be 
unnecessary or disproportionate to the achievement of the desired objectives. Option 4 would 
add  significant  institutional  complexity  including  transfers  of  competences,  too.  Moreover, 
business  choices  might  be  seriously  impaired,  with  the  risk  of  associated  disincentives  to 
invest, leading to fewer social benefits and for the environnement, thus impeding the general 
objectives of the EU and the overall coherence of this option. 

In  view  of  the  above,  it  appears  that  Option  3  is  the  best  option  available,  given  its 
effectiveness towards the identified objectives, its efficiency and its coherence in exploiting 
the cost reduction potential within the general EU policy objectives.  

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
7. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

A  series  of  indicators  corresponding  to  the  general  and  specific  objectives  of  this  initiative 
will be monitored in the framework of the Digital Agenda Scoreboard exercise. In particular, 
the  general  objective  (stimulate  broadband  rollout)  and  the  specific  objective  (increase 
efficiency and decrease the costs of broadband rollout) will be monitored by analysing annual 
network investments.  

An evaluation exercise concerning the impact of the instrument is foreseen every three years, 
based on the information obtained through monitoring and on in-depth studies, with a view to 
proposing necessary adjustments, if necessary. 

EN 

7 

   EN