COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Executive summary of the evaluation Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the European Electronic Communications Code (Recast)
Date: 2016-09-14
Institutions: Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, European Commission
Subjects: consumer protection, information technology, provision of services, regulation of telecommunications, single market, trans-European network, transmission network, universal service

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 14.9.2016  SWD(2016) 305 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Executive summary of the evaluation Accompanying the document Proposal for  a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the European Electronic Communications Code (Recast)  {COM(2016) 590} {SWD(2016) 313}  
 
 
Executive summary of the evaluation of the regulatory framework for electronic 
communications  

The purpose of this staff working document is to assess the regulatory fitness of the current 
rules  that  make  up  the  regulatory  framework  for  electronic  communications  and  to  assess 
whether  they  have  contributed  to  the  achievement  of  the  framework's  main  objectives.  It  is 
also  to  identify  possible  redundancies,  inconsistencies  and  potential  for  simplification.  The 
regulatory  framework  consists  of  a  set  of  complementary  instruments  covering  both  sector-
specific economic regulation and end-user protection rules. It aims to promote competition — 
mainly through regulated access to the incumbent’s networks and provisions ensuring market 
entry and efficient access to key resources such as spectrum — in order to maximise end-user 
benefits. 

This  evaluation,  announced  in  the  Commission’s  Work  Programme,  is  warranted  for  two 
reasons.  The  first  is  the  legal  obligation  to  periodically  review  the  functioning  of  the 
regulatory framework. The second is that there have been a number of structural changes in 
the sector since the last review in 2009. It draws on the results of a wide-ranging stakeholder 
consultation,  Commission  monitoring  (e.g. 
implementation  reports,  Digital  Agenda 
Scoreboards) and various studies, including those that focus on the evaluation and review of 
the regulatory framework. The main findings are summarised below.      

Relevance — Generally speaking, the evaluation has shown that the specific objectives of the 
framework  —  promoting  competition,  realising  the  single  market  and  protecting  consumer 
interests — remain as valid as before. The single market objective is even more relevant than 
before.  Effective  and  sustainable  competition  drives  efficient  investment  and  fuels  the 
development  of  the  single  market.  It  ultimately  serves  the  interests  of  end-users,  by 
encouraging innovation and providing maximum benefit in terms of choice, price and quality. 

At the same time, connectivity has emerged as the underlying driving force for digital society 
and the digital economy, underpinned by technological changes and evolving consumer and 
market  demands.  It  is  a  key  aspect  of  the  Juncker  Commission’s  political  commitment  to 
deliver  the  digital  single  market.  It  is  therefore  necessary  to  consider  adjusting  the  current 
policy objectives and regulatory tools to further support the deployment of infrastructure and 
wide-spread take-up of corresponding connectivity services in line with future needs. 

Most regulatory areas remain as relevant as in 2009, if not more so. In particular, this applies 
to spectrum management, given the role of spectrum as an essential but scarce input for the 
deployment  of  current  and  next  generation  mobile  and  fixed  wireless  networks.  This  goes 
hand in hand with access regulation as a way of tackling the problem of the persisting entry 
barriers  in  the  networks.  For  instance,  market  developments  are  calling  into  question  the 
relevance  of  certain  specific  components  of  the  universal  service  regulation.  However,  the 
concept  of  a  safety  net  ensuring  that  all  citizens  are  included  in  a  fully  developed  digital 
society is even gaining in importance in relation to the digital single market. Similarly, while 
specific provisions under the consumer protection objective might have to be adjusted in view 
of  technological,  market  or  legislative  changes,  the  basic  end-user  protection  needs  the 
provisions meet remain relevant, as do their specific objectives.      

Effectiveness — It is widely recognised that the regulatory framework has been effective in 
delivering a competitive sector overall. This has generated significant end-user benefits, such 
as widely available (basic) broadband, a significant decrease in prices and more choice.   

2 

 
 
Access and spectrum regulation in particular, but also market entry provisions, have increased 
competition. Nevertheless, access regulation has delivered competition more at service than at 
network  level.  Also,  while  investments  in  very-high-capacity  networks  have  advanced,  they 
have  not  taken  place  across  all  Member  States  at  the  pace  envisaged  in  the  public  policy 
agendas  and  corresponding  to  expected  future  needs.  A  significant  amount  of  spectrum  has 
been released for wireless broadband, but progress in spectrum management has not been as 
good as wished for in the last review. This has resulted in delayed and fragmented network 
roll-out and take-up. 

Results in terms of achieving the single market objective are not very impressive. Regulatory 
consistency  has  been  achieved  only  to  a  limited  extent,  affecting  the  operations  of  cross-
border  providers  and  reducing  predictability  for  all  operators  and  their  investors.  The 
cooperation  and  consistency  tools  available  have  led  to  a  situation  in  which  the  best 
regulatory solutions have not always been  chosen, with impacts on end-user outcomes. EU-
level  consistency  checks  contribute  to  the  predictability  of  access  regulation  throughout  the 
EU, but their influence is significantly restricted with regard to draft regulatory remedies. The 
lack  of  consistency  in  spectrum  management  has  also  had  negative  consequences  for  end-
users, such as delayed 4G deployment in most parts of the EU. 

The  achievements  of  the  framework  in  protecting  end-users  and  in  ensuring  a  safety  net 
(universal  service)  are  significant,  although  progress  in  consumer  satisfaction  is  relatively 
slow. It is also clear that not all sector-specific end-user protection provisions are still fit for 
purpose given technological, market and legislative developments. 

Efficiency — It has not been possible to do a precise cost calculation, but the evaluation has 
shown  that  the  benefits  of  the  framework  —  for  most  operators,  end-users  and  society  as  a 
whole — greatly outweigh the costs of implementing it. A certain level of complexity might 
be  necessary  to  ensure  a  well  judged  intervention  (e.g.  appropriate  access  regulation). 
However,  several  areas  have  been  identified  in  which  the  administrative  burden  could  be 
reduced  without  making  the  provisions  less  effective  —  in  some  cases  even  making  them 
more  effective:  e.g.  longer  ex  ante  market  regulation  cycles,  simplified  procedures  for 
analysing  very  stable  markets,  streamlining  certain  overlapping  consumer  protection 
provisions. 

EU  added  value  —  The  regulatory  framework  has  been  instrumental  in  delivering 
competition in the single market that, to an extent, would not have been possible or likely at 
national level. It has brought national regulatory practice in the sector into line with the best 
models across the EU, with varying success for specific regulation areas. EU action has also 
contributed  to  more  comprehensive,  if  not  homogeneous,  consumer  protection  than  would 
otherwise be the case.   

Coherence  —  Generally  speaking,  the  various  instruments  making  up  the  regulatory 
framework have reinforced each other. Two issues would, however, merit specific attention in 
the  review  process.  They  are  the  coherence  between  regulation  aimed  at  incentivising 
competitive network roll-out and the EU financing and State aid rules in the sector, as well as 
the  potential  overlaps  between  certain  sector  specific  provisions  and  horizontal  consumer 
interest legislation.   

In  conclusion,  the  regulatory  framework  has  broadly  achieved  its  general  objective  of 
ensuring a competitive sector that provides significant end-user benefits. Nevertheless, while 
its  main  specific  objectives  —  promoting  competition,  developing  the  internal  market  and 
promoting  the  interests  of  end-users  —  remain  relevant,  a  review  is  needed  to  address  the 

3 

 
 
growing  need  for  increased  connectivity  of  the  digital  single  market  and  to  streamline 
provisions taking into account market and technological developments. 

4