REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of Directive 2014/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on measures to reduce the cost of deploying high-speed electronic communications networks
Date: 2018-06-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, Internet, application of EU law, regulation of telecommunications, trans-European network, transmission network

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 27.6.2018 COM(2018) 492 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of Directive 2014/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on measures to reduce the cost of deploying high-speed electronic communications networks  
 
 
1.  Introduction 

Directive  2014/61/EU  on  measures  to  reduce  the  cost  of  deploying  high-speed  electronic 
communications  networks1  (‘the  Broadband  Cost  Reduction  Directive’,  hereafter  ‘the 
the  roll-out  of  high-speed  electronic 
Directive’)  aims 
communications networks by lowering the costs with a set of harmonised measures. 

to  facilitate  and 

incentivise 

The Directive had to be transposed into Member States’ national laws by 1 January 2016, to 
become applicable in all Member States from 1 July 2016. 

Article 12 of the Directive requires the Commission to present by 1 July 2018 a report to the 
European  Parliament  and  the  Council  on  its  implementation,  including  a  summary  of  the 
impact  of  the  measures  and  an  assessment  of  the  progress  made  towards  achieving  the 
Directive’s  objectives,  including  whether  and  how  the  Directive  could  further  contribute  to 
reaching more ambitious broadband targets than the Digital Agenda ones. 

The Commission has reviewed the implementation of the Directive drawing on: 

  an  external  study  on  the  implementation  and  monitoring  of  measures  under  the 

Directive;2 

  a BEREC report on the implementation of the Directive;3 
  Digital Economy and Society Index and Report 2018 — Telecoms chapters; 
  other data sources, such as fact finding missions to the Member States and analysis of 

national legislation carried out by Commission. 

This report was drafted less than 2 years after the national laws transposing the Directive were 
supposed to become applicable, with significant delays in many Member States. As a result, 
the evidence used as the basis for assessing the impact of its measures and the progress made 
towards achieving its objectives was relatively limited. The report nevertheless aims to lay the 
foundations for establishing a baseline scenario against which an evaluation can be carried out 
in the future. 

2.  The Directive’s scope and main provisions 

Scope of the Directive 

In  order  to  maximise  synergies  across  networks,  the  Directive  is  addressed  not  only  to 
electronic  communications  network  operators  but  also  to  other  undertakings  providing 
physical infrastructures suitable to host electronic communications network elements, such as 
electricity, gas, water and sewage, heating and transport services4. 

The scope of the Directive covers ‘high-speed electronic communications networks’, meaning 
networks that are capable of delivering broadband at speeds of at least 30 Mbps.5  

1 OJ L 155, 23.5.2014, p. 1. 
2 Study SMART 2015/0066, performed by a consortium led by WIK Consult, final report available here. 
3  BoR  (17)  245:  http://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/berec/reports/7534-berec-report-
on-the-implementation-of-the-broadband-cost-reduction-directive 
4 Article 2(1) of the Directive. 
5 Article 2(3) of the Directive. 

1 

 
 
                                                            
Furthermore, the Directive applies only to ‘physical infrastructure’6 which is defined as ‘any 
element of a network which is intended to host other elements of a network without becoming 
itself an active element of the network.’ 

Main provisions 

The  Directive  consists  of  four  pillars  and  additional  requirements  to  set  up  a  single 
information  point  and  a  dispute  settlement  body.  These  apply  to  all  the  pillars,  as  well  as 
requirements to lay down penalties. 

The Directive provides for minimum harmonisation, therefore Member States may go beyond 
the  minimum  requirements  of  the  Directive  to  better  achieve  its  objectives.  However,  if 
Member States decide to take such measures, they must ensure compliance with Union law, 
including with the regulatory framework for electronic communications. 

Pillar 1: Access to existing physical infrastructure and transparency 

Under the first pillar, all network operators (electronic communications, energy utilities, etc.) 
are  required  to  give  access  to  their  physical  infrastructure  (e.g.  ducts,  manholes,  cabinets, 
poles),  on  fair  and  reasonable  terms  and  conditions,  to  operators  intending  to  roll  out  high-
speed  broadband  networks.  Access  may  be  refused  based  on  objective,  transparent  and 
proportionate criteria. 

Pillar 2: Coordination of civil works and transparency 

6 Article 2(2) of the Directive. 

2 

 
 
 
                                                            
The  second  pillar  allows  any  network  operator  to  coordinate  civil  works  with  electronic 
communications  providers.  In  addition,  network  operators  carrying  out  civil  works  fully  or 
partially publicly financed have to meet any reasonable request to coordinate civil works. 

Pillar 3: Permit-granting procedure 

Under  the  third  pillar,  Member  States  need  to  ensure  that  all  relevant  information  on  the 
conditions  and  procedures  for  granting  civil  works  permits  with  a  view  to  deploying  high-
speed  communications  networks  is  available  from  a  single  information  point  and  that  in 
principle decisions relating to permits have to be made within 4 months. 

Pillar 4: In-building physical infrastructure 

The  fourth  pillar  requires  that  all  newly  constructed  and  majorly  renovated  buildings  be 
equipped  with  physical  infrastructure,  such  as  mini-ducts,  capable  of  hosting  high-speed 
networks,  and  an  easily  accessible  access  point  in  the  case  of  multi-dwelling  buildings. 
Providers of public communications networks must have access to the access point and the in-
building  physical  infrastructure  under  fair  and  non-discriminatory  terms  and  conditions,  if 
duplication is technically impossible or economically inefficient. 

Other provisions 

Finally,  Member  States  need  to  appoint  one  or  more  bodies  to  provide  information  on 
physical  infrastructure,  civil  works  and  permits  and  one  or  more  independent  bodies  to 
resolve  disputes  between  network  operators  regarding  access  to  infrastructure,  access  to 
information and requests to coordinate civil works. 

3.  Contribution to the gigabit society objectives 

The  EU’s  strategic  objectives  for  a  gigabit  society  by  20257  are  based  on  the  foreseeable 
connectivity needs of the European digital society in the coming years.  

Access  to  very  high  capacity  network  connections  is  needed  for  cloud  computing,  multiple 
simultaneous uses, and other advanced and smart home applications, as well as in a number of 
industries for professional use, often in conjunction with mobile access (e.g. manufacturing, 
healthcare, energy, first responder services). 

New applications will require not only faster speeds, but also uplink bandwidth, resilience and 
error or latency parameters. The deployment of such high capacity and high quality networks, 
which  would  need  to  be  based  primarily  on  optical  fibre,  will  require  significant  additional 
investment. 

By  contributing  to  increase  coverage  of  fibre  infrastructure,  the  Directive  could  help  make 
100Mbit/s broadband, upgradable to gigabit speeds, universally available. 

7  The  2025  Gigabit  Society  targets  are:  1)  gigabit  connectivity  for  all  main  socioeconomic  drivers  such  as 
schools,  transport hubs  and  the  main  providers  of public services,  as well as  digitally  intensive  enterprises;  2) 
uninterrupted 5G  coverage  for  all urban areas  and all major  terrestrial  transport paths; 3)  internet  connectivity 
with  a  downlink  of  at  least  100 Mbps,  upgradable  to  gigabit  speed  for  all  European  households. 
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/policies/improving-connectivity-and-access 

3 

 
 
                                                            
Likewise,  sharing  infrastructure  and  coordinating  civil  works  may  also  contribute  to  the 
deployment of high capacity backbone and access connections to socioeconomic drivers such 
as  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises,  schools  or  hospitals,  even  in  underserved  or  remote 
areas.8  

Given their role in the backhauling of 5G cells, fibre networks are becoming increasingly vital 
for reaching the corresponding 5G targets for 2025. 

Access to existing physical infrastructure under the Directive has the potential to enable fibre-
based infrastructure competition, leading to  higher quality broadband and greater choice  for 
consumers  and  businesses,  including  in  more  densely  populated  areas.  The  Directive  could 
therefore also boost fibre investment in support of dense cells, helping to get 5G coverage in 
all  urban  centres,  as  well  as  along  transport  routes,  and  stimulating  the  development  of  5G 
wireless applications, including connected cars and automated driving. 

The Directive could also play a significant role in relation to the Internet of Things (IoT), as it 
aims to bring about collaboration between potential beneficiaries of IoT — such as transport 
systems, energy and water — and the telecoms operators that could provide connectivity. 

This could in turn spur the development of smart city applications, smart grids and metering 
and intelligent transport systems, paving the way for future innovation. 

4.  Transposition and implementation of the Directive 

Under  Article  13,  Member  States  were  required  to  adopt  and  publish  national  measures 
transposing the Directive by 1 January 2016 and to apply these measures from 1 July 2016. 

After  the  adoption  of  the  Directive,  the  Commission  organised  several  events  for  Member 
States  and  stakeholders  and  had  numerous  contacts  with  national  authorities  to  raise 
awareness of and provide guidance on transposition requirements. 

Nevertheless, all Member States except Italy were late with the adoption of the transposition 
measures,  prompting  the  Commission  to  send  letters  of  formal  notice  to  the  remaining 
27 Member States on 23 March 2016. The Commission subsequently sent reasoned opinions 
to 19 Member States on 30 September 2016, urging them to adopt measures to reduce the cost 
of deploying high-speed electronic communications networks. In the meantime, all Member 
States except Belgium have notified full transposition of the Directive into national law. 

As the Directive touches upon cross-sectoral competences and not only imposes obligations 
on  the  telecommunications  sector,  but  also  concerns  utilities,  building  laws,  administrative 
law  etc.,  transposition  often  proved  complex  and  required  adaptations  of  various  measures 
(also at regional and local levels) in the Member States. 

Since the Directive built on best practices in certain Member States and scaled them up at EU 
level, many Member States already had relevant national legislation in place, which in some 
cases or aspects went well beyond the requirements of the Directive. 

8 For instance by accessing existing poles to facilitate rural deployment. 

4 

 
 
                                                            
The  Directive  contains  a  number  of  possibilities  for  Member  States  to  exempt  certain 
infrastructure or certain buildings from its obligations (e.g. from the transparency obligations) 
if such exemptions are duly reasoned. 

Only some Member States have made extensive use of the exemptions. Most have either not 
used them at all or made them subject to secondary legislation that has not yet been adopted. 

The Directive also includes several optional provisions, which it leaves to the Member States’ 
discretion to transpose. Below is an overview of how the Member States made use of these 
optional provisions: 

  Several  Member  States,  such  as  Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  Denmark,  Estonia,  Germany, 
Finland,  Luxembourg,  Slovenia  and  Spain  established  a  reciprocal  right  whereby 
access  to  the  infrastructure  of  electronic  communications  network  operators  can  be 
requested for the installation of non-telecommunication infrastructure (Article 3(1)). 
  Obligations  to  require  public  sector  bodies  to  make  the  minimum  information 
concerning existing physical infrastructure available via the single information point, 
if it has such information from network operators in electronic format and by reason of 
its  tasks,  exist  for  instance  in  Austria,  Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  Czech  Republic,  Greece, 
Finland, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal and Slovakia (Article 4(2)). 

  Rules on apportioning the cost of coordinating civil works have been established for 

instance in Austria, Portugal and France (Article 5(2)). 

  Electronic  submission  of  permit  applications  via  the  single  information  point  is 
possible in  Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  Denmark,  Estonia,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg  and 
Malta (Article 7(2)). 

  Portugal and Italy have introduced broadband-ready labels and Spain and Germany are 
considering  following  suit.  In  France  there  is  a  standard  to  indicate  fibred  zones 
(Article 8(3)). 

The  Directive  provides  that  Member  States  appoint  one  or  more  independent  dispute 
settlement bodies and one or more bodies to act as a single information point. 

The  tasks  of  the  dispute  settlement  body  were  assigned  to  the  national  regulatory  authority 
responsible 
framework  of  electronic 
communications (NRA), or partially to the NRA, in most of the Member States, and to other 
bodies in only two Member States. 

resolution  under 

for  dispute 

regulatory 

the 

The tasks of the single information point were assigned to the NRA, or partially to the NRA, 
in 14 Member States. In 10 Member States other bodies were put in charge of performing the 
function of the single information point, in most cases a ministry. 

5 

 
 
 
 
Figure 1 — Tasks, set out under the Directive, assigned to NRAs in the EU 

Dispute settlement body tasks assigned to 

22 

1  2 

3 

NRA

NRA + other

Other

Not defined

Single information point tasks assigned to 

10 

3 

10 

1 

4 

NRA

NRA + other

Other

Not established

Not defined

Source: BEREC 

5.  Impact and progress 

Since this report was drafted less than 2 years after the application deadline of the Directive 
and most Member States were late in transposing the Directive, its application in practice has 
only recently started and the experience is so far limited. 

Nevertheless,  evidence  from  Member  States  which  previously  applied  provisions  similar  to 
those  in  the  Directive  and  from  undertakings  which  have  engaged  in  cross-sectoral 
collaboration  confirms  that  there  could  be  significant  benefits,  including  the  expansion  of 
high-capacity broadband to underserved areas, if other Member States follow suit.9  

Responses to the survey carried out for the study supporting this report show that electronic 
communications  operators  believe  that  there  have  been  improvements  in  access  to  physical 
(including in-building) infrastructure and the information relating to them since the Directive 
was  applied.  However,  there  is  still  room  for  improvement,  with  operators  indicating  that 
limited  progress  has  been  made  in  supporting  the  coordination  of  civil  works,  easing  the 
process  of  applying  for  civil  works  permits,  or  facilitating  access  to  buildings  for  the 
installation of in-building infrastructure. 

9 See Study SMART 2015/0066. For instance, the re-use of utility infrastructure has allowed Open Fibre in Italy 
to save costs of up to 50 % in the initial phase of deploying FTTH. Open Fibre has an investment plan covering 
6 700 remote municipalities identified as areas of ‘market failure’. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Figure  2:  Satisfaction  of  electronic  communications  operators  with  ease  of  access  to  existing 
infrastructure  and  deployment  possibilities  —  vs  perceived  change  in  ease  of  access  and 
deployment since the application of the Directive 

Satisfaction of electronic communications operators 
with ease of access and deployment, perceived change 
since application of the Directive 

Access to in-
building
infrastructure

Access to physical
infrastructure

0,21  

0,18  

0,00  

-0,04  

0,24  

-0,16  

-0,09  

0,04  

0,00  
0,00  

Applying for civil
works permits

0,03  
0,10  

Access to
information on
physical
infrastructure

Coordination of
civil works
procedures

Access to
information on
civil works

Change post Directive

Satisfaction with ease of access and
deployment

Source: WIK/VVA based on responses from telecoms operators to online survey August 2017 

These results should be regarded as a baseline, given the survey was carried out only 1 year 
after  the  application  deadline  of  the  Directive.  The  reasons  for  being  dissatisfied  may  also 
vary depending on the interests of the parties. 

The following sections go into more detail on each subject, on the basis of the study carried 
out for this report. 

Pillar 1: Access to existing physical infrastructure and transparency (Articles 3 and 4) 

Data on the use of access to existing physical infrastructure identifies Member States in which 
there has so far been limited use (Germany, Ireland and Spain), as well as Member States in 
which  the  use  of  such  access  is  well  developed  (France,  Italy  and  Portugal).  In  these  latter 
three countries demand had already existed before the implementation of the Directive. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3: Pole and duct access requested (km) per year 2015-H1  2017 

Km duct and pole access requested per year  
(excl access requests based on ex-ante market regulation) 

9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0

FR

DE

IE

IT

PT

ES

2015

2016

2017

Source: WIK-Consult/VVA based on telecoms operator surveys (except FR — sourced from utilities) 

Nevertheless,  an  increasing  interest in  access to physical infrastructure is  emerging  in  some 
Member  States  where  demand  previously  used  to  be  low.  These  include  Austria,  Belgium, 
Germany, Ireland, Sweden and Spain. 

Operators  believe  that  the  Directive  has  made  it  easier  to  access  physical  infrastructure  and 
that the total cost of deploying a network using third party physical infrastructure is much or 
somewhat cheaper than deploying their own. 

Low use of access in some countries, such as Germany and Sweden, might also be related to 
the  fact  that  municipalities  and  utilities  have  in  several  cases  been  providing  very  high 
capacity  communications  infrastructure,  and  have  therefore  opted  not  to  give  potential 
competitors access to physical infrastructure, but proposed alternatives such as dark fibre or 
bitstream access. 

With regard to transparency, there was a particularly high number of requests for information 
about  existing  physical  infrastructure  in  Portugal  and  a  considerable  number  of  them  in 
Austria, Italy, Germany and France. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure  4:  Estimated  number  of  requests  for  information  about  existing  infrastructure  per 
annum based on 2016 operator data and BEREC 2017 report 

Estimated number of requests for information 
about existing infrastructure per annum 

10000

9000

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0

AT

FR

DE

IT

PT

SE

Source: WIK/VVA based on telecoms network operator survey data for 2016 FR, IT, PT, and BEREC report BoR 
(17) 245 AT, DE, SE 

A  number  of  stakeholders  considered  that  the  conditions  for  accessing  information  about 
existing infrastructure had improved following the implementation of the Directive, but others 
indicated that in certain Member States the single information point might not be effectively 
operational or has been implemented in a light manner only. 

The  greatest  use  of  infrastructure  access  is  in  Member  States  with  effective  information 
provision  and  well  developed  rules  or  recommendations  about  pricing  and/or  contractual 
terms. Specific factors that have contributed to successful outcomes in these countries include 
the development of a comprehensive single information point, rules (in the form of legislation, 
guidelines  or  dispute  resolution)  on  access  pricing,  reference  offers  and  rules  enabling 
regulated utility companies to benefit at least partially from the profits of providing access. 

Use of infrastructure access in other Member States could therefore increase once contractual 
terms  and  pricing  principles  are  more  clearly  set  out.  Fully  developing  single  information 
points in Member States where it is not yet the case may also contribute to increased usage. 

Pillar 2: Coordination of civil works and transparency (Articles 5 and 6) 

In general, coordination of civil works seems to have received less attention both from NRAs 
and stakeholders than access to existing infrastructure under the Directive. 

Only very limited information was available about the number of agreements for civil works 
coordination and no information on the extent of the network involved in such requests. On 
the basis of the data available, there was significant activity in civil works coordination (over 
200  requests  per  country  reported  as  made  or  received  in  2016)  in  Belgium,  Slovenia  and 
Italy,  and  some  activity  in  Spain,  Portugal,  Austria  and  France.  In  nearly  all  of  these  cases 
coordination requests were also made in 2015, before the date of application of the Directive. 

9 

 
 
  
There has not been a visible upward trend in civil works coordination since the Directive was 
adopted. 

Electronic  communications  providers  consider  that  the  total  cost  of  deploying  networks  by 
coordinating works is cheaper than doing so in isolation. However, the savings were mostly 
considered to be less than those that could be made by sharing physical infrastructure. 

Fewer  Member  States  have  taken  pro-active  approaches  to  transparency  in  co-deployment 
than to information on existing infrastructure. Operators have expressed their concerns about 
the lack of transparency and the absence of a single information point, which may be affecting 
the degree to which co-deployment occurs. 

Cost-sharing in the context of co-deployment can be a particular source of dissatisfaction and 
dispute.  In  this  context,  practices  vary  across  and  even  within  countries,  ranging  from 
charging  the  incremental  cost  to  equally  shared  costs.  While  equally  shared  costs  may  give 
electronic communications operators the feeling they are bearing a disproportionate share of 
the  costs  compared  to  utilities,  incremental  cost  can  raise  concerns  amongst  utilities  also 
active in providing electronic communications services that they are being required to make 
offers to competitors that would undermine their business case.   

Setting up a detailed single information point, establishing specific procedures for civil works 
coordination,  and  elaborating  (either  commercially  or  in  a  regulated  manner)  rules  on  cost 
apportionment could increase interest in co-deployment. Some or all of these measures have 
been taken in countries such as Belgium, Italy and Portugal, which use co-deployment a lot. 

Pillar 3: Permit-granting procedure (Article 7) 

The  availability  of  information  about  permits  and  permit  granting  procedures  has  not 
improved so far. It appears that even where single information points concerning application 
procedures  exist,  operators  may  not  be  aware  of  them  or  have  concerns  about  their 
effectiveness. Timelines for permit applications have not been enforced in all Member States, 
and only a few Member States have opted to make electronic permit applications possible. 

Where information was available, permits for civil works were on average processed within 4 
months.  However,  operators  in  some  Member  States  expressed  concerns  about  significant 
variations  in  the  time  for  permit  processing,  depending  on  the  local  authorities  concerned. 
Operators  in  Germany  highlighted  delays  of  more  than  6  months  in  some  cases,  while 
variations in time were also observed in Spain and Italy.   

10 

 
 
 
 
Figure 5: Average time (weeks) it takes to obtain a civil works permit (based on operator survey) 

Average number of weeks to obtain a civil works 
permit 

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

FR

DE

IE

IT

PT

ES

SE

Source: WIK/VVA based on operator survey 

Pillar 4: In-building physical infrastructure (Articles 8 and 9) 

Effective implementation of the provisions on in-building infrastructure appears to be linked 
to  the  definition  of  standards  setting  out  what  is  meant  by  high-speed-ready  in-building 
infrastructure,  and  the  associated  access  point,  and  mechanisms  to  monitor  and  enforce 
adherence to these standards. 

For instance, in France, Portugal and Spain mandatory standards set out how the infrastructure 
must be installed and where the access point must be located. Broadband-ready infrastructure 
has  been  relatively  widely  deployed  in  these  countries,  with  the  standards  mentioned  above 
contributing to high rates of FTTH/B deployment in Portugal and Spain.10 

A  majority  of  stakeholders  consider  broadband-ready  labels  a  good  way  of  supporting  the 
deployment and take-up of high-speed networks, but such labels have been introduced in only 
a few Member States so far. Furthermore, as broadband-ready labels have only recently been 
introduced, it is too early to evaluate their take-up. 

As  regards  access  to  in-building  physical  infrastructure,  stakeholders  have  not  noticed  a 
significant change since the implementation of the Directive because provisions were already 
in  place,  or  had  only  recently  been  transposed.  Some  improvements  were  reported  in  Spain 
and  Italy,  in  terms  of  a  reduction  of  cases  where  the  building  owner  refused  access. 
Nevertheless,  operators  in  some  Member  States  had  problems  getting  permission  to  access 
apartment  buildings  (from  building  owners) to  install  and  upgrade in-building  infrastructure 
for high-speed broadband. 

Member States which have not yet established rules or settled disputes relating to access to in-
building  infrastructure  could  learn  from  France,  Portugal  and  Spain,  whose  experience 
suggests that having in place technical standards concerning the access point, accompanied by 

10 The 2016 Study on Broadband Coverage in Europe shows that in June 2016 FTTH was available to 86 % of 
households in Portugal and 63 % in Spain. Coverage has continued to expand since then. 

11 

 
 
  
                                                            
rules on the terms and conditions of access to in-building infrastructure, can help bring more 
certainty and increase use of access to in-building infrastructure. 

Dispute resolution process 

Between 2015 and the first half of 2017, 40 disputes were reported, which had been referred 
to  the  dispute  settlement  body  under  the  Directive,  or  previous  regimes,  where  applicable. 
There has been an increase in the number of disputes since the application of the Directive, 
with 23 reported as referred to the dispute settlement body in the first half of 2017 alone. The 
vast  majority  of  disputes  concerned  access  to  existing  infrastructure  (83 %  in  2017)  or 
information on existing physical infrastructure (14 %). 

Figure 6: Number of disputes 

Number of disputes referred to the dispute 
settlement body under the Directive 

25

20

15

10

5

0

1 
3 

2015

4 

19 

2 
1 

10 

2016

H1 2017

Access to in-building infrastructure (Article 9)

Information about planned civil works (Article 6)

Coordination of civil works (Article 5)

Infrastructure information (Article 4)

Access to infrastructure (Article 3)

Source: WIK-Consult/VVA based on NRA questionnaires — 24 respondents 

Most of the Member States have set legislative deadlines for resolving disputes in line with 
the deadlines specified in the Directive. In some cases they have even set shorter deadlines.11 
However, in practice, deadlines were exceeded in several cases for internal (e.g. complexity in 
settling key issues such as pricing) or external reasons (e.g. the use of mediation, coordination 
efforts) and some operators are concerned that dispute resolution procedures may in fact have 
contributed to additional delays. 

In  several  Member  States,  NRAs  have  started  developing  rules  or  guidelines  on  dispute 
settlement  (e.g.  the  process  the  NRA  is  likely  to  follow  in  resolving  disputes),  which  may 
enhance legal certainty and reduce the effort and time needed to resolve disputes. 

11 E.g. HR, HU, IT, PL have set the deadline at 2 months for resolving disputes relating to Article 3. 

12 

 
 
  
                                                            
6.  Recommended actions 

Effective and timely implementation of the Directive is crucial, not only for ensuring that its 
objectives are achieved, but also for achieving the Gigabit Society strategic objectives, along 
with  other  actions  envisaged by the Commission to  support broadband deployment, such  as 
the toolkit for broadband in rural areas.12 

Experience so far would suggest the following actions to be taken in order to maximise the 
effective implementation of the Directive and to facilitate the achievement of its objectives: 

1.  Ensure  transparency  as  a  prerequisite  for  the  shared  use  of  physical  infrastructure 

and co-deployment 

For  this  purpose,  single  information  points  should  not  only  be  established  in  all  Member 
States,  but  should  also  be  adequately  equipped  to  enable  them  to  perform  their  tasks 
effectively. For existing infrastructure, the single information point could further be enhanced 
to  a  mapping  exercise  and  include  data  on  availability  and  capacity.  In  the  case  of  co-
deployment, Member States should consider a pro-active approach, whereby relevant public 
(and  if  relevant  private)  actors  are  required  to  pre-notify  deployment  plans  and  invite 
interested  parties  to  respond.  The  national  and  regional  Broadband  Competence  Offices13 
could be an additional source of information, coordination and exchange of best practices.  

2.  Enhance  regulatory  certainty  in  relation  to  terms  and  conditions,  including  prices 

and cost apportionment 

NRAs or other bodies could do this by drawing up guidelines, indicating which methodology 
would  be  used  to  resolve  disputes,  how  costs  for  sharing  infrastructure  or  co-deployment 
would be apportioned and the extent to which regulated utilities could benefit from any  cost 
savings or profits arising out of collaboration. 

3.  Ensure greater overall efficiency of permit-granting procedures 

Firstly,  it  is  crucial  for  information  on  permits  to  be  centrally  available  from  single 
information  points.  Secondly,  the  relevant  authorities  should  strictly  enforce  deadlines  for 
granting permits. Thirdly, Member States should consider making it possible to electronically 
apply for permits via the single information point. 

4.  Develop standards for and clear rules on access to in-building physical infrastructure 

Member States that have not already done so could consider putting in place standards for in-
building  infrastructure  and  associated  broadband  labelling  schemes.  Pro-active  measures 
should be taken (for instance by NRAs) to ensure that clear rules are established concerning 
the terms, conditions and price of access to in-building infrastructure. 

5.  Promote better cooperation amongst regulators 

Coordination  amongst  regional  and  local  authorities  and  sectoral  regulators  is  particularly 
important for the coordination of civil works or access to municipal infrastructure. BEREC, 

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/european-commission-joins-forces-help-bringing-more-

12 
broadband-rural-areas 
13 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/broadband-competence-offices 

13 

 
 
                                                            
ACER  and  other  sectoral  regulatory  groups  at  EU  level  could  also  consider  developing 
guidelines on best practice contractual terms and pricing/cost apportioning approaches.14 

6.  Ensure efficient data gathering on key performance indicators 

To  enable  continuous  monitoring  and  a  future  evaluation  of  the  implementation  of  the 
Directive, NRAs and/or dispute settlement bodies should gather data on the scale of access to 
physical infrastructure under the Directive, as well as the proportion of high-speed networks 
deployed in co-deployment. Member States should  gather data from local authorities on the 
timeframes for permit granting, and the number of buildings certified as deployed with high-
speed-ready in-building infrastructure.   

14 In this regard, BEREC has already started working on a report on pricing of access to infrastructure and civil 
works. 

14