COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION of the State Aid rules for broadband infrastructure deployment
Date: 2021-07-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: EU financing, EU investment, EU strategy, State aid, climate change policy, control of State aid, economic recovery, green economy, investment aid, sustainable development

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 7.7.2021  SWD(2021) 194 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EVALUATION  of the State Aid rules for broadband infrastructure deployment {SWD(2021) 195 final}  
 
 
Table of Contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 11 

1.1.  CONTEXT .......................................................................................................................................... 11 

1.2.  PURPOSE ........................................................................................................................................... 12 

1.3.  EVALUATION CRITERIA ............................................................................................................... 13 

1.4.  SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION ....................................................................................................... 13 

2. 

BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION ................................................................................... 14 

2.1.  LEGAL AND POLICY BACKGROUND .......................................................................................... 14 

2.2.  BACKGROUND OF THE INTERVENTION ................................................................................... 16 

2.2.1. DESCRIPTION OF THE INTERVENTION AND ITS OBJECTIVES ............................................. 16 

2.2.2. BASELINE ......................................................................................................................................... 17 

3. 

IMPLEMENTATION  OF  THE  STATE  AID  RULES  FOR  THE  DEPLOYMENT  OF 
BROADBAND NETWORKS ............................................................................................................ 18 

3.1.  THE RULES ....................................................................................................................................... 18 

3.2.  DESCRIPTION OF THE CURRENT SITUATION .......................................................................... 21 

3.2.1. NUMBER AND TYPES OF STATE AID MEASURES ................................................................... 21 

3.2.2. TRANSPARENCY AID MODULE ................................................................................................... 22 

3.2.3. MONITORING ................................................................................................................................... 23 

3.2.4. EVALUATION PLAN ....................................................................................................................... 23 

3.2.5. TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCE ....................................................................................................... 24 

3.2.6. STATE AID POLICY DEVELOPMENTS AND RECENT EVENTS .............................................. 26 

4.  METHOD............................................................................................................................................ 27 

4.1.  DATA COLLECTION AND ASSESSMENT .................................................................................... 27 

4.2.  CHALLENGES AND ROBUSTNESS OF FINDINGS ..................................................................... 30 

5.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS .......................................... 31 

5.1.  EFFECTIVENESS .............................................................................................................................. 31 

5.1.1. SUPPORT  THE  RAPID  DEPLOYMENT  OF  BROADBAND  INFRASTRUCTURE, 

HELPING REDUCE THE 'DIGITAL DIVIDE’ ................................................................................ 32 

5.1.1.1. 

FACILITATE  THE  DEPLOYMENT  OF  BROADBAND  INFRASTRUCTURES,  IN 
2020  DAE  CONNECTIVITY  TARGETS  AND  BRINGING 

LINE  WITH 
CONNECTIVITY TO LOW POPULATION DENSITY, RURAL AND REMOTE AREAS .......... 32 

5.1.1.2.  ADDRESS A MARKET FAILURE OR MAJOR INEQUALITIES .......................................... 37 

5.1.1.3.  HIGHER QUALITY OF SERVICES AT AFFORDABLE PRICES ......................................... 39 

5.1.2. LIMITATION OF DISTORTION OF COMPETITION .................................................................... 41 

5.1.2.1. 

PROTECTING EXISTING INVESTMENT .............................................................................. 43 

5.1.2.2. 

PROTECTING FUTURE INVESTMENT PLANS .................................................................... 46 

5.1.2.3. 

PROMOTING COMPETITION IN THE MARKET ................................................................. 49 

5.1.2.4. 

PROMOTING COMPETITION FOR THE MARKET .............................................................. 52 

5.1.3. TRANSPARENT DECISION-MAKING ........................................................................................... 55 

2 

 
 
5.1.3.1.  CLARITY OF THE RULES ....................................................................................................... 56 

5.1.3.2. 

SIMPLIFIED RULES ................................................................................................................. 60 

5.2.  EFFICIENCY...................................................................................................................................... 61 

5.2.1. ADMINISTRATIVE EFFICIENCY ................................................................................................... 61 

5.2.2. HAVE  THE  2013  BROADBAND  GUIDELINES  LED  TO  MORE  EFFICIENT  STATE 

EXPENDITURE? ............................................................................................................................... 66 

5.2.3. OVERALL  BALANCE:  HAVE  THE  BENEFITS  ASSOCIATED  WITH  THE  2013 

BROADBAND GUIDELINES OUTWEIGHED THE COST? ......................................................... 72 

5.3.  RELEVANCE ..................................................................................................................................... 74 

5.4.  COHERENCE ..................................................................................................................................... 78 

5.5.  EU ADDED VALUE .......................................................................................................................... 80 

6. 

CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................. 81 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ............................................................................................ 84 

1. 

LEAD DG ........................................................................................................................................... 84 

2.  ORGANISATION AND TIMING ...................................................................................................... 84 

3. 

4. 

5. 

EXCEPTIONS TO THE BETTER REGULATION GUIDELINES .................................................. 85 

CONSULTATION OF THE RSB....................................................................................................... 85 

EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY ......................................................................................... 85 

ANNEX 2: SYNOPSIS REPORT ................................................................................................................ 87 

1.  OUTLINE OF THE CONSULTATION STRATEGY ....................................................................... 87 

2.  METHODOLOGY AND TOOLS USED TO PROCESS THE DATA .............................................. 88 

3. 

4. 

THE RESULTS OF THE STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS .................................................... 89 

CONTRIBUTIONS  RECEIVED  OUTSIDE  THE  FORMAL  CONSULTATION 
CONTEXT .......................................................................................................................................... 99 

5.  USE OF THE INFORMATION GATHERED ................................................................................... 99 

ANNEX  3:  OVERVIEW  OF  THE  STATE  AID  RULES  FOR  BROADBAND 

INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT TO THE EVALUATION .............................. 100 

ANNEX  4:  OVERVIEW  OF  THE  IMPLEMENTATION  OF  THE  STATE  AID  RULES  FOR 

BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................... 101 

3 

 
 
 
 
Table of Figures 

Figure 1. Number of aid measures per individual beneficiaries and per Member State published in TAM. 22 
Figure 2: Number of aid measures monitored between 2013 and 2020 ....................................................... 23 
Figure 3. Number of projects servicing connectivity types by country ......................................................... 39 
Figure 4. Replies to question 2 of the open public consultation ................................................................... 42 
Figure 5. Replies to question 3 of the open public consultation ................................................................... 42 
Figure 6. Replies to questions 41 and 42 of the targeted consultation ......................................................... 44 
Figure 7. Replies to question 44 of the targeted consultation ...................................................................... 44 
Figure 8. Replies to questions 45 of the targeted consultation ..................................................................... 45 
Figure 9. Replies to question 46 of the targeted consultation ...................................................................... 45 
Figure 10. Replies to question 57 of the targeted consultation .................................................................... 47 
Figure 11. Replies to question 50 of the targeted consultation .................................................................... 48 
Figure 12. Replies to question 55 of the targeted consultation .................................................................... 48 
Figure 13. Replies to question 63 of the targeted consultation .................................................................... 52 
Figure 14. Replies to question 77 of the targeted consultation .................................................................... 53 
Figure 15. Replies to question 65 of the targeted consultation .................................................................... 53 
Figure 16. Replies to question 80 of the targeted consultation .................................................................... 54 
Figure 17. Replies to question 67 of the targeted consultation .................................................................... 55 
Figure 18. Replies to question 11 of the targeted consultation .................................................................... 61 
Figure 19. Share of State aid administration costs by category: Greek authorities ..................................... 63 
Figure 20. Question 14 to the open public consultation ............................................................................... 66 
Figure 21. Timeline between start of State aid measure and the entering into service, per project ............. 67 
Figure 22. Percentage of aid spent on total amount available ..................................................................... 68 
Figure 23. Question 12 of the open public consultation ............................................................................... 69 
Figure 24. Question 16 of the open public consultation ............................................................................... 70 
Figure 25. Question 11 to the open public consultation ............................................................................... 71 
Figure 26. Replies to question 14 of the targeted consultation .................................................................... 75 

4 

 
 
 
List of Tables 

Table 1. Replies to questions 2 and 3 of the open public consultation ......................................................... 57 
Table 2. Clarity of requirements and concepts used in the State aid rules ................................................... 58 
Table 3. Replies to questions 2 and 3 of the open public consultation ......................................................... 59 
Table 4. Reasons for delays in the application of broadband State aid as expressed by stakeholders ......... 69 

5 

 
 
 
List of Annexes 

Annex 1: Procedural information 

Annex 2: Synopsis report 

Annex 3: Overview of the State aid rules for broadband infrastructure development 
subject to the evaluation 

Annex 4: Overview of the implementation of the State aid rules for broadband 
infrastructure development 

6 

 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

4G 

5G 

ADSL  

Backhaul 

Bandwidth 

Basic broadband 

BCO 

BER 

BEREC 

Bitstream access 

Fourth generation wireless technology for digital cellular networks 

Fifth generation wireless technology for digital cellular networks 

Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line; A technology that enables, 
for example, rapid access to interactive broadband services and 
video on demand through copper wire used in existing local 
telephone loop plant, In its "2+" iteration, ADSL supports one-way 
transmission at bit rates up to 24 Mbps on a single pair of copper 
wires and enables subscribers to connect to data networks and the 
Internet at speeds from 50 to 200 times faster than current 
analogue modems operating at 28.8 Kbps. 

The middle part of a broadband network, connecting the local 
access to the core internet network. Technically the link from the 
cable head to the international switching centre. 

Bandwidth is the capacity of a network or other communication 
channel for transferring data, measured in bps. 

Basic broadband networks are based on the existing fixed or 
wireless networks including (ADSL, ADSL2+ networks), non-
enhanced cable (e.g. DOCSIS 2.0), 3G mobile networks (UMTS) 
and satellite systems. Basic networks can typically deliver at least 
2 Mbps and less than 30 Mbps. 

European Broadband Competence Offices 

Block Exemption Regulations 

Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications 

Wholesale access provider installs a high-speed access link to the 
customer premises and makes this access link available to third 
parties 

Black NGA areas  

Black NGA areas are those where two or more NGA networks are 
present or planned in the near future. 

Bps 

Broadband 

BRP 

Bits per second 

A term applied to high speed electronic communications systems 

Better Regulation Portal 

CEF2 Digital 

The Connecting Europe Facility Digital Programme 

CERRE 

DAE 

Dark fibre 

Centre on Regulation in Europe 

Digital Agenda for Europe initiative 

Unlit fibre without transmission systems connected. 

7 

 
 
DESI 

DG 

DG COMP 

DOCSIS  

Duct 

EECC 

EU  

EU2020 

EEA 

FTE 

FTTB 

FTTC 

FTTC/VDSL 

FTTH 

FTTP 

FWA 

Gbps 

GBER 

GDP 

GPON 

Digital Economy and Society Index; DESI is a composite index 
that summarises relevant indicators on Europe’s digital 
performance and tracks the progress of EU Member States in 
digital competitiveness 

Directorate-General 

Directorate-General for Competition 

Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification; A cable TV 
network solution 

Underground pipe or conduit used to house (fibre, copper or coax) 
cables of a broadband network. 

European Electronic Communication Code 

European Union 

Europe 2020 Strategy 

European Economic Area 

Full-time equivalent; a unit to measure employed persons in a way 
that makes them comparable although they may work or study a 
different number of hours per week. 

Fibre to the Building, which reaches the end user premises with 
fibre, i.e. fibre is rolled out to the building, but copper, coax or 
LAN is used within the building 

Fibre to the Cabinet; From which the first-mile connection starts, a 
local area infrastructure. Fibre laid to the cabinet, with copper 
wires completing the connection. 

Fibre to the Cabinet / Very-high-bit-rate Digital Subscriber Line 

Fibre to the Home network, which reaches the end user premises 
with fibre, i.e. an access network consisting of optical fibres lines 
in both the feeder and the drop segments of the access network 
(including in-house wiring). 

Fibre to the Premises; used interchangeably with FFTH 

Fixed Wireless Access; Fixed Wireless Access technology allows 
to supply connectivity services through radio spectrum, without 
requiring deployment of copper and optical fibre networks for the 
so called “last mile” segment 

Gigabit per second 

General Block Exemption Regulation 

Gross Domestic Product 

Gigabit Passive Optical Network 

Grey NGA areas  

Grey NGA areas are those where one NGA network is present or 
planned in the near future. 

8 

 
IA 

LTE 

Mbps  

Mobile broadband 

NGA 

NGN 

NGO 

NRA 

OECD 

OJ 

PtP 

REFIT 

RRF 

RRP 

RSB 

SA 

SAM 

SGEI 

SMP 

State aid Scoreboard 

Impact Assessment 

Long-Term Evolution; high performance communication system 
for cellular mobile phones. Step towards 4th generation, but 
commonly called 4G. 

Megabit per second 

Used to describe various types of wireless high-speed internet 
access through a portable modem, telephone or other device 

Next  Generation  Access  networks  (also  called  fast  broadband 
networks) consist wholly or in part of optical elements and which 
are capable of delivering broadband access services with enhanced 
characteristics  (such  as  higher  throughput)  as  compared  to  those 
provided  over  already  existing  copper  networks.  In  most  cases, 
NGA is the result of an  upgrade of an already existing copper or 
co-axial access  network.  NGA networks are capable of providing 
at least 30Mbps. 

Next Generation Network; Where one network transports all 
information and services (voice, data, and media such as video) by 
encapsulating these into IP packets, similar to those used on the 
Internet 

Non-Governmental Organisation 

National Regulatory Authority 

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 

Official Journal of the European Union 

Point to point 

European Commission's Regulatory Fitness and Performance 
Programme 

Recovery and Resilience Facility 

Recovery and Resilience Plans 

Regulatory Scrutiny Board 

State aid 

State aid Modernisation 

Services of General Economic Interest; economic activities that 
public authorities identify as being of particular importance to 
citizens and that would not be supplied (or would be supplied 
under different conditions) if there were no public intervention. 

Significant Market Power 

The Scoreboard is the European Commission’s benchmarking 
instrument for State aid. It was launched by the Commission in 
July 2001 to provide a transparent and publicly accessible source 
of information on the overall State aid situation in the Member 

9 

 
SWD 

TAM 

TFEU 

UK 

US 

UMTS 

States and on the Commission's State aid control activities. 
Furthermore, the data in the report are used for further statistical 
analysis and represent an important source of information.  

Staff Working Document 

Transparency Award Module, gives access to state aid individual 
award data provided by Member States in compliance with the 
European transparency requirements for state aid. 

Treaty on the Functioning of the EU 

United Kingdom 

United States 

Universal Mobile Telecommunications System, also known as 3G 
and the most prevalent mobile communication technologies, 
follow the 3rd Generation Partnership Project’s (3GPP) technical 
specifications. 

Ultrafast networks 

Networks able to provide at least 100 Mbps download 

VHC 

VHCN 

VULA 

VVA 

White NGA areas 

WIK 

xDSL 

Very High Capacity 

Very High Capacity Networks 

Virtual Unbundled Local Access 

Valdani Vicari & Associati 

White NGA areas are those where no NGA network (capable of 
providing speeds above 30Mbps download) is present or planned 
in the near future. 

Wissenschaftliches Institut für Infrastruktur und 
Kommunikationsdienste 

Digital Subscriber Line technologies; A collective term for all 
types of digital subscriber lines, including asymmetric digital 
subscriber line (ADSL), symmetric digital subscriber line (SDSL) 
and high-data-rate digital subscriber line (HDSL). 

10 

 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1.  CONTEXT 

High  quality  electronic  communications  infrastructure  is  crucial  for  connecting  and 
integrating the Union and its remote regions, allowing all users to have access to private 
and  public  electronic  communications  services  contributing  to  social  cohesion  and 
supporting  a  more  competitive  and  sustainable  economy.  Investments  in  electronic 
communications network deployment come primarily from private operators with public 
support complementing these private initiatives where necessary. State aid control in the 
electronic  communications  sector  plays  an  important  role  in  developing  a  co-ordinated 
investment  strategy.  The  Broadband  Guidelines,  adopted  in  20131  and  the  relevant 
provisions  of  the  General  Block  Exemption  Regulation  (GBER)2,  adopted  in  2014,  set 
out  specific criteria  for the allocation of public funds for pro-competitive infrastructure 
deployment in areas that need it most. They seek to ensure that public support leads to 
modern  infrastructure  increasing  consumer  welfare  and  reducing  the  'digital  divide' 
where  commercial  operators  do  not  invest,  while  avoiding  crowding-out  of  private 
investments or discriminating against certain operators or technology platforms. 

The State aid rules for the deployment of broadband infrastructure have helped Member 
States to channel public support in a pro-competitive manner in line with the targets set 
out for 2020 by the Digital Agenda for Europe (DAE3). These objectives were updated in 
2016 by the Commission in its Gigabit Society Communication4 that sets additional and 
more  ambitious  targets  for  electronic  communications  network  deployment  by  2025  in 
line  with  expected  use,  market  and  technological  developments.  In  February  2020,  the 
Commission published a new EU digital strategy (Shaping Europe’s Digital Future). In 
March  2021,  the  Commission  presented  the  EU  digital  ambitions  for  Europe’s  digital 

1   Communication from the Commission EU Guidelines for the application of State aid rules in relation 

to the rapid deployment of broadband networks 2013/C 25/01. 

2   Commission  Regulation  (EU)  No  651/2014  of  17  June  2014  declaring  certain  categories  of  aid 
compatible  with  the  internal  market  in  application  of  Articles  107  and  108  of  the  Treaty  Text  with 
EEA relevance, OJ L 187, 26.6.2014. 

3   Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Social Committee 

and the Committee of the Regions, COM (2010) 245 final. 

4   Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European 
Economic and Social Committee  and the  Committee of the Regions, Connectivity  for a Competitive 
Digital  Single  Market  -  Towards  a  European  Gigabit  Society,  COM(2016)587  final,  14.9.2016  : 
https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/communication-connectivity-competitive-digital-single-
market-towards-european-gigabit-society.     

11 

 
 
                                                           
transformation  by  20305  where  connectivity  is  one  of  four  cardinal  points  for  digital 
transformation.  

1.2. 

PURPOSE 

In  view  of  the  very  rapid  technological  developments  in  this  field,  and  the  current  and 
future  challenges  that  these  entail,  it  has  become  evident  that,  although  the  Broadband 
Guidelines  do  not  formally  have  an  expiry  date,  it  is  expedient  to  undertake  an 
evaluation.  The evaluation assesses in  particular the  extent to  which the State aid rules 
applicable  to  broadband  are  still  fit  for  purpose,  in  view  of  their  objectives  and 
developments  in  the  market  and  in  legislation,  having  regard  to  the  new  political 
objectives of the Commission, including the European Green Deal6, and a Europe fit for 
the digital age7.  

The  Commission  in  2012  engaged  in  an  overall  reform  of  EU  State  aid  policy  and 
launched  the  State  aid  modernisation  (SAM).  In  2019,  it  launched  a  Fitness  Check8, 
which  was  an  evaluation  of  the  rules  which  were  adopted  as  part  of  the  State  aid 
Modernisation exercise9. At the time, it was considered that there was no need to include 
the  Broadband  Guidelines  in  the  Fitness  Check.  The  reason  for  this  was  that  the 
application  of  common  assessment  principles,  in  the  Broadband  Guidelines,  to  a  large 
extent  is  driven  by  the  technological  requirements  and  developments  in  the  sector,  and 
the rules were considered sufficiently open-ended to cater for developments expected in 
the near future and flexible enough to assess diverse State interventions, including those 
addressing the new policy targets of the Gigabit Communication.  

However, technological developments continued to accelerate, and after the launch of the 
Fitness  Check,  the  need  to  take  these  developments  into  account  became  increasingly 
clear.  The  continued  application  of  State  aid  rules  on  a  case-by-case  basis  has  in  the 
meantime contributed to a body of case practice which addresses this evolving situation 
also  having  regard  to  the  2025  Gigabit  objectives.  A  study10  was  also  launched  to 
examine the Commission’s practice under the Broadband Guidelines and the experience 

5   Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  parliament,  the  Council,  the  European 
economic and social committee and the committee of the regions 2030 Digital Compass: the European 
way  for  the  Digital  Decade,  https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/communication-digital-compass-
2030_en.pdf.   

6   More  information  available  under:  https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-

green-deal_en.   

7   More  information  available  under:  https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-

digital-age_en.   

8   Fitness Check (europa.eu) 

9   See section 5.1.3. 

10   Microsoft Word - bbguidelines_FINALREPORTv1.1_2011-12-07.docx (wik.org) 

12 

 
                                                           
gained  in  the  application  of  State  aid  rules  in  the  broadband  sector  (data  gathering 
exercise,  identifying  challenges  in  the  application  of  the  Broadband  Guidelines,  best 
practices,  improvements  to  address  identified  difficulties;  also  aiming  at  verifying 
elements  required  under  the  Better  Regulation  rules),  and  a  separate  evaluation  of  the 
Broadband Guidelines was therefore considered better justified.  

The  present  evaluation  analyses  how  the  Broadband  Guidelines  and  the  relevant 
provisions in the GBER  (Article 52, in its version in force up to  December 2020) have 
functioned  and  to  what  extent  they  have  stimulated  the  deployment  of  electronic 
communications  infrastructure  and  contributed  to  more  competitiveness  in  the  sector. 
The purpose of the evaluation is also to check to what extent the current rules respond to 
technological developments as well as socio-economic needs and are appropriate having 
regard  to  the  new  EU  strategic  objectives  in  terms  of  connectivity  and  digital 
transformation. 

The evaluation will provide a basis for a decision about whether a revision of the current 
State aid rules for broadband infrastructure deployment is necessary.  

1.3.  EVALUATION CRITERIA 

The purpose of this evaluation is to examine the application of the Broadband Guidelines 
against five criteria: effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU added value. 
This  is  a  retrospective  exercise  with  the  aim  of  establishing  what  has  worked  well  or 
poorly,  and  it  compares  actual  performance  to  earlier  expectations.  The  findings  will 
serve  as  a  basis  for  conclusions  on  how  well  the  Broadband  Guidelines  have  been 
performing, whether the Broadband Guidelines are fit for purpose’ in view of the current 
situation and if not, what are the underlying reasons for this.  

This Staff working document reflects the findings and views of the Commission’s staff 
and does not preclude any formal decision by the Commission.  

1.4. 

SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION 

The timeframe covered by this evaluation is the period since the entry into force of the 
relevant rules (2013 for the Broadband Guidelines and 2014 for the relevant provisions of 
the GBER) until January 2021, at the end of the consultation period. 

The  evaluation  covers  the  27  Member  States  and  the  United  Kingdom  regarding  aid 
measures put in place by public authorities in application of the current rules since their 
entry into force, which were either authorised by the Commission or exempted from the 
prior authorisation under the relevant GBER provisions. 

13 

 
2.  BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION 

2.1.  LEGAL AND POLICY BACKGROUND 

Competition is a major driver of growth. It incentivises enterprises, including new ones, 
to  enter  markets  and  innovate,  improving  productivity  and  competitiveness  in  a  global 
context.  

State aid control is part of competition policy enshrined in the Treaty (Article 107 and 
108 TFEU) and its basic rationale is to avoid undue market distortions and subsidy races, 
as  well  as  to  safeguard  the  internal  market  and  create  a  competitive  landscape  with  a 
level playing field.  

State aid is a form of support given by a Member State that provides an undertaking or 
specific undertakings with an advantage over its/their competitors.  

The  Treaty  contains  a  negative  presumption  against  all  forms  of  State  aid.  However, 
while  Article 107(1)  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union  (TFEU) 
lays down a general prohibition of State aid granted by Member States to undertakings, 
Article 107(3) TFEU also  allows for a number of policy objectives  for which State aid 
may be granted.11 As such, State aid control does not prevent Member State governments 
from  supporting  businesses.  State  aid  control  ensures  that  any  detriment  arising  from 
distortions of competition is outweighed by the public purpose pursued by the aid.  

The  exemptions  laid  down  in  Article  107(3)  TFEU  are  discretionary  in  nature  and  the 
Commission has  exclusive competence  to decide on these exceptions, i.e. on the so-
called  ‘compatibility’  of  State  aid  with  the  internal  market.  In  exercising  these 
discretionary powers, when issuing decisions on compatibility, the Commission balances 
the  negative  effects  of  the  aid  measure  on  trade  and  competition  in  the internal  market 
with  its  positive  effects  in  terms  of  contributing  to  the  development  of  an  economic 
activity.12  

To ensure predictability and legal certainty for Member States and stakeholders on how it 
applies  its  margin  of  discretion  in  interpreting  the  compatibility  provisions  in  Article 
107(3)  TFEU,  the  Commission  has  adopted  a  series  of  rules  (in  the  form  of  ‘soft  law’ 
such as guidelines and frameworks).  

There is also no legal obligation to adopt guidelines and frameworks.  The adoption 
of  such  guidelines  by  the  Commission  is  an  instance  of  the  exercise  of  its  discretion. 
While  the  guidelines  and  frameworks  on  compatibility  set  out  how  the  Commission 

11   Article  107(2)  TFEU  also  lists  a  number  of  ‘allowed’  State  aid  which  is  automatically  compatible, 
without  discretion  of  the  Commission.  The  notification  obligation  however  also  applies  to  this 
provision.  

12   An aid measure, which cannot be found compatible, is ‘incompatible’. 

14 

 
                                                           
will  assess  aid  measures,  and  allow  Member  States  to  grant  support  under  Article  107 
TFEU, they do not oblige Member States to grant aid; this remains in their discretion. 

As  described  above,  the  Commission  has  exclusive  ex-ante  control  power:  under 
Article 108 TFEU, Member States are obliged to notify their intentions to grant State aid 
and  cannot  implement  the  measure  before  the  Commission's  approval.  ‘Unlawful  aid’ 
means aid put into effect in contravention of Article 108(3) TFEU.13 The Commission’s 
approval takes the form of a Commission decision. Such decisions can be challenged and 
are subject to European Courts’ scrutiny. 

For  small  amounts  of  aid  and/or  less  distortive  aid  measures  however,  the 
Commission has  issued block  exemption  regulations, pursuant  to  Article 109 TFEU, 
laying  down  the  conditions14  that  have  to  be  fulfilled  in  order  to  deem  the  State  aid 
measure  compatible  with  the  internal  market  without  the  necessity  of  an  ex-ante 
notification  and  approval.  Since  2008,  the  previous  block  exemption  regulations  (so-
called ‘BERs’) have been ‘merged’ into  a single document, the GBER.15  The GBER  is 
directly  applicable  and  thus  its  conditions  binding  for  the  numerous  national 
administrations in the Member States if they wish to grant aid under it. The aid measures 
fulfilling the conditions of GBER are presumed to be compatible with the TFEU and thus 
exempted from the requirement of prior notification to the Commission, Member States 
may implement those measures without prior Commission scrutiny. 

In addition, the Commission in the so-called de minimis Regulation, provides a ceiling 
below  which  measures  are  deemed  not  to  constitute  State  aid  within  the  meaning  of 
Article 107 TFEU, and  are exempted from  the notification procedure, because they  are 
considered not to have any effect on cross-border competition among Member States. 

In a State aid procedure, the counterpart of the Commission is the Member State. 
Once a measure is approved (or block-exempted), the Member State is authorised, on the 
basis  of  the  Commission  decision  (or  the  applicable  block  exemption  regulation),  to 
disburse  the  aid  to  the  beneficiary  or  beneficiaries.  This  may  be  done  according  to  its 
national  administrative  set-up  (at  national  or  regional  level  for  instance,  or  through 
specific  aid  granting  bodies)  and  depending  on  the  type  of  the  aid  measure.  Only  the 
Member State is a party to a State aid procedure, the beneficiary is merely a third party. 

13   See  Article 1(f) of the Procedural Regulation.  Lawfulness (or "legality") of an aid  measure is thus a 

different concept than "compatibility". 

14   The  criteria  of  the  GBER  determine,  in  particular,  eligible  beneficiaries,  maximum  aid  intensities         
(i.e.  the  maximum  proportion  of  the  eligible  costs  of  a  project  that  can  benefit  from  State  aid)  and 
eligible expenses. 

15   Commission  Regulation  (EU)  N°651/2014  of  17  June  2014  declaring  certain  categories  of  aid 
compatible  with  the  internal  market  in  application  of  Articles  107  and  108  of  the  Treaty  (OJ  L  187 
26.6.2014, p. 1). 

15 

 
                                                           
2.2.  BACKGROUND OF THE INTERVENTION 

2.2.1.  DESCRIPTION OF THE INTERVENTION AND ITS OBJECTIVES 

As  explained  above,  an  evaluation  of  the  rules  is  justified  by  the  need  to  determine 
whether  the  Broadband  Guidelines  are  still  fit  for  purpose  in  view  of  the  rapid 
technological developments, reflected in changes in the market and in legislation. 

The  general  objective  of  State  aid  under  the  Broadband  Guidelines  is  to  facilitate  the 
development  of  economic  activities  consisting  in  broadband  deployment  and  related 
broadband network services, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions 
to an extent contrary to the common interest. The specific objectives are the following.  

Support  the  rapid  deployment  of  broadband  infrastructure,  helping  to  bridge  the 
“digital divide”  

The Broadband Guidelines must be coherent with EU policy and aligned with the rapid 
technological  development  in  the  sector,  as  this  has  an  impact  on  competition  between 
different platforms and different operators in the market. In particular, the categorisation 
of intervention areas (white, grey and black) needs to be critically assessed. This implies 
aligning  the  Next  Generation  Access  (NGA)  definition  with  technological  and  market 
developments, and EU policy. 

Directing State aid to where it is needed is essential for ensuring that State aid is used in 
an  effective  and  efficient  way  which  addresses  market  failures  or  major  inequalities 
while minimising distortion of competition and protecting taxpayers’ resources.  

Limitation of distortion of competition  

A central objective of the Broadband Guidelines is to ensure that competitive markets are 
maintained.  A  competitive  process  plays  a  role  at  different  levels  to  protect  private 
investment  and  limit  the  crowding  out  of  such  investment  by  State  aid.  A  competitive 
selection  procedure  as  a  pre-condition  for  granting  of  State  aid  ensures  competition 
between  bidders  and  should  help  keeping  aid  to  the  minimum  and  to  select  the  most 
effective operator and technology, without prescribing a particular technology to be used 
(technological  neutrality).  A  detailed  coverage  analysis  (mapping  and  public 
consultation)  protects  current  and  planned  investments  from  overbuilding  by  public 
funds. 

Once  the  publicly  financed  infrastructure  is  in  place,  effective  access  shall  be  granted 
such  that  competition  on  the  new  platform  between  different  operators  and  services 
providers  is  ensured.  Furthermore,  to  ensure  that  public  resources  are  used  efficiently, 
use of existing infrastructure should be effective. 

16 

 
Transparent decision making   

Rules  must  be  clear  to  enable  Member  State  designing  State  aid  measures  that  are 
compatible.  This  is  even  more  important  for  measures  under  GBER  as  they  are 
implemented  without  the  Commission’s  formal  approval.  Clarity  is  therefore  key  to  a 
successful implementation of the State aid rules. In addition, the Broadband Guidelines 
aimed at reducing the administrative costs to the minimum necessary while ensuring that 
sufficient  information  is  available  in  order  to  assess  the  performance  of  the  State  aid 
expenditure. It is also important to assess whether further guidance is needed or whether 
there is a need for simplification of the rules.  

Provisions  concerning  the  deployment  of  broadband  networks  were  introduced  in  the 
GBER  adopted  on  17  July  2014,  following  the  modification  of  the  Council  Regulation 
No.  1588/2015  (‘Enabling  Regulation’)16  that  allows  the  Commission  to  declare  that 
certain categories of State aid are compatible with the internal market and exempted from 
the notification requirement  provided for in  Article 108(3) TFEU. The GBER  aimed at 
enabling  manifestly  compatible  State  aid  measures  for  the  deployment  of  broadband 
networks  to  be  introduced  swiftly.  The  GBER  plays  a  crucial  role  in  simplifying  and 
clarifying  rules,  cutting  red  tape  and  allowing  for  well-defined  projects  to  go  ahead  as 
fast as possible.  

2.2.2.  BASELINE 

The  Commission  has  considerable  experience  with  assessing  State  aid  granted  for  the 
roll-out  of  broadband  networks.  Since  2003,  it  has  taken  over  170  decisions  in  this 
sector17. On the basis of its case experience, in 2009 and 2013 the Commission adopted 
Guidelines  for  the  assessment  of  State  aid  in  broadband.18  As  the  2009  Guidelines 
expired  after  3  years,  a  review  process  started  in  April  2011,  in  view  of  the  rapid 
technological developments in the sector.  

16   OJ L 248, 24.9.2015, p.1. 

17  The 

list 

of 

Commission's 

broadband 

decisions 

is 

available 

here: 

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors/telecommunications/broadband_decisions.pdf.  

18    Communication from the Commission — Community Guidelines for the application of State aid rules 
in relation to rapid deployment of broadband networks Text with EEA relevance, OJ C 235, 30.9.2009, 
p. 7–25: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52009XC0930(02):EN:NOT 
and Communication from the Commission — EU Guidelines for the application of State aid rules in 
relation  to  the  rapid  deployment  of  broadband  networks,  OJ  C  25,  26.1.2013,  p.  1–26:  https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52013XC0126%2801%29  

17 

 
                                                           
    
The  Impact  Assessment  on  the  2009  Guidelines19  explored  options  for  a  review.  The 
baseline scenario was prolonging the 2009 Guidelines for three more years.  

Therefore,  the  evaluation  baseline  as  regards  the  Broadband  Guidelines  is  the  situation 
before 2013, when they entered into force. The evaluation baseline as regards the GBER 
provisions  related to  the deployment  of broadband networks is  before 2014, when they 
entered into force.  

This  evaluation  does  not  assess  the  scenario  that  the  State  aid  rules  in  the  broadband 
sector  in  force  would  simply  be  abolished.  The  consequence  of  the  absence  of 
substantive  rules  would  be  the  direct  application  of  the  Treaty,  i.e.  the  notification  of 
each  and  every  measure  constituting  State  aid  in  the  meaning  of  107(1)  TFEU  and  the 
assessment  of  their  compatibility  by  the  Commission  carried  out  directly  under  the 
Treaty,  without  any  substantive  guidance  provided  to  Member  States  by  relevant  soft 
law.  It  is  therefore  not  a  question  of  State  aid  guidelines  for  broadband  or  not,  but  to 
evaluate the existing rules against the situation as before their entry into force.  

3. 

IMPLEMENTATION  OF  THE  STATE  AID  RULES  FOR  THE  DEPLOYMENT  OF 
BROADBAND NETWORKS 

3.1.  THE RULES 

The Broadband Guidelines set out a number of requirements which need to be fulfilled 
for State aid measures to be compatible with the TFEU.  

First,  they  must  be  in  line  with  the  EU  policy  targets  embedded  in  the  Europe  2020 
Strategy  (‘EU2020’)20  and  the  Digital  Agenda  for  Europe  initiative  (‘DAE’)21:  (i) 
bring  basic  broadband  access  to  all  Europeans  by  2013;  (ii)  ensure  that  by  2020  all 
Europeans  have  access  to  much  higher  internet  speeds  of  above  30  Mbps;  (iii)  50%  or 
more of the European households subscribe to internet connections above 100 Mbps.  

Second, they must comply with the following compatibility criteria: 

-  Member States  are required to  identify the  target area of the intervention 
and  classify  it  as  white22/grey23/black24  NGA  areas  in  terms  of  NGA 

19  Commission Staff Working Document, Impact assessment Accompanying the document Commission 
Communication, EU Guidelines for the application of State aid rules in relation to rapid deployment of 
broadband networks SWD(2012) 448 {C(2012) 9609} {SWD(2012) 449}: https://ec.europa.eu/smart-
regulation/impact/ia_carried_out/docs/ia_2012/swd_2012_0448_en.pdf   

20   Communication  from  the  Commission  –  EUROPE  2020  -  A  strategy  for  smart,  sustainable  and 

inclusive growth, COM(2010) 2020. 

21   See footnote 3. 

22   White  NGA  areas  are  those  where  no  NGA  network  (capable  of  providing  speeds  above  30Mbps 

download) is present or planned in the near future. 

23   Grey NGA areas are those where one NGA network is present or planned in the near future. 

18 

 
                                                           
infrastructure  existing  and  planned  in  the  near  future,  on  the  basis  of  a 
detailed  mapping25  and  public  consultation26,  taking  into  account  the 
various  technologies  that  can  reliably  provide  at  least  30  Mbps  download 
speeds.  

-  Member States  must demonstrate that the publicly supported interventions 
will deliver a significant improvement compared to what the infrastructure 
present  or  planned  can  offer,  bringing  significant  new  investments  in  the 
broadband network and significant new capabilities to the market in terms 
of capacity, speed and competition (‘step change’).27  

-  Member  States  must  select  beneficiaries  through  open  competitive 
selection  processes  based  on  transparent,  non-discriminatory  criteria28 
allowing the selection of the most economically advantageous offer.29 As an 
exception, Member States may  also  choose to  rely  on a direct  investment, 
where  the  public  authorities  deploy  and  manage  a  network,  directly  or 
through  a  fully  owned  in-house  entity,  who  would  typically  also  be  the 
wholesale  operator  of  the  network.30  The  selection  procedure  needs  to  be 
technologically neutral,  

-  The  publicly  supported  network  must  ensure  effective  open  and  non-
discriminatory wholesale access to third parties31, in line with the principle 
of  technological  neutrality.32  Wholesale  access  prices  should  be  based  on 
pricing principles set by the NRA or on benchmarking.33  

- 

It  is  recommended  to  use  existing  infrastructure  in  order  to  avoid  an 
unnecessary  and  wasteful  duplication  of  existing  networks  and  reduce  the 
amount of public funding34.  

24   Black  NGA  areas  are  those  where  two  or  more  NGA  networks  are  present  or  planned  in  the  near 

future. 

25   See paragraphs 61 to 72, as well as paragraph 78(a), of the Broadband Guidelines. 

26   See in particular paragraphs 63 to 65 and paragraph 78(b) of the Broadband Guidelines. 

27   See paragraph 51, 67 to 71, 76 and 83 to 85 of the Broadband Guidelines. 

28   See paragraph 78(c) of the Broadband Guidelines. 

29   See paragraph 78(d) of the Broadband Guidelines. 

30   See paragraph 78(c) and footnote 96 of the Broadband Guidelines.  

31   See paragraphs 78(g) and 80 of the Broadband Guidelines. 

32   See paragraph 78(e) of the Broadband Guidelines. 

33   See paragraph 78(h) of the Broadband Guidelines. 

34   See paragraph 78(f) of the Broadband Guidelines. 

19 

 
                                                                                                                                                                            
-  For  projects  with  an  aid  amount  above  EUR  10  million,  a  mechanism  to 

ensure the absence of overcompensation has to be introduced.  

-  Member  States  are  required  to  submit  reports  to  the  Commission  on  the 
implementation  of  the  scheme  every  two  years  since  the  date  the  network 
was put in use35.  

The  GBER  lays  out  the  conditions  under  which  Member  States  may  implement  aid 
measures supporting the deployment of broadband infrastructures without requesting the 
Commission’s  prior  authorisation.  It  covers  aid  measures  that  are  deemed  per  se 
manifestly  compatible.  Article  52  of  the  GBER  regulates  aid  measures  for  the 
deployment of broadband networks in areas where there is no infrastructure of the same 
category (either basic broadband or NGA network).  

Besides  the  compatibility  criteria  specific  to  the  public  support  for  the  deployment  of 
broadband  networks,  the  Broadband  Guidelines  and  the  GBER  include  obligations 
applicable to all State aid measures. These are: 

-  Transparency  of  State  aid  measures  and  awards:  The  aim  of  transparency 
requirements is to promote compliance, reduce uncertainties and promote a level 
playing  field  in  the  internal  market  for  Member  States  and  companies.  In  this 
context,  Member  States  have  to,  as  a  condition  for  granting  aid  (both  under  the 
Broadband Guidelines and corresponding provisions of the GBER), publish on a 
central  website  information  on  aid  measures  and  their  beneficiaries.  The 
transparency requirement applies to all aid measures exceeding EUR 500 000 per 
beneficiary.36  For  more  details,  please  refer  to  Section  3.2.2  ‘Transparency  aid 
module’. 

-  Monitoring:  To  ensure  that  aid  measures  comply  with  the  rules  in  a  consistent 
way  throughout  the  EU,  the  Commission  monitors  how  Member  States  apply 
approved or exempted aid schemes. To this end, the Commission services set up 
an  annual  monitoring  process  during  which  they  select  a  sample  of  State  aid 
measures  for  further  scrutiny  already  in  2006.  The  Commission  services  check 
both  the  compliance  of  the  selected  measures  with  their  legal  basis  and  their 
implementation. For more details, please refer to Section 3.2.3 ‘Monitoring’. 

-  Evaluation  plans:  To  further  ensure  that  the  positive  effects  of  State  aid 
outweigh  its  potential  negative  effects,  certain  notified  or  block-exempted 

35   See paragraph 78(k) of the Broadband Guidelines. 

36   The  rules  as  included  in  the  Broadband  Guidelines  were  amended  by  the  Communication  from  the 
Commission  amending  the  Communications  from  the  Commission  on  EU  Guidelines  for  the 
application of State aid rules in relation to the rapid deployment of broadband networks, on Guidelines 
on regional State aid for 2014-2020, on State aid for films and other audiovisual works, on Guidelines 
on State aid to promote risk finance investments and on Guidelines on State aid to airports and airlines, 
OJ C 198, 27.6.2014, p. 30–34. 

20 

 
 
 
                                                           
schemes  are  subject  to  an  ex-post  evaluation.  In  principle,  this  only  applies  to 
national  aid  schemes  and  aid  schemes  with  large  aid  budgets,  containing  novel 
characteristics or when significant  market,  technology or regulatory changes are 
foreseen. The aim of the evaluation of such schemes is to assess the actual impact 
of  aid,  to  enable  Member  States  to  improve  the  design  of  future  schemes  by 
making  them  less  distortive  and  more  effective,  and  the  Commission  to  design 
better State aid rules for the future. For more details, please refer to Section 3.2.4 
‘Evaluation plan’. 

3.2.  DESCRIPTION OF THE CURRENT SITUATION 

3.2.1.  NUMBER AND TYPES OF STATE AID MEASURES 

Between 2013 and 2020, Member States put in place 233 publicly supported broadband 
measures (62 approved by decisions and 171 GBER measures). 

This  represents  EUR  62.7  billion  of  total  State  aid  spending,  of  which  EUR  20  billion 
was  reported  by  Member  States  as  spent  under  the  GBER  and  EUR  42.7  billion  under 
Commission decisions. 

There is a significant difference between the total amount of public funding37 and the 
number of projects among Member States. In addition, there is a significant gap between 
approved aid and money actually spent by Member States. Part of this gap is due to the 
delay in implementation. In some cases, after having received the approval, due to 
internal reasons (e.g. elections), the planned measures were abandoned (e.g. France’s 
first Très Haut Débit scheme). In other cases, the implementation of large measures 
requires time, some of them covering hundreds or even thousands of individual projects.  

For the period between 2014 and 2019, only EUR 7.8 billion of aid were actually spent 
(14% of approved amounts).  

Even  though  all  Member  States  operate  within  the  policy  framework  of  the  Digital 
Agenda  and  the  Gigabit  Society  Communications,  among  Member  States  there  is  a 
significant difference also with regard to the type of projects funded with State aid. Thus, 
the implementation  of the Broadband  Guidelines  varies across aid  measures and across 
Member  States,  as  the  latter  had  different  targets  and  objectives.  The  variation  is 
compatible  with  the  Broadband  Guidelines  which  provide  sufficient  flexibility  for 
Member States to an address their individual concerns.  

Nevertheless,  the  objectives  set  by  national  administrations  can  have  far-reaching 
consequences for the technologies deployed and competition for State aid. Objectives can 
refer  to  downstream  and  upstream  bandwidths  and/or  other  capabilities.  Openness  to 
competition can also be expressed as an objective. Some countries such as France, Spain 

37   Belgium and Luxembourg, for instance, have not notified any SA measure with regard to broadband 

roll-out. 

21 

 
                                                           
and Portugal have set more ambitious objectives or targeted State aid towards very high 
capacity  infrastructure  from  an  early  stage,  which  was  mostly  delivered  via  full  fibre. 
Others,  such  as  Austria,  Germany,  Greece,  Hungary  and  the  UK,  began  with  more 
modest  objectives,  which  initially  served  to  support  the  deployment  of  FTTC/VDSL 
infrastructure.  

Until  recently,  Member  States  focussed  on  achieving  the  Digital  Agenda  2020  targets, 
but  the  national  broadband  strategies  of  many  Member  States  are  progressively 
incorporating  the  targets  for  2025  as  set  out  in  the  2016  Gigabit  Communication  and 
even the targets for 2030 of the Digital Decade Communication. 

3.2.2.  TRANSPARENCY AID MODULE 

As explained in Section 3.1 ‘Rules’, Member States must publish information on the aid 
beneficiaries on a central website. The Commission has set up the State aid Transparency 
Public Search (TAM) which centralises this information.  Only six Member States have 
published information on aid beneficiaries: Austria, Germany, Lithuania, Finland, France 
and  Italy.  The  number  of  individual  beneficiaries  that  have  received  aid  measures 
exceeding  EUR  500  000  (the  publication  threshold)  varies  greatly  between  Member 
States, as shown in Figure 1.  

Figure  1.  Number  of  aid  measures  per  individual  beneficiaries  and  per  Member  State 
published in TAM.  

i

s
e
r
u
s
a
e
m
d
a
f
o
r
e
b
m
u
N

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Source: TAM 

247 

41 

22 

5 

4 

2 

Austria

Finland

France Germany

Italy

Lithuania

EU Member States 

In total, EUR 3.3 billion have been reported, which represent nearly half of the amount of 
aid  spent  (see Section 3.2.1  ‘Number and Types  of State  aid  measures’).  This  suggests 
that  approximately  half  of  the  aid  spent  in  total  concerns  projects  of  less  than  EUR 
500 000. 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
3.2.3.  MONITORING 

As  explained  above,  the  purpose  of  ex-post  monitoring  is  to  check  whether  a  State  aid 
measure under GBER or the Broadband Guidelines has been correctly implemented. The 
monitoring  aims  at  assessing  the  implementation  of  either  an  individual  measure  or  a 
State aid scheme. Every year the Commission randomly picks a few such measures to be 
monitored. Between 2013 and 2020, 24 monitoring cases have been processed. 7 of them 
addressed State aid for broadband under GBER, the rest were notified measures.  

Figure 2: Number of aid measures monitored between 2013 and 2020 

i

s
e
r
u
s
a
e
m
d
a
f
o
r
e
b
m
u
N

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Year 

Non GBER

GBER

Source: DG COMP data 

No  major  irregularities  relating  to  the  sectoral-specific  requirements  (i.e.  broadband 
related  conditions)  were  detected  and  all  the  monitoring  cases  could  be  closed  without 
further  action.  With  regard  to  notified  measures,  the  monitoring  showed  that  the 
compatibility  criteria  of  the  Broadband  Guidelines  were  implemented  without  major 
difficulty.  The  data  which  have  been  provided  in  this  context  have  fed  into  the  WIK 
study (referred to in Section 4.1 ’Data collection and assessment’). 

3.2.4.  EVALUATION PLAN 

When notifying large schemes, Member States have to provide an evaluation plan. The 
aid evaluation under these plans is different from the present exercise  that concerns the 
rules evaluated under the Better regulation guidelines. It is carried out ex-post and looks, 
in  particular,  into  macro-economic  effects  of  the  State  aid  measure.  Up  to  2020,  the 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Commission  approved  nine  evaluation  plans  with  large  budget  involved  and/or 
containing elements of novelty38 .  

While no overall conclusions can be drawn regarding the State aid policy as such, due to 
the  punctual  nature  of  the  information  submitted,  the  final  reports  nevertheless  provide 
some useful indications. What can be noted so far is that the average quality of the State 
aid  evaluations  completed  is  generally  good.  Member  States  are  producing  clear 
documents  that  are  compliant  with  the  approved  evaluation  plans.  The  quality  and 
limitations  of  the  data  are  addressed  in  detail  and  the  (overall  positive)  results  of  the 
counterfactual impact evaluations are credible. 

3.2.5.  TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCE 

Evolution of network performances  

During the period covered by the Broadband Guidelines the main targets for broadband 
in Europe were set by the Digital Agenda for Europe (see Section 1.1 ‘Context’). These 
targets focused on achieving universal availability of 30 Mbps and a 50% take-up of 100 
Mbps broadband. In 2016 ambitions were raised to Gigabit capable infrastructure in the 
context  of  the  Gigabit  Society  goals39  (see  Section  3.2.6  ‘State  aid  policy  development 
and recent  events’), released at  the same time as proposals  for the European Electronic 
Communications Code. In 202140, additional targets for 2030 were added to complement 
those  for  2025,  confirming  EU’s  objectives  regarding  coverage  with  networks  able  to 
support at least 1 Gbps download speeds by 2030. 

An  analysis  by  WIK-Consult  in  the  context  of  studies  on  ‘Danish  Telecommunications 
Market  in  2030’41  and  on  ‘Relevant  Markets  susceptible  to  ex  ante  regulation’42 
highlights that advanced applications e.g. in the field of smart cities, smart agriculture, e-
health and e-education are likely to require dedicated capacity, in excess of the capacity 
available through mass-market infrastructure. Meanwhile, the needs of small businesses 
and  consumers  are  also  likely  to  increase,  not  only  to  support  the  simultaneous  use  of 

38   Including one scheme authorised under Article 52 GBER, SA.43484 Evaluation plan for broadband 

infrastructure Digital Poland 2014-2020: 
https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/cases/261188/261188_1750138_95_2.pdf   

39   See footnote 4.  

40   Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European 
Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions,  2030  Digital  Compass:  the 
European way for the Digital Decade, COM(2021)118 final, 9.3.2021. 

41  WIK,  Analysis 

of 
https://www.wik.org/index.php?id=1177&L=1.  

the  Danish 

Telecommunication  Market 

in 

2030, 

2019: 

42  WIK,  Study  on  Future  electronic  communications  product  and  service  markets  subject  to  ex-ante 
https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/study-future-electronic-communications-

regulation: 
product-and-service-markets-subject-ex-ante-regulation.   

24 

 
                                                           
multiple  devices  and  exploit  improvements  in  video  quality,  but  to  enable  the  use  of 
critical  public  services  including  e-health  and  e-education.  These  needs  may  be  even 
greater  in  rural  areas  which  lack  ready  access  to  health  and  education  facilities.  In  the 
medium term, copper or upgraded copper technologies may not to be able to meet these 
needs. 

There  may  thus  be  a  need  to  distinguish  copper  and  upgraded  (FTTC/VDSL)  copper 
from  technologies  which  offer  very  high  capacities,  including  the  capability  to  offer  1 
Gbps and above.  Alongside full fibre, technologies which currently would appear to be 
able  to  provide  1  Gbps  download  speeds  include  cable  networks  upgraded  to  DOCSIS 
3.1 or above and g.mgfast networks, which involve the deployment of fibre close to the 
end-user  with  copper  limited  to  the  final  metres.  Certain  wireless  technologies  –  in 
particular  5G  fixed  wireless  access  -  also  may  be  able  to  provide  1Gbps  speeds,  in 
particular if latency is further improved. However, the capabilities and reliability of this 
technology are likely to remain below that of FTTH or equivalent,43 making it a solution 
that is most appropriate for remote areas or households in sparsely populated districts. 

As discussed above, so far in nearly all cases Member States targeted broadband State aid 
at NGA white or basic broadband white or grey areas. However, some recent cases have 
arisen in Germany, Spain and Greece, in which the authorities have sought approval for 
State aid to be provided in NGA grey areas. Based on the objectives defined in the 2016 
Gigabit Communication, in these cases the Commission authorised public support for the 
deployment of the state-of-the-art networks in areas were less performing NGA networks 
were already in place.  

Mobile versus fixed networks 

With  the  move  towards  a  new  mobile  generation  (5G)  two  issues  have  come  up: 
substitutability between fixed and mobile infrastructure and joint use of infrastructure. 

Current  case  practice  assumes  that  mobile  and  fixed  networks  are  in  separate  markets. 
Mobile  networks  cannot  (fully)  substitute  fixed  networks  and  vice  versa.  State  aid  for 
mobile  networks  has  therefore  been  assessed  directly  under  the  Treaty,  relying  on  a 
mutatis mutandis application of the principles of the Broadband Guidelines. 

Thanks  to  the  deployment  of  fixed  fibre  backhaul  until  base  stations,  the  use  of 
millimetre-wave  frequencies,  densification  of  sites  and  other  developments,  mobile  5G 
infrastructure  may  become  a  more  close  substitute  to  fixed  infrastructure.  However 
mobile networks can be affected by weather conditions and physical obstacles, including 
walls.  In  addition,  there  remains  one  important  difference  between  the  two  types  of 
networks. Mobile technology is a “shared” medium rather than a dedicated architecture. 

43  See  the  WIK  (2020)  study  for  the  Commission  in  support of  the  review  of  the  Recommendation  on 
Relevant  Markets 
regulation:  https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-
ante 
market/en/news/study-future-electronic-communications-product-and-service-markets-subject-ex-
ante-regulation.  

susceptible 

ex 

to 

25 

 
                                                           
As a result, speed and capacity vary with the number of users in the network at a specific 
point  in  time.  For  that  reason  fixed  (including  5G  based  fixed-wireless  networks)  and 
(5G) mobile services, even if provided over the same network, may still be considered to 
be in separate markets. 

3.2.6.  STATE AID POLICY DEVELOPMENTS AND RECENT EVENTS  

In  the  2016  Gigabit  Communication,  the  Commission  set  connectivity  goals  for  2025. 
These goals require for all European households, rural or urban, an internet connectivity 
of  at  least  100  Mbps  upgradable  to  1  Gbps  speed.  They  also  require  socio-economic 
drivers,  such  as  schools,  hospitals  and  public  administration  to  benefit  from  Gigabit 
connectivity and all urban areas and major transport  paths  be covered by  5G networks. 
The term ‘100 Mbps upgradable’ has been clarified in the Shaping Europe’s digital future 
2020  Communication  where  it  has  been  explained  that,  as  the  decade  progresses, 
households  will  increasingly  need  1  Gbps.  This  would  imply  that  by  the  end  of  2025 
households will need such quality of service.44 This was confirmed by the Commission’s 
recent observations on the rapidly evolving demands for network capacity and the need 
to  ensure  sustainable  investments  into  networks  capable  of  offering  Gigabit  speeds  to 
cater  for  the  European  data  economy  beyond  2025.  Indeed,  the  Digital  Compass 
Communication  envisages  that  by  2030  all  European  households  will  be  covered  by  a 
Gigabit network, with all populated areas covered by 5G.     

The  COVID-19  pandemic  broke  out  in  March  2020  and  affected  the  entire  European 
economy  and  society.  As  regards  connectivity,  it  underlined  the  role  of  very  high 
capacity  networks  for  people,  businesses  and  public  institutions.  Very  high  capacity 
networks, including but not limited to fibre and 5G, are critical for the recovery from the 
crisis  and  to  foster  EU’s  resilience.  On  27  May  2020,  the  Commission  adopted  its 
Recovery Plan45 to tackle the consequences of the crisis stemming from the COVID-19 
outbreak. In this context, under the Next Generation EU programme, the Recovery and 
Resilience  Facility  (RRF) supports as a priority the digital  transition  and  contributes to 
the  achievement  of  the  EU  Digital  Strategy.  For  this  to  happen,  national  Recovery  and 
Resilience Plans (RRP) should dedicate at least 20% of allocated funding to supporting 
the digital transition, including the deployment of very high capacity infrastructure.  

In  recent  cases,  the  Commission  has  dealt  with  a  number  of  measures  supporting 
significantly higher capacities to reach Gigabit targets in line with the updated objectives 
and responding to growing connectivity needs accentuated by the COVID-19 crisis.  

44   This  interpretation  was  applied  in  the  case  practice,  e.g.  in  the  German  National  Gigabit  Scheme 

(SA.52732 – Germany – National Gigabit Scheme). 

45   https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-travel-eu/health/coronavirus-response/recovery-plan-

europe_en#documents  “Europe's  moment: Repair and Prepare  for the  Next Generation”  COM(2020) 
456 final.    

26 

 
                                                           
Very high capacity networks are also essential to achieve sustainability goals.46 The EU’s 
2050  objective  of  climate  neutrality  as  set  in  the  European  Green  Deal47  cannot  be 
reached  without  a  fundamental  digital  transformation  of  the  society.  As  regards  the 
Digital  Strategy,  on  19  February  2020,  the  Commission  issued  a  Communication  on 
Shaping  Europe’s  digital  future,  which  summarises  the  key  objectives  to  promote 
technological  solutions  that  will  help  Europe  pursue  its  own  way  towards  a  digital 
transformation that works for the benefit of people and respects fundamental values. One 
of  the  components  of  this  transformation  is  the  secured  and  performant  connectivity 
infrastructure  that  contributes  to  the  transformation  of  mobility  patterns  allowing 
teleworking,  video-conferencing,  electronic  commerce  and  thus  helps  greening  the 
society and makes an important contribution to the main environmental objectives. 

4.  METHOD 

4.1.  DATA COLLECTION AND ASSESSMENT 

The current evaluation is based on a wide range of data sources/inputs. When assessing 
the data, the Commission started with the analysis of the case practice and then assessed 
the findings of the study commissioned to WIK in 2019. The analysis was complemented 
by the information collected during the public consultation and the targeted consultation. 
Finally,  all  other  data  sourced  listed  below  were  taken  into  account,  in  order  to 
triangulate the data collected in the course of the evaluation.  

Public authorities and private stakeholders had the opportunity to provide their feedback 
on  the  Roadmap  on  the  evaluation  of  the  State  aid  rules  on  broadband  infrastructure 
deployment  from  16  June  2020  until  11  August  2020  (see  in  detail  Annex  2,  Synopsis 
report). 

An open public consultation was also carried out in order to gather inputs from a broad 
range  of  stakeholders.  The  public  consultation  reached  out  to  all  relevant  stakeholders 
and  in  addition  gave  unlimited  access  to  everybody  who  wished  to  contribute.  In 
addition, the Commission launched a targeted consultation. 

The  targeted  consultation  took  the  form  of  an  online  questionnaire  addressed  to  the 
main  stakeholders  and  interested  parties  (beyond  the  general  public)  on  more  specific 
issues regarding the Broadband Guidelines and the relevant provisions of the GBER. The 
targeted consultation was open (i.e. published on DG Competition’s website 

As  explained  above  in  Section  2.1  ’Legal  and  policy  background’,  the  interlocutor  of 
the  Commission  in  State  aid  procedures  are  the  Member  States.  It  is  the  Member 

46   https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/international-strategies/sustainable-development-goals/eu-holistic-

approach-sustainable-development_en      

47   More  information  available  here :  https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-

green-deal_en  

27 

 
                                                           
States  at  national  level  and  other  public  authorities  (for  instance  regional  and  local 
authorities) who design public policies in line with State aid rules and apply the State aid 
rules when granting public support. They are also the ones to disburse State aid. As such, 
this evaluation pays special attention to the responses of the public authorities as they are 
of particular relevance to the analysis. The input from Member States was gathered via 
the open public consultation, the targeted consultation and through various meetings and 
workshops in the context of the European Broadband Competence Offices Network. 

In addition,  the findings of a  study48, commissioned to  external  experts led by WIK in 
2019  and  completed  in  2020,  on  the  role  of  “State  aid  for  the  rapid  deployment  of 
broadband networks in the EU” (the WIK report) were also considered for the purpose of 
this  evaluation.  This  report  looks  in  detail  at  the  implementation  of  the  Broadband 
Guidelines for all Member States (including UK).  It further entered into a data gathering 
exercise  involving  Member  States  and  private  stakeholders.  The  25  Member  States 
responding  to  the  data  gathering  exercise  provided  information  about  42  schemes  (and 
associated projects) and 12 individual aid measures. Some of the report’s main findings 
are included in  the following assessment.  The  WIK report provides  an  overview of the 
implementation of broadband State aid measures across the EU during the period 2013-
2019 and, with the aid of case studies, interviews and a survey of stakeholders, assesses 
challenges  and  best  practices  in  the  application  of  State  aid  to  support  broadband 
deployment.  The  WIK  report  also  examines  to  what  extent  the  Broadband  Guidelines 
contributed  to  supporting  the  deployment  and  take-up  of  NGA  in  areas  where  the 
economics  of  network  deployment  are  challenging,  and  whether  the  aid  has  been 
efficiently  distributed.  The  external  expert  applied  multiple  research  methods  when 
preparing  the  study,  including  desk  research,  case  studies,  qualitative  and  quantitative 
questionnaires sent to selected stakeholders, structured interviews with experts and with 
selected stakeholders from different Member States.  

Other reports were also used, such as the report on ‘State aid for broadband infrastructure 
in  Europe  –  Assessment  and  policy  recommendations’49  (CERRE,  2018);  Study  on 
‘Future  electronic  communications  product  and  service  markets  subject  to  ex-ante 
regulation  -  Recommendation  on  relevant  markets’50  (WIK,  2020);  ‘Supporting  the 
implementation  of  CEF2  Digital’51  (Ecorys,  WIK  et  al.,  2020).  Moreover,  information 

48  “The  role  of  State  aid  for 

the  rapid  deployment  of  broadband  networks 

in 

the  EU”, 

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications/reports/kd0420461enn.pdf   

49   https://www.cerre.be/sites/cerre/files/CERRE_StateAidBroadband_FinalReport_0.pdf   

50    https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/study-future-electronic-communications-product-

and-service-markets-subject-ex-ante-regulation   

51   https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/8947e9db-4eda-11ea-aece-

01aa75ed71a1/language-en    

28 

 
                                                           
from the Court of Auditors’ Special Report on Broadband, published in June 201852 was 
considered.  

Another important data source used in the evaluation is the State aid Scoreboard53 that 
comprises  State  aid  expenditure  made  by  Member  States  falling  under  the  scope  of 
Article 107(1) TFEU. The data is based on annual reporting by Member States pursuant 
to  Article  6(1)  of  the  Implementing  Regulation.  Expenditure  refers  to  all  active  aid 
measures,  for  which  the  Commission  adopted  a  formal  decision  or  received  an 
information  sheet  from  the  Member  States  in  relation  to  measures  qualifying  for 
exemption under the GBER. 

Internal  Commission  data  used  for  the  assessment  include  for  instance  monitoring 
results and interpretation questions by Member States. Commission’s case practice is a 
major source of insight.  During the period covered by the  assessment, the Commission 
has adopted 62 decisions. The Commission must assess the planned aid measures before 
taking a decision on its State aid character and compatibility. In order to be coherent, all 
new  decisions  must  therefore  not  only  take  account  of  newest  developments  in  EU 
legislation and judgments by the European Court of Justice but also take account of this 
body of decisions which evolves through the case practice. 

Court  judgments,  desk  research,  literature  review  and  internal  statistics  such  as  the 
Transparency  Award  Module  have  also  played  a  role  in  data  gathering.  DG 
Competition’s Chief Economist Team supported the econometric analysis. 

The  experience  gathered  by  the  European  Broadband  Competence  Offices  (BCO) 
Network was also used. The BCO Network brings together EU Member States’ national 
and  regional  public  authorities  in  charge  of  broadband  deployment  to  exchange 
knowledge  and  good  practices  with  peers,  experts  and  European  Commission 
representatives.  The  meetings  (quasi  monthly)  of  the  BCO  Network  have  provided 
valuable input on whether and how the Guidelines and the GBER have contributed to the 
deployment of broadband infrastructure in a way that fosters competition. The meetings 
also  gave  an  opportunity  for  the  members  of  the  BCO  Network  to  bring  up  their 
comments and questions concerning both the general and the targeted consultation. 

The  work  of  BEREC,  the  body  of  European  regulators  for  electronic  communications 
representing at the European level the national regulatory authorities was also taken into 
account.  BEREC usually assists the Commission and the national regulatory authorities 
in  implementing  the  EU  regulatory  framework  for  electronic  communications.  It 
regularly  proposes  opinions,  recommendations,  guidelines,  advices  or  regulatory  best 

52   European Court of  Auditors  Special report n°12/2018: Broadband in the EU Member States: despite 
2018). 

progress, 
2020 
https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR18_12/SR_BROADBAND_EN.pdf    

targets  will 

the  Europe 

be  met 

June 

not 

all 

(5 

53     https://ec.europa.eu/competition-policy/state-aid/scoreboard_en#what%20  

29 

 
 
                                                           
practices, which are very useful sources of information on the functioning of the internal 
market  in  the  electronic  communications  sector.  In  particular,  the  work  on  the  draft 
BEREC  Guidelines  on  Very  High  Capacity  Networks  and  on  the  draft  BEREC 
Guidelines on Geographical surveys of network deployments was considered. 

Finally,  several  bilateral  meetings  and  conferences  were  organised  with  stakeholders, 
notably  with  Member  States’  representatives  in  the  Broadband  Competence  Office 
(BCO)  network,  BEREC 
for  Electronic 
Communications),  the  Council  of  European  Municipalities  and  Regions,  and  the 
Committee of Regions.  

(Body  of  European  Regulators 

4.2.  CHALLENGES AND ROBUSTNESS OF FINDINGS 

When carrying out the evaluation, a wide range of sources and inputs was used, including 
case practice, reporting from Member States, various reports by external consultants and 
direct input from stakeholders (as described in details in Section 4.1 above). This ensures 
the robustness of the findings of the evaluation. However, during the evaluation, certain 
challenges had to be overcome.  

One challenge stems from the fact that the impact of the rules is not tangible yet in many 
cases.  The  effects  of  State  aid  measures  only  materialise  with  a  certain  delay  and  not 
sufficient  time  has  elapsed  in  order  to  fully  capture  the  impact.  The  Broadband 
Guidelines and the relevant provisions of the GBER entered into force in 2013 and 2014 
respectively. The associated benefits started materialising gradually, since the roll-out of 
broadband infrastructure involves long-term investment projects. Infrastructure needs to 
be first built and be operational for a number of years in order to measure the impact of 
the rules. 

Another challenge is the difficulty to find available data. The Member States’ reporting 
obligation under the Broadband Guidelines starts from the date when the network is put 
into use (see paragraph 78.k. of the Broadband Guidelines). The time span between the 
approval of the aid and the actual deployment of network varies, but it can take up to 4 
years  or  more.  Up  to  date  the  Commission  received  only  a  limited  number  of  reports 
from  Member  States.  However,  various  sources  from  third  parties  (such  as  the  WIK 
report) provided a wealth of data for the analysis. 

There  is  a  general  limitation  attached  when  it  comes  to  the  extrapolation  of  punctual 
evidence, such as the results of case studies. The results of a case study are  restricted to 
the  specific  circumstances  of  the  beneficiary,  aid  measure  and  Member  State,  and 
therefore  they  do  not  provide  a  sufficient  basis  for  concluding  on  the  overall  State  aid 
rule concerned. When assessing information from case studies, the Commission always 
took into account this limitation, making sure that it did not apply the outcome of case 
studies in a generalised manner. 

Furthermore, despite the efforts to publicise the open public consultation and the targeted 
consultation via appropriate communication channels depending on the target audience, 
the  representativeness  of  the  replies  is  limited.  For  example,  the  public  consultation 

30 

 
attracted  in  total  122  replies,  which  is  a  small  number  compared  to  the  reference 
population of companies and public authorities potentially affected by the State aid rules. 
This  limitation  has  been  taken  into  account  when  analysing  the  results  of  the  public 
consultations,  together  with  an  effort  to  mitigate  its  impact  by  triangulating  with  other 
data  sources  described  above.  At  the  same  time,  it  should  be  noted  that out  of  the  122 
replies  many  came  from  representative  associations  that  have  approximately  3,200 
members.  Moreover,  the  Commission  has  extensive,  regular  contacts  with  the  public 
authorities  in  the  BCO  network  (through  various  seminars  and  trainings)  where  public 
authorities  had  the  opportunity  to  express  their  views  about  the  functioning  of  the 
Broadband Guidelines.    

Finally,  the  long  term  effects  of  the  COVID-19  outbreak  -  a  major  shock  to  the  global 
and Union’s economies - could not be assessed in this SWD, since these are quite recent 
developments and their full impact is not known yet. Another recent development is the 
adoption  on  27  May  2020  of  the  Commission’s  Recovery  Plan54  to  tackle  the 
consequences  of  the  crisis  stemming  from  the  COVID-19  outbreak.  The  effects  of  the 
Recovery Plan and the corresponding national Recovery Plans on broadband deployment 
are not known, since the national Recovery Plans are not yet implemented. Therefore, the 
SWD cannot take into account the impact of these measures.  

5.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

This  Section  presents  the  assessment  of  the  evaluation,  based  on  the  five  evaluation 
criteria using the evaluation  questions as listed below (see also  Section 1.3 ‘Evaluation 
criteria).  

For the purpose of the analysis, the term 'public authorities’ refers to national, regional, 
local authorities, and the term ‘stakeholders’ covers businesses, business associations and 
electronic communications operators55.  

5.1.  EFFECTIVENESS 

This  Section  evaluates  the  extent  to  which  the  objectives  of  State  aid  rules  for  the 
deployment  of  broadband  networks  (Section  2.2.1)  have  been  achieved  against  the 
baseline scenario (Section 2.2.2). 

54   https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-travel-eu/health/coronavirus-response/recovery-plan-europe_en#documents 

“Europe's moment: Repair and Prepare for the Next Generation” COM(2020) 456 final 

55   This classification is based on the options available in the targeted consultation. 

31 

 
                                                           
5.1.1.  SUPPORT 

THE 

RAPID 

DEPLOYMENT 

OF 

BROADBAND 

INFRASTRUCTURE, HELPING REDUCE THE 'DIGITAL DIVIDE’  

The  objective  to  support  the  rapid  deployment  of  broadband  infrastructure  implies  that 
the  Guidelines  should  provide  Members  States  with  an  enabling  framework  that 
facilitates the deployment of broadband infrastructures in order to: 

-  provide a high level of broadband coverage, in line with DAE connectivity targets 
for  2020  and  bringing  connectivity  to  low  population  density,  rural  and  remote 
areas, 
address market failures or important inequalities,  
ensure high quality and competitive services at affordable prices.  

- 
- 

5.1.1.1. FACILITATE THE DEPLOYMENT OF BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURES, 
IN  LINE  WITH  2020  DAE  CONNECTIVITY  TARGETS  AND  BRINGING 
CONNECTIVITY TO LOW POPULATION DENSITY, RURAL AND REMOTE 
AREAS  

Achieving the DAE targets (see Section 3.1 ‘Rules’) required significant investments, the 
bulk  of  which  has  come  from  the  private  sector,  especially  in  densely  populated  urban 
areas  where  operators  could  obtain  good  returns  on  investment.  However,  the  DEA 
objectives could not be reached without support of public funds in market failure areas, 
in  particular in  less populated remote and  rural  areas.  In such areas only relatively few 
customers are present and returns on investment are uncertain and thus additional public 
financing was and, as demonstrated below, is still required. 

According to available data (State aid Scoreboard), Member States have increased their 
investment  for  broadband  networks  in  comparison  to  the  period  2009-2012  under  the 
2009  Broadband  Guidelines.56  Between  2013  and  2020,  233  publicly  supported 
broadband measures (62 decisions and 171 GBER measures) were put in place, for more 
than  EUR  62.7  billion  in  total,  against  76  decisions  amounting  to  13.5  billion  euros57 
between 2009-2012. 

For the period between 2014 and 2019, only EUR 7.8 billion of aid was actually spent58 
(see above Section 3.2.1 ‘Number and Types of State aid measures’).  This represents an 
average annual State aid expenditure of EUR 1.3 billion, compared to EUR 325 million 
over 2010-2013.59 This difference between the aid amounts allocated and actually spent 
could be explained by the time the deployment of the network takes and by the delays in 

56   Communication from the Commission Community Guidelines for the application of State aid rules in 

relation to rapid deployment of broadband networks (2009/C 235/04), OJ 30.9.2009. 

57   Source: Internal Data Scoreboard. 

58   State aid schemes have durations of 3-5 years. A scheme that was authorised in 2013 could typically 
trigger investments starting from 2014. This is why the first year of the application of the Broadband 
Guidelines (2013) is excluded from figures reporting actual spending.  

59   Over 2010-2013 included, the overall reported State aid expenditure represents EUR 1.3 billion.  

32 

 
                                                           
the implementation of the approved measures (see Section 3.2.1 ‘Number and Types of 
State aid measures’ and Section 5.2.2 ‘Have the 2013 Broadband Guidelines led to more 
efficient State expenditure?’). 

More  specifically,  regarding  the  GBER,  since  its  entry  into  force,  Member  States  have 
increasingly  used  this  instrument60,  which  enables  them  to  implement  manifestly 
compatible  projects  without  prior  authorisation  by  the  Commission.  As  of  the  GBER 
entry  into  force,  annual  GBER  measures  have  even  outnumbered  annual  measures 
approved by the Commission.  This  illustrates that the GBER  offers a useful possibility 
for Member States to swiftly implement broadband deployment projects.  

For the total period between 2014 and 2019, 77% of all broadband measures (more than 
4.5% in value terms) has been disbursed under State aid decisions. The higher amount of 
annual expenditure for measures approved by the Commission than implemented under 
the GBER  is  due to  the limitation in  the budget  for measures to  be implemented under 
the GBER.61 This suggests that the threshold for the application of the GBER may have 
been too low. Indeed, with a higher threshold a higher number of manifestly compatible 
projects  fulfilling  the  GBER  requirements  could  be  put  in  place  without  prior 
authorisation  by  the  Commission,  this  way  further  accelerating  the  broadband 
deployment in remote and rural areas most in need.  

The  above-mentioned  growing  number  of  measures  and  corresponding  increased  State 
aid  expenditure  in  the  broadband  sector  correlates  with  the  enlarged  coverage  of 
broadband networks  in  the EU between 2013 and 2020. According to  the latest  Digital 
Economy and Society Index (DESI)62, basic broadband is available to 98% of households 
in the EU63 and 89% of EU households have access to next generation access networks 
(NGA)  capable  of  providing  at  least  30  Mbps  download,  whereas  73%  are  covered  by 
ultrafast networks capable of providing at least 100 Mbps download. Finally, 47% of EU 
households  benefit  from  the  Gigabit  connectivity.  Primary  internet  access  at  home  is 
provided  mainly  by  fixed  technologies,  which  remained  over  2013-2020  stable  at  ca. 
98%.  Mobile  services  of  forth  generation  (4G)  are  almost  ubiquitous  with  99.7%  of 
households covered by at least one operator in Europe. 

60   For more details on the distribution per Member States see Section 3.2.1 ‘Number and type of State aid 

measures’. 

61   Article 4, 1. (y) GBER limits the aid at EUR 70 million total costs per project. 

62   DESI  is a composite index that summarises relevant  indicators on Europe’s digital performance and 
tracks the progress of EU Member States in digital competitiveness (https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-
market/en/desi).  

63   Considering  all  major  technologies  (xDSL,  cable,  fibre  to  the  premises  (FTTP),  FWA,  LTE  and 

satellite). 

33 

 
                                                           
More specifically, DESI report shows that the coverage of NGA networks increased from 
61% in 2013 to 89% in 2020 (+45%) and the coverage of VHCN increased from 14% in 
2013 to 54% in 2020 (+285%).  

In rural areas64, fixed coverage (at least 2 Mbps) has increased since 2013 from 84% to 
90% (+6%) in 2020; NGA coverage improved significantly, with a rise of 42 percentage, 
from 18% in 2013 to 60% in 2020. In 2020, 28% of households in rural areas are covered 
with  VHCN, against 3.6% in  201365 (+24.4). Despite the increase, broadband coverage 
of  rural  areas  remains  challenging:  10%  of  households  are  not  covered  by  any  fixed 
network  (vs  98%  overall)  and  37%  are  not  covered  by  any  NGA  technology  (vs  11% 
overall). Mobile broadband availability is at 99.7% in the EU and 98.6% in rural areas, 
although  mobile  is  still  mainly  used  as  a  complementary  technology  rather  than  a 
substitute for fixed technologies.  

Having  regard  to  the  data  above  and  their  evolution,  it  can  be  concluded  that  the 
broadband  coverage  has  improved  notably  since  the  current  State  aid  rules  for  the 
deployment  of  broadband  networks  entered  into  force  in  2013.  Public  support  was  at 
least  a  catalyst  for  investment  in  rural  broadband  with  more  than  EUR  1.8  billion 
provided  under  the  GBER,  i.e.  in  areas  where  no  NGA  infrastructure  was  present  or 
planned for the near future, which are usually remote rural areas. It is however difficult to 
attribute  unequivocally  this  improvement  to  the  State  aid  rules  in  the  broadband  sector 
and to quantify their contribution to this improvement. 

On the other hand, the WIK external study concludes that both the Broadband Guidelines 
and  the  corresponding  provisions  of  the  GBER  have  been  effective  in  supporting  the 
deployment  of  NGA  networks.  It  suggests  that  the  rules  are  likely  to  lead  to  further 
material increases in take-up of NGA-based services in the coming years. According to 
the study, the Broadband Guidelines have made a significant contribution to supporting 
the  deployment  and  take-up  of  NGA  in  areas  where  the  economics  of  network 
deployment are demanding, i.e. in rural areas that as the WIK report highlights have been 
predominantly targeted by public interventions.  

These  findings  are  confirmed  by  the  open  public  consultation,  where  respondents 
consider  largely  that  the  Guidelines  and  GBER  have  partially  been  successful  in 
supporting  investments  in  line  with  EU  DAE  connectivity  targets66  and  facilitated  the 

64   ‘Rural broadband coverage’ refers to infrastructure deployed in areas with a population density of less 

than 100/km2.  

65   Considering  FTTH  and  FTTB  for  2015-2018  and  FTTH,  FTTB  and  Cable  Docsis  3.1  for  2019 

onwards.  

66   50%  of  replies  on  the  Guidelines  and  33%  of  replies  on  the  GBER  consider  the  objective  has  been 
partially met, and 19% of replies on the Guidelines and 19% of replies on the GBER consider it has 
totally been met. 

34 

 
                                                           
deployment  of  broadband  infrastructures67.  Very  few  respondents  (mainly  businesses) 
considered the objectives have not been met at all.68  

The  same  is  true  for  bringing  connectivity  to  low  population  density,  rural  and  remote 
areas,  as  respondents  are  mostly  positive  about  the  Guidelines  and  the  GBER  meeting 
this objective.69  

This outcome corroborates with the general findings of the targeted consultation, which 
are discussed below.  

The results of the evaluation show that the main factors that have affected in a direct way 
the swiftness of the deployment of the broadband infrastructure are (i) alternative forms 
of public interventions, (ii) different types of investment models and (iii) the use of the 
existing infrastructure. 

The  Broadband  Guidelines  recognise  that  the  deployment  of  broadband  networks  may 
take  different  forms  besides  providing  direct  public  funding  for  the  deployment  of 
broadband  infrastructure.  In  this  context,  the  Guidelines  invite  Member  States  to 
encourage private investment via appropriate national ex ante regulation and to undertake 
other actions to stimulate insufficient demand. Should regulatory policies not succeed in 
stimulating private investment due to the market failing to provide satisfactory outcome, 
public authorities may decide to fund a broadband infrastructure with the aim to achieve 
the  coverage  objectives  set  at  European  level.  In  the  targeted  consultation,  public 
authorities indicated that they have used alternatives to the financing of the deployment 
of  infrastructure,  such  as  measures  covered  by  the  cost  reduction  directive  (50%  of  all 
respondents);  regulatory  measures  (33%);  civil  engineering  (22%);  easing  access  rights 
(19%)  and  others  (such  as  spectrum  rights  of  use  or  co-investment  obligations)  (24%). 
54%  of  respondents  consider  alternative  measures  were  effective  in  supporting 
broadband coverage and penetration.  

The  Guidelines  enable  Member  States  to  choose  the  most  appropriate  form  of 
intervention, for instance  gap  funding model, support in  kind,  concessionary model or 
state-operated  broadband  network  model.  The  WIK  report  observes  that  the  direct 
investment model, where the public authorities deploy and manage a network, directly or 

67   47%  of  replies  on  the  Guidelines  and  31%  of  replies  on  the  GBER  consider  the  objective  has  been 
partially met. 28% of replies on the Guidelines and 24% replies on the GBER consider it has  totally 
been met.  

68   On supporting investments in line with EU DAE connectivity targets, 9% of replies for Guidelines and 
2% of the replies for GBER consider the objective has not been met at all. On facilitate the deployment 
of  broadband  infrastructure,  9%  of  the  replies  for  the  Guidelines  and  5%  of  the  replies  for  GBER 
consider the objective has not been met at all. 

69   53%  of  replies  on  the  Guidelines  and  40%  of  replies  on  the  GBER  consider  the  objective  has  been 
partially met. 22% of replies on the Guidelines and 17% of replies on the GBER consider the objective 
has been totally met. Only 9% consider the Guidelines has not at all met the objective and they are 3% 
concerning the GBER. 

35 

 
                                                           
through a fully owned entity, who would typically also be the wholesale operator of the 
network, allows for a quicker deployment of broadband infrastructure compared to other 
models.  According  to  the  WIK  report,  this  is  due  to  the  fact  that  public  authorities 
generally  consider  positive  externalities  and  tend  to  take  into  consideration  welfare 
effects,  leading  them  to  prioritise  coverage  across  a  given  area,  rather  than  profit 
maximisation.  In  addition,  synergies  between  municipal  infrastructures  and  greater 
participation  of  the  population  and  local  communities  have  a  positive  impact  on  the 
rapidity  of  the  deployment  of  broadband  infrastructure.  However,  respondents  to  the 
targeted  consultation  expressed  less  clear-cut  views  as  some  consider  that  the  direct 
investment has been an effective and efficient way of deploying networks, while others 
find it has had a negative impact on competition.  

that  sharing 

The  Broadband  Guidelines  consider 
information  on  existing 
infrastructure could facilitate the roll-out of broadband networks. They require that any 
operator  wishing  to  bid  for  public  support  and  which  owns  or  controls  infrastructure 
should provide information on such infrastructure. In addition, the Broadband Guidelines 
encourage  Member  States  to  setup  a  national  database  on  the  availability  of  existing 
infrastructures  that  could  be  reused  for  broadband  roll-out.  41%  of  the  respondents 
consider  that  the  requirement  for  national  databases  on  existing  infrastructure  is  totally 
relevant. However, respondents are divided as regards the effectiveness of this provision, 
namely  whether  it  has  actually  enabled  other  operators  to  use  existing  infrastructure.70 
Most  of  the  respondents  agree  with  the  fact  that  the  obligation  to  provide  information 
about  existing  infrastructure  should  have  included  an  obligation  to  provide  access  to  it 
(43%).  Furthermore,  the  Broadband  Guidelines  require  Member  States  to  publish 
information on aid measures and beneficiaries on a central website. This ultimately aims 
at enabling third-party operators to identify the aid beneficiaries to notably request access 
to  the  subsidised  network.  Respondents  to  the  open  public  consultation  largely  agreed 
that the Broadband Guidelines provisions ensure adequate access to information (77%)71. 
This said, in practice, there are significant discrepancies in the actual use of the existing 
infrastructure: the proportion of subsidised broadband networks that have been deployed 
using  existing  infrastructure  varies  from  0%  to  100%  according  to  the  results  of  the 
targeted consultation72. This corroborates with findings of the WIK report that identify as 
a  second  reason  for  delays  in  deployment  of  broadband  infrastructure  problems  with 
accessing  existing  infrastructure  (for  more  details,  see  Section  5.2.2  ‘Have  the  2013 
Broadband Guidelines led to more efficient State expenditure?’). In light of the above, it 
can be concluded that the State aid rules do not sufficiently provide for the effective use 
of the existing infrastructure.  

70   Only  20%  of  the  respondents  find  the  obligation  has  totally  enabled  access  to  such  existing 
infrastructure,  19%  agree  only  partially  to  the  statement  and  17%  disagree  as  they  consider  the 
obligation did not at all effectively allow the access to the existing infrastructure. 

71   Only ‘yes’ and ‘no’ replies are reported. 

72   However, only 12 replies were provided to this question. 

36 

 
                                                           
Overall,  compared  to  the  baseline  scenario  (see  also  Section  2.2.1  ‘Description  of  the 
intervention and its objectives’), the Broadband Guidelines and the GBER have fostered 
broadband connectivity throughout  Europe by facilitating the deployment of broadband 
infrastructures, in line with 2020 DAE connectivity targets and bringing connectivity to 
market failure areas, in particular low population density, rural and remote areas.  

5.1.1.2.ADDRESS A MARKET FAILURE OR MAJOR INEQUALITIES 

The  Broadband  Guidelines  aim  at  contributing  to  the  achievement  of  the  EU  policy 
objective by directing public support to areas most in need in the most pro-competitive 
way. This should contribute to reducing the digital divide in the society and prevent the 
crowding  out  of  private  investment.  To  this  end,  the  public  support  has  to  address  a 
market  failure  or  major  inequalities.  According  to  the  results  of  the  open  public 
consultation,  respondents  consider  the  Broadband  Guidelines  and  the  GBER  have 
partially met this objective, at 55% and 41% of the replies respectively. In the case of the 
Broadband Guidelines, respondents are clearly divided: 10% consider that the objective 
has  been  totally  met,  whereas  12%  consider  that  the  objective  has  not  been  met  at  all. 
Views are more positive concerning the GBER since 16% of the respondents consider the 
objective  has  been  totally  met,  whereas  3%  find  that  the  objective  has  not  been  met  at 
all.73  

This divergence of views appears also in the targeted consultation and can be illustrated 
as  follows.  In  order  to  facilitate  interventions  in  market  failure  areas,  the  Broadband 
Guidelines require Member States to  classify target  areas, on the basis of mapping  and 
public consultation, as white, grey or black areas in terms of existing and planned in the 
near  future74  NGA  infrastructure75.  Respondents  to  the  targeted  consultation  found  in 
majority that the distinction between white, grey and black areas is totally useful for 
identifying the areas most in need of State aid (50%), while 33% agreed only partially. 
Worth  noting,  there  is  a  clear  difference  in  opinions  among  respondents:  private 
stakeholders  find  this  provision  useful,  whereas  public  authorities  are  the  only  ones 
finding that the distinction is either not at all or neutrally useful.76 

73   16% of replies on the GBER consider the objective has been totally met. 3% of replies on the GBER 

find that the objective has not been met at all. 

74   The  term  ‘near  future’  for  taking  into  account  planned  private  investment  corresponds  to  the  time 
horizon  for  the  deployment  of  the  publicly  supported  infrastructure  (typically  three  years  from  the 
publication of the planned aid measure). 

75   White  NGA  areas  are  those  where  no  NGA  network  (capable  of  providing  speeds  above  30Mbps 
download)  is  present  or  planned  in  the  near  future.    Grey  NGA  areas  are  those  where  one  NGA 
network is present or planned in the near future. Black NGA areas are those where two or more NGA 
networks are present or planned in the near future. 

76  One  comment  relates  to  the  issue  of  credible  investment  plans  and  the  other  one  to  the  fact  that  the 

current distinction is no longer in line with the Gigabit targets. 

37 

 
                                                           
Regarding  mapping,  respondents  to  the  targeted  consultation  consider  that  it  enables 
partially the identification of areas most in  need of a public support (48%). Here again 
responses differ between public authorities and private stakeholders. This time however 
private  stakeholders  have  less  positive  views  than  public  authorities.  While  private 
stakeholders  are  only  partially  convinced  of  the  effectiveness  of  the  mapping  exercise 
(63%), public authorities find the mapping enables the identification either totally (36%) 
or  partially  (36%).  Their  concerns  refer  primarily  to  the  scope  and  methodology  of  the 
mapping exercise, and secondly to the reliability of information on planned investments. 
Although  the  implementation  of  the  mapping  requirement  is  identified  as  one  of  the 
barriers to the deployment of broadband networks,77 nothing indicates that  the mapping 
requirement  itself  hinders  the  deployment  of  broadband  networks.  According  to  the 
comments received during the consultation, the issue is rather connected to the way the 
mapping is carried out by authorities at national level. This suggests insufficient guidance 
by  the  Guidelines  and  is  further  discussed  in  Section  5.1.3  on  transparency  of  the 
decision-making process. 

Similar views have been expressed with regard to the consultation of the market on the 
future  private  investments  plans.  Most  of  respondents  consider  that  the  public 
consultation  enables  partially  to  identify  areas  most  in  need  for  public  interventions 
(35%), while 19% consider it does so totally. This time as well private stakeholders are 
more critical  than public authorities.78 Hindering factors would be related,  according to 
the respondents, to the lack of detailed guidance and the lack of differentiation of rules 
for small and big operators, for instance as regards the identification of credible plans or 
the  definition  of  the  near  future  for  the  identification  of  the  future  private  investments. 
This  matter  is  also  further  addressed  in  Section  5.1.3  concerning  transparency  of  the 
decision-making process.  

This  is  also  supported by  the WIK report, which explained that NGA white areas have 
been  the  main  target  of  State  Aid  interventions  in  the  UK,  Sweden,  Spain,  Portugal, 
Finland, France, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Estonia and Bulgaria, as shown in Figure 3. 
Number  of  projects  servicing  connectivity  types  by  country  However,  aid  was  recently 
approved  for  State  Aid  network  deployment  projects  in  Germany  and  Spain,  in  areas 
classified  as  NGA  grey,  while  a  demand-side  voucher  scheme  addressing  NGA  grey 
areas  was  approved  in  Greece.  Public  authorities  also  report  that  aid  has  been  targeted 
towards basic broadband white areas in Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Lithuania 
and Poland. 

77   According  to  59%  of  the  respondents.  It  is  considered  as  a  very  obstructive  barrier  by  39%  of  the 

respondents (an average rate of 3/5 on the scale of less obstructive to most obstructive barrier). 

78   5% of the replies find that it totally enables to identify the areas most in need and 63% find it does not 
at  all  or  only  partially,  whereas  32%  of  public  authorities  find  that  the  public  consultation  enables 
totally to identify the areas in need and 32% of replies find it enable only partially.  

38 

 
 
                                                           
Figure 3. Number of projects servicing connectivity types by country  

Source: WIK report 

In  conclusion,  it  is  observed  that  a  majority  of  projects  involving  public  support  for 
broadband deployment79 took place in white NGA areas where there is no fast broadband 
infrastructure in place or credibly planned in the near future. As the digital gap relating to 
access to NGA services is slowly but steadily closing (see Section 5.1.1.1 ‘Facilitate the 
deployment  of  broadband  infrastructures’),  the  definition  of  the  areas  that  are  most  in 
need of public support may have to evolve accordingly. When white NGA areas will be 
fully  served  with  NGA  services,  it  will  be  opportune  to  identify  new  areas  in  which 
public investment is necessary (for further discussion, see Section 5.3 ‘Relevance’). This 
being said,  the  evaluation of the rules shows that  the key  concepts  used  for identifying 
these  areas  most  in  need,  regardless  of  their  definition,  has  proven  effective. 
Consequently,  compared to the baseline scenario (see Section 2.2.1 ‘Description of the 
intervention  and  its  objectives’),  the  objective  of  addressing  market  failures  and  major 
inequalities  has  been  understood  by  Member  States  and  the  Broadband  Guidelines  and 
the GBER have been effective in achieving this specific objective.  

5.1.1.3.HIGHER QUALITY OF SERVICES AT AFFORDABLE PRICES 

The deployment of a subsidised infrastructure provides additional capacity and speed on 
the  market.  The  expected  ultimate  result  is  that  this  additional  capacity  should  lead  to 

79    45 measures out of 62 measures approved by a Commission decision, and 171 measures under GBER. 

39 

 
 
                                                           
maximizing benefits for consumers in terms of a higher quality of services and affordable 
prices.  Most  of  the  respondents  in  the  open  public  consultation  consider  that  the 
Broadband  Guidelines  and  the  GBER  have  partially  been  successful  in  meeting  this 
objective80 and more consider they have totally81 than they have not at all.82 

The  Broadband  Guidelines  ensure  that  the  subsidised  networks  offer  higher  quality  by 
requiring  that  it  delivers  a  significant  improvement  (‘step  change’),  in  comparison  to 
what  can  offer  infrastructure  present  or  credibly  planned  to  be  deployed  in  the  near 
future. In this context, the review of the case practice confirms that public intervention in 
basic grey areas were authorised because the new publicly supported NGA infrastructure 
or  a  state-of-the-art  backhaul  were  to  bring  significant  new  investments  and  significant 
new capabilities to  the  market  in  terms of  capacity, speed  and competition in  line with 
DEA targets.  In addition, the Commission  has recently dealt with increasing number of 
interventions  in  grey  areas  that  aim  at  achieving  the  new  EU  Gigabit  targets.  The 
Broadband  Guidelines  have  been  sufficiently  open-ended  to  cater  for  developments 
expected  in  the  near  future  and  flexible  enough  to  assess  diverse  public  interventions, 
including  those  addressing  the  new  EU  policy  targets.  At  the  same  time,  technological 
developments have continued to accelerate, accompanied by a growing need of Gigabit 
connectivity  reinforced  by  the  current  pandemic.  The  need  to  take  into  account  these 
developments  became  thus  increasingly  urgent  (see  Section  3.2.5  ‘Technological 
Advance’). 

In the targeted consultation, the respondents take the view that the State aid rules in the 
broadband  sector  ensure  that  public  investments  deliver  an  improvement,  either  totally 
(22%) or partially (32%). In general, comments confirm the overall positive impact of the 
Broadband  Guidelines  in  this  context.  The  respondents  stress  nevertheless  the  need  for 
clear and updated rules ensuring that a step change is genuinely achieved.  

As regard prices, especially in low density population areas they are high and it is often 
the  very  purpose  of  State  intervention  in  such  areas  to  realise  an  offer  of  'affordable 
services'  in  order  to  replicate  market  conditions  prevailing  in  other  competitive 
broadband  markets.  The  Broadband  Guidelines  state  that  wholesale  prices  should  be 
based on the pricing principles set by the NRA and on benchmarks, including based on 
the  average  published  wholesale  prices  that  prevail  in  other  comparable,  more 
competitive areas. Based on the results from  the  targeted  consultation,  these provisions 
seem to have worked well in practice. Respondents are rather positive towards prices for 
accessing active services since 24% of the respondents find there has been no problem in 
that  regard  while  13%  have  experienced  issues83.  Also,  the  WIK  report  considers  that 

80   40% of replies on the Guidelines and 28% of replies on the GBER. 

81   17% of replies on the Guidelines and 19% of replies on the GBER. 

82   10% of replies on Guidelines and 3% of replies on the GBER. 

83   63% of the respondents did not reply. 

40 

 
                                                           
benchmarking  wholesale  prices  against  prices  in  other  commercial  areas  is  crucial  in 
avoiding higher retail prices for customers. 

Finally,  State  aid  rules  are  not  listed  by  the  WIK  report  amongst  reasons  of  delays  in 
deploying broadband infrastructure. The study explains that the delays are mainly due to 
problems in obtaining the necessary permissions  and rights of way, challenges in using 
existing infrastructure, delays in the award of the contracts due to for instance stringent 
tender conditions and the complex multi-stage tender procedures (see also Section 5.2.2 
‘Have the 2013 Broadband Guidelines led to more efficient State expenditure?’).  

This  finding  is  supported  by  the  results  of  the  open  public  consultation  that  revealed 
several barriers hampering even better achievement of the objective of the facilitation of 
the deployment of broadband infrastructure. None of them is pertaining to the State aid 
rules.  The  identified  barriers  are  the  following:  administration  related  to  national 
procedures (65% of respondents have faced such a barrier), rights of ways, permits and 
alike (60%), information sharing among public administrations (45%), the occurrence of 
legal actions (40%), issues related to civil engineering/construction specifications (38%) 
and transparency and access to documents (36%). 

In  conclusion,  compared  to  the  baseline  scenario  (see  Section  2.2.2  ‘Baseline’),  the 
Broadband  Guidelines  and  the  relevant  GBER  provisions  appear  to  have  amplified 
benefits for consumers in terms of a higher quality of services and at affordable prices. 

5.1.2.  LIMITATION OF DISTORTION OF COMPETITION 

The evaluation  also analysed to what  extent the Broadband Guidelines and the relevant 
GBER  provisions  have  been  effective  in  limiting  distortion  of  competition  along  four 
main sub-criteria: 

-  Protecting existing investment; 
-  Protecting future investment plans; 
-  Promoting competition in the electronic communication sector for the market (via 

competitive selection procedures); and 

-  Promoting competition in the electronic communication sector in the market (via 

open access requirements). 

When  requested  to  express  their  view  regarding  the  extent  to  which  the  Broadband 
Guidelines have been effective in reducing distortion of competition, the majority of the 
stakeholders  expressed  quite  positive  views.  In  particular  according  to  the  majority  of 
respondents guidelines have totally or partially helped: (1) protecting existing investment 
(57%); (2) protecting future investment plans (55%); (3) promoting competition for the 
market – via procurement requirements (55%); (4) promoting competition in the market 
– via open access requirements (59%). 

41 

 
 
 
Figure 4. Replies to question 2 of the open public consultation 

To what extent have the Broadband Guidelines achieved the following objectives? 

Similar views were expressed with regards to the effectiveness of the GBER in limiting 
distortion of competition. 

Figure 5. Replies to question 3 of the open public consultation 

To what extent has the General Block Exemption Regulation specifically contributed to 
the following objectives? 

In  the  following  paragraph,  we  will  assess  in  more  detail  each  of  the  above-mentioned 
sub-criteria. 

42 

 
 
 
 
5.1.2.1. Protecting existing investment 

As the vast majority of investment in broadband infrastructure in the EU comes from the 
private sector, it is essential to ensure that public interventions do not crowd out private 
roll-out  of  infrastructure.  Otherwise,  the  overall  effect  of  a  public  financing  of 
infrastructure  could  even  reduce  total  investment  in  the  sector  and  thereby  harm  the 
objective of fostering a rapid deployment of high-speed infrastructure.  

However,  a  balance  has  to  be  found  between  protecting  private  initiative  and  ensuring 
public  investment  in  areas  which  otherwise  would  not  be  adequately  served.  In  what 
follows, the implementation of the current Broadband Guidelines is looked at to evaluate 
whether the right balance has been struck. 

Mapping  

In Section 5.1.1.2 ‘Address a market failure or major inequalities’, information provided 
in the public consultation suggests that mapping exercises have generally been conducted 
to pinpoint commercially unviable target areas prior to the award of State aid.  

However,  as  discussed  above,  granting  authorities  and  stakeholders  have  faced  some 
difficulties when implementing the mapping requirement (see Section 5.1.1 ‘Support the 
rapid  deployment  of  broadband  infrastructure,  helping  reduce  the  ‘digital  divide’’  and 
Section 5.1.3 ‘Transparent decision-making’). 

According to WIK, the most recent development in case practice (i.e. intervention in grey 
areas in Germany) may have increased complexity in the mapping demonstrating that the 
authorities concerned have taken seriously the need to avoid targeting aid at viable areas. 

However, as regards practical outcomes, WIK is not able to conclude whether there may 
have been crowding out of private investments in the context of specific applications of 
broadband State aid. Some operators responding to the online survey conducted by WIK 
highlighted  concerns  about  inappropriate  targeting  of  State  aid  resulting  in  impacts  on 
private fibre or wireless deployments.  

Certain  other  respondents  claimed  that  State  aid  had  crowded  out  private  sector 
investment  without  providing  specific  examples.  However,  the  validity  of  these 
allegations is difficult to gauge without accurate mapping to illustrate the extent of any 
overlap with existing networks, and/or evidence that specific investment plans had been 
hampered as a result of the inappropriate targeting of State aid. 

As  discussed  in  Section  5.1.1.2  ‘Address  a  market  failure  or  major  inequalities’  and 
Section 5.1.3.2 ‘Simplified Rules’, in the public consultation stakeholders’ expressed the 
need for more guidance as concerns the way the mapping exercise must be carried out. 

This raises the questions of whether the mapping requirement is adequate, in the light of 
the baseline scenario, for the purpose of limiting distortion of competition and whether it 
sufficiently takes into account all specificities of the planned project.  

43 

 
In  the  public  consultation,  respondents  have  signalled  that  they  have  encountered 
problems  in  identifying  the  appropriate  criteria  to  be  used  to  carry  out  the  mapping 
exercise. In particular, telecom operators, signalled that the criteria used to map existing 
investments  should  differ  from  the  ones  used  to  map  future  investments.  Various 
stakeholders  also suggested that such difference should vary according to the timeframe. 

Figure 6. Replies to questions 41 and 42 of the targeted consultation 

41. Have you had problems identifying other 
appropriate criteria to carry out a mapping 
exercise? 

All respondents

All MS Authorities

National authorities

16 

5 

5 

Stakeholders

Telco

10 

7 

12 

9 

6 

3 

17 

7 

4 

7 

2 

3 

9 

4 

2 

4 

2 

42. Should the same criteria have been used 
for identifying both existing and planned 
infrastructure? 
11 

20 

12 

11 

All respondents

All MS Authorities

8 

6 

6 

5 

National authorities

8 

5 

2 

2 

Stakeholders

Telco

3 

2 

13 

9 

4 

4 

1 

2 

0%

25%

Yes

50%
No

75%

100%

0%

25%

50%

75% 100%

Yes

No

One of the key decision that must be taken when carrying out a mapping exercise is the 
granularity used to map broadband infrastructure. 

We  have  asked  stakeholders  if  they  have  faced  difficulties  to  identify  the  appropriate 
granularity.  While  the  replies  are  equally  split,  there  is  a  significant  difference  in  the 
replies provided by the public authorities (both national and regional/local) and telecom 
operators  and  other  stakeholders.  In  particular,  while  less  than  30%  of  the  public 
authorities  that  replied  to  this  question  signalled  difficulties,  75%  of  telecom  operators 
and  other  stakeholders  replied  that  they  had  experienced  problems.  According  to  one 
stakeholder,  electronic  communications  operators  need  clear  and  easy  to  use  tools  for 
carrying out the mapping exercise. 

Figure 7. Replies to question 44 of the targeted consultation 

 44.Have you had problems identifying the appropriate granularity for mapping? 

All respondents

17 

All MS Authorities

4 

National authorities

4 

12 

17 

8 

Stakeholders

Telco

13 

8 

11 

5 

3 

3 

3 

1 

4 

9 

4 

2 

4 

2 

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Yes

No

Not applicable

No Answer

Furthermore, according to the respondents other key concepts such as ‘home passed’ on 
the  basis  of  which  the  mapping  exercise  is  carried  out  could  benefit  from  further 
guidance.   

44 

 
 
 
 
Another  area  where  respondents  faced  difficulties  concerns  mapping  of  wireless 
networks  and  mobile  networks.  The  public  consultation  highlighted  that  stakeholders 
consider that the Broadband Guidelines do not provide adequate clarity on how to map 
wireless networks (i.e. fixed wireless networks) and mobile networks. 

BEREC considers that the mapping exercise for mobile networks should be carried out 
on the basis of grids rather than addresses. However, when wireless network are used to 
provide Fixed Wireless Access services, the approach should be consistent with the one 
for fixed network and the exercise should be based on addresses as well. 

Figure 8. Replies to questions 45 of the targeted consultation 

45. Have the mapping requirements adequately 
clarified the distinction between fixed networks 
and Wireless networks? 

All respondents

All MS Authorities

National authorities

Stakeholders

10 

4 

3 

5 

Telco

1 

5 

20 

13 

13 

4 

11 

4 

10 

2 

2 

6 

7 

5 

6 

3 

45. Have the mapping requirements adequately 
clarified the distinction between fixed networks 
and Mobile networks? 

All respondents

15 

All MS Authorities

National authorities

3 

2 

15 

13 

10 

13 

11 

5 

3 

4 

2 

Stakeholders

Telco

10 

5 

2 

2 

6 

4 

6 

3 

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Yes

0%

25%

50%

75% 100%

Yes

No

This difficulty could  also be explained taking into account that the vast  majority of the 
respondents  consider  that  fixed  and  mobile  networks  should  be  treated  as  belonging  to 
different markets. 

One stakeholder considers that mapping of mobile infrastructure should focus primarily 
on the availability of network infrastructure rather than on available speed. 

Figure 9. Replies to question 46 of the targeted consultation 

46. Should the State aid rules for the deployment of broadband infrastructure have 
defined mobile and fixed networks as belonging to different markets? 

All respondents

All MS Authorities

25 

11 

National authorities

6 

Stakeholders

Telco

14 

10 

9 

7 

7 

11 

3 

9 

4 

2 

2 

1 

5 

1 

1 

4 

2 

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Yes

No

Not applicable

No Answer

45 

 
 
 
 
 
Fragmentation of areas (Leopard areas) 

In the context of mapping, the aid granting authority defines a target area where it wishes 
to intervene. For such target area, it has to establish the existing infrastructure in place. 
The mapping also has to take into account future investment plans of private operators. A 
public  intervention  is  only  allowed  if  existing  and  planned  infrastructures  are  not 
sufficient. In some cases the target area is heterogeneous and some premises are already 
served with an infrastructure which is comparable to the network to be built with State 
aid.  The  area  may  therefore  be  mixed,  partly  white  and  partly  grey.  Overbuilding  such 
performing  infrastructure  distorts  competition.  As  a  result,  the  current  Broadband 
Guidelines in principle do not allow the overbuilding of such infrastructure in the target 
areas. However, case practice has shown that carving out such infrastructure may in some 
cases be very inefficient and increase significantly the amount of State aid needed (i.e. if 
one wishes to connect the house at the end of the street but it is not allowed to connect 
any other houses which are passed by). 

Thus, there exists a trade-off between the objective of limiting the amount of State aid to 
the  minimum  and  the  objective  of  limiting  crowding  out,  as  recalled  in  the  baseline 
scenario  (see  Section  2.2.1  ‘Description  of  the  intervention  and  its  objectives’).  This 
trade-off  has  also  become  clear  from  the  public  consultation  for  the  evaluation  of  the 
Broadband Guidelines. Respondents were split. Among public authorities who replied to 
the question, 62% consider that such overbuilding should have been allowed at least to a 
limited  extent.    Instead,  68%  of  stakeholders  consider  that  such  overbuilding  should 
always  have  been  prohibited.  This  divergence  reflects  different  interests.  While  public 
authorities wish to have more freedom to intervene to address market failures even where 
this  may  involve  overbuilding  existing  infrastructure,  stakeholders  are  concerned  about 
the crowding out effect of such state intervention. 

5.1.2.2.Protecting future investment plans 

The Broadband Guidelines and the GBER require the outcome of the mapping exercise 
to be verified in a public consultation. This way public authorities have the possibility 
to factor in future investment plans that private operators may have to deploy the network 
with their own funds. 

Respondents  to  the  targeted  consultation,  in  particular  national  authorities,  totally  or 
partially agree that the public consultations have been effective to identify the areas most 
in  need  of  State  aid  (see  Section  5.1.1  ‘Support  the  rapid  deployment  of  broadband 
infrastructure, helping reduce the ‘digital divide’’). 

Respondents to the WIK’s survey, for the most part considered that aid had been targeted 
so  as  to  avoid  crowding  out  of  commercial  investments  in  Portugal,  Finland,  Slovenia, 
Sweden and Poland. Indeed, remarks from operators in Finland and Sweden suggest that 
some areas were so remote that the challenge was rather that the public subsidies offered 
were  insufficient  to  attract  sufficient  complementary  (rather  than  competing)  private 
investments.  

46 

 
 
 
 
 
Replies  from  stakeholders  show  that  the  public  consultation  is  considered  an  effective 
tool to consult the market. This is particularly true for national authorities. 

Figure 10. Replies to question 57 of the targeted consultation 

57.  Do the rules on public consultation allow to efficiently consult the market, 
inform stakeholders of the intention to intervene with public funds and enable them 
to react? 

All respondents

13 

12 

5 

4 

9 

5 

1 

4 

11 

4 

All MS
Authorities
National
authorities

Stakeholders

2 

Telco

2 

11 

6 

2 

10 

3 

2 

2 

4 

2 

4 

4 

5 

3 

3 

1 

75%

100%

0%

25%

50%

Totally

Partially

Neutral

Not at all

Not applicable

No Answer

The information collected suggests that the combination of the mapping exercise with the 
public consultation has been effective in avoiding that State aid crowds out private sector 
investment  to  any  significant  degree,  especially  as  regards  FTTH  investments.  This 
shows that the Broadband Guidelines and the GBER have been effective in reaching its 
objectives  concerning  protection  of  future  investment  plans,  compared  to  the  baseline 
scenario (see Section 2.2.1 ‘Description of the intervention and its objectives’). 

The  results  of  the  public  consultation  and  the  independent  studies84  show  that  a  public 
support  for  the  construction  of  broadband  infrastructure  in  market  failure  areas  is 
unlikely  to  have  resulted  in  crowding  out  of  private  investments  to  any  significant 
degree. Indeed, when effectively implemented and targeted, State aid can lead to higher 
levels of private investments, as public support unlocks private financing and investment 
that may not otherwise have been available. 

While  open  public  consultation  is  considered  a  very  effective  tool  to  identify  market 
failure  areas  avoiding  crowding  out  of  current  and  future  investment,  there  is  a  call  on 
more detailed guidance (see Section 5.1.3 ‘Transparent decision-making) in the way the 
public consultation is carried out. 

84   See  for  instance:  ETNO  State  of  Digital  Communications  Report  2020;  Ecorys,  WIK  et  al  (2020) 

Implementation of CEF2 Digital. 

47 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
Figure 11. Replies to question 50 of the targeted consultation 

50. Does the guidance need to be more detailed? 

All respondents

23 

10 

All MS Authorities

7 

8 

8 

5 

National authorities

6 

6 

2 

13 

5 

3 

Stakeholders

14 

2 

2 

6 

Telco

10 

1 

0 

3 

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Yes

No

Not applicable

No Answer

In particular, respondents call for more guidance on future private investment plans for 
which stakeholders have signalled difficulties in correctly identifying and assessing them. 

Figure 12. Replies to question 55 of the targeted consultation 

55. Do the rules on public consultations enable credible private investment 
plans to be efficiently identified? 

All respondents

11 

All MS Authorities

4 

20 

10 

National authorities

Stakeholders

4 

6 

Telco

2 

8 

10 

8 

11 

12 

3 

2 

8 

1 

0 

3 

7 

4 

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Yes

No

Not applicable

No Answer

One stakeholder stressed that the real risk would be that private investment plans may be 
disregarded  because  they  are  not  sufficiently  concrete  since  it’s  oftentimes  difficult  or 
impossible  to  provide  all  the  details  at  the  level  of  granularity  requested  by  the  public 
authorities.  This  may  reflect  the  difficulty  to  determine  a  standardised  approach  to  the 
multitude of investment plans that could be brought forward by the market. Furthermore, 
other stakeholders consider that mapping/public consultation should be updated close to 
the launch of the public tenders to avoid outdated information on investment plans.  

48 

 
 
 
 
5.1.2.3.Promoting competition in the market 

Wholesale access obligation  

In  order  to  avoid  that  the  operator  of  the  public  financed  network  obtains  a  monopoly 
position,  the  Broadband  Guidelines  require  that  recipients  of  State  aid  should  make 
available  a  range  of  wholesale  access  products,  including  duct  and  pole  access,  and 
access to unbundled fibre loops or sub-loops (or VULA where physical unbundling is not 
viable), as well as bitstream. The Guidelines also require that physical unbundling should 
be offered for NGA networks. 

While physical unbundling is likely to involve additional costs and thus reduce the scope 
of  deployment  compared  with  the  absence  of  unbundling,  this  form  of  access  has  a 
positive  impact  on  downstream  investments,  innovation  and  price  competition.  VULA 
and bitstream are likely to have a less pronounced impact on coverage, but are likely to 
provide less scope for innovation and price competition, or may (especially in the case of 
VULA), require detailed intervention to render the obligation effective.  

In line with the Broadband Guidelines, the monitoring exercise has shown that national 
and  regional  administrations  mandated  a  range  of  wholesale  access  products  in  the 
context  of  State  aid.  However,  according  to  the  WIK  study,  there  are  indications  that 
patchy  implementation  in  some  countries  may  have  held  back  open  access  obligations 
from being fully effective.  

While  data  on  take-up  however  is  limited,  it  seems  that  actual  take-up  of  physical 
unbundling was more of an exception. Service providers mainly request bitstream access, 
as this does not require any investment by the access seeker itself. Up-front investments 
may  not  be  viable  for  access  seekers  in  less  dense  areas.  Such  expenses  may  be 
considerable for instance in the case of access to ducts, as the access seeker would have 
to roll out its own fibre85. 

The requirement to provide a wide range of wholesale access offers has been an area of 
contention  in  the application of the Broadband Guidelines,  with  some State aid  bidders 
and recipients of aid claiming that the costs of offering certain forms of access outweigh 
their benefits. 

In  the  WIK  study,  costs  of  different  access  obligations  were  therefore  assessed  on  the 
basis of a bottom-up cost model of an operator deploying in a representative “State aid 
zone”, while potential benefits were assessed with reference to literature and case studies. 
The  key  conclusions  are  that  although  Point  to  point  (PtP)  FTTH86  (which  allows  for 

85   Duct  access  has  the  advantage  that  the  access  seeker  is  completely  independent  from  the  network 
operator. However, a similar result is achieved by access to dark fibre. In that case, the operator has to 
provide the fibre to the access seeker who has to make the necessary investments to activate the fibre 
line. 

86   FTTH is fibre-to-the-home. 

49 

 
                                                           
unbundling)  is  the  most  costly  of  the  technologies  considered,  these  disadvantages  are 
likely to be outweighed by the superior quality that is possible via this technology as well 
as the greater potential for competition on quality as well as price. FTTH is less likely to 
“crowd  out”  private  investments  as  there  are  extensive  market  failures  in  Gigabit 
infrastructures and granting subsidies for FTTH may serve to complement (and level up) 
private  investments  that  may  otherwise  have  occurred  in  less  highly  performing 
infrastructures. 

These conclusions from the WIK study have been supported by the public consultation 
for the evaluation of the Broadband Guidelines.  

When asked about the trade-off between higher costs of physical unbundling (compared 
to other forms of access like VULA and bitstream access) and benefits for competition, 
72% of all respondents consider that in most or even all cases the benefits outweigh the 
cost. This view was held by 82% of national authorities and by 58% of stakeholders. The 
lower percentage among the latter stems  from  the sub-group of  aid  beneficiaries where 
50% considered that the costs outweigh the benefits. Aid beneficiaries have to bear such 
investment  cost  while  they  also  expect  less  revenues  from  physical  unbundling  due  to 
stronger competition. 

Private extensions 

According  to  the  Broadband  Guidelines,  a  Member  State  has  to  map  the  target  area 
where  the  subsidised  infrastructure  is  rolled-out.  ‘Private  extensions’  are  extensions  of 
such subsidized networks into adjacent areas financed with private money. They could be 
built either by the network operator itself (i.e. the aid beneficiary) or by  access seekers 
who connect to the subsidised network and then build their own infrastructure. 

Private extensions can arise in the following scenarios: 

(a)  The  operator  of  the  state-funded  NGA  network  expands  its  network  into  the 

adjacent area; 

(b) An access seeker, benefiting from the open access requirement, obtains access to 

the state-funded NGA infrastructure and expands into the adjacent area; 

(c)  In the case of NGN networks (backhaul) an access seeker connects to the NGN 

and expands to an access area which is already NGA grey / black. 

(d) 5G infrastructure is used for Fixed-wireless connections (FWA) into areas which 

are already covered by fixed infrastructure (e.g. NGA grey / black). 

In such scenarios, private extensions may have positive and negative effects. 

On the positive side, such investments generate more competition in the adjacent area to 
the benefit of consumers. They imply a better use of the publicly financed infrastructure, 
without generating further expenses for the State. 

On  the  negative  side,  these  investments  may  distort  competition  if  the  adjacent  area  is 
already  served by  one or more operators.  Absent  the state financed infrastructure, such 

50 

 
private extension would not  have existed.  Thus, the aid  has  an effect  outside the target 
area where supposedly there does not exist a market failure. 

As discussed above, one core compatibility requirement of the Broadband Guidelines is 
the open access  requirement.  It  ensures  that the state financed network is opened up to 
competitors. The objective is that access seekers compete with the direct aid beneficiary 
in  the  target  area.  The  Broadband  Guidelines,  however,  do  not  specify  any  geographic 
limitation  for  access  seekers.  Thus,  they  may  also  connect  to  the  state  funded  network 
and then serve adjacent areas.  

Since  the  entry  into  force  of  the  current  Broadband  Guidelines,  the  issue  of  private 
extensions has come up in several cases: 

In  case  SA.33473  Mazovia  (Poland)87  for  a  passive  municipally  owned  backbone 
infrastructure  a  wholesale  operator  was  selected.  Access  seekers  could  connect  with 
private funds. Connections into grey areas were only possible once having demonstrated 
to the Commission the market failure and ensuring step change. 

In  case  SA.49614  (Lithuania)88  private  expansions  in  the  form  of  commercial  access 
networks can go into all white NGA areas as included in the original mapping which in 
that  case  covered  the  whole  of  Lithuania.  In  SA.46203  (Poland)89,  later  expansions  via 
private access networks into further areas were considered possible under the condition 
that only white NGA areas would be targeted.  

In  case  SA.48418  (Germany  -  Bavarian  VHC  pilot  case)90,  private  expansions  are 
allowed in all areas under the condition that the same main criteria as those prevailing for 
the subsidized network (same category of areas, same thresholds, same step change) are 
fulfilled. In the public consultation to the subsequent Bavarian VHC scheme SA.5466891, 
critical  reactions  to  this  rule  were  received.  Out  of  all  network  operators,  only  one 
welcomed the private extensions rule. All others criticised that the decision imposed new 
restrictions. 

The public consultation for the evaluation of the Broadband Guidelines also shows  that 
the  majority  of  respondents  of  Member  States  and  stakeholders  considered  private 

87   Commission Decision of 29 October 2012, C(2012) 7811 final, State aid SA.33473 (2012/N) - Poland 

- Broadband network project in Mazovia. 

88   Commission Decision of 12 October 2018, C(2018) 6613, State aid SA.49614(2018/N)  – Lithuania – 

Development of Next Generation Access Infrastructure – RAIN 3. 

89   Commission  Decision  of  21  December  2017,  C(2017)  9116,  State  Aid  SA.46203  –  Poland  – 

Modifications in the aid scheme the Broadband. 

90   Commission Decision of 18 December 2018, C(2018) 8617, State Aid SA.48418 (2018/N) – Germany 

- Bavarian gigabit pilot project. 

91   Commission Decision of 29 November 2019 C(2019) 8529, State Aid SA.54668 (2019/N) – Germany 

– Bavarian gigabit scheme. 

51 

 
                                                           
extensions to be possible. They were asked whether in the past it was allowed to extend 
publicly financed infrastructure outside the target area. Out of those who replied to this 
question, 25 % confirmed that such extensions had been allowed without any restriction 
and 46% replied that this was allowed while some safeguards had been imposed.  

Thus, it can be concluded that the market would welcome a clarification on how private 
extensions  will  be  handled  in  the  future.  The  reactions  in  public  consultations  indicate 
that stakeholders do not have (major) concerns with such extensions. 

5.1.2.4.Promoting competition for the market 

Most economically advantageous offer 

The State aid rules for the deployment of broadband infrastructure require the use of an 
‘open tender’ based on the most economically advantageous offer in which all parties can 
participate on non-discriminatory terms and where the criteria for the award are known to 
all  in  advance.  This  addresses  three  aspects  of  State  aid:  it  reduces  the  ‘selective 
advantage’  which  is  conferred  to  any  particular  party  since  all  have  an  opportunity  to 
participate,  and  it  is  generally  used  to  minimise  the  amount  of  public  funds  and 
ultimately promotes competition. 

The  majority  of  the  replies  to  the  public  consultation  consider  that  the  requirement  to 
allocate State aid on the basis of an open, transparent and non-discriminatory competitive 
selection procedure has been effective in achieving value for money. 

Figure 13. Replies to question 63 of the targeted consultation 

63. The State aid rules for the broadband infrastructure deployment require the 
beneficiary to be selected via an open, transparent and non-discriminatory competitive 
selection process, in line with  EU public procurement rules. Is this efficient to achie 

All respondents

15 

All MS Authorities

National authorities

10 

8 

Stakeholders

Telco

5 

3 

16 

10 

10 

2 

4 

7 

6 

4 

1 

3 

3 

2 

0 

3 

1 

1 

5 

0 
0 

4 

3 

5 

0 
0 

3 

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Totally

Partially

Neutral

Not at all

Not applicable

No Answer

Furthermore,  the  majority  of  the  respondents  consider  that  the  ‘most  economically 
advantageous offer’ is the most appropriate methodology. 

52 

 
 
 
 
Figure 14. Replies to question 77 of the targeted consultation 

77.  Do the rules on choosing the most economically advantageous offer ensure that the most 
relevant, efficient and appropriate offer is chosen? 

All respondents

11 

19 

6 

3 

7 

8 

All MS Authorities

National authorities

8 

7 

Stakeholders

Telco

3 

2 

0%

11 

4 

25%

6 

4 

50%

7 

2 

1 

5 

2 

1 

0 

1 

2 

4 

1 

1 

4 

0 

1 

75%

3 

100%

Totally

Partially

Neutral

Not at all

Not applicable

No Answer

Figure 15. Replies to question 65 of the targeted consultation 

65. Are there circumstances in which a competitive selection process was not 
needed or adequate, or alternatives measures were more appropriate? 

All respondents

11 

All MS Authorities

National authorities

Stakeholders

Telco

4 

3 

6 

3 

6 

14 

5 

8 

6 

21 

13 

8 

6 

2 

8 

2 

1 

4 

3 

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Yes

No

Not applicable

No Answer

Other award criteria 

The  most  economically  advantageous  offer  compare  qualitative  criteria  with  price.  The 
public consultation asked stakeholders what criteria, apart from the price, they consider 
more  relevant  in  a  selection  procedure  concerning  the  deployment  of  broadband 
infrastructure.  The  cost  of  management  and  maintenance  of  the  infrastructure  (i.e.  as 
opposite to the cost of deployment of the infrastructure which is already captured by the 
price component of the bud) and energy efficiency and other environmental criteria were 
particularly targeted. 
The result to the public consultation shows that there is no clear preference toward one of 
the  two  above  mentioned  criteria.  Stakeholders  rather  consider  that  other  criteria  are 

53 

 
  
 
more  relevant.  This  is  not  surprising  as  technical  criteria  such  as  the  quality  and 
performance of the network to be built are likely to be more relevant for measures that 
ultimately concern the deployment of new network.  

Figure 16. Replies to question 80 of the targeted consultation 

80. Apart from price, what were the other important award criteria? 

All respondents

11 

6 

All MS Authorities

National authorities

4 

3 

2 

2 

Stakeholders

7 

4 

Telco

2 

0%

3 

25%

17 

9 

3 

8 

8 

50%

27 

12 

6 

10 

8 

75%

100%

cost of maintenance and management of the infrastructure over its lifetime
energy efficiency and other environmental criteria (carbon footprint, effects on fauna and plants, etc.)
other
No Answer

Technology neutrality 

The  application  of  the  technology  neutrality  principle  has  often  been  debated  and  has 
been signalled as one of the key  criteria whose  application in  the competitive selection 
procedure have created difficulties.  

CERRE noted in its study ‘State aid for broadband infrastructure in Europe – Assessment 
and  policy  recommendations’92,  that  the  Commission  has  specified  quite  precisely  the 
technologies which would represent ‘NGA’ technologies for the purposes of the State aid 
rules.  Furthermore,  according  to  CERRE,  the  Commission  favoured  some  technologies 
over others on the grounds that they were more likely to enable downstream competition: 
for example, the Commission would have favoured multi-fibre or point to point fibre to 
the  premises  technologies  over  GPON  technologies,  in  respect  of  which  wholesaling 
options were more limited. 
Respondents to the public consultation have split views on the impact of the technology 
neutrality  principle  on  the  selection  procedure.  Numerous  stakeholders  support  the 
technology principle. In particular, one stakeholder expressed the view that it should be 
applied  by  considering  mobile  broadband  and  fixed  wireless  access  as  viable 
technologies  to  bridge  the  digital  divide.  However,  other  stakeholders  consider  that  the 
technology neutrality principle has not  actually prevented distortion of competition  and 
expressed the view that this principle has been circumvented to favour the deployment of 
FTTH.  One  stake  stressed  that  HFC/DOCSIS  3.1  projects  should  not  suffer  the  risk  of 

92   https://www.cerre.be/sites/cerre/files/CERRE_StateAidBroadband_FinalReport_0.pdf    

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
being crowded away from funded overbuild of other Gigabit-capable networks, such as 
fibre networks. 

Figure 17. Replies to question 67 of the targeted consultation 

67.  Has the application of the technological 
neutrality principle in the competitive selection 
procedure caused any problems? 

All respondents

All MS Authorities

National authorities

Stakeholders

Telco

16 

7 

7 

7 

6 

17 

8 

4 

9 

2 

10 

6 

4 

4 

11 

4 

2 

4 

3 

3 

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Yes

No

Not applicable

No Answer

The  results  of  the  public  consultation  show  that  the  application  of  the  technology 
neutrality principle in particular in the context of the competitive selection procedure has 
led to different interpretations. However, in line with the current Broadband Guidelines 
and the case practice, the aid granting authorities have the right to select, on the basis of 
transparent  objective  criteria,  the  most  technologically  and  economically  suitable 
solutions  in  light  of  the  performance  to  be  achieved  without  this  constituting  an 
infringement of the technology neutrality principle. This would suggest that the current 
rules require clarification. 

5.1.3.  TRANSPARENT DECISION-MAKING 

The Commission initiated in 2012 an overall reform of EU State aid policy and launched 
the State aid modernisation.93 The objectives of the modernisation of State aid control 
were  threefold:  (1)  to  foster  sustainable,  smart  and  inclusive  growth  in  a  competitive 
internal  market;  (2)  to  focus  Commission's  ex-ante  scrutiny  on  cases  with  the  biggest 
impact  on  the  internal  market;  and  (3)  to  streamline  the  rules  and  provide  for  faster 
decisions. 

One  of  the  underlying  requirements  enshrined  in  the  SAM  Communication94  is  that 
modernised State aid control should facilitate the treatment of aid which is well-designed, 
targeted  at  identified  market  failures  and  objectives  of  common  interest,  and  the  least 
distortive.  For  that  to  happen,  the  SAM  Communication  required  State  aid  rules  to  be 

93   See Fitness check SAM for the evaluation of the SAM.  

94   Communication  from  the  Commission  on  EU  State  aid  Modernisation  (SAM).  Brussels,  8.5.2012. 

COM(2012) 209 final. 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
streamlined,  therefore  clarified  and  simplified.95  It  acknowledges  the  need  to  better 
explain State aid concepts.  
The Broadband Guidelines were adopted following the adoption of the SAM programme 
and in compliance with its guiding principles. 

The  Guidelines  summarise  the  principles  of  the  Commission's  policy  in  applying  the 
State  aid  rules  of  the  Treaty  to  measures  that  support  the  deployment  of  broadband 
networks in general. They explain the application of these principles in the assessment of 
aid measures for the rapid roll-out of broadband networks.  

The  Commission  applies  the  Guidelines  in  the  assessment  of  State  aid  for  broadband 
with the aim of increasing the legal certainty and transparency of its decision-making.96 
Legal  clarity  ensures that  the Member States know in  advance  what  measure would be 
considered as compatible aid. The rules must therefore define in a transparent way what 
is  considered  as  compatible  aid  in  order  to  enable  Member  States  to  design  their  aid 
measures  from  the  very  beginning  in  line  with  those  rules,  thus  avoiding  unnecessary 
delays.  

The  GBER  aims  at  exempting  from  the  notification  obligation  aid  measures  that  are 
manifestly  compatible.  It  is  therefore  key  that  clear  compatibility  conditions  are 
identified. This is even more important in view of the case-law clearly requiring that in 
order  to  benefit  from  the  GBER,  an  aid  measure  must  fulfil  all  the  relevant  GBER 
conditions which must be interpreted strictly as otherwise it would constitute an unlawful 
aid that would need to be recovered.97 

The  GBER  requirements  are  based  on  the  concepts  developed  by  the  Guidelines.  The 
concepts  discussed  below  therefore  concern  the  provisions  of  the  GBER  to  the  extent 
they are referred to in the GBER, and unless otherwise indicated. 

The effectiveness of the objective of a transparent decision-making is assessed on the one 
hand  by  verifying  whether  the  Broadband  Guidelines  and  the  GBER  are  perceived  as 
clear and on the other hand by analysing the need for further refinement and/or guidance. 
It also assesses whether the application of the rules is simple.  

5.1.3.1.CLARITY OF THE RULES 

The results of the open public consultation show that the State aid rules overall tend to be 
clear. 

95   Recital 22. 

96   Paragraph 8 of the Broadband Guidelines. 

97   See  e.g.  Case  C-349/17-  5  March  2019  -  Eesti  Pagar  AS  v.  Ettevotluse  Arendamise  Sihtasutus, 

EU:C:2019:172.   

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Table 1. Replies to questions 2 and 3 of the open public consultation 

Are the Guidelines clear? 

Are the rules in the GBER clear? 

Totally 

Partially 

Neutral 

Not at all 

Not applicable 

No Answer 

% 

21% 

64% 

7% 

3% 

5% 

0% 

N° of replies  % 

N° of replies 

12 

37 

4 

2 

3 

0 

26% 

38% 

9% 

3% 

19% 

5% 

15 

22 

5 

2 

11 

3 

Stakeholders  and  public  authorities  consider  to  the  same  extent  that  the  Guidelines  are 
totally98 or partially99   clear. The majority  of respondents  that have  replied partially  on 
the clarity of the GBER are stakeholders.100  

Comments concerning the Guidelines indicate that the lack of clarity may appear in case 
of misalignment between the rules and other EU policy and legislative developments, or 
when very concrete situations are not covered by the rules (e.g. in case of modification of 
the facts on the basis of which a State aid decision was taken during the implementation 
of the measure).101 Some suggest that the Commission should reinforce its supervision in 
addition to ensuring clear rules. 

Concerning the GBER articles, respondents that consider the rules to be totally clear are 
in majority public authorities.102  

Case practice, in particular ex post monitoring exercises, has not revealed any major or 
recurrent issues in measures (see Section 3.2.3 ‘Monitoring’). 

This shows that, compared to the baseline scenario (see Section 2.2.1 ‘Description of the 
intervention  and  its  objectives’),  the  State  aid  sets  of  rules  provide  overall  a 
comprehensive framework for all stakeholders concerning the requirements for deploying 
broadband networks. They have struck the right balance between, on the one hand, clear 
requirements  that allow a swift implementation of State aid  measures, and on the other 
hand,  the  necessary  supervision  by  the  Commission  on  State  aid  measures  that  might 
have significant impact on the market.  

98   5 public authorities (out of 24) and 7 business association/company/business organisation (out of 25). 

99   16  private  operators  (12  company/business  organisation  and  4  business  associations)  and  16  public 

authorities. 

100   14 vs 8 from the public authorities. 

101   Comments illustrated this statement with the following examples: what happens when changes occur 
within the intervention area over time such as homes built, or when announced investment plans did 
not materialise, etc. 

102   9 vs 6 from the private sector. 

57 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
In the targeted  consultation,  stakeholders were asked whether specific  concepts  used in 
the  Broadband  Guidelines  and  the  corresponding  provisions  of  the  GBER  are  clear.  It 
appears  that  most  of  them  were  considered  clear  (15  out  of  22).  A  majority  of 
respondents find however that four requirements are not clear. In a nutshell, it concerns 
the concepts of ‘reliable’ and ‘substantially higher’ speed as well as the identification of 
present and planned infrastructures. 

Table 2. Clarity of requirements and concepts used in the State aid rules103 

Are the following requirements or concepts clear? 

Distinction between the 3 types of area 

Rules on public consultation 

Claw-back mechanism 

Principle of technological neutrality 

Definition of an NGN 

Monitoring 

Most  economically  advantageous  offer:  qualitative  criteria  have  to  be  weighed  against  the 
requested aid amount 

Wholesale prices 

Yes 

94% 

93% 

93% 

89% 

88% 

88% 

81% 

81% 

Public consultations : information on the basis of premises passed rather than premises connected 

81% 

Application of service of general economic interest in the broadband sector 

Distinction between the mapping exercise and the public consultation 

Sufficient capacity of passive infrastructure 

Concept of step change 

Effective wholesale access to all existing infrastructure used in the supported network 

Concept of download speed 

Concept of ‘homes passed’ 

Assessment of market failures including backhaul and access markets when intervention limited 
to backhaul 

Rules on deploying backhaul networks 

Concept of ‘substantially higher upload speed’ 

Identification of market failures: present and planned backhaul infrastructure 

To be considered NGA, networks must be able to deliver the relevant speeds "reliably" 

To  be  considered  NGA,  advanced  fixed  wireless  access  networks  must  provide  the  relevant 
speeds reliably 

Source : replies to the targeted consultation 

79% 

79% 

77% 

69% 

66% 

63% 

63% 

56% 

55% 

47% 

43% 

31% 

26% 

No 

6% 

7% 

7% 

11% 

12% 

12% 

19% 

19% 

19% 

21% 

21% 

23% 

31% 

34% 

37% 

37% 

44% 

45% 

53% 

57% 

69% 

74% 

The  evaluation  assessed  in  more  detail  whether  the  Guidelines  provided  sufficient 
clarity. Replies to the open public consultation show that State aid rules have provided 
partially  sufficient  guidance.  Respondents  were  more  positive  regarding  the  GBER 
related provisions than towards the Guidelines. 

103   Questions from the targeted consultation. For the figures in the table, only ‘yes’ and ‘no’ replies are 

used.  

58 

 
                                                           
Table 3. Replies to questions 2 and 3 of the open public consultation 

Do the Guidelines provide sufficient guidance? 

Do the rules in the GBER provide sufficient 
guidance? 

Totally 

Partially 

Neutral 

Not at all 

Not applicable 

No Answer 

% 

16% 

62% 

10% 

3% 

7% 

2% 

No 

9 

36 

6 

2 

4 

1 

% 

19% 

34% 

10% 

3% 

24% 

9% 

No 

11 

20 

6 

2 

14 

5 

In particular, the results of the targeted consultation show that the following concepts and 
requirements may not be sufficiently clear: 

-  Concept of ‘substantially higher upload speed’ (75% the replies were positive 
in  that  sense).  Respondents  consider  the  terms  ‘substantially  higher’  leaves  too 
much  room  for  interpretation  and  consider  that  a  threshold  would  be  more 
appropriate. However, replies are very different in terms of proposed thresholds. 
-  How to carry out the mapping exercise (73% of positive replies) and premises 
passed vs premises connected (85% of positive replies). Comments suggest that 
the rules should have provided, inter alia, a clearer definition of the criteria used 
for the mapping exercise in order to maximize effectiveness and avoid wrongful 
interpretation.  

- 

-  How  to  conduct  public  consultation  to  identify  areas  most  in  need  (70%  of 
positive  replies).  Respondents  suggest  that  the  Guidelines  are  lacking  a  more 
descriptive common approach. 
Impact  of  nomadic  users  when  assessing  the  actual  possibility  for  a  mobile 
network to provide NGA services (68% of positive replies). Respondents suggest 
that further clarification on how to measure the effect of nomadic users and how 
it should have an impact on the assessment may be necessary.  
regard 

to  all  existing 
infrastructures used in deploying the publicly supported network (59% of positive 
replies).  Comments  refer  to  the  need  to  delineate  which  part  of  the  network 
should be subject to this obligation. 

-  Effective  wholesale  access  requirements  with 

-  NGN definition (52% of positive replies). In particular, comments stress the role 

of the concept in light of the new EU policy targets (EECC104, 5G, etc.) 

-  Demand-side measures (78% of the replies indicated that the Guidelines did not 
provide sufficient guidance on such measures). Comments indicate that State aid 
rules  should  explicitly  clarify  the  conditions,  which  demand-side  measures 
constituting State aid should fulfil to be considered compatible.  

104   European  Electronic  Communication  Code,  Directive  (EU)  2018/1972  of  The  European  Parliament 
and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code, 
OJ L321/36. 

59 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
With regard to wholesale prices, monitoring, and the necessity to ensure that the passive 
infrastructure  has  sufficient  capacity  to  support  several  access  seekers  in  order  to 
guarantee  effective  wholesale  access,  respondents  consider  that  State  aid  rules  provide 
sufficient guidance. 

In addition, the Court of Auditors identified in its report of 2018105 a misunderstanding 
on  the  projects  that  fall  under  the  Guidelines.  It  explains  that,  according  to  the 
Commission, the Guidelines are also relevant for the 100 Mbps and the Gigabit Society 
targets. However, some Member States have interpreted the rules differently and take the 
view that public funding is NGA areas already served by speeds above 30 Mbps.  

In  order  to  provide  interpretative  guidance  throughout  implementation  of  the  State  aid 
rules, the Commission has set up an online tool (“eWiki”) accessible to Member States’ 
authorities to ask questions about the interpretation of the SAM rules, in particular of the 
GBER  where  Member  States  have  the  responsibility  to  apply  them.  The  questions  and 
replies  to  these  questions  are  available  to  all  Member  States.  This  platform  helps 
clarifying the rules and therefore eases their application by Member States. Up to March 
2021, the Commission  services  received 1 273 questions on the GBER  and only  a few 
questions  relating  to  articles  for  broadband  deployment  measures  (25  questions,  2%  of 
total). This suggests that the GBER rules on broadband have not posed major issues as to 
their  interpretation  and  implementation  and  that  they  have,  overall,  achieved  the 
objective for transparent and clear rules, compared to the baseline scenario (see Section 
2.2.1 ‘Description of the intervention and its objectives’). 

5.1.3.2.SIMPLIFIED RULES 

In addition to clarity, the Guidelines have sought to simplify their application. They have 
for that purpose referred to  the national  regulatory  authorities (NRA)  and rely on them 
for  specific  tasks  for  the  implementation  of  the  measure.  The  targeted  consultation 
inquired  about  the  involvement  of  NRA  in  different  steps,  from  the  design  of  the 
measures to the monitoring of their implementation. According to the consultation, NRA 
have  mostly  been  involved  for  regulating  access  to  the  subsidized  network  (setting  the 
list of wholesale access products as well as the prices). They seem however to have played 
a lesser role upfront, when the measures are designed and mapping is carried out.  

105   See footnote 53, paragraph 68.  

60 

 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 18. Replies to question 11 of the targeted consultation 

To what extent have the NRAs been involved in? 

Comments however did not specify to what  extent the NRA involvement role could be 
improved. 

While  the  design  of  the  State  aid  rules  appears  overall  clear,  compared  to  the  baseline 
scenario  (see  Section  2.2.1  ‘Description  of  the  intervention  and  its  objectives’),  the 
analysis of the replies to the targeted consultation as well as the finding of the report of 
the Court of Auditors suggest that the rules are not sufficiently clear concerning certain 
key concepts (see Section 5.1.3.1’Clarity of the rules’). Also, considering the objective of 
the  Guidelines  to  involve  to  the  extent  possible  the  NRAs,  to  simplify  rules  and  their 
application,  the  analysis  shows  that  the  NRAs  are  mostly  involved  at  the  time  of  the 
implementation of the aid measures, while it might be appropriate to involve the NRAs 
also at the moment of their design.   

5.2.  EFFICIENCY 

5.2.1.  ADMINISTRATIVE EFFICIENCY 

Number of full-time equivalent spent by Member States on administering State aid 
cases 

The lack of quantifiable cost and savings data has hampered analysis of the costs of the 
measures  evaluated.  Annual  costs  incurred  by  the  national  administrations  are  often 

61 

 
  
 
difficult to estimate precisely. No stakeholder or known studies has been able to provide 
an estimation. The discussion below is therefore based mostly on qualitative inputs and 
an assessment of the overall impression of administrative burden as reported previously 
by the stakeholders. 

The  WIK  study  made  an  attempt  to  gather  data  on  administrative  efficiency  associated 
with operating State aid programmes under the Broadband Guidelines. State aid granting 
authorities  were  invited  to  answer  a  questionnaire  concerning  the  number  of  staff  (full 
time  equivalent,  or  FTE)  working  on  the  implementation  of  State  aid  for  Broadband. 
Stakeholders  were  also  asked  to  provide  their  perspective  on  the  degree  to  which  the 
State aid programmes were administratively efficient via an online survey distributed in 
mid-2019. 

Concerning  State  aid  for  Broadband  (schemes  and  individual  cases),  17  EU  Member 
States (incl. UK) responded to the request for information about resourcing, of which 13 
gave estimates concerning the FTE per annum or cost associated with the administration 
of State aid for Broadband. Information was also received from 4 regions in Germany. 

The number of FTE reported varied widely from 5 or less in Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, 
Finland, Latvia, Slovenia and the German state of North Rhine Westfalia to around 20 in 
Sweden, 40-50 in Hungary106 and more than 75 for the German federal scheme and Italy. 

Resourcing  seems  to  a  large  extent  to  be  related  to  the  size  and  number  of  projects 
implemented.  While  the  German  national  scheme  and  the  four  regional  schemes  were 
reported  as  incurring  administrative  costs  of  around  EUR  31  million,  the  aid  granted 
under these schemes has been reported at more than EUR 1.5 billion. Similarly, in Italy 
103  FTE  were  reported  as  administering  and  monitoring  grants  worth  nearly  EUR  1.8 
billion. The Swedish authorities report costs of around EUR 2.3 million linked to a State 
aid budget of around EUR 440 million. As regards the smaller schemes, Bulgaria reports 
costs  of  around  EUR  50  000  for  administering  grants  of  EUR  19  million,  Latvia  EUR 
80 000 for grants of EUR 23 million and Greece costs of EUR 1.6 million to administer 
grants  of  EUR  162  million.  Thus,  the  administrative  cost  as  a  proportion  of  the  aid 
actually  allocated  thus  far,  was  reported  at  1-2%  at  most,  and  less  than  0.5%  in  some 
cases.  

As regards the split between activities, Italy reports that while 3 FTE were required for 
mapping  and  tender  processes,  100  FTE  were  required  for  monitoring  of  deployment. 
The large amount of resources involved may be linked to the fact that Italy implemented 
the measure using the direct investment model. Similarly, the Spanish authorities report 
that  the  majority  of  the  time  spent  in  the  administration  of  State  aid  was  linked  to 
monitoring and certification (8 FTE per year). For the processing of the aid, the Spanish 

106   Average number of FTEs working on broadband development design, preparation, implementation and 
monitoring, including all obligations of the state (e.g. mapping, public consultation, monitoring) from 
2015 to present. 

62 

 
                                                           
authorities  estimated  time  spent  on  mapping  at  1  FTE,  tender  0.15  FTE  and  award 
processes  at  3.25  FTE  per  year  respectively.  Notification  of  the  aid  scheme  was 
associated with relatively limited administrative costs compared with other aspects, and 
was reported at 0.08 FTE in 2013 and 0.2 FTE in 2018-2019. 

Another concrete example of the effort involved comes from the authorities in Estonia in 
connection  with  the  State  aid  programme  for  the  deployment  of  passive  broadband 
infrastructure for the next generation electronic communications network (SA.51475)107:  

  designing the State aid regime, mapping and consultation took 400 working days 

 

with 9 officials involved at a cost of approximately EUR 50 000; 
the  tender  process  took  38  working  days  with  5  officials  at  a  cost  of 
approximately EUR 4 200; and 

  ongoing  monitoring  takes  approximately  30  working  days  per  year  with  3 
officials involved at a cost of EUR 3 300 and is projected to take approximately 
120  working  days  between  2019-2023  at  a  total  administrative  cost  of 
approximately EUR 13 200. 

The share of cost associated with the administration by the Greek authorities of schemes 
relating to Rural Broadband, Superfast Broadband and Ultrafast Broadband, are shown in 
the diagram below.  

Figure 19. Share of State aid administration costs by category: Greek authorities 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

Source: WIK report 

107   SA.51475  Järgmise  põlvkonna  elektroonilise  side  juurdepääsuvõrgu  passiivse  lairibataristu  rajamise 

toetusmeede, under GBER article 52. 

63 

 
 
                                                           
National authorities which responded to the survey were for the most part more positive 
than  stakeholders  about  the  procedural  efficiency  of  State  aid  programmes.  However, 
comments  were  made  in  one  case  about  an  excessive  number  of  layers  in  the  process, 
while another observed that the use of EU funds created the need for more administration 
and control. 

For  those  aspects  of  the  process  that  lie  within  their  control,  there  could  be  scope  to 
increase efficiencies if State aid awarding authorities follow good practice e.g. in terms 
of  limiting  the  complexity  of  any  framework  contracts,  consult  widely  (including  with 
municipalities) and establish clear deadlines for the submission of projected deployment 
plans (to avoid  later amendments to  the scope of the target  areas), and ensure effective 
co-ordination between initiatives at different levels of Government.  

Stakeholders view on efficient administration of State aid cases 

As regards the views of stakeholders, concerns over procedural efficiency were noted in 
some  cases.  Information  from  WIK’s  online  survey  conducted  in  2019  shows  that 
stakeholders provided an average score of 5 from a point scale of 1-10 (from inefficient 
to very efficient), but there were differing perspectives of the efficiency of the procedures 
in different Member States. For example in Austria, some bidders and State aid recipients 
highlighted  the  need  for  improvements  in  the  digitisation  of  the  process,  enabling 
automated  processes  from  application  through  to  payout,  while  some  municipalities 
bidding  for  aid  also  considered  that  some  of  the  formal  criteria  were  challenging.  A 
respondent from the Irish market noted high costs associated with the NBP, and a lengthy 
period  without  resolution.  Complaints  were  also  raised  in  Germany  about  the  large 
number  of  projects  and  procedures  that  were  perceived  to  be  lengthy,  complex  and 
inflexible.  On  the  other  hand,  another  respondent  noted  that  while  the  practical 
application of State aid programmes were time-consuming, this was necessary to adhere 
to  public  procurement  obligations  and  avoid  crowding  out  private  investments. 
Perspectives on processes in  Sweden also  differed, with  a number of the  bidders citing 
challenges  with  delays  and  complexities,  while  others  considered  that  the  presence  of 
broadband co-ordinators acting as a buffer between the sector and those granting aid was 
helpful.  On  the  other  hand,  respondents  in  Denmark,  Poland  and  Portugal  for  the  most 
part declared themselves to be relatively satisfied with the administrative procedures.  

Also in  the public consultation stakeholders  were asked  about  the level  of reduction of 
the administrative burden brought by the 2013 Broadband Guidelines as compared to the 
2009 Broadband Guidelines. Results are shown in  

64 

 
 
 
Figure 20 below. 

65 

 
 
 
Figure 20. Question 14 to the open public consultation  

To what extent have the 2013 Broadband Guidelines reduced the administrative burden 
(compared to 2009-13, when the sector was regulated only by the 2009 Broadband 
Guidelines)? 

As  can  be  seen,  the  vast  majority  of  stakeholders  did  not  answer  or  did  not  consider 
themselves in a position to reply to that question. Among those who replied, a majority 
considered  that  the  Broadband  Guidelines  have  reduced  the  administrative  burden, 
compared to the baseline scenario (see Section 2.2.1 ‘Description of the intervention and 
its objectives’). 

5.2.2.  HAVE THE 2013 BROADBAND GUIDELINES LED TO MORE EFFICIENT 

STATE EXPENDITURE? 

Cost  of  applying  the  Broadband  Guidelines  (duration  of  procedures,  clarity  and 
simplicity of procedures) 

One  of  the  concerns  raised  occasionally  by  some  Member  States  since  2013  refers  to 
possible  delays  in  implementing  the  State  aid  measure.  As  regards  the  potential 
implications  of  procedural  delays,  it  can  be  seen  from  Figure  21  that  there  have  been 
significant  variations  in  the  timeframes  associated  with  the  award  of  State  aid,  with 
delays in some countries of 4-5 years between the start date when aid was approved and 
the entry into service of the network. WIK finds that the delays have occurred at different 
points  in  the  process  and  have  different  underlying  causes.  Most  of  the  delays  are  not 
connected with recommendations included in the Broadband Guidelines and concern for 
example slow processes for permit approval, or appeals procedures. Moreover, examples 
from  countries  which  have  achieved  deployment  on  the  basis  of  State  aid  within  much 
shorter periods, such as Spain and Denmark show that it is possible to operate efficient 
processes in line with the Guidelines.  

66 

 
 
 
 
 
However, some of the challenges described were linked to the State aid award process, 
including  communication  challenges  amongst  different  levels  of  Government,  stringent 
conditions in Framework contracts, and reopening of mapping procedures.  

Meanwhile, lengthy periods can be seen between the start of deployment and entry into 
service for some projects in the UK and Hungary, while deployment seems to have been 
achieved in a shorter period (two years or less) in Denmark, France, Spain and Poland.  

Figure 21. Timeline between start of State aid measure and the entering into service, per 
project  

Source: WIK report 

67 

 
 
Another  possible  concern  from  the  EU’s  objective  of  fostering  the  digitisation  of  the 
European  economy  is  related  to  Member  States  actually  only  spending  a  limited 
proportion  of  the  approved  aid.  As  can  be  seen  from  Figure  22  there  are  significant 
variations in the degree to which aid approved for broadband deployment has been spent. 
While  a  high  proportion  of  the  aid  has  been  allocated  in  countries  including  Bulgaria 
Estonia, Denmark and Finland – as of June 2019, less than 30% of the available aid had 
been spent in Germany, Sweden, Latvia and Hungary. There may be different reasons for 
this discrepancy. In some cases, projects are ongoing and the aid will be allocated in due 
time. It should also be noted that payments may not be distributed evenly over time, and 
thus  low  payments  may  not  represent  delays,  in  cases  where  payments  apply  closer  to 
completion.  However,  in  other  cases,  the  limited  allocation  of  funding  may  indicate  a 
delay in award of State aid. 

Figure 22. Percentage of aid spent on total amount available  

Source: WIK report 

60% of respondents to the WIK stakeholder survey reported that projects in which they 
had  been  involved  had  been  subject  to  delays  impeding  the  deployment  of  broadband 
infrastructure,  with  a  number  of  respondents  reporting  delays  in  Austria,  Germany, 
Greece, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. In contrast, no delays were 
reported by respondents in the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland and Lithuania. 

According  to  the  WIK  stakeholder  survey,  the  main  reason  for  the  delay  stems  from 
problems  obtaining  the  necessary  permissions  and  rights  of  way.  Delays  were  also 
reported due to problems accessing existing infrastructure, and to a significant but lesser 
extent, delays in the award of the contract and/or in finalizing the contract.  

68 

 
 
Table 4. Reasons for delays in the application of broadband State aid as expressed by 
stakeholders  

Source: WIK report 

While  delays  in  award  and  in  finalising  contracts  do  feature  as  causes  of  delay  in  the 
provision of broadband services in State aid funded areas, an important take-away from 
the WIK stakeholder analysis is that perhaps the most significant difficulty experienced 
by stakeholders relates to challenges in deploying infrastructure. These include problems 
in obtaining the necessary permissions and rights of way as well as challenges in using 
existing infrastructure such as ducts and poles. 

The  public  consultation  asked  about  the  estimated  overall  cost  of  applying  the  2013 
Broadband  Guidelines,  both  in  relation  to  State  aid  amount  and  to  the  overall  project 
budget. As can be seen the majority of respondents could not, or did not want to reply to 
this question. Among those who replied, around 66% considered that the cost would be 
below 5% of the total aid amount while about 16% estimated the cost to exceed 10% of 
the aid amount. 

Figure 23. Question 12 of the open public consultation  

Can you estimate the level of the cost generated by applying the 2013 Broadband 
Guidelines? 

The  open  public  consultation  also  asked  for  a  cost  comparison  of  applying  the  2013 
Broadband  Guidelines  with  the  2009  Broadband  Guidelines.  As  can  be  seen  from  the 

69 

Reason for delaysCountDelays in award16Delays in finalising the contract12The award was appealed3Problems in obtaining necessary permissions/rights of way33Problems access existing infrastructure18Other19 
 
 
 
figure below, the vast majority of respondents chose not to reply to that question. Among 
those who replied, the biggest group did not see an impact, the second biggest saw a cost 
reduction that the remaining group considered that the 2013 Broadband Guidelines led to 
an increase in cost. 

Figure 24. Question 16 of the open public consultation  

In  order  to  obtain  better  data  regarding  the  implementation  of  State  aid  decisions,  the 
Broadband  Guidelines  impose  a  reporting  obligation  on  aid  granting  authorities.  The 
public  consultation  inquired  whether  this  reporting  obligation  created  an  excessive 
burden. Among all respondents, 48% considered that this is not the case while less than 
1%  considered  that  the  obligation  creates  such  an  excessive  burden  (the  rest  did  not 
provide an answer). 

Impact on State aid projects  

At  a  general  level,  the  open  public  consultation  asked  whether  the  2013  Broadband 
Guidelines have led to a more efficient State aid expenditure, compared to the baseline 
scenario (see Section 2.2.1 ‘Description of the intervention and its objectives’). Among 
those respondents who chose to reply to that question, the vast majority confirmed that 
this was the case.  

70 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 25. Question 11 to the open public consultation 

Based on your experience, to what extent have the requirements set by the State aid rules 
for  the  deployment  of  broadband  infrastructure  led  to  more  efficient  State  expenditure 
(timely  and  less  costly  intervention)  than  in  2009-13,  when  support  in  this  sector  was 
regulated only by the 2009 Broadband Guidelines)? 

The Broadband Guidelines contain a number of specific measures which aim to ensure an 
efficient  State  aid  expenditure.  They  are  discussed  in  what  follows.  The  percentages 
ignore respondents who did not take a view on the particular issue. 

As  explained  in  Section  5.1.1.2  ‘Address  a  market  failure  or  major  inequalities’,  the 
purpose  of  the  Broadband  Guidelines  is  to  stir  public  investment  into  areas  where  the 
private  sector  would  not,  or  not  to  a  sufficient  degree,  roll-out  advanced  broadband 
infrastructure  (‘market  failure’  areas).  In  the  public  consultation,  20%  of  respondents  
consider  that  the  rules  of  the  Broadband  Guidelines  totally  allow  to  efficiently  identify 
the areas most in need for public intervention (and 33% consider it partially), while 8% 
consider  that  this  is  not  the  case.  In  this  regard,  mapping  of  such  areas  is  the  most 
important  tool  in  the  Broadband  Guidelines.  Correspondingly,  20%  of  the  respondents 
consider  totally  that  the  provisions  related  to  mapping  allow  to  efficiently  identify  the 
target area for public intervention (and 47% consider  it partially), while 2% considered 
that this is not the case.  

Finally,  with  regard  to  the  risk  of  overcompensation,  45%  of  respondents  consider  the 
claw-back  rule  has  been  clear  and  35%  consider  that  it  is  sufficient  to  prevent 
overcompensation. Instead, 2% considered that it is not clear and 2% considered that it is 
not sufficient to prevent overcompensation.  

Benefits  of  applying  the  Broadband  Guidelines  (cost  savings  from  use  of  existing 
infrastructure, tendering, 3 year planned investment rule, duplication of investment 
(overbuilding)  

71 

 
 
 
In order to limit State aid expenditure to the minimum, the Broadband Guidelines require 
that, based on a public consultation, the public authority first has to establish whether in 
the  coming  three  years  there  is  no  private  investor  willing  to  roll-out  the  required 
infrastructure in the target area, that there is no duplication of private investment, that aid 
is  granted  on  the  basis  of  a  tender  and,  where  possible,  existing  infrastructure  is  to  be 
used. 

In  the  public  consultation,  25%  of  respondents  consider  totally  that  the  rules  of  the 
Broadband Guidelines allow to efficiently consult the market and inform the stakeholders 
of  the  public  intervention  plans  (and  22%  consider  this  to  be  true  partially),  while  8% 
consider that this is not the case. However, 35% consider that the Broadband Guidelines 
do not give sufficient guidance in establishing the private investment plans (against 27% 
considering that this is the case). 

29%  of  respondents  consider  totally  that  the  tender  process  provided  for  in  the 
Broadband  Guidelines  achieves  value  for  money  (and  31%  consider  this  to  be  true 
partially), while 4% consider that this is not the case. 

20% of respondents consider totally that the 3 year rule about future investment plans of 
the Broadband Guidelines is adequate (and 25% consider this to be true partially), while 
6% consider that this is  not the case. 50% of respondents consider that the step change 
rule is clear, while 20% disagree.  

5.2.3.  OVERALL  BALANCE:  HAVE  THE  BENEFITS  ASSOCIATED  WITH  THE 

2013 BROADBAND GUIDELINES OUTWEIGHED THE COST? 

Looking  at  a  wider  view  of  costs  vs  benefits,  WIK  reports  that  national  authorities  in 
countries where State aid programmes had been established considered that the benefits 
of  State  aid  programmes  generally  outweighed  the  costs.  This  overall  conclusion  is 
confirmed by the public consultation. Overall, 22% of respondents consider totally (and 
31% consider it partially) that the positive effects of the Broadband Guidelines in terms 
of preventing distortion of competition and crowding out outweigh the negative ones (in 
terms of higher cost), while 8% consider that this is not the case. 

WIK  reports  that  stakeholders  had  more  mixed  views  on  this  question,  especially  in 
Germany,  Hungary,  Spain  and  Italy.  There  was  however  a  more  positive  view  of  the 
benefits of State aid in comparison with the costs amongst most stakeholders responding 
in Portugal, Poland, and Austria, and views in other countries may have been affected by 
concerns over the specific applications of State aid by the stakeholders concerned.  

More  generally,  WIK  considers  it  likely  that,  if  State  aid  is  appropriately  targeted  and 
focused  on  the  most  performant  and  future  proof  technologies,  benefits  should 
significantly  outweigh  both  the  subsidies  and  associated  administrative  costs.  This  is 
because  there  is  a  variety  of  evidence  to  suggest  that  FTTH  directly  or  higher 

72 

 
 
bandwidths,  which  should  be  associated  with  increased  coverage  of  high  capacity 
networks, are associated with increases in GDP,108 as well as supporting the creation and 
maintenance of jobs in more remote areas. As experience with COVID has shown, high 
bandwidth  connections  can  also  support  home  working  and  the  remote  provision  of 
healthcare  and education, which  are especially important  for  rural communities as well 
supporting the achieving of environmental goals, through reductions in transport. 

A summary of the benefits of fibre connectivity in rural areas is included in a 2018 study 
by  WIK.109  For  example,  one  study  assessing  developments  in  Sweden110  found 
significant  savings  in  using  digital  FTTH-based  homecare  especially  in  rural  areas.  It 
concluded that even with limited adoption,111 these solutions  could  contribute to  annual 
net cost reductions of $0.6m in a rural municipality with 8 000 residents by 2020. 

Respondents  identified  several  issues  generating  higher  administrative  costs  and  delays 
in the implementation of State aid measures. While some stakeholders have complained 
about  the  administrative  burden  and  lengthy  procedures,  most  of  the  issues  blamed  for 
delays  are  outside  the  scope  of  the  Broadband  Guidelines  and  under  the  control  of 
national  authorities.  With  regard  to  the  Broadband  Guidelines,  the  above  indicated  in 
particular  that  there  is  demand  for  more  detailed  provisions  regarding  the  access  to 
existing infrastructure and more guidance with regard to mapping and to identify private 
investment plans. 

Finally,  the  above  assessment  has  shown  a  lack  of  data  to  come  to  more  precise 
conclusions  at  a  more  detailed  level.  This  was  confirmed  by  a  recent  CERRE  study112 
which concluded that transparency of the decision-making process plays a role upfront, 
for the design of the measure, but also ex post, for evaluating the effectiveness of State 
aid  control.  CERRE  considers  there  are  deficiencies  in  the  data  which  might  allow 
policymakers  and  researchers  to  assess  the  performance  of  the  broadband  State  aid 
activities. They recommend that Member States fill in a detailed standardised reporting 

108   One  study  (1  Rohman,  I.K.  and  E.Bohlin  (2012),  Does  broadband  speed  really  matter  for  driving 
economic  growth?  Investigating  OECD  countries,  SSRN.2034284)  of  OECD  countries  dating  from 
2012  estimated  that  doubling  the  connection  speed  related  to  an  additional  0.3  percentage  points  to 
annual  GDP  growth.  WIK,  together  with  Ecorys  and  VVA  also  identified  a  correlation  between 
broadband  speeds  across  the  EU  and  Total  Factor  Productivity  across  a  number  of  sectors  in  the 
context  of  a  study  for  the  European  Commission,  and  concluded  that  if  past  relationships  between 
broadband speed and GDP growth were to be replicated going forwards, an accelerated deployment of 
FTTP/B infrastructure which resulted in 55% of households using FTTP by 2025 could result in GDP 
levels 0.54% higher than the status quo. 

109   WIK (2018) The benefits of ultrafast broadband. 

110   Forzati,  M.  and  C.  Mattson  (2014),  FTTH-enabled  digital  home  care  –  A  study  of  economic  gains, 

Department for Networking and Transmission, Acreo AB. 

111   This estimate is based on 10% home care service recipients using digital services. 

112   See footnote 47. 

73 

 
                                                           
template  when  they  notify  the  measure,  and  which  should  then  be  supplemented  with 
regular  reports  (perhaps  bi-annually)  after  the  project  has  been  approved,  with  a  more 
detailed report at the end of 5 years. This data should be published and accessible to third 
parties.  

5.3.  RELEVANCE 

This  Section  evaluates  whether  the  objectives  of  the  Broadband  Guidelines  and  the 
corresponding GBER Sections still correspond to the needs within the EU.  

In  a  first  step,  it  thus  examines  whether  the  overall  objectives  were  appropriate  and 
whether  they  are  still  appropriate  in  light  of  potentially  changing  needs,  and  therefore 
whether the action as set out in the intervention logic above continues to be justified.  

In  a  second  step,  it  examines  how  well  adapted  are  the  Broadband  Guidelines  to 
subsequent market developments, technological advances and policy developments.  

The  results  of  the  evaluation  show  that  the  Broadband  Guidelines  have  made  an 
important contribution to supporting the deployment and take-up of NGA in areas where 
the economics of network deployment are challenging (see Section 5.1.1.1 ‘Facilitate the 
deployment of broadband infrastructures, in line with the 2020 DAE connectivity targets 
and bringing connectivity to low population density, rural and remote areas’ and Section 
5.1.1.2 ‘Address a market failure or major inequalities’).  

The  public  consultation  shows  a  strong  support  for  the  fundamental  concepts  of  the 
Broadband  Guidelines.  However,  while  the  Broadband  Guidelines  have  met  the  EU 
needs so far, they do not fully reflect EU policy developments and Commission priorities 
for  the  future,  in  particular  the  2025  EU  objectives  (and  the  2030  Digital  Compass 
objectives).  Moreover,  they  do  not  seem  fully  relevant  to  meet  the  technological 
the  electronic  communications  sector  and  connectivity  needs 
developments 
accentuated by the Covid-19 pandemic113. 

in 

It must be noted that the Broadband Guidelines were adopted in 2013 and they reflect the 
targets  set  by  the  Digital  Agenda  for  Europe  (see  Section  5.1.1.1  ‘Facilitate  the 
deployment of broadband infrastructures, in line with the 2020 DAE connectivity targets 
and  bringing  connectivity  to  low  population  density,  rural  and  remote  areas’).  In  2016, 
the Commission adopted the Gigabit Communication, setting new targets. Consequently, 
other policy acts were adopted such as the Next Generation EU, Europe’s Digital Future 
strategy, the Action Plan on synergies between civil, defence and space industries and the 
2030 Digital Compass Communication (for further details of these policy acts, please see 
the Section 5.4 ‘Coherence’ below).  

113   In the public consultation, 22.41% of the respondents think that Broadband Guidelines did not meet at 
all the Connectivity needs revealed by the COVID-19 crisis (see replies to question 19 of the General 
Questionnaire). 

74 

 
                                                           
In the public consultation, most respondents pointed out that the Broadband Guidelines 
needed  to  be  aligned  with  the  connectivity  objectives  set  out  in  the  Gigabit 
Communication and other policy acts. When asked whether the current definition of the 
NGA networks is still relevant, in light of the objectives of the Gigabit Communication, 
24% of the stakeholders stated that they are not relevant at all.  

Figure 26. Replies to question 14 of the targeted consultation 

Is the definition of an NGA network still valid, especially in view of the Gigabit and 5G 
connectivity objectives proposed by the Commission in the Gigabit Communication? 

All respondents

6 

27 

4 

13 

National authorities

1 

5 

Stakeholders

4 

Competitors

Beneficiaries

1 

2 

7 

5 

6 

17 

1 

1 

1 

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Totally

Partially

Neutral

Not at all

Moreover, 46% of the respondents totally agree with the statement that the introduction 
of  a  new  category  of  networks,  in  addition  to  the  existing  basic  and  NGA  categories, 
would facilitate the design and assessment of a State aid measure. 

The  evaluation  therefore  clearly  shows  that  the  Guidelines  need  to  be  aligned  with  the 
policy objectives. Some Member States also referred to the need of consistency with the 
European  Electronic  Communications  Code  (EECC)  and  BEREC  Guidelines114, 
signalling that adopting a different  approach in  the Broadband Guidelines would create 
difficulties  in  the  mapping  of  the  target  areas  and  identifying  adequate  thresholds  for 
interventions. (For more details on this please see the Section 5.4 ‘Coherence’ below.) 

Another important need identified by the evaluation is related to aid for mobile networks. 
The  Broadband  Guidelines  apply  in  principle  to  the  deployment  of  fixed  broadband 
infrastructure.  Unlike  the  fixed  network,  the  mobile  network  allows  consumers  to 
communicate  while  moving.  However,  these  two  types  of  services  might  be  provided 

114 

This 

definition 

Guidelines 
https://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/berec/regulatory_best_practices/guidelin
es/9439-berec-guidelines-on-very-high-capacity-networks   

BEREC 

refined 

further 

was 

the 

in 

75 

 
 
                                                           
using the same infrastructure. When aid is granted to a 5G mobile network, it needs to be 
considered to what extent the publicly financed mast/fibre link is subsequently used also 
for  FWA.  The  opposite  might  also  be  true.  In  remote  areas,  when  aid  is  granted  to 
provide  FWA  links,  subsequently  a  mobile  operator  could  then  use  the  mast/fibre  link 
also  for  mobile  services,  potentially  in  areas  where,  due  to  coverage  obligations  of  its 
licence,  it  is  obliged  to  roll-out  such  infrastructure  at  its  own  costs.  In  this  context, 
mobile networks are not substitutable with fixed broadband networks and considered to 
belong  to  a  different  relevant  market.  This  view  is  also  supported  by  the  public 
consultation  where  the  clear  majority  of  respondents  consider  that  fixed  and  mobile 
networks belong to separate relevant markets.  

Public  support  for  the  deployment  of  mobile  infrastructure  has  been  assessed  directly 
under the TFEU, using State aid compatibility principles and referring to the Broadband 
Guidelines  by  analogy.  The  case  practice115  concerning  investments  in  mobile 
infrastructure focuses on the mobility aspect of mobile connections, distinguishing them 
from fixed broadband connections. 

The  evaluation  clearly  indicates  that  stakeholders  would  welcome  guidance  for  state 
support  for  the  deployment  of  mobile  networks116.  According  to  the  stakeholders,  such 
guidance  could  increase  legal  certainty  and  transparency,  since  the  Commission  would 
follow  that  guidance  when  assessing  notifications,  instead  of  applying  a  case-by-case 
approach. The Commission has adopted ambitious targets for 5G mobile deployment (as 
explained in the Section 3.2.6 ‘State aid policy developments and recent events’). While 
investment  in  5G  expected  to  be  primarily  driven  by  private  investments,  in  some 
sparsely populated areas such investment might require public subsidy.  

Furthermore, the evaluation indicated that Member States and stakeholders consider that 
more  guidance  regarding  demand  side  measures  would  be  necessary.  The  Broadband 
Guidelines  acknowledge  that  demand-side  measures  may  contribute  positively  to 
broadband  penetration.117  The  existence  of  a  broadband  infrastructure  is  in  some  cases 
not  sufficient  to  ensure  the  actual  use  of  broadband  services,  due  to  high  subscription 
prices.  Demand-side  measures  (mainly  vouchers)  together  with  supply-side  measures 
constitute a useful tool to bridge the digital divide and help to reach the Gigabit targets. 
There are discrepancies in terms of broadband take-up, which is larger in areas that are 
richer, more urbanised, with greater levels of education and lower unemployment. This is 
confirmed by  DESI  report, observing that  there is a substantial  gap between urban  and 
rural fixed broadband penetration rates. Although fixed broadband is available to 98% of 

115   The Commission has to date authorised six measures for public support for the deployment of mobile 
infrastructure,  in  2009,  in  2015,  in  2018  and  in  2020  (N245/2009,  SA.39089  &  SA.39090  and 
SA.48324, SA.55578, SA.54684).  

116   Notably,  Austria,  Denmark,  Germany,  Italy,  Malta  and  Spain  indicated  that  further  clarifications 

concerning the support of mobile network would be welcome. 

117   Recital (44) of the Broadband Guidelines. 

76 

 
                                                           
EU  households  (and  fast  broadband  to  87%  of  EU  households),  take-up  rates  of  fixed 
broadband connections amount to only 77% and take-up of fast broadband connections is 
at 50%. 69% of rural households in the EU had a fixed broadband subscription in 2020. 
Furthermore,  some  Member  States  (e.g.  Italy,  Greece)  report  that  the  gap  in  terms  of 
adoption  and  availability  of  infrastructure  is  much  higher  for  ultrafast  networks.  It  is 
therefore  not  surprising  that  Member  States  have  put  in  place  demand-side  measures 
(such  as  vouchers,  demand  aggregation,  etc.).  The  increased  number  of  such  measures 
shows the growing interest of Member States in using this form of public intervention.118 
The  Commission  has  assessed  in  recent  cases  these  new  types  of  interventions  directly 
under the Treaty, applying some of the guidelines principles by analogy.119  

The importance of demand side measures has increased due to the Covid-19 pandemic120, 
when it became a priority for Member States intend to ensure that businesses and citizens 
have  access  to  broadband  (for  online  work  or  for  online  school)121.  A  revision  of  the 
Broadband  Guidelines  would  also  benefit  the  timely  implementation  of  the  various 
RRPby providing clear guidance to Member States. This would allow the Commission to 
deal with the expected high increase in the number of upcoming notifications. Demand 
side  measures  can  lower  the  cost  of  subscriptions  to  broadband  services  either  by 
covering part of the monthly fee for a certain time period or part/all of the setup costs for 
end-users (consumers and in some cases business) in areas where connectivity is already 
available. 

The Broadband Guidelines do not reflect this most recent case practice and do not give 
sufficient  guidance  to  the  Member  States.  This  shows  that  subsequent  market 
developments lead to gaps in the scope of the Broadband Guidelines and corresponding 
provisions  of  the  GBER.  Therefore,  some  adjustments  and  clearer  rules  to  better  cover 
demand-side measures appear necessary.  

Furthermore,  another  recent  policy  development  is  the  adoption  of  the  Green  Deal 
outlining  the  policies  to  achieve  climate-neutrality  in  Europe  by  2050  and  to  tackle 
environmental-related challenges is one of the key priorities of the current Commission. 

118   Three  decisions  adopted  in  Seven  months:  SA.57357  –  Greece  –  Broadband  voucher  scheme  for 
students;  SA.57495  –  Italy  –  Broadband  vouchers  for  certain  categories  of  families;  SA.49935  – 
Greece – Superfast Broadband (SFBB). 

119   Such  as  mapping  and  public  consultation  of  the  target  area,  technological  neutrality,  non-

discriminatory open selection procedure. 

120   Question 19 of the General Questionnaire inter alia inquired to what extent the Broadband Guidelines 
met  the  Connectivity  needs  revealed  by  the  COVID-19  crisis.  According  to  22.41  %  of  the 
respondents, these need were not met at all by the Broadband Guidelines. 

121   In  order  to  tackle  the  consequences  of  the  crisis  stemming  from  the  COVID-19  outbreak,  the 
Commission adopted a Recovery Plan. The effects of the Recovery Plan on broadband deployment are 
not yet known, since Member States are in the process of preparing their recovery and resilience plans 
and  these  plans  are  not  yet  implemented.  However,  we  can  expect  that  Member  States  will 
increasingly use the Recovery and Resilience Facility for financing broadband deployment. 

77 

 
                                                           
Competition  policy,  and  State  aid  rules  in  particular,  have  an  important  role  to  play  in 
enabling  Europe  to  fulfil  its  Green  Deal  and  Just  Transition  objectives.  The  State  aid 
rules will have to accompany the new Green Deal in all its facets, including its ambitious 
new emissions targets. In this context, we note that in the public consultation respondents 
considered  that  the  State  aid  rules  could  cover  additional  objectives,  such  as  public 
health,  security,  education  and  environmental  aspects  (in  decreasing  order  or 
preference)122. 

5.4.  COHERENCE 

This  Section  evaluates  the  coherence  of  the  Broadband  Guidelines  and  the  relevant 
provisions  of the GBER.  In  a first step, it  examines the so-called “internal” coherence, 
that  is  to  say  whether  the  State  aid  rules  concerning  the  deployment  of  broadband 
networks  are  coherent  with  each  other.  In  a  second  step,  it  examines  the  “external” 
coherence,  i.e.  whether  the  State  aid  rules  at  stake  are  coherent  with  other  EU 
policies/legislation. 

The  Commission  case  practice  shows  that  the  rules  are  coherent  internally.  Notably, 
during  the  assessment  of  the  cases  adopted  under  the  Broadband  Guidelines,  the 
Commission did not find any indications that the rules of the Guidelines and the relevant 
provisions of the GBER would lack coherence with each other or with any other State aid 
rules.  This finding is confirmed by the public consultation. As to internal coherence of 
the rules, 44.82 % of the stakeholders state that the rules on broadband deployment are 
coherent  with  other  State  aid  rules  (while  39.66  %  state  that  this  question  is  not 
applicable or do not provide an answer). Only 3.45 % of the stakeholders think that the 
rules on broadband deployment are not coherent at all with other State aid rules. 

As to the question whether Broadband Guidelines are internally consistent, 51.73% of the 
stakeholders state that the rules are totally or partially consistent (while 32.76 % of the 
respondents state that this question is not applicable or do not provide an answer). Only 
3.45 % of the stakeholders thinks that the Broadband Guidelines are not at all internally 
consistent. 

As to the external coherence of the rules, the analysis shows that the State aid rules on 
broadband  are  to  a  certain  extent  coherent  with  other  EU  policies  and  legislation.  It 
appears  however  that  the  rules  do  not  always  reflect  more  recent  legislative 
developments after their adoption such as the Gigabit Communication, Broadband Cost 
Reduction  Directive  and  the  European  Electronic  Communications  Code.  Only  a  small 
percentage  of  respondents  to  the  public  consultation  (8.62  %,  13.79%  and  10.34% 
respectively) think that the broadband rules are totally coherent with these acts. 

122   Based on replies to question 20 of the General Questionnaire: Are there aspects that the State aid rules 
for  the  deployment  of  broadband  infrastructure  do  not  currently  cover,  for  which  extra  objectives 
could be added? 

78 

 
                                                           
The  adoption  of  the  Gigabit  Communication  and  several  other  policy  acts,  such  as  the 
Next  Generation  EU,  Europe’s  Digital  Future  strategy  and  the  2030  Digital  Compass 
Communication123  introduced  ambitious  targets  for  connectivity  (see  Section  3.1 
‘Rules’).   

The need to align the Broadband Guidelines with other EU policies is also pointed out by 
the  CERRE  Broadband  Report.  The  report  refers  to  significant  changes  to  the  broader 
electronic  communications  regulatory  framework  (the  adoption  of  European  Electronic 
Communications  Code).  The  CERRE  Report  notes  that  it  would  be  surprising  if 
consequential revisions to the Broadband State aid Guidelines were not required in order 
to  maintain  (or  introduce)  consistency  between  the  State  aid  regime  and  the  new 
regulatory  framework.  Moreover,  the  Special  Report  on  Broadband  prepared  by  the 
Court of Auditors invites the Commission to clarify for Member States the application of 
the State aid guidelines with regard to the 100 Mbps and the Gigabit society targets124.  

The WIK report concludes that the Broadband Guidelines are internally coherent as well 
as coherent with more recently adopted measures including the EECC and the Broadband 
Cost  Reduction  Directive.  In  the  event  of  a  revision  of  the  Guidelines,  there  could  be 
scope  to  make  further  reference  to  linkages  with  these  measures  e.g.  in  the  context  of 
mapping and associated BEREC Guidelines as well as the design of remedies.  

There  may  be  a  divergence  between  the  wholesale  access  obligations  under  the 
Broadband  Guidelines  and  those  which  are  applied  under  the  SMP  framework  of  the 
EECC. According to the WIK report, questions over the operational coherence between 
State aid measures and the SMP access regime under the EECC may occur if State aid is 
awarded to  an SMP operator and the access  remedies under State aid  differ from  those 
applied  under  the  SMP  regime.  The  WIK  report  points  out  the  need  for  coherence 
between the application of SMP and State aid remedies, noting that remedies under State 
aid may nonetheless go beyond those applied to an SMP operator. Similarly, the CERRE 
report  also  suggests  that  coherence  between  the  application  of  SMP  and  State  aid 
remedies needs to be ensured.  

Moreover, the WIK report refers to mapping as another area where more coherence could 
be  ensured  between  the  Guidelines  and  the  EECC.  Similarly,  the  CERRE  report 
recommends to update the Guidelines to reflect the provisions of the EECC on mapping 

123   See footnote 5. 

124   The Court of Auditors suggests in this report that, when interpreting the Broadband Guidelines, some 
Member  States  take  the  view  that  public  funding  is  prohibited  when  the  intervention  increases  the 
speed  beyond  30  Mbps  in  black  and  grey  areas.  In  the  Court  of  Auditors’  view,  this  shows  that 
stakeholders need more clarity in this respect. 

79 

 
                                                           
and to explain to Member States how the processes outlined in the EECC (Article 22 in 
particular125) are to interact with the requirements of the Guidelines. 

5.5.  EU ADDED VALUE 

As explained above in Section 2.1 ‘Legal and policy background’, the provisions on State 
aid,  as  part  of  competition  policy,  are  enshrined  in  the  TFEU.  Competition  policy 
represents  an  area  of  exclusive  EU  competence  pursuant  to  Article  3(b)  TFEU  and 
therefore  the  subsidiarity  principle  does  not  apply.  The  rules  covered  by  the  current 
evaluation (Broadband Guidelines and relevant Sections of the GBER) belong to the field 
of State aid law, an area where the TFEU gives the Union exclusive competence. Only 
the EU can/must act in this area.  

In  the  absence  of  the  Broadband  Guidelines  and  the  GBER,  all  planned  State  aid 
measures  would  have  to  be  notified  to  the  Commission  individually  by  Member  States 
and  the  Commission  would  have  to  assess  them  directly  under  Article  107  TFEU  and 
take individual decisions on each of them. The mere existence of such State aid rules thus 
intrinsically reduces administrative burden.  

In  addition,  the  existence  of  the  Broadband  Guidelines  allow  Member  States  and 
potential beneficiaries to know ex-ante the rules that the Commission will use to assess 
the compatibility with the internal market of the aid schemes notified by Member States. 
This guarantees predictability and increases the legal certainty of the system. At the same 
time,  the  GBER  allows  for  implementation  of  schemes  without  notification.  The 
existence  of  State  aid  rules  also  contributes  to  the  convergence  of  State  aid  measure 
across  different  Member  States  and  hence  delivers  on  the  objective  of  a  level  playing 
field.  

In order to evaluate the EU added value, stakeholders were asked whether the Broadband 
Guidelines provided an added value in comparison to a situation without Guidelines and 
GBER,  in  which  case  each  individual  State  aid  measure  would  have  to  be  dealt  with 
separately, directly applying the TFEU). A clear majority of respondents said yes (75.86 
%), fully or at least partially. 

Moreover,  the  WIK  report  also  concludes  that  the  Broadband  Guidelines  make  a 
significant  contribution  to  adding  value  at  EU  level  compared  with  the  actions  of 
individual  national  authorities  and  regulators.  The  WIK  report  emphasises  that  a  key 
benefit  is  that  they  have  promulgated  best  practice  in  the  development  of  tendering 
procedures,  associated  conditions  and  enforcement  of  State  aid,  supporting  increased 
deployment and take-up of NGA and VHC broadband in challenge areas across the EU. 

125   Article  22  of  the  EECC  provides  that  National  regulatory  and/or  other  competent  authorities  shall 
conduct  a  geographical  survey  of  the  reach  of  electronic  communications  networks  capable  of 
delivering broadband by 21 December 2023 and shall update it at least every three years thereafter.  

80 

 
                                                           
6.  CONCLUSIONS 

This evaluation aims at assessing how the Broadband Guidelines and the corresponding 
provisions of the GBER worked in the past. It establishes what has worked well or less 
well,  and  it  compares  actual  performance  to  earlier  expectations  (see  Section  2.2.1  
‘Description  of  the  intervention  and  its  objectives’).  The  evaluation  examines  the 
application of the Broadband Guidelines and the corresponding provisions of the GBER 
against five criteria: effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU added value.  

Overall, the analysis indicates that the State aid  rules for the deployment of broadband 
infrastructure  largely  meet  their  triple  objective  and  hence  are  effective  as  a  State  aid 
architecture.  

The  data  reported  by  the  Member  States  to  the  WIK  report  and  from  the  public 
consultation demonstrate that, compared to the baseline scenario, without the adoption of 
the 2013 Broadband Guidelines the deployment of broadband networks in line with the 
EU connectivity targets would have likely been constrained. The Broadband Guidelines 
fostered  the  alignment  between  concepts  used  for  State  aid  control  purposes  and  their 
practical implementation by national authorities. Furthermore, the Broadband Guidelines 
were largely effective in protecting competition in the sector.  

In particular, Broadband Guidelines and the corresponding provisions of the GBER seem 
to  have  provided  a  clear  framework  that  facilitates  the  deployment  of  broadband 
infrastructures. They cater for various types of projects, the design of which are decided 
by the Member States according to national parameters. At the same time, they provide 
safeguards ensuring that the deployed networks do not crowd out but incentivise private 
investments  and  deliver  the  best  outcome  for  consumers.  The  evaluation  shows  that 
public support for the construction of broadband infrastructure in market failure areas is 
unlikely  to  result  in  crowding  out  of  private  investments  to  any  significant  degree. 
Indeed, when effectively implemented and targeted, State aid can lead to higher levels of 
private investments, as public support unlocks private financing and investment that may 
not otherwise have been available. 

The evaluation shows however that there might still be room for a further adjustment of 
the  scope  and  for  further  improving  the  rules  in  the  broadband  sector  in  order  to  best 
accompany  the  necessary  investments  in  the  coming  years,  especially  following  the 
experience of the pandemic.   

It can be concluded that State aid rules on the deployment of broadband networks seem 
to  have,  to  a  large  extent,  proven  to  be  effective  in  achieving  their  specific  objectives, 
even  though  the  present  evaluation  has  revealed  various  issues  that  may  need  further 
clarification. This for instance concerns the need to take account of the development of 
technologies and of the market as well as the society’s connectivity needs, clarifications 
and  more  guidance  on  how  to  conduct  mapping  and  public  consultation  or  clear  and 
updated rules ensuring that a step change is genuinely achieved.  

81 

 
With  regard  to  efficiency,  the  available  evidence  also  suggests  that  the  rules  on 
broadband  deployment  have  clearly  led  to  a  more  efficient  State  aid  expenditure.  A 
majority of respondents consider that the main principles and concepts of the Broadband 
Guidelines,  such  as  the  market  failure  approach,  clawback,  the  use  of  existing 
infrastructure,  tendering  and  public  consultation,  wholesale  access  requirements,  etc. 
have worked well. Complex and/or large measures with potentially important effects in 
the market are assessed by the Commission to ensure that their distortive effects are kept 
to  the  minimum  and  are  balanced  by  their  positive  effects  in  fulfilling  an  objective  of 
common interest. As regards the GBER, it has been increasingly and successfully used, 
ensuring  that  manifestly  compatible  measures  can  be  implemented  by  Member  States 
without  prior  examination  by  the  Commission.  By  comparison  to  the  2009  Broadband 
Guidelines, the majority of respondents consider that the administrative burden and cost 
has been reduced. Such cost account for 1-2% of allocated aid. Public authorities could 
increase  efficiencies  by  following  more  good  practice  (i.e.  by  exchanging  more 
information among each other). 

in 

As to the relevance of the rules, the evaluation suggests that the objectives of the rules 
on broadband deployment have been to a large extent appropriate for meeting the needs 
within the EU so far. However, they do not seem fully relevant to meet the technological 
developments 
the  electronic  communications  sector  and  connectivity  needs 
accentuated  by  the  Covid-19  pandemic.  The  evaluation  suggests  that  State  aid  rules  do 
not fully reflect more recent EU policy developments and Commission priorities for the 
future,  in  particular  the  updated  EU  connectivity  objectives  but  also  the  Green  Deal 
ambitions.  The  current  and  expected  very  high  speeds  and  significant  qualitative 
characteristics  of  broadband  infrastructure  of  today  are  likely  to  have  an  impact  on  the 
fine  balance  to  be  struck  between  intervening  with  public  funds  in  order  to  provide 
significantly  more  performant  infrastructure  to  end-users  and  protecting  existing  or 
planned investment. As services develop and are broadly used, the need and demand for 
high quality broadband infrastructure will rise, fully in line with EU policy objectives for 
the digital transformation.  

As regards internal coherence, it appears that the various provisions of the Guidelines or 
the  GBER  on  broadband  deployment  are  coherent  among  themselves  and  operate  well 
together to achieve the objectives.  

With  regard  to  external  coherence,  the  analysis  suggests  that  the  State  aid  rules  on 
broadband  deployment  are  to  a  certain  extent  coherent  with  other  EU  policies  and 
legislation. It appears however that the rules do not always reflect more recent legislative 
developments that occurred after their adoption. In particular, the Broadband Guidelines 
do not fully mirror certain provisions of the Gigabit Communication, the Broadband Cost 
Reduction Directive and the European Electronic Communications Code. 

Overall,  the  Broadband  Guidelines  and  corresponding  provisions  of  the  GBER  have  a 
clear  EU  added  value  that  is  acknowledged  by  stakeholders  as  they  reduce 
administrative burden and provide clarity, stability and predictability. 

82 

 
Based  on  the  above,  it  results  that  the  Broadband  Guidelines  need  to  be  adapted  to 
reflect  recent  legislative  developments,  current  priorities,  as  well  as  market  and 
technology developments. The evaluation also indicated room for further clarification of 
the rules. In particular, the following areas could be considered: 

-  The assessment suggests that the current intervention threshold of the Broadband 
Guidelines does not fully reflect Gigabit targets and recent policy developments, 
as well as the increasing importance of other parameters such as upload speeds.  
The intervention threshold identifies the minimum speeds below which networks 
could be overbuild, and is therefore a key instrument to ensure that public money 
is  channelled  to  market  failure  areas,  avoiding  crowding  out  of  private 
investment. 

-  The evaluation has shown that the Broadband Guidelines lack a clear explanation 
as to how to apply the rules to the  deployment of mobile infrastructure. Such 
provisions would increase transparency and legal certainty for stakeholders.  

-  The evidence suggests that the Broadband Guidelines lack a clear explanation of 
the application of rules to demand-side measures such as vouchers. The existence 
of a broadband infrastructure is in some cases not sufficient to ensure the actual 
use  of  broadband  services,  due  to  high  subscription  prices.  Demand-side 
measures  (mainly  vouchers)  together  with  supply-side  measures  constitute  a 
useful tool to bridge the digital divide and help to reach the Gigabit targets.  

-  The  evaluation  has  shown  that  the  current  rules  are  not  sufficiently  clear 
regarding the ‘private extensions’ – i.e. for a situation when an operator uses its 
own  resources  to  connect  to  the  state-funded  infrastructure  to  provide  services 
outside the area for which the original aid was granted. 

-  Evidence indicates that Commission strategic priorities are not sufficiently taken 
into  account,  such  as  the  Green  Deal  to  allow  Member  States,  within  the 
framework of the Broadband Guidelines, to take into account environmental and 
energy consumption considerations when projects are designed.  

-  Evidence suggests that the current rules are not sufficiently up-to-date concerning 
wholesale access obligations. Such obligations ensure open wholesale access to 
the network to competitors, while making sure that such obligation do not unduly 
increase the amount of the aid granted.  

-  The  evaluation  has  shown  that  the  current  rules  are  not  sufficiently  clear  on 
certain  technical  issues  (e.g.  how  to  define  wholesale  prices;  how  to  conduct 
mapping and public consultation; how to take into account the impact of nomadic 
users  when  assessing  the  possibility  for  a  mobile  network  to  provide  NGA 
services). 

83 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

1.  LEAD DG 

European Commission Directorate-General for Competition (DG Competition). 

2.  ORGANISATION AND TIMING 

Organisation 

The Decide reference of this evaluation is PLAN/2020/7735. 

The roadmap126 was published on 16 June 2020. It set out the context, purpose and scope 
of  this  evaluation  exercise,  as  well  as  its  Better  Regulation  aspects  (Consultation  of 
citizens  and  stakeholders,  data  collection  and  methodology).  Stakeholders  had  the 
opportunity to submit their feedback127 concerning this roadmap until 11 August 2020. 

On  8  September  2020  a  press  release128  announced  the  launch  of  a  Public 
Consultation129,  which  was  open  for  reactions  until  5  January  2021.  This  Public 
Consultation  consisted  of  both  a  public  and  a  targeted  questionnaire,  with  the  purpose 
that they would be filled out by the main stakeholders and interested parties. 

An  Inter-Service  Steering  Group  (ISSG)  was  set  up  which  met  for  the  first  time  on  25 
June  2020.  This  ISSG  gathered  representatives  from  the  Commission's  Secretariat 
General  (SG),  the  Legal  Service  (LS),  the  Joint  Research  Centre  (JRC),  and  6 
Directorates-General:  AGRI,  CNECT,  ECFIN,  ENER,  GROW,  REGIO.  The 
Commission  presented  the  evaluation  and  the  roadmap  to  the  ISSG  during  this  first 
meeting. The ISSG members received the draft questionnaires of the Public Consultation 
on  7  July  2020.  Once  the  Commission  had  processed  the  results  of  the  Public 
Consultation it sent the related Factual Summary to the ISSG on 18 February 2021.  

On  7  May  2021  the  ISSG  discussed  the  draft  Staff  Working  Document  concerning  the 
evaluation.  

126 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12398-Evaluation-of-State-
Aid-rules-for-broadband-infrastructure-deployment 

127  This feedback can be found when clicking on the link mentioned in footnote 1. 

128   https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_1576 

129 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12398-Evaluation-of-State-
Aid-rules-for-broadband-infrastructure-deployment/public-consultation 

84 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
3.  EXCEPTIONS TO THE BETTER REGULATION GUIDELINES  

No exceptions were made to the Better Regulation Guidelines130 during this evaluation. 

4.  CONSULTATION OF THE RSB  

Consultation  of the Regulatory Scrutiny  Board (RSB) was not  required  concerning this 
evaluation.  

5.  EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY 

Apart  from  the  Public  Consultation,  the  Commission  used  the  following  sources  to 
collect  information  and  data  on  the  use  and  application  of  the  State  aid  rules  for  the 
deployment of broadband infrastructure.  

Some data were already available at the start of the evaluation exercise. Among them the 

130 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/better-regulation-guidelines-and-toolbox en 

85 

 
 
                                                           
information  resulting  from  the  Commission’s  extensive  case  practice,  consisting  of  the 
assessment of State aide schemes and measures concerning broadband deployment, and 
the  monitoring  of  some  of  those,  as  well  as  the  measures  that  have  until  now  been 
registered under the GBER.  

The  Commission  also  used  data  from  the  State  aid  scoreboard131,  which  comprises  aid 
expenditure made by Member States falling under the scope of Article 107(1) TFEU. 

Information and data were also drawn from the contacts in the context of the European 
Broadband Competence  Offices  (BCO), which provided the Commission  with  valuable 
input  on  whether  and  how  the  Guidelines  and  the  GBER  have  contributed  to  the 
deployment  of  broadband  infrastructure  in  a  way  that  fosters  competition.  The 
Commission  sought  specific  input  from  the  BCO  Network  on  the  Public  Consultation 
questionnaires.  

The  Commission  used  the  data  in  the  Digital  Economy  and  Society  Index132  (DESI,  a 
composite index that summarizes relevant indicators on Europe's digital performance and 
EU Member States’ digital competitiveness). The Commission also used analysis on the 
broadband  markets  provided  by  external  studies,  either  conducted  at  the  request  of  the 
Commission133134 or not135, such as various reports on broadband coverage and prices or 
studies analyzing the role of the different technologies providing broadband services. 

There were regular contacts between the Commission and BEREC, the body of European 
regulators for electronic communications representing at the European level the national 
regulatory authorities, which usually assists the Commission and the national regulatory 
authorities in implementing the EU regulatory framework for electronic communications.  

Throughout the evaluation, the Commission has continued its tradition of maintaining an 
open  door  policy  towards  the  various  stakeholders,  remaining  available  for  informal 
contacts with stakeholders via email, telephone or (currently) video meetings. 

131 

132 

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/scoreboard/index_en.html 

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/connectivity 

133   Study  on  Future  electronic  communications  product  and  service  markets  subject  to  ex-ante 
regulation,  available  here:  https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/study-future-electronic-
communications-product-and-service-markets-subject-ex-ante-regulation. 

134   The role of State Aid for the broadband networks rapid deployment of in the EU, by WIK-Consult: 

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications/reports/kd0420461enn.pdf 

135   https://www.cerre.eu/sites/cerre/files/CERRE_StateAidBroadband_FinalReport_0.pdf 

86 

 
 
 
                                                           
ANNEX 2: SYNOPSIS REPORT 

1.  OUTLINE OF THE CONSULTATION STRATEGY 

for 

the 

The  consultation  strategy  is  described  at  https://ec.europa.eu/competition-policy/public-
consultations/closed-consultations/2020-broadband_en  and  the  roadmap  was  published 
on  a  specific  web  page 
initiative:  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-
regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12398-Evaluation-of-State-Aid-rules-for-broadband-
infrastructure-deployment. The publication of the roadmap involved a consultation on the 
activities scheduled by the roadmap, which gathered 16 feedbacks.  
Another  webpage136  presents  the  consultations  launched  for  the  evaluation  exercise, 
structured  in  two  different  public  consultations:  the  open  public  consultation  and  the 
targeted consultation. 

The open public consultation aims to get an overview of respondents’ views on State aid 
policy  on  the  deployment  of  broadband  infrastructure.  It  is  divided  into  five  parts, 
corresponding  to  the  five  evaluation  criteria  (Effectiveness,  Efficiency,  Relevance, 
Coherence and EU added value). 

The targeted consultation aims to gather a detailed response on specific rules pertaining 
to  State aid  policy on the deployment of broadband infrastructure.  It  is  divided into 18 
sections, each pertaining to a different topic of the evaluation exercise.  

a.  Stakeholders 

The  main  stakeholders  identified  were  the  Member  States,  businesses  involved  in  the 
broadband sector, and their associations: 

  National, regional and local competent authorities involved in the granting of aid 

and in the deployment of broadband (high interest); 

  Businesses and SMEs, in particular industries specialising in telecommunications, 

broadband deployment and the manufacturing of equipment (high interest); 
  Trade associations and interest groups representing businesses (high interest). 

Anyone  else  interested  in  the  consultation  was  however  able  to  contribute  to  both  the 
open public and the targeted consultations. 

b.  Methods of engagement 

The  consultation  strategy  used  the  following  methods  to  involve  and  interact  with 
stakeholders:  

  Open  public  consultation  (16  weeks)  through  a  consultation  that  was  made 
the  European  Commission’s  public  consultation  portal: 

available  via 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/consultations_en  

  Targeted  consultation  (16  weeks)  addressed  to  stakeholders  that  are  directly 
impacted by the rules, for example Member States, regional or local authorities, 
or  businesses,  made  available  via  DG  Competition’s  consultation  website: 
https://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/open.html  

136   https://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2020_broadband/index_en.html 

87 

 
 
                                                           
 

 Exchanges at the request of individual Member State authorities, the association 
of  NRAs  (BEREC)  and  stakeholders  took  place  between  September  and 
December 2020. 

  The Commission also had interactions with the Committee of Regions. 

All consultation activities have been promoted via DG Competition’s “State Aid Weekly 
e-News”  Newsletter  and  the  DG  Competition’s  Twitter  account.  In  addition,  the 
Commission informed the European Parliament and the Committee of the Regions of the 
launch of the consultation activities on 08/09/2020. 

Table 1: Overview on consultation activities by stakeholder group and timing 

Consultation 
activity 

Timing 

Feedback on 
the 
Evaluation 
Roadmap 
16/06/2020- 
11/08/2020 

Open public 
consultation 

Targeted 
consultation 

Consultation 
by external 
consultant 

08/09/2020-
05/01/2021 

08/09/2020-
05/01/2021 

Meetings 
with 
interested 
parties 

July-
December 
2020 

Targeted 
stakeholders: 
Member States 
authorities  
Businesses 

Business 
associations 
NGOs/ Interest 
groups 

Others 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

2.  METHODOLOGY AND TOOLS USED TO PROCESS THE DATA 

The evaluation will use data provided by stakeholders, statistical information and internal 
analyses  by  the  Commission  as  well  as  any  relevant  completed  or  ongoing  study.  In 
particular, in its internal analysis, the Commission will use, in addition to the results of 
the  open  public  consultation  and  the  targeted  consultation:  data  collected  in  the 
monitoring and reporting exercises and from the Transparency Award Module (TAM);137 
experience from its extensive case practice;138 internal statistics; scoreboard data;139 and 
information received via the network of Broadband Competence Offices.140  

137   Available online at: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/competition/transparency/public?lang=en  

138   Notably including both authorised and block-exempted cases. Data on case practice is available online 

at: https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm?clear=1&policy_area_id=3  

139   Available online at: https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/scoreboard/index_en.html  

140  Available  online  at:  https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/broadband-competence-offices-

network  

88 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The  Commission's  internal  analysis  will  be  complemented  by  the  external  studies, 
including the study commissioned in 2019, aiming at the collection of information on the 
implementation  and  outcome  of  broadband  State  aid  interventions.  The  report  of  the 
study has been published in parallel to the public consultation.141  

3.  THE RESULTS OF THE STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS 

This section contains an overview of opinions and evidence collected from the different 
categories of stakeholders during the public consultation activities. It must be noted that, 
regarding  both  the  open  public  and  the  targeted  consultation,  respondents  were 
prevalently  private  businesses  and  business  associations,  although  Member  States’ 
authorities  are  well  represented  (24  out  of  58  respondents  for  the  open  public 
consultation  and  25  out  of  54  respondents  for  the  targeted  consultation).  The  public 
consultation  thus  accurately  describes  the  opinions  of  both  the  private  and  the  public 
sector.  Furthermore,  the  results  of  the  targeted  consultation  were  analysed  using  cross-
sectional  data according  to  the category of respondents,  which ensures a  more accurate 
representation of the different views. Finally, as regards the publication of the results of 
the consultations, 21 contributions to the open public consultation and 10 contributions to 
the targeted consultation were not published for confidentiality reasons. 

a.  The open public consultation  

The  open  public  consultation  was  composed  of  24  closed  questions  and  26  open 
questions.  The  consultation  was  made  available  to  stakeholders  from  08/09/2020  to 
05/01/2021  on  the  “Better  Regulation  Portal”  in  23  EU  official  languages  (all  except 
Gaelic). The Commission received 58 replies142, of which 47% accounted for industrial 
stakeholders  (businesses  and  business  associations)  and  41%  accounted  for  public 
administrations.143 In total, the open public consultation received 63 replies of which 58 
through  the  EU  survey  online  tool  (27  from  businesses  and  business  associations,  24 
from  public  authorities,  2  from  individuals  and  1  from  other  respondents  and  4  from 
‘others’) and five position papers which were sent outside the online tool.  

141   Available here: https://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications/reports/kd0420461enn.pdf 

142   58 contributions were sent through the EU Survey Portal and 5 additional ones were received by the 
Commission outside the portal due to technical issues encountered by the respondents. The replies of 
contributions  that  were  not  submitted  via  the  online  consultation  are  not  included  in  the  statistical 
report of the consultation. 

143  In  addition,  respondents  included  two  EU  citizens,  one  National  Regulatory  Authority,  and  one 

academic and research institution. 

89 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 1: Profile of respondents 

Figure 2: Organisation size of respondents 

The  geographical  representation  of  the  respondents  was  rather  balanced,  roughly 
following the population distribution across Member States, and included 4 stakeholders 
from non-EU countries (China, UK and US). 

Figure 3: Country of origin of respondents 

90 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4: Services provided by respondents 

As  regards  what  services  the  respondent  provides,  1  provides  only  retail  services,  7 
provide only wholesale services and 21 provide both retail and wholesale services, while 
29 respondents did not answer the question (figure 4). 

The most common technologies used by the respondents  are optical  fibre technologies, 
among which FTTH (30), FTTB (21) and FTTH (21), followed by 4G/LTE (16), ADSL 
(15),  VDSL  (14)  and  FWA  (13).  5G  is  used  by  10  respondents,  while  20  chose  not  to 
answer the question. See Figure 5 for details. 

Figure 5: Technologies used by respondent companies 

For  MS  which  display  more  than  one  reply,  these  generally  originate  from  regional 
authorities  or  business  associations.  In  the  case  of  Belgium,  also  multinational 
associations. 

The  aim  of  the  consultation  was  to  gather  feedback  and  experiences  on  the 
implementation of the State aid rules related to broadband deployment, as well as views 
on how to improve the rules.  

91 

 
 
 
 
The  open  public  consultation  was  divided  into  5  evaluation  categories:  Effectiveness, 
Efficiency, Relevance, Coherence and EU added value. 

Under Effectiveness, 62% of respondents expressed either a very good or good judgment 
as regards the assessment of State aid policy in general, and scores on the three different 
objectives  listed144  were  generally  positive  and  consistent  between  the  Broadband 
Guidelines and the GBER.  

Figure 6: Question - What is your assessment of state aid policy on broadband 
infrastructure deployment in general? 

The  most  common  barriers  to  the  deployment  of  broadband  infrastructure  mentioned 
were  “Administration  related  to  national  procedures”  and  “Rights  of  way”,  thus 
concerning the phase of implementation of projects by Member States. Transparency and 
access to information show very high rates of approval in terms of both substantial and 
procedural  aspects.  Finally,  75%  of  opinions  expressed  state  that  State  aid  rules  have 
delivered better results with the entry into force of the Broadband Guidelines 2013 and 
the GBER compared to the previous guidelines. 

On most questions regarding Efficiency, a relative majority of respondents chose not to 
answer questions or declared them not applicable, making the sample less representative. 
Among  those  who  did  answer,  however,  it  can  be  pointed  out  that  the  results  are  less 
positive than under “Effectiveness”. While 86% of opinions expressed state that State aid 
rules  for  the  deployment  of  broadband  infrastructure  totally  or  partially  led  to  a  more 
efficient State expenditure, 40% find that the 2013 Broadband Guidelines did not at all 
reduce  the  administrative  burden.  The  opposite  is  true  for  the  GBER  since  42%  of 
expressed  opinions  state  that  it  totally  reduced  the  administrative  burden.  Respondents 
also  indicate  that  the  2013  Broadband  Guidelines  and  the  GBER  had  no,  or  a  very 
moderate,  positive  impact  on  the  cost  of  applying  the  rules,  as  compared  to  their 
predecessors. 

144  Objective  1:  supporting  the  rapid  deployment  of  broadband  infrastructure,  helping  reduce  the  ‘digital 
divide’, Objective 2: Limiting distortion of competition, Objective 3: Transparent decision making. 

92 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 7: Question - Based on your experience, to what extent have the requirements set 
by the state aid rules for the deployment of broadband infrastructure led to more efficient 
State expenditure (timely and less costly intervention) than in 2009-13, when support in 
this sector was regulated only by the 2009 Broadband Guidelines? 

Replies regarding Relevance exhibit a clear trend: initial objectives, which were already 
considered while drafting the 2013 Broadband Guidelines and the GBER, achieve higher 
ratings than new challenges.145 

Figure 8: Question - How well do the objectives of State aid rules for Broadband 
deployment meet the following needs? 

3 (1) Current EU Priorities

3 (2) Better internet for households

15 

17 

3 (3) Better internet for Socioeconomic drivers

20 

3 (4) Uninterrupted 5G coverage (urban
areas/transport)

12 

3 (5) Connectivity needs revealed by the COVID-19
crisis
3 (6) Ongoing technological developments in telco
sector

7 

7 

3 (7) Ongoing market developments in telco sector

5 

23 

33 

33 

35 

29 

7 

2 

5 

28 

25 

11 

11 

2 

2 

15 

5 

3 

12 

12 

3 

3 

3 

3 

13 

3 

2 

Totally

Partially

0%
Not at all

25%
Not applicable

50%
No Answer

75%

100%

Concerning  Coherence,  most  respondents  find  that  State  aid  rules  for  broadband 
deployment are at least partially consistent with EU policy on electronic communication. 
Internal consistency in the Broadband Guidelines and in the GBER, as well as between 
the Broadband Guidelines and the GBER, is overall confirmed by the respondents.146 

145  Namely,  “Connectivity  needs  revealed  by  the  COVID-19  crisis”  and  “Ongoing  technological/market 

developments in the telecommunication sector”. 

146  77% of opinions expressed support for “Total” or “Partial” internal consistency regarding the BB GL, 
while 78% of opinions expressed support for “Total” or “Partial” consistency between the GBER  and 
the BB GL. 

93 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure  9:  Question  -  To  what  extent  are  the  State  aid  rules  for  the  deployment  of 
broadband  infrastructure  consistent  with  EU  policy  on  electronic  communications,  in 
particular the following acts: 

Figure 10: Question - To what extent are the rules in the General Block Exemption 
Regulation consistent with the following acts: 

Finally,  on  EU  added  value,  91%  of  the  opinions147  coming  from  all  categories  of 
stakeholders  sustained  the  added  value  of  State  aid  rules  for  broadband  deployment, 
including the  Broadband Guidelines and the GBER,  as opposed to  a situation in  which 
only the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union had to be applied. 

147  Amounting  to  76%  of  all  replies,  if  the  categories  “No  Answer”  and  “Not  applicable/no  relevant 

experience or knowledge” are to be included. 

94 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 11: Question - Have the state aid rules subject to the current evaluation provided 
an added value in comparison to a situation without Guidelines and General Block 
Exemption Regulation, in which case each individual state aid measure would have to be 
dealt with separately, directly applying the TFEU)? 

b.  The targeted public consultation 

On 08/09/2020 (until 05/01/2021), the Commission launched the targeted consultation. It 
received 54 replies148through the EU survey online tool, from 24 public authorities (44%) 
and  25  businesses  and  business  associations  (45%).  In  total,  the  targeted  public 
consultation received 59 replies: 25 from businesses and business associations, 24 from 
public authorities, 1 from individuals, 4 from other respondents, and five position papers 
which were sent  outside the online tool. The number of position papers  attached to  the 
consultation was 5. 

Other; 
6; 
11% 

Business; 15; 
27% 

All public 
authorities, 
[VALUE], 
44% 

National 
authorities,[VALU
E], 29% 

[CATEGORY 
NAME], [VALUE], 
11% 

Local authorities; 
2; 4% 

Business association Business

Other

Public authorities

National authorities

Regional authorities

Local authorities

Business 
association; 
10; 18% 

148  Two  contributions  were  submitted  outside  the  EU  survey  platform.  The  replies  of  contributions  that 
were  not  submitted  via  the  online  consultation  are  not  included  in  the  statistical  report  of  the 
consultation. 

95 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
The target group was composed of public administrations at local, regional and national 
level, businesses, business associations, and academic and research institutions. The aim 
of  this  consultation  was  to  gather  information  on  specific  points  of  the  Broadband 
Guidelines  and  the  GBER,  with  a  view  to  possible  amendments  of  these.  The  targeted 
consultation was composed of 148 closed questions complemented by a total of 164 open 
questions and free-text answer boxes. It was published in English, French and German on 
the Commission’s website, via the EU Survey platform. 

The  questions  were  divided  in  18  sections,  according  to  the  topic  inquired.  This 
document focuses on the most relevant ones.  

 As regards Section 1, dealing with Services of General Economic Interest (SGEI), 79% 
of  the  expressed  opinions  agree  that  the  Broadband  Guidelines  provide  clear  guidance, 
while  66%  agree  that  the  conditions  they  require  to  declare  a  measure  as  an  SGEI  are 
adequate. 

In  Section  2,  on  Additional  measures  supporting  broadband  rollout,  about  half  of  the 
respondents  confirmed  that  demand-side  measures  have  been  implemented  in  their 
country,  and  of  those  78%  expressed  the  view  that  the  Broadband  Guidelines  do  not 
provide  sufficient  guidance  on  such  measures.  As  for  the  alternative,  no-aid  measures, 
the  most  common  ones  were  measures  covered  by  the  Broadband  Cost  Reduction 
Directive149, adopted by 50% of respondents, followed by ex ante regulation (33%) and 
other150  (24%).  Such  alternative  measures  were  deemed  effective  by  73%  of  expressed 
opinions, with a peak of 91% for Telecommunication operators. 

With  respect  to  Section  3,  inquiring  about  the  role  of  National  Regulatory  Authorities 
(NRA),  a  large  share  of  expressed  opinions  considered  that  State  aid  rules  for  the 
deployment of broadband infrastructure favoured the NRA involvement only partially or 
were neutral about it. This share represents 66% of the expressed opinion concerning the 
design of aid measures, and 80% concerning  monitoring the implementation of State aid 
measures.  

In Section 4, concerning Next Generation Access (NGA) Networks, 12% of the opinions 
state  that  the  definition  of  NGA  is  totally  still  valid  in  light  of  the  Gigabit  and  5G 
connectivity objectives, while 54% deem it partially and 26% not at all so. Opinions are 
the most negative among Member States’ authorities (not at all: 45%). As for the concept 
of ’substantially higher upload speed’, a relative majority of respondents think that this 
concept is not clear (42%), while 61% argue that it should have been further clarified.  

Opinions  in  Section  5,  concerning  the  distinction  between  white,  grey  and  black  areas, 
are  very  favourable  to  the  said  distinction,  with  96%  of  them  stating  that  it  is  totally 
(54%) or partially (38%) useful for identifying areas most in need of State aid. Moreover, 
73%  of  judgments  agree  that  additional  network  categories  would  totally  (51%)  or 
partially (22%) facilitate the design and assessment of State aid measures, with 62% of 
total support among the Telecommunication operators. 

149 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  Text  with  EEA 
relevance OJ L 155, 23.5.2014, p. 1–14 

150 Such as spectrum rights of use. 

96 

 
                                                           
Section  6  deals  with  mapping.  Most  opinions  either  totally  (25%)  or  partially  (65%) 
agree that State aid  rules on mapping allow the efficient  identification of areas most in 
need  of  State  aid  support.  Stakeholders  ask  for  more  guidance  on  mapping  exercises: 
73%  of  opinions  agree  that  more  guidance  would  have  been  necessary,  with  90%  for 
telecommunication operators. Most opinions (65%) also find that it is appropriate to use 
different criteria for existing and planned infrastructure, with 82% for telecommunication 
operators. Opinions are mixed regarding the possibility of adjusting mapping granularity 
in  proportion  to  the  timeframe  for  deploying  the  network:  55%  agree  while  45% 
disagree, a share that is consistent across all categories of respondents. The same split is 
also  found  regarding  the  clarity  of  the  distinction  between  fixed  networks  and  mobile 
networks in the mapping requirements (50% agree that it was adequately clear while 50% 
disagree),  while  it  is  worse  for  wireless  networks  (33%  agree  while  67%  disagree). 
Finally, according to 74% of the opinions, State aid rules should have defined mobile and 
fixed networks as belonging to different markets. 

In Section 7, concerning public consultations, according to most opinions, State aid rules 
for  the  deployment  of  broadband  infrastructure  totally  (28%)  or  partially  (53%)  helped 
efficiently  identify  areas  in  most  need  of  State  aid.  However,  70%  of  opinions  also 
express the need for more guidance. As regards the concepts of premises passed versus 
premises  connected,  most  respondents  (81%  of  substantive  opinions151)  agree  that  the 
requirement is clear, but also that more guidance could have been given (85%). Opinions 
show some criticism about credible private investments: according to 65% of the sample, 
the rules do not enable to efficiently identify these, while according to 58% the rules do 
not  provide  enough  guidance.  As  regards  the  3-year  timeframe,  the  overwhelming 
majority  of  respondents  agree  that  it  is  adequate  (93%),  and  totally  or  partially  valid 
(72%). 

The  issue  of  step  change,  to  which  Section  8  is  dedicated,  received  positive  feedback. 
69% of substantive opinions deem the concept clear, while 78% maintain that the related 
rules totally (32%) or partially (46%) helped ensure that the public investment delivers an 
improvement.  Finally,  most  respondents  disagree  that  a  network  upgrade  consisting  in 
only active components should be regarded as a sufficient step change. 

Competitive selection procedures, enquired about in Section 9, also gathered praise, with 
very  few  negative  opinions  reported.  They  are  deemed  either  totally  (35%)  or  partially 
(37%) efficient for the purpose of achieving value for money by 72% of the substantive 
opinions, and the conditions totally (35%) or partially (45%) on whether they ensure an 
optimal outcome. Cross-border relevance is very limited: no granting authority received 
bids from an operator based in another country, and only one stakeholder participated in 
a  competitive  selection  procedure  in  another  country.  Finally,  there  is  some  criticism 
about State aid rules for the deployment of broadband infrastructure: 30% of substantive 
opinions,  and  47%  of  stakeholders,  argue  that  they  favoured  one  particular  type  of 
operator which disproportionately wins bids. 

Section 10 deals with the technological neutrality principle: 56% of substantive opinions 
state that it did not prevent distortions of competition, while telecommunication operators 
are  in  contrast  with  the  general  results  (63%  favourable).  Its  application  in  selection 
procedures,  however,  is  widely  regarded  as  non-problematic  (65%  of  substantive 

151 ‘yes’ or ‘no’. 

97 

 
                                                           
opinions) by all groups except for national authorities (45% deem it problematic). As for 
the  trade-off  between  greater  competition  and  higher  cost  of  providing  and  managing 
networks in network architectures, most respondents (72% of substantive opinions) agree 
that  in  either  all  or  most  cases,  the  benefits  of  more  pro-competitive  architectures 
outweigh the costs, a view that is consistent across all groups of stakeholders. 

In  Section  11,  concerning  the  use  of  existing  infrastructure,  opinions  are  more  mixed. 
Effectiveness  of  the  rules  in  general  gathers  26%  of  completely  negative  (not  at  all) 
answers  as  opposed  to  32%  of  completely  positive  (totally)  answers.  The  relevance  of 
national database on the availability of existing infrastructures is considered much more 
favourably (89% of positive answers among substantive opinions, with 61% totally and 
28% partially).  

Section 12 enquires about wholesale access obligations, finding that, as regards all access 
products, 79% of the substantive opinions are favourable to their provision as a means to 
compensate  for  the  advantage  of  the  aid  beneficiary.  Telecommunication  operators  (a 
group which includes both aid beneficiaries and their competitors) show a lesser degree 
of contentment, only reaching 62%. In addition, 73% of substantive opinions find that the 
costs of providing all access products are proportionate to the benefits related in terms of 
encouraging  competition.  On  the  other  hand,  according  to  39%  of  opinions,  the 
obligation  to  provide  all  access  products  has  prevented  the  deployment  of  certain 
network solutions. 

About wholesale pricing, to which Section 13 is dedicated, the Broadband guidelines are 
deemed  clear  (81%  of  substantive  opinions),  their  guidance  sufficient  (83%)  and  the 
requirements appropriate, with a total of 68% for totally (32%) or partially (36%). NRA 
involvement in setting wholesale access prices, preserving a level playing field, gathers 
no negative feedback, with the lowest vote being neutral (3%) and the rest being either 
totally (26%) or partially (61%) positive opinions. 

Clawback  rules,  the  subject  of  Section  14,  are  widely  appreciated:  they  are  considered 
clear  (93%  of  substantive  opinions),  adequate  (89%)  and  sufficient  to  prevent 
overcompensation (90%), and the majority (80%) maintains that no clawback clauses are 
more suitable than other in preventing overcompensation. 

Section 15, dealing with monitoring, also gathers positive feedback: monitoring rules are 
clear (88%) and the guidance is sufficient (70%). As for Section 16, the rules regarding 
the  obligation  to  publish  information  on  aid  measures  on  a  centralised  website  are 
considered to provide sufficient transparency (79%), while reporting, in Section 17, did 
not create an excessive burden (96%). 

Section  18  concerns  the  forms  of  intervention.  80%  of  opinions  state  that  forms  of 
intervention  totally  (60%)  or  partially  (20%)  affected  the  cost  and  take-up  associated 
with  a  State  aid  measure.  The  Broadband  Guidelines  propose  different  forms  of 
intervention, and on the question which model respondents consider to have an adverse 
effect on competition, a majority of the respondents do not find that any  of the models 
has an adverse effect on competition or express no view, whereas the views of those who 
do find that a specific model had such adverse effects are very scattered. 

98 

 
4.  CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED OUTSIDE THE FORMAL CONSULTATION CONTEXT 
The Commission  services have had  contacts  with  stakeholders during the period of the 
evaluation  (2020-2021).  In  particular,  the  Commission  met  with  Member  States’ 
representatives in the Broadband Competence Office (BCO) network, BEREC (Body of 
European  Regulators  for  Electronic  Communications),  and  the  Council  of  European 
Municipalities and Regions. 

5.  USE OF THE INFORMATION GATHERED  

The  results  of  the  open  public  and  targeted  consultations  allowed  the  Commission  to 
collect a very significant number of views and opinions on the initiative. This may not be 
representative  at  statistical  level,  due  to  the  relatively  small  number  of  answers  from 
some  categories  of  stakeholders,  but  it  is  significant  in  terms  of  quality.  The  public 
consultation  attracted  in  total  115  replies,  which  is  a  small  number  compared  to  the 
reference population of companies and public authorities potentially affected by the State 
aid rules. In addition, it cannot be excluded that some stakeholders answered selectively 
to  the  consultation  due  to  their  interests  or  connections,  and  thus  do  not  represent  a 
representative  sample  of  the  whole  population  of  stakeholders.  The  Commission  takes 
these limitations into account when analysing the results of the public consultations and 
always attempts to mitigate its impact by triangulating with other data sources described 
above. 

The  Commission  collected  a  large  quantity  of  data  to  be  used  for  assessing  impact  of 
possible policy options from different categories of stakeholders. Before the public and 
targeted  consultations  an  external  consultant  carried  out  a  qualitative  assessment  of  the 
guidelines,  and  the  now  collected  data  was  compared  against  the  consultant’s  report  in 
order  to  identify  contradictory  or  supportive  statements  and  evidence  to  reach  the 
conclusions in the final assessment. 

Overall, the results of the consultation activities confirmed the problem definition, even 
if  different  categories  of  stakeholders  sometimes  disagree  on  which  specific  objective 
should prevail in the ranking of the options. All widely supported views were considered 
in the final report, with less widely supported views identified as such. 

99 

 
 
ANNEX 3: OVERVIEW OF THE STATE AID RULES FOR BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT TO THE EVALUATION 

State Aid rules under 
Fitness Check 

Entry into 
force 

EU Guidelines for the 
application of State aid rules 
in relation to the rapid 
deployment of broadband 
networks 

27 January 
2013 

Expiry/ 
Review 
clause 
No  

Part of 
SAM152 

No 

OJ reference 

Preceded by 

Objective 

OJ C 25, 26.1.2013, p. 1  Community Guidelines for the 
application of State aid rules in 
relation to rapid deployment of 
broadband networks (OJ C 235, 
p. 7) 

To  facilitate  State  aid  control  in  the  broadband 
sector  by  ensuring  that  State  aid  measures  will 
result  in  a  higher  level,  or  a  faster  rate,  of 
broadband  coverage  and  penetration  than  would 
be  the  case  without  State  aid,  while  supporting 
higher quality,  more affordable services and pro-
competitive environment.  

Yes 

Yes 

OJ  L  187  26.6.2014,  p. 
and  OJ  L  156, 
1 
20.6.2017, 
1-18 
p. 
Prolonged  and  targeted 
COVID  adjustments  by 
OJ  L  215,  7.7.2020,  p. 
3- 

Regulation (EU) No 800/2008 
(OJ L 214, 09.08.2008, p.8) 

To declare specific categories of State aids (see 
Art. 1 GBER) compatible with the TFEU and 
exempt them from the requirement of prior 
notification and Commission approval. 

10 July 
2017 

Commission 
Regulation 
(EU)  No  651/2014  of  17 
June  2014  declaring  certain 
categories  of  aid  compatible 
with  the  internal  market  in 
application  of  Articles  107 
and  108  of  the  Treaty  (as 
amended by the Commission 
Regulation  No.  2017/1084) 
(GBER) 

152   State aid modernisation initiative.  

100 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
ANNEX 4: OVERVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STATE AID RULES FOR 
BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 

The  statistics  (State  aid  Scoreboard,  Transparency  Award  Module)  and  the  internal 
analysis of the case practice show an increasing volume of compatible aid granted in the 
period 2013-2020 in the broadband sector. Since 2013, the Commission has adopted 62 
decisions,  approving  Member  State  plans  to  roll-out  broadband  networks,  and  Member 
States  have  communicated  171  schemes  or  amendments  of  those  schemes  under  the 
GBER.  The  most  prolific  Member  States  have  been  Germany  (53  aid  measures 
communicated to the Commission), Spain (35 aid measures), Austria (23 aid measures), 
the United Kingdom (19 aid measures) and the Netherlands (18 aid measures).  

In  the  period  2014-2020,  DG  Competition  has  monitored  24  schemes,  out  of  which  7 
were measures under GBER. 

Up to 2020, nine evaluation plans have been approved either because of the large budget 
involved or because they  contained  elements  of  novelty. One scheme under GBER  has 
been subject to the evaluation requirement, in Poland. 

Table 5. Number of Commission decisions approving a broadband aid measure (2013-
2020), the overall allocated budget and overall expenditure (2014-2019) 

Total number of Commission decisions 
approving a broadband aid measure 
62 

Allocated budget (millions 
EUR) 
42 755.8 

Expenditure (million EUR) 

5 934.6 

Table 6. Number of broadband aid measures put under GBER (2014-2020), the overall 
allocated budget and overall expenditure (2014-2019) 

Total number GBER measures 

171 

Allocated budget (millions 
EUR) 
19 991.08 

Expenditure (million EUR) 

1 817.3 

Table 7. Aid measures approved by Commission decision (2013-2020) and under GBER 
(2014-2020) per Member States 

 Member State 
Austria 

Non-
GBER 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czechia 

Denmark 

Estonia 

7 

0 

1 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

GBER 

Total 

16 

23 

2 

1 

2 

0 

3 

8 

2 

2 

0 

0 

0 

3 

8 

2 

101 

 
 
 
 
 
Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

United Kingdom 

Total 

3 

1 

17 

5 

0 

2 

6 

0 

3 

1 

6 

1 

1 

0 

0 

2 

1 

3 

62 

2 

2 

36 

0 

8 

1 

9 

0 

1 

17 

2 

0 

1 

0 

1 

33 

11 

16 

171 

5 

3 

53 

5 

8 

3 

15 

0 

4 

18 

8 

1 

2 

0 

1 

35 

12 

19 

233 

Table 8. Approved budget per aid measures approved by Commission decision (2013-
2020) and under GBER (2014-2020) per Member States 

Member State 

Aid measures approved 
by Commission 
decisions (in million 
EUR) 

Aid measure under 
GBER (in million 
EUR) 

Total (in million 
EUR) 

Austria 

Belgium 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czechia 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

2 767.73  5 078.73 

181.82  181.82 

0  355.49 

0  0 

464.19  464.19 

108,37  108,37 

39,32  39,32 

630  879.5 

783.25  13 783.25 

5 736.92  24 449.52 

0  581.08 

904.23  904.23 

1 448.77  4058.83 

266.28  3 458.15 

0  0 

0.39  121.39 

453.61  491.61 

1 024.44  1 024.44 

0  106.2 

63.83  147.83 

2 311 

0 

355.49 

0 

0 

0 

0 

249.5 

13 000 

1 8712.6 

581.08 

0 

2 610.06 

3 191.87 

0 

121 

38 

0 

106.2 

84 

102 

 
 
Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

United Kingdom 

Total 

0 

0 

760 

0 

635 

0  0 

97.66  97.66 

1 327.15  2 087.15 

2391.97  2 391.97 

1 301.15  1 936.15 

42 755.8 

19 991.08  62 746.88 

Table 5. Total amount of aid expenditure reported by Member States (2014-2019) 

Austria 

Germany 

Spain 

200.56 

1438.31 

370.52 

United Kingdom 

1720.33 

Ireland 

Italy 

Lithuania 

Sweden 

Estonia 

Finland 

Slovenia 

Poland 

Lativa 

Bulgaria 

Greece 

Portugal 

Denmark 

Netherlands 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Hungary 

France 

Total 

9.57 

1063.08 

33.77 

264.31 

0 

98.39 

0 

1131.42 

29.79 

18.93 

145.12 

13.7 

26.22 

53.52 

62.9 

12.14 

181.79 

877.46 

7 751.8 

Table 6. Number of annual broadband measures approved by a Commission decision and 
put under GBER per year (2013-2020) 

Procedure 
Non GBER 

GBER 

2013 
13 

0 

2014 
9 

17 

2015 
8 

28 

2016 
4 

23 

2017 
5 

23 

2018 
8 

30 

2019 
7 

21 

2020 
8 

29 

Total 
62 

171 

Table 7. Broadband measures annual expenditure per year (in million of euros) 

Procedure 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

Total 

% of 
total 

Non-GBER 

GBER 

693.2 

16.83 

1 301.39 

27.83 

680.98 

249.76 

536.18 

592.92 

944.49 

657.61 

1 778.35 

5 934.59  77 

272.3 

1 817.25  23 

103 

 
 
 
 
Table 8. Evaluation, monitoring and transparency   

Total number of measures 
subject to evaluation 
9 

Total number of measures 
subject to monitoring 
24 

Total number of individual aid 
beneficiaries published in TAM 
323 (1383 TAM entries) 

104