COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Accompanying the document Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on measures to reduce the cost of deploying gigabit electronic communications networks and repealing Directive 2014/61/EU (Gigabit Infrastructure Act)
Date: 2023-02-23
Institutions: Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, European Commission
Subjects: Internet, engineering structure, information technology, investment cost, regulation of telecommunications, telecommunications equipment, telecommunications industry, trans-European network, transmission network

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 23.2.2023  SWD(2023) 47 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT  Accompanying the document Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on measures to reduce the cost of deploying gigabit electronic communications networks and repealing Directive 2014/61/EU (Gigabit Infrastructure Act) {COM(2023) 94 final} - {SEC(2023) 96 final} - {SWD(2023) 46 final}  
 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SHEET 
Impact assessment on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of 
the Council on measures to reduce the cost of deploying gigabit electronic 
communications networks and repealing Directive 2014/61/EU (Gigabit Infrastructure 
Act) resulting from the review of Directive 2014/61/EU of the European Parliament and 
of the Council of 15 May 2014 on measures to reduce the cost of deploying high-speed 
electronic communications networks 
A.  Need for action 
What is the problem and why is it a problem at EU level? 
Full coverage of very high capacity networks (VHCNs), including both fibre and 5G rollout, 
in  all  Member  States  faces  two  challenges:  the  high  network  deployment  costs  and  the 
continued slow deployment of networks. However, demand from households and businesses 
for fast and ubiquitous high-quality connectivity  has been increasing rapidly across the EU, 
strengthened  by  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  The  2014  Broadband  Cost  Reduction  Directive 
(the  Directive)  has  not  been  fully  effective  in  reducing  the  costs  of  deploying  broadband 
networks.  This  is  mainly  because  the  flexibility  given  to  Member  States  not  to  implement 
certain  measures or to  apply  exemptions  has  resulted in  inconsistent  implementation  across 
the EU and a diverse interpretation of certain provisions through national dispute resolution 
and  guidelines.  Moreover,  the  ambition  and  scope  of  the  Directive  does  not  fit  market  and 
technological developments anymore.  
What should be achieved? 
The  main  aim  is  to  contribute  to  achieving  the  2030  Digital  Decade  Gigabit  connectivity 
targets set in the digital decade policy programme, thus contributing to a better functioning of 
the internal market. To increase coverage and facilitate deploying fixed and wireless/mobile 
VHCN  in  the  EU,  the  objective  is  to  reduce  costs  and  accelerate  VHCN  deployment  by 
optimising the deployment and reuse of physical infrastructure and by drawing up consistent, 
streamlined and digitalised administrative procedures for network deployment across the EU. 
What is the value added of action at the EU level (subsidiarity)? 
The  experience  gained  with  implementing  the  Directive  has  demonstrated  that  EU' 
connectivity targets cannot be achieved by Member States alone within a reasonable time and 
with  the  most  efficient  use  of  private  and  public  investment’.  The  measures  that  Member 
States have adopted so far differ greatly, sometimes even between regions or municipalities. 
This  patchwork  of  rules  prevents  economies  of  scale  for  operators  and  creates  barriers  to 
cross-border  investment.  This  affects  the  proper  functioning  of  the  internal  market,  in 
particular  for  inherent  cross-border  applications  such  as  connected  and  autonomous  driving 
that need widespread availability of VHCN. The problems encountered are common to most, 
if not all, Member States. 
B.  Solutions 
What are the various options to achieve the objectives? Is there a preferred option or 
not? If not, why? 
Four policy options have been considered and assessed.  

  Option 1 would only make a minimal update to the instrument in particular, its scope 
would  focus  on  more  advanced  networks,  and  certain  provisions  would  be 
strengthened and clarified.  

  Option 2 includes what is proposed in Option 1; it would also  extend the access (and 
related transparency) obligations to public non-network physical infrastructure assets, 
provide  for  certain  exemptions  on  VHCN  assets/deployments  to  address  investment 
improve  permit-granting 
incentive  problems,  and 
procedures.  

include  new  measures 

to 

1 

 
 
  Option 3 would build on Option 2 (except the VHCN exemptions) and lay down new 
rules  and  provide  for  EU-level  guidance  to  clarify  access  to  physical  infrastructure 
(including  in-building)  and  civil  works  coordination.  It  would  also  extend  the 
to  private  network  operators  and  require 
proactive 
digitalising information provided through single information points (SIPs), including 
georeferenced information. Moreover, it would further strengthen the permit-granting 
procedures  overall  and  mandate  installation  of  in-building  fibre  and  national  in-
building standards.  

transparency  obligations 

  Option  4  would,  in  addition  to  what  is  proposed  in  Option  3,  extend  the  access 
obligations and civil works coordination to all private operators and, where relevant, 
certain  non-network  operators  and  mandate  EU  in-building  standards.  This  option 
would  require  a  common  platform  for  existing  physical  infrastructure  and  planned 
civil works and could allow for permit applications.  

All options except the first one would require a new regulation. Overall, Option 3 appears to 
best balance short-term implementation costs with medium-term benefits, keep unnecessary 
regulatory  burdens  to  a  minimum,  and  limit  greenhouse  gas  emissions  from  the  electronic 
communications sector.  
What are different stakeholders’ views? Who supports which option? 
All stakeholders agree on the need for high-quality connectivity. A large group of operators 
and  most  business  associations  see  a  need  for  further  harmonisation  and  regulation  at  EU 
level,  whereas  a  smaller  number  of  operators  indicate  the  need  for  giving  Member  States 
leeway  in  how  they  implement  and  enforce  EU  legislation.  Public  authorities  are  more 
reluctant than operators on measures at EU level.  

C.  Impacts of the preferred option 

What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise of main ones)?  
Option 3 is estimated to increase new networks deployed re-using physical infrastructure or 
coordinating  civil  works to  470 000 km instead of 250 000 km under the baseline.  It  would 
also  reduce  the  cost  of  network  deployment  by  EUR 14.5 billion  and  the  required  public 
subsidies by EUR 2.4 billion. It could avoid 0.7 million tonnes in greenhouse gas emissions 
in the period to 2030. It is likely to have societal benefits, in particular by reducing the urban-
rural digital divide, and  economic benefits, notably through the reinvestment of the expected 
cost savings.  
What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise of main ones)?  
Option 3 involves estimated one-off costs of EUR 70 million. This includes EUR 15 million 
for  electronic  communications  network  providers,  and  the  rest  is  mainly  for  public 
administrations,  linked  to  setting  up  consistent  permit-granting  procedures  and  digital 
platforms. There is also a recurrent cost of EUR 6-7 million for dispute settlement bodies and 
SIPs. 
However,  once  this  investment  has  been  made,  Option  3  is  expected  to  lead  to  annual 
administrative  cost  savings  of  EUR 40 million  for  electronic  communication  network 
operators related to better access to physical infrastructure and improved permit application 
procedures.  There  will  also  be  operational  cost  savings  for  public  authorities,  including 
municipalities. These benefits can possibly be extended if the online permit platforms are also 
used by other sectors, as is already the case in several Member States. 
What are the impacts on SMEs and competitiveness? 
There  are  no  specific  obligations  for  small  and  medium-sized  companies  (SMEs)  as 
purchasers of gigabit services, while SMEs acting as network operators may be affected the 
same way as other businesses. However, the current lack of access to physical infrastructure 
and  high  prices  for  gigabit  connectivity  are  significant  challenges  in  particular  for  SMEs 
and  small  public  services  as  they  limit  their  ability  to  benefit  from  the  productivity  gains 

2 

 
 
associated with faster broadband and advanced digital applications. The current patchwork of 
rules  and  practices  at  national  and  sub-national  levels  is  also  an  obstacle  for  companies 
wanting to achieve economies of scale, and this affects EU competitiveness. 
Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations? 
The preferred option is  estimated to  involve  one-off  costs of around EUR 35-40 million for 
local  authorities  mainly  related  to  permit-granting  procedures  and  digitalised  permit 
platforms.  For  DSBs  and  SIPs,  there  is  a  one-off  cost  of  EUR 10-15 million  and,  as 
mentioned already, a recurrent cost of EUR 6-7 million.  
However,  local  authorities  would  save  between  EUR 3 million  and  EUR 4 million  a  year 
from the digitisation of permit-granting processes and requirements to provide access to non-
network public facilities. Moreover, Member States' national budgets can count on potential 
savings  of  EUR 2.4 billion  in  subsidies  that  would  otherwise  have  been  required  to  deploy 
‘fibre to the home’ in 90% of households. 
Will there be other significant impacts? 
Faster  deployment  of  VHCNs,  based  on  more  energy-efficient  technologies,  in  particular 
fibre and 5G, would facilitate the EU twin green and digital transition. This is also expected 
to  lead to  a reduction in  electricity intensity in  the  operation  of electronic communications, 
thereby  contributing  to  reductions  in  greenhouse  gas  emissions,  however  potentially 
counteracted by a faster increase in data traffic. Reusing existing physical infrastructure more 
and  improved  coordination  of  civil  works  will  also  make  deploying  networks  more 
environmentally sustainable.  
Proportionality? 
The proposal presents a focused policy action with an intensity proportional to its objectives. 
It  addresses  all  the  relevant  areas  with  a  comprehensive  set  of  measures  and  provides  for 
limitations  to  ensure  proportionality,  e.g.  exemptions  to  the  transparency  obligations  on 
network  operators  and  public  authorities  and  tacit  approval  for  permits  to  take  account  of 
constitutional issues.  

When will the policy be reviewed? 
The Commission will submit a report evaluating the Regulation 5 years after the date on 
which it enters into force. 

D.  Follow up 

3