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 digital networks, amending Regulation (EU) 2015/2120, Directive 2002/58/EC and Decision No 676/2002/EC and repealing Regulation (EU) 2018/1971, Directive (EU) 2018/1972 and Decision No 243/2012/EU (Digital Networks Act)
Date: 2026-01-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, European Commission
Subjects: Internet, competitiveness, consumer protection, digital single market, digital technology, information security, innovation, regulation of telecommunications, trans-European network, transmission network

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 21.1.2026  SWD(2026) 14 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 digital networks, amending  Regulation (EU) 2015/2120, Directive 2002/58/EC and Decision No 676/2002/EC and repealing Regulation (EU) 2018/1971, Directive (EU) 2018/1972 and Decision No 243/2012/EU (Digital Networks Act) {COM(2026) 16 final} - {SEC(2026) 14 final} - {SWD(2026) 13 final}  
 
 
The  Letta  and  Draghi  reports  analysed  in  2024  the  current  state  of  the  electronic 
communications sector in the EU. Both underlined that the single electronic communications 
market  remains  fragmented,  and  European  operators  continue  to  face  barriers  to  operating 
cross-border and scaling-up, limiting their ability to invest, innovate, and compete with their 
global  counterparts.  Both  reports  emphasised  the  importance  of  investments  in  future 
networks for strengthening  the competitiveness  of the EU economy  and the cohesion  of the 
EU society. Furthermore, the Niinistö report released the same year, stressed the importance 
of electronic communications, including satellite-based services, critical communication and 
digital services in the context of security, resilience and preparedness. 

The evaluation report of the current legal framework underpins these findings and identifies a 
series of specific shortcomings. 

As  regards  transition  to  fibre,  problems  requiring  more  significant  changes  are  the 
persistence of urban-rural divide, in terms of infrastructure competition and copper switch-off. 
The existence of legacy copper networks in all Member States, which is also a consequence 
of  the  different  regulatory  approaches  and  business  choices  across  Member  States, 
disincentivise and delay the deployment and adoption of more performant fibre networks to a 
substantially different extent in different Member States. This has negative effects on roll-out 
conditions  for  homogeneous  innovative  fixed  services  across  the  single  market.  The  EEEC 
provisions  related  to  copper  migration  had  limited  practical  relevance  primarily  since  they 
were not designed to accelerate migration and did not provide regulators with the tools to do 
so.  Access  regulation  still  remains  relevant,  however  there  is  room  for  updating  it  by 
empowering NRAs with more tools, including in particular the complementary use of SMP-
based and symmetric regulation, in particular access to ducts, to tackle competition issues that 
could  emerge  during  the  transition  to  fibre  and  after  the  switch  off  of  copper  in  full  fibre 
environment. The report also observes that geographic surveys (that were not used to their full 
potential under current framework) should help national administrations and NRAs to gather 
the evidence to shape regulatory interventions and policy initiatives that address the problems 
concerning fibre network coverage. 

As  regards  spectrum  policy,  the  EECC  has  been  unsuccessful  in  establishing  a  pro-
investment  spectrum  assignment  framework.  Assignment  conditions  remain  fragmented 
across  Member  States,  continue  to  enable  revenue-oriented  auction  designs,  provide  for 
insufficient  licence  duration  and  lack  incentives  to  share  spectrum.  Limited  regulatory 
predictability  and  lack  of  demand  affect  financial  attractiveness  of  high  quality  5G 
deployment projects to investors. As a result, compared to other regions the EU is lagging in 
high quality/stand-alone 5G deployments and consumers and businesses risk missing out on 
advanced innovative services.  

Barriers  to  operating  cross-border  and  scaling-up  persist,  including  under  the  general 
authorisation regime, which has resulted in a lack of a uniform and coherent approach to the 
applicable  conditions  for  electronic  communications  in  general,  including  for  wireless 
communications. The same applies to satellite services, where authorisation remains national 
and fragmented, despite the inherently cross-border nature of this market and the potential of 
Direct-to-Device (D2D) to provide ubiquitous and seamless coverage across the EU. 

The end-user rights provisions are mostly still fit for purpose and Europeans enjoy a high-
level of end-user experience and protection in the electronic communication sector for choice, 
price and quality of services. Member States have also used the possibilities in the framework 
for  introducing  national  rules,  often  leading  to  divergent  application  of  the  rules  and  even 

1 

 
 
sometimes  excessive  regulation.  Further  harmonisation  could  reduce  administrative  burden, 
lower compliance costs and enhance the delivery of cross-border services. In addition, some 
updates  and  simplification  could  be  beneficial  for  both  end-users  and  service  providers,  for 
example, streamlining of requirements for information provision. 

The universal service obligations in the EECC are not widely used in all Member States and 
can  be  administratively  burdensome.  However,  in  view  of  the  persisting  urban-rural  divide 
and level of risk of poverty for people in the EU the universal service rules are a safety net to 
ensure  all  consumers  in  the  Union  have  at  least  an  adequate  internet  and  voice 
communications services and at  an affordable price. The role of the universal service safety 
net continues to be important also in the context of technological evolution (including during 
and after the transition to a full fibre environment). 

As regards governance, the EECC has not been successful in achieving harmonisation, also 
due  to  the  governance  structure  not  fully  suited  to  deliver  on  single  market  objectives.  The 
contributions  of  BEREC  to  harmonised  implementation  of  the  EECC,  are  usually  of  high 
quality,  and  supporting  NRAs  in  reaching  common  approaches;  however,  they  were  not 
sufficient  to  bring  about  the  single  market  in  the  electronic  communication  sector.  The 
evaluation  identified  also  a  potential  need  for  covering  new  tasks  in  spectrum  and  data  to 
ensure  a  consistent  approach  in  these  fields.  RSPG,  a  Commission  high-level  expert  group, 
contributed  to  the  development  of  spectrum  policy,  but  mostly  focusing  on  technical  issues 
rather than on broader aspects of radio spectrum policy in general such as economic, political, 
cultural, strategic, security, health and social issues. 

The  IA  is  therefore  based  on  these  shortcomings  as  well  as  on  new  upcoming  challenges 
identified. 

On  transition  to  fibre,  the  Commission’s  2025  Digital  Decade  Policy  Programme  report 
showed that the gigabit connectivity target measured by Fiber-to-the -Premises (FTTP) was in 
2024 at  69% and  it was  expected that  by 2030  around 90% of premises will be  reached by 
fibre. However, predictions  for the full FTTP  coverage  at  the EU level  show that the 100% 
coverage  will  be  only  achieved  by  2051  if  no  further  action  is  taken.  The  copper  networks 
cannot meet the future requirements for fixed internet access, regarding upload and download 
speeds,  latency  and  reliability.  The  analysis  also  showed  that  the  presence  of  a  copper 
network slows down the adoption of fibre-based services. The regulatory framework and its 
application  by  NRAs,  in  particular  the  type  of  remedies  adopted,  may  also  influence  the 
deployment and adoption of fibre. For example,  the countries where regulators followed the 
incumbent’s  choice  of  FTTC  (including  part  of  copper  network)  are  characterized  by 
persistence of copper networks and slow deployment of fibre. Conversely, countries in which 
NRAs decided to facilitate access to civil infrastructures (e.g. promoting access to ducts and 
poles  where  operators  could  deploy  own  networks),  have  been  more  successful  in  fibre 
deployment. 

On  spectrum,  the  IA  analysis  showed  that  spectrum  regulation  and  market  factors  slowed 
down investment in high quality mobile connectivity. Furthermore, investments in upgrading 
5G are negatively  affected by limited demand. As a consequence, while there is  good basic 
5G coverage (based on 4G) in Europe (94.3%)1, comparable to competing economies, the EU 
is significantly lagging in advanced high capacity 5G networks using mid-band spectrum (5G 

1 Staff working document Digital Decade in 2025 progress and outlook Accompanying the document State of the 
Digital Decade 2025, https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/digital-decade-2025-progress-and-outlook   

2 

 
 
 
Stand Alone (5G SA) is at around 40% compared to 90% in North America and 45% in Asia 
Pacific2). Europe is also significantly behind/lagging in the 5G SA take-up, with only 2% of 
5G  users  connected  via  SA  networks3,  compared  to  the  US  (24%),  India  (25%)  and  China 
(77.1%)4. 

Regarding the lack of pan-European networks and services, the IA showed that operators 
face  divergent  general  authorisation  conditions  across  Member  States  and  a  patchwork  of 
national  requirements  that  disincentivise  cross-border  operations,  increase  compliance  costs 
and delay the introduction of new technologies. At the same time, and as has been described 
in detail in the Commission’s White Paper5, advances in IoT, AI, data analytics, and content 
delivery are turning connectivity into a converged ecosystem with new business models. As 
networks virtualise and integrate with cloud, edge, and AI, opportunities arise for innovative 
services such as cloudified 5G, enabling providers to benefit from economies of scale. Cross-
border  services  could  follow,  but  fragmented  rules  still  hinder  telcos  from  unlocking  these 
benefits across the Single Market. Stronger cross-industry cooperation will also be needed to 
fully realise the opportunities of this new ecosystem. 

Additionally on satellite communications, the authorisation of satellite spectrum usage and 
the  enforcement  of  the  authorisation  conditions  are  currently  implemented  by  each  national 
administration.  In  a  context  of  exponential  growth  of  the  number  of  satellite  constellations, 
the lack of a European approach in satellite spectrum authorisation poses risks to the capacity 
of  Europe  to  tap  into  the  potential  of  satellite  networks  for  the  provision  of  ubiquitous  and 
seamless pan-European networks. Moreover, it jeopardises the access of EU operators to key 
resources  and  fails  to  guarantee  that  all  players  respect  at  least  international  obligations 
related to avoidance of harmful interference.  

Barriers  also  extend  to  resilience,  as  connectivity  networks  face  growing  threats  from 
cyberattacks,  physical  disruptions,  and  natural  disasters  with  cross-border  impacts.  Outages 
already  cause  significant  economic  costs  each  year  and  public  safety  is  at  risk  when 
emergency  services  are  disrupted.  Despite  existing  legislative  tools  setting  minimum 
standards  on  actors  in  the  connectivity  sector,  stronger  EU-level  coordination  is  needed  to 
address  cross-border  interdependencies  and  safeguard  resilience  and  preparedness  of  the 
sector.  

As  regards  governance,  the  EU  is  still  characterised  by  fragmented  national  markets.  The 
articulation  of  competences  and  roles  of  the  Commission,  NRAs,  and  other  competent 
authorities for spectrum and certain other specific cross-border areas, BEREC, and RSPG, is 
complex,  burdensome  and  not  sufficiently  clear  for  stakeholders,  and  not  fully  suited  to 
support the Single Market.  

The IA identified the following options to best address the problems: 

2 Analysys Mason, 2024, Annex 7.2 figure 5G SA coverage. 
3 Annex 8.2 Medux data on Status of 5G Quality and experience in EU and Ookla. Omdia. A Global Evaluation 
of Europe’s Digital Competitiveness in 5G Standalone, 2025.  
4 Analysys Mason (2024). 5G Global Progress Report; OpenSignal (2024). 5G Experience Report Q4.  
5 The ongoing technological transformation of the connectivity ecosystem has been described in detail under the 
pillar I of the 2024 Commission White Paper ’How to Master Europe’s Digital Infrastructure Needs’ 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
Transition to fibre  

The preferred option contains a combination of measures geared at fostering fibre deployment 
and  take-up,  including  via  a  EU-wide  copper  switch  off  date  by  2030,  subject  to  certain 
conditions. It increases accountability of Member States, who, by 2029, will communicate to 
the  Commission  the  Transition  to  Fiber  Plans,  setting  out  a  coordinated  strategy  at  national 
level and concrete measures to support fibre deployment and take up. These plans should also 
identify, based on the input of the NRAs, the areas in which the conditions are met and the 
switch off can start by 2030. The conditions to be applied cumulatively are: 1- fibre coverage 
at  95%  and  2-  availability  of  broadband  retail  offers  with  comparable  prices  and  quality  to 
copper based offers. In addition, Member States should put in place appropriate safeguards for 
vulnerable consumers prior to the start of the copper switch off. Where the switch off cannot 
start  by  2030,  Member  States  should  set  out  the  concrete  measures  to  increase  coverage  to 
ensure transition  to  fibre  in  2035. The option includes a review in  2035.  By 2035, Member 
States  should  ensure  that  in  the  areas  where  the  copper  switch  off  is  started,  it  should  be 
completed as soon as possible. For all remaining areas where fibre deployment is not viable 
(e.g.  remote  areas  geographically  difficult  to  reach),  Member  States  should  explain  the 
reasons  for  unviability  and  provide  alternative  connectivity  solutions  for  customers  in  these 
areas. 

The option includes very strong safeguards for end-users: (i) the conditions for the switch off; 
(ii)  additional  safeguards  accompanying  the  copper  switch  off;  (iii)  appropriate  remedies 
adopted by NRAs as needed; (iv) USO provisions and (v) alternative means of connectivity in 
the residual areas where fibre deployment is not considered viable, following the 2035 review. 

Consistency  across  the  EU  will  be  achieved  via  a  Commission’s  scrutiny  over  the  Fiber 
Deployment  and  Copper  Switch  Off  Plans  and  the  copper  switch-off  process.  For  access 
regulation, this option provides NRAs with more tools for ex ante regulation, allowing for a 
targeted use, depending on the market situation, of SMP based or symmetric regulation. The 
approach on geographic  survey would be strengthened  allowing for a focus on sub-national 
markets.  Standardised  wholesale  products  at  EU  level  will  be  developed  to  ensure  legal 
certainty and more harmonisation across the single market. 

With  respect  to  the  economic  and  environmental  impacts  (as  of  2035),  this  would  have 
positive  impacts  in  terms  of  (i)  accumulated  GDP  increase  of  EUR 327  billion  above  the 
baseline  scenario,  (ii)  total  CO2  emission  reduction  below  baseline  scenario  (0.6  million 
tonnes or 4.5%) and (iii) average download speeds (7 435 Mbps). The social impacts cannot 
be  quantified  but  the  preferred  option  is  very  likely  to  result  in  the  highest  positive  social 
impact as it is performing well in terms of fibre coverage and FTTH take-up rate. Regarding 
the impact on fundamental rights, the option ranks medium. 

Spectrum 

The  preferred  option  entails  mainly  unlimited  licence  duration  by  default,  under  strict 
conditions  and  safeguards  and  with  exceptional  limited  duration  combined  with  quasi 
automatic renewal,  and the  application of pro-investment  auction design.  It  provides for the 
possibility  to  harmonise  spectrum  authorisation  conditions  and  includes  a  mandatory 
spectrum scrutiny of authorisation procedures at  EU level.  It ensures increased transparency 
and predictability of the timing of availability of spectrum through roadmaps and ensures that 
6G spectrum will be authorised in a shorter period of time from harmonisation and in a more 
consistent  manner.  This  option  is  the  most  efficient  given  that  overall  benefits  significantly 

4 

 
 
outweigh  its  costs.  It  would  ensure  timely  deployment  of  high  quality  5G  and  future  6G 
networks. It would have a positive impact on GDP, have spillover effects on vertical sectors 
and  be  coherent  with  the  copper-switch  off  process.  It  would  lead  to  a  reduced  ecological 
footprint of 5G mobile networks, thanks to the decrease in energy consumption per gigabyte 
linked to new mobile technologies. 

General authorisation and authorisation for satellite services 

The preferred option includes a single “passport” regime for other networks and services than 
satellite  and  an  EU  authorisation  for  satellite  spectrum,  including  selection  of  licensees  in 
cases of scarcity and enforcement of authorisation conditions. This option would reduce the 
administrative and compliance costs as well as the reporting costs. Together with harmonised 
authorisation  conditions  and  other  relevant  applicable  rules  as  well  as  soft  measures  to 
facilitate ecosystem cooperation, the preferred option would allow providers active in several 
Member  States  to  easier  centralise  network  operations  and  provide  innovative,  more 
virtualised  and  software-based  services  cross-border  more  consistently.  EU  satellite 
authorisation  would  allow  operators  guaranteed  access  to  spectrum  in  all  Member  States 
under  the  same  authorisation  conditions,  providing  them  with  the  means  to  scale  up  and 
provide pan-European services, while keeping in check sovereignty aspects. 

Governance  

The preferred option ensures continuity while deepening cooperation and strengthening EU-
level  coordination  to  better  correspond  with  the  needs  of  the  Single  Market.  It  adjusts  the 
governance  structure  to  enable  the  actors  at  different  governance  level  –  from  national, 
through cooperation bodies at EU level, up to the Commission – to address the challenges of 
the  transforming  market  and  complete  the  Single  Market  in  electronic  communications.  It 
preserves  the  strengths  of  the  current  system,  builds  on  the  existing  set  up  of  BEREC  and 
BEREC Office, and upgrades  the RSPG from  a  Commission  expert group to  a body with  a 
secretariat  provided  by  the  strengthened  BEREC  Office  to  enhance  the  effectiveness  of 
spectrum management. This option is also favoured by stakeholder consultation feedback. By 
providing administrative and support services to both BEREC and RSPG, the BEREC Office 
will  strengthen  the  existing  link  between  the  two  bodies,  enabling  better  coordination  and 
more coherent outcomes. 

Administrative costs 

The  administrative  costs  for  businesses  relate  to  the  conditional  the  copper  switch-off,  plus 
the  reduction  of  compliance  cost  in  the  area  of  authorisation.  The  new  administrative 
requirements  are  estimated  to  result  in  approximately  EUR  73  million  in  one-off 
administrative costs, and approximately EUR 38 million in recurring administrative costs per 
year, compared to the status quo. At the same time, the preferred policy option is expected to 
generate  administrative  cost  savings  through  the  harmonisation  of  authorisation  conditions 
and  the  simplification  of  regulatory  requirements.  In  case  of  managing  the  financing  of  the 
governance  changes  partially  from  charges,  these  would  mean  additional  costs  for 
undertakings providing Electronic Communications and/or having rights of use of spectrum. 

5