Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 13.7.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 247/7 |

---

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Boosting broadband connectivity in Europe

(2018/C 247/02)

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
| |  |  | | --- | --- | | Rapporteur: | Mart Võrklaev (EE/ALDE), Mayor of Rae Municipality | |

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

General comments

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 1. | notes that, according to the World Bank [(1)](#ntr1-C_2018247EN.01000701-E0001), the rapid growth of digital technology has significantly reshaped global society and the internet has become a vital element of infrastructure, reducing costs for information sharing and contributing to innovation, which in turn leads to greater connectivity between people, businesses and governments; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 2. | welcomes the work of the joint Broadband Platform with the European Commission to pursue better cooperation, better regulation and implementation and, of course, better financing for digital connectivity in Europe; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 3. | is aware of the fact that standard fixed broadband coverage in the EU stood at 97 % of homes in 2015 (with a take-up rate of 72 %) and that services based on wireless technologies have even greater reach. However, there are differences between Member States as regards availability and affordability of fixed broadband across urban and rural areas; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 4. | points out that, according to the seventh Cohesion Report, more investment will be needed as, while basic broadband services are accessible to all households in the EU, next generation access (NGA) — which is much faster — is only available to 40 % of rural residents compared with 90 % of urban ones; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 5. | points out that slow internet and low penetration in rural areas, and the specific problems in sparsely populated areas and the outermost regions, could present an obstacle to achieving the EU’s ambitious goals for 2020-2025, which, according to the European Commission, could gain the EU an estimated EUR 146,5 billion and at the same time create up to 2,4 million new jobs; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 6. | agrees with the G20 [(2)](#ntr2-C_2018247EN.01000701-E0002) that the ultimate goal of closing the digital divide is to inclusively give all citizens an equal opportunity to benefit from digital development, the advantages of which range from greater efficiency, via greater social and economic inclusiveness, to greater opportunities to participate in a new economy. The digital divide has two dimensions: access to good broadband connectivity, and the ability and motivation to use internet services; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 7. | points out that solving the ‘last mile problem’ is important for the development of the EU as a whole and requires flexible measures; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 8. | draws attention to the important role that ICT infrastructure and broadband, together with capacity building, can potentially play in the restructuring of rural regions in response to population decline, as rural depopulation and marginalisation are a growing problem throughout Europe; |

Connectivity problems and possible solutions

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | 9. | takes the view that there are a number of major challenges that need to be addressed, such as:  |  |  | | --- | --- | | — | limited very high speed connectivity for fixed and mobile infrastructure throughout the EU, |  |  |  | | --- | --- | | — | the risk of insufficient capacity to deal with rapid market and technological change, such as the rise of the internet of Things, |  |  |  | | --- | --- | | — | administrative burdens resulting from overregulation and lack of consistency, including in the rules on State aid; | |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 10. | is concerned about the connectivity demand in certain areas, which demonstrates the importance of school curricula and adult e-learning programmes. Broadband connectivity is not just about funding issues, but also about demand for the development and use of the infrastructure. All public institutions, schools and educational establishments should be equipped with high-speed broadband connections; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 11. | notes that, in some countries and regions, limited technical knowledge and a lack of information on funding options for broadband infrastructure and on best practices can also be problematic; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 12. | warmly welcomes the establishment of specialist Broadband Competence Offices and the cooperation between the European Commission’s various directorates-general in pursuit of a common goal. This should also be reflected in the forthcoming EU budget; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 13. | considers it necessary for competence centres to be set up in all Member States, forming a shared network for cooperation, and for local and regional authorities to contact these centres before looking for solutions: consultations should be undertaken in advance to find optimal solutions based on specific national and regional circumstances; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 14. | welcomes the five-point toolkit for rural areas of the EU, which should bring about progress towards better broadband coverage; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 15. | is paying close attention to how the potential of the ‘smart villages’ concept from the Cork 2.0 declaration ‘A Better Life in Rural Areas’ unfolds. This involves investing in ICT in order to improve quality of life and ensure access to public services and infrastructure, while at the same time being sensitive to local circumstances; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 16. | in this regard, welcomes the increased focus on proportionate regulation and infrastructure competition to promote investment that characterises the network access provisions, and the emphasis on market-based collaborative solutions promoting further infrastructure deployment in local areas and regions where the business case in not straightforward. It is important for access regulation to contribute to avoiding a digital divide for very high capacity networks and to strengthening territorial cohesion; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 17. | considers it necessary, in the interests of competition in both the fixed and 5G markets, to separate services from networks, along the same lines as the energy sector (unbundling). For example, in a number of Member States (Sweden, the United Kingdom, etc.) telecommunications services have been completely separated from network operation. In the CoR’s view, fibre networks should belong to telecommunications companies whose business model is based on equal access for all service providers. This would mean that large numbers of service providers could operate on the market and that consumers could choose services based on their desired value for money, and would also safeguard the long-term development of the sector; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 18. | considers that this would provide equal opportunities for all in the development of 5G networks: there should be no dependence on basic infrastructure owned by the telecommunications companies that dominate the market. The EU itself should therefore support the development of open networks and steer the Member States in this direction, such that all new and existing fibre networks are operator-neutral; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 19. | stresses the importance of more granular geographical surveys of existing infrastructure and future planned projects, for the purpose of market analysis and to identify areas with insufficient coverage. As these areas tend to be in sparsely populated and less favoured regions, properly identifying them will increase the effectiveness of public funding; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 20. | calls for legal provisions in the Member States to ensure that existing infrastructure (electricity networks, pylons, etc.) can be used as flexibly as possible when expanding the broadband network, thus saving time and money when providing new broadband coverage; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 21. | stresses that, in the current programming period, EUR 14 billion is available from the ESI funds for creating broadband infrastructure; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 22. | supports efforts to promote broadband expansion by strengthening cohesion policy, inter alia, to ensure it can address the most severe market failures in the rural, sparsely populated areas of the EU. This does not rule out increases in financial instruments (such as loan financing) in cooperation with the European Investment Bank and other development banks; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 23. | Supports an enhanced role for the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) and EFSI in funding financial instruments and blending facilities (combining grants with financial instruments) to address more moderate types of market failures, such as the lack of equity finance for smaller projects in more viable areas. Such complementary interventions would ensure a high quality broadband connectivity across all regions of the EU; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 24. | recommends using a joint broadband platform as a cooperation tool, and involving the Directorate-General for Regional Policy in this platform’s work; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 25. | supports efforts to promote take-up of EU programmes and to develop new concepts for public-private partnerships for investing in broadband expansion; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 26. | reiterates its call that, in areas where large companies are not interested in investing and small ones find it difficult to meet requirements, simpler models, which make it easier for small businesses to invest and offer solutions in these under-served areas, be developed, or projects for the development of broadband be recognised as services of general economic interest [(3)](#ntr3-C_2018247EN.01000701-E0003); |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 27. | points out, in this connection, that it is important to simplify procedures, as technology develops faster than the related structures are deployed; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 28. | takes the view that properly effective development plans for broadband rollout can only be developed in consensus between telecommunications companies, governments and local and regional authorities, taking into account the interests of all States, cities and regions. In countries where such an agreement has been reached (Sweden, United Kingdom, etc.), broadband rollout is already at a more advanced stage. If no agreement is reached, broadband coverage risks remaining inadequate outside urban areas; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 29. | welcomes the European Investment Bank’s excellent initiative to create a Broadband Fund and calls for it to be implemented quickly; hopes that it will particularly help to finance small projects and to eliminate ‘white spots’; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 30. | refers back to its recommendations to the High Level Group (HLG) on simplification post-2020, which stressed the need to align State aid and public procurement rules for ESI funds with those for centrally managed programmes. The CoR reiterates its call for an assessment of the feasibility of exempting some or all ESIF spending from State aid procedures post-2020. In this context, the CoR is pleased to note that its recommendations on the need for common definitions to compare and combine funds have been taken up by the HLG [(4)](#ntr4-C_2018247EN.01000701-E0004); |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 31. | in particular, believes that the EU guidelines for the application of State aid rules in relation to rapid deployment of broadband networks should be aligned with the various EU funding options for broadband rollout, and is concerned about the number of pre-notifications that are rejected, which ultimately delays or even prevents the mobilisation of investment and is therefore responsible for the slow progress in expanding broadband coverage in these areas; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 32. | is pleased — as mentioned in its recommendations to the HLG on Simplification — that the principle of a differentiated approach is also being considered. Such an approach should significantly reduce the burden and allow better account to be taken of the specificities of the implementation context in the regions in question, and thus facilitate a place-based approach and encourage tailored investment in broadband expansion; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 33. | recommends rolling out comprehensive high-speed broadband as soon as possible, in order to open the way for the gigabit society, to make the most of the opportunities offered by the digital single market, and thus to contribute to the development of all Member States in this area. In order to achieve this goal, a variety of solutions must be pursued because connecting each individual house to the fibre network can be costly and time-consuming, especially in sparsely populated areas; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 34. | feels that, in addition to cable connections, in scattered settlements and inaccessible areas it would be worth considering and assessing the potential of mobile broadband, satellite broadband and the development of public Wi-Fi networks in public areas and public institutions, such as the WiFi4EU initiative. Finding alternative solutions accelerates network expansion and at the same time saves money, but it is important to take a thought-out, systematic approach to ensure that the solutions meet people’s needs and the technologies are viable in the long-term; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 35. | stresses the importance of addressing the new radio spectrum management challenges raised by the rapid development of 5G communications networks, as 5G technology relies on high-capacity networks throughout the EU. It is very important to seek a common approach for the allocation of licences for the higher frequencies (spectrum) that will be used in future, including, where appropriate, greater regulatory predictability in terms of shared use of spectrum and greater flexibility, to respond to differences in demand for harmonised spectrum bands at national or local level; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 36. | endorses the main measures in the Electronic Communications Code, such as introducing new provisions to support the rollout across Europe of very high-speed networks capable of gigabit-per-second speeds, broadening the scope of the legislative framework to cover the new communications tools known as ‘over-the-top services’, and providing affordable functional internet access to end users; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | 37. | welcomes the European Commission’s ‘European Broadband Awards’ contest, which helps to disseminate best practices and alternative solutions to the issue of broadband coverage. |

Brussels, 22 March 2018.

The President of the European Committee of the Regions

Karl-Heinz LAMBERTZ

---

[Top](#document1)