Annexes to COM(2018)492 - Implementation of Directive 2014/61/EU on measures to reduce the cost of deploying high-speed electronic communications networks - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2018)492 - Implementation of Directive 2014/61/EU on measures to reduce the cost of deploying high-speed electronic communications ... |
|---|---|
| document | COM(2018)492  |
| date | June 27, 2018 |
Electronic communications providers consider that the total cost of deploying networks by coordinating works is cheaper than doing so in isolation. However, the savings were mostly considered to be less than those that could be made by sharing physical infrastructure.
Fewer Member States have taken pro-active approaches to transparency in co-deployment than to information on existing infrastructure. Operators have expressed their concerns about the lack of transparency and the absence of a single information point, which may be affecting the degree to which co-deployment occurs.
Cost-sharing in the context of co-deployment can be a particular source of dissatisfaction and dispute. In this context, practices vary across and even within countries, ranging from charging the incremental cost to equally shared costs. While equally shared costs may give electronic communications operators the feeling they are bearing a disproportionate share of the costs compared to utilities, incremental cost can raise concerns amongst utilities also active in providing electronic communications services that they are being required to make offers to competitors that would undermine their business case.
Setting up a detailed single information point, establishing specific procedures for civil works coordination, and elaborating (either commercially or in a regulated manner) rules on cost apportionment could increase interest in co-deployment. Some or all of these measures have been taken in countries such as Belgium, Italy and Portugal, which use co-deployment a lot.
Pillar 3: Permit-granting procedure (Article 7)
The availability of information about permits and permit granting procedures has not improved so far. It appears that even where single information points concerning application procedures exist, operators may not be aware of them or have concerns about their effectiveness. Timelines for permit applications have not been enforced in all Member States, and only a few Member States have opted to make electronic permit applications possible.
Where information was available, permits for civil works were on average processed within 4 months. However, operators in some Member States expressed concerns about significant variations in the time for permit processing, depending on the local authorities concerned. Operators in Germany highlighted delays of more than 6 months in some cases, while variations in time were also observed in Spain and Italy.
Figure 5: Average time (weeks) it takes to obtain a civil works permit (based on operator survey)
Source: WIK/VVA based on operator survey
Pillar 4: In-building physical infrastructure (Articles 8 and 9)
Effective implementation of the provisions on in-building infrastructure appears to be linked to the definition of standards setting out what is meant by high-speed-ready in-building infrastructure, and the associated access point, and mechanisms to monitor and enforce adherence to these standards.
For instance, in France, Portugal and Spain mandatory standards set out how the infrastructure must be installed and where the access point must be located. Broadband-ready infrastructure has been relatively widely deployed in these countries, with the standards mentioned above contributing to high rates of FTTH/B deployment in Portugal and Spain. 10
A majority of stakeholders consider broadband-ready labels a good way of supporting the deployment and take-up of high-speed networks, but such labels have been introduced in only a few Member States so far. Furthermore, as broadband-ready labels have only recently been introduced, it is too early to evaluate their take-up.
As regards access to in-building physical infrastructure, stakeholders have not noticed a significant change since the implementation of the Directive because provisions were already in place, or had only recently been transposed. Some improvements were reported in Spain and Italy, in terms of a reduction of cases where the building owner refused access. Nevertheless, operators in some Member States had problems getting permission to access apartment buildings (from building owners) to install and upgrade in-building infrastructure for high-speed broadband.
Member States which have not yet established rules or settled disputes relating to access to in-building infrastructure could learn from France, Portugal and Spain, whose experience suggests that having in place technical standards concerning the access point, accompanied by rules on the terms and conditions of access to in-building infrastructure, can help bring more certainty and increase use of access to in-building infrastructure.
Dispute resolution process
Between 2015 and the first half of 2017, 40 disputes were reported, which had been referred to the dispute settlement body under the Directive, or previous regimes, where applicable. There has been an increase in the number of disputes since the application of the Directive, with 23 reported as referred to the dispute settlement body in the first half of 2017 alone. The vast majority of disputes concerned access to existing infrastructure (83 % in 2017) or information on existing physical infrastructure (14 %).
Figure 6: Number of disputes
Source: WIK-Consult/VVA based on NRA questionnaires — 24 respondents
Most of the Member States have set legislative deadlines for resolving disputes in line with the deadlines specified in the Directive. In some cases they have even set shorter deadlines. 11 However, in practice, deadlines were exceeded in several cases for internal (e.g. complexity in settling key issues such as pricing) or external reasons (e.g. the use of mediation, coordination efforts) and some operators are concerned that dispute resolution procedures may in fact have contributed to additional delays.
In several Member States, NRAs have started developing rules or guidelines on dispute settlement (e.g. the process the NRA is likely to follow in resolving disputes), which may enhance legal certainty and reduce the effort and time needed to resolve disputes.
6.Recommended actions
Effective and timely implementation of the Directive is crucial, not only for ensuring that its objectives are achieved, but also for achieving the Gigabit Society strategic objectives, along with other actions envisaged by the Commission to support broadband deployment, such as the toolkit for broadband in rural areas. 12
Experience so far would suggest the following actions to be taken in order to maximise the effective implementation of the Directive and to facilitate the achievement of its objectives:
1.Ensure transparency as a prerequisite for the shared use of physical infrastructure and co-deployment
For this purpose, single information points should not only be established in all Member States, but should also be adequately equipped to enable them to perform their tasks effectively. For existing infrastructure, the single information point could further be enhanced to a mapping exercise and include data on availability and capacity. In the case of co-deployment, Member States should consider a pro-active approach, whereby relevant public (and if relevant private) actors are required to pre-notify deployment plans and invite interested parties to respond. The national and regional Broadband Competence Offices 13 could be an additional source of information, coordination and exchange of best practices.
2.Enhance regulatory certainty in relation to terms and conditions, including prices and cost apportionment
NRAs or other bodies could do this by drawing up guidelines, indicating which methodology would be used to resolve disputes, how costs for sharing infrastructure or co-deployment would be apportioned and the extent to which regulated utilities could benefit from any cost savings or profits arising out of collaboration.
3.Ensure greater overall efficiency of permit-granting procedures
Firstly, it is crucial for information on permits to be centrally available from single information points. Secondly, the relevant authorities should strictly enforce deadlines for granting permits. Thirdly, Member States should consider making it possible to electronically apply for permits via the single information point.
4.Develop standards for and clear rules on access to in-building physical infrastructure
Member States that have not already done so could consider putting in place standards for in-building infrastructure and associated broadband labelling schemes. Pro-active measures should be taken (for instance by NRAs) to ensure that clear rules are established concerning the terms, conditions and price of access to in-building infrastructure.
5.Promote better cooperation amongst regulators
Coordination amongst regional and local authorities and sectoral regulators is particularly important for the coordination of civil works or access to municipal infrastructure. BEREC, ACER and other sectoral regulatory groups at EU level could also consider developing guidelines on best practice contractual terms and pricing/cost apportioning approaches. 14
6.Ensure efficient data gathering on key performance indicators
To enable continuous monitoring and a future evaluation of the implementation of the Directive, NRAs and/or dispute settlement bodies should gather data on the scale of access to physical infrastructure under the Directive, as well as the proportion of high-speed networks deployed in co-deployment. Member States should gather data from local authorities on the timeframes for permit granting, and the number of buildings certified as deployed with high-speed-ready in-building infrastructure.
(1)
OJ L 155, 23.5.2014, p. 1.
(2)
Study SMART 2015/0066, performed by a consortium led by WIK Consult, final report available here .
(3)
BoR (17) 245: http://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/berec/reports/7534-berec-report-on-the-implementation-of-the-broadband-cost-reduction-directive
(4)
Article 2(1) of the Directive.
(5)
Article 2(3) of the Directive.
(6)
Article 2(2) of the Directive.
(7)
The 2025 Gigabit Society targets are: 1) gigabit connectivity for all main socioeconomic drivers such as schools, transport hubs and the main providers of public services, as well as digitally intensive enterprises; 2) uninterrupted 5G coverage for all urban areas and all major terrestrial transport paths; 3) internet connectivity with a downlink of at least 100 Mbps, upgradable to gigabit speed for all European households. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/policies/improving-connectivity-and-access
(8)
For instance by accessing existing poles to facilitate rural deployment.
(9)
See Study SMART 2015/0066. For instance, the re-use of utility infrastructure has allowed Open Fibre in Italy to save costs of up to 50 % in the initial phase of deploying FTTH. Open Fibre has an investment plan covering 6 700 remote municipalities identified as areas of ‘market failure’.
(10)
The 2016 Study on Broadband Coverage in Europe shows that in June 2016 FTTH was available to 86 % of households in Portugal and 63 % in Spain. Coverage has continued to expand since then.
(11)
E.g. HR, HU, IT, PL have set the deadline at 2 months for resolving disputes relating to Article 3.
(12)
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/european-commission-joins-forces-help-bringing-more-broadband-rural-areas
(13)
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/broadband-competence-offices
(14)
In this regard, BEREC has already started working on a report on pricing of access to infrastructure and civil works.