Annexes to COM(2024)81 - WHITE PAPER How to master Europe's digital infrastructure needs? - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2024)81 - WHITE PAPER How to master Europe's digital infrastructure needs?. |
|---|---|
| document | COM(2024)81 |
| date | February 21, 2024 |
There are very few known cases of intervention (by a regulatory authority or by a court) into the contractual relationships between market actors72, that generally functions well and so do the markets for transit and peering. There has been nonetheless a vivid debate on this topic73. Moreover, it cannot be excluded that the number of cases in the future will increase. Should this be the case, subject to careful assessment, policy measures could be envisaged to ensure swift resolution of disputes. For example, the commercial negotiations and agreements could possibly be further facilitated by providing for a specific timeline and by considering the possibility for requests for dispute resolution mechanisms, in case commercial agreements could not be found within a reasonable period of time. In such case, NRAs or (in cases with a cross-border dimension) BEREC could be solicited, as they have the necessary technical knowledge, and important experience in dispute resolution and in assessing market functioning.
14. Authorisation
The general authorisation regime established in 2002 and maintained in the Code replaced the previous regime of individual licenses/authorisations, by pre-establishing generally applicable conditions for the provision of electronic communication networks and services (ECNS). Yet, given the local character of the physical networks, and the fact that spectrum is deemed to be a national resource (see section 3.2.5), authorisations are subject to conditions established by the Member States’ competent authorities and granted and implemented at national level.
Nonetheless, due to cloudification and softwarisation, network provision is less and less linked to location. Furthermore, coverage of wireless networks, such as satellite networks, can extend beyond national – and even EU – borders. While there are still clear benefits in keeping the implementation of authorisation regimes at national level, in particular for local access and retail services, assigning radio spectrum under conditions which differ between Member States may not always be the most efficient approach, in particular for satellite communications. There could therefore be an economic and technical justification for a more European approach.
One of the elements explaining the fast development of information society services has been the fact that they could be provided to the entire EU simply by complying with the legislation of the Member State of establishment (‘so called ‘country of origin’ principle), without the need to comply with the legislation of each Member State in which services are provided. While network virtualisation may technically allow the provision of cross-border core networks and create a market for core network services, the business case cannot develop if there is insufficient scale, or if different regulatory regimes hinder such business case. To develop the business case, setting out a single set of rules by enabling authorisation based on the ‘country of origin’ principle for providers of core networks and core network services could balance the approach to all types of providers of digital networks and services, putting them on a more equal level. In the converging ecosystem, where a boundary between the “traditional” providers of digital networks and services on the one hand and the providers of e.g. cloud services on the other hand becomes increasingly blurred, the regulatory treatment of those services should be more holistic. It could also lessen the administrative burden by bringing in potential rationalisation of reporting obligations of different actors.
The application of a single set of rules based for instance on a ‘country of origin’ principle for core networks and core network services would enable EU core network operators to leverage the full potential of the internal market to reach critical size, take advantage of scale economies, and reduce capital expenditure and operating costs, thus solidifying their financial position, attracting more private investments and ultimately contributing to EU competitiveness. In this scenario, the applicable legislation and the competent authority to regulate access to networks and retail services provided to end-users would remain the same and the one closest to the end-users, i.e. those of the Member State of the provision of the access network and of the retail service. This would also ensure that the specificities of local markets are adequately taken into account when defining appropriate access remedies and when guaranteeing the highest level of protection of end-users.
15. Addressing barriers to core network centralisation
In addition to the sector-specific regulatory barriers mentioned above, contributors to the exploratory consultation listed other regulatory barriers to the establishment of a true Digital Single Market such as different obligations across the EU with regard to network/service incident reporting or security vetting requirements, building lawful interception capabilities, data retention regimes, privacy and reshoring requirements or cybersecurity and reporting obligations74.
Having due regard to Member States’ sovereignty as well as their competence on security issues, it is worth reflecting on whether and how those other barriers could be addressed to allow achieving scale and enhance innovation. For example, in relation to security incidents or security vetting to further improve harmonisation and a high level of security, different measures could be envisaged, such as introducing close cooperation between those Member States where a core network spans, guaranteeing core network operators the right to request all competent authorities of the Member States in which they provide networks to agree on a set of conditions and requirements to be consistently applied throughout the network and be verified at a one stop shop; defining security requirements for core network operators through EU level guidance etc. As regards law enforcement obligations such as lawful interception, one option could be that core network operators identify in each Member State where they operate a point of contact for competent national law enforcement authorities. Soft law measures, such as an EU recommendation or guidelines, could help identify and specify such solutions on security and law enforcement.
16. Radio spectrum
Spectrum plays a pivotal role in wireless connectivity and should be managed in the best coordinated way possible among all Member States to fulfil the Union objectives of sustainable development, balanced economic growth, economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States. Earlier attempts to establish greater EU coordination in spectrum management were not fully successful, and, in parallel, discrepancies and delays have been observed in authorising spectrum for 5G deployment across the Member States. As a consequence, today Europe is lagging behind its international competitors on the uptake of 5G. The observations in Section 2 indicate that there is scope to further improve spectrum policy across the EU and make spectrum management fit for the Digital Decade needs and targets.
1. Adapting spectrum management to Digital Decade needs: lessons learned from earlier legislative efforts
A number of proposals by the European Commission to better harmonise the release and licensing of radio spectrum for mobile services have faced considerable resistance in the past 10 years. In view of the delays, fragmentation and in certain instances artificial scarcity that led to very high prices paid for spectrum, it is worth considering whether solutions that were proposed in earlier legislative efforts, but eventually not retained by the co-legislators, could have avoided some of the negative effects that are now evident given the delayed 5G deployment. Considering the necessity to complete 5G roll-out and timely 6G deployment, a more cooperative approach between the national and European level is of vital importance for EU competitiveness. In this context, areas that deserve to be considered and possibly lead to relevant actions include: (i) EU level planning of sufficient spectrum for future use cases, (ii) strengthening EU level coordination of auction timing, and (iii) considering more uniform spectrum authorisation landscape.
No wireless service can be deployed without the availability of sufficient spectrum resources. This would include evolving and new areas such as vertical use cases, 6G, IoT applications, WiFi, local spectrum use. Also, this includes rapidly developing satellite communications, ensuring secure government and commercial applications, including direct-to-device satellite connectivity, using spectrum allocated for mobile satellite and, if appropriate, terrestrial services. In this context it should be considered whether, to ensure that new technology advancements are rolled out across the EU at the same time, an EU spectrum roadmap towards 6G should be enshrined in the law and enforced in a coordinated way by all Member States.
Coordinated release and refarming would be crucial in this context. Key example is the coordinated switch-off of 2G and 3G networks (with release of the relevant spectrum for other uses) while, in parallel, implementing solutions for continuous support of important legacy services such as emergency and critical communications (e.g. eCall75).
At the same time, efficiency in spectrum use should be further enhanced to meet the fast growing needs of existing and future wireless applications. For example, stricter conditions attached to spectrum usage rights could be considered, where appropriate, including the principle of ‘use it or lose it’ so as to avoid the creation of barriers to market entry and inefficient allocation of scarce resources. Efficiency could also be achieved whenever possible through shared and flexible use of spectrum with innovative and dynamic solutions or new forms of licensing and methods using, for example, databases and licensed-shared access, geolocation and artificial intelligence. Parallel to enabling new services, spectrum efficiency can significantly enhance consumer experience, quality of service, competitiveness, and environmental sustainability. At the same time the needs of end-users, such as persons with disabilities who rely on assistive technologies that require adequate and stable spectrum availability, should be taken into account.
Moreover, looking at the deployment of the next wireless communications technologies or renewal of existing licenses for broadband wireless communications, Europe cannot afford yet another spectrum authorisation process for the next generation mobile technology spreading over almost a decade, with huge disparities in timelines of auctions and network infrastructure deployment between Member States. To avoid that the same problems appear in the future, it should be considered how to better coordinate timing of auctions and ensure it is tighter across the whole EU.
The single market could benefit from better coordinated spectrum authorisation and usage conditions and rights including their appropriate duration to promote efficient investment across the whole EU. In this context, to date, the voluntary spectrum authorisation peer review mechanism that was adopted under the Code has not proven to be effective. Therefore, as an alternative, a notification mechanism similar to that used for market analysis as implemented under Article 32 of the Code could be considered to reinforce the coordination of authorisation procedures and conditions regarding the use of spectrum in the internal market.
2. New challenges in spectrum management
In the context of the reflection on core networks (discussed in 3.2.4), it is worth exploring the possibility, on the spectrum management side, for operators of EU core networks and pluri-national operators to request competent authorities to seek better aligned national authorisation processes and conditions so as to increase their communications capacities. This could primarily apply with regard to the existing spectrum usage rights or general authorisations, notably with regard, in particular, to the duration of licenses, spectrum usage conditions, such as quality of service objectives/obligations in the context of the 2030 connectivity targets, as well as the possibility to integrate satellite and terrestrial networks into new hybrid networks. These could be aligned to allow pan-EU or plurinational operators to operate in a more harmonised environment across borders. Such alignment could increase efficiency and ensure legal certainty for operators of EU core networks and pluri-national operators, while respecting the rights already granted.
In addition, in particular the fast development of the satellite sector and its cross-border nature invite new reflections regarding enhanced or common licensing regimes (even EU-level selection and authorisation, if appropriate), to promote the emergence of cross-border or genuine pan-EU operators, while leaving spectrum revenues to the Member States. Such approach would complement the upcoming proposal for a Union legislative act for safe, resilient and sustainable space activities in the Union (EU Space Law) laying down the foundation for safe, resilient and sustainable space activities, and aiming at achieving consistency for all operators of space infrastructure.
Spectrum efficiency and investment incentives should be considered a priority, subject to competition considerations, in market shaping measures for example as regards reservation for new entrants or spectrum caps and overall design of auction processes. In this respect, it should be noted that, while auction prices for 3G and 4G were even higher, 5G auctions implemented in Europe between 2015 and 2023 still raised around EUR 26 billion76, not to mention the administrative charges due to national authorities for spectrum management. This amount was paid by operators, in addition to the investments necessary for the deployment of the network infrastructure. The consequence thereof (particularly in cases of artificial increase of the spectrum price without adequate market justification) has been roll-out delays and suboptimal network quality and performance to the detriment of consumers and businesses. To help bridge the significant investment gap in the deployment of advanced communications networks, the financial burden could be alleviated by adopting bidding processes geared towards infrastructure investments.
Considering the potentially enlarged scope of the tasks that will need to be developed at EU level regarding radio spectrum, in particular with regard to coordinated, harmonised or common selections or authorisations, a more integrated spectrum governance mechanism at EU level should be considered.
From an international perspective, a more coherent spectrum management approach should be developed to ensure the EU’s digital sovereignty and to defend EU interests externally. In this regard, the EU should retain full control over EU spectrum usage decisions especially when confronted with geopolitical and security challenges to guarantee the cybersecurity, independence and integrity of EU communications networks. This includes, in particular, the preparation of technical harmonisation measures for the use of spectrum in the Union77 and of international negotiations such as World Radiocommunication Conferences. Member States, if appropriate at Council level, should be able to take positions regarding spectrum management in full independence from non-EU actors. This means reconsidering the role of the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT) in EU decision making, given the representation of non-EU Member States in this international body. Going forward, while continuing to rely on the technical expertise of CEPT, the Commission could be assisted by an ad hoc group composed solely of the Member States’ representatives whenever issues linked to EU sovereignty might be at stake.
EU and Member States’ interests should also be defended at the EU external borders and globally through common actions adopted by all Member States and the EU in full spirit of solidarity. Harmful radio interference affecting Member States and originating in third countries should therefore be addressed through strong and efficient action not only by the Commission but also, by all Member States acting jointly in support of bilateral negotiations and in multilateral negotiations with third countries including in international fora such as the International Telecommunication Union.
Better alignment of existing and future spectrum usage rights, clarity in the policy orientations for the coming decade and more certainty in spectrum management throughout the Union could promote investments and boost EU competitiveness and scale, eliminate remaining barriers caused by the fragmentation induced by national practices. In turn, this would promote the development of the internal market of converging high-speed wireless broadband communications and enable planning and provision of integrated multi-territorial networks and services and economies of scale, thereby fostering innovation, economic growth and the long-term benefit of end users.
1. Copper switch-off
The migration from legacy copper to newly deployed fibre networks is a key process to facilitate the transition towards the new connectivity ecosystem and contributes to the EU’s green objectives78. At the same time, it will promote the take-up of the new services and thus contribute to increasing the return on fibre investment and support the achievement of the Digital Decade target whereby, by 2030, all end users at a fixed location should be covered by a gigabit network up to the network termination point79.
While the decommissioning of copper networks has the potential to decrease the OPEX costs for operators providing at the same time a more sustainable infrastructure due to lower energy consumption, the process requires coordination of all stakeholders. Predictable and balanced measures are necessary to avoid the migration reversing competitive gains, including competitive infrastructure roll-out, under the current regulatory regime. The needs of end-users, in particular vulnerable groups and end-users with disabilities, should also be carefully addressed. While the Code already contains provisions on migration processes and the new Gigabit Recommendation80 aims at providing updated guidance to regulators, a clear path towards migration would send a strong signal to the sector further incentivizing investment.
The copper switch-off process requires close monitoring. NRAs should ensure that the design of the switch-off process by the operator with significant market power (SMP), in particular as regards its timing and agenda, does not allow strategic behaviour that would risk weakening competition at wholesale or retail level. Some operators, at least initially, would not switch off copper (in particular, if it is supplemented by vectoring, which enables higher quality of broadband services – though falling significantly below VHCN performance). It cannot be excluded that some operators try to switch over customers from copper to fibre via lock-in strategies that would undermine the business case of FTTH alternative operators. Operators would lower FTTH wholesale prices in view of competing FTTH entry in order to keep wholesale customers. Therefore, the regulatory incentives for the switch-off, in particular on temporary copper price increase during the switch-off phase as proposed in the Gigabit Recommendation, should be accompanied by sufficient safeguards to preserve competition (similar to those provisionally agreed under the Gigabit Infrastructure Act81 (GIA) and described in next section). Furthermore, lighter access regulation on very high-capacity networks could be imposed by applying pricing flexibility, subject to safeguard mechanisms as provided in the new Gigabit Recommendation.
In light of the above, setting a recommended date for achieving the copper switch-off would provide for planning certainty throughout the Union and would offer end-users opportunities of fibre connections under similar timeframes. Considering the national circumstances and the connectivity targets set in the Digital Decade, achieving a copper switch-off for 80% subscribers in the EU by 2028 and the remaining 20% by 2030 seems appropriate. Such a clear roadmap for copper switch-off would support the 2030 connectivity targets and send a strong signal for investors that there is a clear path towards a return on investment in fibre networks.
17. Access policy in a full fibre environment
The objective of liberalisation of the EU electronic communications sector was, following the global trends, to bring competition into a sector characterised by legal/statutory monopoly and to combat historical negative consequences of such monopoly (e.g. resulting inefficiency, lack of innovation, low quality, monopoly rents) etc. However, from its very inception, the ultimate goal was to limit sector specific regulation over time and - after a transition period and subject to competition developments - to migrate in the sector to a market-based environment subject only to competition rules.
Ex-ante regulatory intervention has been broadly successful in lifting barriers to competition in the national market for fixed legacy networks. The emergence of competition after regulatory intervention made it possible to reduce the number of markets that national regulators need to assess ex-ante from 18 to 2 between 2003 and 202082. As the markets subject to ex-ante regulation and the number of operators designated as having SMP have diminished83 in view of the progressing deployment of competing network infrastructures, it is right time to explore the possibility of not recommending at the EU level any market for ex-ante regulation. The possibility of leaving electronic communications networks to ex-post control alone could have merit in certain circumstances, as we observe infrastructure competition developing notably in many densely populated areas where end customers benefit from a variety of competing services based on at least two independent fixed broadband networks (e.g. coaxial cable and fibre).
Despite this progress, some barriers still persist (and may continue to persist in the near future) in some geographical areas (in particular rural/remote), and the need for ex ante intervention in such cases remains. However, with the objective to foster the progressive deployment of alternative fibre networks and with legacy networks of former incumbents to be ultimately replaced by Gigabit networks, the Commission and the NRAs will need to further adjust their intervention to keep pace with the market evolution and ensure investment incentives which are currently reduced by the perspective of overbuilding. In particular, NRAs should monitor the degree of infrastructure competition, potentially defining separate geographic markets and limiting ex ante regulation to the areas where it is still needed or applying differentiated remedies, ensuring their appropriateness and proportionality84.
To foster pan-European network roll out, the development of a more EU-level access regulation toolkit could be envisaged to complement or replace, when necessary, the national/local approach. Indeed, in a full-fibre environment, access products can be provided more centrally and at the higher network level without altering the capacity of access seekers to compete in terms of the services and quality as offered to the end-users. Such EU-wide remedies already exist in the current framework and they have been very successful in tackling common issues across the EU (e.g. introduction of single Union-wide mobile termination rates or roaming). They led to less burdensome albeit effective regulation reducing fragmentation. A decade later after the first Commission proposal of harmonised access remedies85, the lack of cross-border provision of electronic communications products and services persists. Therefore, time appears ripe for considering the introduction some EU-wide access remedies. While broadband access networks will remain predominantly of local character (due to demand and supply patterns), such unified and standardised access product could in turn facilitate the further integration of the single market. This tool should support the emergence of pan-European operators. For example, the provisional agreement on the GIA introduces symmetric regulation for access to civil engineering assets, including specific provisions aimed at protecting the business case of FTTH operators (although in some cases optional for Member States to implement). Operators investing in new fibre networks will be able to refuse access to their (newly deployed) physical infrastructure if they provide wholesale access, such as dark fibre, fibre unbundling, or bitstream under certain conditions, suitable for the provision of very high capacity networks under fair and reasonable terms and conditions86. At the same time, while phasing out ex ante regulation to foster investment incentives for the deployment of physical fibre networks across the whole of the EU, competition can be still preserved by providing for virtual access to lower the barriers for rolling out pan-European networks on a virtual basis.
In particular, where symmetric and harmonized regulation offered by standard remedies would not be sufficient and market failures would still persist, a safety net allowing continued ex-ante local regulation could be maintained. For this purpose, the “3 Criteria Test”87 should allow NRAs to determine (sub-national) markets where ex ante regulation is still necessary to address persistent market failures. In such (limited) geographic areas the SMP regulation could ensure that local access seekers remain in the market and prevent re-monopolisation of less densely populated areas or more generally in absence of competitive pressures. The limited SMP-based regulation could be ancillary or replaced to more general, harmonised symmetric rules addressing access to civil engineering infrastructure with safeguards providing investment certainty, e.g. in view of risk of unreasonable overbuild.
18. Universal service and affordability of digital infrastructure
The availability of adequate broadband internet services, of the quality that is needed to perform basic tasks on-line, such as eGovernment services, social media, browsing or performing video calls, is ubiquitous throughout the EU. Hence, in most of the Member States, Universal Service obligations are focused on consumers with low income or special needs.
However, in the future, a different kind of social exclusion may emerge, that of weaker end-users not being able to benefit from the best available networks due to their localisation (for example rural/remote areas) or due to the price of services. It is important to ensure that this does not lead to a social digital divide, and that all end-users may reap the benefits of very-high speed connectivity. It is hence important to ensure that Member States take measures to support such end-users and ensure appropriate geographical coverage.
The importance of ensuring Universal Service in the future has also been acknowledged by the European Parliament, the Council and the European Commission in the “European Declaration on Digital Rights and Principles for the Digital Decade”. According to its principle 3 “Everyone, everywhere in the EU, should have access to affordable and high-speed digital connectivity” and they commit to “(…) ensuring access to high-quality connectivity, with available Internet access, for everyone wherever in the EU, including for those with low income”.
Sector-specific universal service obligations have relied on two modes of financing: state financing and sector financing, the latter being the predominant form. Sector financing has so far been limited to electronic communications providers, while providers of NIICS have been excluded.
In addition to the Universal Service, a number of Member States have tried to ensure the affordability of networks through state financing in the form of connectivity vouchers with the view to boosting the take-up of high-speed offers. The latest Broadband State Aid Guidelines have clarified the conditions under which such connectivity vouchers may comply with EU State aid rules and the General Block Exemption Regulation now exempts from notification certain types. Vouchers, financed by the Member States, may be used to prevent or remedy any divide in access to very high -capacity networks.
19. Sustainability
A focus on environmental sustainability aspects of the digital transformation of the economy and society is a key requirement of the Digital Decade Policy Programme. The recent COP28 drew on EU proposals and actions in the field and launched a Green Digital Action in an effort to reinforce the role of digital in reaching international goals on climate change (such as on global warming, e-waste, fossil fuels) with a key involvement of the mobile electronic communications and satellite industry sectors. These developments reinforce and give an international dimension to European efforts in integrating sustainability in digital standards by design.
Another important aspect is to create more awareness on the issue of sustainability in digital networks. In this respect, in its Communication “Shaping Europe’s digital future”88 the Commission raised the possibility of introducing ‘transparency measures for electronic communications operators on their environmental footprint’ at EU level. In the EU Action Plan for Digitalising the Energy System89, the Commission announced that it will work, in consultation with the scientific community and stakeholders, towards defining common EU indicators for measuring the environmental footprint of electronic communications services. Furthermore, the Action Plan foresees the development, by 2025, of an EU Code of Conduct for the sustainability of electronic communications networks to help steering investments towards sustainable infrastructures. Following this announcement, the Commission in 2023 launched a survey to collect input on sustainability indicators from stakeholders involved in the design, development, deployment and operation of telecommunications networks providing communications services to both commercial and residential customers90. The results of the work on the sustainability indicators will be published in the coming weeks.
Beyond pursuing sustainability public policy objectives, such transparency efforts could be the basis to create incentives to attract investments in the electronic communications sector to make ICT greener (‘green ICT’) and have it enable the greening of other sectors (‘ICT for green’), particularly where investment funds are increasingly directing capital to green and sustainable infrastructures. The Commission will engage with the industry to further improve the usability and potential scope of the EU Taxonomy for green investment in electronic communications networks ensuring it is based on robust and credible science-based metrics. In this regard, the Commission could also assess the metrics to estimate the net carbon impact of digital solutions in climate critical sectors such as energy, transport, construction, agriculture, smart cities and manufacturing, as developed by the European Green Digital Coalition91. The aim should be that these metrics can be used by industrial actors, procurers and financial entities to measure the net gains in emission reduction, enabling sustainable finance to deploy and scale digital solutions including the necessary digital infrastructures.
Nonetheless, to ensure success in achieving sustainability objectives, it is essential that all players of the digital network ecosystem, including CAPs, cooperate towards an efficient use of resources while meeting energy needs. Beyond concrete actions to reduce carbon footprint, these players could also contribute to increasing transparency on the emissions related to the usage of their services, such as codecs’ performance labels .
20. Summary of possible scenarios
- Scenario 4: In order to address the converged electronic communications connectivity and services sector and to ensure that its benefits reach all end-users everywhere, the Commission may consider broadening the scope and objectives of the current regulatory framework to ensure a regulatory level playing field and equivalent rights and obligations for all actors and end-users of digital networks where appropriate to meet the corresponding regulatory objectives; given the likely global magnitude and impact of the technological developments and of any possible regulatory changes, a reform of the current framework needs to be properly assessed in terms of the economic impact on all actors as well as debated broadly with all stakeholders;
- Scenario 5: In order to address technological and market developments and the resulting need to change the regulatory paradigm and ensure less burden for companies and more efficient service delivery, while continuing to protect vulnerable end-users and promote territorial coverage, the Commission may consider:
- measures to accelerate copper switch-off (such as a target in 2030, aligned to the Digital Decade target for Gigabit connectivity, and support for copper-fibre switch-over from 2028);
- a change to access policy in view of full fibre environment, by proposing a European wholesale access product and recommending no markets for presumptive ex ante regulation while maintaining a safety net for NRAs to keep regulation if the “3 Criteria Test” is met (reverse burden of proof). In the alternative, only markets for civil infrastructure might be considered for regulation ex ante (as the most persistent bottleneck), combined with the implementation of lighter access regulation (no price regulation or pricing flexibility) along the lines of the recently adopted Gigabit Recommendation.
- Scenario 6: In order to facilitate the single market and building scale for activities of all players, the Commission may consider:
- a more integrated governance at Union level for spectrum that would allow, where necessary, for greater harmonisation of spectrum authorisation processes and thereby create the conditions for market scale necessary for pan-EU operators to attain larger investment capacity; the Commission may also consider solutions for more aligned authorisation and selection conditions, or even single selection or authorisation processes, for terrestrial and satellite communications and other innovative applications that make clear cases for fostering the development of the single market;
- a more harmonized approach to authorisation (through the possible establishment of “country of origin” principle for certain activities less connected to consumer retail markets and local access networks).
- Scenario 7: The Commission may consider facilitating greening of digital networks through promoting the timely switch-off of copper networks and the move to a full fibre environment and a more efficient use of networks (codecs) throughout the Union territory.
3. Pillar III: Secure and resilient digital infrastructures for Europe
To protect the value of the massive investments that Europe is to undertake to build the cutting-edge infrastructure that it needs to deliver economic growth and societal benefits, it is important to ensure that such infrastructure is secure. Given the threats outlined in Section 2 above, adequate attention should be given to physical security, notably in relation to the backbone infrastructure, as well as to the transmission of data from end to end of the network.
21. Towards secure communication using quantum and post-quantum technologies
Advances in quantum computing come with implications for existing encryption methods, which play a crucial role in ensuring end-to-end security in digital networks, including electronic communication networks and the critical infrastructures they are underpinning. Although quantum computers capable of breaking current encryption algorithms are not yet a reality, the first operational quantum computers are being deployed world-wide. Therefore, the EU needs to anticipate the maturing of quantum computers and start developing transition strategies towards a quantum-safe digital infrastructure now, i.e. secure against attacks from quantum computers. Short of this, the effort and investment in cutting-edge digital infrastructure to deliver applications of critical societal relevance, such as in the field of mobility or healthcare, could be compromised.
Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) is a promising approach to make our communications and data resistant to quantum attacks, as it is based on mathematical problems hard to solve even by quantum computers. As a software-based solution, for which new dedicated hardware is not necessary, PQC allows for a swift transition to higher protection levels.
PQC is already high on the agenda of many countries. National authorities, as well as the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA) have published reports on preparing for the implementation and deployment of PQC92. The US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) established a PQC Initiative to unify and drive agency efforts to address threats posed by quantum computing93.
However, the current framework in the Union cannot fully address the challenges posed by the migration to a quantum-safe digital infrastructure. Addressing these challenges requires a coordinated effort at EU level, involving mainly government agencies. For an effective transition towards PQC, efforts should be synchronized ensuring the roadmaps are aligned at Union level, with concrete timelines for every transition step. Assessment of the implementation of the transition plans will be beneficial not only to gather information on practical challenges and gaps, but also to anticipate needs for future EU regulatory requirements.
It is therefore important to encourage Member States to develop a coordinated and harmonized approach, ensuring consistency in the development and adoption of EU PQC standards across Member States. This consistency would promote interoperability, allowing systems and services to function seamlessly across borders, preventing fragmentation, different levels of efficiencies in the transition, and ensure a European approach to PQC. Measurable effects of the transition are expected to appear around 2030. This step appears to be compelling and needed to preserve future policy options in an evolving technology landscape. That is why the Commission will set out recommendations to this effect in due course.
In the long-term, Quantum Key Distribution94 (QKD) will offer additional security to our communications, at the physical network layer. Hybrid implementation schemes PQC/QKD are part of guidelines issued by different National Security Agencies and enter discussions about the design of coordinated actions at EU level. The combination of QKD and PQC will allow for full end-to-end security in our digital communications. QKD represents a hardware-based solution which is based on the unique properties of quantum physics, rather than on mathematical functions, and it is in principle inherently robust against brute-force attacks, as well as against new mathematical discoveries that are the underlying weakness of classical cryptography. Intense research is ongoing on different fronts to overcome the current practical challenges of this technology, and first deployment test-beds are at present being delivered under the EuroQCI initiative95 funded by the DEP and SAGA96. EuroQCI will be gradually integrated under IRIS2. In principle, QKD will represent a full paradigmatic shift of the digital infrastructure ecosystem, and constitutes already now a forward-looking, highly competitive technology of high interest also for future applications such as the Quantum Internet.
22. Towards security and resilience of submarine cable infrastructures
As described in Section 2.4 above, the security and resilience of the EU’s network and computing infrastructure is an essential element of our digital autonomy. In particular, it is clear that the security of submarine cable infrastructures is a particularly pressing issue of EU sovereignty and poses a challenge to EU resilience.
To overcome the identified challenges and protect the European interests, structural measures need to be considered. While the exact scope of these measures would need to be defined, a focus area should be the reinforcement of advanced R&I activities to strengthen the economic security of the EU, particularly in support of new fibre and cable technologies as part of the strengthening of the EU’s technical capacity as laid out in Section 3.1 above.
Another key area to be addressed in the long term concerns the financing of new strategic submarine cable infrastructures and the increase of security and resilience of existing ones. In this respect, an amendment by Delegated Act of the Annex Part V of the CEF Regulation could be considered in order to establish a CPEI list and related labelling system of strategic Cable Projects of European Interest (CPEIs) that would address identified risks, vulnerabilities and dependencies. CPEIs could be conceived to comply with the most advanced technological standards, such as sensor capabilities for their own monitoring and to support EU policies in the field of security, sustainability, or civil protection.
More generally, it will be important to ensure appropriate funding of CPEIs and pool together EU and national funding instruments, and explore the feasibility and potential leverage effect of financial instruments as possible implementing modes to ensure synergies and sufficient financing of CPEIs. Where appropriate, the Member States may decide also to design Cable IPCEI(s) in compliance with the criteria set in the IPCEI Communication97. Member States may also explore if the deployment and operation of certain CPEIs require further public support in line with State aid rules, or if it can be supported through the purchase of capacity for public use.
As a result, a joint EU governance system on submarine cable infrastructures could be envisaged, including: (i) additional elements to consider for mitigating and addressing risks, vulnerabilities and dependencies under a consolidated EU-wide assessment, and priorities for increasing resilience; (ii) revised criteria to upgrade existing or to fund new cables; (iii) an update of the co-created priority list of CPEI, both intra-EU and international, based on strategic importance and respect for the above criteria; (iv) pooled funding from various sources for such projects, including potentially through equity funds in which the Union could participate with Member States to de-risk private investment and (v) further actions to secure supply chains and avoid dependency on high-risk third-country suppliers.
Point (iv) could include specific action regarding the reinforcement of maintenance and repair capacity at EU level, which would mitigate the impact of any attempts to sabotage submarine cable infrastructure. This work stream could learn from the experience gained under the Union Civil Protection Mechanism and RescEU, particularly regarding firefighting, with a view to building up an EU-funded fleet of maintenance and repair vessels.
Finally, the need to work towards harmonised security requirements should also be addressed and promoted in international fora, including through the identification of best-in-class standards that harness the latest developments in security and self-monitoring capacities for cables and associated routing and relay equipment, which could be recognised through a dedicated EU certification scheme.
While safeguarding the space for future policy options, in the current geopolitical context described above and responding to the Council Recommendation as regards submarine cable infrastructures, it is necessary to take action to ensure the basis for a coordinated EU response. Therefore, alongside this White Paper, the Commission recommends to Member States certain immediate actions to prepare measures in the longer term. These possible actions are specifically related to submarine cable infrastructure that Member States can adopt in the implementation of the Council Recommendation on resilience of critical infrastructure concerning submarine cable infrastructure. The Commission Recommendation will ensure that Member States and the Commission work together to implement a coordinated and robust approach as a precursor to the identification of the appropriate level of EU funding of relevant R&I activities, in light of the scale of the challenge, and eventually a more centralised governance framework in the longer term.
23. Summary of possible scenarios
- Scenario 8: The Commission will promote the reinforcement of advanced R&I activities across the EU in support of new fibre and cable technologies.
- Scenario 9: The Commission may consider establishing a CPEI list and related labelling system by a Delegated Act under the Connecting Europe Facility.
- Scenario 10: The Commission may conduct a review of available instruments, in particular grants, procurement, blending operations under InvestEU and grant blending facilities, with a particular focus on leveraging private investment to support CPEIs, including the possibility of an equity fund.
- Scenario 11: The Commission may consider proposing a joint EU governance system on submarine cable infrastructures.
- Scenario 12: The Commission may consider harmonising security requirements in international fora, which may be recognised through a dedicated EU certification scheme.
4. CONCLUSION
As we are at the crossroads of major technological and regulatory developments, it is of tantamount importance to debate these developments broadly with all stakeholders and like-minded partners. Hence, with this White Paper the Commission launches a broad consultation of Member States, civil society, industry, and academics, to collect their views on the scenarios outlined in this White Paper and provide them with an opportunity to contribute to the Commission’s future proposals in this domain.
These ideas put forward include both policy means to ensure secure and resilient digital infrastructures and possible scenarios for key elements of a future regulatory framework. This consultation will allow a comprehensive dialogue with all concerned parties that will inform the next steps of the Commission.
The Commission invites comments on the proposals set out in the White Paper through a public consultation available at https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say_en. The consultation is open for comments until 30.06.2024.
1 Connected World: An evolution in connectivity beyond the 5G evolution, McKinsey 2020 available at https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/technology-media-and-telecommunications/our-insights/connected-world-an-evolution-in-connectivity-beyond-the-5g-revolution
2 Cf.“Analyzing the Economic Impacts of Telecommunications” Exploring the Relationship Between Broadband and Economic Growth”, Background Paper prepared for the World Development Report 2016: Digital Dividends, Michael Minges, 2015; “Europe’s internet ecosystem: socio-economic benefits of a fairer balance between tech giants and telecom operators”, Axon Partners Group, May 2022; Kongaut, Chatchai; Bohlin, Erik (2014): Impact of broadband speed on economic outputs: An empirical study of OECD countries, 25th European Regional Conference of the International Telecommunications Society (ITS): "Disruptive Innovation in the ICT Industries: Challenges for European Policy and Business", Brussels, Belgium, 22nd-25th June, 2014, International Telecommunications Society (ITS), Calgary.
3 Specifically, mobile’s baseline connectivity impact increases by about 15% when connections are upgraded to 3G. For connections upgrading from 2G to 4G, the impact increases by approximately 25%, according to Mobile technology: two decades driving economic growth (gsmaintelligence.com)
4 https://copenhageneconomics.com/publication/the-economic-impact-of-the-forthcoming-equiano-subsea-cable-in-portugal/
5 Cybersecurity of Open Radio Access Networks, Report by NIS Cooperation Group, May 2022.
6 This was also acknowledged in the Digital Decade Policy Programme 2030 (Decision (EU) 2022/2481 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 establishing the Digital Decade Policy Programme 2030, OJ L 323, 19.12.2022, p. 4.). According to its Art. 4(2)(a), by 2030 all end users at a fixed location should be covered by a gigabit network up to the network termination point, and all populated areas should be covered by next-generation wireless high-speed networks with performance at least equivalent to that of 5G, in accordance with the principle of technological neutrality.
7 https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/investment-and-funding-needs-digital-decade-connectivity-targets.
8 Directive (EU) 2022/2555 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 on measures for a high common level of cybersecurity across the Union, amending Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 and Directive (EU) 2018/1972, and repealing Directive (EU) 2016/1148 (NIS 2 Directive), OJ L 333, 27.12.2022, p. 80–152.
9 Directive (EU) 2022/2557 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 on the resilience of critical entities and repealing Council Directive 2008/114/EC, OJ L 333, 27.12.2022, p. 164–198.
10 Council Recommendation of 8 December 2022 on a Union-wide coordinated approach to strengthen the resilience of critical infrastructure, 2023/C 20/01, OJ C 20, 20.1.2023, p. 1–11.
11 This approach should also integrate challenges and opportunities for EU enlargement policies.
12 Decision (EU) 2022/2481 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 establishing the Digital Decade Policy Programme2030, OJ L 323, 19.12.2022, p.4.
13 https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/2023-report-state-digital-decade.
14 https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/broadband-coverage-europe-2022.
15 The Digital Decade Policy Programme sets a series of objectives and targets to promote the development of resilient, secure, performant and sustainable digital infrastructures in the Union, including a digital target for the Commission and Member States to achieve gigabit connectivity for all by 2030. The Programme should enable connectivity across the Union and around the globe, for citizens and business, including, but not limited to, providing access to affordable high-speed broadband that can help remove communication dead zones and increase cohesion across the Union, including its outermost regions, rural, peripheral, remote and isolated areas and islands.
16 See Global Fibre Development Index 2023, Omdia.
17 5G Observatory Biannual Report October 2023, page 8, https://5gobservatory.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/BR-19_October-2023_Final-clean.pdf
18 5G base stations per 100,000 inhabitants: 419 (South Korea), 206 (China), 77 (EU), 118 (Japan), 30 (US).
19 Cf. International DESI (to be published on the basis of OECD data). 24.07 subscriptions per 100 inhabitants are higher than 100 Mbps in the EU, comparing to 29.60 in the US, 33,36 in Japan and 43,60 in South Korea.
20 Report on the state of the Digital Decade 2023, SWD Digital Decade Cardinal Points, section 2.4.
21 https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/edge-observatory.
22 This technological shift and new paradigm have been confirmed by the large majority of respondents to the Commission’s exploratory consultation launched last year to gather views and identify Europe’s needs in terms of connectivity infrastructure to lead the digital transformation. In particular, respondents identified network virtualisation, network slicing, and Network as a Service, as the technological breakthroughs that will have the largest impact in the coming years. These technologies are expected to drive the shift from traditional electronic communications networks to cloud-based, virtualised, software-defined networks, reducing costs, improving the resilience and security of networks, and introducing new, innovative services, while transforming ecosystem and business models.
The results of the exploratory consultation were published in October 2023 and are available at https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/consultation-electronic-communications-highlights-need-reliable-and-resilient-connectivity.
23 See for instance: Integrated Private Wireless on AWS, https://pages.awscloud.com/rs/112-TZM-766/images/AWS%20Integrated%20Private%20Wireless%20eBook.pdf, Announcing private network solutions on Google Distributed Cloud Edge, https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/networking/announcing-private-network-solutions-on-google-distributed-cloud-edge.
24 5G Observatory biannual report October 2023, Omdia’s Mobile Infrastructure Intelligence Service.
25 https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/cross-border-corridors.
26 European industrial technology roadmap for the next generation cloud-edge offering, May 2021 https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/repository/document/2021-18/European_CloudEdge_Technology_Investment_Roadmap_for_publication_pMdz85DSw6nqPppq8hE9S9RbB8_76223.pdf
27 The concept of scale may be very different in a NaaS environment in nature and magnitude compared to the economies of scale of typical current electronic communication networks.
28 https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/investment-and-funding-needs-digital-decade-connectivity-targets.
29 European Alliance for Industrial Data, Edge and Cloud: “European industrial technology roadmap for the next-generation cloud-edge”, extrapolating until 2030 the investment gap identified in the Commission Staff Working Document (27.5.2020): Identifying Europe's recovery needs, SWD(2020) 98 final/2, Brussels, pp. 17-18.
30 Synergy Research Group, e.g. based on Q1/2023 data, Investments related to general cloud capacities tailored to the business model of each cloud provider and not significantly overlapping with the general EU connectivity investment needs.
31 In 2022, mobile ARPU was EUR15.0 in Europe, as opposed to EUR42.5 in the US, EUR26.5 in South Korea, and EUR25.9 in Japan. Fixed broadband ARPU was EUR22.8 in Europe versus EUR58.6 in the US, EUR24.4 in Japan, and EUR13.1 in South Korea. ETNO, State of Digital Communications 2024, January 2024.
32 As regards fixed markets, according to the 2023 State of the Digital Communications ETNO report, the ARPU of ETNO members was at EUR 21.8 compared to EUR 50.6 in the US and EUR 26.2 in Japan, and only ahead of South Korea (EUR 13) and China (EUR 4.9).
33 Ibid.
34 State of Digital Communications 2023, ETNO.
35 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on boosting startups and innovation in trustworthy artificial intelligence, COM(2024)28 final.
36 Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II), OJ L 335, 17.12.2009, p. 1–155.
37 Financer la quatrième révolution industrielle, Philippe Tibi, 2019.
38 Deloitte Belgium and CEPS for the European Commission, DG for Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union, Study on the drivers of investments in equity by insurers and pension funds, December 2019.
39 Confirmation of the final compromise text with a view to agreement, Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2009/138/EC, 2021/0295 (COD).
40 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the review of the EU prudential framework for insurers and reinsurers in the context of the EU’s post pandemic recovery, COM(2021) 580, 2021.
41 The results of the exploratory consultation were published in October 2023 and are available at: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/consultation-electronic-communications-highlights-need-reliable-and-resilient-connectivity. In this regard, the large majority of the respondents to this question (including telecom and satellite business associations, vendors, operators as well as NGOs) noted that the digital single market is hampered by the fragmentation of the sector into national markets. This is due both to cultural and diverging market circumstances and the lack of full harmonisation of sector rules (e.g. building lawful interception capabilities, data retention, data protection, reshoring requirements, cybersecurity and reporting obligations and network/service incident reporting requirements, spectrum auction conditions, etc.), which is also caused by a slow and piecemeal implementation of EU rules at national level and fragmented approaches to enforcement.
42 When replying to the consultation, the majority of the respondents, mostly companies (ECN providers and digital platforms), business associations and consumer organizations, welcomed the idea of a more integrated spectrum market and a harmonised approach to spectrum management across the EU.
43 COM(2013) 627 final.
44 Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code, OJ L 321, 17.12.2018, p. 36.
45 Commission study on assessing the efficiency of radio spectrum award processes in the Member States, including the effects of applying the European Electronic Communications Code, available at https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/study-assessing-efficiency-radio-spectrum-award-processes-member-states-including-effects-applying.
46Commission study on spectrum assignment in the European Union, available at https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/2388b227-a978-11e7-837e-01aa75ed71a1/language-en.
47 The results of the exploratory consultation were published in October 2023 and are available at https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/consultation-electronic-communications-highlights-need-reliable-and-resilient-connectivity. For this point see page 12 under point ii. Obstacles to the Digital Single Market.
48 Mobile and fixed broadband prices vary widely across the EU not only in nominal terms but also at power purchasing parity. See European Commission, Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, Mobile and fixed broadband prices in Europe 2021 – Final report and executive summary, Publications Office of the European Union, 2022, available at https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2759/762630.
49 2023 Report on the state of the Digital Decade, available at https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/2023-report-state-digital-decade.
50 Directive (EU) 2022/2555 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 on measures for a high common level of cybersecurity across the Union, amending Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 and Directive (EU) 2018/1972, and repealing Directive (EU) 2016/1148 (NIS 2 Directive), OJ L 333, 27.12.2022, p. 80.
51 BoR (23) 214, Draft BEREC Report on the general authorization and related frameworks for international submarine connectivity.
52 Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2022 on contestable and fair markets in the digital sector and amending Directives (EU) 2019/1937 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Digital Markets Act), OJ L 265, 12.10.2022, p. 1.
53 Strategic Foresight Report 2022; EU Action Plan on Digitalising the Energy System.
54 The Shift Project, “Déployer la sobriété numérique”, October 2020, p. 16; World Bank 2022.
55 World Economic Forum 2019.
56 https://www.buildup.eu/en/news/overview-smart-hvac-systems-buildings-and-energy-savings-0.
57 TransformingTransport.eu, EU-funded Horizon 2020 Big Data Value Lighthouse project.
58 A codec is a process that compresses large amounts of data – most commonly a video stream - before their transmission and decompresses them after the reception.
59 https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/connectivity-toolbox-member-states-agree-best-practices-boost-timely-deployment-5g-and-fibre.
60 C(2023) 4049.
61 EUCCS is based on projects funded by the EU security research programme and the Internal Security Fund. The current rollout of testbeds in Member States will also establish the link to EU connectivity assets in Space, in line with the EU Space Strategy for Security and Defence.
62 https://presse.economie.gouv.fr/08-03-2022-declaration-conjointe-des-ministres-de-lunion-europeenne-charges-du-numerique-et-des-communications-electroniques-adressee-au-secteur-numerique/.
63 A submarine gas pipeline (between Finland and Estonia) and electronic communications cables (between FI and EE, and between SE and EE) were damaged.
64 Council conclusions of 21 June 2022 on a Framework for a coordinated EU response to hybrid campaigns.
65 Collaborative computing environments have also been referred to in literature as Swarm computing, Ambient Computing, and Tactile internet, among other additional terms.
66 Commission study on 5G Supply Market Trends, August 2021, available at https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/commission-publishes-study-future-5g-supply-ecosystem-europe.
67 Regulation (EU) 2023/1781 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 September 2023 establishing a framework of measures for strengthening Europe’s semiconductor ecosystem and amending Regulation (EU) 2021/694 (Chips Act) (Text with EEA relevance), OJ L 229, 18.9.2023, p. 1–53.
68 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_6246.
69 COM/2024/28 final.
70 See e.g. WIK-consult: Final study report “Competitive conditions on transit and peering markets”, Bad Honnef, 28.02.2022.
71 Only a few ISPs do not allow on-net data exchange, continuing instead to exchange traffic across network boundaries and point of interconnection.
72 For an overview of known cases see WIK-consult: Final study report “Competitive conditions on transit and peering markets”, Bad Honnef, 28.02.2022.
73 For an overview of the various arguments raised in this debate, see e.g. also the responses to the relevant section of the exploratory consultation available at https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/consultation-electronic-communications-highlights-need-reliable-and-resilient-connectivity.
74 The results of the exploratory consultation were published in October 2023 and are available at https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/consultation-electronic-communications-highlights-need-reliable-and-resilient-connectivity. For this specific point see page 12 under point ii. Obstacles to the Digital Single Market.
75 Regulation (EU) 2015/758 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2015 concerning type-approval requirements for the deployment of the eCall in-vehicle system based on the 112 service and amending Directive 2007/46/EC, OJ L 123, 19.5.2015, p. 77–89.
76 More than EUR 109 bn for 3G and more than EUR 40bn for 4G. ETNO, 2024 State of the Digital Communication Report.
77 Under the 676/2002/EC Radio Spectrum Decision, with a view to the adoption of technical harmonisation measures to ensure the availability and efficient use of radio spectrum, the Commission is cooperating with the CEPT gathering experts from national authorities responsible for radio spectrum management from 46 European countries, including the 27 EU Member States.
78 Currently, the process of copper switch-off varies considerably in the EU. By 2023 the leading fixed line operators had announced plans for switching off their copper network in 16 Member States (BE, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HU, IE, IT, LU, MT, PL, PT, SE, SI, SK), while actual decommissioning has already commenced in 10 Member States (BE, EE, ES, FI, LU, MT, PL, PT, SE, SI). However, the progress within these Member States varies significantly. See also BEREC summary report on the outcomes of the internal workshop on the migration from legacy infrastructures to fibre-based networks, 5 Dec. 2019, BoR (19) 23.
79 Another possible scenario is that copper networks would be at least partially replaced by fixed wireless access products (based on 5G). Moreover, significant differences in fibre deployment pace may lead to smaller, localized markets, not allowing a truly single market to emerge.
80 Commission Recommendation of 6.2.2024 on the regulatory promotion of gigabit connectivity, C(2024) 523 final.
81 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_669.
82 Commission Recommendation (EU) 2020/2245 of 18 December 2020 on relevant product and service markets within the electronic communications sector susceptible to ex ante regulation in accordance with the Code (the 2020 Recommendation on Relevant Markets, OJ L 439, 29.12.2020, p. 23-31.
83 In the key “bottleneck” market for wholesale local access, in Bulgaria, Romania, the Netherlands the regulation was phased out due to the existing competition. In Czechia, Denmark, Hungary and Poland the markets are partly deregulated. In Austria, no operator is designated as having SMP and wholesale access products are provided based on commercial terms.
84 See recital 172 of the Code.
85 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down measures concerning the European single market for electronic communications and to achieve a Connected Continent, and amending Directives 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC and 2002/22/EC and Regulations (EC) No 1211/2009 and (EU) No 531/2012, Brussels, 11.9.2013, COM(2013) 627 final.
86 Member States could allow network operators and public sector bodies to refuse access to physical infrastructure by offering active access, such as bitstream as an alternative to physical access, under conditions, i.e. the deployment project of the requesting operator addresses the same coverage area, there is no other fibre network connecting end-user premises (FTTP ) serving this coverage area, and the same or an equivalent refusal possibility is applied at the date of the entry into force of the regulation, in the Member State in accordance with national law complying with Union law. Also, networks deployed by undertakings owned or controlled by public sector bodies in rural or remote areas and operated on a wholesale only basis could receive an extra protection from competition if a Member State allows them to refuse requests to coordinate civil works.
87 In accordance with Article 67(1) of the Code and Recital 22 of the 2020 Recommendation on Relevant Markets, the national regulatory authorities can also define other relevant product and service markets, not recommended for ex-ante regulation, if they can prove that in their national context, the markets meet the “three criteria test”. A market may be considered to justify the imposition of regulatory obligations if all of the following criteria are met: (a) high and non-transitory structural, legal or regulatory barriers to entry are present; (b) there is a market structure which does not tend towards effective competition within the relevant time horizon, having regard to the state of infrastructure-based competition and other sources of competition behind the barriers to entry; (c) competition law alone is insufficient to adequately address the identified market failure(s).
88 COM(2020) 67 final.
89 COM(2022) 552 final.
90 https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/scientific-activities-z/green-and-sustainable-telecom-networks/sustainability-indicators-telecom-networks_en.
91 See, greendigitalcoalition.eu.
92 See, ANSSI Avis scientifique et technique de l’ANSSI sur la migration vers la cryptographie post-quantique, available at anssi-avis-migration-vers-la-cryptographie-post-quantique.pdfanssi-avis-migration-vers-la-cryptographie-post-quantique.pdf; BSI. Migration zu Post-Quanten-Kryptografie. Migration zu Post-Quanten-Kryptografie - Handlungsempfehlungen des BSI (bund.de)Migration zu Post-Quanten-Kryptografie - Handlungsempfehlungen des BSI (bund.de) ; Post-Quantum Cryptography: Current state and quantum mitigation — ENISA (europa.eu); Post-Quantum Cryptography - Integration study — ENISA (europa.eu).
93 https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/news/cisa-announces-post-quantum-cryptography-initiative.
94 The Commission is working with all 27 EU Member States, and the European Space Agency (ESA), to design, develop and deploy the European Quantum Communication Infrastructure (EuroQCI). It will be an integral part of IRIS², the new EU space-based secure communication system.
95 The European Quantum Communication Infrastructure (EuroQCI) Initiative | Shaping Europe’s digital future (europa.eu)
96 The space-based component for EuroQCI, known as SAGA (Security And cryptoGrAphic mission), is developed under ESA’s responsibility and consists of satellite quantum communication systems with pan-European reach.
97 Communication on the criteria for the analysis of the compatibility with the internal market of State aid to promote the execution of IPCEIs, OJ C 528, 30.12.2021, p. 10–18.
EN EN