Study on National Broadband Plans - atene KOM€¦ · Study on National Broadband Plans in the EU-28 Final report A study prepared for the European Commission DG Communications Networks,

Digital

Study on National Broadband Plans

in the EU-28

Final reportA study prepared for the European Commission DG Communications Networks, Content & Technology by:

Single Market

Digital

Digital Single Market

This study was carried out for the European Commission by

atene KOM GmbH |

Agency for Communication, Organization and Management

Invalidenstraße 91

10115 Berlin / Germany

Tel. +49 (0)30 / 60 98 990-0

Fax +49 (0)30 / 60 98 990-99

[email protected]

AUTHORS

Feldmann, Johannes (M.A., M.A., MBA)

Khodabakhsh, Peyman (M.Sc.); Valiucko, Darijus (M.A.)

Weber, Christina (M.A.); Beck, Christian (M.A.)

Internal identification Contract number: 30-CE-0735856/00-93 SMART number 2014/077

DISCLAIMER By the European Commission, Directorate-General of Communications Networks, Content & Technology.

The information and views set out in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein.

ISBN 978-92-79-66284-3 doi:10.2759/340045 © European Union, 2014. All rights reserved. Certain parts are licensed under conditions to the EU.

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledg

Digital Single Market

TableofContents

Disclaimer................................................................................................................................................9

1 ExecutiveSummary(English)......................................................................................................11

2 ExecutiveSummary(French)......................................................................................................23

3 Introduction................................................................................................................................32

3.1 Objectiveofthestudy.......................................................................................................34

3.2 MethodologyandProcedure............................................................................................35

4 DigitalAgenda2020:TowardsHigh-SpeedInternetAccessintheEU........................................37

4.1 DefinitionsandObjectives................................................................................................37

4.2 GaugingProgress:KeyIndicators.....................................................................................38

4.2.1 BroadbandIndicators:DAEtargetsonEuropeanandNationalLevel...........................39

4.2.2 Socio-EconomicIndicators............................................................................................47

4.2.3 Mobilenetworkindicators............................................................................................50

5 ImplementingtheDigitalAgenda2020......................................................................................53

5.1 BroadbandTargets:Overviewofnationalbroadbandplans............................................53

5.1.1 NBPs:DifferingApproaches...........................................................................................59

5.1.2 ProbabilitiesofAchievement........................................................................................59

5.2 BroadbandDevelopmentinPractice:MemberStateReports.........................................61

5.2.1 Austria...........................................................................................................................64

5.2.2 Belgium..........................................................................................................................69

5.2.3 Bulgaria..........................................................................................................................73

5.2.4 Croatia...........................................................................................................................79

5.2.5 Cyprus............................................................................................................................84

5.2.6 CzechRepublic...............................................................................................................89

5.2.7 Denmark........................................................................................................................94

5.2.8 Estonia...........................................................................................................................99

5.2.9 Finland.........................................................................................................................104

5.2.10France..........................................................................................................................109

5.2.11Germany......................................................................................................................113

5.2.12Greece.........................................................................................................................118

5.2.13Hungary.......................................................................................................................123

5.2.14Ireland.........................................................................................................................128

5.2.15Italy..............................................................................................................................133

5.2.16Latvia...........................................................................................................................139

5.2.17Lithuania......................................................................................................................144

5.2.18Luxembourg.................................................................................................................148

5.2.19Malta...........................................................................................................................153

5.2.20TheNetherlands..........................................................................................................158

5.2.21Poland..........................................................................................................................164

5.2.22Portugal.......................................................................................................................169

5.2.23Romania.......................................................................................................................174

5.2.24Slovakia........................................................................................................................180

5.2.25Slovenia.......................................................................................................................186

5.2.26Spain............................................................................................................................191

5.2.27Sweden........................................................................................................................198

5.2.28UnitedKingdom...........................................................................................................203

6 MainTrends..............................................................................................................................210

6.1 FavourableconditionsforNGAroll-out..........................................................................210

6.1.1 Marketpressureontheincumbent.............................................................................210

6.1.2 Demandsideactivitiesanddigitizationofsocietyasawhole.....................................213

6.1.3 Stateaidandfinancialinstruments.............................................................................214

6.1.4 Regulation(AOstoaccessdifferentinfrastructures)..................................................216

6.1.5 Populationdensityandurbanizationrate...................................................................216

6.1.6 Availabilityofductsandupgradablenetworks...........................................................218

6.1.7 Willingnesstopayandaffordability............................................................................219

7 GoodPracticesfordefiningNBPmeasures...............................................................................221

7.1 ExampleI:DemandSidemeasure–BroadbandDeliveryUK’svoucherscheme...........223

7.2 ExampleII:SupplySidemeasure–NationalFundingProgramGermany.......................224

7.3 ExampleIII:Regulatory,Organizationalmeasure–Symmetricregulation....................225

7.4 ExampleIV:Transparencymeasure–PolishNBP...........................................................225

8 ConclusionandOutlook(revisedEUtargets)...........................................................................227

9 ListofAbbreviations.................................................................................................................230

10 ListofReferences......................................................................................................................238

11 Annex........................................................................................................................................242

Disclaimer

BytheEuropeanCommission,Directorate-General

ofCommunicationsNetworks,Content&Technology.

Theinformationandviewssetoutinthispublicationarethose

oftheauthor(s)anddonotnecessarily

reflecttheofficialopinionoftheCommission.

TheCommissiondoesnotguaranteetheaccuracyofthe

dataincludedinthisstudy.NeithertheCommissionnoranyperson

actingontheCommission’sbehalfmaybeheldresponsibleforthe

usewhichmaybemadeoftheinformationcontainedthere.

|Page11from330

11

1 Abstract–KeyFindings(English)

Despiteambitiousnationalbroadbandplans,onlyfewMemberStatesareclosetoreachingtheDAE

targetsortheirnationaltargetsrespectively.TheMemberstates’NBPshighlydifferregardingtheir

content.FewcountriesdocurrentlynothaveasingledocumentthatcanberegardedasanNBP,but

allMemberStateshoweverhaveanoverallstrategicapproachforthedeploymentofNGAnetworks

thatisimplementedinpractice.ThereareavarietyofconditionsthatinfluencethesuccessofNGA

roll-outinagivencountry.SuccessfulNBPsconsidertheirrespectivestartingpositionsanddescribe

concretemeasuresthattakeadvantageoftheindividualstrengthsanddefinemeasurestomitigate

theeffectofdisadvantages.TheNBPsof theMemberStatesusuallysetoneortwofocioutof the

following spheres:DemandSidemeasures, Supply Sidemeasures,Regulatory andOrganizational

measures, Transparencymeasures.There is no one-size-fits-all solution for broadband strategies

acrossEurope.TheNBPsseemnottobetransferrable,whilesomemeasures,however,canbeapplied

underthesameconditions.

|Page13from330

13

2 Abstract–KeyFindings(French)

Malgrélesplansnationauxhautdébitambitieux,peud’Étatsmembressontprèsd'atteindrelesob-

jectifsdel'agendanumérique(DAE)ouleursobjectifsnationaux.LesNBPsdesÉtatsmembresdiffè-

rentfortementconcernantleurcontenu.Peudepaysnedisposentpasactuellementd'undocument

uniquequipeutêtreconsidérécommeunNBP,maistouslesÉtatsmembresontuneapprochestraté-

giquegénéralepourledéploiementdesréseauxd’accèsdenouvellegénération(NGA)etleurmiseen

œuvrepratique.Ilexistedenombreusesconditionsquiontuneinfluencesurlesuccèsdudéploie-

mentdesréseauxNGA.DesNBPsefficacesconsidèrentleursproprespositionsdedépartetpropo-

sentdesmesuresconcrètesexploitantlesforcesindividuellesetdéfinissantdesmesurespouratté-

nuerl'effetdesinégalités.LesNBPsdesÉtatsmembresétablissentgénéralementunoudeuxpoints

prioritairesdanslesdomainessuivants:lesmesuresafférentesàl’offre,lesmesuresafférentesàla

demande, lesmesuresréglementairesetorganisationnelles, lesmesuresdetransparence. Iln'ya

pasd’approcheuniversellepourlesstratégieshautdébitàtraversl'Europe.IlsemblequelesNBPsne

soientpas transférables, tandisquecertainesmesurespeuventcependantêtreappliquéespartout

danslesmêmesconditions.

|Page15from330

15

3 ExecutiveSummary(English)

ThefollowingstudyonNationalBroadbandPlans(NBPs)intheEU-28(SMART2014/0077)wascon-

ductedbetweenNovember2015andSeptember2016.Forouranalysis,wemainlyreliedon infor-

mationobtainedfromtheEuropeanCommissionandNationalauthorities.Furthermore,wereached

outtokeystakeholdersandpractitionersfromthe28MemberStatestogaininsightsconcerningthe

actualimplementationofthenationalbroadbandplansineachrespectivecountry.Overall,thestudy

presentedshallgiveanoverviewonthecurrentstateoftheMemberStatesregardingtheirconnectiv-

ity,thetargetsandmeasuresdefinedwithintheNBPsandtheactualpracticalimplementationpro-

cesses.Themainresultsofthestudyareasfollows:

1) Despiteambitiousnationalbroadbandplans,onlyfewMemberStatesareclosetoreaching

theDAEtargetsortheirnationaltargetsrespectively.

2) TheMemberstates’NBPshighlydifferregardingtheircontent.Fewcountriesdocurrently

nothaveasingledocumentthatcanberegardedasanNBP,butallMemberStateshowever

haveanoverallstrategicapproachforthedeploymentofNGAnetworksthatisimplemented

inpractice.

3) ThereareavarietyofconditionsthatinfluencethesuccessofNGAroll-outinagivencountry.

SuccessfulNBPsconsidertheirrespectivestartingpositionsanddescribeconcretemeasures

thattakeadvantageoftheindividualstrengthsanddefinemeasurestomitigatetheeffectof

disadvantages.

4) TheNBPsoftheMemberStatesusuallysetoneortwofocioutofthefollowingspheres:De-

mand Side measures, Supply Side measures, Regulatory and Organizational measures,

Transparencymeasures.

5) Thereisnoone-size-fits-allsolutionforbroadbandstrategiesacrossEurope.TheNBPsseem

nottobetransferrable,whilesomemeasures,however,canbeappliedunderthesamecon-

ditions.

I.ConcerningtheprobabilitiesofreachingtheDAEtargets,wehaveanalysedthatcurrentlyonly14

outofthe28MemberStatesdefinedtheirownnationaltargets.TheothercountriesfollowtheDigital

Agenda for Europe.However, only few countries havehighprobabilities to reach their targets. As

shownbythefollowingtable,wearenotconvincedthatanyEUMemberStatewillreachitsowntar-

get.Nonetheless,thereareseveralcountriesthathavedecentchancestomeettheDAEtargetsby

16

2020.Generally,theresultsofthestudyreinforcetheneedtoincreaseandincentiviseinvestment.If

Europedoesnotwanttolagbehindatgloballevel,broadbanddevelopmentneedstospeedup.Inthis

regard,theprovisionandexploitationoffastandultrafastinternetservicesiscrucialforEurope’sfu-

tureeconomicdevelopmentandcompetitivenessaswellasfortheprogressandcohesionofsociety

asawhole.WiththeDigitalAgenda2020andtherecentlypublishednewEuropeanbroadbandtargets

for2025,theEuropeanCommissionhassetupasubstantialframeworkforthefuturedigitaladvance-

mentofEurope.ForEuropetofullytakeadvantageofthisframeworkandthustorealisethefullpo-

tentialofdigitaldevelopment,allrelevantstakeholdersneedtomaximisetheirefforts.MemberStates

havetoprovideappropriateincentivesandmeansfor increasinginvestmentwhilst localactorsand

theICTindustryneedtomakeuseoftheseinstruments.Inthatsense,MemberStatesshouldbuildon

existingsuccessfulmeasures,butbemoreambitious,notonlyintermsofincentivesandmeans,but

also,especiallywithregardtothenewEuropeanambitionsfor2025,intermsofobjectives,thereby

ensuringEurope’sfutureeconomicandsocialprogress.

Table1summarizesallNBP’stargets,thecurrentstateofconnectivityandourestimationsconcerning

theprobabilityofmeetingthenationaltargetsandtheDAEtargetsrespectively.

17

17

Mem

berS

tate

Stateofco

nnectiv

ityDESI

(July201

5)

N

BPTargets

Coverage

(NGA

) 30M

bps

Takeup(calcu-

latedasof

households)

100Mbp

sand

more

Coverage

Take-up

Prob

abilityo

fachievem

ent

(DAE

II/DA

EIII/N

ational

target)

Austria

88.8%

2.24%

99%coveragewith

100M

bpsb

y2020/

70%until2018

N/A

Medium/low/low

Belgium

98.9%

22.77%

N/A

50%HHpenetrationwith

1

Gbpsse

rviceby2020

High/high/medium

Bulgaria

71.8%

2.88%

100%co

veragewith

30Mbp

sby2020

50%

ofho

useholdsand

80%ofbu

sinessessub-

scrib

ingto>100Mbp

sby2020

Low/low/medium(80%

ofb

usinesseswith

100

Mbp

s)

Croatia

52.0%

0.12%

100%co

veragewith

30Mbp

sby2020

50%

HH

penetrationwith

100M

bpsserviceby

2020

Low/low/N.A.

Cyprus

84.0%

0.06%

100%co

veragewith

30Mbp

sby2020

50%

HH

penetrationwith

100M

bpsserviceby

2020

Medium/low/N.A.

CzechRe

public

72.9%

5.55%

100%co

veragewith

30Mbp

sby2020

50%

HH

penetrationwith

100M

bpsserviceby

2020

Low/low/N.A.

Denm

ark

91.7%

9.39%

100%coveragewith

100M

bpsdo

wn-

loadand

30Mbp

suploadby2020

N/A

Medium/medium/low

Estonia

86.4%

4.48%

100%co

veragewith

30Mbp

sby2020

60%

HH

penetrationwith

100M

bpsserviceby

2020

High/low/low

18

18

Mem

berS

tate

Stateofco

nnectiv

ityDESI

(July201

5)

N

BPTargets

Coverage

(NGA

) 30M

bps

Takeup(calcu-

latedasof

households)

100Mbp

sand

more

Coverage

Take-up

Prob

abilityo

fachievem

ent

(DAE

II/DA

EIII/N

ational

target)

Finland

75.1%

15.11%

99%ofallp

ermanentresidencesa

ndof-

ficessh

ouldbelocatedwith

in2kmofan

opticfibren

etworkorcablen

etwork

thatenablescon

nectionsof100Mbp

s

by2019

N/A

Low/medium/medium

France

44.8%

7.66%

100%co

veragewith

30Mbp

sby2022

N/A

Low/low/medium

Germ

any

81.4%

4.82%

100%co

veragewith

50Mbp

sby2018

N/A

Medium/low/medium

Greece

36.3%

0.01%

100%co

veragewith

30Mbp

sby2020

50%

HH

penetrationwith

100M

bpsserviceby

2020

Low/low/N.A.

Hungary

78.2%

12.68%

100%co

veragewith

30Mbp

sby2018

50%

HH

penetrationwith

100M

bpsserviceby

2020

Medium/m

edium/m

e-

dium

Ireland

79.7%

13.24%

100%co

veragewith

30Mbp

sby2020

50%

HH

penetrationwith

100M

bpsserviceby

2020,expectin

gupstreambandw

idthsa

roun

d17to

21M

bps

Low/low/N.A.

Italy

43.9%

0.54%

100%co

veragewith

30Mbp

sby2020

50%

HH

penetrationwith

100M

bpsserviceby

2020

Low/low/N.A.

Latvia

90.7%

25.30%

100%co

veragewith

30Mbp

sby2020

50%

HH

penetrationwith

100M

bpsserviceby

2020

Medium/medium/N.A.

19

Mem

berS

tate

Stateofco

nnectiv

ityDESI

(July201

5)

N

BPTargets

Coverage

(NGA

)30M

bps

Takeup(calcu-

latedasof

households)

100Mbp

sand

more

Coverage

Take-up

Prob

abilityo

fachievem

ent

(DAE

II/DA

EIII/N

ational

target)

Lithu

ania

97.5%

10.42%

100%co

veragewith

30Mbp

sby2020

50%

HH

penetrationwith

100M

bpsserviceby

2020

High/medium/N.A.

Luxembo

urg

94.4%

7.33%

100

%coverage

with

1G

bpsdo

wn-

stream

and

500M

bpsu

pstreamby2020

N/A

High/low/medium

Malta

100.00

%

0.99%

100%co

veragewith

30Mbp

sby2020

50%

HH

penetrationwith

100M

bpsserviceby

2020

Targetmet/low/N.A.

Netherland

s98.3%

16.53%

100%co

veragewith

30Mbp

sby2020

50%

HH

penetrationwith

100M

bpsserviceby

2020

High/low/N.A.

Poland

60.7%

4.23%

100%co

veragewith

30Mbp

sby2020

50%

HH

penetrationwith

100M

bpsserviceby

2020

Low/low/N.A.

Portugal

90.9%

18.88%

100%co

veragewith

30Mbp

sby2020

50%

HH

penetrationwith

100M

bpsserviceby

2020

Medium/medium/N.A.

Romania

71.6%

26.72%

80%co

veragewith

30Mbp

sby2020

45%

HH

penetrationwith

100M

bpsserviceby

2020

Medium/m

edium/m

e-

dium

Slovakia

67.1%

6.70%

100%co

veragewith

30Mbp

sby2020

N/A

Low/low/N.A.

Slovenia

78.8%

4.91%

96%coveragewith

100M

bps,4%

cov-

erage30M

bpsb

y2020

N/A

Low/low/low

19

19

Mem

berS

tate

Stateofco

nnectiv

ityDESI

(July201

5)

N

BPTargets

Coverage

(NGA

) 30M

bps

Takeup(calcu-

latedasof

households)

100Mbp

sand

more

Coverage

Take-up

Prob

abilityo

fachievem

ent

(DAE

II/DA

EIII/N

ational

target)

Lithu

ania

97.5%

10.42%

100%co

veragewith

30Mbp

sby2020

50%

HH

penetrationwith

100M

bpsserviceby

2020

High/medium/N.A.

Luxembo

urg

94.4%

7.33%

100

%coverage

with

1G

bpsdo

wn-

stream

and

500M

bpsu

pstreamby2020

N/A

High/low/medium

Malta

100.00

%

0.99%

100%co

veragewith

30Mbp

sby2020

50%

HH

penetrationwith

100M

bpsserviceby

2020

Targetmet/low/N.A.

Netherland

s98.3%

16.53%

100%co

veragewith

30Mbp

sby2020

50%

HH

penetrationwith

100M

bpsserviceby

2020

High/low/N.A.

Poland

60.7%

4.23%

100%co

veragewith

30Mbp

sby2020

50%

HH

penetrationwith

100M

bpsserviceby

2020

Low/low/N.A.

Portugal

90.9%

18.88%

100%co

veragewith

30Mbp

sby2020

50%

HH

penetrationwith

100M

bpsserviceby

2020

Medium/medium/N.A.

Romania

71.6%

26.72%

80%co

veragewith

30Mbp

sby2020

45%

HH

penetrationwith

100M

bpsserviceby

2020

Medium/m

edium/m

e-

dium

Slovakia

67.1%

6.70%

100%co

veragewith

30Mbp

sby2020

N/A

Low/low/N.A.

Slovenia

78.8%

4.91%

96%coveragewith

100M

bps,4%

cov-

erage30M

bpsb

y2020

N/A

Low/low/low

20

20

Mem

berS

tate

Stateofco

nnectiv

ityDESI

(July201

5)

N

BPTargets

Coverage

(NGA

) 30M

bps

Takeup(calcu-

latedasof

households)

100Mbp

sand

more

Coverage

Take-up

Prob

abilityo

fachievem

ent

(DAE

II/DA

EIII/N

ational

target)

Spain

76.6%

9.76%

100%co

veragewith

30Mbp

sby2020

50%

HH

penetrationwith

100M

bpsserviceby

2020

Low/medium/N.A.

Sweden

76.4%

27.06%

90%co

veragewith

100M

bpsb

y2020

N/A

Low/medium/medium

Unite

dKingdo

m

90.5%

6.15%

95%co

veragewith

24Mbp

sby2017.A

t

least100Mbp

sfornearlyallUK

prem-

ises(no

date)

N/A

Medium/low/medium

Table1DA

EandNB

Ptargets–

Probabilityofachievement(ExecutiveSummaryEN

G)

25

État

smem

bres

État

de

laco

nnec

tivité

DESI

(Jui

llet2

015)

NBP

Obj

ectif

s

Couver-

ture

(NGA)

30M

bps

Pénétration

(entauxde

ménages)

100Mbp

setplus

Couverture

Pénétration

Prob

abilitédelaréalisation

(DAEII/DAEIII/Objectifn

a-tion

al)

Allemagne

81,4%

4,82%

100%decouvertureavec50M

bpsd‘ici

2018

Non

dispo

nible

Moyenne/faible/mo-

yenn

e

Autriche

88,8%

2,24%

99%decouvertureavec100Mbp

sd’ici

2020,70%d’ici2018

Non

dispo

nible

Moyenne/faible/faible

Belgique

98,9%

22,77%

Non

dispo

nible

Tauxdepénétrationdanslesménagesde50%

avecunservicede1Gbp

sd’ici2020

Haute/haute/moyenne

Bulgarie

71,8%

2,88%


bpsd‘ici

2020

Tauxd’abo

nnem

ent>100Mbp

sde50%dansles

ménagesetde80%danslesentreprisesd’ici2020

Faible/faible/moyenne

(80%100M

bpsdansles

entreprises

Chypre

84,0%

0,06%


bpsd‘ici

2020

Tauxdepénétrationdanslesménagesde50%avec

unservicede100Mbp

sd’ici2020

Moyenne/faible/no

n

dispon

ible

Croatie

52,0%

0,12%


bpsd‘ici

2020


unservicede100Mbp

sd’ici2020

Faible/faible/no

ndis-

ponible

Danem

ark

91,7%

9,39%


sen

débitdescendantet30M

bpsendébit

mon

tantd’ici2020

Non

dispo

nible

Moyenne/moyenne/

faible

Espagne

76,6%

9,76%


bpsd‘ici

2020


unservicede100Mbp

sd’ici2020

Faible/m

oyenne/non

dispon

ible

21

II. ConcerningthecontentoftheNBPs,wehaveseenverydifferentapproaches.Itishoweverstriking

thatthosecountrieswithfavourableconditionsformarket-drivenroll-out(e.g.highpopulationden-

sity,highdemand,highdegreeofurbanization,extensivecablenetworks)areoftenlessconcretere-

gardingthemeasuresdescribed intheirrespectiveNBPs.Theyusuallyrelyonstrategicapproaches

thatdefinetheoverall frameworkunderwhichcompetitionshall takeplace.Thesecountriesoften

consequentlytrust inmarketforcesforfurtherNGAcoverage. Inthesecases,anNBPismainlyde-

signedtoprovidefora levelplayingfield,meaningthat faircompetitioncantakeplace.Contrarily,

thosecountrieswithmoredifficultstartingpositionsareoftenadvancedconcerningthedefiniteness

ofthemeasuresdescribed.Accordingtotheirrespectiveeconomiccapabilities,theytrytoincrease

supply,demandor transparency regardingexisting infrastructures.ThedifferentNBPs thenusually

subsequentlyincorporatemeasuresaccordinglyinasinglestrategydocument,guidelines,legislation

etc.

However,whatwelearnedfrompractitionersacrossEuropeisthattheoverallnationalstrategydoes

nothavetobepartofasingledocumenttobeeffective.Aslongasthereispoliticaldeterminationto

reachcertaintargetswithcertainmeasures,alsoaloosecollectionofstatementsanddocumentscan

stillleadtopositiveresults.Mostimportantconcerningtheactualimplementation,however,seems

tobethatresponsibleactors(usuallyatlocallevel)areattachedtothestrategictargetsandfeelin-

volved.Generallyspeaking,theinvolvementoflocalactorsisespeciallyimportantwhencountriesof

usuallylargersizehavesignificantlylowerruralcoverageandneeddemandaggregationandbottom-

upinitiatives.

III. ThereareseveralconditionsthatinfluencethesuccessofNGAroll-out.Someofthesearecompe-

tition,demandsideactivitiesanddigitizationofa society, theavailabilityof stateaidand financial

instruments,adecentregulatoryframework,populationdensityandurbanizationrate,availabilityof

ductsandupgradablenetworksaswellaswillingnesstopayandaffordability.Thislistisnotcompre-

hensive.Thusit isdifficulttoevaluatethe“success”ofNBPs.Theycanonlyberelativelysuccessful

giventheircircumstances.Iftheconditionsdescribedabovearenegative,defininganNBPtocounter

theseconditionsisalotmorechallengingthanwritinganNBPwithinanenvironmentthatfavoursNGA

roll-outanyway.However,whatisoftenmissingwithinNBPs,istheconsiderationofwhattheactual

situationinacountryis.ThereisavastunusedpotentialwherecountriescouldimprovetheirNBPsby

analysingtherespectiveenvironmentsinabetterway.ThedecencyofanNBPcanthereforenotbe

evaluatedbyanalysingasingularaspectsuchasachievingtheconnectivitytargets,butratherifthe

NBPiswelladjustedtolocalneedsandconditions.

22

IV. Theadjustmentsdescribedaboveareat least

partlyreflectedbythethematicfocusoftheNBP.

We recognize four different spheres of influence

whereNBPscandefinemeasuresin(regardingde-

mand, supply, organizational and regulatory ap-

proachaswellastransparency).Althoughitisof-

tendifficulttodeterminethefocusofanNBP,we

decided to cluster thembyevaluatingwhere the

most concrete and measurable provisions are

takentosupportNGAroll-outinagivencountry.

As shown in Figure 1, we see that the Member

Statesaresomewhatevenlydistributedregarding

theirapproachesandfociwithinthespheresofin-

fluence.However,onehastobearinmindthatthis

focusonlyrepresentshowwell-definedmeasures

are,meaningiftheyareunderpinnedbyclearre-

sponsibilities and plans of their implementation.

Thefoci,however,donottellanythingaboutthe

actualfeasibilityoftheplans.

V.Thisalso leads to the finalconclusion:There isnoone-size-fits-allapproachconcerninga“best”

broadbandstrategy.AllMemberStateshaveuniquestartingpositionsthatmakeresultshardlytrans-

ferrable.Thememberstatesdifferregardingtheirgovernmentalstructuresaswellasregardingthe

degreeofinvolvementoflocalandregionalactors.Thesizeofacountryaswellasautonomousregions

andfederalstructuresoftendirectlyinfluencethesteeringmodalitiesandcapabilities.Furthermore,

macroeconomicaspectsmatterasmuchassocio-economicaspects.Economichardshipsdecreasein-

vestmentsanddemandalike,worseningthesituationincrisis-struckcountries.Otheraspectsinclude

theroleoftheincumbentandthequalityofexistinginfrastructures.Insomecountries,mobiletech-

nologiesareanimportantaspectofconnectivityandpartlysubstitutefixednetworks.Allofthesefac-

torsandseveralotherscanandwillinfluencethestateofconnectivitywithingivencountries,making

itdifficulttotransferapproaches.Measuresthatleadtoexcellentresultsinonecountrymightbring

negativeresultsinothercountries.ItisthereforemostimportanttoregardNBPsinthesamewayas

thecountriestheybelongto:unique.

Figure1FocusofNBPs(ExecutiveSummaryENG)

23

4 ExecutiveSummary(French)

L'étudesuivantesurlesplansnationauxhautdébit(NBPs)dansl'UEà28(SMART2014/0077)aété

menéeentrenovembre2015et septembre2016.Pournotreanalyse,nousnoussommesappuyés

principalementsurdesinformationsobtenuesauprèsdelaCommissioneuropéenneetdesautorités

nationales.Parailleurs,nousavonscontactédespartiesprenantesclésetdespraticiensdes28États

membrespournousfaireuneidéeconcernantlamiseenœuvreconcrètedesplansnationauxhaut

débitdanschaquepaysrespectif.Plusgénéralement,l’objetdecetteétudeestdedonnerunaperçu

surlasituationactuelledesÉtatsmembresencequiconcerneleurconnectivité, lesobjectifsetles

mesuresdéfinisdanslesNBPs,etlesactionspratiquesréellementréalisées.Lesprincipauxrésultats

del'étudesontlessuivants:

1) Malgrélesplansnationauxhautdébitambitieux,seulsunpetitnombred’Étatsmembressont

prèsd'atteindrelesobjectifsdel'agendanumérique(DAE)ouleursobjectifsnationauxres-

pectifs.

2) LesNBPsdesÉtatsmembresdiffèrentfortementconcernantleurcontenu.Peudepaysne

disposentpasactuellementd'undocumentuniquequipeutêtreconsidérécommeunNBP,

maistous lesÉtatsmembresontcependantuneapprochestratégiquegénéralepour ledé-

ploiementdesréseauxd’accèsdenouvellegénération(NGA)etleurmiseenœuvrepratique.

3) Ilexistedenombreusesconditionsquiontuneinfluencesurlesuccèsdudéploiementdes

réseauxNGAdansunpaysdonné.DesNBPsefficacesconsidèrentleursproprespositionsde

départetproposentdesmesuresconcrètesexploitantlesforcesindividuellesetdéfinissant

desmesurespouratténuerl'effetdesinégalités.

4) LesNBPsdesÉtatsmembresétablissentgénéralementunoudeuxpointsprioritairesdansles

domainessuivants:lesmesuresafférentesàl’offre,lesmesuresafférentesàlademande,

lesmesuresréglementairesetorganisationnelles,lesmesuresdetransparence.

5) Iln'yapasd’approcheuniversellepourlesstratégieshautdébitàtraversl'Europe.Ilsemble

que lesNBPsnesoientpastransférables,tandisquecertainesmesurespeuventcependant

êtreappliquéespartoutdanslesmêmesconditions.

I.Encequiconcernelesprobabilitésd'atteindrelesobjectifsduDAE,nousavonsanalyséqu'actuelle-

mentseulement14des28Étatsmembresontdéfinileurspropresobjectifsnationaux.Lesautrespays

suiventl'agendanumériqueeuropéen.Cependant,seulsquelquespaysontdesprobabilitésélevées

24

d’atteindreleursobjectifspropres.Commelemontreletableausuivant,nousnesommespasconvain-

cusquetouslesÉtatsmembresdel'UEpuissentyarriver.Cependant,ilyaplusieurspaysquiontdes

chancesraisonnablesd’atteindrelesobjectifsduDAEd’ici2020.Engénéral, lesrésultatsdel'étude

renforcentlanécessitéd'accroîtreetdestimulerlesinvestissements.Sil'Europeneveutpasêtreàla

traîneauniveaumondial, ledéveloppementhautdébitdoit accélérer.À ceteffet, la fournitureet

l'exploitationdesservicesInternetrapidesetultrarapidesestcrucialepour lefuturdéveloppement

économiqueetlacompétitivitédel'Europeainsiquepourleprogrèsetlacohésiondelasociétédans

sonensemble.Avec l'agendanumériqueeuropéen2020et lesnouveauxobjectifshautdébiteuro-

péenspour2025récemmentpubliés,laCommissioneuropéenneamisenplaceuncadresubstantiel

pourlefuturavancementnumériquedel'Europe.Pourquel'Europepuissetirerpleinementprofitde

cecadreetdoncréaliserlepleinpotentieldudéveloppementnumérique,touslespartiesprenantes

doiventmaximiserleursefforts.LesÉtatsmembresdoiventfournirdesincitationsappropriéesetdes

moyenspouraccroîtrelesinvestissements,alorsquelesacteurslocauxetl'industriedestélécommu-

nicationsdoiventfaireusagedecesinstruments.Encesens,lesÉtatsmembresdoiventconsoliderles

mesuresefficacesexistantes,maisêtreplusambitieux,nonseulemententermesd'incitationsetde

moyens,maisaussi,enparticulierprenantenconsidérationlesnouvellesambitionseuropéennespour

l’année2025,entermesd'objectifs,assurantainsileprogrèssocialetéconomiquedel’Europe.

LeTable2résumelesobjectifsdetous lesNBPs, l'étatactuelde laconnectivitéetnosestimations

concernantlaprobabilitéd'atteindrerespectivementlesobjectifsnationauxetlesobjectifsduDAE.

25

25

État

smem

bres

État

de

laco

nnec

tivité

DESI

(Jui

llet2

015)

NBP

Obj

ectif

s

Couver-

ture

(NGA)

30M

bps

Pénétration

(entauxde

ménages)

100Mbp

setplus

Couverture

Pénétration

Prob


(DAEII/DAEIII/Objectif n

a-tion

al)

Allemagne

81,4%

4,82%


bpsd‘ici

2018

Non

dispo

nible

Moyenne/faible/mo-

yenn

e

Autriche

88,8%

2,24%


sd’ici

2020,70%d’ici2018

Non

dispo

nible

Moyenne/faible/faible

Belgique

98,9%

22,77%

Non

dispo

nible

Tauxdepénétrationdanslesménagesde50%

avecunservicede1Gbp

sd’ici2020

Haute/haute/moyenne

Bulgarie

71,8%

2,88%


bpsd‘ici

2020

Tauxd’abo

nnem

ent>100Mbp

sde50%dansles

ménagesetde80%danslesentreprisesd’ici2020


(80%100M

bpsdansles

entreprises

Chypre

84,0%

0,06%


bpsd‘ici

2020


unservicede100Mbp

sd’ici2020

Moyenne/faible/no

n

dispon

ible

Croatie

52,0%

0,12%


bpsd‘ici

2020


unservicede100Mbp

sd’ici2020

Faible/faible/no

ndis-

ponible

Danem

ark

91,7%

9,39%


sen

débitdescendantet30M

bpsendébit

mon

tantd’ici2020

Non

dispo

nible

Moyenne/moyenne/

faible

Espagne

76,6%

9,76%


bpsd‘ici

2020


unservicede100Mbp

sd’ici2020

Faible/m

oyenne/non

dispon

ible

26

26

État

smem

bres

État

de

laco

nnec

tivité

DESI

(Jui

llet2

015)

NBP

Obj

ectif

s

Couver-

ture

(NGA)

30M

bps

Pénétration

(entauxde

ménages)

100Mbp

setplus

Couverture

Pénétration

Prob



a-tion

al)

Estonie

86,4%

4,48%


bpsd‘ici

2020


unservicede100Mbp

sd’ici2020

Haute/faible/faible

Finlande

75,1%

15,11%

99%

detouteslesrésidencesperm

a-

nentesetbu

reauxdo

iventêtresituésà

2km

d’unréseaudefib

reoptiqueou

d’un

réseaucâbléqu

ipermettedescon

-

nectionsde100Mbp

sd’ici2019

Non

dispo

nible

Faible/m

oyenne/m

o-

yenn

e

France

44,8%

7,66%


bpsd‘ici

2022

Non

dispo

nible


Grèce

36,3%

0,01%


bpsd‘ici

2020


unservicede100Mbp

sd’ici2020

Faible/faible/no

ndis-

ponible

Hon

grie

78,2%

12,68%


bpsd‘ici

2018


unservicede100Mbp

sd’ici2020

Moyenne/moyenne/

moyenne

Irland

e79,7%

13,24%


bpsd‘ici

2020


unservicede100Mbp

sd’ici2020,avec,enatten-

dant,undébitmon

tantd’environ

17à21M

bps

Faible/faible/no

ndis-

ponible

Italie

43,9%

0,54%


bpsd‘ici

2020


unservicede100Mbp

sd’ici2020

Faible/faible/no

ndis-

ponible

27

État

smem

bres

État

de

laco

nnec

tivité

DESI

(Jui

llet2

015)

NBP

Obj

ectif

s

Couver-

ture

(NGA)

30M

bps

Pénétration

(entauxde

ménages)

100Mbp

setplus

Couverture

Pénétration

Prob


(DAEII/DAEIII/Objectifn

a-tion

al)

Letton

ie

90,7%

25,30%

100%cou

vertureavec30Mbp

sd‘ici

2020


unservicede100Mbp

sd’ici2020

Moyenne/moyenne/

nondispon

ible

Lituanie

97,5%

10,42%


bpsd‘ici

2020


unservicede100Mbp

sd’ici2020

Haute/m

oyenne/non

dispon

ible

Luxembo

urg

94,4%

7,33%

100%decouvertureavec1Gbp

sendé-

bitdescendantet500Mbp

sendébit

mon

tantd’ici2020

Non

dispo

nible

Haute/faible/moyenne

Malte

100,00

%

0,99%


bpsd‘ici

2020


unservicede100Mbp

sd’ici2020

Objectifréalisé/faible/

nondispon

ible

Pays-Bas

98,3%

16,53%


bpsd‘ici

2020


unservicede100Mbp

sd’ici2020

Haute/faible/no

ndis-

ponible

Pologne

60,7%

4,23%


bpsd‘ici

2020


unservicede100Mbp

sd’ici2020

Faible/faible/no

ndis-

ponible

Portugal

90,9%

18,88%


bpsd‘ici

2020


unservicede100Mbp

sd’ici2020

Moyenne/moyenne/

nondispon

ible

Répu

bliquetchèque

72,9%

5,55%


bpsd‘ici

2020


unservicede100Mbp

sd’ici2020

Faible/faible/no

ndis-

ponible

27

27

État

smem

bres

État

de

laco

nnec

tivité

DESI

(Jui

llet2

015)

NBP

Obj

ectif

s

Couver-

ture

(NGA)

30M

bps

Pénétration

(entauxde

ménages)

100Mbp

setplus

Couverture

Pénétration

Prob



a-tion

al)

Letton

ie

90,7%

25,30%

100%cou

vertureavec30Mbp

sd‘ici

2020


unservicede100Mbp

sd’ici2020

Moyenne/moyenne/

nondispon

ible

Lituanie

97,5%

10,42%


bpsd‘ici

2020


unservicede100Mbp

sd’ici2020

Haute/m

oyenne/non

dispon

ible

Luxembo

urg

94,4%

7,33%

100%decouvertureavec1Gbp

sendé-

bitdescendant et500Mbp

sendébit

mon

tantd’ici2020

Non

dispo

nible

Haute/faible/moyenne

Malte

100,00

%

0,99%


bpsd‘ici

2020


unservicede100Mbp

sd ’ici2020

Objectifréalisé/faible/

nondispon

ible

Pays-Bas

98,3%

16,53%


bpsd‘ici

2020


unservicede100Mbp

sd’ici2020

Haute/faible/no

ndis-

ponible

Pologne

60,7%

4,23%


bpsd‘ici

2020


unservicede100Mbp

sd’ici2020

Faible/faible/no

ndis-

ponible

Portugal

90,9%

18,88%


bpsd‘ici

2020


unservicede100Mbp

sd’ici2020

Moyenne/moyenne/

nondispon

ible

Répu

bliquetchèque

72,9%

5,55%


bpsd‘ici

2020


unservicede100Mbp

sd’ici2020

Faible/faible/no

ndis-

ponible

28

28

État

smem

bres

État

de

laco

nnec

tivité

DESI

(Jui

llet2

015)

NBP

Obj

ectif

s

Couver-

ture

(NGA)

30M

bps

Pénétration

(entauxde

ménages)

100Mbp

setplus

Couverture

Pénétration

Prob



a-tion

al)

Roum

anie

71,6%

26,72%

80%

decouvertureavec30M

bpsd‘ici

2020


unservicede100Mbp

sd’ici2020

Moyenne/moyenne/

moyenne

Royaum

e-Uni

90,5%

6,15%

95%

decouvertureavec24M

bpsd’ici

2017etaumoins100

Mbp

spo

ur

presqu

etouslesédificesduRo

yaum

e-

Uni(sansdate)

Non

dispo

nible

Moyenne/faible/mo-

yenn

e

Slovaquie

67,1%

6,70%


bpsd‘ici

2020

Non

dispo

nible

Faible/faible/no

ndis-

ponible

Slovénie

78,8%

4,91%

96%

decouvertureavec100Mbp

set

4%avec30M

bpsd’ici2020

Non

dispo

nible

Faible/faible/faible

Suède

76,4%

27,06%


sd‘ici

2020

Non

dispo

nible

Faible/m

oyenne/m

o-

yenn

e

Table2DAEandNBP

targets–Probabilityofachievement(ExecutiveSum

maryFR)

55

MS

NBP

-Targets

National

vs.

DAE

TargetII

Na-

tional

vsDA

E

Target

III

MS

NBP

-Targets

Na-

tional

vs.DA

E

TargetII N

a-

tional

vs.DA

E

Target

III

Austria

99

%co

vera

gew

ith1

00M

bpsu

ntil

2020

++

N.A.

Ita

ly

100

%co

vera

gew

ith3

0M

bpsu

ntil

2020

.85

%H

Hco

vera

geto

reac

h50

%

pene

trat

ion

of1

00M

bpss

ervi

cesb

y20

20

= =

Belgium

50%

conn

ectio

nsw

ith1

Gbp

sby

2020

N.

A.

++

Latvia

100

%c

over

age

with

30

Mbp

sunt

il20

20.5

0%

HH

pene

trat

ion

with

100

Mbp

sser

vice

unt

il20

20

= =

Bulgaria

100

%c

over

age

with

30

Mbp

sun

til2

020.

50

%o

fhou

seho

lds

and

80%

of

busin

esse

ssub

scrib

ing

>100

Mbp

sby

2020

= +

Lithuania

100

%c

over

age

with

30

Mbp

sunt

il20

20.5

0%

HH

pene

trat

ion

with

100

Mbp

sser

vice

unt

il20

20

= =

Croatia

10

0%

cov

erag

ew

ith3

0M

bps

until

202

0.5

0%

HH

pene

trat

ion

with

100

Mbp

sser

vice

unt

il20

20

= =

Luxem-

bourg

100

%co

vera

gew

ith1

Gbp

sunt

il20

20

++

N.A.

Cyprus

100

%c

over

age

with

30

Mbp

sun

til2

020.

50

%H

Hpe

netr

atio

nw

ith1

00

Mbp

sser

vice

unt

il20

20

= =

Malta

100

%c

over

age

with

30

Mbp

sunt

il20

20.5

0%

HH

pene

trat

ion

with

100

Mbp

sser

vice

unt

il20

20

= =

CzechRe

pub-

lic

100

%c

over

age

with

30

Mbp

sun

til2

020.

50

%H

Hpe

netr

atio

nw

ith1

00

MBp

sser

vice

unt

il20

20

= =

Nether-

land

s 10

0%

cov

erag

ew

ith3

0M

bpsu

ntil

2020

.50

%H

Hpe

netr

atio

nw

ith1

00

Mbp

sser

vice

unt

il20

20

= =

Denm

ark

100

%co

vera

gew

ith1

00M

bpsd

ownl

oad

and

30M

bpsu

ploa

dun

til2

020

++

N.A.

Po

land

100

%c

over

age

with

30

Mbp

sunt

il20

20.5

0%

HH

pene

trat

ion

with

100

Mbp

sser

vice

unt

il20

20;

= =

Estonia

100

%co

vera

gew

ith3

0M

bpsu

ntil2

020.

60

%co

vera

gew

ith1

00M

bpsu

ntil

2020

+ +

Portugal

100

%c

over

age

with

30

Mbp

sunt

il20

20.5

0%

HH

pene

trat

ion

with

100

Mbp

sser

vice

unt

il20

20

= =

Finland

99%

ofa

llpe

rman

entr

esid

ence

sand

offi

cess

houl

dbe

loca

ted

with

in2

km

ofa

nop

ticfi

bre

netw

ork

orc

able

net

wor

kth

ate

nabl

esc

onne

ctio

nso

f100

Mbp

s

++

N.A.

Ro

mania

80%

cov

erag

ew

ith3

0M

bps

until

202

0.4

5%

HH

pene

trat

ion

with

100

Mbp

sser

vice

unt

il20

20

- -

France

100

%co

vera

gew

ith3

0M

bpsu

ntil

2022

-

N.A.

Slovakia

100

%co

vera

gew

ith3

0M

bpsu

ntil

2020

.=

N.A.

Greece

100

%co

vera

gew

ith3

0M

bpsu

ntil2

020.

50

%co

vera

gew

ith1

00M

bpsu

ntil

2020

= =

Slovenia

96%

cove

rage

with

100

Mbp

s,4%

cove

rage

30

Mbp

sunt

il20

20.

++

N.A.

Germ

any

100

%co

vera

gew

ith5

0M

bpsu

ntil

2018

+

N.A.

Spain

100

%c

over

age

with

30

Mbp

sunt

il20

20.5

0%

HH

pene

trat

ion

with

100

Mbp

sser

vice

unt

il20

20

= =

29

II. EncequiconcernelecontenudesNBPs,nousavonsremarquédesapprochestrèsdifférentes.Ilest

cependantfrappantdeconstaterquelespaysayantdesconditionsfavorablespourundéploiement

fondé sur la dynamiquedumarché (par exempleunedensité depopulation élevée, une forte de-

mande,undegréélevéd'urbanisation,devastesréseauxcâblés)sontsouventmoinsconcretsconcer-

nantlesmesuresdécritesdansleursNBPsrespectifs.Parconséquent,ilscomptentgénéralementsur

desapprochesstratégiquesquidéfinissentlecadregénéraldanslequellaconcurrencedoitavoirlieu.

CespayssouventsefientexclusivementauxforcesdumarchépourunecouvertureNGAsupplémen-

taire.Danscescas,unNBPestprincipalementélaborépour fournirdesconditionsdeconcurrence

égales,cequisignifiequ’unecompétitionéquitablepeutavoirlieu.Aucontraire,lespaysayantdes

positionsdedépartplusdifficilessontsouventplusavancéesconcernantleréalismedesmesuresdé-

crites.Selon leurscapacitéséconomiques, ilsessaientd'accroître l'offre, lademandeou latranspa-

rencerelativeauxinfrastructuresexistantes.Ensuite,lesdifférentsNBPsintègrentgénéralementces

mesuresdansundocumentuniquedestratégie,desdirectives,unelégislation,etc.

Néanmoins,cequenousavonsapprisdesprofessionnelsàtraversl'Europeestquelastratégienatio-

nalegénéralenedoitpasfairepartied'unseuldocumentpourêtreefficace.Tantqu'ilexisteunevo-

lontépolitiqued'atteindrecertainsobjectifsaveccertainesmesures,unrecueilapproximatifdedécla-

rationsetdedocumentspeuteffectivementfonctionner.Cependant,ilapparaîtquel’aspectleplus

importantconcernantlamiseenœuvreeffectiveestquelesacteursresponsables(généralementau

niveaulocal)soientattachésauxobjectifsstratégiquesets’ysententassociés.D'unemanièregénérale,

laparticipationdesacteurslocauxestparticulièrementimportantelorsquelespaysdegrandesuper-

ficie,quiontgénéralementunecouvertureruralesignificativementfaible,ontbesoind'associerlade-

mandeetlesinitiativesprisesparlabase(bottom-up).

III. llyaplusieursconditionsquiinfluentsurlesuccèsdudéploiementdesréseauxNGA.Lesprincipales

sontlaconcurrence,lesactivitésafférentesàlademandeetàlanumérisationdelasociété,ladispo-

nibilitédesaidesdel'Étatetdesinstrumentsfinanciers,uncadreréglementairedécent,ladensitéde

populationetletauxd'urbanisation,ladisponibilitédesréseaux,etqueceux-cisoientmodernisables,

ainsiquelavolontédemettrelamainàlapocheetl'accessibilitéfinancière.Cettelisten'estpascom-

plète.Ilestdoncdifficiled'évaluerle«succès»desNBPs.Ilsnepeuventréussirquerelativementà

descirconstancesparticulières.Si lesconditionsdécritesci-dessussontnégatives, ladéfinitiond'un

NBPpourlescontrerserabeaucoupplusdifficilequed'écrireunNBPpourunenvironnementquifa-

vorisedetoutefaçonledéploiementNGA.Cependant,cequimanquesouventdansunNBPestlaprise

enconsidérationde lasituationréelledans lepays. Ilyaunvastepotentiel inexploitéoù lesÉtats

pourraientaméliorer leursNBPsenanalysantmieux lesenvironnements respectifs. Laqualitéd'un

30

NBPnepeutdoncpasêtreévaluéenanalysantunaspectsingulier,commelaréalisationdesobjectifs

deconnectivité,maisplutôtsileNBPestbienadaptéauxbesoinsetauxconditionslocales.

IV.Lesajustementsdécritsci-dessussontaumoins

partiellementreflétéspar l'accent thématiquedu

NBP. Nous reconnaissons quatre sphères

d'influencedifférentesoùlesNBPspeuventdéfinir

des mesures (en ce qui concerne la demande,

l'offre, l'approche organisationnelle et réglemen-

taireainsiquelatransparence).Bienqu'ilsoitsou-

ventdifficilededéterminerledomaineprioritaire

d'unNBP,nousavonsdécidéde lesregrouperen

évaluant lesdispositions lesplus concrèteset les

plusmesurablesquisontprisespoursoutenirledé-

ploiementNGAdansunpaysdonné.

CommelemontrelaFigure2,nousvoyonsqueles

Étatsmembressontquelquepeurépartisdema-

nière égale en ce qui concerne leur approche et

leur importance en fonction des sphères

d'influence. Cependant, il faut se rappeler que

cette répartition ne représente que les mesures

envisagées, ce qui signifie qu’elles doivent être

étayéesparlesresponsabilitésclairesetlesplansdemiseenœuvre.Larépartitioncependantnedit

rienausujetdelafaisabilitéréelledesplans.

V.Celaconduitaussiàlaconclusionfinale:iln'yapasd’approcheuniverselleconcernantunestratégie

hautdébitoptimale.TouslesÉtatsmembresontdespositionsdedépartindividuellesquirendentles

résultatsdifficilementtransférables.LesÉtatsmembressontdifférentsencequiconcerneleursstruc-

turesgouvernementalesainsiqueledegréd'implicationdesacteurslocauxetrégionaux.Latailled'un

paysainsiquelesrégionsautonomesetlesstructuresfédéralesinfluentsouventdirectementsurles

modalitésetlescapacitésdedirection.Enoutre,lesaspectsmacro-économiquescomptentautantque

lesaspectssocio-économiques.Lesdifficultéséconomiquesdiminuentlesinvestissementscommela

demande,aggravantlasituationdanslespaysencrise.D'autresaspectscomprennentlerôledel'opé-

Figure2FocusofNBPs(ExecutiveSummaryFR)

| Page 31 from 330

31

rateurhistoriqueetlaqualitédesinfrastructuresexistantes.Danscertainspays,lestechnologiesmo-

bilessontunaspectimportantdelaconnectivitéetremplacepartiellementlesréseauxfixes.Tousces

facteursetplusieursautrespeuventetvontinfluersurl'étatdelaconnectivitédanslespaysdonnés,

cequirenddifficileletransfertdesapproches.Lesmesuresquiconduisentàd'excellentsrésultatsdans

un pays pourraientmener à des résultats négatifs dansd’autres pays. Il est donc plus important

deconsidérerlesNBPsdelamêmemanièrequelespaysauxquelsilsappartiennent:commeétant

unique.

32

5 Introduction

Broadbandconnectivityisofstrategicimportancefortechnologicalinnovationandeconomicgrowth

acrosssectorsand,assuch,formsakeyingredientofsocialandregionalcohesionwithintheEuropean

Union(EU).TheDigitalAgendaforEurope(hereinafterDAEorDigitalAgenda)providesacentralpolicy

frameworkinthisregard.ItrepresentsoneoftheflagshipinitiativesoftheEUinthecontextofthe

Europe2020strategy,devisedtodeliversmart,sustainableandinclusivegrowthandrendertheEU

globallymorecompetitive inthe long-run.1TheDAE’soverallaimisthereby“todeliversustainable

economicandsocialbenefits fromadigital singlemarketbasedon fastandultra-fast internetand

interoperableapplications”.2Thisisofutmostimportanceasthefutureeconomywillbeknowledge-

basedwiththeinternetatitscentre.Againstthisbackground,theEUsettwooverarchingbroadband

targetstobemetbyitsmemberstatesby2020:3

n allEuropeansshouldhaveaccesstointernetspeedshigherthan30Mbps,

n and50%ormoreofEuropeanhouseholdsshouldbeabletoobtainsubscriptionsabove100

Mbps

Inthislight,theDAEenvisagesanumberofmeasurestofosterthedeploymentofnetworksrequired

tomeetitscentralobjectivesaswellastosupportsubstantialinvestmentsrequiredintheupcoming

years.AtEU level, investments inhigh-speedbroadbandaresupportedthroughavarietyofpolicy,

regulatoryandfinancingaswellasfundingmeasures.Theseinclude:

Funding/Financinginitiatives:

n TheEuropeanplanforInvestmentsupportedbytheEuropeanFundforStrategicInvestment

(EFSI)4;

n TheEuropeanStructuralandInvestmentFunds(ESIFs)forthe2014-2020periods;

n TheConnectingEuropeFacility(CEF)5;

1http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/europe-2020-in-a-nutshell/flagship-initiatives/index_en.htm2http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52010DC0245&from=EN3http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52010DC0472&from=EN,http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-con-tent/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52010DC0245&from=EN4http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/jobs-growth-investment/plan/index_en.htm5http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/connecting-europe-facility

| Page 33 from 330

33

n TheCostReductionDirective6;

n ThenewBroadbandStateAidGuidelines7andthenewGeneralBlockExemptionRegulation

(GBER)8;

n TheTelecomsSingleMarket(TSM)andupcomingreview9;

n TheDigitalSingleMarketStrategy10;

Policyguidanceandsupport:

n TheECGuidetohighspeedbroadbandinvestment11;

n TheBroadbandEuropewebsite12;

n TheConnectedCommunitiesInitiative13;

Atnationallevel,mostMemberStates(MS)havegraduallyadoptedNationalBroadbandPlans(NBPs),

devisedtointegrateallrelevantaspectstodevelopaneffectivebroadbandpolicyandresourcesena-

blingpolicymakersandpublicauthoritiestoproperlyplanpublicinterventionsinthetelecommunica-

tionssector.TheimplementationoftheNBPsplanstherebyusuallyfallswithinthecompetencearea

oftheMS’responsibleministries.

Besidesfinancingfromtheprivatesector,nationalprojectsfornetworkroll-outarealsofundedfrom

nationalpublicfundsandfromtheEU,viatheEuropeanRegionalDevelopmentFundandtheEuropean

AgriculturalFundforRuralDevelopment.Fortheperiod2014-2020,22MemberStateshaveallocated

ERDFand/orEAFRDfundingtobroadbanddeployment,totallingapproximatelyEUR6billion.Note-

worthyisthatthereareconsiderabledifferencesbetweenMemberStatesintermsofnetamounts

andpercentagesofERDFand/orEAFRDfundsearmarkedforbroadbanddeployment.TheCEF(Con-

nectingEuropeFacility)andtheEFSI(EuropeanFundforStrategicInvestment)provideadditionalfi-

6http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/measures-reduce-cost-high-speed-broadband-roll-out-07http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/legislation/specific_rules.html8http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/legislation/block.html#gber9https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/connected-continent-legislative-package10http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/digital-single-market/11http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/broadband-investment-guide12http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/broadband-europe13https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/node/70418

Regulatorymeasures:

34

nancialinstruments(e.g.guarantees,loans,equity)tosupportinnovativebusinessmodels.TheEuro-

peanStructuralandInvestmentFundsalsoencouragetheuseoffinancialinstrumentsforbroadband

deployment.14

AstaffworkingdocumentbytheEuropeanCommissionontheImplementationofNationalBroadband

Planspositsthatbroadbanddynamicsarenecessarilyshapedbyidiosyncraticfactorssuchaslocalge-

ographyandroll-outcosts,thecompetitivesituationinthenationalbroadbandmarket,thegeneral

legalframework,varioussocio-economicfactorsanddifferingattitudestowardsthescopeanddesign

ofstateintervention.15Takingitfromthere,thepaperarguesthatformsofnationalimplementation

willcontinuetovary,despitetheuniformityimposedbyEUlegislationandcoordinationmeasuressuch

asthecommonregulatoryandstateaidframeworks.Theseobservationsunderline,attheverymini-

mum,thata“one-size-fits-all”solutionisunlikelytoevolve.

Overall,MemberStatesneedtodeviseappropriatestrategiesandinstrumentsinordertoreachset

targets.Notably,progresswithrespecttoreachingthehigh-speedbroadbandtargetsoftheDAEis

variable,withsomeMemberStateslaggingbehindandothersbeinginanadvancedstageofimple-

mentingtheirnationalstrategies.Providingasuccinctpictureofrecentdevelopmentsacrosscountries

willthusbevitalasameanstoidentifydeficienciesandpointoutameliorativemeasureswherenec-

essary.

5.1 Objectiveofthestudy

Theabsenceof auniversally applicable “recipe” in theareaofbroadbanddevelopment inherently

raisesthequestionaboutwhatkindofspecificstrategiesMemberStatespursue(i.e.NationalBroad-

bandPlans)andthroughwhatmeansandwithinwhatperiodtheyaimatmeetingtheDAE2020tar-

gets,ortheirownrespectively.Inthislight,thetaskistoexaminethecurrentstateofaffairsconcern-

ingbroadbanddevelopmentintheEU-28MemberStates.Thus,thefocusofthestudyisratheronthe

actualimplementationprocessesthanonpoliticalstatementsorthecontentofofficialdocuments.16

Correspondingly,themainobjectiveistoreviewthenationalbroadbandplansoftheMemberStates,

theassessmentoftheirfeasibilityandevaluationofthelikelihoodofachievingtheEU’sDAE2020tar-

getsaswellastheidentificationofmaintrendsandbestpracticesacrossMemberStates.

14http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=999015http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=91416Minutesfromtheproject-relatedinceptionmeetingthattookplaceon3rdofNovember2015inBrussels.

|Page35from330

35

5.2 MethodologyandProcedure

Theoverallmethodologicalapproachforthisstudyisaninductiveone,meaningthatwegatherseveral

singleobservationsandderivegenerallyapplicablepatternsfromtheseobservations.

InordertobeabletoprovideacohesivepictureoftheprocessofbroadbanddevelopmentinallMem-

berStates,wedefinedamixedmethodology,combiningquantitativeandqualitativeelementstobe

themostappropriateapproach.Whilethequantitativeapproachisbeingappliedtoprovideasound

understandingofthestatusquoacrossEurope,thequalitativeapproachwilldeliverinsightsforcur-

rentandfuturedevelopments.Akeycharacteristicofqualitativemethodologyisitsabilitytodelivera

“thickanalysis”whichallowsforanin-depthexaminationofprocessesand(expected)outcomesby

relyingonrichanddense informationconcerningspecificcases.17 Inaddition,statistical figuresare

includedintheanalysiswhereavailabletoprovideforcontextandsupportthevalidityofthequalita-

tivefindings.Likewise,differentvisualizationtoolsareutilizedtofacilitateunderstanding.Theformof

gathereddatawilltoacertaindegreedeterminethewayofpresentation.

Incollectingthenecessarydata,weadoptedmultipletoolsincludingdesk-research,surveysandinter-

viewswithleadingexpertsfromeach(orgroupsof)MemberStatesintheareaofbroadbanddevelop-

ment.Thesurveysandinterviewstherebyfollowedasemi-structureddesignwhichallowedtoidentify

salientissuesandchallengesinthedeploymentofbroadbandinfrastructureineachMemberState.

Givenitstopicalityandrelianceonfirst-handinformation,apotentialchallengeisinformationscarcity

anddatavalidity.Whilevalidityissuescanneverbecompletelyruledoutinaresearchcontextwhere

informationisgatheredthroughunofficialchannelsaswell,theauthorsofthepresentstudyhavetried

to minimize error potential and strengthen accuracy by triangulating information from different

sources.

Theinformationgatheredaccordinglyissubsequentlyusedtowriteupcomprehensivereportsoneach

MemberState.Toallowforcomparability,eachMemberStatesectiontherebyfollowsapredefined

structure.Itbeginswithashortcountryprofilecontaininginformationongeneraleconomic,demo-

graphicandgeographicconditions.NextfollowsanoutlineoftheMemberStates’NationalBroadband

Plans.Inordertoprovideforbackground,eachcountry’sNBPiscontextualised–whereapplicable–

intermsofprecedingefforts,targetsand/orstrategiesdevisedtopromotethedeploymentofNGA

infrastructure.Afterall,acountrywithaproventrackrecordinpromotinghighspeednetworksinthe

17JanetM.Box-Steffensmeier,HenryE.Brady,andDavidCollier(Ed.)(2008):TheOxfordHandbookofPoliticalMethodology:OxfordUni-versityPress.

36

pastmightonaveragefarebetterinmeetingthefutureDAE2020targetsthanothers.Notonlyinfra-

structuralendowmentsmatterinthisrespect,butalsopolicy-relatedandadministrativepreparations

andexperiences.Accordingly,weseektoprovideaholisticpicture.Thenanassessmentofthepractical

implementationandbroadbandroll-outprocessisundertaken.Thisincludesananalysisofthesteering

modalities(e.g.centralizedvs.decentralized),theconvergenceofnetworks,sourcesoffundingand

financing,cost-reductionmeasures,mappingtools,andmajor/outstandingprojects.Eachcountryre-

portcloseswithafeasibilityassessmentofthecountry’sNBP,focusingonthelikelihoodofreaching

setnationaltargetsandDAEtargetsaswellasrecommendations.Inafinalstep,thecountry-based

reportsareexaminedinacross-caseanalysistoidentify(a)maintrendsand(b)best-practicesacross

countries.

Before proceedingwith theMember State reports, we shall briefly discuss definitions relevant to

broadbandandbandwidthand,successively,presenttheobjectivesoftheEU’sDigitalAgenda.

|Page37from330

37

6 DigitalAgenda2020:TowardsHigh-SpeedInternetAccessintheEU

6.1 DefinitionsandObjectives

There isnostandarddefinitionforbroadband.However,broadband isatermgenerallyconsidered

synonymouswith fast connections to the internet. The EUmore specifically defines broadband in

termsof“highspeedtelecommunicationssystems, i.e. thosecapableofsimultaneouslysupporting

multipleinformationformatssuchasvoice,high-speeddataservicesandvideoservicesondemand.”18

TheEuropeanUniontherewithfollowsconventionalpracticeofdefiningbroadbandintermsofdata

transmissionrates(i.e.theamountofdatathatcanbetransmittedacrossanetworkconnectionina

givenperiodoftime).Itshouldbenoted,however,thatsuchdefinitionsneedtotakeintoaccountthat

bandwidthdemandisdynamic.Requirementsforinternetapplicationsarecontinuouslyincreasingand

infrastructurestandardssteadily improving to facegrowingdemand.19Abandwidth-based (ordata

transmissionspeed-based)definitionofbroadbandcanthereforeonlyberelativetoaparticularmo-

mentintimeinaparticularplace.20

TheDigitalAgendaforEuropeformsoneofthesevenpillarsoftheEurope2020strategy,setoutto

outlineapathtomaximisethesocialandeconomicpotentialofinformationandcommunicationtech-

nology(ICT).Theinitiativeunderlinestheimportanceofbroadbanddeploymenttopromotesocialin-

clusionandcompetitivenessintheEU.Itisbasedonthepremisethatservicesandapplicationsare

increasinglymadeavailableinaninteroperableandborderlessinternetenvironment.Inresponse,de-

mandforhigherspeedsandcapacityisspurredcreatingthebusinesscaseforinvestmentsinfaster

networks.Thedeploymentandtake-upoffasternetworksinturnopenthewayforinnovativeservices

exploitinghigherbroadbandspeeds.21

Withregardtobroadbandtargets,theDAEinprincipledistinguishesthreebroadbandcategories,2,

30,and100Mbps,referringtobasicbroadband,fastandultra-fastbroadband,respectively.Towards

18Cf.URL:http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/broadband-glossary#B19Cf.URL:http://broadbandtoolkit.org/1.220Inaddition,itshouldbekeptinmindthatinternetspeedisprimarilyanindicatormeasuringtransferratesofabroadbandconnection.Equallyimportant,dependingontheapplicationused,maybe“latency”asyetanotherimportantaspect.Forinstance,ifacloudserviceisrunningonaremoteserver,notonlyahighbandwidthbutalsothelatencyisofgreatimportance(especiallyifaccesstothecloudoccursoften).Ifeachtimeyouclickittakestwoorthreesecondsbeforeanactionisexecuted,usersatisfactiondecreases.Latencyalsoplaysabigroleintelephony.Ifittakestoolongforvoicedatapackagestobetransferred,itmaybecomedifficulttomakeasimpleconversationwork.21SeeURL:http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52010DC0245&from=EN

38

achievingtheroll-outofhigh-capacitynetworksacrosstheEU,theDigitalAgendastipulatesthatMem-

berStateshavetomeettwomajorbroadbandtargetsby202022:ontheonehand,toprovideallEuro-

peanswithinternetspeedshigherthan30Mbps(Forfurtheranalysis,wedefineachievementofthis

targetwithvirtually100%coverage,meaning99%andmore);andontheotherhand,tohave50%

ormoreofEuropeanhouseholdstakeupinternetsubscriptionshigherthan100Mbps.

6.2 GaugingProgress:KeyIndicators

Broadbanddevelopmentcanbegaugedbyresortingtodifferentindicators.Indicatorslikelytobeof

most interest to policymakers are usually availability, demand, quality and pricing.23 Importantly,

theseparametersrelatetolocalretailaccessratherthantowholesaleandbackbonemarkets.24Other

thanthat,broadbanddevelopmentalsobearsimportantsocio-economicimplications.Socialeffects

includebetter access topublic services andhealth,whereaseconomiceffects for instance revolve

aroundimprovedinnovationcapacityandproductivityofbusinesses.

Inparticular, indicators suchas fixedandmobilebroadbandcoverageand take-up ratesaswellas

socio-economicfacetsthereof(e.g.digitalinclusionandprovisionofdigitalpublicservices)deliverval-

uableinformationregardingbroadbanddevelopmentandoveralldigitalprogress.Ahighlyinforma-

tive,in-depthanalysisofsuchindicatorsinEuropeisprovidedbytheDigitalScoreboardoftheEuro-

peanCommission25,measuringtheprogressoftheEuropeandigitaleconomyviatheDigitalEconomy

& Society Index (DESI)26 and the European Digital Progress Report of the European Commission

(EDPR)27.Hence,theaimofthissectionistogiveabriefoverviewofsomeofthekeyfindingsofthe

DESI/EDPRregardingbroadbanddevelopmentinEuropeandtopartiallyelaborateonthem,inorder

toprovidesomecontextregardingthecurrentstatusofattainmentoftheDAEtargets,therebycreat-

ingasolidbasisforthesubsequentanalysisofNBPsintheEU.

22TheDAE’sinitialinterimtargetforachievingbasicbroadband(>2mbps)by2013willnotbepartofthediscussionasithasbeenanalysedatlengthbytheCommissionStaffWorkingDocumentontheImplementationofNationalBroadbandPlans,Brussels,23.3.2012,SWD(2012)68final/223Additionalindicatorswhichmayalsobeusefulformonitoringandanalysisincludemonetary-basedstatisticssuchasbroadbandreve-nues24Cf.TheWorldBank(Ed.)(2012):BroadbandStrategiesHandbook.TimKelly,RossottoCarloMaria.CoordinatedbyTelecommunicationsManagementGroup,Inc.,P.7725https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/digital-scoreboard26https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/desi

27http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?action=display&doc_id=15806

|Page39from330

39

6.2.1 BroadbandIndicators:DAEtargetsonEuropeanandNationalLevel

6.2.1.1 BASICCOVERAGEACROSSEUROPE(DAETARGETI)

Inadditiontothe“grandtargets”discussedfurtheraboveandbelow,theDigitalAgendaforEurope

alsosetstoensurefullbasicbroadband(2Mbps)coverageby2013(DAEtargetI).Fixedbasicbroad-

bandnetworksarethecornerstoneofthiskindofconnectivityinEuropeandwidelyavailable,covering

mostofthehouseholdsintheEU(97%accordingtotheEDPR).Moreover,mobilebroadbandvia3G

networkshasachievedacomparablyhighrateofcoverage,withverylimiteddifferencesacrossMem-

berStates.Additionally,satellitenetworksalsoofferubiquitouscoveragefortheentireterritoryofthe

EuropeanUnion.Hence,fortheremainderofremoteareas,wherestillnofixedbasicbroadbandis

available,mobileandsatelliteconnectionscanconstituteapragmaticalternative.Asaresult,basic

connectivity across Europe is given and the European Commission considers the first DAE to be

achieved.

6.2.1.2 NGACOVERAGE(DAETARGETII)

However,ifwehaveacloserlookatadvancedNextGenerationAccess(NGA)technologies,whichare

abletofulfilthesecondDAEtargetof30Mbpsdownlink,thepicturechanges.DAEtargetII(100%

coveragewith30Mbpsormoreuntil2020)hasnotbeenachievedyet.BasedonDESIdata,Figure3

showsthatdespitetheaverageNGAcoverageof70.9%,asignificantnumberofhouseholdsacross

Europecannotsubscribetothesehigherbandwidths.ThefiguredepictsNGAbroadbandcoverageas

asupply-sideindicatorcalculatedintermsofthepercentageofpopulationlivinginareasservedby

NGAnetworks.Here,NGAisunderstoodtoincludeFTTHandFTTB,CableDocsis3.0,VDSLandother

superfastbroadbandtechnologieswithadatadownloadrateofatleast30Mbps.

40

Figure3NGACoverageacrossEurope-DAEstatusquo(ownillustrationbasedonDESI)

Itisevident,thattheonlyMemberStatewith100%coverageforsuchNGAnetworksisMalta,fol-

lowedbyBelgiumandtheNetherlands.TheotherMemberStatesdifferintheirdegreeofcoverage,

withFrance,ItalyandGreeceatthebottom.ThiscurrentlevelofNGAcoverageleadstothequestion,

ifandwhenthesecondDAEtargetwillbemetonaEuropeanLevel.Toanswerthisquestion,wehave

analysedtheNGAcoverageprogressacrossEuropeoveracoupleofyears.Figure4(DESIdata)depicts

thisevolutionofdigitalinfrastructure.Fromthisperspective,wecanseethatthesequenceofcoun-

triesremainedsimilaroverthelastfiveyears.However,progresswasgenerallyquickerincountries

withlowbaselines(e.g.FR,PL)comparedtothosewithhigherones(e.g.NL,BE,MT).Thequestion

whenamarketsaturationeffectappearsisespeciallyinterestingtoestimatethefulfilmentoftargets.

Analysingtheexistingdata,weseethatgrowthsteadilydeclinesafter90%coverage,whichmeans

thattheefforttofullycoverthelastfewpercentagepointsofpopulation(mostlytobefoundinrural

| Page 41 from 330

41

remoteareas)increasesdrasticallywhilethepotentialturnoverisrelativelysmall,makingtheseareas

lessattractiveforcommercialroll-out.

Figure4NGAcoverageMS2011-2015(ownillustrationbasedonDESI)

ToestimatetheactualrateofprogressacrossEurope,wehaveconcludedseveraltrendanalysesbased

oncurrentofficialdatatodeterminetheactualandthepotentialfutureachievement.Pleasenotethat

thereisadifferingdateoftime(Mid2015vsEndofnx)whichdistortsthetrendlineandleadstoresults

thatareworsethanifwesolelycalculatedwithEndofn.However,ifwecalculatealineartrend(where

thisdistortionhastheleasteffect;R²=0,9841),weestimateanachievementofthetargetsbyEnd

2019(seeFigure5).ThisisatleasttrueonaEuropeanlevel.Withinthecountrysectionstheachieve-

mentonnationallevelswillbemorethoroughlyexamined.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

100%

EL IT FR HR PL SK RO BG CZ FI SE ES HU SI IE DE CY EE AT UK LV PT DK LU LT NL BE MT

NGAcoverage,MemberStates2011-2015

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

EUaverage2011 EUaverage2012 EUaverage2013 EUaverage2014 EUaverage2015

42

Figure5NGAcoverage,lineargrowthtrend(owncalculation&illustrationbasedonDESI)

Toverifyourfirstestimation,wealsoaddedexponential (R²=0,9687)and logarithmic(R²=0,927)

trendlines.Theexponentialtrendlineherebydepictsapositivescenarioandshowstheachievement

ofthetargetsbyEnd2018.However,consideringthemarketsaturationeffect,afurtherexponential

growthisunlikely(seeFigure6).

Figure6NGAcoverage,exponentialgrowthtrend(owncalculation&illustrationbasedonDESI)

Contrarily,thelogarithmictrendlinerepresentingthissaturation,leadstodifferingresults.Asdepicted

inFigure7,anachievementofthesecondtargetisnotforeseeable.Again,itisworthnoticingthatthe

last10%of coveragewill inanycasebe thecostliestones toachieve,whichwill lead toa severe

reductionofdeploymentspeed.WethereforeconcludethatanachievementofthesecondDAEtarget

isratherquestionable(onaEuropeanlevel).

| Page 43 from 330

43

Figure7NGAcoverage,logarithmicgrowthtrend(owncalculation&illustrationbasedonDESI)

6.2.1.3 ULTRAFASTSUBSCRIPTIONS(DAETARGETIII)

RegardingthethirdDAEtarget(50%takeupforbandwidthsof100Mbpsandhigher),theEDPR2016

statesthatcurrently8%ofEuropeanhouseholdssubscribetoultrafastconnections.LookingatFigure

8summarizingHH-penetrationfiguresfromEDPR,thisstillrelativelylowvalueisnosurprise.Inthe

vastmajorityofMemberStates,stilllessthan10%ofhouseholdssubscribetoconnectionsoffering

100Mbpsormore.However,therearealsoseveralMemberStateswithhigherpenetrationrates,4

ofthemevenachievingpenetrationrateswellabove20%.

Figure8Subscriptionswith100Mbpsormore(percentageofHH/numberofMS)(ownillustrationbasedonEDPR2016)

195

4

Percentageofhouseholdssubscribingto100Mbpsormore- 2015(numberofMS)

0-10 % 11-20 % 21-30 %

FIHUIENLPT

BELVROSE

ATBGCYCZDEDKEEELESFRHRITLTLUMTPLSISKUK

44

Comparingtake-upratesforconnections>100MbpswiththepreviouslyanalysedNGAcoveragerates

revealsanotherinterestingfact:onaverage,countriesthattendtohaveahigherNGAcoveragerate

alsotendtohavehighertake-uprates,suggestingthatdemandfollowssupplytosomeextent(based

onEDPRdatawecalculatedacorrelationcoefficientof0.33).However,wecanalsoobservethatsome

countriesdeviatefromthispattern(e.g.MaltahavingachievedfullNGAcoverage,butshowingvery

low>100Mbpstake-uprates,whereasRomaniahasonlyanaveragecoveragerate,butsignificantly

outperformsmostothercountriesregardingtake-up).Thereareseveralreasonsforsuchdiscrepan-

cies:obviouslytechnologicalreasonsareafactor,i.e.networkscapableofdelivering30Mbpsarenot

necessarilycapableofdelivering100Mbps,whichisalsoconfirmedbyEDPRdatashowingthatspeeds

of100Mbpsormoreareonlyavailableforapproximately50%ofEUhouseholds,comparedtothe

significantlyhigherNGAcoverageof70.9%.Moreover,thedifference,canalsobeexplainedbyde-

mand side factors (i.e. socio-economic factors andaffordability) and regional disparities, oftenbe-

tweenruralandurbanareas.

Insummary,onecanconcludethatthereiscurrentlynocountrythathasachievedthetargetyetor

that is close toachieving it.Hence, thecurrent figures suggest thatachieving the thirdDAE target

remainsdoubtful,especiallyconsideringthat,assaidbefore,demandseemstofollowsupplyandas

thereisashortageofhigh-endcoverageacrossEurope,chancesarelowthatthetake-uptargetcan

beachieved.

Althoughthefiguresandnumbersindicateaclearresultatfirstglance,therearestillsomedynamics

thatcouldchangethecurrenttrendsandmakeboththecoverageandtake-uptargetachievable:the

increasingdemandforultrafastspeeds.BasedonDESIdata,wecalculatedtherecentgrowthratesfor

ultrafastsubscriptionsinEurope(Table3).

MS

Growth

rate

100Mbps

andabove

15

100Mbps

andabove

14 MS

Growth

rate

100Mbps

andabove

15

100Mbps

andabove

14

AT 71% 4% 2% IE -9% 17% 19%

BE 98% 26% 13% IT 119% 1% 0%

BG 48% 6% 4% LT 60% 17% 11%

CY 19% 0% 0% LU 63% 9% 5%

CZ 85% 8% 5% LV 11% 42% 38%

DE 74% 6% 4% MT 14% 1% 1%

DK 422% 9% 2% NL 33% 18% 13%

EE 50% 7% 4% PL 164% 8% 3%

EL N.A. 0,01% 0,00% PT 12% 25% 23%

| Page 45 from 330

45

ES 70% 14% 8% RO 77% 49% 28%

FI 27% 23% 18% SE 24% 42% 34%

FR 36% 8% 6% SI 69% 8% 4%

HR 5277% 0% 0% SK 12% 10% 9%

HU 305% 20% 5% UK 152% 7% 3%

Table3Growthratesofultra-fastsubscriptionsinMS2014-2015(owncalculation&illustrationbasedonDESI)

NearlyalloftheMemberStatesshowextremelyhighgrowthrates(forEL2014thereisnoreliable

dataavailableandHRisexceptionallyhigh,butthebaselineisverylow,soresultsaredistorted).From

11%(LV)to422%(DK),wecanobservethatthedemandforultra-highspeedsubscriptionsacross

Europeisgrowing.Thisdynamicgrowthmightmaketake-uptargetsmoreachievablethantheycur-

rentlylooklike.Ifgrowthstayscomparablyhigh,supplywillbeshortofdemandforthesebandwidths.

Theremightevenbeanoverspilleffect:Whiledemandforultrafastconnectionsincreasessignificantly,

operatorsmight reconsider their internal risk calculationsand startdeploying inareaswhichwere

deemedtobeeconomicallynotviable.

Ifwehaveacloserlookatthetechnologiesdeployed,wecanobtainamorevalidview,thatsupports

thisthesis.Figure9,gatheredfromtheEDPR,showsthedeclineofxDSLtechnologieswhiletechnolo-

giesthatusuallyofferceterisparibushigherbandwidths,gainmarketshares.

Figure9Developmentoffixedbroadbandsubscriptionsbytechnology(ownillustrationbasedonEDPR2016)

Although general fixed broadband is still overwhelmingly dominated by xDSL, the picture changes

whenweexamineonlyNGAsubscriptionsbytechnology.Asoftoday,theNGAsubscriptionsareal-

readydominatedbynon-xDSLtechnologies(especiallycable),whileFTTPisonlyslightlybehindxDSL,

46

suggestingthatxDSLisnotfittomeetthehigheststandardsofend-customers(seeFigure10,extracted

fromEDPR)

Figure10NGAsubscriptionsbytechnology2015(ownillustrationbasedonEDPR2016)

ThiscurrentdisplacementofxDSLtechnologiesincentivizesthefurtherexchangeoflegacynetworks

anddeploymentoffuture-prooftechnologies,whichinturnmakestheachievementoftheDAEtargets

againslightlymoreprobable.

6.2.1.4 MAINCHALLENGE:RURALAREAS

Asithasbeenmentionedalready,otherfactorssuchasdemandandsocio-economicfactorsnotwith-

standing,oneofthekeychallengesregardingtheachievementofbothDAEtargetswillbethecoverage

ofruralareas,whicharestilllaggingsignificantlybehind(28%coverageaccordingtoDESI).Assuming

anongoinglineargrowthtrend,basedonDESIdata,wecalculatedatrendlineforthedevelopmentof

ruralNGAcoverageinthenextyears.LookingatFigure11,itbecomesclearthat,basedonthecurrent

trend,anoverallavailabilityofNGAnetworksandthusalsoultrafastNGAnetworks(networkscapable

of>100Mbps) iscurrentlynotforeseeable.Withoutthesenetworks,thecoverageandpenetration

rates cannot rise to the levels targeted.Hence, further effortwith a special focuson said areas is

neededtoachievetheDAEtargets.

29%

45% 1% 14%

11% 25%

NGASubscriptionsbytechnologyatEULevelMid2015

vDSL Cable OtherNGA FTTH FTTB

| Page 47 from 330

47

Figure11RuralNGAcoverage,lineargrowthtrend(owncalculation&illustrationbasedonDESI)

6.2.2 Socio-EconomicIndicators

BesidestheconnectivitytargetsoftheDAE,therearealsosocio-economicindicatorsthatarevaluable

forassessingthestatusquoandpossiblyeventhefuturechancesofmeetingtheconnectivitytargets.

Especiallyconsideringthedemandside,itisusefultoexamineseveralaspects,consideringtheprevi-

ouslydescribedimpactofdemandontake-upandcoveragealike.Theseindicatorsexpresstheoverall

digitizationofasociety,however,observingsolelythesefactorsdonotdefinethewholescopeofthe

demandsidesufficiently.Especiallyfactorssuchasaffordabilityareatleastequallyimportant.

§ digitalinclusion

DigitalinclusionmeansespeciallytheregularinternetuseacrosstheMemberStates,butalsoregular

usebydisadvantagedpeopleandalownumberofpersonsthathaveneverusedtheInternet.These

indicatorsarewellsuitedtoestimatehowandiftheuseofinternethasbecomeatoolofeverydaylife.

Thecommonuseofdigitalservicesdirectlyinfluencesthedemandforbroadbandsubscriptions,while

theusebydisadvantagedpeopleandpersonsthathaveneverusedtheinternetcorrelateswithaf-

fordability,publiclyavailableWLAN,etc.TheDAEtargetshereincludea70%regularuseofinternet

bythepopulation,a60%regularuseofInternet

Documents

Study on National Broadband Plans - atene KOM€¦ · Study on National Broadband Plans in the EU-28 Final report A study prepared for the European Commission DG Communications Networks,