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
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.
12
|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.
14
|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%
100%decouvertureavec30M
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%
100%decouvertureavec30M
bpsd‘ici
2020
Tauxdepénétrationdanslesménagesde50%avec
unservicede100Mbp
sd’ici2020
Moyenne/faible/no
n
dispon
ible
Croatie
52,0%
0,12%
100%decouvertureavec30M
bpsd‘ici
2020
Tauxdepénétrationdanslesménagesde50%avec
unservicede100Mbp
sd’ici2020
Faible/faible/no
ndis-
ponible
Danem
ark
91,7%
9,39%
100%decouvertureavec100Mbp
sen
débitdescendantet30M
bpsendébit
mon
tantd’ici2020
Non
dispo
nible
Moyenne/moyenne/
faible
Espagne
76,6%
9,76%
100%decouvertureavec30M
bpsd‘ici
2020
Tauxdepénétrationdanslesménagesde50%avec
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
abilitédelaréalisation
(DAEII/DAEIII/Objectif n
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%
100%decouvertureavec30M
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%
100%decouvertureavec30M
bpsd‘ici
2020
Tauxdepénétrationdanslesménagesde50%avec
unservicede100Mbp
sd’ici2020
Moyenne/faible/no
n
dispon
ible
Croatie
52,0%
0,12%
100%decouvertureavec30M
bpsd‘ici
2020
Tauxdepénétrationdanslesménagesde50%avec
unservicede100Mbp
sd’ici2020
Faible/faible/no
ndis-
ponible
Danem
ark
91,7%
9,39%
100%decouvertureavec100Mbp
sen
débitdescendantet30M
bpsendébit
mon
tantd’ici2020
Non
dispo
nible
Moyenne/moyenne/
faible
Espagne
76,6%
9,76%
100%decouvertureavec30M
bpsd‘ici
2020
Tauxdepénétrationdanslesménagesde50%avec
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
abilitédelaréalisation
(DAEII/DAEIII/Objectif n
a-tion
al)
Estonie
86,4%
4,48%
100%decouvertureavec30M
bpsd‘ici
2020
Tauxdepénétrationdanslesménagesde60%avec
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%
100%decouvertureavec30M
bpsd‘ici
2022
Non
dispo
nible
Faible/faible/moyenne
Grèce
36,3%
0,01%
100%decouvertureavec30M
bpsd‘ici
2020
Tauxdepénétrationdanslesménagesde50%avec
unservicede100Mbp
sd’ici2020
Faible/faible/no
ndis-
ponible
Hon
grie
78,2%
12,68%
100%decouvertureavec30M
bpsd‘ici
2018
Tauxdepénétrationdanslesménagesde50%avec
unservicede100Mbp
sd’ici2020
Moyenne/moyenne/
moyenne
Irland
e79,7%
13,24%
100%decouvertureavec30M
bpsd‘ici
2020
Tauxdepénétrationdanslesménagesde50%avec
unservicede100Mbp
sd’ici2020,avec,enatten-
dant,undébitmon
tantd’environ
17à21M
bps
Faible/faible/no
ndis-
ponible
Italie
43,9%
0,54%
100%decouvertureavec30M
bpsd‘ici
2020
Tauxdepénétrationdanslesménagesde50%avec
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
abilitédelaréalisation
(DAEII/DAEIII/Objectifn
a-tion
al)
Letton
ie
90,7%
25,30%
100%cou
vertureavec30Mbp
sd‘ici
2020
Tauxdepénétrationdanslesménagesde50%avec
unservicede100Mbp
sd’ici2020
Moyenne/moyenne/
nondispon
ible
Lituanie
97,5%
10,42%
100%decouvertureavec30M
bpsd‘ici
2020
Tauxdepénétrationdanslesménagesde50%avec
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%
100%decouvertureavec30M
bpsd‘ici
2020
Tauxdepénétrationdanslesménagesde50%avec
unservicede100Mbp
sd’ici2020
Objectifréalisé/faible/
nondispon
ible
Pays-Bas
98,3%
16,53%
100%decouvertureavec30M
bpsd‘ici
2020
Tauxdepénétrationdanslesménagesde50%avec
unservicede100Mbp
sd’ici2020
Haute/faible/no
ndis-
ponible
Pologne
60,7%
4,23%
100%decouvertureavec30M
bpsd‘ici
2020
Tauxdepénétrationdanslesménagesde50%avec
unservicede100Mbp
sd’ici2020
Faible/faible/no
ndis-
ponible
Portugal
90,9%
18,88%
100%decouvertureavec30M
bpsd‘ici
2020
Tauxdepénétrationdanslesménagesde50%avec
unservicede100Mbp
sd’ici2020
Moyenne/moyenne/
nondispon
ible
Répu
bliquetchèque
72,9%
5,55%
100%decouvertureavec30M
bpsd‘ici
2020
Tauxdepénétrationdanslesménagesde50%avec
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
abilitédelaréalisation
(DAEII/DAEIII/Objectif n
a-tion
al)
Letton
ie
90,7%
25,30%
100%cou
vertureavec30Mbp
sd‘ici
2020
Tauxdepénétrationdanslesménagesde50%avec
unservicede100Mbp
sd’ici2020
Moyenne/moyenne/
nondispon
ible
Lituanie
97,5%
10,42%
100%decouvertureavec30M
bpsd‘ici
2020
Tauxdepénétrationdanslesménagesde50%avec
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%
100%decouvertureavec30M
bpsd‘ici
2020
Tauxdepénétrationdanslesménagesde50%avec
unservicede100Mbp
sd ’ici2020
Objectifréalisé/faible/
nondispon
ible
Pays-Bas
98,3%
16,53%
100%decouvertureavec30M
bpsd‘ici
2020
Tauxdepénétrationdanslesménagesde50%avec
unservicede100Mbp
sd’ici2020
Haute/faible/no
ndis-
ponible
Pologne
60,7%
4,23%
100%decouvertureavec30M
bpsd‘ici
2020
Tauxdepénétrationdanslesménagesde50%avec
unservicede100Mbp
sd’ici2020
Faible/faible/no
ndis-
ponible
Portugal
90,9%
18,88%
100%decouvertureavec30M
bpsd‘ici
2020
Tauxdepénétrationdanslesménagesde50%avec
unservicede100Mbp
sd’ici2020
Moyenne/moyenne/
nondispon
ible
Répu
bliquetchèque
72,9%
5,55%
100%decouvertureavec30M
bpsd‘ici
2020
Tauxdepénétrationdanslesménagesde50%avec
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
abilitédelaréalisation
(DAEII/DAEIII/Objectif n
a-tion
al)
Roum
anie
71,6%
26,72%
80%
decouvertureavec30M
bpsd‘ici
2020
Tauxdepénétrationdanslesménagesde45%avec
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%
100%decouvertureavec30M
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%
90%decouvertureavec100Mbp
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