Europaudvalget 2020-21
EUU Alm.del Bilag 342
Offentligt
2343904_0001.png
Danish Non-Paper on
the Commission’s Public
Consultation on the Evaluation and Review of the
Broadband Cost Reduction Directive (2014/61/EU)
Denmark welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Commission’s
Public Consultation on the
Evaluation and Review of the Broadband Cost Reduction Directive (2014/61/EU). Last year Denmark
welcomed the Commission’s communication on “Shaping Europe’s Digital Future”,
and we are now
looking forward to a discussion on future goals for the continued rollout of high-speed infrastructure
in the light of Europe’s Digital Decade. The COVID-19
pandemic has demonstrated the need for fast
and ubiquitous connectivity particularly for remote work, distance learning and research as well as
its potential for the green transition. The fast rollout of high-performance digital infrastructures is a
pre-requisite for the long term competitiveness and sustainability of the EU. To reach these goals,
connectivity in Europe needs to improve. Fostering investment conditions is key, and in this regard
the Broadband Cost Reduction Directive can play an important role.
There is an undeniable potential in enabling a more efficient deployment of high speed and high
capacity broadband networks
–
allowing such networks to be rolled out at lower cost, including via
promoting the joint use of existing physical infrastructure and joint digging within and across sectors.
Accelerating broadband rollout is a key aspect in the digital transformation of our societies as well
as in reducing GHG emissions, promoting data driven solutions for environmental protection, thereby
contributing towards the targets set out in e.g. the European Green Deal, the Digital Agenda Europe,
the Gigabit Communication and the EU Strategy for Energy System Integration. Therefore, Denmark
supports a revision and an update of the BCRD. A revised BCRD should constitute a flexible
framework with minimum standards in order to accommodate the different market situations and
administrative structures within the EU. Indeed, the great variety in administrative structures among
EU Member States can in some cases be a limiting factor for meaningfully establishing detailed
directive-level rules regarding administrative procedures such as permit granting. Often freedom of
choice as to solutions will ensure the best outcome, and in such areas,
“toolbox” approaches as set
out in
the Commission’s
Recommendation of 18. 9. 2020 on a common Union toolbox for reducing
the cost of deploying very high capacity networks and ensuring timely and investment-friendly access
to 5G radio spectrum, to foster connectivity in support of economic recovery from the COVID-19
crisis in the Union
(C(2020) 6270 final) should be considered as an alternative and/or a supplement
to directive-level rules.
A revised BCRD allows the opportunity to further strengthen incentives to invest in broadband
networks with high speed and high capacity and foster competition at the infrastructure level. In this
light, Denmark suggests the following:
Promoting increased use of joint digging, e.g. via time limits for publication of planned works.
Considering how to make both granting and seeking access to existing infrastructure, as well
as joint digging, more attractive.
Considering potential new rules or voluntary regimes regarding mast sharing and access to
installing antennas on buildings.
Ensuring that new obligations or administrative burdens are proportionate and avoid harming
business cases or creating administrative bottlenecks.
Ensuring that any new rules on permit granting maintain consistency for permit procedures
and digital application platforms between the telco sector and other sectors, and support
taking a holistic approach potentially improving permit granting for all sectors simultaneously.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 342: Notat og høringssvar vedr. "Infrastrukturdirektivet"
Joint digging
– addressing “short notice” issues and cost
sharing
Denmark believes that a revised BCRD should further facilitate and incentivise joint digging across
sectors. Due to the high speed of decision-making in the telco sector, joint digging can be
hampered especially when projects are announced on short notice. By adjusting the current rules
related to coordination of works under the BCRD to include time limits for the publication of
planned civil works, potential interested parties could more often be alerted to the possibility for
joint digging in a timely manner. However, a balance would have to be struck between the
publication of plans in due time on the one hand and the prevention of slowing down rollout on the
other hand.
Disputes on cost sharing potentially pose another limiting factor. Stronger guidance for Dispute
Settlement Bodies (DSB) on cost sharing could contribute to smoother processes, taking into
account the telco sector market dynamics, which can be challenging for local authorities to navigate
through. In this regard, an assessment on the need for guidelines at EU-level regarding cost sharing
would be beneficial, drawing from the experiences or best practices of the Member States.
Infrastructure sharing and joint digging
–
competition and incentive issues
In Denmark, there has been limited interest in infrastructure sharing in the fixed broadband sector
(esp. ducts). This is in large part due to disincentives arising from competition dynamics and issues
of control, which also affect the attractiveness of joint digging to some degree:
Collaborating with a competitor on digging or infrastructure sharing can mean worsened
prospects for market shares in an area, especially where both parties are telco operators.
For the access seeker, joint use of infrastructure and joint digging both mean less control
over e.g. digging time plans or subsequent repairs than performing their own rollout.
Even where the infrastructure owner is not a competitor, having to coordinate subsequent
repair works with the owner is a negative aspect of infrastructure sharing.
In revising the BCRD, it should be considered whether the potential for cost reduction and resource-
efficiency through joint digging and shared use of infrastructure could be harnessed more fully by
finding new ways of mitigating such disincentives and making it more attractive.
Mast sharing and access to tall structures
Denmark has a long-lasting and well-functioning legal regime for sharing telecommunications masts
in which some elements go beyond the requirements of the current BCRD, including:
Access to a mast must be granted even if it requires modifying or rebuilding the mast.
An obligation for owners of certain other tall structures, such as chimneys and apartment
blocks, to grant access to install telecommunications infrastructure (antennas), even where
the owner is not a network operator.
Local authorities hold powers to enforce access obligations and can use these to ensure that
there is no need to grant permits for an excessive number of masts.
Denmark encourages the Commission to consider such an approach on a voluntary basis in the
revision of the BCRD, which might prove effective in other Member States as well.
General administrative matters, (digital) permit granting and Single Information Point
Denmark is committed to ensuring fast and streamlined digital procedures for permit granting. The
EU can play an important role in ensuring this. Yet since the details of permit granting vary greatly
within the EU, a variety of alternative solutions may be needed, a situation best addressed by a
voluntary “toolbox”
approach, such as the one suggested by the
Recommendation of 18. 9. 2020 on
 EUU, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 342: Notat og høringssvar vedr. "Infrastrukturdirektivet"
2343904_0003.png
a common Union toolbox
1
, rather than by a directive. To the extent that rules on permit granting in
the BCRD are deemed necessary, these should ensure sufficient flexibility to accommodate
institutional differences between Member States. It is also important to ensure that obligations and
burdens imposed on both the telco sector and public authorities are proportionate and necessary to
the aims of the revised BCRD. Additional administrative tasks for authorities could in some cases
lead to bottlenecks, which could delay permit granting and other decisions.
When improving permit granting, in order to take advantage of synergies and economies of scale, it
is important to take into account that in most Member States, none or few of the permit types
necessary for rolling out digital infrastructure are exclusive to digital infrastructure. Most permits are
subject to general procedures and requirements across sectors, including in many cases existing
digital application platforms. Creating special procedures, platforms
or “one stop shops”
exclusively
for the telco sector risks fragmenting permit granting procedures. Therefore, Denmark suggests that
BCRD provisions on permit granting support a holistic approach and enable synergies so that in
enhancing permit granting for the telco sector, Member States can streamline or digitalize permit
granting procedures more broadly, wherever such potential synergies are apparent. For the same
reasons, any new rules or requirements regarding digital application procedures in a revised BCRD
should also be sufficiently flexible so as not to require changing or splitting up well-functioning
existing digital systems.
Denmark does not support binding rules regarding tacit approval procedures for permits. Permits
such as building/digging/planning permits are required by a Member State wherever the MS
assesses that the type of civil works/construction in question can hold significant risks for safety or
potential to harm planning or landscape interests. Tacit approval procedures for types of
construction/works not already covered by a permit exemption could ultimately lead to infrastructure
being installed in unsafe or irregular ways. Denmark suggests that provisions on tacit approval
procedures in a revised BCRD remain voluntary and flexible, especially where permits required at
the MS’ own discretion are concerned.
Where permits from more than one authority are necessary, good coordination among these
authorities is important. In this light, the suggestion
of a “single window” has been raised, denoting
a new role for either a permit-granting authority or for a
de novo
body which is not itself responsible
for issuing any permits, but is responsible for coordinating permits from all relevant authorities and/or
communicating these jointly to the applicant. While this is one possible solution, Denmark is
concerned that local authorities in charge of permit granting may not have staffing and expertise for
this role, while a
de novo
body risks having adverse effects such as bottlenecks due to an added
administrative layer. The number of cases where more than one authority is involved also differs
from Member State to Member State. In some situations, a role for the national telecommunications
authority as an
ad hoc
facilitator of inter-authority cooperation can be sufficient. Given the great
variety in the exact needs for and potential shapes of coordination within the EU, a revised BCRD
should remain flexible on the means to achieve it, potentially supplemented
by a “toolbox” approach.
A revised BCRD should maintain that no new mapping obligations are imposed on Member States
(recital 21 of the current BCRD). Member States should retain discretion as to the cost-benefit
analysis of mapping of existing infrastructure. This analysis depends
inter alia
on the demand for
information on existing infrastructure, which may also vary greatly geographically internally in a
Member State or between types of infrastructure.
1
Recommendation of 18. 9. 2020 on a common Union toolbox for reducing the cost of deploying very high capacity networks and ensuring timely and investment-friendly access to
5G radio spectrum, to foster connectivity in support of economic recovery from the COVID-19 crisis in the Union
(C(2020) 6270 final)