Summary

• BEREC is consulting on national approaches to wholesale access for publicly funded fibre networks.
• National regulators vary in how they assess pricing, reference offers, monitoring and technical access conditions.
• Active wholesale services generally attract more commercial interest than passive infrastructure such as duct and pole access.

European countries have expanded fibre coverage using public funding, but the conditions under which rival operators gain access to those networks still vary significantly between national markets, according to new work from BEREC.

The Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications opened consultation on 7 October on a draft report examining access to fibre networks supported by state aid. The study compares how national regulators handle wholesale products, pricing, reference offers, monitoring and technical conditions on infrastructure built partly because commercial investment alone would not reach some areas.

Public support has become especially important for fibre-to-the-premises deployment in remote or otherwise uneconomic locations, including investment backed through the EU Recovery and Resilience Facility. Once those networks enter service, wholesale conditions influence whether public subsidy creates a competitive platform for several providers or primarily strengthens the operator that built the infrastructure.

European rules require publicly supported broadband networks to offer wholesale access on fair and non-discriminatory terms, with national regulatory authorities consulted on products, conditions and pricing. BEREC’s data collection nevertheless found different approaches across member states to the way those principles are implemented and monitored.

Wholesale access differs in practice

National regulators do not all use the same pricing methods or level of intervention, while approaches to publishing, reviewing and monitoring reference offers also differ. The resulting commercial environment can change substantially between countries even when operators are working under the same broad European state aid framework.

BEREC also found stronger commercial interest in active wholesale services than in passive infrastructure such as duct and pole access among countries reporting take-up data. Active products give an access seeker a more complete service over the subsidised network, whereas passive access requires the competing operator to provide more of its own network equipment and engineering.

The distinction can alter which providers are realistically able to compete. A large operator may have the scale to use passive infrastructure and install additional equipment, while a smaller service provider can be more dependent on an active wholesale product that requires less capital and operational complexity.

Pricing then determines whether formal availability translates into a viable retail offer. A wholesale service can satisfy an access obligation on paper while leaving too little margin for a competitor if the relationship between wholesale and retail pricing is unattractive.

BEREC’s report also examines monitoring because obligations have limited practical value when regulators cannot see whether access products are being delivered consistently. Publication of reference offers and evaluation reports can make conditions easier to compare, while continuing monitoring can identify whether state aid is producing the competitive outcome originally intended.

Public investment leaves an operating problem behind

State support is intended to push high-capacity connectivity into areas where the expected commercial return is insufficient to justify private deployment. Public money can therefore solve part of the initial capital problem while creating a second regulatory task around how the resulting infrastructure is used once construction is complete.

Too little wholesale access can leave consumers dependent on the subsidised network operator, while requirements that ignore legitimate network costs can weaken incentives to participate in future public programmes. Regulators are consequently balancing competition against investment conditions in markets with different geography, network architecture and existing provider structures.

The draft does not propose an immediate single pricing formula for Europe. BEREC is compiling national experience so regulators can compare interventions, improve future practice and, where possible, bring approaches closer together. Consultation responses are due by 13 November.

The work sits against the EU objective of gigabit coverage for all households by 2030. The final areas are inherently harder to connect because they are often remote, dispersed or otherwise unattractive to commercial investment, making public subsidy increasingly important as coverage approaches the target.

Coverage statistics alone cannot show whether those investments create durable competition. Fibre can reach a home while the commercial terms governing that network still determine how many providers can use it, what products they can offer and how much freedom customers ultimately have to switch.

BEREC’s comparison shows that Europe has common state aid principles without a single operating model for wholesale fibre. As public money carries networks deeper into areas the market would otherwise leave behind, access conditions after construction will increasingly determine how much competitive value those investments create.