The impact assessment (IA) identifies four problems relating to slow development and deployment of advanced digital networks in the EU. Relying on the evaluation of the current regulatory framework, the IA discusses the problem drivers, defines specific objectives, and compares and ranks policy options. The objectives are generally well defined. However, the second specific objective refers to closing the high-quality connectivity gap with competing regions without acknowledging that its achievement also depends on developments in those regions. The third specific objective, on increasing pan-European network operation and service provision, is defined in rather generic terms. The policy options seem relevant and sufficiently distinct, although the presentation of the options is not well balanced, with some options discussed in more detail than others. The IA assesses the economic, social and environmental impacts of policy options, although the analysis varies in depth across the problems and options. The costs and benefits for major stakeholders are analysed, including for small and medium-sized enterprises. The preferred options are chosen transparently, and they generally follow the conclusions of the comparative assessments. However, several preferred options could have been justified more effectively. For example, the preferred option for governance has been selected despite ranking second best in the comparison of policy options. Whereas subsidiarity is sufficiently addressed, proportionality is discussed only briefly and selectively. The IA defines a set of indicators and operational objectives to monitor actual impacts. However, some of these indicators are not sufficiently explained, and lack specific targets. The IA makes use of a wealth of data and sources, including feedback from all major stakeholders. The methodology, data and sources are generally explained, although some references are missing or are incomplete. The Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) issued a 'positive with reservations' opinion on the draft IA after initially issuing a negative opinion. The revised draft appears to have addressed the RSB's comments. The proposal appears generally to follow the preferred policy options identified in the IA. One notable addition in the proposal is the creation of a voluntary conciliation mechanism to facilitate dialogue on technical and commercial arrangements, which was not properly addressed in the IA. Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP Read more