Informeerimine Euroopa Komisjoni konkurentsi peadirektoraadile saadetud pöördumisest

Saatja: Tõnis Palts <[email protected]> Saaja: Info - RTK Teema: [DKIM katki]Informeerimine Euroopa Komisjoni konkurentsi peadirektoraadile saadetud pöördumisest Tähelepanu! Tegemist on välisvõrgust saabunud kirjaga. Tundmatu saatja korral palume linke ja faile mitte avada. HOIATUS! See e-kiri võib olla liba-, õngitsus- või pahaloomuline, kuna on saadetud asutusest, kus meiliserver on vigaselt seadistatud. Rohkem infot: KKK | teenusveeb <https://teenused.rit.ee/et/kkk> -> E-post ja kalender. Teema: Euroopa Regionaalarengu Fondi vahendite kasutamine määruse „Väga suure läbilaskevõimega elektroonilise side juurdepääsuvõrgu rajamiseks toetuse andmise tingimused“ rakendamisel Tere Käesolevaga saadan Riigi Tugiteenuste Keskusele teadmiseks minu poolt täna Euroopa Komisjoni konkurentsi peadirektoraadile saadetud pöördumise seoses justiits- ja digiministri 6. jaanuari 2026. aasta määrusega nr 1 „Väga suure läbilaskevõimega elektroonilise side juurdepääsuvõrgu rajamiseks toetuse andmise tingimused“, mille alusel rakendatakse 45 miljoni euro suurust Euroopa Regionaalarengu Fondist rahastatavat toetusmeedet. Pöördun selle küsimusega eraldi ka RTK poole, kuna RTK viib kõnealuse toetusmeetme taotlusvoore praktiliselt ellu ning järgmine taotlusvoor on kavandatud juba septembrisse. Seetõttu on RTK-l vahetu võimalus enne järgmiste vahendite sidumist hinnata, kas meetme praegused tehnilised piirangud võivad vähendada Euroopa Regionaalarengu Fondi vahendite kasutamise tulemuslikkust ning kas nende piirangute sõltumatu tehniline ja majanduslik hindamine on enne järgmise vooru käivitamist põhjendatud. Euroopa Komisjonile saadetud pöördumise keskne küsimus on, kas määrusega kehtestatud raadiolahenduste piirang on kooskõlas EL riigiabi tehnoloogianeutraalsuse ja proportsionaalsuse nõuetega. RTK seisukohalt pean vähemalt sama oluliseks küsimust, milline on nende piirangute tegelik mõju meetme tulemuslikkusele. Esimese taotlusvooru tulemused annavad sellele juba praktilise mõõtme. Ligikaudu 18,5 miljoni euro suuruse toetusega kaetakse 6490 aadressi ehk keskmine avaliku sektori toetus on ligikaudu 2850 eurot ühe aadressi kohta. Samal ajal on Eestis olemas praktiline kogemus uue põlvkonna fikseeritud raadiolahendustega, mille investeeringukulu ühendatud kliendi kohta võib olla sellest mitu korda madalam. Kui meetme tingimustega välistatakse sellised potentsiaalselt oluliselt väiksema investeeringukuluga VHCN-võimelised tehnoloogiad juba enne nende tegeliku toimivuse ja kvaliteedi hindamist, võib tulemuseks olla olukord, kus sama avaliku raha eest saab nõutava kvaliteediga ühenduse oluliselt väiksem arv Eesti maapiirkondade kodusid ja ettevõtteid. Sellise piirangu tulemusel võivad olla loodud tingimused Euroopa Regionaalarengu Fondi vahendite ebaotstarbekaks kasutamiseks: kui oluliselt madalama investeeringukuluga tehnoloogiad välistatakse enne nende tegeliku kvaliteedi ja sobivuse hindamist, võib sama 45 miljoni euro eest jõuda VHCN kvaliteediga ühendus oluliselt väiksema arvu Eesti maapiirkondade aadressideni kui tehnoloogiliselt avatud ja tulemusnäitajatel põhineva meetme korral. Seetõttu teen ettepaneku, et enne järgmise taotlusvooru väljakuulutamist moodustataks ekspertkomisjon, mis ei sõltu turuosalistest, kelle ülesanne oleks hinnata meetmes kehtestatud tehniliste piirangute põhjendatust, proportsionaalsust ja mõju toetuse tulemuslikkusele. Ekspertkomisjoni keskne küsimus peaks olema mitte see, millist tehnoloogiat eelistada, vaid kas kehtestatud piirangud on objektiivselt vajalikud VHCN kvaliteedi tagamiseks ning kas nende rakendamine võimaldab Euroopa Regionaalarengu Fondi vahenditega vähendada võimalikult suurel määral nende valgete alade aadresside arvu, kus elanikel ja ettevõtetel puudub juurdepääs VHCN kvaliteediga teenusele. Palun RTK-l hinnata, kas järgmise taotlusvooru käivitamine enne sellise sõltumatu tehnilise ja majandusliku hinnangu läbiviimist on põhjendatud ning kas RTK peab võimalikuks algatada või toetada sellise sõltumatu hinnangu läbiviimist enne järgmiste vahendite sidumist. Euroopa Komisjonile saadetud pöördumine koos seda toetavate lisadega on käesolevale kirjale lisatud. Lugupidamisega Tõnis Palts Istavera OÜ ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Tõnis Palts <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2026 at 09:11 Subject: Request for preliminary assessment of an Estonian broadband State aid measure under Article 52 GBER To: <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Cc: <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Dear Sir or Madam, Please find below my request for a preliminary assessment concerning the Estonian broadband State aid measure under Article 52 GBER. The supporting documents referred to in the letter are attached as Annexes 1–6. Kind regards, Tõnis Palts ISTAVERA OÜ Registry code 17463388 Tuukri tn 58-24, 10120 Tallinn, Estonia E-mail: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> European Commission Directorate-General for Competition State Aid – Broadband Infrastructure Brussels, Belgium Date: 24 August 2026 Request for preliminary assessment of an Estonian broadband State aid measure under Article 52 GBER – technological neutrality, proportionality and the exclusion of shared-spectrum fixed wireless access Dear Sir or Madam, Istavera OÜ respectfully requests the European Commission to examine a potential State aid compliance issue concerning an Estonian ERDF-supported measure for the deployment of very-high-capacity fixed access networks. Istavera OÜ is wholly owned by Tõnis Palts. The company advises several internet service providers that have recently entered, or are preparing to enter, the Estonian broadband market, including operators active in sparsely populated rural areas. The eligibility rules and administrative interpretation of the measure therefore directly affect the ability of recent and prospective market entrants to compete in State-supported broadband deployment. 1. Measure concerned The measure is implemented under Ministerial Regulation No 1 of 6 January 2026, “Väga suure läbilaskevõimega elektroonilise side juurdepääsuvõrgu rajamiseks toetuse andmise tingimused”. The authoritative text is published in the Estonian State Gazette (Riigi Teataja). The overall measure has an ERDF envelope of EUR 45 million. According to the State Shared Service Centre (RTK), the first call has already resulted in 37 projects receiving approximately EUR 18.5 million for deployment to 6,490 addresses. This corresponds to average public support of approximately EUR 2,850 per address reached. RTK has also stated that the beneficiaries expect actual subscription at slightly more than 4,000 of those addresses. RTK has announced that the second call is planned for September 2026. The Regulation expressly relies on Article 52 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 (“GBER”) as the State-aid basis for fixed broadband networks. This submission does not seek to reopen or suspend the awards already made in the first call. Its purpose is to seek clarification before further public funds are committed under the same eligibility framework. 2. Core concern: technological neutrality appears to have been replaced by an ex ante technology exclusion Estonia is entitled to establish ambitious and objectively verifiable performance requirements for publicly funded broadband networks. Our concern is different. The national rules and, particularly, their administrative interpretation appear effectively to exclude fixed wireless access solutions using licence-exempt or shared spectrum before their actual network performance is assessed. The Ministry has acknowledged in writing that EU legislation does not expressly prescribe that a wireless VHCN solution must use spectrum assigned exclusively to one operator; that it did not compare all potentially relevant VHCN technologies when designing the measure; and that during preparation of the measure it did not have information concerning newer fixed-wireless technologies capable of actively mitigating interference in shared spectrum. The issue is therefore not whether any particular wireless product must receive aid. The question is whether an entire technological class may be excluded in advance because of the regulatory status of the spectrum rather than because of a demonstrated inability to meet objectively defined service requirements. 3. Technological neutrality Article 52 GBER requires aid to be allocated through an open, transparent and non-discriminatory competitive selection procedure respecting the principle of technological neutrality. Paragraph 125 of the Commission’s Guidelines on State aid for broadband networks states that State intervention must not favour or exclude a particular technology or network platform and that bidders should be entitled to provide the required services using, or combining, the technologies they consider most suitable. Member States may determine desired performance in advance, provided that the criteria used are objective, transparent and non-discriminatory. In our view, there is an important distinction between setting a technology-neutral performance requirement and excluding a technology because of an assumed relationship between its spectrum authorisation model and its performance. The Estonian implementation appears to have crossed that distinction. 4. Spectrum status should not substitute for performance assessment Istavera does not dispute that shared or licence-exempt spectrum can involve interference risks. The question is whether the existence of such risks establishes, by itself, that a modern fixed wireless network cannot provide the required service quality. Spectrum authorisation status is not itself a network-performance parameter. Throughput, latency, packet loss, availability and other service-quality parameters can be measured. As is well known, modern fixed wireless networks may also use active interference cancellation, adaptive beamforming, spectrum management, controlled subscriber loading and other techniques to manage interference. We do not ask the Commission to determine that any particular technology automatically satisfies the requirements. We ask whether such a technology may be excluded before its measurable performance is allowed to be demonstrated. The Commission’s technological-neutrality principle would appear to favour defining the required result and allowing competing technologies to demonstrate whether they can achieve it. 5. VHCN status and the economic significance of technological neutrality This issue has potentially substantial consequences for the efficiency of public expenditure. BEREC’s VHCN framework recognises alternative routes by which a network may qualify as a Very High Capacity Network. In particular, a network providing a wireless connection with fibre roll-out up to the base station may qualify as VHCN under the structural criterion applicable to wireless networks. Consequently, a fixed wireless access architecture with fibre backhaul to the base station is not inherently outside the European VHCN framework merely because the final access link is wireless. The economic significance is material. The first Estonian call allocated approximately EUR 18.5 million to reach 6,490 addresses, corresponding to approximately EUR 2,850 of public support per address reached. At the same time, operational experience already available in Estonia with next-generation fixed wireless access indicates that the capital expenditure required per connected subscriber can be several times lower than the level of public support per address observed in the first call. We do not ask the Commission at this stage to accept any particular ngFWA cost benchmark. The relevant point is that practical market experience already indicates a materially lower-cost alternative, while the Estonian authorities have acknowledged that they did not carry out a comparative assessment of all potentially relevant VHCN technologies. If such networks can satisfy the required service objectives and qualify as VHCN under the applicable European framework, allowing them to compete could enable the same public budget to reach substantially more homes and businesses. The question is therefore whether a potentially materially lower-cost VHCN-capable alternative may be excluded without a comparative technical and economic assessment having been carried out by the Member State. 6. The Estonian authorities have attributed their interpretation to the European Commission This issue has become particularly important because the Estonian authorities have expressly attributed their interpretation to the European Commission. The Ministry has previously stated that the draft Regulation and explanatory memorandum were provided to the Commission and that the Commission did not submit comments or objections. More explicitly, on 11 August 2026 the Deputy Secretary General of the Ministry wrote that the Ministry’s positions are “in line with the positions of the European Commission” and stated categorically that European funding cannot be granted for a licence-exempt technology for the last gigabit mile. We have not identified any Commission decision, assessment or written position endorsing that specific proposition. Since the Estonian measure relies on Article 52 GBER, we also do not understand the absence of comments on a draft national measure to constitute affirmative Commission approval of each individual technical assumption contained in its explanatory memorandum. We would therefore be particularly grateful if the Commission could clarify whether it has in fact assessed or endorsed the specific interpretation attributed to it by the Estonian authorities. 7. Proportionality and minimum necessary aid The Commission’s Broadband Guidelines require technological neutrality and provide that State aid must be proportionate and limited to the minimum necessary. The Estonian authorities have acknowledged that they did not compare all potentially relevant VHCN technologies when designing the measure. That omission may be material. If a substantially lower-cost technological architecture capable of providing the required service and qualifying as VHCN exists, excluding it before comparative assessment can result in higher public support per address, fewer homes and businesses reached with the available budget, reduced opportunities for recent and prospective market entrants, and a competitive selection procedure in which the technology choice has effectively been made before the tender takes place. In our view, this raises a substantive question as to whether the implementation of the measure is consistent with Article 52 GBER and the Commission’s technological-neutrality and proportionality principles. 8. Request to the Commission Against this background, Istavera OÜ respectfully requests the Commission to provide a preliminary assessment and, if appropriate, to examine: 1. whether the Estonian measure and its administrative implementation satisfy the technological-neutrality requirement applicable under Article 52 GBER; 2. whether a Member State may exclude fixed wireless technologies using licence-exempt or shared spectrum as a category without allowing compliance with the required service performance to be demonstrated objectively; 3. whether the regulatory status of spectrum may be treated as a decisive proxy for network quality rather than as one factor in an objective performance assessment; 4. whether the absence of a comparative technical and economic assessment of alternative VHCN-capable technologies raises a proportionality or minimum-necessary-aid concern; 5. whether the exclusion of potentially lower-cost VHCN-capable technologies, where the result may be materially higher public support per address and substantially lower coverage from the same budget, is compatible with the objectives and conditions of Article 52 GBER; 6. whether the European Commission has in fact assessed or endorsed the position attributed to it by the Estonian Ministry that European funding cannot be granted for licence-exempt or shared-spectrum fixed wireless technology for the last gigabit mile; 7. whether, in light of those circumstances, the measure may continue to rely on the exemption from the Article 108(3) TFEU notification requirement under Article 52 GBER; and 8. whether the Commission recommends that the information presented in this letter be submitted formally as a State aid complaint under Article 24(2) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589. The first-call awards have already been made and we do not seek their suspension or reopening. However, as the second call is planned for September 2026, we would be grateful if the Commission could consider the matter sufficiently early for any necessary clarification to be taken into account before additional public funds are committed under the same framework. 9. Evidence available Istavera can provide the Commission with the official Regulation and explanatory memorandum, RTK’s official information on the completed first call and planned second call, the Ministry’s written responses and correspondence, the 11 August 2026 correspondence in which the Commission’s position is invoked, and relevant BEREC VHCN material. Yours faithfully, Tõnis Palts sole shareholder of Istavera OÜ for and on behalf of Istavera OÜ +372 5505775 [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ANNEX SCHEDULE Annex 1: Official Regulation in Riigi Teataja. Annex 2: Official explanatory memorandum from EIS file 25-0862/01. Annex 3: RTK information on the first-call results and the planned second call. Annex 4: Ministry written responses concerning the measure and wireless VHCN eligibility. Annex 5: Correspondence of 11 August 2026 in which the Ministry attributes its interpretation to the European Commission. Annex 6: Relevant BEREC VHCN material.