Summary

  • The Dutch cabinet supports the EU’s gigabit-coverage objective but plans to question the proposed fibre-only measure for retiring copper networks.
  • The draft’s 2035 route is area-based and still under legislative review; ministers’ Limerick discussion is not an adopted shutdown rule.

The percentage counts a particular network

The first argument in Europe’s copper-exit debate is hidden in the denominator. Under the European Commission’s proposed Digital Networks Act, an area can enter the earlier switch-off track when fibre passes at least 95% of its premises and affordable retail connectivity of comparable quality is available to people still relying on copper. The national regulatory authority would assess areas separately and set objective, transparent affordability criteria. The proposal counts premises passed by fibre; it does not say that 95% of copper users must already have migrated.

That is a technology choice as well as a coverage test. A cable network may help a country meet a gigabit objective, but cable passings would not themselves satisfy the draft’s fibre-coverage limb. They may matter when authorities assess whether comparable retail service is available. The two conditions answer different questions, and combining them into a single “95% connected” shorthand would obscure the difference. (Digital Networks Act proposal, Articles 54–58)

The Dutch objection is specific

In an agenda letter dated 18 September to the Tweede Kamer, the Dutch cabinet endorses the Commission’s goal of EU-wide gigabit coverage by 2030 and accepts that copper retirement can contribute. Its concern is that the proposal treats fibre as the only fixed-network technology for both replacing copper and measuring progress towards that goal. The cabinet says cable networks can contribute too. It also questions the proportionality of transition and switch-off plans in a country where fibre coverage is already nearly nationwide and the gigabit goal is close to being met. The state secretary said these points would be raised at the informal meeting. (Dutch government agenda letter)

This is not a claim that cable already serves every copper household, or that it automatically meets the proposal’s service-quality test. It is a challenge to the metric. The Dutch position is that a common European connectivity goal need not privilege one fixed technology at every step. The same letter records that several Member States favour measuring quality rather than naming a technology, while others are concerned about administrative costs; it does not identify a finished coalition or agreed amendment.

A proposed deadline still has stages

The 2035 date is also less simple than a universal switch-off order. Before 31 December 2035, the proposal would require Member States to mandate retirement in areas where the two sustainability conditions are met. By that date, it would require mandates in all copper-switch-off areas, with an exception where fibre is not economically viable and no adequate replacement connection is available. Each mandate would be a binding national legal act. This is proposed text, not a current obligation.

The Limerick meeting, listed by Ireland’s Council Presidency for 12–13 October, is an exchange of views on the Digital Networks Act and other connectivity issues. The European Parliament’s procedure page still classifies the file as an ordinary legislative procedure and, when checked, showed it awaiting a committee decision. The Dutch letter therefore matters as a declared negotiating position, not as a change in the law or evidence of what ministers will conclude. (Irish Presidency agenda; European Parliament procedure file)

The practical question for operators is which map and service test will govern each area before copper equipment is withdrawn. For households, the safeguard is not a headline speed target alone: it is whether an affordable service of comparable quality can replace the connection they actually use. The draft gives national regulators a role in measuring that condition; the eventual legislation will determine how much room they have to recognize alternatives.

Sources