The Radio Spectrum Policy Group’s (RSPG) Nov. 12 opinion on the upper 6-GHz band is framed as a long-term strategic vision for Europe’s digital future. But its practical effect is far less ambitious: it grants mobile operators a cost-free reservation of one of Europe’s most valuable spectrum resources, without deployment obligations, market evidence or a realistic plan for implementation. > At a moment when Europe is struggling to accelerate the deployment of digital > infrastructure and close the gap with global competitors, this decision > amounts to a strategic pause dressed up as policy foresight. The opinion even invites the mobile industry to develop products for the upper 6-GHz band, when policy should be guided by actual market demand and product deployment, not the other way around. At a moment when Europe is struggling to accelerate the deployment of digital infrastructure and close the gap with global competitors, this decision amounts to a strategic pause dressed up as policy foresight. The cost of inaction is real. Around the world, advanced 6-GHz Wi-Fi is already delivering high-capacity, low-latency connectivity. The United States, Canada, South Korea and others have opened the 6-GHz band for telemedicine, automated manufacturing, immersive education, robotics and a multitude of other high-performance Wi-Fi connectivity use cases. These are not experimental concepts; they are operational deployments generating tangible socioeconomic value. Holding the upper 6- GHz band in reserve delays these benefits at a time when Europe is seeking to strengthen competitiveness, digital inclusion, and digital sovereignty. The opinion introduces another challenge by calling for “flexibility” for member states. In practice, this means regulatory fragmentation across 27 markets, reopening the door to divergent national spectrum policies — precisely the outcome Europe has spent two decades trying to avert with the Digital Single Market. > Without a credible roadmap, reserving the band for hypothetical cellular > networks only exacerbates policy uncertainty without delivering progress. Equally significant is what the opinion does not address. The upper 6-GHz band is already home to ‘incumbents’: fixed links and satellite services that support public safety, government operations and industrial connectivity. Any meaningful mobile deployment would require refarming these incumbents — a technically complex, politically sensitive and financially burdensome process. To date, no member state has proposed a viable plan for how such relocation would proceed, how much it would cost or who would pay. Without a credible roadmap, reserving the band for hypothetical cellular networks only exacerbates policy uncertainty without delivering progress. There is, however, a pragmatic alternative. The European Commission and the member states committed to advancing Europe’s connectivity can allow controlled Wi-Fi access to the upper 6-GHz band now — bringing immediate benefits for citizens and enterprises — while establishing clear, evidence-based criteria for any future cellular deployments. Those criteria should include demonstrated commercial viability, validated coexistence with incumbents, and fully funded relocation plans where necessary. This approach preserves long-term policy flexibility for member states and mobile operators, while ensuring that spectrum delivers measurable value today rather than being held indefinitely in reserve. > Spectrum is not an abstract asset. RSPG itself calls it a scarce resource that > must be used efficiently, but this opinion falls short of that principle. Spectrum is not an abstract asset. RSPG itself calls it a scarce resource that must be used efficiently, but this opinion falls short of that principle. Spectrum underpins Europe’s competitiveness, connectivity, and digital innovation. But its value is unlocked through use, not by shelving it in anticipation that hypothetical future markets might someday justify withholding action now. To remain competitive in the next decade, Europe needs a 6-GHz policy grounded in evidence, aligned with the single market, and focused on real-world impact. The upper 6-GHz band should be a driver of European innovation, not the latest casualty of strategic hesitation. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Wi-Fi Alliance * The ultimate controlling entity is Wi-Fi Alliance More information here.

When the Franco-German summit concluded in Berlin, Europe’s leaders issued a declaration with a clear ambition: strengthen Europe’s digital sovereignty in an open, collaborative way. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s call for “Europe’s Independence Moment” captures the urgency, but independence isn’t declared — it’s designed. The pandemic exposed this truth. When Covid-19 struck, Europe initially scrambled for vaccines and facemasks, hampered by fragmented responses and overreliance on a few external suppliers. That vulnerability must never be repeated. True sovereignty rests on three pillars: diversity, resilience and autonomy. > True sovereignty rests on three pillars: diversity, resilience and autonomy. Diversity doesn’t mean pulling every factory back to Europe or building walls around markets. Many industries depend on expertise and resources beyond our borders. The answer is optionality, never putting all our eggs in one basket. Europe must enable choice and work with trusted partners to build capabilities. This risk-based approach ensures we’re not hostage to single suppliers or overexposed to nations that don’t share our values. Look at the energy crisis after Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. Europe’s heavy reliance on Russian oil and gas left economies vulnerable. The solution wasn’t isolation, it was diversification: boosting domestic production from alternative energy sources while sourcing from multiple markets. Optionality is power. It lets Europe pivot when shocks hit, whether in energy, technology, or raw materials. Resilience is the art of prediction. Every system inevitably has vulnerabilities. The key is pre-empting, planning, testing and knowing how to recover quickly. Just as banks undergo stress tests, Europe needs similar rigor across physical and digital infrastructure. That also means promoting interoperability between networks, redundant connectivity links (including space and subsea cables), stockpiling critical components, and contingency plans. Resilience isn’t theoretical. It’s operational readiness. Finally, Europe must exercise authority through robust frameworks, such as authorization schemes, local licensing and governance rooted in EU law. The question is how and where to apply this control. On sensitive data, for example, sovereignty means ensuring it’s held in Europe under European jurisdiction, without replacing every underlying technology component. Sovereign solutions shouldn’t shut out global players. Instead, they should guarantee that critical decisions and compliance remain under European authority. Autonomy is empowerment, limiting external interference or denial of service while keeping systems secure and accountable. But let’s be clear: Europe cannot replicate world-leading technologies, platforms or critical components overnight. While we have the talent, innovation and leading industries, Europe has fallen significantly behind in a range of key emerging technologies. > While we have the talent, innovation and leading industries, Europe has fallen > significantly behind in a range of key emerging technologies. For example, building fully European alternatives in cloud and AI would take decades and billions of euros, and even then, we’d struggle to match Silicon Valley or Shenzhen. Worse, turning inward with protectionist policies would only weaken the foundations that we now seek to strengthen. “Old wines in new bottles” — import substitution, isolationism, picking winners — won’t deliver competitiveness or security. Contrast that with the much-debated US Inflation Reduction Act. Its incentives and subsidies were open to EU companies, provided they invest locally, develop local talent and build within the US market. It’s not about flags, it’s about pragmatism: attracting global investments, creating jobs and driving innovation-led growth. So what’s the practical path? Europe must embrace ‘sovereignty done right’, weaving diversity, resilience and autonomy into the fabric of its policies. That means risk-based safeguards, strategic partnerships and investment in European capabilities while staying open to global innovation. Trusted European operators can play a key role: managing encryption, access control and critical operations within EU jurisdiction, while enabling managed access to global technologies. To avoid ‘sovereignty washing’, eligibility should be based on rigorous, transparent assessments, not blanket bans. The Berlin summit’s new working group should start with a common EU-wide framework defining levels of data, operational and technological sovereignty. Providers claiming sovereign services can use this framework to transparently demonstrate which levels they meet. Europe’s sovereignty will not come from closing doors. Sovereignty done right will come from opening the right ones, on Europe’s terms. Independence should be dynamic, not defensive — empowering innovation, securing prosperity and protecting freedoms. > Europe’s sovereignty will not come from closing doors. Sovereignty done right > will come from opening the right ones, on Europe’s terms. That’s how Europe can build resilience, competitiveness and true strategic autonomy in a vibrant global digital ecosystem.

Europe’s security does not depend solely on our physical borders and their defense. It rests on something far less visible, and far more sensitive: the digital networks that keep our societies, economies and democracies functioning every second of the day. > Without resilient networks, the daily workings of Europe would grind to a > halt, and so too would any attempt to build meaningful defense readiness. A recent study by Copenhagen Economics confirms that telecom operators have become the first line of defense in Europe’s security architecture. Their networks power essential services ranging from emergency communications and cross-border healthcare to energy systems, financial markets, transport and, increasingly, Europe’s defense capabilities. Without resilient networks, the daily workings of Europe would grind to a halt, and so too would any attempt to build meaningful defense readiness. This reality forces us to confront an uncomfortable truth: Europe cannot build credible defense capabilities on top of an economically strained, structurally fragmented telecom sector. Yet this is precisely the risk today. A threat landscape outpacing Europe’s defenses The challenges facing Europe are evolving faster than our political and regulatory systems can respond. In 2023 alone, ENISA recorded 188 major incidents, causing 1.7 billion lost user-hours, the equivalent of taking entire cities offline. While operators have strengthened their systems and outage times fell by more than half in 2024 compared with the previous year, despite a growing number of incidents, the direction of travel remains clear: cyberattacks are more sophisticated, supply chains more vulnerable and climate-related physical disruptions more frequent. Hybrid threats increasingly target civilian digital infrastructure as a way to weaken states. Telecom networks, once considered as technical utilities, have become a strategic asset essential to Europe’s stability. > Europe cannot deploy cross-border defense capabilities without resilient, > pan-European digital infrastructure. Nor can it guarantee NATO > interoperability with 27 national markets, divergent rules and dozens of > sub-scale operators unable to invest at continental scale. Our allies recognize this. NATO recently encouraged members to spend up to 1.5 percent of their GDP on protecting critical infrastructure. Secretary General Mark Rutte also urged investment in cyber defense, AI, and cloud technologies, highlighting the military benefits of cloud scalability and edge computing – all of which rely on high-quality, resilient networks. This is a clear political signal that telecom security is not merely an operational matter but a geopolitical priority. The link between telecoms and defense is deeper than many realize. As also explained in the recent Arel report, Much More than a Network, modern defense capabilities rely largely on civilian telecom networks. Strong fiber backbones, advanced 5G and future 6G systems, resilient cloud and edge computing, satellite connectivity, and data centers form the nervous system of military logistics, intelligence and surveillance. Europe cannot deploy cross-border defense capabilities without resilient, pan-European digital infrastructure. Nor can it guarantee NATO interoperability with 27 national markets, divergent rules and dozens of sub-scale operators unable to invest at continental scale. Fragmentation has become one of Europe’s greatest strategic vulnerabilities. The reform Europe needs: An investment boost for digital networks At the same time, Europe expects networks to become more resilient, more redundant, less dependent on foreign technology and more capable of supporting defense-grade applications. Security and resilience are not side tasks for telecom operators, they are baked into everything they do. From procurement and infrastructure design to daily operations, operators treat these efforts as core principles shaping how networks are built, run and protected. Therefore, as the Copenhagen Economics study shows, the level of protection Europe now requires will demand substantial additional capital. > It is unrealistic to expect world-class, defense-ready infrastructure to > emerge from a model that has become structurally unsustainable. This is the right ambition, but the economic model underpinning the sector does not match these expectations. Due to fragmentation and over-regulation, Europe’s telecom market invests less per capita than global peers, generates roughly half the return on capital of operators in the United States and faces rising costs linked to expanding security obligations. It is unrealistic to expect world-class, defense-ready infrastructure to emerge from a model that has become structurally unsustainable. A shift in policy priorities is therefore essential. Europe must place investment in security and resilience at the center of its political agenda. Policy must allow this reality to be reflected in merger assessments, reduce overlapping security rules and provide public support where the public interest exceeds commercial considerations. This is not state aid; it is strategic social responsibility. Completing the single market for telecommunications is central to this agenda. A fragmented market cannot produce the secure, interoperable, large-scale solutions required for modern defense. The Digital Networks Act must simplify and harmonize rules across the EU, supported by a streamlined governance that distinguishes between domestic matters and cross-border strategic issues. Spectrum policy must also move beyond national silos, allowing Europe to avoid conflicts with NATO over key bands and enabling coherent next-generation deployments. Telecom policy nowadays is also defense policy. When we measure investment gaps in digital network deployment, we still tend to measure simple access to 5G and fiber. However, we should start considering that — if security, resilience and defense-readiness are to be taken into account — the investment gap is much higher that the €200 billion already estimated by the European Commission. Europe’s strategic choice The momentum for stronger European defense is real — but momentum fades if it is not seized. If Europe fails to modernize and secure its telecom infrastructure now, it risks entering the next decade with a weakened industrial base, chronic underinvestment, dependence on non-EU technologies and networks unable to support advanced defense applications. In that scenario, Europe’s democratic resilience would erode in parallel with its economic competitiveness, leaving the continent more exposed to geopolitical pressure and technological dependency. > If Europe fails to modernize and secure its telecom infrastructure now, it > risks entering the next decade with a weakened industrial base, chronic > underinvestment, dependence on non-EU technologies and networks unable to > support advanced defense applications. Europe still has time to change course and put telecoms at the center of its agenda — not as a technical afterthought, but as a core pillar of its defense strategy. The time for incremental steps has passed. Europe must choose to build the network foundations of its security now or accept that its strategic ambitions will remain permanently out of reach. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Connect Europe AISBL * The ultimate controlling entity is Connect Europe AISBL * The political advertisement is linked to advocacy on EU digital, telecom and industrial policy, including initiatives such as the Digital Networks Act, Digital Omnibus, and connectivity, cybersecurity, and defence frameworks aimed at strengthening Europe’s digital competitiveness. More information here.

LONDON — Eurostar passengers travelling between London and the continent could face higher fares thanks to a U.K. government tax raid on the Channel Tunnel. Eurotunnel, the company which owns the under-sea link, says a business rates revaluation on its infrastructure will effectively treble its payments and see it paying 75 percent tax on new investments. The infrastructure firm says costs will be passed onto operators through higher access charges for trains using the tunnel — raising overheads that are likely to be passed onto passengers. Rail operator Eurostar said the plans “would be at odds with the Government’s ambition” to promote rail travel. Rail freight will also be hit as Eurotunnel warned plans to bring an east London goods yard back into operation would have to be cancelled. It comes as the U.K. braces for a budget of tax rises, with Chancellor Rachel Reeves expected to focus on smaller, specific revenue raising measures after cancelling a planned general hike in income tax. ‘NOTHING LEFT TO INVEST’ Eurotunnel says the Valuation Office Agency (VOA), which sets business rates for the government, hasn’t been transparent about the rise in its payments, which from April are set to go from £22 million to £65 million. The company says access charges are decided by a set formula taking business rates into account, and that they would inevitably rise as a result. “All of the users of the tunnel pay for access. When business rates go up, that’s split amongst the different users,” John Keefe, director of public and corporate affairs at Eurotunnel, told POLITICO. “At this stage, the numbers aren’t one hundred percent known, because we’re hoping we can talk a bit more with the government about this and about bringing a bit more pragmatism into it. But there is a mechanism whereby everybody contributes.” Higher charges for tunnel users would also hit Virgin Trains, the new challenger operator hoping to start running competing services to Paris, Brussels and Amsterdam through the tunnel by 2030. The second operator got the green light just last month with the aim of reducing fares and increasing competition on the key international rail route. “Since 2017 we’ve had, over three valuations, a nine-times increase in the valuation. This time it’s gone up, multiplied by three, from £22 million that we pay at the moment to £65 million, which is the ask,” Keefe said. “It needs to be based on what business can actually pay, generate and pay and still invest. Because if you take all the money in business rates, there’s nothing left for investment. So there’s nothing left for growth. “While we’re hearing leading up to the budget, ‘growth, growth, growth, growth, growth’, nobody can invest at that level.” Eurotunnel also complains that the VOA’s calculations are “opaque beyond belief.” “They say, ‘here’s the number.’ And you go, ‘why did you get the number? How did you get to that number? What numbers are you using?’ And they go, ‘there’s the number’,” Keefe said. POLITICO has contacted the VOA for comment. FREIGHT INVESTMENT PAUSED Eurotunnel was planning to reopen Barking rail freight yard in east London to make running freight on trains through the tunnel a more attractive proposition — in line with the government’s own target for a 75 percent increase in rail freight. But Keefe said: “The sums just don’t add up when you’re paying a 75 percent marginal tax rate. So it’s unfortunately going to be frozen.” A spokesperson for Eurostar, the high-speed rail operator, said: “Our priority is enabling more people to travel sustainably, which includes offering affordable lead-in fares and products, and we remain fully committed to our growth plans regardless of the VOA review. “Eurostar continues to engage with the Government and the Valuation Office Agency and is determined to find a positive way forward. However, a three-fold increase in business rates for Channel Tunnel users for the second time would be at odds with the Government’s ambition of economic growth, pioneering European rail connectivity, and encouraging low-carbon rail travel. “Throughout our conversations, we have urged fairness by treating international rail in the same way as domestic rail in business rates terms. Nevertheless, Eurostar continues to commit to its own ambitious growth plans and investments including €2bn in new fleet and new destinations of Frankfurt and Geneva direct from London.”

BRUSSELS — The European Commission is dialing reform, but not everyone is picking up. Following years of talks, Brussels is almost ready to drop a long-awaited telecommunication blueprint designed to upgrade networks and support the industry. The Digital Networks Act, expected to land Dec. 16, will overhaul the current rulebook to make it easier for operators to roll out 5G and fiber, and boost investment in Europe’s digital infrastructure. But it’s likely to upset players from national governments to tech firms in the process. The continent’s biggest telecom companies have long argued that stifling rules and a fragmented single market make it hard for them to scale and earn sustainable profits — and take European networks to the next level. “Never has connectivity been so important to the life of people” but “at the same time, our industry has trouble in many regions to achieve a decent return on capital,” said Vivek Badrinath, the boss of global mobile association GSMA. But not everyone is buying the crisis pitch — here are the battle lines ahead of the proposal. BIG TELCOS VS. BIG TECH Years of lobbying by Europe’s top telcos to have data-hungry platforms such as TikTok, Netflix and Google’s YouTube help foot the bill for network expansion seem to have paid off. The Commission is now weighing how to tackle “challenges in the cooperation” between tech and telecom players in its reforms. One of the options on the table is turning into a political minefield: Empowering regulators to settle potential disputes between the two groups over how they handle traffic. Opponents of regulatory intervention fear that it will give operators a way to pressure content providers for payments, akin to the unpopular proposal known as “fair share” that was floated under the last Commission. At worst, they say, it could even upend the internet as we know it by undermining net neutrality — the principle that service providers need to treat all traffic equally, without throttling or censoring. “This would have immediate and far-reaching consequences, harming European consumers, businesses, digital rights and the sustainability of the creative and cultural sectors, ultimately risking a fragmented Internet and single market,” a broad coalition, ranging from civil society and media organizations to audiovisual players, wrote earlier this month. The continent’s biggest telecom companies have long argued that stifling rules and a fragmented single market make it hard for them to scale and earn sustainable profits. | Andy Rain/EPA Regulators themselves say they don’t see any market failure, or need for a legislative fix. “It’s increasingly hard for me to think that the Commission is approaching this in good faith because they cannot ignore the chaotic impact that something like this would have,” said Benoît Felten, an expert at Plum Consulting who authored a study on the topic commissioned by Big Tech lobby CCIA. Tech companies will fight tooth and nail against any move to hold them to the same obligations that telecom operators have to follow. “The same service, same rules principle should be a no-brainer,” said Alessandro Gropelli, the boss of telecom trade association Connect Europe. “You cannot have competitiveness if one party is playing the game with their hand tied behind their back and the other party is playing the same game with both hands.” INCUMBENTS VS. CHALLENGERS Brussels’ deregulatory mood is further deepening rifts between Europe’s top telecom providers and their challengers, who have long praised the existing rulebook that they say enables them to take on legacy players. “The Commission wants to deregulate dogmatically” in order “to boost the largest operators in Europe,” said Luc Hindryckx, the director general of the European Competitive Telecommunications Association, a trade body. “One way to do it is to weaken the competition to allow a few incumbents to make it through and pave the way for consolidation, because if the competitors are on the verge of bankruptcy, they will ask to be merged.” Telecom challengers are up in arms against the direction of travel, which could see the Commission dial down the regulatory pressure on Europe’s legacy telcos to open their ducts and fiber lines to competitors. The EU executive wants to move away from heavy, upfront rules and closer scrutiny of dominant players to prevent abuse, instead relying on standard law enforcement. It argues the current system worked to boost competition but has outlived its purpose. It is “alarming that the European Commission is now proposing to relax regulation on former fixed monopolies,” a coalition of nine network operators wrote in a letter this month. Signatories — including France’s Iliad and the U.K.’s Vodafone — called out the proposed “backwards step” and warned against the risk of “re-monopolisation.” This shift, the opponents say, could unravel years of progress by undermining market predictability, deterring investment and pushing up wholesale prices — costs that would inevitably be passed on to consumers. “5G has been a disaster because the real 5G is hardly here,” the Commission’s top digital civil servant Roberto Viola said. | Robert Ghement/EPA “In Germany, it seems that people never run a red light. One could say that people no longer run red lights and then change the law that says running a red light is a major offense. What do you think is going to happen?” Hindryckx quipped. The legacy players don’t agree. “The current ex-ante system leads to low investments and harms roll-out of innovative networks,” said Gropelli from Connect Europe. “Reform is a must, or we’ll remain global laggards in roll-out of critical networks.” CAPITALS VS. BRUSSELS National governments also aren’t cheering the reforms, with EU capitals bristling at the idea of Brussels muscling in on territory they consider their own. That’s the case for the allocation of spectrum — the finite and very much in-demand resource powering wireless communications, which is auctioned at a national level for billions of euros. “5G has been a disaster because the real 5G is hardly here,” the Commission’s top digital civil servant Roberto Viola said in September. “We have been sleeping and lost fifteen years in discussing … who should assign the frequencies,” he said. Still, the topic is largely off the table for national governments. “Spectrum harmonization is not the favorite topic of member countries,” Katalin Molnár, the ambassador for Hungary, said last year as the country chaired talks among EU governments on the issue. The current cooperation between countries “works well,” the 27 EU nations said in a joint position, emphasizing that spectrum management is a “key public policy tool” that falls under a “sustained significance of member states’ national competencies in that regard.” This will be a major red line for the Council of the EU, where capitals will eventually hammer out their position on the reforms. The industry, however, says reforms are essential for the economic benefits that the EU is craving. “The wind has never been as strong in the sails of the ship that goes towards a more efficient telecom market today,” GSMA’s Badrinath said. “Is that enough to get the right outcome? Well, that’s what we want to believe.”

BRUSSELS — It’s summer. You’ve hopped on a train to glide through Europe, laptop open, to-do list ready — but the onboard Wi-Fi has other plans. Emails don’t send, pages don’t load, and streaming? Forget it. European rail companies often tout connectivity in trains as a perk, but for many passengers, it’s still an exercise in patience over productivity. “The performance and quality of Wi-Fi onboard European trains is very poor,” Luke Kehoe, an industry analyst at connectivity intelligence firm Ookla, told POLITICO. The high speed of a train makes it predictably difficult for Wi-Fi antennas in a carriage — or your smartphone — to keep a steady connection between changing mobile towers. “If a train is going at 200km an hour, the device could be crossing a cell site every 45 or 60 seconds, which is a rapid turnover,” Kehoe said. “What that introduces is a technical challenge called the Doppler effect.” That is when moving fast changes the signal’s frequency— like when a siren shifts pitch — and it can mess with the ability to hold onto a stable connection. The high speed of a train and density of towers make it predictably difficult for Wi-Fi antennas in a carriage — or your smartphone — to keep a steady connection between changing mobile towers. | Stefano Guidi/Getty Images On French SNCF trains, travelers logging onto the Wi-Fi receive a pop-up warning: “Due to the lack of coverage and our speed, the quality of the Wi-Fi may differ from that in your home.” It also advises against watching online videos, which “contributes to limiting the bandwidth.” ‘HELLO? YOU’RE BREAKING UP …’ But bad train Wi-Fi isn’t just about pace or tower count. Many cabins aren’t actually designed to let radio frequencies in. “A lot of trains would have historically used windows that have metalized or [low-emissivity] glass coatings that are inherently not conducive to signal propagation,” Kehoe said. That setup would make the cabin similar to a sort of Faraday cage — an electromagnetic armor that blocks wireless signals, much like what causes your phone to drop calls in an elevator or keeps microwave radiation from escaping. Last year, Belgian rail firm SNCB gave up on setting up Wi-Fi on its trains because of the “high implementation costs and coverage by telecom operators,” spokesperson Tom Guillaume said. Instead, SNCB decided to pass the buck to telecom companies while it invested in “de-coating” glazing that is more conducive to mobile signals. “Telecom operators, therefore, need to improve signal quality and coverage in the vicinity of railway infrastructure,” Guillaume said. The physics of radio frequencies are also well established: The band commonly earmarked for 5G in Europe isn’t great at cutting through trees and leaves, which often line train tracks. It makes it more challenging to reach cabins or phone users directly, in contrast with 4G, where the lower-band frequencies typically used can’t carry as much data, but travel further and handle obstacles better. “We see in our data every summer a significant degradation in mobile network performance in areas of heavy foliage,” Kehoe added. Add in the thousands of tunnels in the continent’s network, and it’s clear European trains have a tough job delivering solid Wi-Fi — though some countries manage to handle it better than others. Switzerland leads the way by far, with onboard Wi-Fi speeds nearly 30 times faster than in Austria and the Netherlands. It was the only country in Ookla’s sample to break the 25 megabits per second median download speed mark — the minimum baseline for reliable internet use. TRAINS ARE IN FOR AN UPGRADE Some rail operators are now looking to the skies — literally — for better onboard internet, turning to satellite providers to help fill coverage gaps along train routes. Czech Railways is experimenting with Elon Musk’s Starlink network, while France’s SNCF is reportedly eyeing both the U.S. constellation and its Franco-British rival, Eutelsat. SNCF didn’t respond to POLITICO’s request for comment. While satellite connectivity works well for airlines — thanks to clear skies and proximity to orbit — it’s not a “bulletproof solution,” Kehoe said, but rather a supplement to the overall connectivity mix. “So much of the focus is about getting the signal to the train, but they have forgotten about getting the signal around the train,” he said. The Wi-Fi equipment and the standards behind it play a major role in how good the connection actually is. Connections sampled by Ookla in Poland — which ranks near the bottom for performance — showed trains still running on Wi-Fi 4, a 2009 standard that offers far less bandwidth and much slower speeds than newer generations. Whether rail operators upgrade routers or windows, “if there is no network coverage, there will be no mobile signal in the train, regardless of the technology used,” SNCB’s Guillaume said. And if you’re thinking of just using your phone’s hotspot to get around a flaky Wi-Fi connection — think again. “If everyone is broadcasting their own Wi-Fi networks, there is a massive interference challenge here,” Kehoe warned. Train internet still sucks — and getting a full steam ahead connection on Europe’s rails is set to remain hit and miss for a while. Hanne Cokelaere contributed to this report.

NORTHWOOD, England — British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and France’s Emmanuel Macron unveiled a highly-anticipated “one in, one out” pilot program to tackle illegal migration on the final day of French president’s visit to the United Kingdom. At a joint press conference Thursday, the British leader said that the “groundbreaking” effort would see the U.K. return migrants to France that have illegally crossed the English Channel. In exchange for each returned migrant, France will transfer one asylum seeker to the U.K who would be expected to have a family connection or genuine reason to seek sanctuary in Britain. French border forces will also be able to take proactive measures to stop boats in shallow waters, subject to a review by the French maritime authorities.  “We simply can’t solve a challenge like this by acting alone, and telling our allies that we won’t play ball,” Starmer said. The prime minister said the plan would “break the model” of people smuggling despite the relatively modest scale of the program, while Macron said he believed it would deter would-be smugglers and migrants seeking to make the perilous journey. It is not known how many would be returned under the program, but initial reports have suggested around 50 migrants could be sent each way per week — only a fraction of the 21,000 who have arrived via the Channel so far this year. Still, the U.K. prime minister pledged “hard-headed, aggressive action on all fronts, to break the gangs’ business, secure our borders and show that attempting to reach the U.K. will end in detention.” DOMESTIC PRESSURE Starmer is under acute pressure to reduce levels of illegal migration, having promised to “smash the gangs” when he came to power last year, and with Nigel Farage’s right-wing populist Reform UK party on the rise. When asked about whether the pilot program spearheaded by the two centrist leaders was ambitious enough, Starmer took a direct dig at Farage, saying he had been “working hard” to get an agreement “while others have been taking pictures of the problem.” Though the issue of cross-Channel migration is less politically sensitive for Macron than Starmer, the French president agreed that the arrival of the so-called small boats was “an essential issue” for both countries and vowed to reinforce efforts “on several fronts.” Macron, however, warned that the agreement over pilot scheme would be signed after judicial checks had been done, including with the European Union, and argued Brexit had in fact made illegal crossings more attractive for migrants, despite Brexiteers promising otherwise. Keir Starmer is under acute pressure to reduce levels of illegal migration, having promised to “smash the gangs” when he came to power last year. | Pool Photo by Andy Rain via EPA The press conference marked the conclusion of Macron’s state visit this week, during which the two leaders repeatedly went to great lengths to stress their personal friendship as well as the historical ties between their two countries. The two leaders also confirmed their refresh of the Lancaster House treaties and unveiled what they called the Northwood Declaration, under which they will be able to coordinate their nuclear deterrents. They also announced a new “multinational force Ukraine” based in Paris “to support a peace deal when it comes while Putin turns his back on peace.” The two leaders said their countries would also strengthen collaboration on supercomputers, satellite connectivity and work on seizing the opportunities offered by artificial intelligence.

BRUSSELS — As Europe prepares to enter a new technology race, the hurdles it faces to beat out the U.S. and China are all too familiar. After rapidly falling behind in the global rush to artificial intelligence, Brussels has a fresh chance at an economic success story in the emerging field of quantum technology. But in a new strategy to be released Wednesday, the EU will warn that promising homegrown quantum tech risks being snatched up to make money abroad as the bloc continues to lag in turning research into “real-market opportunities,” according to a draft seen by POLITICO. “Europe attracts only five percent of the global private quantum funding, compared to over 50 percent captured by the U.S. and 40 percent by China,” the undated draft read. Governments and technology companies — most notably in the U.S. — are plowing billions into the quantum wave, which would be revolutionary because quantum computers would surpass the problem-solving capacities of current computers by vast orders of magnitude, revolutionizing industries from communications to drug development. Europe is the global leader in the number of scientific publications on the technology. “Europe has been falling behind [when it] comes to the technology in many sectors. This sector is something where we are several years ahead of other countries,” said Juha Vartiainen, co-founder of the Finnish quantum computing company IQM. But in the race to commercialize that research, Europe risks falling behind quickly, ranking only third in patents filed, behind the U.S. and China. To many, it’s déjà vu. Europe is generally best in class in the research that precedes revolutionary technologies, as it was in artificial intelligence. But the U.S. and China leapfrogged the continent in building the companies to deploy mass-market applications. A major point of debate is whether Europe will give its quantum industry free rein. Quantum computers are considered sensitive technology since they are expected to break the digital encryption that protects data and communications from being surveilled and stolen — making the technology a matter of national security. Several European governments have already imposed export restrictions. CASH FLOW PROBLEMS U.S. tech giant IBM recently announced it expects to have the first workable quantum computer by 2029 — adding urgency to the timeline for Europe to get its house in order. For decades, Europe has failed to overcome its fragmented financial market and pool funding on the scale that the U.S. and China can provide. Efforts to overcome the barriers to investment through a bloc-wide capital markets union have yielded no significant outcomes. U.S. tech giant IBM recently announced it expects to have the first workable quantum computer by 2029 — adding urgency to the timeline for Europe to get its house in order. | Anna Szilagyi/EPA The strategy notes significantly more investment will be needed to roll out reliable technology that is widely adopted by several industries. “Raising a scale-up in Europe is super difficult, because we lack the European instruments, the European venture capital … large enough to support that,” said Enrique Lizaso, CEO of Spanish software company Multiverse Computing, which is crossing quantum-inspired software applications with artificial intelligence. Multiverse last month raised €189 million in a funding round that included both U.S.-based and European investors. Lizaso said that if Europe wants to help scale its companies it must be prepared to invest €100 million per company, “which is what you’re going to have from the U.S.” According to IQM’s Vartiainen, “we would need to have funding levels which are significantly larger than they have been so far.” In an interview Tuesday, the EU’s tech commissioner Henna Virkkunen said that Brussels and the capitals have jointly funded quantum technology with €11 billion. “Now it’s important, because we are quite fragmented, that we are putting different dots together,” she said. PICKING WINNERS Both Brussels and EU capitals have rolled out public funding plans to complement private funding, but the industry fears these are insufficient and lack focus. Europe’s approach has been to be “technology-neutral” and fund several strands of quantum technology, Vartiainen said, but spreading out funding can dilute its impact. Europe should follow the U.S. example of unlocking larger investments for focused “challenges,” he said. Under a program led by the U.S. government’s DARPA defense research agency, 18 companies have been selected as part of a larger bid to come up with an error-free quantum computer by 2033. Those companies could reportedly tap up to $300 million if they pass all the stages. The EU’s draft strategy promises to launch “two grand challenges” between 2025 and 2027, with one focused on quantum computing and another on quantum navigation systems in “critical environments.” Another way for governments to support companies to commercialize the technology would be if they are the primary buyers of technology, which then lowers the bar for the industry to follow suit. Some industry voices have warned that the EU’s approach to regulating AI offers a cautionary tale. | Etienne Laurent/EPA The draft strategy said the Commission would “support innovation-oriented procurement schemes,” but didn’t offer much detail on how it would do so. Companies are adamant on what they don’t want from Brussels: regulation and restrictions on quantum technology, like restrictions on the export of the technology. Some industry voices have warned that the EU’s approach to regulating AI offers a cautionary tale. Worried about the potential harms of the technology, the EU rolled out the world’s first AI rulebook, only to quickly backtrack to focus on AI innovation and commercial success. “We cannot afford to regulate what is not yet mature,” said Cecilia Bonefeld-Dahl, director general of DigitalEurope, one of Brussels’ leading tech lobbies. “Otherwise, Europe risks losing the quantum race.”