Austria's regulators: No digital sovereignty without infrastructure
ICT infrastructure is the basis of digital sovereignty, says Austria's telecoms regulator Steinmaurer in an exclusive interview. He misses a national strategy.
Dr. Klaus M. Steinmaurer, Managing Director of the Telecommunications and Postal Services Division of Rundfunk und Telekom Regulierungs-GmbH (RTR)
(Image: Daniel AJ Sokolov)
“Everyone is talking about digitalization and digital sovereignty,” Klaus Steinmaurer opens the interview with heise online, “We have to start with the infrastructure so that we can do all this.” This means a technical framework that includes fiber optics, data centers and their power supply, as well as a suitable legal framework. “Then the entrepreneurs will come,” the Austrian is certain. Steinmaurer is Managing Director of Telecommunications and Post at the Austrian regulatory authority RTR.
“There is a lack of an overall strategy at a national level,” Steinmaurer stated during an interview with heise online in Vienna in May. The EU has launched a program for the digital decade in 2021 with the digital compass, but the red-white-red counterpart is missing: “In Austria, there is still a discussion about why we are lagging in economic growth. (…) We are still in the industrial age and have not yet fully arrived in the digital age.” Nevertheless, this is not a unique selling point: “The Germans build combustion engines that we no longer need.”
Digital sovereignty: “Not an advantageous situation”
When it comes to digital sovereignty, the European Economic Area is “not in an advantageous position. Even if Microsoft says what they do in Europe, this does not guarantee that there will be no shutdown in the EU”. Large listed companies are already required to have a plan B, with an exit from Microsoft.
To achieve digital sovereignty, “we have to invest a lot of money. If we succeed in taking 10 to 20 percent of the market share away from American companies, they will be so nervous that (the shutdown) won't happen anyway.” However, when asked, the head of the authority had to admit that RTR (Rundfunk- und Telekom Regulierungs-GmbH) has also just switched to Microsoft.
Videos by heise
At the same time, he knows: “There are alternatives.” Rolling these out will not be cheap, but must be tackled EU-wide. “There is no point in individual national approaches.” Addition: “Even if we make friends with America again, we have to stay on it.” To be independent, we need to cut the cord in all directions: “I also see the danger with Russia that we will turn the pipelines back on (in peace).”
(Image:Â BMWET/Holey)
They are not yet closed. After all, the current EU Commission wants to phase out gas imports from Russia by the end of 2027. But just last week, Austrian State Secretary Elisabeth Zehetner (Ă–VP) caused a stir: the EU should remain open to gas imports from Russia as soon as peace is established with Ukraine. This position has earned Zehetner harsh criticism.
EU regulations could harmonize better
Steinmaurer also sees unfinished homework in EU law: “The EU has done a lot, but has not made sure that it all fits together. You can't read the AI Act without the GDPR.” For example, there are different responsibilities for similar topics – so it is no coincidence that Steinmaurer would place future AI regulation in Austria with his RTR. It already operates the official Austrian service center for artificial intelligence, which supports the implementation of the European AI Act, among other things.
“If I want competition to emerge, I have to ensure that as many people as possible have access to the core elements. These are firstly networks and secondly data,” Steinmaurer emphasized. The problem: while AI wants as much data as possible, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) focuses on data minimization. “All generative models should actually be banned.”
The various EU regulations need to be “critically scrutinized”: “Some things can certainly be sorted out. The acts have to work together.” For example, the GDPR often requires a so-called data protection impact assessment before the use of artificial intelligence. Article 27 of the AI Act prescribes a fundamental rights impact assessment for AI systems classified as high-risk. Steinmaurer does not understand why this has to be done separately: “Big companies can afford it, small ones can't.” The effort could be reduced by better interlinking the two regulations.
