As the EC prepares its Digital Networks Act, Europe’s challengers reminded policymakers not to throw away a framework that has worked well for consumers and businesses
Dealing with definitions
On 10 April 2025, ECTA – the European Competitive Telecommunications Association – hosted an event in Brussels on the role of ‘telecom challengers’ in reshaping Europe’s competitiveness, which was moderated by James Robinson (Senior Analyst, Assembly Research). The event began with a discussion to frame the meaning of competitiveness, given it’s a word, along with a host of others including most recently ‘omnibus’, that has made its way into the Brussels lexicon. There were a range of interpretations, with stakeholders attributing different meanings to it. Michał Kobosko (MEP, Groupe Renew Europe) likened the concept to broader ideas of sovereignty and long-term growth, noting that global developments suggest we are no longer in a “business as usual” phase, with others going as far as to say globalisation as we knew it is over.
Having settled on the definition that it means Europe’s economy is able to compete with others, Robert Mourik (Chair, BEREC), explained that at the moment NRAs don’t know how to operationalise that, given their primary mode of operation is to promote competition in, and for, the market. Renate Nikolay (Deputy Director-General, European Commission, DG CONNECT) offered a nuanced take, distinguishing between “competition” as originally intended under the current regulatory model, and “competitiveness” as a broader, more assertive concept for Europe at the moment. How you achieve that competitiveness became a central theme of the panel discussion, with most panelists choosing to focus on the prospect of greater deregulation.
Regulation enabled Europe’s challengers, think twice before taking it away
In his opening remarks, Luc Hindryckx (Director General, ECTA), strongly criticised the depiction of the telecoms industry in the Draghi report, arguing that it fails to acknowledge the regulatory framework’s success in delivering tangible benefits to both consumers and businesses. He underscored the importance of preserving the current model, particularly the list of relevant markets, which he described as essential for enabling cross-border consolidation and sustaining market balance. Dr. Marc Schütze (Board Member, VATM), echoed these sentiments, noting that although investment is fundamental for economic growth – as the Draghi report rightly identifies – it has been competition, not deregulation, that has driven such investment within the sector. He pointed out that the telecoms ecosystem remains based on regulated access, a condition that persists even with the advent of fibre networks.
Panelists, including Schütze and Annette Murphy (CCO, Colt) spoke of a sense that regulation is being seen as a bureaucracy rather than as an enabler. Nikolay was quick to praise the success stories of those on the panel who were there as a result of market liberalisation. She stressed that nobody wanted to ruin or take away that success – if anything want to see more of it – but that the current regulatory framework is old, and was designed in a different context (both in terms of technology and geopolitics).
The timing of when the rulebook should be changed exposed the contrast in opinion between industry, the EC, and NRAs
Nikolay suggested that the chaos stemming from the US offers Europe a moment to seize, but both Henrich and Murphy cautioned that won’t happen if the regulatory environment is destabilised, and that now is not the time for regulatory upheaval, especially when trying to “sell the idea of Europe” abroad in light of finding alternatives to the US because of high tariffs. Companies like theirs have invested based on the current regulatory environment. Murphy said if she had one ask it would be to proceed with caution, something that was echoed by Markus Hendrich (Chief Executive Officer, ecotel) who wants the EC to “tread carefully and think twice”.
For Mourik, rigorous competition means knowing how to compete and he highlighted the importance of ensuring market self-sustainability without perpetual regulatory intervention. He cautioned against both regulating for the sake of it, and an excessive reliance on regulatory reform alone to deliver the digital infrastructure we all want to see. He argued that telecom NRAs have done what was asked of them: to deregulate where there’s competition (and referenced the reduction from 18 to two in the number of markets currently susceptible to ex-ante regulation). He acknowledged that WLA (Wholesale Local Access) and leased lines were two markets that had been the toughest to migrate to sustainable competition – but will keep trying. Nikolay shared the view that the future isn’t about always having regulated markets, doubling down on the point that after 25 years, surely now is the time to design regulation that is fresher and more agile.
Murphy stressed that rising input costs directly impact competitiveness and reiterated the need for regulatory predictability. Nikolay acknowledged this point with visible agreement during the panel. Kobosko also said he hears the calls for more predictability in what are “very unpredictable and unstable times”, but cautioned that it doesn’t mean policymakers shouldn’t try to speed things up and offer a better environment for what were once called ‘newcomers’ but are now ‘challengers’.
How do you explain the different outcomes in fixed and mobile?
One of the final interventions came from Mourik who acknowledged that the mobile market is far more competitive than the fixed market – but that there were some very successful and profitable companies – some with around 50% EBITDA. He observed that those who appear to be doing worse are the ones that expanded internationally, and that those who stay in their home market (e.g. the case of the US) appear to be doing better. He left us wondering, is that a result of the regulatory framework or management decisions? While difficult to untangle, he thinks it’s important to try and do so.
