[ad_1]
The European Commission’s plan to loosen EU-wide rules governing the telecommunications market would significantly benefit a handful of major players, some of which are owned by billionaires, an analysis by Euractiv suggests.
EU lawmakers face a self-made dilemma: how to roll out next-generation telecom networks ubiquitously amid emerging business models. With a review of EU rules due in December, pressure is mounting from operators which are pushing for deregulation to spur investment – though it risks entrenching dominant market players. For example, Deutsche Telekom controls 69% of internet connections in Germany, 97% in Greece, 59% in Croatia, 48% in Hungary and Slovakia. What’s more, telecom tycoons like Patrick Drahi, Carlos Slim and Zoltán Teszári stand to benefit from a bonfire of rules too.
Since former Tech Commissioner Thierry Breton proposed rolling back EU telecom rules, the idea has been embraced by Commission officials and major telecom companies. They argue the move is needed to fund next-generation networks capable of supporting 5G/6G, the metaverse, and AI-driven applications.
Their talking points were echoed in the high-profile reports by Mario Draghi and Enrico Letta, quickly becoming accepted orthodoxy – despite strong pushback from critics who argue that deregulation is a political decision rather than a market-driven necessity.
According to Jakob Greiner, Deutsche Telekom’s chief EU lobbyist, the Commission’s forthcoming legislative reform – the Digital Networks Act (DNA) – should focus on easing provisions in the European Electronic Communications Code (EECC). Greiner made the comments at an event in Brussels in March.
But what lobbyists like Greiner and European Commission officials fail to note is that telecom deregulation would benefit a few billionaires.
Telecom groups controlled by billionaires – such as Altice (Patrick Drahi), América Móvil (Carlos Slim), and Digi (Zoltán Teszári) – which operate across Portugal, France, Austria, and Romania, would be among the biggest beneficiaries of reduced regulatory oversight.
Institutional investors in Dutch KPN and UK-based United Group would also stand to gain.
Interestingly, while many EU governments retain stakes in former public telecom providers, they oppose the Commission’s deregulation push – despite tight fiscal conditions – citing serious competition concerns. Outside the EU, state-backed operators in Tunisia (GO), Norway (Telenor), and the UAE (PPF Telecom) would also benefit.
For European consumers and businesses, however, deregulation could mean fewer choices, greater market consolidation, and higher prices.
Access regulation still matters
Only two fixed submarkets remain regulated under the EECC: Market 1, (infrastructure access), which prevents dominant players from blocking competitors’ use of inherited nationwide copper networks; and Market 2, (business-to-business access), which ensures fair access where only one network connects business sites.
Across the EU, legacy incumbents – firms that once held public monopolies and still own key copper infrastructure – continue to dominate both submarkets.
In Germany, for example, Deutsche Telekom directly serves 39% of broadband users, with another 30% using its network via other providers – giving it control over 69% of all fixed internet connections in the country.
In 25 of the 27 member states, incumbent operators still hold the largest share of underlying network infrastructure (Market 1). In 20 of these countries, their market share exceeds 40%.
Of the 25 countries identified, 22 incumbent companies are still regulated and must offer access to their networks.
Without the EECC’s rules, dominant operators could easily hinder rivals by setting unfavourable terms, raising fees, delaying provisioning, or withholding technical information.
This analysis underscores that access obligations are still critical to ensuring fair market conditions.
In the B2B segment (Market 2), 16 incumbents regulated on Market 1 are also regulated on Market 2 – evidence of their continued dominance in this high-margin market.
The EECC also covers newer players who have gained dominant positions, such as DNA in Finland or Digi in Romania, which is currently under regulatory scrutiny that is expected to lead to its designation as a dominant provider and bring it under the EECC.
It’s hard to see a regulatory issue here; the EECC already applies to both new entrants and legacy incumbents, showing it is fit for the future.
It also lets authorities make very specific, region-by-region decisions – sometimes down to individual municipalities. In Finland, for example, 21 operators are regulated across 131 geographic markets. In Poland, 51 communes (covering 13% of the population) are unregulated due to sufficient competition. But in 3,048 other communes, Orange Poland is still regulated under Market 1.
Since 2002, the number of regulated submarkets has fallen from 18 to just two –demonstrating that deregulation is already well under way.
When it comes to network access, the EU may simply need to give the Code more time to take effect as the transition from monopoly-era copper networks to decentralised, privately funded fibre unfolds.
Mergers and market power
The Connect Europe lobby – whose members include most major incumbent EU telecoms – argues that scale is crucial for global competitiveness, pointing to the more consolidated US and Chinese markets.
But the numbers tell a different story: Deutsche Telekom already controls 69% of Germany’s fixed broadband lines, 97% in Greece (via Cosmote), and 59% in Croatia (Hrvatski Telekom), as well as 48% in Hungary and Slovakia (via Magyar Telekom and Slovak Telekom).
Other incumbents also dominate. Orange holds 65% of the market in France, Telia controls 54% in Estonia, and CETIN has 50% in Czechia.
If these companies were allowed to acquire more national operators, their dominance would only deepen – further curbing competition.
(nl, aw, jp)
[ad_2]
Source link
