Brussels – TIM’s chief executive, Pietro Labriola, criticised the AGCM’s ruling on the renewal of mobile spectrum usage rights, accusing the Authority of moving in the opposite direction to that indicated by the European Union to accelerate the digital transition. In a post on LinkedIn, the executive argues that the issue “goes far beyond spectrum.”
The opinion (AS2192), dated 25 September, is addressed to the Ministry of Enterprise and Made in Italy and to AGCOM. In it, the Authority comments on the draft resolution, issued by AGCOM for public consultation, concerning the renewal and extension of frequency usage rights, which are due to expire on 31 December 2029.
According to Labriola, at the base of AGCM’s position “there still seems to be an idea of essentially numerical competition: 4 operators are better than 3, 5 are better than 4.” This approach, he points out, “has guided policies, but today it is being questioned in Europe and internationally.” The number of operators alone, he adds, “does not say how competitive a market is or how capable of investing.”
The key point is the reference to consistency with Brussels’ guidelines. “There is a contradiction”, according to TIM’s CEO, because the Authority’s guidance comes at a time when, to close the gap with the United States and China, the EU is calling for “more investment, greater scale, greater regulatory predictability and longer horizons for spectrum use.” Investments in Stand-Alone 5G, edge computing, the cloud, artificial intelligence and, in the future, 6G, which, he warns, “require capital. And capital requires a return.”
Labriola also warns of the risk of a sector transformation: If competition is pushed to the point where the return on investment is structurally insufficient, “we are no longer just talking about a competitive market, but about progressively transforming an industrial activity into a universal service.” And who will pay for it? It could be consumers, the State or European funds, but “we cannot think that it is the operators who finance it structurally,” as they are private companies and must generate a return on the capital they have raised. The conclusion: “The question therefore is not to choose between competition and investment, but to build competition that produces investment and attracts capital, instead of driving it away,” a choice which, for the manager, “is no longer just a regulatory issue” but an industrial policy choice.
The AGCM’s opinion is based on premises that are, in part, different. The Authority welcomes AGCOM’s decision to launch the process well in advance, as this ensures continuity of services, maximises the value of investments already made and facilitates the planning of future investments, including for the development of Stand-Alone 5G and Multi-access Edge Computing networks. It also endorses the performance obligations, including key performance indicators (KPIs) and on-site checks. It recognises that the renewal option is “useful for ensuring service continuity and enabling operators to make the necessary investments in the network.”
The crux of the matter is the extension. According to the AGCM, applying the renewal to all frequencies due to expire would lead to “a freeze on frequency allocations for a further eight years,” which could hinder the growth of operators with fewer allocations and the potential entry of new players. In the Authority’s view, access obligations for virtual operators are not a sufficient alternative to a different redistribution of frequencies, and the idea of a single, collective offer “inevitably leads to collusive agreements between competing operators.”
English version by the Translation Service of Withub
