Alternative telecom operators have urged the European Commission to lower wholesale copper access charges, warning that unless the “copper gravy train” is stopped, broadband markets risk reverting to the monopolies of the past.
The European Competitive Telecommunications Association (ECTA) accused dominant incumbents of engaging in “discriminatory conduct” by charging challengers excessive fees for using legacy copper infrastructure. ECTA says these high wholesale prices are making many smaller operators financially unsustainable and, in numerous cases, forcing them to delay or abandon planned investments in fibre networks.
ECTA represents more than 100 challenger telecom operators across Europe and notes that incumbents are often deploying only partial fibre upgrades rather than full fibre-to-the-home (FTTH) connections. By stopping short of complete fibre rollouts, incumbents preserve copper-based access in the local loop, which ECTA argues can undermine competition by restricting rivals’ opportunities to unbundle the dominant operator’s access network.
Not everyone shares this view. The European Telecommunications Network Operators Association (ETNO) argues that if incumbents were pushed to lower copper wholesale prices, their incentives to invest in fibre would fall. According to that perspective, higher copper prices help finance the costly transition to all-fibre networks.
In a strong statement, ECTA chairman Tom Ruhan warned that current market trends could return Europe to a landscape dominated by monopolies or duopolies within five years. “If current trends continue, we may be back to monopolies and duopolies for broadband services in 5 years’ time,” Ruhan said. “This will not deliver more investment in broadband and will have a negative impact on the services and prices consumers receive.”
Federico Poggi, ECTA’s head of public affairs, highlighted that France and the United Kingdom stand out as markets where smaller broadband providers have been able to turn a profit—an outcome ECTA links to more competitive wholesale frameworks in those countries. Poggi’s comments were reported by ZDNet, which noted that competitive markets in some countries correlate with higher-quality broadband services.
The debate centers on how to strike the right regulatory balance. Regulators face a trade-off: set low wholesale copper prices to protect competition and ensure challengers can survive and invest, or maintain higher prices to preserve incumbents’ incentives to finance widespread fibre deployment. Both extremes carry risks—too-low prices may weaken investment incentives, while too-high prices can entrench incumbents and block challengers from offering competitive services.
For policymakers, the challenge is to design remedies that promote both sustained competition and long-term infrastructure investment. Potential approaches include time-limited pricing adjustments, targeted investment incentives for full fibre rollouts, regulated access obligations that ensure fair unbundling of local loops, and coordinated national broadband plans that subsidize fibre expansion in underserved areas without penalizing competitive retail markets.
Ultimately, how this disagreement resolves will depend on evidence-based regulatory decisions at national and European levels. Regulators will need to monitor market outcomes closely, assess whether wholesale prices are hampering market entry and investment, and tailor interventions that protect consumers’ interests—both in terms of price and quality—while encouraging the transition to future-proof fibre networks.
Do you agree with ECTA’s concerns about wholesale copper pricing? How do you think regulators should balance competition and investment incentives to avoid reverting to monopoly-like broadband markets?