They do not want competitors. That is the entire substance of this.
In Lisbon's parliamentary halls, Portugal's telecom regulator placed a decade of stagnation before lawmakers — rising prices, falling investment, and three dominant firms whose legal challenges to the 5G auction reveal, in the regulator's view, not principled objection but the instinct of oligopoly to preserve itself. João Cadete de Matos argued that the auction's rules, designed to welcome new competitors into a market grown comfortably still, represent not disruption for its own sake but a public interest long deferred. Where European telecom prices fell over ten years, Portugal's climbed; where investment should have grown, it shrank — and the regulator now asks whether competition, however uncomfortable for the incumbents, might be the country's most necessary remedy.
- Portugal's three dominant telecoms — Nos, Meo, and Vodafone — are using the courts to obstruct a 5G auction that could end their shared dominance, according to the country's regulator.
- While EU telecom prices dropped 11% over a decade, Portuguese consumers paid 6.5% more, and between October and November all three operators simultaneously raised prices while cutting download speeds.
- Annual sector investment has declined 7% per year, and pandemic-era consumer complaints have surged, intensifying pressure on Anacom to act before the market deteriorates further.
- The regulator insists the auction rules are legally sound and designed to force incumbents to meet ambitious coverage targets — 75% of parishes in three years, 90% in five — while opening space for new entrants.
- Any newcomer would face entrenched rivals with bundled services and loyal customers, but the regulator argues that paying for spectrum and building infrastructure would compel genuine competition, not free-riding.
On a Tuesday afternoon before a parliamentary committee, João Cadete de Matos, president of Portugal's telecom regulator Anacom, offered a stark diagnosis: Nos, Meo, and Vodafone are not challenging the 5G auction out of legal principle — they are challenging it because they do not want competitors. The auction, expected to conclude in January, has been battered by litigation from the three incumbents, which Cadete de Matos characterized as the predictable reflex of an oligopoly facing disruption.
The numbers behind his frustration are telling. Over the past decade, telecom prices across the EU fell 11 percent; in Portugal, they rose 6.5 percent. Annual investment in the sector has declined by 7 percent. Between October and November, all three operators raised prices on bundled packages while simultaneously reducing download speeds — a move so counterintuitive that Anacom referred it to the competition authority. The three firms hold market shares too similar to generate genuine rivalry, and consumers are paying the price.
The auction's rules were designed to correct this. Measures favoring new entrants aim to inject competitive energy into a market the regulator considers stagnant. Cadete de Matos was clear that newcomers would not arrive as free riders: they would pay for spectrum, pay annual usage fees, and face progressive infrastructure investment obligations. Survival would require winning customers from stronger, entrenched rivals — a pressure he argued Portugal badly needs.
For the incumbents, the regulator set demanding coverage obligations: 75 percent of the population across all parishes within three years, 90 percent within five. To meet these efficiently, Cadete de Matos urged infrastructure sharing, pointing to the Nos-Vodafone antenna agreement as a model, and noting that cooperation of this kind already functions smoothly in sectors like banking and highway tolls. The parliamentary committee, visibly frustrated by the auction's turbulence, was assured that Anacom was moving as quickly as possible toward conclusion — and that a more competitive market would ultimately serve both consumers and the country's long-term investment in connectivity.
João Cadete de Matos, the head of Portugal's telecom regulator Anacom, sat down before a parliamentary committee on a Tuesday afternoon to deliver a blunt assessment: the three companies that dominate the country's mobile market—Nos, Meo, and Vodafone—are using litigation as a smokescreen for something simpler and more troubling. They do not want competitors.
The 5G auction, currently underway and expected to conclude in January, has been roiled by legal challenges from the incumbents. Cadete de Matos framed this noise not as legitimate regulatory concern but as the inevitable response of an oligopoly facing the prospect of disruption. "That is the entire substance of this litigation," he told the committee. The three firms, he argued, are deploying the courts to block what the regulator sees as a necessary intervention: opening the market to new entrants through auction rules designed to favor them.
The regulator's frustration runs deeper than procedural complaints. Portugal's telecom prices have climbed 6.5 percent over the past decade, while across the European Union they fell 11 percent. At the same time, annual investment in the sector has declined by 7 percent—a trend that worries Cadete de Matos and his team. The three dominant operators hold market shares that are too similar, he explained, which dampens genuine competition. Between October and November, all three raised prices on their bundled packages while simultaneously reducing download speeds on those same offerings—a move the regulator found difficult to comprehend and has referred to the competition authority.
Cadete de Matos insisted that the 5G auction rules rest on solid legal ground and serve a clear public interest. The regulations include measures to favor new entrants, designed to inject competitive energy into a market that has grown stale. He acknowledged the challenge facing any newcomer: they would face three entrenched players with stable customer bases, loyalty programs, and the ability to bundle mobile service with fixed broadband and television. But he rejected the notion that new competitors would arrive as free riders. Any firm acquiring spectrum would pay for it, pay annual usage fees, and be obligated to invest progressively in network infrastructure. To survive, they would need revenue, and revenue comes only from winning customers away from stronger rivals.
The regulator also emphasized the coverage obligations imposed on Nos, Meo, and Vodafone: 75 percent of the population across all parishes within three years, 90 percent within five. These targets address regional inequality and territorial cohesion. To meet them efficiently, the three firms should embrace shared infrastructure—a point Cadete de Matos illustrated with the recent antenna-sharing agreement between Nos and Vodafone. He found it puzzling that infrastructure sharing remains contentious in telecom when it works seamlessly in other sectors, pointing to the Multibanco ATM network and the Via Verde highway toll system as models of cooperation.
The parliamentary committee members expressed their own frustration with the turbulence surrounding the auction process. Cadete de Matos assured them that Anacom was moving as quickly as possible to conclude it. He also noted that user complaints have spiked exponentially during the pandemic, adding another dimension to the regulator's concern: the current market structure is not serving consumers well. A market with more competition, he argued, would be a friend to both investment and innovation. Companies would be forced to offer better services at fairer prices, unbundling customers from packages they do not use. That pressure, he suggested, is precisely what Portugal needs.
Citas Notables
The regulator stated that the three dominant firms raised prices on bundled packages while reducing download speeds simultaneously between October and November, a move referred to the competition authority.— João Cadete de Matos, Anacom president
The regulator emphasized that any new operator acquiring spectrum must pay for it, pay annual usage fees, and invest progressively in network infrastructure to generate revenue and compete.— João Cadete de Matos, Anacom president
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why does the regulator believe these lawsuits are really about blocking competition rather than legitimate concerns about the auction rules?
Because the three companies have identical market shares and have shown they move in concert—raising prices and cutting speeds at the same time. When you see that kind of coordination, litigation that delays new entrants looks less like principle and more like self-preservation.
But don't the incumbents have a point about being forced to share their networks?
They do own the infrastructure, but the regulator's answer is straightforward: sharing is not free. New operators pay for access and negotiate terms. It's not expropriation; it's a business transaction. And for the incumbents, it can actually improve returns on underutilized assets.
What makes you think new competitors will actually invest if they can just rent network capacity?
Because renting alone won't generate enough revenue to survive. They have to build their own customer base, and to do that they need differentiated offerings and better prices. That requires real investment in service quality and innovation.
The incumbents argue they're already investing heavily. Why should they face new competition?
The data says otherwise. Investment in the sector has fallen 7 percent annually over a decade. And prices in Portugal are rising while they fall elsewhere in Europe. That's not a sign of healthy competition; it's a sign the market is broken.
How realistic is it for a new entrant to compete against three very strong, established firms?
It's genuinely difficult. But that difficulty is the point. If it were easy, the incumbents wouldn't be fighting so hard to prevent it. The regulator is betting that even one credible new competitor will force all three to improve their game.
What happens to the 10 percent of the population that won't be covered by the auction winners?
The regulator has already proposed to the government that those areas be served through a universal broadband service. It's a recognition that pure market competition won't reach everywhere, and that's acceptable—as long as the competitive market works where it can.