More than two years on from the original complaint, the regulator has set terms for the shared use of mobile operators’ networks in Germany
Spectrum licence conditions require mobile operators to negotiate wholesale access to their networks on non-discriminatory terms
On 7 July 2025, the German Federal Network Agency (BNetzA) finalised its decision settling a dispute between mobile virtual network operator (MVNO) Multiconnect and its host Telefónica Germany. In April 2023, Multiconnect complained to the regulator of an alleged breach of Telefónica’s obligation to negotiate wholesale access to its network. This requirement was outlined for all operators by BNetzA’s President’s Chamber in its November 2018 conditions for the allocation of the 2GHz and 3.6GHz spectrum bands. The subsequent ‘allocation notices’ stated that assignment holders must negotiate with “suitable service providers regarding the shared use of radio capacity”. These negotiations should be non-discriminatory, with the capacity provided not be limited to specific services, technologies or applications. The purpose of this requirement was to achieve various regulatory objectives under Germany’s telecoms law (the TKG), such as ensuring fair competition and protecting end user interests in terms of choice, price and quality. BNetzA’s resolution is also grounded in the decision of its Ruling Chamber 2 from October 2021 in the case Transatel versus Telefónica, in which it was found, among other things, that the definition of suitable service providers obliges mobile operators to enter into negotiations for access with MVNOs.
Multiconnect’s application for dispute resolution highlighted disagreement with Telefónica on several issues
In seeking mediation in this latest dispute (which was amended in May and August 2023), Multiconnect highlighted several points of disagreement with Telefónica, particularly in respect of wholesale pricing, 5G access and exclusivity. BNetzA considered input from a variety of stakeholders, including Germany’s four mobile operators (Deutsche Telekom, Telefónica, Vodafone and new entrant 1&1), MVNOs and associations BREKO, MVNO Europe and VATM. For example, MVNO freenet argued that the country’s three established operators dominate the mobile market and “would naturally do everything in their power” to prevent new providers from entering. Meanwhile, Deutsche Telekom and Vodafone agreed with Telefónica that BNetzA should not analyse individual contractual clauses but instead consider the overall access offer. However, the regulator considered that mobile operators should not be able to use their negotiating power to push through certain provisions under the guise of providing actual or perceived advantages under other shared use conditions. In a letter following a hearing on BNetzA’s draft decision of March 2025, Deutsche Telekom also claimed that the regulator was poised to disrupt “previously well-functioning competition”, causing lasting damage in the market.
Telefónica was required to submit an amended access offer, seeing some suggested contractual terms dismissed by the regulator
Having concluded the dispute resolution process, BNetzA gave Telefónica four weeks (i.e. until 4 August 2025) to fulfil the negotiation requirement imposed on it and to present to Multiconnect a modified offer according to a range of conditions, such as:
Average wholesale charges for incoming voice, SMS and data roaming services should not exceed the amounts set out in the EU Roaming Regulation;
Average wholesale charges for outgoing voice services should not exceed the amounts set out in the EU’s 2020 Delegated Regulation on termination rates;
Technological neutrality, including access to 5G and future generations; and
A minimum term that enables Multiconnect to earn a return on investment.
BNetzA has also stated that certain contractual terms suggested by Telefónica, for example prohibiting Multiconnect from migrating its customers to other mobile networks within a specified period or setting a limit on maximum data transfer speeds, are “objectively unreasonable” and violate the principle of negotiation.
