OpenLobby.EU
Explore

Open Fiber

Open Fiber is an Italian wholesale-only operator developing a nationwide ultra-broadband fiber network.

Lobbying Activity

Open Fiber urges mandatory targets for switching off legacy networks

19 Dec 2025
Topic — Review of the Digital Decade Policy Programme monitoring EU digital infrastructure and targets.
Message — Open Fiber proposes mandatory targets for switching off legacy copper networks to accelerate digital migration. They also recommend earmarking EU cohesion and competitiveness funds for high-capacity gigabit infrastructure.12
Why — Forcing a switch-off would remove competitive pressure from older networks and boost fiber adoption.3
Impact — Wireless and satellite internet providers would be effectively excluded from most connectivity project funding.4
Read full response

Open Fiber demands binding EU rules for copper switch-off

11 Jul 2025
Topic — The Digital Networks Act aims to modernize EU digital infrastructure and investments.
Message — Open Fiber proposes a binding EU decision to phase out copper networks by 2031. They insist that current market regulations remain unchanged until the copper shutdown is fully complete.12
Why — Mandating the copper switch-off would secure higher adoption rates and financial returns.3
Impact — Legacy network owners would lose their market power and entrenched customer base.4
Read full response

Meeting with Carlota Reyners Fontana (Director Competition)

7 May 2025 · The telecoms landscape and copper switch-off

Meeting with Jörgen Warborn (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Amazon Europe Core SARL

14 Apr 2025 · Digital Infrastructure

Meeting with András Gyürk (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Eurelectric aisbl

12 Mar 2025 · Electricity grids

Meeting with Pilar Del Castillo Vera (Member of the European Parliament)

12 Mar 2025 · Communications Infrastructure

Meeting with Bruno Tobback (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

11 Mar 2025 · The key role of optical fiber networks in achieving the Digital Decade

Meeting with Pierfrancesco Maran (Member of the European Parliament)

11 Mar 2025 · Priorities new legislature

Meeting with Camilla Laureti (Member of the European Parliament)

20 Feb 2025 · fibre ottiche

Meeting with Jörgen Warborn (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

18 Feb 2025 · Digital infrastructure

Meeting with András Gyürk (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

14 Feb 2025 · Electricity grids

Meeting with Nicola Zingaretti (Member of the European Parliament)

14 Jan 2025 · TLC

Meeting with Dario Tamburrano (Member of the European Parliament)

24 Sept 2024 · Incontro di presentazione e priorità del settore

Meeting with Stefano Cavedagna (Member of the European Parliament) and Meta Platforms Ireland Limited and its various subsidiaries

18 Sept 2024 · Introductory meeting - discussion about the next legislative proposals

Meeting with Isabella Tovaglieri (Member of the European Parliament)

17 Sept 2024 · La situazione della fibra in Italia

Meeting with Giorgio Gori (Member of the European Parliament) and Bioenergy Europe and smartEn Smart Energy Europe

17 Sept 2024 · Presentation of priorities

Meeting with Benedetta Scuderi (Member of the European Parliament)

16 Sept 2024 · Telecommunications

Meeting with Elena Donazzan (Member of the European Parliament) and Confederazione Nazionale Coldiretti and

17 Jul 2024 · Incontro conoscitivo e scambio di vedute sul mandato del parlamento europeo

Open Fiber Urges Mandatory Copper Network Switch-Off by 2030

28 Jun 2024
Topic — A European Commission consultation regarding future digital infrastructure and telecommunications market regulations.
Message — Open Fiber requests a mandatory phase-out of legacy copper networks by 2030 to boost adoption. They also want large content providers to contribute to the costs of network infrastructure. Additionally, they urge the Commission not to remove rules for dominant former monopoly operators prematurely.123
Why — Mandatory copper decommissioning would force customers onto fiber networks, ensuring the company's financial sustainability.4
Impact — Dominant former monopoly operators would lose the ability to use legacy networks to hinder competitors.5
Read full response

Meeting with Eleonora Ocello (Cabinet of Commissioner Thierry Breton)

19 Sept 2023 · Telecoms policy

Meeting with Beatrice Covassi (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

6 Sept 2023 · Digital Infrastructures

Meeting with Nicola Danti (Member of the European Parliament)

12 Jun 2023 · Gigabit infrastructure Act

Meeting with Alin Mituța (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur) and Bitkom e.V.

31 May 2023 · Gigabit Infrastructure Act

Meeting with Roberto Viola (Director-General Communications Networks, Content and Technology)

17 Nov 2021 · Telecom policies

Meeting with Filomena Chirico (Cabinet of Commissioner Thierry Breton) and Vodafone Belgium SA and Sky Group

28 Oct 2021 · Italian situation regarding co-investment pursuant to EECC

Meeting with Michele Piergiovanni (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Margrethe Vestager)

22 Sept 2021 · Issues within the competition portfolio

Meeting with Roberto Viola (Director-General Communications Networks, Content and Technology)

2 Oct 2020 · Telecom markets and RRF

Meeting with Thierry Breton (Commissioner) and

24 Sept 2020 · Investments in fibre in italy

Meeting with Margrethe Vestager (Executive Vice-President) and

18 Sept 2020 · Discussion on competition issues

Meeting with Anthony Whelan (Cabinet of President Ursula von der Leyen)

18 Sept 2020 · Deployment of very high capacity networks, wholesale-only model

Response to Evaluation of State Aid rules for broadband infrastructure deployment

27 Jul 2020

Open Fiber welcomes the opportunity to provide its feedback on the Commission’s roadmap on the “Evaluation of State aid rules for broadband infrastructure deployment”. First, Open Fiber believes that State aid rules for broadband infrastructure deployment, which were originally intended to bolster the achievement of the targets set for 2020 by the Digital Agenda for Europe, should reflect the update of such targets occurred in 2016 by the Commission’s Gigabit Society Communication. The latter has set more ambitious targets for telecommunications networks deployment by 2025, among which all households should have access to internet connectivity of at least 100 Mbps upgradable to Gigabit speeds in terms of downlink. So far, only “very high capacity networks” (VHCN) are able to guarantee the new European performance requirements and their widespread roll-out consequently represents the new infrastructural target for 2025. The importance of VHCNs is confirmed by the EECC, in which their deployment and take-up is stated as one of its main objectives (Art. 3). Moreover, the EECC sets optical fibre as a benchmark for VHCN, not just in terms of speeds but also of other performance parameters (art. 2 (2)). Since the deployment of VHCNs is crucial for connecting the EU and reducing the digital divide, it is essential that the review of State Aid rules for electronic communications infrastructure deployment will bolster such deployment, in line with the new European connectivity targets by 2025. Second, Open Fiber would like to underline that both the EECC and BEREC, have divided VHCNs into fixed and wireless ones, depending on the type of architecture used. However, despite the fact that VHCN may refer to both fixed and wireless networks, the two categories differ substantially in terms of implementing costs and speed performances. In its draft guidelines, BEREC has proposed four alternative criteria to define a network as a fixed or wireless VHC. For fixed connectivity, networks either need to consist of fibre at least up to the multi-dwelling building (criteria 1) or are capable of delivering, under usual peak-time conditions, services to end users at specific quality of service levels (downlink data rate ≥ 1000 Mbps and uplink data rate ≥ 200 Mbps) (criteria 3). For wireless connectivity, networks either need to consist of fibre up to the base station (criteria 2) or are capable of delivering, under usual peak-time conditions, services to end users at specific quality of service levels(downlink data rate: ≥ 150 Mbps and uplink data rate: ≥ 50 Mbps) (criteria 4). Since the definition of VHCN networks was made by punctually distinguishing fixed and wireless networks, Open Fiber believes that State Aid rules should require such distinction to be included among the qualification requirements attached to public tenders, otherwise a fair level of competition between the bidders cannot be guaranteed. In the context of public tenders, it should be specified whether the objective is to finance the roll-out of fixed or wireless VHCN. The distinction between fixed and wireless VHCN is crucial for a proper understanding of the underlying economic feasibility of the operators’ offers and more generally in order to give to all participants the opportunity to define a correct network development plan on fair and non-discriminatory terms. In conclusion, Open Fiber believes that State Aid Rules play a fundamental role to achieve the new EU connectivity targets by 2025 and foster the roll-out of future-proof networks capable of delivering Gigabit speeds in areas where private investors have no interest to invest. For this purpose, State aid guidelines should continue to help Member States to channel public support in a pro-competitive manner, ensuring the distinction between fixed and wireless networks in future national tenders for ultrabroadband development.
Read full response

Response to Review of the Broadband Cost Reduction Directive (Directive 2014/61/EU)

17 Jul 2020

Open Fiber welcomes the opportunity to provide a feedback on the roadmap and inception impact assessment on the planned review of the Broadband Cost Reduction Directive (BCRD). We deem it necessary to highlight already some issues that can be most relevant in all Member States and should be solved through the review of the instrument, irrespective of the Commission’s choice over the options listed. First, the dispute resolution mechanism envisaged by the BCRD has proven to be highly inefficient. The number of disputes that usually arise with the owners of the existing infrastructure, including the in-building one (often belonging to property owners), is too high. Because of the large number of parties involved and the absence of a specific framework to obtain access to infrastructures, it can easily take longer than the maximum period provided by the current BCRD (4 months) to conclude dispute settlements. Moreover, 4 months are in themselves too long and contradict the objective of accelerating the roll-out of new fibre networks. In absence of guidance on technical and economic access conditions, infrastructure owners are imposing excessive access prices and burdensome procedures. As the majority of existing infrastructures belong to the incumbent, this often creates high technical and economic barriers to the detriment of alternative operators. As a result, roll-out plans are slowed down, and prices and conditions may differ case by case. Therefore, the renewed instrument should enable the competent authorities to adopt ex ante guidelines providing a specific framework for the setting of access prices and conditions to the existing infrastructures, including the in-building ones. This would help market parties to reach agreements more rapidly and harmonize prices and conditions. Infrastructure owners may apply different prices only when they provide sufficient evidence that the prices defined ex ante do not cover their costs or allow a reasonable return on the capital employed. By adopting the proposed ex ante guidelines, we estimate that the competent national dispute settlement body can cut the maximum period to resolve a dispute by at least half. The authorities involved in the guidelines drafting should be the NRA in charge of electronic communication markets, the national association of joint owners (condominium) and the regulators of physical infrastructures owned by other industries. Second, the renewed instrument should also empower the competent national authorities to issue sanctions to the building administrators who refuse to allow access to the in-building infrastructure for unjustified reasons. In addition to this, the renewed instrument should indicate that the network operators should be responsible for the management of the in-building infrastructure, irrespective of the fact that the building owners built it. The management of the delivery processes (activation of the lines) and the maintenance of the in-building infrastructure affect the quality of the services for the end-users and therefore have to be assigned to the network operators, as they are the only ones to possess the required competences, in particular in case of FTTH networks. If the in-building network is managed by non-qualified entities, network operators will not use it, as they will not be able to guarantee the delivery processes and the quality of the services. Finally, in order to simplify the burdensome procedures to obtain permits and authorizations that slow down roll-out operations, it would be necessary that for similar roll-out operations the documents that the operators have to provide to the local authorities are the same. At present, on the contrary, all competent authorities at local level require the submission of different sets of documents even when the geographical circumstances are similar. Far from challenging the prerogatives recognized by the national legislation to the local authorities, this seems unjustified.
Read full response

Meeting with Roberto Viola (Director-General Communications Networks, Content and Technology)

22 Jan 2019 · Electronic Communication Code, Implementation of IT ultra broadband plan

Meeting with Roberto Viola (Director-General Communications Networks, Content and Technology)

20 Sept 2017 · Explanation of the new business model supported by Open Fiber