Summary

  • AGCOM reviewed FiberCop’s new wholesale price proposal, acknowledged progress and still refused approval because critical issues remain.
  • The regulator says it can judge whether proposed prices are fair and reasonable, but cannot write them. FiberCop must make the next proposal.

The latest FiberCop price list has met the most awkward kind of rejection: one that explains who must act next, while leaving the disputed numbers and defects offstage.

On 23 October, Italy’s communications regulator AGCOM said it had examined a new proposal from FiberCop. The Authority saw progress, but also unresolved critical issues, so the list could not be approved. Its commission instructed staff to tell the company. No price, clause or defect was identified in the public statement.

Then came the procedural sentence that gives this story its shape. AGCOM said it cannot formulate the prices directly. Its role is to check whether the prices in FiberCop’s proposed lists are fair and reasonable. The conclusion of the proceeding therefore depends on FiberCop taking the initiative and submitting another proposal that, in AGCOM’s judgment, meets that standard. The full statement is on AGCOM’s 23 October release.

That is a real division of labour, not a regulator typing a number into someone else’s tariff sheet. FiberCop prepares the offer; AGCOM tests it against a public-interest standard and can withhold approval. Under Delibera 58/26/CONS, the framework covers wholesale access in defined fixed-network markets and calls for detailed technical, economic and procedural offers. It also permits approval with modifications. The March decision set the rules; AGCOM began reviewing the proposed Market 1B and 2B lists on 23 April. October’s answer shows the review still had not reached approval.

For customers who plan around wholesale access terms, a list stuck in review is an operating fact: the proposed terms have not cleared the regulator. But the public record gives no price movement to model. It does not say whether the open issues concern a particular service, cost, discount, service level or penalty. Nor does it set a resubmission date. Filling those blanks with a theory would turn a short official statement into fiction wearing a spreadsheet.

The sharper question is who carries the burden of making the process move. AGCOM has the power to say that a proposal fails its test, but says it cannot supply the proposal’s prices. FiberCop controls the next draft. That keeps price design with the regulated operator and places the evidentiary burden there too: the next list must persuade the regulator that its prices are fair and reasonable.

A process can be formally clear and still leave the market waiting. The release reports no approved list, effective date or timetable. The next material development is a new proposal that AGCOM accepts, with the list and its effective terms made public. Until then, the review remains open and the next move belongs to FiberCop.

Primary records: AGCOM’s 23 April review notice and the official text of Delibera 58/26/CONS.