Summary

  • The 2 October 2026 memorandum gives BEREC and Ofcom a nonbinding framework for exchanging regulatory ideas and arranging possible joint activities; it does not establish a common regulator, binding programme or EU position.
  • Annual meetings, working groups and workshops are an activity menu. Later written arrangements must still specify the terms of particular projects, while each body keeps its own procedures, costs and authority.

The useful question about the BEREC–Ofcom memorandum is not whether the two regulators can now talk. They already could. It is whether the new document turns that access into a work programme that people outside the institutions can inspect.

Registered as BoR (26) 153 and dated 2 October 2026, the memorandum describes a nonbinding mechanism to exchange ideas on electronic-communications regulation and related digital-economy questions. It points toward advanced communications in the United Kingdom and the European Union, and names four broad areas: full connectivity; competitive, open digital ecosystems; end-user empowerment; and sustainable, secure and resilient infrastructure.

That is a useful map of interests, not a schedule. The text gives examples of annual meetings, joint working groups, workshops and information exchange. It allows activity in person or electronically, but names no first meeting, project lead, budget, timetable or deliverable. Details of roles, operations and finances for a particular activity are deferred to later written arrangements. Those arrangements, too, are described as nonbinding. Each participant bears its own costs and acts under its own rules.

This distinction matters because institutional proximity can be mistaken for shared power. BEREC is an expert and advisory body composed of the independent national regulatory authorities of EU Member States. Ofcom is the United Kingdom’s regulator. Their officials can learn from one another, compare market changes and develop technical approaches without merging their legal mandates. The memorandum says participation does not represent the European Union’s official position.

EU law makes the boundary more specific. Article 35(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1971 allows BEREC and its Office to cooperate with competent authorities outside the Union and permits working arrangements subject to prior European Commission approval; those arrangements cannot create legal obligations. Article 35(2) addresses a separate question: participation by third-country regulatory authorities in BEREC bodies depends on an agreement with the Union, and participation carries no voting rights. The memorandum does not say it grants Ofcom a seat or vote.

The public documents reviewed here do not establish whether a particular approval was granted, so that point should not be guessed.

The first evidence of value will be modest and concrete. A named meeting with a published scope is more informative than a general promise to cooperate. A working group should identify its responsible officials, question, timetable and output. If it exchanges information, readers need to know what can be disclosed, what remains confidential under applicable law, and how each institution uses the material. The memorandum requires participants to communicate accomplishments but sets no reporting cadence, format or public dashboard.

There is a practical economic reason to ask for this record. Regulators shape decisions on spectrum, access, consumer protections and network resilience. Comparing evidence can reduce duplicated work and help each body see a change earlier. But firms cannot plan around a dialogue whose subject, timing and consequences remain invisible. Nor should a joint discussion be read as a common rule, enforcement position or guarantee of regulatory convergence.

The arrangement is reversible: either participant may terminate it on at least 30 days’ written notice. That flexibility lowers the cost of beginning cooperation. It also means that continuity must come from useful work and institutional ownership rather than from the paper alone. BEREC’s 2026–2030 strategy supports international dialogue and identifies public consultations, debriefings and stakeholder events as established ways to make its work visible. Ofcom says its international engagement informs UK regulation and horizon scanning, and it hosts a stakeholder forum every four months.

These describe each regulator’s general practice; neither proves that a BEREC–Ofcom project has started.

A credible progress record could be short: the activity, its public-interest question, the people responsible, any required approval, the costs each side carries, the output, and whether either regulator later changed advice or policy. If confidentiality limits publication, the legal basis and a non-sensitive description can still be stated. Without such evidence, the memorandum remains an open door with no visible traffic. With it, the public can judge whether information exchange is helping each regulator do its own job better.

Sources