Summary

  • The CMA says nexfibre and Substantial have not proposed a remedy for its provisional competition concern.
  • It has named prohibition as a possible remedy, identified no alternative divestiture of a standalone business, and invited practicable proposals before 5pm on 27 October.

There is a conspicuous empty box in the CMA’s remedies consultation: “proposal from the parties.”

The Competition and Markets Authority’s 20 October invitation says nexfibre and Substantial have made no remedy proposal addressing the concern set out in its interim report. The CMA’s next move is therefore a public request for ideas, with a deadline of 5pm Tuesday 27 October. That leaves interested parties one working day from this article’s publication to explain how the problem could be fixed.

The procedural gap matters. On 2 October, the CMA provisionally found that the anticipated acquisition may substantially lessen competition in wholesale fixed broadband supply within the companies’ combined full-fibre footprints. The finding is provisional. The remedies invitation does not settle the case; it asks what should happen if the concern remains at the end of the inquiry.

The CMA has put one option on the table: prohibition. That would stop completion and, under the proposal described in the invitation, prevent the parties from trying again without prior CMA consent for a further period, normally ten years. The regulator says it has not identified an alternative structural remedy that would sell a standalone business. It explains that remedies beyond prohibition or a sale of a standalone business usually require detailed operational knowledge and substantial input from the parties. Here, it says, that alternative has not been identified.

This is not a menu with several finished dishes waiting under silver lids. It is a consultation with a prominent default-shaped option and an invitation for others to bring a recipe. The CMA says it has made no decision, provisional or otherwise, on whether any remedy would work. Third parties can still propose a practicable alternative and explain how it would address the provisional concern and resulting adverse effects.

The questions are concrete: would a proposed fix restore competition; what would it cost to implement; would it be proportionate; and what customer benefits could it protect or create? The CMA lists lower prices, better quality, more choice and greater innovation among the relevant customer benefits it may consider. A proposal that merely sounds tidy will have to explain how it operates after the transaction, who controls it and how compliance could be checked.

The distinction between “no remedy proposal” and “no possible remedy” is the hinge of the consultation. The CMA has not said that no alternative can work. It has said it has not identified a standalone-business divestiture and wants evidence about practical options. A credible submission needs to fill that specific gap, not relitigate the case’s whole competitive counterfactual.

For the parties, the empty box is now public and dated. For anyone with a workable design, the window is short: comments and alternative remedies are due by 5pm on 27 October. The CMA has given the market a deadline, a concern and a blank line. The line is the point.

Sources