Summary

  • Arcep authorized reciprocal 1800 MHz rentals for Bouygues Telecom, Free Mobile, Orange and SFR at sites within their 2019 mobile-site sharing agreement, through 24 March 2031.
  • The arrangement shares radio use, not regulatory accountability: each operator remains responsible for its authorization, including deployment obligations and fees.

Sharing the air, retaining the duty

A radio network can share capacity without sharing its regulator-facing obligations. That is the important line in Arcep Decision 2026-1733, which authorizes Bouygues Telecom, Free Mobile, Orange and SFR to rent 1800 MHz frequencies to one another for 4G radio access network sharing at defined sites. The decision is effective through 24 March 2031, when the first of the relevant 1800 MHz authorizations expires.

The four operators already have a mobile-site sharing agreement, signed in 2019 for specified historic rural coverage programmes and the targeted-coverage programme. Amendment No. 2 extends the arrangement to reciprocal use of 1800 MHz spectrum at certain sites within that contractual perimeter. The amendment was sent to Arcep on 1 June 2026; the companies jointly sought frequency-rental approval on 29 June. They identified sites where traffic is especially saturated. The published decision does not list those sites or disclose the commercial terms.

The operational mechanism is broader than simply leasing a tower. The decision says each operator can transmit using its own frequencies and those of the other three. In its four operative articles, Arcep authorizes reciprocal rentals of each operator’s specified 1800 MHz blocks for common use within the site perimeter. It is a bounded sharing arrangement, not a nationwide transfer of all spectrum rights and not a merger of the four networks.

Arcep’s decision makes the boundary unusually explicit: site deployment responsibilities do not change. Each licensee continues to owe the authority compliance with the rights and obligations in its own authorization, including deployment commitments and frequency-use fees. The French communications code also says that when spectrum is rented, the authorization holder remains responsible for the initial conditions attached to those use rights. The regulator has allowed operational flexibility while keeping the obligation attached to the licensee.

That separation changes the incentive structure. A provider gains access to a wider pool of radio resources at selected sites, while the operator that holds each authorization cannot treat the rental as an exit from its original commitments. This can make collaboration easier to supervise: the regulator can continue to ask each licensee about its own conditions even as radio equipment transmits a shared set of bands. It also concentrates the next practical question on coordination: how do the four companies manage interference, fault isolation and capacity allocation when their bands are used together?

The public decision does not provide those operating details.

The stated purpose is to improve service quality at sites carrying particularly heavy traffic. That is an objective, not a reported result. The decision contains no post-deployment measurements, user experience data, launch timetable or capacity estimate. It does not establish that every site in the agreement will use pooled spectrum. The likely benefit depends on where the amendment is activated and how operators coordinate their radio access networks. Those facts remain unreported in the published record.

Arcep reviewed whether carrying out the amendment could obstruct the regulatory objectives in Article L.32-1 and found no basis to require a change; it also approved the reciprocal rentals. The decision therefore treats this form of cooperation as compatible with the objectives on the record before it. That is narrower than a finding that every form of four-way spectrum sharing is pro-competitive. Geography, participating sites, technical terms and the duration all constrain the authorization.

The arrangement’s strongest governance feature may be that it separates shared use from pooled liability. If one company falls short of its deployment condition, responsibility remains identifiable even though other operators can use its authorized frequencies at the specified sites. This structure avoids a simple accountability vacuum. But it does not settle how operational failures will be traced if a congested site underperforms, which operator owns a fault, or whether access among the four is balanced in practice. Those are implementation questions, not findings in Decision 2026-1733.

The 1800 MHz decision is a reminder that “network sharing” is not one indivisible choice. Sites, radio access, frequency use and authorization duties can be shared or kept separate in different combinations. Arcep has approved one such combination: pool radio capacity in a defined perimeter, keep the licensee’s obligations legible, and set a common end date. The next test is empirical: whether this flexibility improves service at the selected sites while preserving clear individual responsibility.

Sources