Summary

  • The CMA’s 20 October remedies notice says the parties to nexfibre’s proposed acquisition of Substantial have submitted no remedy proposal for the competition problem it provisionally identified.
  • The regulator lists prohibition as a possible response, has found no standalone business divestiture to offer instead, and invites practicable alternatives by 17:00 on 27 October.

There is an empty place at the remedies table. In its 20 October invitation, the Competition and Markets Authority says the companies behind nexfibre’s proposed acquisition of Substantial have offered no fix for the competition problem the agency provisionally found. The CMA has written one large word on its own menu: prohibition. It wants anyone with a better option to explain how that option would work by 17:00 on Tuesday, 27 October.

The proposed deal would combine fibre networks. In its interim report, the CMA provisionally identified a substantial lessening of competition in wholesale fixed broadband within the parties’ combined fibre-to-the-premises footprints. This remedies consultation is the next question: if that finding survives, what can actually remove the harm? Earlier coverage examined the hypothetical buyer who might have bought Substantial instead. The new notice asks for a real, workable instrument, not another counterfactual.

The missing proposal matters

The CMA says the transaction remains anticipated. A prohibition would prevent it from closing and would require prior CMA consent for another attempt to merge for a further period, normally ten years. That is the most severe item in the consultation, not the outcome of a final order. The agency says it has found no alternative structural remedy consisting of a standalone business divestiture. The parties’ failure to submit a proposal leaves a more tailored remedy without the operational blueprint its authors are best placed to supply.

That is a sharper fact than the ritual phrase “remedies under consideration” suggests. A promise to behave well after combining networks needs enforceable mechanics: who gets access, under what terms, for how long, and how breaches are found. The CMA’s notice does not spell out such a package. Instead, it opens the door to practical proposals from the parties and third parties. The empty chair is still available, but someone has to sit down with a design.

A cheaper fix must still fix it

The CMA’s stated rule is to choose an effective, comprehensive response that is reasonable and practicable. Among equally effective options, it favours the less costly or restrictive one and checks proportionality. The test therefore rewards a narrower solution only after it has survived the effectiveness question. The case docket sets out the live timetable.

The regulator also invites evidence on customer benefits. In the statutory categories described in the notice, these can mean lower prices, better quality, more choice or innovation. The claimed gain has to arise within a reasonable period from this merger and be unlikely through another route. That is a demanding request for a deal sold as a stronger wholesale challenger: specify the benefit, identify the customer and show why the same gain cannot arrive without the acquisition.

The next revealing document will be a concrete remedies submission. Its details will show whether the buyers can turn a broad investment story into obligations a regulator can monitor. For now, the public record contains the CMA’s provisional concern, an unfilled remedies slot and a Tuesday deadline.

Sources