By Elena Vasquez

Telecom operators will not commit billions to AI-ready networks unless regulators offer legal certainty and simpler rules, Volker Libovsky, CTIO of Magenta Telekom, told the Network X conference today. His core demand: no operator can sign up for multi-decade investments without knowing how a regulator will treat price adjustments, value creation and changes to the customer experience.

Magenta Telekom is Deutsche Telekom's Austrian unit. Libovsky framed the investment question around AI, arguing that telecom networks are the infrastructure on which the technology scales. That dependency, in his view, changes what operators should be able to expect from policymakers.

The numbers behind his frustration are blunt. "We have invested billions into our networks worldwide, both in spectrum, in fixed and mobile infrastructure, and of course, the supporting systems," he said during his presentation. "Still, our revenue growth, our service revenue growth, is flattish. This is not fair."

What does Libovsky want from regulators?

His requests fall into three areas:

• Legal certainty. Operators need to know in advance how regulators will handle pricing, value creation and customer experience rules over the lifetime of an investment.
• Spectrum protection. Having paid heavily for terrestrial spectrum, telcos need confidence that those licenses and their value are safeguarded.
• Simpler permitting. Approvals for tower sites currently take more than a year. "We have a lot of bureaucracy to cut through to implement networks, both on public ground and private ground," he said.

The one-year figure is the most concrete number in his argument. It puts a measurable cost on a process operators across Europe describe in similar terms.

Is this an Austrian problem?

No. Austria is a relatively small market, but Libovsky's complaints echo positions taken by major players across the continent.

Vodafone this year called on the EU to make sure the forthcoming Digital Networks Act delivers regulatory simplification, urging the bloc to remove regulatory duplication and improve the investment environment. The GSMA has gone further, arguing the DNA will actually "complexify" the market by layering on more sector-specific rules.

The UK illustrates the same tension from a different angle. Virgin Media O2 recently warned that the country's planning system sabotages mobile coverage in London, with sites shutting down faster than replacements can be approved. On the fixed side, Neos Networks CEO Lee Mayall told Light Reading last year that lengthy permission processes are holding back the buildout of backbone fiber networks in the UK.

Does this revive the fair-share debate?

Partly. Libovsky's complaint that telcos do not get a fair share of the value pool they create is a familiar refrain from European operators who have long argued that big traffic generators profit from networks they do not fund.

But he stopped short of the usual next step. He did not repeat the call for "fair" contributions from the largest sources of traffic — a demand that even Deutsche Telekom CEO Tim Höttges has conceded the industry has abandoned.

The omission matters. It suggests operators are steering their lobbying toward achievable regulatory fixes — permitting speed, license protection, rule simplification — rather than the politically stalled fair-share fight with big tech.

The timing gives Libovsky's argument weight. The Digital Networks Act is still taking shape in Brussels, and the positions staked out now by Vodafone, the GSMA and operators like Magenta Telekom will influence what the final text asks of regulators and of the industry. Whether the EU responds with genuine simplification or with the additional rules the GSMA fears will determine how quickly European networks can support the AI workloads Libovsky described.