4 May 2026

Belgian Competition Authority Continues Review of Roll-out of High-Speed Fibre Telecommunications Networks in Flanders

2 min read

On 30 April 2026, the Belgian Competition Authority (BCA) published a press release to indicate that it would continue its review of the proposed cooperation between Proximus/Fiberklaar and Telenet/Wyre to roll out high-speed fibre telecommunications networks in Flanders

The press release follows announcements by the parties (here and here) that they concluded a final and binding agreement that defines the terms of their cooperation. They reached a comprehensive deal despite earlier press reports that their venture might collapse and despite their failure to secure the blessing of the BCA and the Belgian Institute for Postal Services and Telecommunications for that venture.

The BCA started its investigation in July 2024 following the conclusion by the joint venture parties of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) setting forth the basic principles for their cooperation (see, VBB Belgian Antitrust Watch of 30 July 2024). In medium density population areas (which cover 2 million homes) Wyre and Fiberklaar would build complementary Fiber-to-the-Home networks and organise reciprocal wholesale access for their respective partners, Proximus and Telenet. In areas that are sparsely populated and concern 0.7 million homes, Proximus would offer services via the Hybrid Fiber Coax network of Wyre. Elsewhere (in large cities and densely populated zones) network competition would play out to the fullest extent and both groups would roll out their own separate infrastructure.

The proposed cooperation is proving a tough nut to crack for the regulators which organised a market test in October and November 2025  (see, VBB Belgian Antitrust Watch of 16 October 2025). Their principal concerns are making sure that end-users share in the project’s benefits and that third-party operators are given access to the parties’ infrastructure to offer their own services. The commitments which the joint venture partners have offered so far ostensibly do not satisfy these requirements.

The parties were able to transition from an MoU to a binding agreement in the midst of the competition review because they are not subject to a “standstill” obligation that characterises a merger control procedure. The procedural framework for the BCA’s inquiry in this case is that of a regular antitrust case which is distinct from merger control proceedings. Still, in their press releases, the parties made it clear that they would wait for regulatory approval before implementing their agreement.