We need less ego and more lego in regulation
At Portugal's annual telecom congress in Lisbon, the leaders of the country's three largest communications companies and the Infrastructure Minister converged on a shared conviction: that the regulator overseeing their sector has governed through confrontation rather than collaboration, and that the approaching end of its president's term offers a rare chance to reset the relationship. The moment sits within a broader tension familiar to democratic societies — how independent regulators balance their mandate to protect the public with the practical need to remain in dialogue with the industries they shape. The choice of Anacom's next leader, who must by law be a woman, will be read as a signal about whether Portuguese telecom governance turns toward partnership or persists in its adversarial posture.
- Six years of regulatory friction have left Portugal's telecom operators feeling unheard, with Vodafone's new CEO going so far as to describe the sector as 'sick' from weak investment returns.
- The congress became an unusually public confrontation when Minister João Galamba, seated in the audience, took the stage and criticized Anacom for overstepping into policy-making territory that belongs to the government.
- The sitting Anacom president skipped the industry's main annual gathering entirely, while his proposals — including a new lock-in period limit — have been quietly shelved by the ministry.
- Operators are calling for a regulator who balances sector sustainability, consumer protection, and competitive health rather than fixating on a single dimension at the expense of the others.
- With the current president's term ending in mid-August and a gender rotation rule requiring a female successor, the appointment will serve as a concrete test of whether dialogue or confrontation defines the next chapter of Portuguese telecom regulation.
Portugal's annual telecom congress convened in Lisbon this week with an unusually unified message from the country's three largest operators — Meo, Nos, and Vodafone — directed at a minister sitting in the room: the communications regulator needs new leadership, and it needs to learn how to listen.
The frustration was expressed in different registers. Meo's Ana Figueiredo offered the sharpest formulation: 'less ego and more lego in regulation.' Nos CEO Miguel Almeida pointed to lower fiber deployment costs as proof that dialogue-based regulation had once worked, and lamented its abandonment. Vodafone's Luís Lopes called the sector 'sick,' blaming regulatory decisions for suppressing investment returns, and called for a future leader who would balance sustainability, consumer protection, and competitive health rather than fixating on one at the expense of the others.
What gave the congress its particular charge was the response from Infrastructure Minister João Galamba. After promising not to criticize Anacom, he proceeded to do exactly that — arguing the regulator had blurred the line between regulatory oversight and policy-making, encroaching on functions that belong to government. 'When that boundary blurs, things become less transparent and create problems for everyone,' he said, to sustained applause from the assembled executives.
The intervention carried added weight given Galamba's own precarious position: he had recently requested his own resignation, a request Prime Minister Costa refused, leaving him in an unusual institutional limbo. Yet he remained at his post and used the platform to signal a clear shift in how his ministry views Anacom's role.
The sitting Anacom president, João Cadete de Matos, did not attend the congress — continuing a pattern of absence from the sector's main gathering. His recent proposals, including a reduction in customer lock-in periods submitted less than a year after parliament had already amended the relevant law, were shelved by the ministry without ceremony.
His term ends in mid-August. The successor must be a woman under gender rotation rules. But the procedural detail is secondary to the deeper question now circulating through the sector: will the next Anacom president govern as an adversary or a partner? The answer will shape Portugal's telecom investment climate and competitive dynamics for years to come.
The annual congress of Portugal's telecom sector convened in Lisbon this week with a clear message: the country's communications regulator needs new leadership, and it needs to learn how to listen. The three largest operators—Meo, Nos, and Vodafone—made their case directly to Infrastructure Minister João Galamba, who was sitting in the audience. They want the next president of Anacom, the independent regulator, to be someone willing to engage in genuine dialogue with the companies it oversees, rather than the confrontational approach that has defined the past six years.
Ana Figueiredo, who leads the group controlling Meo, distilled the operators' frustration into a single phrase: "We need less ego and more lego in regulation." Her counterparts were more measured but equally pointed. Miguel Almeida of Nos argued that the current regulator, João Cadete de Matos, had abandoned a collaborative model that once produced tangible results—he cited lower fiber deployment costs in Portugal compared to other European countries as evidence of what dialogue-based regulation could achieve. Luís Lopes, the new CEO of Vodafone, went further, describing the Portuguese telecom sector as "sick," a condition he attributed to weak returns on investment driven by regulatory decisions. He called for a next leader who would balance three pillars—sector sustainability, consumer protection, and competitive health—rather than fixating obsessively on one.
What made this week's congress significant was not just what the operators said, but what happened next. Galamba took the stage and, after initially promising not to criticize Anacom, proceeded to do exactly that. He argued that the regulator has overstepped its mandate, venturing into policy-making and administrative functions that belong to the government. "Anacom should confine itself to regulatory activities," he said. "When that boundary blurs, things become less transparent and create problems for everyone—the sector, the government, and the regulator itself." The minister called for the regulator to be a source of stability, not friction, and for a future marked by constructive criticism and institutional respect. The audience, filled with telecom executives, responded with sustained applause.
The timing of Galamba's intervention carried particular weight. This was his first public appearance since he had requested his own resignation—a request that Prime Minister António Costa refused, creating an unusual institutional standoff between the government and the presidency. Yet Galamba remained in his post and used the platform to signal a clear shift in how his ministry views the regulator's role. The current Anacom president's term ends in mid-August, and Galamba will be responsible for selecting a successor, assuming no government changes occur before then.
Cadete de Matos, the sitting president, did not attend the congress, continuing a pattern of absence from the industry's main annual gathering. The day before, however, he had appeared at another conference where he reiterated a longstanding proposal: that regulators' board members should be appointed through international public competition, with internal staff eligible to apply. The proposal has gone nowhere, in part because the government has shown no appetite for it. Earlier this year, Cadete de Matos had also sent Galamba a legislative proposal to reduce the maximum customer lock-in period for telecom services from its current length to six months—a change that came less than a year after parliament had already amended the Electronic Communications Law. Galamba shelved the proposal.
The question now circulating through Portugal's telecom sector is both simple and consequential: who will lead Anacom next? The position must be filled by a woman, per gender rotation rules. But beyond that procedural requirement lies a deeper question about the regulator's future posture. Will it continue as an adversary to the companies it oversees, or will it shift toward the collaborative model the operators and the minister are now openly advocating? The answer will shape not just the relationship between regulator and industry, but the sector's investment climate and competitive dynamics for years to come.
Notable Quotes
The regulator should confine itself to regulatory activities and serve as a source of stability, not friction, in the sector.— Infrastructure Minister João Galamba
The current regulator abandoned a collaborative model that once produced tangible results, including lower fiber deployment costs compared to other European countries.— Miguel Almeida, CEO of Nos
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does it matter so much to these telecom companies how the regulator behaves? Aren't they just looking for a lighter touch?
That's part of it, sure. But listen to what Almeida said about fiber costs being lower in Portugal because of past dialogue-based regulation. These companies are making a real argument: that collaboration produces better outcomes than confrontation. Whether you believe them or not, they're not just asking for less oversight—they're asking for a different kind of oversight.
And the minister? Why is he suddenly siding with the operators against his own regulator?
That's the puzzle. Galamba is technically Cadete's boss, but Cadete runs an independent agency. By law, that independence is supposed to protect the regulator from political pressure. But Galamba is arguing that Cadete has actually abandoned regulation and started making policy—which is the government's job. He's reframing this as a boundary dispute, not a power grab.
Is he right? Has Anacom overstepped?
That depends on your view of what regulation is. Cadete would say he's defending consumers. The operators say he's ignoring the sector's health. Galamba says he's doing the government's job. All three positions can't be equally true, but they're all being sincerely held.
What happens if the new president agrees with the operators?
Then the regulator becomes less of a check on industry power and more of a partner in it. That could mean faster investment and lower costs for consumers, or it could mean weaker protections. The real test will be whether dialogue actually produces better outcomes, or whether it just produces outcomes the industry prefers.
And if she doesn't?
Then we're back where we started—a regulator at odds with the sector and the government. But that becomes harder to sustain if both the minister and the industry are united against it.