MCMC 2026 Wholesale Rules Split CelcomDigi, Maxis, U Mobile, TM

Malaysia’s major telecommunications companies took sharply different positions on the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission’s overhaul of wholesale network access regulation, with operators supporting tighter rules in some markets while seeking greater flexibility or opposing regulation in others.

The submissions made during MCMC’s 2026 reviews of the Access List and Mandatory Standard on Access show that the industry did not divide neatly between companies that wanted more regulation and those that wanted less.

CelcomDigi, Maxis, Digital Nasional Berhad (DNB) and U Mobile supported the addition of dark fibre to the Access List, while Telekom Malaysia (TM) and TIME opposed it. At the same time, Maxis opposed the introduction of regulated 4G Multi-Operator Core Network (MOCN) Access, while TM argued for stronger obligations around the service.

There was also disagreement over the regulatory treatment of 5G wholesale services. CelcomDigi, Maxis and TM wanted MCMC to retain prior approval of amendments to 5G Reference Access Offers (RAOs), while DNB and U Mobile supported removing that requirement.

CelcomDigi

CelcomDigi supported the inclusion of dark fibre in the Access List.

The company said access to existing dark fibre infrastructure could address the significant costs and practical difficulties involved in deploying new fibre, including trenching, permits and rights of way. It said this could improve the utilisation of existing infrastructure and reduce unnecessary duplication.

CelcomDigi agreed with restricting the service to Exclusive Zones and Restricted Data Centre Points of Entry, but proposed expanding what could fall within those definitions. In particular, it wanted designated utility corridors to be expressly included within the definition of an Exclusive Zone.

Its position on regulated 4G MOCN Access was more cautious.

CelcomDigi argued that 4G MOCN was a highly customised arrangement and should not be treated as a standardised access service. It proposed that access should be subject to technical feasibility, capacity availability and mutual commercial agreement between the parties.

When MCMC proposed detailed implementation obligations, CelcomDigi said a 30-business-day delivery period could be appropriate for simple activation, but may be insufficient where upgrades, a new Point of Interface or transport upgrades were required.

It also proposed that site-specific access be subject to “technical feasibility, capacity availability and network performance considerations at each site”.

MCMC rejected adding those qualifications throughout the service-specific obligations, saying the MSA already contained grounds allowing access to be refused on technical feasibility grounds.

On 5G regulation, CelcomDigi wanted MCMC to retain prior approval of amendments to a 5G RAO before publication. It said MCMC should continue reviewing and approving such amendments under the dual 5G network model to maintain regulatory oversight and accountability.

CelcomDigi also supported allowing the 5G Standalone Access service to cover MOCN arrangements between DNB and U Mobile.

Maxis

Maxis supported putting dark fibre on the Access List, but took the opposite position on 4G MOCN Access.

MCMC recorded Maxis among the operators supporting regulation of dark fibre in Exclusive Zones and Restricted Data Centre POEs.

Maxis opposed the proposed inclusion of 4G MOCN Access on the Access List.

It argued that the long-term benefit of end-users would be better served by maintaining a commercially driven and flexible approach to network sharing, with regulatory oversight where necessary.

Maxis was particularly concerned about a requirement to make MOCN available at every site where an Access Provider had deployed 4G radio equipment. It said such a requirement was disproportionate and that MCMC had not demonstrated a nationwide market failure in access to active mobile infrastructure.

If MCMC nevertheless proceeded with regulation, Maxis wanted mandated access narrowed to locations where a market failure or national coverage issue could be demonstrated. It also said access should remain subject to technical feasibility, spectrum configuration compatibility and protection of network performance and quality of service.

MCMC ultimately disagreed with Maxis and listed 4G MOCN Access. It said the barriers reported by operators seeking MOCN arrangements demonstrated an existing market failure.

Maxis also wanted MCMC to retain prior approval of 5G RAO amendments.

It argued that a 5G RAO establishes baseline wholesale terms and therefore requires regulatory oversight. Maxis said removing pre-approval could allow changes to pricing, technical specifications, provisioning processes and other terms to be implemented before regulatory validation.

Maxis also focused on the position of vertically integrated 5G wholesale providers.

It supported prohibiting a 5G Access Provider from sharing information between its wholesale and retail teams. Maxis said wholesale providers can obtain commercially sensitive information about Access Seekers, including traffic profiles, customer locations, service configurations, rollout strategies and performance requirements.

Its position was that Access Providers should be prohibited from using sensitive information obtained from Access Seekers to advantage their own downstream services.

MCMC agreed there was a policy basis for such a restriction and decided that 5G Access Seeker information should only be used within the wholesale group for supplying 5G Services, and not for supplying retail mobile services.

U Mobile

U Mobile supported dark fibre regulation and argued that MCMC’s proposed scope should be expanded.

It proposed regulating dark fibre not only in Exclusive Zones and Restricted Data Centre POEs, but also where fibre networks were uneconomic to replicate. U Mobile suggested that this could include areas with fewer than three independent fibre providers or where dark fibre had been deployed using government funding.

MCMC rejected this expansion. It said those indicators were not sufficiently reliable measures of economic barriers and could extend regulation into areas where Access Seekers still had a viable option to deploy their own fibre.

On 4G MOCN Access, U Mobile agreed with MCMC’s proposed service-specific framework but sought several changes.

It wanted the indicative delivery timeframe increased from 30 to 40 business days, arguing that 4G MOCN was a newly regulated service and that the market had not accumulated enough operational experience to justify the shorter period.

U Mobile also opposed including site activation under the proposed non-discrimination obligation. It said site activation was driven by an operator’s own rollout requirements, coverage planning, demand forecasting and capital investment priorities, making it unsuitable for direct comparison across Access Seekers.

It also wanted MCMC to remove a proposed mandatory quarterly requirement to update information on Points of Interface, saying this would create a disproportionate administrative burden.

On 5G RAOs, U Mobile supported removing MCMC’s prior approval requirement. It said the change would reduce administrative burden without weakening the position of Access Seekers and was consistent with Malaysia’s move from a single wholesale network to a dual 5G wholesale market.

U Mobile also supported allowing regulated 5G MOCN access between the two wholesale networks, but only where their network footprints did not overlap and the Access Seeker could not reasonably replicate the RAN infrastructure.

Digital Nasional Berhad (DNB)

DNB supported adding dark fibre to the Access List.

It said dark fibre could provide an alternative access solution in locations where transmission services were unavailable, particularly in exclusive or otherwise constrained areas. DNB also wanted the regulatory framework to address access problems involving non-licensed parties such as property developers and utility providers that control access to fibre infrastructure.

DNB sought lighter regulation in several areas affecting 5G wholesale services.

It supported MCMC’s proposal to remove prior approval of 5G RAO amendments and proposed replacing consultation with Access Seekers with a notify-and-publish approach. DNB said the previous obligation had been designed for the single wholesale network model when DNB was the sole 5G provider.

DNB also wanted several 5G consultation and governance requirements reduced.

It proposed removing Product and Planning Committee requirements, including the requirement for Planning Committee approval of network rollout plans. DNB said these requirements were unlike those applying to other Access List services and noted that its rollout plan under its Detailed Business Plan was already subject to MCMC approval.

DNB also argued that consultation requirements created under the single wholesale network structure should no longer apply in the same way under the dual network model, saying consultation could delay the introduction or removal of services and create coordination difficulties.

MCMC did not accept that the move to two wholesale networks justified removing all of the stronger planning controls. It said the 5G wholesale market remained a duopoly and therefore continued to justify a higher level of regulatory oversight over areas such as network planning and change management.

DNB also opposed allowing the regulated 5G Services to be used by one 5G wholesale network provider to obtain MOCN access to the other provider’s network.

Telekom Malaysia (TM)

TM took one of the clearest contrasting positions across the different wholesale markets.

It opposed putting dark fibre on the Access List in any form.

TM argued that dark fibre was not a bottleneck wholesale service because Access Seekers already had regulated transmission services and Pole, Duct and Manhole Access available to them. It said no clear demand for regulated dark fibre access had been established.

TM also argued that dark fibre regulation could reduce returns on infrastructure investment, discourage capacity expansion and affect efficient fibre deployment. It said problems involving exclusivity, rights of way and data centre access should instead be addressed through existing mechanisms.

TM explicitly said that it did not support dark fibre being included on the Access List even within MCMC’s narrower Exclusive Zone and Restricted Data Centre POE framework.

Its position on 4G MOCN was substantially different.

TM argued that MOCN should be treated as a necessary wholesale input for competition in downstream mobile markets. It told MCMC that out of 1,661 JENDELA Universal Service Provision sites, it was able to access 4G MOCN on only 300 and relied on domestic roaming for the others.

TM also sought stronger MOCN regulation. MCMC recorded that TM proposed additional obligations relating to service performance parameters, operational processes, Planning Committee requirements and change management, to align the 4G MOCN framework more closely with obligations applying to services such as 5G.

MCMC rejected applying the same prescriptive framework to 4G MOCN. It said the stronger controls for 5G reflected the structure of the 5G wholesale market, while 4G MOCN had a greater level of competition and different wholesale supply models.

TM nevertheless supported MCMC’s proposed 4G MOCN framework. MCMC recorded that TM considered it to provide “a strong basis for enabling 4G MOCN Access”.

TM also supported applying the general Network Change obligations to 4G MOCN and did not seek additional service-specific Network Change requirements through that particular part of the MSA.

On 5G RAOs, TM opposed removing MCMC’s prior approval requirement. It described the existing approval process as an important regulatory safeguard that could help prevent disputes and maintain regulatory oversight.

TM was also opposed to the regulated 5G Services being used by DNB or U Mobile to obtain MOCN access to the other wholesale network.

Different positions across different wholesale services

The submissions show that the operators took different positions depending on the wholesale service being considered.

CelcomDigi supported dark fibre regulation while seeking additional operational qualifications for 4G MOCN.

Maxis supported dark fibre but opposed regulated 4G MOCN.

U Mobile sought broader dark fibre regulation while proposing changes to several obligations affecting 4G MOCN and 5G wholesale services.

DNB supported dark fibre while seeking the removal or relaxation of several regulatory requirements that had originated under the single wholesale 5G network model.

TM opposed dark fibre regulation while supporting regulated 4G MOCN Access and proposing additional obligations around the service.

MCMC ultimately proceeded with both new regulated services. It added dark fibre access within the defined Exclusive Zone and Restricted Data Centre POE framework and introduced 4G MOCN Access.

For the separate 5G RAO issue, MCMC confirmed in its MSA review that the requirement for MCMC to approve amendments to 5G RAOs before publication should be removed.