Our latest news and insights
The latest news and insights
The Real Question Isn't How Many Operators — It's Whether They Can Operate Efficiently
For most of the mobile data era, operators have watched the same two lines on a chart drift toward each other: return on capital employed and the cost of capital. GSMA Intelligence's July 2026 report puts numbers on it. Across 24 major operator groups, pre-tax ROCE fell from around 13% in 2015 to roughly 9-10% today, while the cost of capital has barely moved. The gap that used to justify investment is narrowing — and in some markets it has vanished.
The industry's dominant explanation is scale. Bigger operators spread fixed costs — spectrum, sites, core infrastructure — across more customers, so their margins hold up better. The GSMA data backs this: analysing 394 operators across 154 countries, the second-largest operator in a market runs EBITDA margins about 1.9 points below the leader, the third around 5.5 points below, and the fourth as much as 16 points below. Sub-scale hurts.
But the conclusion most people draw from that — fewer operators, larger markets — misses what's actually driving the problem. The issue isn't the number of players. It's the cost base each player is forced to carry.
Where the margin actually leaks
The GSMA report is clear that telecoms networks are defined by high fixed costs that “do not vary significantly with the number of users served.” That's the real mechanism. When a smaller operator has to buy a full-stack, monolithic core to serve a fraction of the subscribers a market leader serves, the economics are broken before the first customer is connected. The fixed cost is the same; the base to spread it over is smaller.
That framing matters because it points to a second lever that the consolidation debate tends to ignore: if you can't grow the denominator quickly, you can shrink the numerator. An operator that only deploys and pays for the network functions it actually needs — and can scale them independently as demand grows — carries a fundamentally lighter fixed-cost load than one locked into an all-or-nothing platform. This is where architecture stops being a technical detail and becomes a financial one.
Modularity as a cost-base strategy
A modular core changes the fixed-cost equation. Instead of provisioning an entire converged stack up front, an operator can deploy the specific functions its business case requires — SMSC, SDM, policy control, IMS, or a full Mobile Core — and add capacity or capabilities as subscribers and traffic grow. Fixed costs track the business rather than front-running it.
For the operators GSMA identifies as most exposed — the second, third and fourth players, and the smaller regional and specialised operators outside the headline markets — this is the difference between an investment case that closes and one that doesn't. It's also the model that fits the fastest-growing edges of the market: IoT deployments and private networks, where the subscriber base is defined narrowly by design and a monolithic core would never pay back.
Summa Networks builds for exactly this. A Full Core for Mobile, IoT and Private Networks, delivered modularly, lets operators reach efficient scale on their own terms — deploying what the business needs, spreading fixed costs sensibly, and scaling without waiting for a merger that regulators may never approve.
The consumer side of the argument
One of the more useful findings in the GSMA report is that greater scale, where it has happened, did not come at the expense of consumers. In Latin America, higher concentration was associated with more capex per connection and faster download speeds, with no measurable effect on prices. In Europe, three-player markets invested around 48% more per connection than four-player markets, with roughly 15% faster average speeds — again without evidence of higher prices.
It's worth being precise about what actually produces those benefits. It isn't size in itself — it's the investment capacity that stronger finances unlock. Scale improves margins, better margins create room to invest, and that investment translates into faster, higher-quality networks. Scale is the starting point of that chain, but not the only possible one.
That's the opening for any operator that can't — or won't — grow through a merger: if what ultimately funds better networks is the operator's financial health, then lowering the cost base architecturally reaches the same destination by another route. A lighter core unlocks the same investment headroom that scale is meant to deliver, without the operator giving up its independence or its market.
What this means for operators planning their next investment cycle
GSMA's own analysis points to an inverted-U relationship: investment and network quality rise with scale, then flatten as returns diminish. The practical takeaway for operators under margin pressure is not to chase size for its own sake, but to reach efficient scale — the point where fixed costs are well spread and capital is deployed where it earns a return.
For many operators, the faster route to that point isn't a merger. It's an architecture that lets them right-size their network to their business, function by function, and grow it as the numbers justify.
If you're re-examining your core architecture ahead of your next investment cycle, talk to our team about how a modular Full Core can lower your fixed-cost base.
Source: GSMA Intelligence, Financial sustainability: mobile operator scale (July 2026)
Latest Blog
Hybrid networks, tighter budgets: two signals reshaping how operators plan their core
