Margus Nõlvak: Fear of fraud should not block fair telecom competition in Estonia

Columnist Margus Nõlvak argues that Estonian telecom customers are forced to spend a month negotiating and threatening to leave just to get a fair price. The Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs proposed faster number portability as a solution, but the idea quickly drew criticism.

In Estonia, getting a fair price for a telecom service requires an absurd ritual: a customer must spend an entire month bargaining with their provider and threatening to cancel before they are offered a reasonable deal. Columnist Margus Nõlvak argues this is not a sustainable or consumer-friendly status quo.

The Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs stepped in with what seemed like a straightforward fix — speeding up number portability, making it easier for customers to switch operators quickly and without friction. In theory, this should increase competitive pressure on providers and force them to offer fair prices upfront rather than only when a customer is halfway out the door.

However, the proposal was met almost immediately with pushback. Critics raised concerns about the potential for fraud and misuse if the portability process were accelerated. Nõlvak contends that while fraud prevention is a legitimate concern, it should not be used as a convenient shield to protect incumbent operators from genuine market competition.

The author calls for a clearer-eyed look at who benefits from the current slow and cumbersome system, and who suffers. Consumers, particularly those less willing or able to engage in drawn-out negotiations, end up paying more than loyal customers arguably should. Protecting them from overpricing is just as important as protecting them from fraud.

Nõlvak's argument ultimately lands on a principle: a well-functioning digital society cannot afford to let vague fears override concrete improvements to market fairness. Estonia, as a country that prides itself on its digital governance and innovation, should be capable of designing fraud safeguards that do not simultaneously kill competition.