2 min

Tags in this article

, , ,

EDPnet is protected from creditors until the end of January. The Belgian provider is in dire financial straits. The initial protection period was scheduled to end on December 15, but the date has been moved.

EDPnet’s financial situation came to light in November. The provider asked a Belgian court for temporary protection from creditors, including network operator Proximus.

The request was granted. The protection period was initially scheduled to end on December 15. EDPnet gained immunity on the condition that it contacted creditors to negotiate a solution.

The period has since been extended. EDPnet confirmed in a recent statement that the company will be protected until the end of January. The provider is still attempting to settle with creditors.

EDPnet under pressure

One of the creditors is Proximus, Belgium’s largest network operator. EDPnet doesn’t have its own network. The company uses Proximus’ infrastructure to provide services to customers.

Proximus is co-owned by the Belgian government. The state obliges the operator to make its network available to telecom companies like EDPnet. In return, telecom companies are required to pay wholesale rates. EDPnet has been underpaying structurally.

According to the provider, the financial situation does not affect customers. EDPnet serves more than 40,000 subscribers with fixed internet and about 20,000 with mobile telephony. Back in November, the provider said it saw no reason for bankruptcy.

Strained relationship

The relationship between EDPnet and Proximus is strained. In June 2022, EDPnet filed a complaint about Proximus with the BIPT, Belgium’s telecom regulator. According to EDPnet, Proximus offered Mobile Vikings more favourable wholesale terms than other Belgian telecom companies, including EDPnet itself.

Mobile Vikings is a subsidiary of Proximus. The operator is required by law to charge equal prices to telecom companies, but according to EDPnet, Proximus played favourites with its subsidiary. The status of the case is unknown. BIPT has not publicly responded to the complaint.