NBTC Accused of Procedural Misconduct in Mandatory Access Dispute

MVNO Services Co., Ltd., a licensed Type 1 Mobile Virtual Network Aggregator (MVNA), has formally accused the NBTC Office—the agency’s administrative arm—of procedural misconduct derailing a legally required mandatory network access dispute with the major incumbent operator, True Move H Universal Communication Co., Ltd. (TUC), often referred to as TRUE.

The MVNA has filed a formal Petition to Revoke and/or Amend Administrative Order against the NBTC Board Resolution dated October 9, 2025, which dismissed its dispute with True Move H Universal Communication Co., Ltd. (TRUE).

The Petition asserts that the NBTC Office took unilateral and procedurally defective action by misclassifying the MVNA’s request and omitting crucial exculpatory evidence from the NBTC Board’s review.

The NBTC Office altered the case’s classification without Board instruction, reframing the issue from a mandatory refusal to negotiate network access (“Dispute”) to a non-mandatory licensing-type issue (“Complaint”).

This procedural misclassification blocked the NBTC Board from making a ruling on a mandatory access dispute, thereby circumventing the NBTC Office’s own authority to prevent an impartial review of the case with the network operator TRUE.

The rationale used by the NBTC Office to dismiss the TRUE case was its self-governed judgment that MVNO Services’ platform architecture exceeded the scope of its existing Type 1 license.

The Office consequently classified the platform as requiring a Type 3 Telecommunications Business License (Full MVNO).

The Office presented the company with two absurd options:

1. Apply for a Type 3 license – This classification is highly controversial, as the Type 3 (Full MVNO) license does not currently exist in Thailand’s regulatory framework, with the NBTC still developing the rules for such. The Office’s action of directing the licensed MVNA to apply for an unavailable license creates a severe bureaucratic Catch-22.

2. Downgrade its architecture to what is deemed compliant for Type 1, such as a Medium MVNO setup — the very configuration the company was already licensed for and actively pursuing.

MVNO Services Co., Ltd. established operations in Thailand in direct support of the NBTC’s mandate to promote Mobile Virtual Network Operators (MVNO) for increased market competition and innovation.

The MVNA sought wholesale access to the two network operators, TRUE and Advanced Info Service (AIS).

This access is mandated by NBTC notifications and further reinforced by the NBTC’s 2022 TRUE-DTAC merger conditions, which obligate the merged entity to offer MVNO access to new entrants within 60 days of a valid request.

TRUE refused MVNO Services’ request for access, and in accordance with regulatory procedure, MVNO Services then filed a formal dispute case with the NBTC on March 10, 2025.

The MVNA’s Petition confirms a critical procedural failure: the NBTC Office failed to present the Board with evidence demonstrating MVNO Services’ repeated, good-faith attempts to ensure technical compliance before filing the dispute.

Documents, including the initial Letter of Intent (LoI) for Request of Access, emails before, and follow-up correspondence, reveal that MVNO Services made at least five explicit requests for technical clarification meetings with TRUE.

The stated purpose was to discuss TRUE’s prerequisites and tailor the MVNA’s architecture to fit the Thai Type 1 license. MVNO Services also suggested to TRUE, that they could invite the NBTC to a meeting so they could help clarify.

By omitting these documented requests for dialogue, the NBTC Office’s final report made it appear to the Board that the MVNA was unilaterally attempting to force a non-compliant platform design, thus justifying its dismissal of the mandatory “Dispute” status.

The MVNA’s Type 1 license, approved and awarded in 2024, included the company’s platform architecture as part of the application process, demonstrating prior NBTC acceptance.

The company argues the NBTC’s prior approval of its Type 1 license based on the architecture serves as regulatory confirmation of its compliance, making the Office’s objection invalid.

Internal NBTC documents show that the NBTC Board is aware that the Type 3 Full MVNO license framework is not yet ready.

Furthermore, official NBTC Board Meeting Minutes indicate that commissioners acknowledged that the potential full scope of MVNO Services’ technical capabilities is considered standard and compliant under the new, comprehensive MVNO/MVNA framework the NBTC is currently developing.

The Office’s decision to classify the platform as Type 3 while the regulator is unable to issue such a license directly conflicts with the Board’s established policy direction.

The NBTC Board’s reliance on the Office’s briefing sparked significant internal dissent among the commissioners, evidenced in the meeting minutes from August 2025.

• Air Chief Marshal Dr. Thanapant Raicharoen expressed “concern and a lack of confidence regarding the Office’s consideration process”. He argued that the NBTC “should accept the matter for consideration first, and then rule on it later,” as the correct procedure. He stated that when the buyer and seller cannot agree on a contract, “the dispute had already arisen” in accordance with Clauses 28 and 29 of the NBTC Notification, and thus the NBTC Office’s proposal to reject the dispute for non-qualification was “contradictory” to the rules.
• Prof. Dr. Suphat Suphachalasai warned that reviewing the MVNA’s qualifications before formally triggering the dispute process would be a procedural failure, stating metaphorically that it would “become an action that is like the rear wheel overtaking the front wheel”, emphasizing that qualification should be considered after the dispute process has been triggered.
• Emeritus Dr. Pirongrong Ramasoota filed a written dissenting opinion against the final resolution and challenged the legal risks of the dismissal. She noted that the 90-day statutory deadline for the NBTC to rule had been violated, stating the case’s 90-day ruling period “expired on August 17, 2025, and by the time it was put on the agenda, the 90-day limit had already been exceeded”. She also questioned whether the NBTC was at risk of being sued if it rejected the dispute despite the company’s right to enter the process, and cited the binding TRUE–DTAC merger conditions that require the merged entity to provide MVNO access.
• Commissioner Torpong Selanon inquired about the proper counting of the 90-day deadline, asking how the timing would be reconciled if the NBTC chose to dismiss the case rather than rule on the dispute itself. Pointing out the procedural difficulty created by the NBTC Office’s action: if the Office’s proposal to dismiss the case (saying it wasn’t a dispute) was accepted, how could the NBTC legally justify the fact that the 90-day mandatory deadline for ruling on a dispute had already passed?

Compounding the Regulatory Failure: This internal dissent highlights a critical timeline failure. MVNO Services was already forced to wait more than 90 days for TRUE (and AIS) to answer the request for access.

Subsequently, the NBTC Office allowed the case to languish for more than 90 additional days before issuing the flawed resolution at the meeting above on the on 27th of August 2025, while not informing MVNO Services until October 9, 2025.

This entire process resulted in a delay exceeding half a year (over seven months) of regulatory inaction and procedural block since the formal dispute was filed March 10, 2025, effectively blocking the MVNA’s market entry.

The procedural failure against TRUE is part of a broader pattern of incumbent non-compliance. Neither TRUE nor AIS has successfully granted network access to any MVNA/MVNO for over a decade.

With National Telecom (NT) having ceased providing network access to MVNOs, TRUE and AIS are the sole access gateways.

The NBTC Chairman has publicly promoted MVNOs internationally and locally, yet enforcement remains absent.

The situation is compounded by a concurrent dispute with AIS. AIS declined access to MVNO Services by citing self-imposed, arbitrary rules requiring an MVNA/MVNO to have “x years of operational history in the market,” before being able to get access, creating a severe Catch-22 for new entrants. How can you prove operational history if you can’t get access in the first place?

MVNO Services filed a dispute on AIS, asserting that the NBTC, not the operator, is setting the rules in the country.

This coordinated resistance, combined with the NBTC Office’s procedural actions, effectively nullifies the mandatory access laws and the binding TRUE-DTAC merger conditions.

The controversy occurs as the NBTC —on paper — strives to modernize its MVNO framework. But instead of serving as a progressive pilot, the case has become an example of bureaucratic obstruction.

The decision not only sends a dangerous signal to investors, high-level government agencies and international trade bodies have been made aware of the NBTC’s decision on the TRUE case, and the imposition of Non-Tariff Barrier (NTB) to market access.

This regulatory failure comes at a critical time when Thailand is currently under review for OECD membership, engaged in Free Trade Agreement (FTA) negotiations with the European Union (EU), and is conducting tariffs negotiations with the United States (US).

If the regulatory office can manipulate case classifications, withhold factual evidence, and allow incumbents to impose non-statutory access barriers while simultaneously overseeing protracted delays—totalling nearly seven months of regulatory limbo—confidence in the neutrality and integrity of Thailand’s telecom governance could be severely eroded, jeopardizing Thailand’s global standing and trade objectives.

The continued pattern from the NBTC towards MVNA and MVNO suggests the regulatory process may be compromised to favour dominant market players over new competition.

“This is not only about one company—it’s about the integrity of Thailand’s telecommunications regulation,” say MVNO Services CEO Allan Rasmussen. “The Board must act to ensure that the rules are set by the regulator, not by the incumbents, and that the mandatory dispute process, which has already been delayed for over half a year, is protected from administrative sabotage.”

MVNO Services’ Petition formally demands that the NBTC revoke its October 9 resolution and immediately reclassify the TRUE matter as a formal dispute.

This action would officially correct the procedural error and require the NBTC to commence the long-delayed mandatory mediation and arbitration process, for which the statutory ruling deadline has already been exceeded.

Having witnessed the procedural misconduct in the TRUE case—specifically, the erroneous use of the Type 3 classification to misclassify the matter and omit exculpatory evidence—MVNO Services immediately contacted the NBTC Office to make it unequivocally clear that these tactics cannot be used to dismiss the access dispute filed against AIS as well.

The outcome of these administrative appeals is a critical test of the NBTC’s commitment to fairness and its legal mandate.

The petition now awaits the NBTC Board’s reconsideration, a process that will determine whether Thailand’s regulator reinforces or erodes confidence in its telecom governance.

The NBTC office is already trying to avoid it by saying that the only way to “appeal” the decision is by filing a case directly with the Administrative Court.

However, this is not procedurally correct under Thailand’s administrative law. Before any judicial appeal, a petitioner must first exhaust all internal administrative remedies — and the current petition serves precisely that purpose.

By proceeding with this formal reconsideration request, MVNO Services seeks to ensure that the NBTC follows its own internal review process before the matter escalates to the courts, preserving both procedural integrity and regulatory accountability.