EU’s Huawei and ZTE Ban Bill May Reach €40 Billion, Far Exceeding Brussels Estimates

The cost of removing high-risk vendors like Huawei and ZTE from European 5G networks could hit €40 billion, sparking a fierce debate among experts over industry calculations and official estimates.

The Bill for Ousting Chinese Suppliers

The bill for pushing Chinese suppliers out of European telecommunications networks may prove significantly higher than Brussels assumes. According to a report by GSMA, an organization representing mobile operators, described by Politico, direct costs of replacing equipment from so-called high-risk vendors could reach up to €40 billion. This is four times the estimates of the European Commission.

The dispute primarily concerns equipment from Huawei and ZTE, companies that for years have been pointed out in the EU’s 5G security debate as vendors carrying heightened risk. The European Commission wants restrictions previously resulting mainly from voluntary recommendations to become part of hard rules under a new version of the EU Cybersecurity Act. In practice, this would mean the necessity of removing critical components from mobile, fixed, and transport networks.

Comparing GSMA and Brussels Calculations

Official calculations by Brussels assume the operation would cost €3.4–4.3 billion annually for three years, totaling about €10–13 billion. GSMA presents a much higher bill. According to the organization, replacing elements in mobile networks alone would cost €16–22 billion, investing in fixed networks another €5 billion, and transforming transport infrastructure 9–12 billion euros. The organization also adds €8.5 billion in additional costs between 2027 and 2030, resulting from reduced competition among equipment manufacturers.

For telecommunications operators, this is an argument that potential regulatory decisions should be spread out over time and connected with a compensation mechanism (some European courts see it similarly, awarding damages from governments to operators forced to replace technically sound devices). The industry warns that a sudden acceleration of equipment replacement could limit funds for 5G investments, network modernization, and infrastructure resilience. However, the political goal is equally obvious: the Union wants to reduce dependence on technology from third countries that may be considered risky from the standpoint of the security and resilience of critical services.

Expert Criticism of GSMA Figures

However, not all experts accept GSMA’s calculations without reservations. In a commentary quoted by Politico, Hosuk Lee-Makiyama, director of the ECIPE think tank, points out that the organization adopts gross values rather than incremental costs. In other words, the report is said to also include a portion of expenditures that operators would incur anyway in the natural cycle of network modernization. After subtracting them, the result—according to the expert—could be close to the level estimated by the Commission.

This is a key difference. If the cost of policy is calculated as the full value of dismantling and purchasing new equipment, the bill looks dramatic. However, if it is taken into account that some devices would be replaced regardless of regulations—due to aging technology, increasing network traffic, or the end of manufacturer support—the burden resulting solely from EU decisions may be smaller.

Consequences for Operators, Investments, and Service Prices

The dispute over methodology does not change the fact that the Union is entering an expensive phase of technological policy which—for geopolitical reasons—is closely tied to defense policy. Supply chain security is ceasing to be an abstract slogan and is becoming a concrete item in corporate balance sheets and state budgets. The sharper the deadlines and the fewer suppliers remaining on the market, the greater the risk that consumers will pay indirectly for cybersecurity—in service prices or in slower investment pace.

Therefore, the EU decision will not merely be a technical cleanup of networks after Huawei and ZTE. It will be a test of whether Europe can combine security with competitiveness and whether infrastructure resilience policy can be pursued without excessively burdening operators.