By Bosphorus News Geopolitics Desk
Türkiye and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) signed a supplementary protocol for the Turkish Cypriot side's fiber-optic project in Ankara on Aug. 19, five months after the original agreement was sent to the Constitutional Court and following a year of objections over competition, public control and the terms of a 25-year operating model.
Vice President Cevdet Yılmaz said the addendum clarified provisions that had caused public concern and strengthened the framework for implementing the project. As of Aug. 24, however, the full text had not been published. Tel-Sen, the telecommunications workers' union that has challenged the original agreement, says it has seen neither the addendum nor the detailed feasibility report it has sought for about a year.
The problem is unusually simple for a dispute that has moved through parliament and into court. The governments say they changed the agreement to answer objections. The organizations that raised many of those objections say they cannot see what was changed.
The 25-Year Terms Are Already in the Public Record
The fiber project developed through two agreements in 2025.
The first step came on July 11, when Yılmaz and TRNC Prime Minister Ünal Üstel signed a memorandum setting out plans to develop fiber infrastructure and create a business model for delivering fiber services to homes and businesses. Technical work was followed by a detailed cooperation protocol signed on Sept. 24, defining the legal, technical, tax and operational structure of the project. Yılmaz said that protocol was published in the TRNC Official Gazette on Oct. 23 and in Türkiye's Official Gazette on Dec. 31.
The published agreement leaves little ambiguity about the length of the arrangement.
It defines the investor as Türk Telekom or authorized TRNC companies in which Türk Telekom holds shares. Türk Telekom itself is 60 percent owned by the Türkiye Wealth Fund, with another 25 percent held by Türkiye's Treasury and Finance Ministry and the remaining 15 percent publicly traded.
Article 6.1(d) gives the investor responsibility for designing, constructing, maintaining and operating all existing and new fiber infrastructure covered by the project for 25 years from the date of the protocol. At the end of that period, the infrastructure is to be transferred in working condition and free of encumbrances to the Telecommunications Department or another public institution designated by the Turkish Cypriot government.
The same provision commits the investor to reaching 150,000 homes or business premises during the first year, provided the permits, excavation approvals, tax arrangements and other administrative measures promised under the agreement are delivered. The Council of Ministers can grant another year if the target is missed.
Other provisions explain much of the resistance that followed.
Article 7.1(i) states that unless the control change defined in the protocol occurs, no company other than the investor is to be authorized to carry internet traffic from the TRNC abroad.
Article 7.1(j) says that during the contract period, authority to build fiber infrastructure within the TRNC and provide services over that infrastructure belongs solely to the investor. If the Telecommunications Department builds fiber infrastructure itself, the clause says it cannot transfer that infrastructure to a third party, use it commercially or allow it to be used commercially.
The agreement does not, however, simply remove existing internet service providers from the market.
Article 6.1(k) requires the investor to provide wholesale service to internet service providers over the fiber-to-the-home network and carry their traffic through to the internet gateway. The argument is consequently about who controls the underlying network, international connectivity and access conditions as much as it is about who sells internet service to the customer.
The investor is also allowed to use existing Telecommunications Department infrastructure, including ducts, manholes, poles, buildings and supporting facilities needed for the network. Other parts of the agreement retain responsibilities and parts of the existing system within the department.
Opponents have described the model in harsher terms. The Internet Service Providers Association has argued that it would divert substantial Telecommunications Department revenue and create a 25-year monopoly. Those claims are the association's characterization. The document itself establishes exclusive rights over the fiber infrastructure covered by the agreement while also requiring wholesale access for authorized service providers.
That difference is important when judging the competing claims. The published text is restrictive in several areas, but it also contains a wholesale-access mechanism. Whether the Aug. 19 addendum changes either side of that structure is not yet publicly known.
The Government Has Published a Financial Model, Not the Report Tel-Sen Wants
The cost of the project has produced another argument.
On Feb. 23, the TRNC Finance Ministry released a financial assessment built around a 25-year period. It assumed that fixed broadband subscriptions would reach 120,000 in the fourteenth year and estimated investment at $112 million over 25 years, with $89 million spent during the first two years.
Under those assumptions, the ministry projected $183.5 million in combined state revenue over the full period, including turnover-sharing income, leased-circuit revenue for the Telecommunications Department and corporate tax.
The same model estimated $831 million in investor revenue and $477 million in investment, operating and tax expenses.
The ministry explicitly cautioned that the calculation was not a guaranteed income commitment. It described it as a model based on technical, financial and operational assumptions that could change over such a long period.
That document does not settle Tel-Sen's demand.
Üredi says the union has been asking for the underlying feasibility report for about a year and still has not received it. On Aug. 24 he pointed to several project-cost figures that have circulated publicly and said the detailed investment assumptions could not be tested without the report itself.
The government has therefore published a financial projection. The document the union says would show the basis for the technical and investment calculations remains unavailable to it.
The Dispute Moved From Parliament to Court
By February, the argument had moved well beyond the telecommunications sector.
The Republic Assembly's Legal, Political Affairs, Foreign Relations and Defense Committee approved the ratification bill by majority vote and sent it to the plenary. Representatives from the telecommunications regulator, Telecommunications Department, Tel-Sen, engineering chambers and Internet Service Providers Association were among those invited to give their views during the committee process.
The first attempt to push the bill through the chamber produced a marathon session.
Parliament began debating it on the evening of Feb. 16. The sitting ran for about 19 hours and ended the following day without a vote after a procedural confrontation on the floor. Tel-Sen called a full-day strike as the debate continued.
CTP lawmaker Fide Kürşat, speaking during the long session, called the protocol unconstitutional, untendered and questionable and asked who would ultimately own the infrastructure. She also criticized the government for proceeding without first obtaining a written opinion from the Attorney General's Office.
The government returned the bill to parliament on Feb. 23. It passed by 27 votes to 20.
CTP leader Sıla Usar İncirli said during that debate that her party was not opposing fiber infrastructure. She argued that high-speed, affordable and regulated internet was necessary, while challenging the absence of a tender and provisions she considered harmful to public institutions and competition.
President Tufan Erhürman then moved the file into the constitutional system.
On March 10, Erhürman referred the ratification law to the Constitutional Court under Article 146 of the TRNC Constitution, asking the court to determine whether the law was compatible with the constitution. He also said agreements of this nature should in future be preceded by a written opinion from the Attorney General's Office, which serves as the state's legal adviser.
The case produced a further complication in May.
Ve Kıbrıs reported on May 20 that the Attorney General's Office had informed the government that it could not represent the government in defending parliament's finding of constitutionality because it considered five provisions of the protocol unconstitutional. The outlet also reported that private lawyers assigned to defend the law wanted a supplementary protocol prepared before the case proceeded, while Turkish authorities were at that stage reluctant to change the agreement during the court proceedings.
The first hearing was scheduled for May 21.
Bosphorus News has not independently obtained the Attorney General's written opinion or the court filings described in that report. A search of the public record also found no published Constitutional Court ruling or later official notice resolving the case as of Aug. 24.
The Chamber of Electrical Engineers (EMO) still referred to the Constitutional Court process as continuing when it issued its statement after the Aug. 19 signing.
What the Aug. 19 Addendum Is Supposed to Fix
The supplementary agreement that had been discussed through the parliamentary and legal dispute was finally signed in Ankara on Aug. 19.
Yılmaz gave a direct explanation for why it was needed.
He said authorities had followed the public concerns raised over provisions of the implementation protocol and worked on changes that took account of sensitivities expressed by TRNC institutions. The document signed with Üstel, he said, clarified those matters and strengthened the implementation framework.
Üstel presented the agreement as the point at which the fiber project would move into implementation.
He said the investment was not limited to faster internet and tied it to e-government services, public-sector data systems and future digital infrastructure. His government wants fiber to reach homes and businesses during 2027.
Public Works and Transport Minister Erhan Arıklı had argued for months that an additional protocol could deal with the provisions at the center of the constitutional dispute.
The difficulty now is that the document intended to settle that argument has not been released.
No official publication examined by Bosphorus News as of Aug. 24 contains the full Aug. 19 text or identifies article by article what it changed in the September 2025 protocol.
That prevents a clean legal comparison.
The 25-year operating term may have been retained, amended or qualified. The exclusivity language governing network construction may have changed. The clause dealing with international internet traffic may have been revised. New competition or retail safeguards may have been added.
None of those possibilities can be reported as fact until the addendum is available.
The September agreement remains the latest detailed text that can be examined publicly, while the Turkish and Turkish Cypriot governments say the new agreement modifies the areas that generated concern.
Üredi Says Türk Telekom Itself Is Not the Issue
Tel-Sen's response since the signing has been more specific than a simple rejection of Türk Telekom.
Üredi said the union learned through the media that the supplementary protocol had been signed and complained that neither Tel-Sen nor other sector stakeholders had been briefed beforehand. In a written statement on Aug. 20, he called for the full document to be released and for a consultation process involving the affected organizations.
Speaking on Kıbrıs Press TV four days later, he said the union supports bringing fiber to homes and businesses and does not oppose Türk Telekom investing in northern Cyprus.
He described Türk Telekom as a strong telecommunications company and said the prospect of its investment had initially been welcomed. His objection, he said, began after the original protocol was examined and centered on the powers and privileges created by its terms.
"I don't want you to leave this country. I want you to come to this country," Üredi said, making the distinction between opposition to the operator and opposition to the contract.
He asked for two documents: the Aug. 19 supplementary protocol and the detailed feasibility report.
His position was equally direct on the technology itself. Fiber should arrive, he said, but the public should know the terms under which it is being introduced.
Üredi also proposed a different financing route. He argued that the Telecommunications Department could build the network in stages by allocating part of its own revenue, beginning with an investment of roughly $10 million to $15 million and reinvesting subsequent returns into further construction.
That figure is Üredi's estimate, not an independently tested alternative to the government plan. The Finance Ministry's published model envisages $89 million of investment in the first two years alone, so the two proposals cannot be treated as equivalent without a technical comparison.
The objections are not confined to Tel-Sen.
EMO said on Aug. 21 that it supports extending modern fiber infrastructure across the territory but wants the supplementary protocol published in full. The chamber asked which provisions of the original agreement were changed, how the new document interacts with the Constitutional Court proceedings and what rules will govern wholesale access, pricing, competition, the Telecommunications Department's finances, data security and network control.
EMO also warned that if a single structure operates the fiber infrastructure, competing providers need equal, transparent and non-discriminatory wholesale access. If infrastructure operation and retail internet service sit within the same economic group, it said, stronger regulatory safeguards would be needed.
The CTP position follows much the same fault line. The party supports fiber deployment but has opposed the procurement model, the lack of a tender and provisions it says weaken public control and competition.
The result is an argument in which almost none of the principal actors dispute the need for fiber.
They dispute the contract.
The Gas Pipeline Runs the Other Way
The fiber agreement belongs to a wider group of infrastructure projects tying Türkiye and the Turkish Cypriot side more directly together.
Yılmaz made that connection himself on Aug. 19. He referred to the memorandum on supplying natural gas to the TRNC signed with Üstel on July 10 and listed energy, connectivity and digitalization among the fields in which the two governments are expanding cooperation. Üstel also placed fiber, natural gas and the planned electricity interconnection within the same infrastructure program.
Bosphorus News has previously reported how the Türkiye-TRNC natural gas pipeline project became a legal and diplomatic dispute with the Republic of Cyprus.
The fiber file has developed differently.
Its immediate opposition is coming from inside the Turkish Cypriot system. The arguments being raised by Tel-Sen, engineering bodies, service providers and the opposition are not primarily about recognition, maritime jurisdiction or the political status of the TRNC. They concern procurement, public revenue, competition, constitutional authority and control over telecommunications infrastructure.
That makes the Aug. 19 document unusually important.
The supplementary protocol was presented as the answer to objections that had already delayed legislation, triggered strikes and taken the ratification law to the Constitutional Court.
Yet the public debate is still being conducted against the September 2025 agreement because that is the text everyone can actually read.
It contains the 25-year operating period, the investor's exclusive rights over fiber construction covered by the agreement, restrictions on authorizing another company for international internet traffic and extensive access to existing public telecommunications infrastructure. It also requires wholesale access for internet service providers and provides for the network to return to public control when the contract period ends.
If the Aug. 19 addendum changes those terms, publication will show by how much.
Until then, the document signed to resolve the fiber dispute remains the part of the agreement that the people disputing it cannot examine.
Sources: TRNC Public Information Office, Türkiye Official Gazette, TRNC Official Gazette, TRNC Finance Ministry, Türk Telekom, Türk Ajansı Kıbrıs, Tel-Sen, Chamber of Electrical Engineers, Internet Service Providers Association, Republican Turkish Party, Kıbrıs Press, Haber Kıbrıs, Ve Kıbrıs, Bosphorus News review and reporting.