About this paper
This paper examines the regulatory and market status of indoor mobile infrastructure across Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland. It is addressed primarily to national regulators (PTS, Nkom, Energistyrelsen and Traficom) with the aim of supporting informed regulatory analysis and, where relevant, policy development in this area. Operators and property owners with an interest in the Nordic regulatory environment will also find it relevant.
This paper is a companion to Closing the indoor connectivity gap: a policy and market case for neutral host infrastructure (Proptivity, 2025). That paper sets out the full structural and technical case for dedicated indoor mobile infrastructure: why outdoor networks cannot reliably serve modern buildings, why the operator-led deployment model is structurally insufficient, and why neutral host infrastructure is the necessary response. This paper takes those conclusions as a starting point and applies them to the specific regulatory and market context of the four Nordic countries. Readers who want the technical and economic foundation should consult the companion paper alongside this one.
The central finding
No Nordic country has a regulatory barrier preventing the deployment of shared indoor mobile infrastructure. The obstacles are structural and commercial, not regulatory. The question is whether regulation will remain passive as the market transitions, or whether targeted intervention, particularly around public safety coverage and operator cooperation obligations, can accelerate deployment.
Download the full report using the below link:
Executive Summary
Mobile connectivity has become one of the most critical utilities in modern buildings, not just for calls and messaging, but for how people work, how services are delivered, and how buildings themselves operate. At the same time, outdoor mobile networks are not designed to serve indoor environments reliably. Modern buildings, with energy-efficient materials such as low-emissivity glass and dense insulation, can reduce indoor signal strength by a factor of 100 to 10,000 relative to the outdoor environment. The transition to 5G, which relies on higher-frequency spectrum with weaker penetration characteristics, makes this worse.
The result is a structural gap between expectation and reality that is growing, not shrinking. According to third-party analyst research, fewer than 5% of commercial buildings across European markets currently have purpose-built indoor mobile infrastructure. The operator-led model, in which individual operators deploy indoor coverage for their own subscribers, cannot close this gap at scale. The economic incentive to invest in indoor infrastructure sits primarily with property owners, whose asset value, rental income and tenant retention are directly affected by connectivity quality, while operators capture relatively little incremental revenue from improved indoor performance regardless of the building. This structural misalignment is the root cause of under-delivery, and it is the reason independent shared infrastructure (neutral host) has emerged as the appropriate response.
Across the Nordics, the regulatory picture is broadly consistent: no country has specific legislation governing neutral host or shared indoor infrastructure. Neutral host deployment is possible in all four markets under general telecom and spectrum regulation. The differences lie not in what is prohibited, but in what is enabled, incentivised or driven by specific national circumstances.
Sweden is the most commercially advanced market, driven by organised property owner demand for high-performance 5G indoor systems. The gap between the intended model and actual operator adoption is the defining tension. Norway has the most structured industry framework, with active regulator engagement and operators broadly open to a range of technical solutions. Denmark is at an earlier stage, with the market still centred on proven passive DAS solutions and limited demand for next-generation shared systems. Finland is shaped by a distinctive driver that does not exist in the other three markets: the transition of public safety communications from TETRA to commercial 4G/5G networks, which creates an indirect but tangible regulatory requirement for indoor coverage in certain building categories.
The cross-market observation is that the transition to shared, high-performance indoor mobile infrastructure is underway but unevenly distributed, and that its pace is determined primarily by commercial alignment between operators and property owners rather than by regulatory requirements. Regulation has a supporting role to play, particularly in ensuring operator cooperation cannot block deployment and in addressing the public safety coverage gap as TETRA networks are retired, but it is not the primary lever.
Summary of cross-market regulatory considerations
1. Clarify the regulatory status of neutral host infrastructure operators, including registration and compliance obligations.
2. Establish enforceable cooperation timelines for operator integration into shared indoor systems.
3. Address the public safety indoor coverage gap as TETRA networks transition to commercial 4G/5G.
4. Consider building regulation requirements for indoor infrastructure readiness in new commercial construction.
5. Publish clear guidance on spectrum leasing and transfer as it applies to shared indoor systems.