“Starlink should not be used as an excuse to neglect the national connectivity plan.” Interview with Maurizio Goretti, CEO of Namex.

The CEO of the consortium managing Internet exchange points explains the value of the plan being implemented to connect even the most remote areas of Italy. “Musk does amazing things,” but the risk is to be captivated. The solution? A European infrastructure.

BY EMILIO COZZI

Maurizio Goretti is the CEO of Namex, an Italian consortium that manages various Internet exchange points across the national territory and the Mediterranean. According to him, with a degree in Physics and thirty years of experience in the sector, the digital divide related to broadband and ultra-broadband connection in Italy is rapidly improving. This, he suggests, is a reason not to rely on the shortcut of “plugging the gaps,” that is, addressing those white areas where it is not economically viable to create fiber infrastructures, by using satellite constellation services like Starlink. That would be a technological mistake for service quality; moreover, it would subject us to a private monopoly from a non-EU country, the USA. To solve the issue, European countries should unite to build their own infrastructure. However, unlike the United States, Europe’s decision-making ability is hampered by internal divisions.

Goretti, what does Namex do? Simply explained.

“It manages Internet exchange points. The analogy I use to explain it to my friends at dinner is that of air traffic: Namex is like airports. If I need to get to the other side of the world and I need to use different airlines to do so, I’ll make multiple stops and use several airports. For example, an airport like Frankfurt is served by numerous airlines; it’s a hub that allows optimization of travel times, service quality, and costs. In the case of the Internet, a device – a PC or a smartphone – may need to retrieve information from the other side of the world, such as a video. We need to find a way to send the request to a server and get the response back. The request and response,
that is, the content, are the passengers.
The Internet is a collection of networks, each managed by individual entities, which are the service
providers and content providers like Google, Netflix, or Amazon, which in our analogy are the
airlines. These entities are interconnected through Internet exchange points. In this case, Namex
is like Rome’s airport: it connects the ‘airlines’ that transport the content to the users.”

And what happens at the hubs, that is, at the Internet exchange points?

“In our case, in Rome, 250 networks are connected, 250 entities that install their equipment in our
cabinets: the Internet service providers to provide connection services to users, and content
providers. We have a fiber infrastructure that serves to interconnect these networks. To maintain
the aviation analogy, Namex handles the finger and the ramp for boarding and disembarking
passengers.”

What is the advantage of having these networks meet?

“Exchange points improve the quality of content delivery, increasing reliability. They enhance
performance, especially if the content is replicated across multiple hubs. For example, if there is a
problem in Rome but the video is hosted at different exchange points, say in Milan, there would
be no impact.”

What is the state of connectivity in Italy?

“On the recommendation of the European Union, even before the National Recovery and
Resilience Plan, our country had a good plan that is still being implemented to achieve ultrabroadband coverage, mainly fiber optics, FTTH (fiber to the home). Sure, it may be slightly behind
schedule, but it has made significant progress compared to five or six years ago, such as
connecting individual Italian homes either with fiber to the home or with radio broadband. In this
sense, the Pnrr is helping a lot, and I hope it will be carried through to completion.”

And for the more isolated areas?

“The plan is trying to reach everywhere, providing a type of reliable broadband connection.
Bringing fiber is like paving a road: there are ‘market loss’ areas, meaning zones where the
population density would still imply a loss-making investment. It’s difficult for a private company
to invest in those areas, especially in a more expensive infrastructure like fiber. These are the
zones where public funds have been allocated, while in cities, private companies are driven to
invest because they expect economic returns.
In the north, an area of greater wealth, it is easier to build infrastructure, and yet today you can
find broadband almost everywhere because where fiber doesn’t reach, broadband is provided
through licensed radio bridges, meaning radio frequencies designated by the Ministry, limited to
specific uses, and requiring a fee. These ‘market loss’ areas – isolated, mountainous zones – are
the most critical.”

Recently, there has been talk about using a satellite constellation like Starlink to bring broadband
to areas that are not yet covered. What do you think?

“I’m convinced that satellite systems should be used for mobility in areas without standard
coverage, such as 5G, or in emergencies, as it’s an infrastructure not present on Earth. In other
words, in the case of disasters, wars, or earthquakes.
The traditional satellite system, based on satellites about 36,000 kilometers from Earth, requires a
dish and, due to the distance, has very high latency – up to half a second – which is incompatible
with some applications.
Today, there are low-Earth orbit satellite systems, like Starlink, with latencies of 30-50
milliseconds. Even the throughput, the so-called data rates, are much higher: around 100
megabits and often close to a gigabit in download.
However, replacing the coverage plan for white areas – those large market-loss areas – with a
satellite system would be a mistake.”

Why?

“Because we would be handing over critical infrastructure like the Internet to a company that is
neither Italian nor European. The provider is global: Starlink is a monopoly. On the other hand, if
we continued to ‘pave the roads of the Internet’, we could soon have our own national
infrastructure, with better quality from a technical standpoint.
While its performance has improved, the low-Earth orbit system will never match fiber optics:
there will always be the issue of latency, which, while reduced, won’t guarantee a consistent
signal. When an antenna loses a satellite, it must connect to another. There are many orbiting
satellites, and their number will increase, but it will never be the same. Not to mention other
problems.”

Such as?

“Satellite systems imply asymmetry between download and upload: the upload is usually slower.
However, some applications require symmetry. Also, in the case of particularly intense weather
events, cloud cover can cause problems. I think it’s worth building a national or European
infrastructure, and low-Earth orbit satellite systems should be used mainly in emergencies.”

In Italy, however, it’s not uncommon for emergencies to become the rule…

“In this case, we need to raise the issue and be careful because there might be risks in relying on
a private company that holds a monopoly not only on satellite internet communication but also on
the rockets used to launch it. The important thing is that this technology is not used as an excuse
to avoid completing the national gigabit plan.”

The Space Bill, however, refers to a ‘national transmission capacity reserve.’ What do you think?

“If I were a Prime Minister, I would also want to purchase such a reserve to use in case of
disasters. And, unfortunately, we know how common disasters are in our country. That said, it
should also be remembered that a reserve is something you only use in times of need. Of course,
if the company selling it were Italian or European, I would be even happier.”

There’s little talk about OneWeb, the other major satellite constellation specialized in business and
institutional connections, which is now owned by France’s Eutelsat.

“It’s the power of numbers: Starlink has seven thousand satellites, OneWeb has 648. There’s a
factor of scale in play.”

The result is that we constantly look to the United States.

“Let’s be clear: in Europe, there are no private companies capable of doing what Elon Musk has
done. That’s why European states should join forces. Instead, we are divided; even today, if
France undertakes something, it’s not perceived as a European enterprise, so there’s doubt about
how beneficial it might be for others. The United States has far greater economic power
compared to the European Union, a single president, and one government. We have
commissioners, then there are national bodies, directives to be implemented… America has a
different level of decision-making power.”

The European Union is planning its own internet constellation, Iris², with companies that should
build, operate, and also market the services.

“It’s a model very similar to the one adopted to create the fiber infrastructure: public funds and
tenders won by various internet service providers, meaning concessionaires who can resell the
service at rates set by the state. Or like highways, where private companies handle maintenance
and collect tolls.”

Are you suggesting there’s a risk of being dazzled by ‘futuristic’ technologies?

“Let me be clear: Musk produces the best rockets and satellite systems in the world. He’s a
genius. But we must be mindful of the implicit dangers in this scenario: these monopolists are
providing us with truly amazing things—technologies like SpaceX and Starlink that were
unthinkable just a few years ago. However, as a society, we must have a conversation about
monopolies. The European Commission has done a lot with the Digital Service Act and the Digital
Network Act: they have created safeguards by obliging large organizations to comply with certain
rules protecting privacy and consumer rights. Let’s remember: this is not a minor precedent.”

Let’s return to Namex. What are your ‘numbers’?

“Namex is a non-profit consortium founded in 1995 on the Sapienza University campus with three
local providers: Unidata, Mc-Link, and Agorà Telematica, part of the Radical Party. It grew over
time alongside the internet. Today, it hosts 250 operators and data centers in Rome, Bari, Naples,
and one in Albania. It has a total of 15 employees and a turnover of about six million euros. Profits
must be spent not only on personnel but also on the expansion and updating of equipment and
for training. We offer advanced training courses that are hard to find on the market for a
technology that evolves very quickly. We organize events to connect those who run the internet in
Italy and around the world, such as the annual Namex meeting, which involves more than 500
national and international operators. Last year, we hosted it in Naples to celebrate the opening of
the local Internet exchange point.”

Non-profit means neutral?

“The internet is a peculiar entity, born from the grassroots, a bit hippy if you like. Even today, it
doesn’t have a governing body, and it’s completely decentralized. Political power hasn’t yet
managed to influence the internet community, but increasingly, it’s trying to get inside. Just look at
the monitoring of internet shutdowns worldwide: in some countries, it’s normal to shut down the
internet during national exams or for political reasons. Even in countries like England: in London,
they cut off the internet from the underground for fear of terrorist attacks. One can debate
whether this is right or wrong, but the most significant aspect is that one day, a government
decided, ‘At this point, we’re stopping the internet.'”