Thank you and good morning, everyone. Thanks for joining us today.

I have with me Diego Galli, INWIT General Manager, and Emilia Trudu, Chief Financial Officer. Before we begin, please allow me to draw your attention to the safe harbor statement on page 2 of the presentation.

Following a brief presentation on the Q1 2026 results, we will open the floor to questions. Over to you, Diego.

Thank you, Luigi, and good morning, everyone. In today's session, we share our Q1 2026 results, which are consistent with our full year 2026 guidance, reflecting the current telecom market context; a reminder of our 2026 guidance and medium-term baseline outlook, both of which are fully reiterated; and a recap of our key strategic points of strength centered on INWIT's high-quality and unique network.

The telco sector in Italy continues to go through a challenging phase with low returns and minimum investment from operators. Neutral host infra players can play a key role in this context, leveraging on sharing economics to deliver investments in digitalization in the most efficient way.

Our MSAs create value thanks to the consolidation of infrastructure and the unlocking of sharing synergies to the benefit of all parties. As you already know, our anchor tenants sent us early termination notices in March.

We have been clear that both fall outside the legal framework of the MSAs and have taken legal actions to protect INWIT. Anyway, our wish is to move from the legal ground back to business and industrial investments.

INWIT remains committed to invest while collaborating with its customers to identify shared value-for-value solutions. Moving to the next slides, Q1 results are consistent with our full year 2026 guidance.

New sites and new PoPs reflect the current market context, while the pace of real estate transactions remains sustained. As we anticipated, revenues on reported basis are declining year-on-year by around 1%.

Revenues are impacted by the absence of uncommitted revenues linked to discretionary, project-based revenues. If we were to remove such discretionary, project-based revenues from the Q1 2025 numbers, the Q1 2026 revenues would show a normalized annual growth above 3%.

EBITDA after leases margins, at around 72%, are in line with guidance. Our leverage ratio remains stable quarter-over-quarter at 5.2 times.

In a few days, we will pay about €500 million in ordinary dividend, which implies a dividend yield of more than 7% at current levels, reflecting the current undervalued share price. I hand it over to Emilia now for a review of KPIs and the financials.

Thank you, Diego, and good morning, everyone. Operational KPIs in the quarter reflect the current challenging market context.

30 new towers in Q1 is a soft start. We expect a pickup in H2, in line with our targets of around 200 new towers in 2026.

Around 300 new PoPs in the quarter, with tenancy ratio growing to 2.39. We are aiming for more than 1,500 new PoPs in 2026, with year-over-year continuous growth in tenancy ratio.

60 new dedicated DAS, covering premium indoor locations across multiple verticals, for a total of around 850, targeting approximately 900 locations in full year '26. 400 real estate transactions in the quarter confirm our strong track record, aiming for a total of approximately 1,600 transactions in full year '26.

The normalized 2025 total revenue base takes into account the lack of project-based, non-committed revenue components which we have developed over time with operators, capturing their discretionary, flexible budget. As discussed during our full year 2025 results conference call, such discretionary budgets have been put on hold at this stage, given the current context of limited budgets and stagnant relationships.

Adjusting for this one-off step-down, we delivered over 3% normalized revenue growth in Q1 2026, driven by the following components: inflation CPI link, based on a 2025 average index of 1.4%; anchor commitments in towers, new PoPs, and DAS deployment in line with MSA; OLOs growth with steady pace across other MNOs and IoT; smart infra growth in indoor DAS across premium locations and smart city verticals. €27 million, representing over 3% normalized revenue growth year-on-year, as we just discussed.

Key revenue components, including tower anchors revenues up 2%, supported by inflation and MSA commitment; OLOs and smart infra revenues down, as a result of the lack of project-based revenues such as works and service, installation, upgrades, and DAS, more than offsetting the growing number of PoPs and DAS locations covered. EBITDA down 1.9% year-on-year to €239.5 million, with an EBITDA margin of 91%.

EBITDA after leases down 2.2% year-on-year to about €190 million and margin of 72%, reflecting INWIT structural operational efficiency. Recurring free cash flow at €176 million is a front-end loaded profile for the year, and net debt at approximately €5 billion, including IFRS 16 liabilities, resulting in a 5.2 leverage ratio, in line with December 2025.

Recurring free cash flow in 2026 has a front-end loaded profile while remaining consistent with 2026 full-year guidance. In Q1, recurring free cash flow reached the €176 million, up by 11% year-on-year, with 74% cash conversion.

This was driven by structurally lower recurring CapEx, no taxes cashed out with a tax payment scheduled for Q2 and Q4 as per usual seasonality, positive networking capital of approximately €10 million, and financial charges reflecting an efficient debt profile and the specific phasing of interest bond payments. Below the recurring free cash flow line, gross CapEx was just below €80-90 million due to phasing.

We closed the quarter with free cash flow to equity of nearly €88 million. Leverage ratio is stable at 5.2 times, in line with Q4 2025, and we have an efficient debt profile, out of which 85% is fixed, 15% floating, with a current average cost of debt of approximately 3.5% and average bond maturity of 4.3 years.

Furthermore, we have just extended our €1 billion bank facilities, originally maturing in 2027, to 2031, backed by a pool of primary banks. Now hand it back to Diego for the guidance and the closing section.

Thank you.

Thank you, Emilia. We reiterate our 2026 targets and medium-term baseline outlook, reflecting the current market environment.

Even in the unrealistic scenario in which the market remains stuck over the medium term, we would be able to have a decent organic growth, an attractive dividend, and a solid balance sheet. The baseline outlook does not include the potential upsides related to the normalization of the industry dynamics, the network densification, both outdoor and indoor, and INWIT opportunities to extend across digital infrastructure.

At the same time, the baseline outlook does not include the downside risks of MSA termination, as we don't believe this is a likely or realistic outcome. Moving to the next slide, we are protecting the integrity of the MSA and INWIT rights through the legal path, and we are confident on the strength of our arguments.

However, we would rather focus on investing, efficient growth, and value creation for all parties and stakeholders. It's not appropriate to enter into legal details considering that the case is open.

Let me just say that timing-wise, it's moving on as expected given the complexity of the case. I'm also keen to reiterate that we have always executed the contract in fairness and good faith, of course, being open to discuss with our customers and, by the way, envisaged by the contract itself, to further optimize the commercial opportunities within the contract framework.

At the same time, good faith discussions require the identification of solutions that create value for all parties, being also mindful of the impact on all stakeholders, including the public interest related to the strategic nature of our infrastructure. Moving to the next slide, let me reiterate a few important consideration on our MSAs prices and terms.

MSAs fees are competitive and intrinsically linked to the structure of the sale-and-leaseback transactions, as industry standard. The higher the upfront amount paid to the operator, the higher the resulting tower MSA fees.

With regards to INWIT, the MSA terms and conditions are an integral part of the overall transaction carried out in 2020. The average total fee per PoP is around €20,000.

This is the combination of sale-and-leaseback towers, new towers, and new PoPs. We can estimate that broadly half of the fee is related to the financial component of the transaction, which is comparable to the interest fee of a perpetual bond, while the other half is related to the pure hosting fee.

Overall, our prices are in line with the market. They are even more attractive because the MSA fees also include unique rights to the benefit of anchors.

On the left-hand side of the slide, we show once more a benchmark of our MSAs tenant fees, which are competitive and well below the European average. Finally, we are aware we benefit from an uncapped escalator linked to inflation.

This is a better feature than in other European MSAs. We paid for this as for all the other components of the MSAs in the 2020 sale-and-leaseback transactions.

Looking at a 5-year or 10-year time framework, the average inflation that we applied with our escalators has been about 2% or 3%, basically in line with historical trends and with uncertainty for our clients, and we have been and we are open to talk about alternative approaches. Talking about infrastructure and network, our network of about 26,000 sites is the result of 40 years of work from Telecom Italia, Vodafone, and INWIT, where we could take the benefit of first-mover advantage to build top-quality sites in the best available location.

35% of our sites are in unique locations. This means that there is no other tower company within relevant distance range.

For 40% of sites, there are other alternatives within the relevant range. However, either there is no space available on the towers or there are technical issues that prevent the same quality.

Our network is available to our anchors on the all-or-nothing basis. As I said, our network is the result of the consolidation of multiple network and is a material source of efficiency within the industry through the benefits of sharing economics.

A consolidated and optimized network is also a way to reduce the use of natural resources. Greenfield initiatives in a mature market create infrastructure duplication and fragmentation, leading to medium-long-term inefficiency and structural higher cost base for the industry.

Furthermore, we believe that the market needs further 10,000 new towers in the next few years. Such greenfield initiatives would divert CapEx and delivery capacity away from the network densification that the Italian market needs.

Q1 results are consistent with our 2026 guidance. The towers business model is based on long-term contracts that create value for all parties thanks to sharing economics and network efficiencies.

The Italian telco market continues to be under pressure with low prices and subpar returns, and telcos are offloading challenges also on the infra players. Regarding the context, the legal path will move on as expected, and we are confident on the strength of our arguments.

For us, it's key to protect the integrity of the MSA as a long-term contract. We are open to optimize further the terms of the contract, particularly on new investments, and we remain committed to collaborate with our customers and identify shared value-for-value solutions.

The industry needs material investment for densification, which may unlock growth and material opportunities for all. With this, we thank you for your attention.

We aim to provide you with an update business plan in H2 as visibility would allow it. We will now open the floor to Q&A.

Yes, good morning, everyone. Thank you for the presentation.

My question was really on the guidance, the fact that you are now able to provide targets for the year in terms of KPIs, if you could just talk about what that means, how you've kind of engaged with your customers year to date and if this includes even the anchors. Then related to that, you mentioned that in the second half of the year may be able to provide a mid-term outlook.

How should we think about that statement in the sense of, obviously, you having less visibility given what's going on with anchors, or what is this actually driven by? Thank you very much.

Thank you, Andrzej. As we shared, the baseline plan is the result of the respect of the committed growth with the anchor tenants.

There is no additional discretionary business, but is reflecting the ongoing activities which are moving on in consistently with the committed revenue profile and investment profile. With regards to your second question, clearly now we are in a situation where actually at operational level we keep on working as appropriate with all our effort to make things work well and even better than before.

There is a legal case which is ongoing. There is not ongoing discussion or negotiation with the anchors, though we do expect visibility gradually to improve, and we would expect to be in the condition to give more clarity by the second half of the year.

Thank you. If I may follow up specifically on these 1,500 new PoPs that you expect to have this year, can you just give us color in terms of the breakdown between the anchors and the OLOs, perhaps?

In the current context, let me say that the majority of it is related to OLOs as a mix of other MNOs, utilities, and IoT.

Understood. Thank you very much.

Welcome.

Morning, everyone. Thanks for the questions.

I've got two as well, please. You built 30 new sites this quarter, and I think your competitor built three.

Obviously, very, very limited progress as you mentioned, Diego, the dry market. At what point do you think the regulator or in fact government kind of steps in here, clearly, there is this lack of investment and it is dragging on the telco sector?

Do you envisage a scenario where the government will step in here to move things along quite quickly because per the time frame that you have outlined, this could really, really drag on. My second question is regarding the discussions.

I think last week one of your customers kind of suggested that they tried to have a discussion, but the discussions weren't perhaps entertained. Is it more the topic of the discussions or there just haven't been any talks that have been ongoing?

Thank you.

Thanks, Roshan. No, I think the point you're raising is very right on the fact that despite the need to accelerate on densification and digitalization, the market, I think there is a common strong consensus on that, has been invested limited returns.

I think that there is worthwhile to mention that there is the frequency renewal process, which is going on, and I think that can be a catalyst trigger. That's probably by the end of 2026, beginning of 2027, that there could be more clarity.

Let me reiterate, sooner or later, the market will re-accelerate again for the benefit of the overall industry and digitalization of the country. With regards to the second question, clearly, we have been talking, as I always shared, with our customers, trying to identify a solution and opportunities to optimize the contract and the relationship.

Though our approach is based on win-win approach, on solution which should create value for all parties, and this for us is the meaning of fairness and good faith. While we have not engaged in discussions where the approach is win-lose, and there is a net transfer of value, that's what we mean when we do say that we want to defend the integrity of the MSA framework.

Let me also say, just to be even more specific, that when conversations stalled, based also on different assumptions of the contract, we proposed to have an arbitration for actually two times, and that had not been accepted by the customer, just to show again on concrete and tangible terms how a constructive and positive approach based in good faith we have been following across the last several months. As I said, the legal path continues, but overall [chuckle] we would prefer to focus on investments and growth, and we remain open always to collaborate with the customers to identify win-win solutions to create value for all parties.

I think that should be the ground to do so, again, based on fairness and good faith.

That's great. Very helpful.

Thank you.

Thank you.

good morning. Thank you very much.

I also had two questions, please. Your two anchor customers in the MSA recently set out their view that they believe a move away from INWIT is possible in 10 years.

I think one said it explicitly, and another didn't disagree. I feel it's easy to put it in a PowerPoint slide, but could you outline some of the practical considerations and challenges that would be involved migrating away from INWIT in such a short time frame?

Just in terms of the preferred supplier clause, I know you set this out at the end of March in your call, which was very helpful, but I just wondered, a month on, have you had any further thoughts on the supplier clause, the legal implications, the robustness of that clause, and what that could mean in terms of going forward if some of your customers did look to build out their own towers? Thank you.

Thanks, Paul. I see we saw the slides as I guess everybody, and don't want to enter into commenting on a specific basis, but I would say that in general greenfield projects in mature markets have never been done.

The switching of the network has material switching cost. Operationally is very, very complicated.

I think that talking about our experience to do towers in urban areas, such as the big Italian cities or touristic areas, is extremely difficult, also considering the regulations which have been implemented in the last 10 years by the municipalities. Also, in rural areas, it's not as easy as people may think.

For the Next Generation EU projects on 5G in white areas, actually we I think it's on a newspaper today, [laughter] is the kind of opposition from local municipalities has been amazing. It's from an operational point of view, from a financial point of view, from an environmental point of view, is clearly very, very complex and takes a lot of effort and focus.

As I said, I think will be more valuable and would be, instead of value destruction for the industry, will be value creation for the industry to focus on the new investments which are required for the densification, instead of again investing resources for duplication and fragmentation. With regards to the preferred supplier, is a clause whereby on new towers INWIT has the right of a first offer and last call.

We think that we will be able to match all the potential alternative offers based on the our financial strength and even more our industrial capabilities to deploy new towers in a very efficient and timely manner. Clearly, in the last few years, we set up an organization which is best in class across all the chain of the delivery machine, from site search to permit to build to maintenance.

We think that, again, from a financial and industrial point of view, we can match all potential alternatives, we will be in the condition to use the preferred supplier clause to keep on working with the customers and satisfy all their new tower needs.

That's great. Thank you very much.

Can I just have a quick follow-up? Apologies, I missed the number of towers, Diego, that you said, I think it was in your introductory marks on slide 12, the number of new sites that you believe that Italy needs ultimately.

I'm sorry, I just missed that number. I wonder if you could just clarify.

We think it's broadly in the range between 7,000 to 12,000 new towers, or let me simplify, 10,000 new towers for network densification to address the capacity needs in urban areas, the coverage and densification needs in suburban, and also to provide coverage in the corridors and the transport corridors related to road and rails.

That's perfect. Thank you very much.

Appreciate it.

Welcome.

Yes, hi. Good morning.

Thank you for taking my two questions. The first one is if you are exploring in the meantime some opportunities to secure additional external growth.

The second question is clearly with a mid-long-term horizon. I know there are already discussions ongoing over the future 6G network, which many think should be AI native, implying higher need for densification, low latency, and densification.

What's your view on this future demand? Thank you.

Thank you, Fabio. We, as part of the last year business plan, we laid down the direction for growth.

Clearly, on top of towers and real estate optimization, we are growing organically in significant matter on smart infra initiatives, which I mentioned a couple of those. One is the 5G coverage of the new tube in Milan, from the airport to the center, done last year, and the 5G projects, smart city projects in Rome, which again will bring 5G coverage across the metro line and across 100 city squares, where we will bring 5G with small cell readiness, Wi-Fi, IoT, and cameras for security.

It's a major digitalization for smart city initiatives. That's almost organic and is embedded in our growth path.

On top of that, we think that the avenues for future growth are related to the edge data center and active equipment. These are the two areas where there is potential synergies to our existing core business, and that's where clearly we are open to talk with our customers about playing a role on the ownership and management of the active equipment through the role of a neutral host; also, on edge computing, capacity at the edge of the network.

We are very well placed on that because we have the more distributed network in the country with 26,000 point of presence across the full nation, and that's a unique asset which will be even more relevant in the mid-long term as long as 6G, low latency, digitalization will move on. We are also focus on that, and consistently with our strategic plan.

Thank you.

Welcome.

Thank you. Good morning and thank you for taking my questions.

The first one was just a clarification really to your earlier answer on the 200 sites target for the full year. Just to clarify, did you say that that's all based on committed growth or is there some uncommitted targets that are baked into that as well?

Then secondly, just a broader question, Diego, I don't know to the extent you'll be happy to comment, but you've made a reference to the uncapped CPI clause that's been viewed as a problem. Given your comments around not being ready to take a win-lose approach, should we take that to essentially mean that you would not be ready to sort of consider reversing some of those past CPIs and therefore giving a discount on the MSA?

Appreciate that's not something you may want to comment, but yeah, just wanted to ask. Thank you.

Thanks, Abhilash. On the first one, yeah, the 200 towers are are committed as part of the MSA and the finalization of the Next Generation EU EU plan.

On the on the second one, yeah, we we we drill down a little bit on this topic of inflation. We have because we we we we understand that there is that is a specific clause quite quite let me say the specific feature of our MSA.

Honestly, overall, let me say, we are keen and open to talk overall in the framework of a win-win approach where there can be gives and takes. The balance of give and takes can be positive for for all.

That's that's where inflation can be part of the of the of the overall of the overall equation, where considering the dramatic need for additional investments, I do believe that there is room again to share to share value among the all all parties.

Thank you, Diego. Thanks.

Welcome.

Yes, hello to everyone. Thank you for taking my question.

It's basically on discretionary investment by other operators. I saw that in the presentation, you claim to have a positive organic growth in all revenues, while the arithmetic suggests a negative.

I thought that most of the discretionary was on anchor. I'm asking the split basically for the last year and the expected for this year of the potential revenue lost from discretionary between anchor and other telecom operators.

Thank you.

The project-based discretionary revenues is something which has been particularly strong on anchors, considering in this specific year, considering the current context, has been part also of the normal business we do with the other customers and with the OLO customers, depending on the budget availability and specific timing. There has been also in the past years up and downs which have been absorbed overall in the overall growth path.

Clearly, this year, the combination of this impact on discretionary, project-based revenues on OLOs and in particular on anchors in the current market condition is visible and cannot be offset, and that's why we reported a revenue decline. The key point to underline from my side is that somehow 2026 sets a new base, considering that the discretionary, project-based revenues is extremely, extremely limited.

That's why from 2026 onward, we will show also in the reported line what is the normalized revenue growth of about 3%, which together with the real estate savings will drive to a 4% margin growth over time.

Yes, basically my question amounts to what's the proportion roughly of discretionary investment in your other operators' total revenues last year, just to have an idea where to start from?

I think that clearly we don't give this level of details, but you may figure it out from the -6% that you see on the line of the OLO revenues. The -6% is part of termination of some project-based projects and partially offset by the recurring organic growth coming from the new

tenants. Thank you.

Welcome.

Good morning, thank you for taking my question. I actually have two regarding refinancing.

You just mentioned during the call that you have extended your bank maturities due in '27. That's great news.

Just wanted to confirm that it's both the RCF and the term loan that are extended to 2031. Then I was wondering if you have any plans on the refinancing of your upcoming eurobond due in 2028.

Hi, good morning, Victoria. Yes, I confirm that we have extended both the term loan and the RCF to 2031.

For an overall amount of €1 billion. Of course, the term loan was drawn, while the RCF was undrawn, gives us liquidity margin on top of the cash.

Concerning the next refinancing, let's say the relevant maturity is the bond expiring in October 2028, that we will refinance in due time. Let's say that we had time to the end of 2027, more than 18 months, and we will evaluate the most appropriate funding strategy, also taking into account the development.

We have a strong focus on our debt maturities management with a proactive approach.

Thank you. That's helpful.

Yes, good morning. I have some question regarding the migration plan.

If you have started already discussion with Fastweb, and how can we think about the maximum, let's say, duration of the migration plan? The remuneration, should you be remunerated based on the number of actual hospitalities?

Thanks, Milo. Clearly a key pillar of the MSA is the all-or-nothing clause whereby the full estate, the full infrastructure is is considered as a block and all all together, again, based on the on the all all-or-nothing clause.

The other MSA clause is related to timing, and the MSA says that the the timing should cannot be shorter than than 3 years, is at least 3 years. These are the two corners of the two pillars, very clear both very clear in the contract, and we will we are not talking, no discussion is started with the customer on that.

When it will start, that's is the framework we we will work on. The migration plan has to be agreed between parties and clearly will have to respect the needs and opportunities for and of both parties.

Thank you. How do we think about migration plan that may last for 5 years?

Should we expect something whose remuneration is broadly in line with the number of sites?

Listen, I don't have any specific plan. I've read what is public, and honestly I've read 5, I've read about 10 years, could be also heard about a longer time frame if not everything goes well.

Honestly for me is I cannot comment because I don't have any specific detailed plan from the customers. Again, let me reiterate, the all-or-nothing clause, the at least 3 years in the framework of a contract which has 8 years renewal cycle, and the fact that, again, discussion and negotiation will be in good faith from all parties and to respect and create the opportunities and needs of both parties.

Thank you.

Thank you. Just a quick follow-up on the financing side.

How do you plan to finance the payment of dividend considering that you have €300 million of cash available and the cash-out is roughly €500 million?

Basically, the dividend we will fund the dividend through the cash available and, let's say, the tactical and temporary use of revolving credit facilities for the remaining part.

Thank you.

Hi there, guys. I had two questions, please.

The first question, there was a report a few weeks ago that you were looking at buying data center assets from Wind Tre. I don't know if you can talk specifically about those reports, but generally, can you discuss whether you'd be interested in buying data center assets?

Then, second question, I'm just trying to understand why your OLO revenues are being impacted by this dispute.

Thanks, Ben. Let me start from the second one.

Actually, yeah, no, you're right. There is no impact from the dispute on the OLO revenues.

It's two different things. As I said before, actually the OLO revenues have had some fluctuations also in the past related to specific initiatives, project-based initiatives that we have deployed over time also with OLOs.

Market environment with investments are dry, and the investments in the industry from everyone, all the operators, are very limited. It's low CapEx, probably also in the context of the frequency renewal process where visibility is expected to trigger the new investment cycle.

On the first topic, we are not interested as a potential opportunity for growth in big data center, in hyperscalers. That's different business, and we don't see synergies.

We may be interested, and as part of our strategic plan, about integrating our distributed network with computing capacity distributed at the edge of the network. We see synergies because again we've got the most distributed point of presence across the country.

The business model it's very similar to our current one, playing the role of neutral host. We can also leverage on our expertise in terms of site search, maintenance.

There are plenty of synergies, sharing the view of a fully connected and digitalized society and economy where there will be the need of computing capacity and low latency distributed across the footprint. We think we can play a role, and we will keep on assessing opportunities according to our approach, which is creating visibility on revenues and cash flows generation.

Thank you.

Welcome.

Hi, and thank you for taking my questions. Apologies, I missed bit of a start, if my question has been answered, my apologies in advance.

I have two, please. One is I understand you mentioned about the environment, in the investment when the industry is basically very low.

I'm just trying to understand, if operators get the relief on the spectrum side going forward during the in second half, does that change your medium-term outlook? Do you expect more investment coming into the sector and that can benefit your top line and kind of upside to your medium-term guidance given it's a baseline guidance as of now?

Second question is basically, and apologies for my ignorance, but I'm just trying to understand, you have two processes going on, legal processes going on with injunction process, a decision expected sometime in June, July. I'm just trying to understand if that decision comes in your favor, does that change anything given you have another process going on which is kind of bit long-term, goes until 2028, 2029?

What changes with injunction process, if you can just give a bit more details. Thank you.

No, thanks for the questions, Rohit. On the first one, yes, the current market environment is dry, and we think that the frequency renewal process may be a catalyst for and the start of a new investment cycle.

In Italy, there has been underinvestment for long time. There is the need to catch up and accelerate, and operators, in exchange of investment commitments, can create value for all parties, and that can be for sure a catalyst of a new investment cycle with potential benefit for the industry and, of course, for INWIT as well.

On the second question, yeah, actually I shared that the legal path is moving on. We are confident on our arguments, and at the same time, we think that the preferred path overall for us, for our customers, and the industry is somehow to move to the ground of business discussions to find an equilibrium and balance with a win-win solutions for all.

That's where we keep on being open to start as deemed the right time to happen.

Any decision in June, July, does change anything from investors' perspective? Just if comes in your favor in June, right?

I think again that if there is more clarity about the termination being not valid and the contract being valid up to 2038, it may help, but it should help in the framework of discussions, constructive discussions in good faith with the customers. Ultimately, I think that the overall situation should be addressed not on the legal ground, but on the industrial approach, again, for the benefit of our customers, for the benefit of INWIT, and for the benefit of the development of investments, network densification, and digitalization.

Thanks, Diego. Very clear.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, operator. We are available for any follow-up.

Thank you so much for your attention today, and speak to you soon. Thank you.