A note on scope first. No live ENACOM development matched platform liability this week, and we will not invent one. The closest verified ENACOM news concerns how Argentina finances the networks that platforms run on. That is a speech-and-innovation question too: a country with more competitive, better-funded local ISPs gives users more ways to reach the open internet.
What happened
According to iProfesional's report, ENACOM formalised Banco Macro as a lender under Resolution 953/2026, reported on 13 October 2026. Macro is the third bank in the scheme, after Banco de la Nación Argentina and Banco Roela. Each small or medium provider can borrow up to ARS 800 million. ENACOM subsidises up to 15 percentage points a year of the interest, paid from the Servicio Universal Fund (FSU). Macro assesses each borrower's credit risk under its own policies. ENACOM decides first whether a project qualifies for the subsidy. The loan capital comes from the private financial system, and the state covers only part of the financing cost.
The same report says Resolution 961/2026 extends the Programa Conectividad de Interés Público for 36 months from 7 October. It also folds the programme into the national critical communications infrastructure plan.
The timing matters. Decree 1149/2026, published in the Boletín Oficial on 6 October, accepted the resignation of ENACOM interventor Juan Martín Ozores effective 5 October. Andrés Michelazzo takes over from 6 October to 4 January 2027. The scheme was designed under Ozores, so the first test is whether it survives the handover.
The strongest case for the scheme
The case for this kind of intervention is strong. Small ISPs and cooperatives often serve places large carriers skip. They cannot easily borrow at commercial rates to buy fibre and equipment, and Argentine rates are high. A rate subsidy narrows that gap. The earlier model was the non-reimbursable grant, where the state picks winners and funds them in full. In the new scheme, a bank with its own capital at risk screens each borrower. ENACOM only decides whether the project is eligible for the rate subsidy. That division of labour is more disciplined than a grant, because a lender who expects repayment has a reason to reject weak projects.
This also fits how the fund is meant to work. Telecom licensees must contribute to the Servicio Universal Fund, and the money exists to extend access. The lending line began with Banco Roela, whose model agreement ENACOM approved in Resolución Sintetizada 364/2026, dated 21 May and published on 26 May. ENACOM's own account of the programme describes credits of up to ARS 800 million with a subsidy of up to 15 points, available at Roela and Nación, with more banks being sought. Adding Macro is the stated goal being met.
Why we still support it, with conditions
We back the design for three reasons. First, it leverages private capital rather than substituting for it. Second, it favours small local operators, who add competition and local choice. Third, it moves the fund away from one-off grants toward instruments that recycle capital.
But the scheme stands on thin foundations, and three weaknesses deserve attention.
- Governance of the fund. iProfesional reported on 4 September that the FSU trust was dissolved in early 2025, so ENACOM now collects and manages the money directly. The same report puts the fund above ARS 370,000 million, according to Mesa TIC, and says Ozores put it in May at about US$200 million. A fund of that size, run by a regulator led by a temporary interventor, needs published eligibility rules, budgets and audit trails. The text of Resolution 953/2026 is not yet widely available. Operators and the public should be able to read it and the lending terms.
- Subsidy design. A 15-point interest subsidy is a large price signal. If it is uncapped by borrower, region or project type, it can fund overbuilding in areas that already have service. It can also let a few well-connected firms capture most of the money. Priority should go to unserved and underserved areas, and the rules should say so.
- Stacking of instruments. The same September report describes a separate offset programme. Licensees could offset up to 50 percent of equipment investment against their FSU contributions, with a 24-month investment window. A Certificado de Crédito already exists under Resolution 1182/2025. Credit subsidies, offsets and grants drawing on one pool, each with its own eligibility test, invite double-dipping unless ENACOM publishes a combined rulebook.
What proportionate oversight looks like
The critics' worry is that a fund financed by a levy on licensees is being turned into a quasi-sovereign lending vehicle without legislative oversight. It is a fair worry. The answer is not to stop the programme. It is to attach basic transparency to it.
ENACOM should publish each convenio in full and a list of subsidised projects with locations and amounts. It should publish default and uptake rates by bank. It should set a sunset or review date, since the Roela line already reviews its subsidy quarterly. It should also commit to evaluating whether subsidised networks actually add subscribers where none existed.
None of this requires new content or platform rules. The open internet depends on cheap, competitive last-mile networks, and this scheme, if run transparently, serves that goal better than a grant bureaucracy or a licensing regime. The risk lies in the handover. A new interventor with a temporary mandate through January 2027 could freeze the scheme or expand it without published criteria. Either outcome would waste an instrument that is working in principle.
If Argentina's lawmakers later turn to intermediary liability, the same test applies: favour measures that expand capacity and choice over measures that raise the cost of carrying speech. For now, the useful ENACOM story is a credit line for small ISPs, and the right response is to ask for transparency and to keep the programme running.