When Telecom Disputes Need a Technical Expert

Ocak 14 2026 , by Paul Waite
13 min reading time

Technical experts should be brought into telecommunications disputes as soon as the core disagreement turns on how networks, billing platforms, or regulatory standards actually work. If your dispute involves questions about signal propagation, traffic routing, or whether a service provider met contractual performance thresholds, you’re already in territory where lay decision-makers—judges, arbitrators, or juries—cannot independently evaluate the claims without risking serious misinterpretation.

From 4G/5G network performance disputes that have proliferated since 2015 to interconnection charging disagreements, mast overloading conflicts spanning 2010–2024, MVNO wholesale agreement breakdowns, and number portability failures, the common thread is complexity that exceeds typical legal training. The telecoms industry generates disputes where the evidence lives in OSS/BSS systems, radio planning tools, and dense regulatory frameworks that require specialized translation.

Situations where an expert is essential:

Interpreting Call Detail Records (CDRs) and validating A-number/B-number data across years of traffic
Reconstructing traffic volumes when billing records are incomplete, corrupted, or disputed
Checking compliance with Ofcom, FCC, or BEREC rules on spectrum management and interconnection
Understanding ITU-T, 3GPP, or GSMA standards as they applied at specific points in time
Assessing whether a network design could realistically meet contracted SLAs given documented spectrum, backhaul, and RAN parameters
Evaluating whether traffic management policies complied with net-neutrality obligations

Involving an expert early—at the pre-action stage or immediately upon receipt of a detailed letter of claim—often fundamentally changes negotiation dynamics. Parties who wait until expert report deadlines frequently discover they’ve missed opportunities to shape disclosure requests, preserve critical data, and identify weaknesses in the opposing position that could have avoided litigation costs entirely.

Typical telecom disputes that require technical expertise

Since around 2010, most serious telecoms disputes have hinged on technical issues buried in OSS/BSS systems, radio planning tools, and overlapping regulatory frameworks. Understanding the commercial relationship between parties often requires drilling into network configurations and data that neither contracts nor correspondence fully capture.

Wholesale interconnect and roaming disputes represent some of the highest-value conflicts in the sector. These cases turn on CDR volumes, A-number/B-number validity, and traffic routing decisions made by mobile network operators over years of commercial activity. Disputes comparable in scale to S$600M national roaming disagreements require forensic reconstruction of how traffic actually flowed between networks, often spanning multiple technology generations and regulatory regimes across the national market and beyond.

MVNO and reseller agreements generate disputes where wholesale pricing, throttling policies, and fair usage terms between 2012–2024 must be reconstructed from system logs, policy documents, and configuration snapshots. The telecoms contract rarely captures the operational reality of how traffic caps were applied or how prioritization affected service delivery during peak periods.

Tower and mast sharing cases involve structural loading assessments, coverage impact analysis, and interference evaluations on shared telecoms infrastructure rolled out between 2005–2020. When one party claims another’s equipment degraded performance or exceeded structural limits, the technical evidence becomes central to liability.

Broadband and leased-line SLA disputes require benchmarking contracted speeds, contention ratios, latency, and availability against realistic network design constraints and actual congestion data. Since approximately 2015, these contractual disputes have increasingly turned on whether promised service levels were achievable given the infrastructure deployed.

Number portability, SIM-swap, and port-out fraud cases demand reconstruction of signalling flows—MAP, DIAMETER, SIP—and internal processes to determine whether proper procedures were followed or where failure occurred.

These disputes arise in domestic courts across the UK, EU, and US, as well as international arbitrations under ICC, LCIA, or UNCITRAL rules in both investment treaty and commercial contexts. The telecommunications industry generates complex cases that cross borders as readily as the networks themselves.

Technical questions that drive the need for an expert

Tribunals and courts typically need assistance turning dense technical material into clear factual findings. Legal teams may understand contractual language perfectly but lack the ability to evaluate whether the underlying technology performed as promised or whether industry standards were followed.

Representative questions a telecommunications expert is asked to answer include:

“Given these 2019–2023 CDRs and switch logs, what is the most likely volume of traffic exchanged between Operator A and Operator B, and how reliable are the records?”
“Could a 4G network configured with the documented spectrum, backhaul, and RAN parameters have met a 99.95% availability SLA in 2021, given the recorded outages?”
“Do the charging and billing configurations in the operator’s BSS as at a specific date reflect the tariffs filed with the regulator?”
“Were traffic management policies applied in a non-discriminatory manner under EU net-neutrality rules between 2016–2020?”
“Is the alleged mast overloading technically plausible based on tower design data, antenna systems, and co-location agreements?”
“What caused the service failure on specific dates, and was it attributable to network design, capacity constraints, or external factors?”
“Did the network upgrade follow 3GPP release specifications applicable at the time of deployment?”
“Were the software configurations consistent with the vendor’s recommendations and the operator’s stated policies?”

These questions require interpreting standards from 3GPP releases, ITU-T recommendations, and GSMA IR documents, alongside vendor documentation and internal operator change logs from specific periods. Experts also validate whether internal emails and presentations accurately reflect how the network, billing, or routing actually operated in practice—often uncovering differences between what was claimed and what the technical evidence supports.

Roles a telecom technical expert can play in a dispute

Experts support disputes from early case assessment through to final hearing, not simply by drafting a single report filed weeks before trial. The right expert witness provides seamless support across multiple phases, adapting their contribution to what the matter requires at each stage.

Independent case analysis and opinion begins before or during negotiations—typically three to twelve months before formal proceedings. An expert provides a neutral view on technical strengths and weaknesses, reviewing contracts, traffic data from defined periods (for example, January 2018–December 2022), and applicable regulatory decisions. This early consultation often determines whether a claim is worth pursuing or whether early settlement makes sense. Clients benefit from understanding their position before committing to litigation investment.

Expert witness testimony involves written reports compliant with civil procedure rules. In England and Wales, this means CPR Part 35 compliance; in the US, Federal Rules of Evidence govern expert testimony standards. Reports must contain clear statements of assumptions, sources, and methodologies. Beyond written work, experts provide oral evidence in court and international arbitration, including cross-examination and concurrent expert evidence sessions (sometimes called “hot-tubbing”). The outcome of complex cases often turns on which expert can communicate more effectively under pressure.

Technical consulting to legal teams includes formal and informal teach-ins for counsel on how specific technologies actually work—5G SA/NSA architectures, VoIP interconnect, IMS platforms, IoT connectivity solutions, and emerging technologies. Experts assist in drafting Part 18 requests, interrogatories, and disclosure lists targeting specific network elements and databases that opposing parties might prefer to keep hidden.

Collaboration with other specialists is routine. Telecommunications experts often work alongside forensic accountants, valuers, and competition economists. They translate technical findings into traffic volumes, revenue impacts, and market-power assessments that inform quantum calculations and regulatory analysis. Cases involving anti competitive behaviour or market definition frequently require this interdisciplinary approach.

Warning signs that your telecom dispute is too technical to run without an expert

This section serves as a practical checklist for in-house counsel, litigators, and commercial managers trying to determine whether expert determination or expert support is necessary for their matter.

Red flags that should trigger expert engagement:

Unfamiliar engineering terminology: The other side relies on terms like QoS, QoE, RSRP/RSRQ, jitter, MPLS, BGP routing, or spectrum refarming that your team cannot confidently explain to a judge or arbitrator.
Unvalidated data exports: Key evidence consists of CSV exports from mediation platforms, billing systems, or OSS tools covering several years (e.g., 2016–2023), and no one has validated what each data field means or whether the exports are complete.
Standards disputes: There is disagreement about whether ITU-T, 3GPP, or ETSI standards mandated a particular approach at a given time, or whether a practice was simply “industry custom” without binding force.
Regulatory interpretation required: Regulatory filings, reference offers, or price caps from Ofcom, FCC, TRAI, or national regulators are central to the dispute but require technical interpretation to understand their practical effect on network operations.
Network migration at the heart of the dispute: Network-upgrade or migration projects—3G switch-off, 5G rollout, TDM to IP migration—sit at the centre of causation or loss arguments.
High-value threshold: You are considering a claim or defence above US$5M where technical causation or usage volumes will materially influence quantum.
Hardware or software configuration disputes: The disagreement involves whether equipment was configured correctly, whether firmware versions were appropriate, or whether a supplier met technical specifications.
Data protection and security issues: The matter involves allegations of network breaches, data transmission failures, or cybersecurity lapses requiring forensic analysis.

Once two or more of these signs are present, parties should at least seek a short, early scoping call with a technical expert. The small percentage of time invested upfront can prevent significant problems downstream.

How and when to instruct a telecom technical expert

Timing and scope of instructions are critical to extracting maximum value from an expert. Parties who engage experts at the last minute—often just weeks before report deadlines—frequently discover that key data has been lost, disclosure was inadequate, or the wrong questions were asked.

Ideal timing means engagement at the pre-action stage or immediately after a detailed claim or defence is drafted. This approach allows the expert to influence disclosure requests and data-preservation notices directed at operators, vendors, and aggregators. In international matters or those involving partner companies in multiple jurisdictions, early involvement helps coordinate evidence gathering across regulatory regimes.

What good instructions should contain:

Clear statement of issues (e.g., billing correctness for 2019–2021 roaming traffic; compliance of a 2020 reference interconnect offer with regulatory obligations under applicable regulation)
Chronology of key events including contract signature, network changes, regulatory interventions, and major outages
List of documents and data available—CDRs, invoices, RAN logs, trouble tickets, regulator correspondence—and identification of what is still missing or in dispute
Background on the commercial relationship between parties and any prior attempts to resolve disputes through negotiating or mediation

Best practices for effective engagement:

Allow the expert to propose additional data sources and testing where appropriate. This might include test calls, drive tests, re-rating of usage records, or network simulations that can support or challenge the positions taken by either party. Such proactive approaches often reveal evidence that neither side had considered.

Clarify confidentiality requirements, data protection obligations (including GDPR where applicable), and any constraints on accessing live networks. The expert needs to understand what they can and cannot do with the technology and data entrusted to them.

Procedural considerations vary by forum. Typical milestones include experts’ meetings, joint statements identifying agreed and disputed matters, and supplemental reports addressing new evidence. In the English High Court, state and federal courts in the US, and major arbitral institutions, these procedures follow established patterns that experienced experts navigate routinely. The company’s law firm should coordinate these aspects closely with the expert throughout the dispute resolution process.

What makes a strong telecom technical expert in litigation and arbitration?

The most effective telecommunications experts combine deep technical experience with the ability to communicate clearly to non-specialists. Courts and tribunals value experts who can make complex concepts accessible without sacrificing accuracy—a balance that requires both extensive knowledge and refined communication skills developed through extensive experience.

Desirable technical background:

10–20+ years in operator, vendor, or consulting roles covering mobile (2G–5G), fixed, or IP networks from at least the mid-2000s onward
Practical exposure to OSS/BSS systems, routing, signalling, network design, and capacity planning rather than purely academic knowledge
Understanding of how networks actually operate under real-world conditions, not just how they’re supposed to work according to specifications
Experience in the relevant sector—whether mobile network operators, fixed-line providers, or infrastructure companies

Typical credentials that support credibility:

Degrees in telecommunications, electrical engineering, or computer science
Professional affiliations with bodies such as IEEE or IET
Vendor certifications (Cisco, Nokia, Ericsson, Huawei, Juniper) where relevant to the technology in dispute
Security qualifications where disputes involve network breaches or cybersecurity aspects

Litigation-specific skills are non-negotiable:

Experience drafting clear, structured reports for courts and tribunals between 2010–2025
Proven track record giving oral evidence, including managing cross-examination and concurrent evidence sessions
Ability to explain 5G, VoIP, IoT, and cloud-based telecom architectures to non-technical judges, arbitrators, and counsel
Willingness to acknowledge uncertainties and define the limits of their knowledge rather than overreaching

Independence and credibility matter as much as technical prowess. The most compelling case presentations come from experts willing to identify weaknesses in their own client’s position and to define clearly what falls outside their expertise—declining to opine on valuation questions or pure legal interpretation, for instance. The Nokia versus Apple ITC dispute demonstrated how mismatched expertise can undermine even well-resourced litigation when an expert’s testimony receives limited weight due to insufficient depth in the specific technology at issue.

These qualities directly improve prospects of success in complex telecommunications disputes. When the outcome turns on whether a tribunal believes your technical narrative, having the right expert witness with the right expertise and communication skills often determines which party prevails.

Key takeaways:

Engage technical experts early—ideally at the pre-action stage—to shape disclosure and preserve evidence
Match the expert’s specific knowledge to the technology actually in dispute, not just general telecommunications background
Use experts throughout the dispute lifecycle, from early assessment through to trial testimony
Look for warning signs that indicate your dispute is too technical to run without expert support
Prioritize experts who combine deep technical credentials with proven ability to communicate under cross-examination

The challenges of telecommunications disputes continue to intensify as networks become more complex and the risks of getting technical causation wrong increase. Whether you’re pursuing a multi-million-pound roaming dispute or defending against SLA breach claims, the investment in finding and instructing the right technical expert often determines whether parties can resolve disputes efficiently—or face years of costly litigation with uncertain outcomes.