Despite a largely negative response from stakeholders, the regulator decided to move forward with its proposal, making Italy the only EU country to capture this type of provider under the EECC
AGCOM’s consultation received 27 responses, many of which expressed support for its market analysis
On 30 July 2025, AGCOM, the Italian communications regulator, published its decision confirming that content delivery networks (CDNs) fall within the definition of electronic communications networks (ECNs) under the European Electronic Communications Code (EECC). AGCOM received 27 responses to its consultation on the matter, including from telecoms operators and their associations, as well as from large tech firms such as Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft and Netflix. The regulator stated that most stakeholders agreed with its technical survey on the operating principles and types of CDNs, associated interconnection methods and the commercial agreements in place between operators, content and application providers (CAPs) and CDN providers. The regulator therefore considered that CDNs, which are interconnected to the "traditional" ECNs of ISPs, effectively operate as network providers, contributing to the transmission of data (accessible to the public) at the infrastructure level.
Less than half of respondents agreed with the proposed extension of the general authorisation regime to CAPs and CDNs
AGCOM’s consultation posed two main questions:
Whether CDN providers should be classified under the general authorisation regime referred to in Article 11 of the EECC; and
Whether CAPs that own, manage or control CDN infrastructure should be included in the regime under that same article.
The questions received positive feedback from 11 and 12 stakeholders, respectively, with some considering that the entry into force of Legislative Decree no. 48 of March 2024 – which transposed the EECC into Italian law – already provides for the regulatory classification of CDNs within the scope of general authorisations, as well as for imposing on CDNs the same administrative fees as those levied against public ECNs. Several respondents also highlighted that this would enable the creation of a level playing field for all actors involved in the telecoms services supply chain, while one envisaged scope operators to be able to appeal to the AGCOM in the event of disputes with CAPs and CDN providers.
The majority of stakeholders disagreed, arguing that extending the reach of the EECC could lead to the introduction of network fees
However, more than half of stakeholders disagreed with AGCOM’s provisional decision set out in its consultation. Several respondents stressed that there is currently no market failure that would justify regulatory intervention, with one questioning whether AGCOM has the ability to extend the general authorisation regime to a new group of providers without legislative measures. Other stakeholders stated that the potential for any administrative burdens and costs resulting from extending general authorisation would risk negative consequences for the connectivity ecosystem in Italy, discouraging investment and innovation. From a technical standpoint, some respondents argued that CDNs cannot be classified as ECNs since they do not perform a signal origination or transmission function, while several highlighted how CDNs do not fall within the definitions of an electronic communications service (ECS). Notably, some respondents argued that the extension of the authorisation regime could lead to the introduction of a network fee charged to CAPs and CDN providers that generate traffic on telecoms networks – the ultimate ambition of certain operators within the ongoing ‘fair share’ debate. Further, several stakeholders highlighted how this initiative would represent “a unique initiative” among Member States since, to date, no EU country requires entities who own, control or manage CDNs to obtain a general authorisation or to fulfil the obligations outlined in the relevant legislation.
There are concerns that AGCOM’s decision could increase fragmentation within the EU, while also setting a dangerous precedent
Reflecting on the submissions, AGCOM recognised that responses to its proposals indicate “a clear polarisation” of views among stakeholders, but stated that no evidence has emerged that would change its position, either from a technical or a regulatory perspective. Noting the guidelines previously issued to sports streaming service DAZN, AGCOM stated it has the power to extend general authorisation to CDNs and CAPs, and that CDNs may be deemed to be a “specific type of infrastructure” under the EECC. AGCOM has therefore decided to reclassify CDNs as ECNs, potentially subjecting them to regulation traditionally reserved for operators. The regulator has sought to underline, however, that it has not undertaken an analysis of the IP interconnection market that may lead to a resumption of the fair share debate. Nevertheless, while AGCOM’s decision only applies to Italy, there are concerns that it may have repercussions beyond the country’s borders. Some academics and think tanks, including Information Labs, consider the reclassification has been driven by large telecoms operators in Europe and threatens to set a dangerous precedent, potentially starting a trend toward a more fragmented and operator-controlled internet.
