The body’s early assessment of the DNA provided for the day’s ‘fil rouge’, with the EC appearing defensive in the face of a robust critique of its proposals
Stakeholders questioned the relevance of BEREC’s forthcoming guidance on 5G network slicing given the EC’s limited proposals around net neutrality
On 31 March 2026, BEREC hosted its annual Stakeholder Forum in Brussels. The morning’s ‘meet and greets’ saw the co-chairs of the BEREC Working Groups present and field questions on their ongoing work, with the potential impact of the EC’s Digital Networks Act (DNA) proposals a common theme across the sessions – especially given that just the day before, BEREC published a pointed early assessment. The Open Internet session was a perfect embodiment of this sentiment; co-chair Dr. Amédée von Moltke (Advisor, BIPT) made clear his concerns with the proposals’ plans to delete 18 of the 2015 Open Internet Regulation’s 19 recitals. Von Moltke was critical of the sector too though, complaining there was a collective “schizophrenia” around hopes for any “moving of the goalposts” with net neutrality. The room was also keen to discuss BEREC’s ongoing work on updating its guidance for 5G network slicing – which the co-chairs insisted would remain a fruitful exercise despite the EC’s proposals on net neutrality. The co-chairs were full of praise for Ofcom’s revisions to its guidance on net neutrality from 2023, aiming to receive a similar level of positive feedback; however, they were less aware of more recent industry calls for further reform via legislative change, which is one of the subjects of the UK Government’s Mobile Market Review.
The Fixed Network Evolution Working Group was more muted on the DNA, with co-chair, Paolo Castiglione (Technical Advisor, RTR) keeping attention on the current progress of the copper switch-off (CSO) and BEREC’s guidelines on Articles 5 and 11 of the 2024 Gigabit Infrastructure Act (GIA), which cover the coordination with civil works and access obligations for in-building infrastructure, respectively. This prompted a representative from Vereniging COIN, the industry body for the Dutch telecoms industry, to request further guidance on the potential interplay between the GIA and the DNA, particularly in relation to infrastructure access rules. Regarding the CSO, the room echoed much of what was heard at BEREC’s recent workshop, stressing that an EC-led “one size fits all” approach will place unreasonable expectations on Member States. Castiglione disagreed, arguing that the DNA’s proposed timeframe for the CSO (by the end of 2035) leaves enough time for Member States to adapt their approaches to its requirements. The Market and Economic Analysis session similarly steered mostly clear of the DNA, focusing more on consolidation and how the concept of ‘fair and reasonable’ pricing can be used in the context of SMP regulation as a less intrusive remedy when pricing obligations are relaxed. The Working Group co-chairs, Iulia Zaim-Grigore (Economist, ANCOM) and Jordi Canadell Boix (Head of Section at Market Analysis for Electronic Communications Department, CNMC), explained that cross-border consolidation is possible, but cautioned against in-market consolidation, citing how this had often led to price rises, particularly for mobile customers.
A faux Q&A nonetheless provided some insight into BEREC’s views on ex-ante regulation, copper retirement and spectrum policy
Alejandra de Iturriaga (Chair 2027, BEREC and Director of Telecommunications and Audiovisual Sector, CNMC) opened the conference part of the day’s agenda, outlining the body’s strategic priorities while emphasising the importance of policy choices made today (e.g. on the DNA) in shaping Europe’s digital future. Acknowledging BEREC’s initial assessment of the EC’s proposals (pointing out room for improvement), de Iturriaga stated that a more in-depth review would be forthcoming. She was joined on stage by Marko Mismas (Chair 2026, BEREC and Director, AKOS) to answer ‘pre-moderated’ questions – a somewhat contrived situation seemingly intended to ensure that different perspectives were heard and that the speakers were not caught off guard by the audience. In his answers, Mismas stated that “old-fashioned” SMP regulation is less needed in oligopolistic (as opposed to previously monopolistic) telecoms markets, advocating the use of symmetric access measures so long as they would be effective. Mismas also urged the EC to clarify how single passporting would be implemented, while underlining the vital role of regulators in accelerating investment, considering they would be well-placed to determine the appropriate policy tool to use. On the CSO, and in light of Spain having completed the process, de Iturriaga stated that there was no single approach to retiring legacy networks that could be applied uniformly across the bloc, considering that Member States’ timelines should reflect individuals needs, technologies and bottlenecks. She also voiced concerns over the spectrum proposals within the DNA, particularly the prospect of the EC gaining veto powers, adding that the centralisation of decisionmaking in Brussels represents a remarkable shift away from the current system based on national competencies.
The EC claims to have enjoyed constructive discussions with operators on the draft DNA despite much-publicised criticisms
The first of two cross-industry panels almost inevitably centred on the DNA. With early deliberations underway within the Council working parties, Frank Gallagher (Permanent Representation of Ireland to the EU) foresaw Ireland acting as an “honest broker” once its six-month presidency begins on 1 July 2026, during which it will keep competition and end users front of mind. Renate Nikolay (Deputy Director General, DG CNECT, EC) began with some very scripted, and particularly optimistic, remarks rather than acknowledging or reflecting on the feedback from BEREC. Nikolay stated that the draft DNA is “a real new deal for connectivity”, building on the successful liberalisation of the telecoms sector, while bringing it closer to the challenges of today – including geopolitics, which has meant that “technology is power”. However, her tone shifted as criticism of the DNA proposals from those in the room increased. Asked whether the EC had landed in the right place with the proposals given neither Europe’s regulators nor its incumbents are happy with (referencing remarks from Tim Höttges (CEO, Deutsche Telekom) at MWC26 that “no DNA is better than this DNA”), Nikolay shared that Höttges was more constructive in subsequent meetings with the EC at the conference despite the “public trashing” on stage. She remained confident that there will be an agreement on the file by the end of next year, and we were reminded that she has previously said that “the train has started and it is everyone’s responsibility it arrives at its destination”. The sole subject of further and anonymised questions from the audience, a slightly irked Nikolay described herself as “Mrs Simplification in DG CNECT”, stating that the DNA is not setting the EC up for a ‘Telecoms Omnibus’ in the future and that where stakeholders consider that the proposals would create complexity, they should bring examples to her for discussion.
Michel Van Bellinghen (Vice-Chair 2026, BEREC and Chairman of the Council, BIPT) was candid in his comments, stating that while BEREC would welcome harmonisation and simplification, the draft DNA includes unnecessary complexities and centralisation, reducing discretion at the national level. He regretted that the promotion of competition appears to have been downgraded and bypassed in favour of alternative objectives, such as competitiveness, also warning that single passporting could add bureaucracy and coordination costs that outweigh the benefits, while making the risk of forum shopping a real possibility. Though Van Bellinghen was happy to see the proposals maintain access regulation in principle, he considered that the text would lead to deregulation in practice, which would be compounded by an EC veto on remedies (something it proposed but was not carried forward over 10 years ago). For the time being the EC’s Recommendation on Relevant Markets stays in place. Nikolay remarked that the DNA no longer obliges a new Recommendation, but rather something for the future. Van Bellinghen was pleased to hear that, but expressed concern that it is only temporary. He, and other regulators, wants the legal certainty of the Recommendation being in place to make their jobs easier.
The GSMA has been left underwhelmed by the EC’s proposals, while Amazon is concerned by the risk that they might overreach
The second panel was more technical in nature, highlighting the opportunities for 5G standalone at industrial sites, APIs for value creation and the complementarity of ground- and space-based networks for connecting unserved and underserved populations. However, the conversation swiftly moved on to the issue of regulation – the customary ‘fil rouge’ of the Stakeholder Forum. Mikael Bäck (VP and Corporate Officer, Ericsson) stated that the role of regulators has become more difficult, with sectors and technologies converging, and the pace of change happening faster than it ever used to. Amid these challenges, Elsa Sependa (Head of Public Policy for Europe, GSMA) was, of course, concerned that the DNA proposals do not go far enough in improving the investment climate for operators in Europe. She contended that instead of reducing red tape, the EC is looking to introduce new rules, suggesting that it has cut and pasted existing or outdated text into what is supposed to be a “manual for the future”. Sependa also criticised the EC’s parallel proposals to revise the Cybersecurity Act, stating that they would require the rip and replace of network equipment on a “globally unprecedented scale”, imposing significant costs on operators. Yohann Bénard (Director of EU Digital Public Policy, Amazon) stated that he shared the main goals of the EC as outlined within the DNA, but warned that good intentions must now translate into good legislation. Bénard also raised his own concerns regarding the risk that definitional changes to the general authorisation regime extend the scope of telecoms-centric regulation to organisations beyond the traditional boundaries of the sector (e.g. CDNs), as well as the potential for harmonisation efforts to add a new layer of regulation over the top of national, disparate frameworks. Naturally, Bénard sought to showcase the benefits for resilience and efficiency in the allocation of public funding if satellite is integrated into national broadband plans – something he claimed already had the support of BEREC.
Fragmentation, underinvestment and security vulnerabilities represent the three main structural challenges facing European telecoms
The event was rounded out by a keynote address from Henna Virkkunen (EVP for Technological Sovereignty, Security and Democracy, EC), who identified three structural challenges facing the EU’s telecoms sector: 1) fragmentation of regulatory regimes and the lack of a genuine single market; 2) underinvestment, leaving fibre and 5G deployments lagging behind other markets; and 3) vulnerability of infrastructure and supply chains to security threats. Virkkunen argued that the DNA is the response; an ambitious but balanced set of proposals aimed at reshaping Europe’s regulatory framework into something both futureproof and investment-friendly. She stated that the DNA would consolidate various legislative acts into one single rulebook, calculating that the 200+ articles in the proposal would represent a significant reduction on the ~3,000 articles spread across 27 separate (and often different) transpositions of the European Electronic Communications Code (EECC). Stressing that the future of Europe’s connectivity would not be written by chance but by choice, Virkkunen sought leadership and collaboration from BEREC and national regulators in making it a reality.
