A broadly partisan crowd rejected both deregulating and expanding current regulation, while criticising “terrible” network traffic analogies
Cloud computing platforms and telecoms networks are not suitably converged that would warrant extending the reach of regulation
On 16 October 2025, the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA Europe) and Euractiv jointly hosted an event looking ahead to the Digital Networks Act (DNA), a draft of which is now just two months away. The first of three panels explored the existence of an uneven playing field in connectivity and whether regulation currently geared towards telecoms operators should be extended to members of the overall connectivity ecosystem. Perhaps unsurprisingly given the line up, most speakers viewed cloud (a particular focus of the EC’s Digital Infrastructure White Paper) and telecoms as complementary rather than substitutable, which may otherwise warrant casting a wider regulatory net. Gabriele Favarò (Tech & Sustainability Policy Manager, ITI) illustrated this point with a reference to airlines and airports that he considered are symbiotic but nevertheless provide different services – and therefore should be regulated accordingly. Darren Ennis (Director of EU Affairs, Vodafone) preferred a comparison of telecoms networks to motorways, which players from across the internet value chain use, but only operators pay to build and maintain. As traffic grows, Ennis considered that ensuring they do not degrade should be a collective responsibility, and that there are several options for how that burden could be shared. Though Ennis did not explicitly call for a ‘fair contribution’ to network costs, advocating instead for a “responsible use” of telecoms infrastructure, other panellists did not appear to agree with the nature of his suggestion, with David Abecassis (Managing Partner, Analysys Mason) describing the motorways analogy as “terrible”.
On the broader subject of regulatory reform, Ennis found a degree more support from fellow speakers, arguing the need for a DNA that is future-proof, reduces fragmentation and ultimately helps deliver resilient and secure services to consumers and businesses across the EU. Petra Arts (Director, Public Policy Europe, Cloudflare) stated that calls from the telecoms sector that the EC simplifies and streamlines regulation are reasonable, but it would contradictory to make simultaneous recommendations about applying rules to other types of provider, many of whom already face obligations under legislation such as the Digital Markets Act (DMA), the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the NIS2 Directive. Favarò agreed, stating that he would welcome a simplification of regulation across the ecosystem, for example to reduce overlaps between AI and privacy laws, but capturing new actors would be “narrow minded”. Favarò added that there are a host of tech firms subject to anti-scam and know your customer (KYC) rules that “escape the narrative”, with operators seemingly most vocal in arguing that they are impacted most from the current volume of regulation.
The telecoms industry’s continued push for network usage fees “is like putting lipstick on a pig”
Discussions during the second panel centred on whether the DNA could pose risks for an open internet in Europe. Dalia Coffetti (Regulatory and EU Affairs, Associazione Italiana Internet Provider (AIIP)) considered it vital to prevent traffic discrimination by preserving net neutrality rules, which in turn underpin a range of other rights of citizens. Thomas Lohninger (Executive Director, epicenter.works) was clear that the EC’s forthcoming proposals should not revisit the bloc’s Open Internet Regulation (OIR); however, he accepted that it would likely be included in the DNA somehow, thereby opening it up for amendments. Lohninger also saw the prohibition on zero-rating in the EU as potentially being “up for grabs” given that it is currently “resting on European Court of Justice (ECJ) case law”. Peter Alexiadis (Research Fellow, CERRE) considered that the court’s zero-rating judgment could have gone too far, but he was similarly unenthusiastic about reforming net neutrality rules, considering they already provide operators with much of the flexibility they want, for example to deal with capacity constraints. Romain Bonenfant (General Director, Fédération Française des Télécoms) added that he too thinks that the open internet model should be preserved, stating that he “would not want to change a comma in the OIR”, including in how it applies to operators.
However, Bonenfant argued that there is a market failure that requires that the regulation should be extended to “major traffic providers” who lack incentives to invest in the efficient delivery of their content and drive up costs for operators, rather than create value for them. Given the overwhelming bargaining power of large content and application providers (CAPs), he suggested the DNA focus on ensuring good faith negotiations between CAPs and operators, offering a dispute resolution mechanism in the event those fail. Coffetti raised concerns with this possibility, pointing to AGCOM’s recent decision on content delivery networks (CDNs) as a potential back door for network usage fees – something the Italian regulator has apparently denied. Both Alexiadis and Lohninger highlighted that comparable arguments for a ‘sending party pays’ or ‘fair share’ model have been rejected in the past, but that credit should go to the telecoms industry for recycling the same argument but calling it something else. Alexiadis likened this to a pig having red lipstick at one point in time, then pink, then mauve – but at the end of the day it’s still a pig. He stated that thinking about “how to get money out of the internet” is not a sound basis for regulation, and specifically that the IP interconnection market would not be amenable legally to dispute resolution.
Europe should preserve its SMP-based framework, but tweaks may help accelerate infrastructure investment and fibre adoption
The third panel was purposefully forward-looking, with speakers outlining their hopes and expectations about what the DNA could achieve for end users. Benoît Felten (Managing Director, Fiberevolution) began with a lengthy overview of research into the state of Europe’s telecoms market, highlighting a promising financial outlook for most large operators (TIM aside), falling capex and opex, and declining traffic growth. Felten concluded that the key pillars underpinning the narrative that regulatory reform is critical do not match reality – and that the DNA must be grounded in this evidence. Other panellists nevertheless considered that some targeted evolutions of the framework could be both necessary and beneficial. Tomas Jakimavicius (Director, European Government Affairs, Microsoft) stated that he would welcome measures to make the regime more efficient, for example to accelerate investment in digital infrastructure such as cloud, last mile networks and subsea cables. Pinar Serdengecti (Regulation and Competition Affairs Director, ecta) considered that spectrum policy by some Member States should stop treating auctions as a cashcow, taking money out of the industry that could be used to boost coverage in rural areas. While naturally unwilling to reveal the contents of the draft DNA at this stage, Peter Stuckmann (Head of Unit, Electronic Communications Policy, Implementation and Enforcement, DG CNECT, EC) recognised that expectations are high, stating that the EC is keen to “make life easier” for the telecoms sector by simplifying regulation where possible and to be future-proof by not setting rules that are too rigid and cannot flex in the future as technologies and ecosystems change.
That said, speakers were mindful of the risk the DNA could enable deregulation prematurely. Jakimavicius considered that Europe is on a generally successful path and urged policymakers not to try to “create solutions for the problems that don’t exist”. Serdengecti underlined this point, asking the EC to be “surgical” in its approach. She argued that Europe should be proud of its timeless and technology neutral SMP-based ex-ante framework, which has delivered positive outcomes in terms of investment, a diversity of players and affordability, providing a stark contrast to the “horrible situation” in the US market. Serdengecti and Stuckmann did, however, highlight Europe’s relatively low fibre adoption as somewhat of a concern, considering that upcoming copper switch-offs would help so long as they are completed in a way that protects competition and does not advantage incumbents. Cláudio Teixeira (Senior Legal Officer, Digital Policy, BEUC) was more cautious, stating that copper retirement would encourage the region’s transition to fibre, but consumers should not be forced to take up certain technologies not of their choosing. He also provided clear warnings on the impacts of deregulation of telecoms, claiming that the current rules “haven’t had a fair shot” at delivering in some countries, but offer successful examples of where they have bedded in. Emphasising that it is this existing framework that enables a level playing field and keeps operators honest, Teixeira argued that it would be misguided to think that the right option is to use the recommendations of the Draghi and Letta reports to sacrifice consumers or altnets just to empower a handful of large operators.
