With the DNA, CSA2 and revised merger guidelines at or approaching critical stages in their development, operators and policymakers were equally clear on the level of fine tuning that still needs to take place
The DNA Rapporteur would be open to reforming net neutrality rules but distanced himself from the introduction of network usage fees
On 1 October 2026, Assembly attended the annual FT/Connect Europe Forum in Brussels. Alessandro Gropelli (Director General, Connect Europe) opened proceedings with a building analogy. He stated that it is a simple truth that you cannot be “the house” if you overlook the foundations. For Gropelli, connectivity is a key foundation – and one that Europe still controls (unlike the other US-dominated elements of the digital value chain). Roberto Viola (Director General, DG CONNECT, EC) agreed, stating that if “you win the battle to be relevant in networks, you win the battle to be relevant in AI”, the next industrial revolution. However, continuing Gropelli’s analogy, Stan Miller (CEO, United Group) quipped that investing in Greek real estate several years ago would have delivered a far better return than investing in European telecoms stocks.
With respect to the Digital Networks Act (DNA), Gropelli and Patrick Johansson (President and Head of EMEA, Ericsson) welcomed the ambition shown by the EC’s proposals on spectrum, although Gropelli considered that other files, including the revised Cybersecurity Act (or CSA2), needed a rewrite in order to better support the industry’s investment agenda. Michal Kobosko (MEP, Renew and Rapporteur of the DNA) underlined that promoting investment, alongside simplification and creation of the single market, would be the three main priorities of his upcoming DNA report, which is due to be presented to the European Parliament’s Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) on 10 November 2026 – even if he was coy about revealing any further details at this time.
Kobosko and Adina Vălean (MEP, EPP and Member, Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO)) found common ground in indicating support for a potential reform of the EU’s Open Internet Regulation, considering that operators should not be prevented from launching and monetising specialised services, which should not be seen as a potential threat to net neutrality. However, while Kobosko felt that operator’s revival of the ‘fair share’ debate verged on the “ridiculous”, Vălean argued that nowhere else in the economy could a company (i.e. big tech) use another sector’s infrastructure (i.e. telecoms networks) and not pay for it. Miller also agreed with Kobosko on possible risks relating to the copper switch-off. With Kobosko highlighting that operators in some Member States would find the deadlines proposed by the EC as problematic, Miller called for a hands-off approach by which the market would be allowed to “find its balance”. Further remarks from the executive centred on the need for long-term certainty and technological neutrality in spectrum allocation, considering that indefinite licensing was vital, with regulators then leaving operators to determine how and where to deploy infrastructure to serve their customers in the most cost efficient way. A subsequent interview with Enrico Letta (Former Prime Minister, Italy) underlined, however, that for EU institutions, spectrum policy remains a “problem of money”. As such, creative solutions would need to be identified to offset the impacts a shift away from periodic auctions would have on national treasuries.
Familiar concerns about regulation’s ability to keep pace with market developments
The second panel on scale and consolidation was preceded by a “panel framer” with Anthony Whelan (Director General, DG COMPETITION, EC). Whelan described the “massive deal” that are the EC’s April 2026 draft merger guidelines as representing a “modernisation” in the EC’s approach to M&A, demonstrating that it is confronting new challenges in line with Teresa Ribera’s (EVP for Clean, Just and Competitive Transition, EC) mission letter. Having stated that the introduction of theories of benefit into the revised guidelines (alongside theories of harm) reflected calls from some corners of the telecoms sector, he pushed back against the later suggestion from Stephanie Yon-Courtin (MEP, Renew and Vice President, Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON)) that the impact of the update may be undermined by the fact that the guidelines are non-binding, insisting that their very publication makes them binding on the EC. Whelan added that the final guidelines (due to be published by year-end) would be a “refinement” rather than a "transformation" of the draft, with the EC focused on clarifying the links between qualitative concepts, such as resilience, sustainability and innovation, and the central purpose of competition policy – i.e. to protect consumer interests from market power. When questioned on how he would be able to measure the success of the revised guidelines, Whelan stated he wouldn’t base that on the number of deals that are approved, adding that he didn’t know if there was a “dark side of the moon” of transactions waiting to be proposed.
On the panel itself, Pietro Labriola (CEO, TIM) – speaking at the event for the fifth time – claimed that he felt like actor Bill Murray in the film Groundhog Day when it came to discussions on telecoms sector regulation. Celebrating his birthday that day, Labriola was balanced in his view (showcasing his Libra tendencies), accepting the need for regulation, while urging regulators to allow TIM, and by extension other operators, to compete on the same footing as big tech firms – a point he had made at the two previous iterations of the event. Labriola also bemoaned the slow pace at which regulation typically evolves, especially amid the current rate of technological development – a criticism shared by Yon-Courtin. Labriola was seemingly most keen to discuss the satellite market, raising concerns over its lack of any significant sovereign EU operator. Underlining his criticism of the EU’s languid approach regulation, he exclaimed that “while we discuss, they (non-EU satellite operators) will fill the low earth orbit (LEO)”. Whelan was relatively sceptical, however, questioning both the cost base and ultimate realistic capacity of LEO satellite services. Similarly, in response to the other panellists’ concerns around sovereignty, Whelan warned that merger control is not a solution to “tectonic shifts” in the geopolitics of supply chains, but a tool that may help “move the cursor” on EU productivity and competitiveness.
Public and private capital may be required to best grow sovereign, competitive challengers in digital markets
Aura Salla (MEP, EPP and Member, ITRE Committee) kicked off a sovereignty-focused panel by lamenting other panellists’ repeated mentions of the Draghi and Letta reports. Salla’s own proposed solution to a perceived lack of EU competitiveness in digital markets was “money, money, money” and “data, data, data”, calling for a prioritisation of private investment and the use of data to support sovereign European firms’ AI training. Salla supported GDPR reforms and a focus on European software to enact these changes, arguing that if the EU public sector starts using “Eurostack” options, these will be more easily able to scale and therefore be competitive. Adrien Abecassis (Ambassador for Digital Affairs and AI, Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs, France) agreed with Salla that a lack of investment was one of the central reasons behind a lack of competitive, sovereign players in digital markets – but was less absolute about the need for it to be driven by the private sector, saying that “we shouldn’t be ashamed of using public capital”. He praised early public sector adoptions of sovereign cloud providers in France, with Salla agreeing and emphasising that “Europe is back in this game and we need to make it happen” – a noticeably more optimistic attitude than she has had in the past.
Discussions on cybersecurity naturally focused on the CSA2, with panellists broadly in agreement that the deadline for rip and replace should be more flexible
The CSA2 dominated much of the security-focused discussion, with Ana Figueiredo (CEO, MEO) highlighting the cost and investment concerns associated with Title IV of the EC’s proposal, which received nods of agreement from Juhan Lepassar (Executive Director, ENISA). Though Figueiredo supported the ultimate objectives of the CSA2, she emphasised that spending a lot of money on a rip and replace – around €80m (£68m) in MEO’s case – would not be a “productive investment”, especially as the operator seeks to compete with a new entrant (Digi) in a market currently home to the cheapest price per GB of mobile data in the world. Figueiredo and Kati Nyman (Corporate Chief of Staff and Member of the Executive Board, Elisa Group) both considered that if operators were forced to rip and replace equipment from high-risk vendors (HRVs), it would reduce investment elsewhere, such as in standalone 5G, AI and other cybersecurity measures, while Figueiredo stated that the process could present particular risks for resilience should it leave only one vendor available to supply some parts of the network. According to Figueiredo, many operators would want to be compensated for a rip-and-replace mandate, with MEO having already sought compensation in court following the introduction of vendor restrictions in Portugal.
Eva Maydell (MEP, EPP and Member, ITRE Committee) advocated a European rather than national approach, as security does not “recognise borders”, but stated that ultimately operators wanted predictability from the legislation. She proposed dropping the fixed deadline for rip and replace (as several Member States have reportedly also backed) in favour of flexibility, and suggested the best way to do this would be through phasing out HRVs during the next technological upgrade. Maydell nevertheless emphasised that there would need to be a clear end date of when HRVs should be removed, with a need to ensure that this does not turn into an open-ended delay. Nyman agreed that a fixed short-term deadline would not work, and that operators need realistic timelines, expressing support for the lifecycle approach. However, while stating that he wasn’t arguing against these views, Lepassar questioned whether the generational approach would work in practice, as new technologies are often built on top of older ones rather than directly taking their place.
