Ireland has its work cut out given the universal view that much work is needed to deliver a DNA that is true to its original intentions
Keynote speakers were aligned on the need for regulatory simplification, but acknowledged the herculean task ahead
On 11 June 2026, in Dublin, Assembly participated in the GSMA and Telecommunications Industry Ireland’s (TII) ‘Shaping Europe’s Connectivity Future’ event ahead of Ireland assuming the Presidency of the Council of the EU on 1 July. Speakers weighed in on the familiar topics of regulatory simplification and the Digital Networks Act (DNA) in the wider context of the European telecoms sector’s future.
Nicola Cooke (Director, TII) and Vivek Badrinath (Director General, GSMA) opened the afternoon’s discussions with a set of asks for European policymakers that were echoed throughout the day: simplify and modernise regulation; reduce regulatory duplication and overlap (particularly in cybersecurity); and ensure timely access to spectrum – which was described by Cooke as the “fuel for innovation”. She also used her opening remarks to call for telecoms to not just be recognised as a service sector, but also as a provider of critical national infrastructure (CNI) and enabler of investment in the economy. Badrinath stressed the need for simplification by citing the burden for operators of facing “28 sector-specific regulations”. He specifically focused on the Open Internet Regulation (OIR), which he deemed was "developed for a different era”, and didn’t pass up on the opportunity to push the ‘fair share’ agenda by stating that conversations still needed to happen regarding the “fair usage of networks”. He also voiced concerns over the EC’s proposal for a revised Cybersecurity Act (CSA2), criticising its lack of a risk-based approach and technical grounding, and as something that would divert resources away from network upgrades into a “useless rip and replace exercise”.
Patrick O’Donovan’s (Minister for Culture, Communications and Sport, Irish Government) address was comprehensive, with the Minister keen to “give his tuppence worth” on everything from simplification and network resilience to the "disintegration of democracy” – his broad remarks were perhaps unsurprising given he goes to the Council with a very busy telecoms agenda. O’Donovan agreed on the need for regulatory simplification, but warned that the process of how change is enacted in the EU is “beyond reform”. He joked that the US can change things much quicker, whereas the EU would first need to have a discussion about where to establish a Ministry for Simplification. On telecoms, the Minister praised the Irish National Broadband Plan’s success and highlighted the country’s central role in the world’s subsea cable infrastructure, recognising how crucial stronger resilience measures and more diversity in data traffic routes may be. He stressed that the protection of minors online would be one of the biggest priorities for his department, both nationally and within the Council. O’Donovan acknowledged that some Member States are moving unilaterally on social media bans in the absence of common rules, and as such, some countries will inevitably find themselves in front of courts (implying some legal challenges from big tech are likely), but understood why they might given their responsibilities to those who elect them.
Finally, Michał Kobosko (MEP, Renew and Rapporteur of the DNA) provided a brief update on his work on the DNA, reiterating his “optimistic” deadline for a European Parliament report on the proposal in October 2026, made all the more challenging given reactions to the current set of proposals. According to Kobosko, real simplification needs to be at the core of the DNA and should be built around countries that have already implemented the EECC with the fewest additional obligations. Fewer reporting requirements and “same service, same rules” follow as his next priorities.
Operator CEOs called on the upcoming Irish Council Presidency to “simplify, simplify, simplify” if the DNA is to be true to Draghi’s original intentions
The afternoon’s first panel brought Ireland’s telecoms CEOs together, with speakers taking aim at the DNA, CSA2 and Europe’s restrictive investment environment. Oliver Loomes (CEO, eir Ireland) argued that as an industry, telecoms has been a “victim of its own success”, receiving less support than other regulated sectors because it’s not in as bad a shape. To formalise this recognition, he asked for an end-to-end review of telecoms regulation in Ireland, with a focus on planning reforms as well as ComReg’s economic regulation, complaining about how “top-up” regulation was always on the horizon – particularly in relation to consumer pricing and tariffs. He blamed the regulatory environment for restricting industry investment, highlighting how capex in telecoms lags behind other sectors, despite its capital intensive nature. Sabrina Casalta (CEO, Vodafone Ireland) emphasised this point, explaining that operators already need to reinvest around half of their service revenue and still fail to see a significant return, unlike in Africa, where Casalta said operators had triple the ROI of their European counterparts.
Across the panel, asks of the Irish Presidency were mostly the same, with Loomes looking back to the Draghi Report’s objectives of simplicity and Peter McCarthy (CEO, Virgin Media Ireland) calling for policymakers to “simplify, simplify, simplify”. Casalta’s requests were more surgical and focused on certainty around spectrum availability and 5G network slicing. On the latter, she called for guidance from the EC – a request that was echoed by Elaine Carey (CEO, Three Ireland and Chairperson of Telecommunications Industry Ireland), who also expressed support for fair share, highlighting how the cost per GB of data has significantly fallen in Ireland as a result of rising usage, and as such a fairer conversation was needed about who contributes to the cost of meeting that demand.
Familiar criticisms of the DNA were added to with panel-wide concerns about the EC’s CSA2 and 2GHz spectrum framework proposals coming to the fore
The second and final panel was billed as a deep dive into the DNA, but the conversation jumped around to a variety of other topics, with Cynthia Ní Mhurchú’s (MEP, Renew) interjections making for an engaging debate, especially given her opening gambit was to admit that “I don’t know much about this industry”. Spectrum policy quickly emerged as one of the panel’s primary concerns, with Robert Mourik (Commissioner, ComReg and Vice Chair, BEREC) criticising auction designs, stating that there is a clear disconnect between how regulators and industry value the resource. Ben Wreschner (Group Regulatory Policy Director, Vodafone) saw this in a different light, arguing that spectrum is “prohibitively expensive”, drawing an audible sigh from Mourik and a remark that saying so was “incredibly self serving”. Wreschner argued that the auction format has had its time, suggesting that it’s fine for operators being asked to bid if they’re building something new, but that operators are being asked to bid in auctions to keep operating a network they’ve already built – “If you create artificial scarcity then operators overbid” – something Mourik interjected to agree with. For Jakob Greiner (Chair of the GSMA Policy Group Europe and VP of European Affairs, Deutsche Telekom) spectrum is lost money that could be invested and crucially in “the heart of the patient”. He welcomed the EC’s proposal of indefinite spectrum licences, which he argued have been a success in the US.
Despite other differences of opinion, the panel agreed the DNA was not up to scratch, although some were more critical than others. Greiner lamented its lack of action on the problems it has diagnosed the sector with. He was clearly more in favour of the US’ approach, reiterating McCarthy’s “simplify, simplify, simplify” motto and instead urging a “delete, delete, delete” agenda as has been adopted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) across the Atlantic. He stressed the importance of getting the DNA right given it will be around for at least the next 15 years, something Mourik later endorsed. He stated that the EC’s good intentions have been poorly translated into the text, and given it’s the text that lives on, it's important to spend time getting it right.
Net neutrality and the OIR took up a fair amount of the panel. Greiner again returned to the US where despite the absence of net neutrality rules there have not been any problems – for him the best example of evidence. He argued that the telecoms industry wasn’t out to “slaughter the holy cow of net neutrality”, but implied that the rules were written in a different era and “this cow is getting old and needs moving to a new field”. This is one area where he doesn’t want to delete, but rather modify, with guidance from the EC rather than BEREC to avoid legal uncertainty. He gave an example of attempts to launch a gaming slice in Germany which resulted in court interventions and delays – something he wants cleared up that they don’t need to discuss with the regulator for three months every time they want to launch a new offer. Mourik recognised the grumbles around slicing, but appeared unconvinced the industry is sure of a business case there. Addressing earlier remarks that the UK was falling apart post-Brexit, Wreschner was keen to point out this wasn’t a picture he recognised, particularly given the the Government has been receptive to potential changes around net neutrality.
Finally, the panel scrutinised the EC’s CSA2 and 2GHz MSS spectrum proposals. Patrick Neary (Assistant Secretary Telecommunications and Digital Connectivity, Department of Culture, Communications and Sport, Irish Government) and Mourik noted that the MSS spectrum framework does not align with the DNA due to its proposed 20-year licence duration, but also warned that the acceptance of such a centralised approach was essentially an acceptance of the DNA’s proposed satellite authorisation regime. Wreschner criticised the CSA2’s proposed 36-month timeline for all operators to complete their rip and replace processes of high-risk vendor equipment, calling for an approach closer to that of the UK’s, which he argues was more reflective of industry needs.
