Given seismic change in the functioning and role of the internet, policymakers and industry are beginning to debate if and/or how net neutrality rules should evolve
A recognition that the modern day internet is vastly different to when the EU’s net neutrality regulation came into effect
On 14 January 2026, Arcep – the French communications regulator – hosted an event in Brussels to mark 10 years of the EU’s Open Internet Regulation. The event came amid a call for input from the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) on further guidance around 5G network slicing. Held within the European Parliament building, the event was opened by Stéphanie Yon-Courtin (MEP, Renew Europe) who welcomed those with a shared commitment to a free and open internet. She stated that the EC had made a clear and courageous political choice a decade ago to establish a binding framework that was grounded in the simple but powerful principle that all traffic should be treated equally. However, Yon-Courtin acknowledged that the internet of 2026 is not the same as that of 2015/16, with a handful of digital platforms now accounting for the majority of overall data traffic. She stated that demands for high-quality, reliable and secure connectivity places huge pressure on telecoms operators, raising questions for policymakers as to how to address the issue while preserving net neutrality across all Member States without fragmentation.
A sense the regulation has not harmed the telecoms sector, but provided a stable basis on which to invest and innovate
Yon-Courtin identified Arcep as a regulator considering whether the current framework should evolve. Arcep’s Ambition 2030 strategy states that it will promote the view that net neutrality should be extended to other links in the digital chain, including “smartphones, gatekeeper platforms, the cloud and generative AI”. In response, Laure de La Raudière (President, Arcep) sought to emphasise her credentials as a longstanding proponent of net neutrality, arguing that it is a principle that supports the freedoms of citizens, the functioning of the economy and the strategic autonomy of the EU at large. Amid fears of a two-tier internet, de La Raudière stated that the bloc made a decisive choice to prevent discrimination and unjustified prioritisation, which has led to tangible benefits – especially for small businesses that can innovate and grow without being made “invisible”. She also stressed that this has not meant harm to operators, stating that the regulation’s stable framework has not stifled investment (pointing to the €500bn (£433bn) invested by operators in the EU over the last 10 years) nor prevented operators from developing new services, such as IPTV, VoIP or 5G slicing.
Data, compute and foundation models are core components of the AI stack that big tech is seeking to control
Joining the event virtually, Tom Wheeler (former Chair, FCC) described himself as a “capital C capitalist” and a believer in the free market philosophies of Scottish economist Adam Smith; however, he caveated this with the view that free markets function best where there are rules. Wheeler stated that the primary question European regulators grappled with in devising the regulation – namely, how to overcome bottlenecks that could determine who can participate, innovate and compete online – is the same as the one policymakers are now facing with AI. He argued that large tech firms that championed the regulation used the openness it provided to grow and then to build closed “superstructures”, later using their dominance to foreclose rivals’ access to the market. Wheeler considered that the prospect of this approach being applied to the AI stack should be a “flashing warning signal to us all”, identifying three critical chokepoints that could give rise to anti-competitive effects:
Data: The “raw material” of intelligence;
Compute: If data is fuel, this is the engine – but it is controlled by three companies, each of which is making significant investments;
Foundation models: They are overwhelmingly closed, capture the vast majority of usage (80%) and revenue (96%), and lock in developers.
By following the same playbook as it has employed over the past decade, Wheeler stated that big tech was morphing into “big AI”, aiming to shape the future in a way that benefits itself while placing risks of its behaviour onto society. He also took a swipe at the Trump Administration’s protectionism towards US-headquartered platforms, stating that history offers a cautionary tale that this attitude only dulls the discipline offered by fair competition.
Operators urged a shift from regulatory approval for new propositions to a system of permissionless innovation
The subsequent panel discussion echoed the keynotes’ sentiments, with speakers aligned at least in supporting the principle of net neutrality and in praising the EU for having consistently regulated it, particularly in contrast to the changing landscape in the US. Cláudio Teixeira (Head of Digital Policy, BEUC) considered that the adoption of the regulation was a fundamental milestone, stating that the “baseline” of the rules delivers vital benefits for consumers and expressing confidence that the existing framework is sufficiently future-proof, if applied effectively. However, Maarit Palovirta (Deputy Director General, Connect Europe) claimed that there is fragmentation in how the regulation is interpreted and enforced across the EU, with different treatments of specialised services and traffic management practices. She argued that this raises questions about consistency and certainty for operators, having a limiting effect on innovation while conflicting with the EC’s competitiveness and single market agendas. Both Palovirta and Romain Bonenfant (President, EuroISPA) called for a shift towards “permissionless innovation” from the current “innovation by permission” model, under which operators must seek regulatory approval for the launch of any new proposition. Palovirta stated that this could be enabled by a non-exhaustive whitelist of solutions that would be permissible (e.g. telemedicine, drone services). Teixeira was not against revising aspects of the regulation or its associated guidance, acknowledging that there may be room for improvement, but underlined that consumer protection must be the first consideration in any evidence-based review where independent regulators should be in the driving seat. Despite reflecting earlier comments on the evolution of the digital ecosystem, Bonenfant’s suggestion that operators posed little threat to net neutrality was met by some subtle yet visible headshaking as well as a wry smile from de La Raudière.
