The strong attendance and distinguished speakers reflected the expectations on policymakers to deliver an effective review of the EU’s regulatory framework for telecoms
A reminder that forthcoming policy reforms will need to effectively balance various different interests
Assembly was invited by Nicola Zingaretti (MEP, S&D) to attend an event at the European Parliament on 16 March 2026 on building European digital sovereignty in light of the draft Digital Networks Act (DNA). With Parliamentarians set to begin debate on this file and on the EC’s Cybersecurity Act (CSA) proposals this month, Zingaretti stressed that the EU had decisive political choices to make. He stated that rules in sectors such as telecoms are important, but alone they are not enough. If they were, Europe would be the biggest economic power in the world. Zingaretti considered that operators are critical to investment but there are imbalances in the digital ecosystem, with the value stemming from the region’s networks captured elsewhere (i.e. by overseas tech companies). He added that US firms currently account for 70% of the European cloud market, with domestic providers securing just 15%. In Zingaretti’s view, this is not a case of “natural selection”, but instead a structural problem. He considered the proposal for a DNA a first attempt to course correct in order to accelerate investment and reduce fragmentation, but called for further action alongside a renewed belief in the European project, particularly as 2027 will mark 70 years since the signing of the Treaty of Rome that established the European Economic Community (EEC). Zingaretti argued that the bloc is powerful and has significant potential; however, it must ensure that it does not experience the digital revolution “passively”.
Alberto La Bella (Coordinator for Transport and Telecoms, Permanent Representation of Italy to the EU) echoed some of the opening remarks, considering that investment and harmonisation (two priorities for the DNA) will be critical to European competitiveness, but cautioned that progressing the file must bear in mind both the interests of consumers and national interests. Raffaele Fitto (EVP for Cohesion and Reforms, EC) also felt that the DNA proposals were a promising starting point, seeing the act as representing one of the main vehicles through which to champion the EU’s simplification agenda. He urged industry and policymakers not to lose sight of the needs of citizens living in rural areas, for whom access to telecoms services is especially vital, stating that without strengthening connectivity in all areas, it would not be possible to drive competitiveness at the regional level.
Operators want to see the EC take stronger action and move at pace, while avoiding increases to their cost base
The opening panel discussion sought to gather perspectives on regulation, security and investment in the European telecoms sector from a variety of standpoints. Michał Kobosko (MEP, Renew and Rapporteur on the DNA) joked that a packed room late afternoon on a Monday was not the norm for the European Parliament, but that it showed the passion of stakeholders in debating the draft regulation now on the table. He considered that there were two primary reasons for this: 1) the importance of the digital economy; and 2) the high expectations being placed on Parliamentarians. He saw the role of the DNA as creating a regulatory environment that supports investment, welcoming proposals for longer spectrum licences, but underlined that he and his colleagues would stand firmly behind the own-initiative report on European technological sovereignty and digital infrastructure, which was adopted in June 2025. Mari-Noëlle Jégo-Laveissière (CEO, Orange Europe) similarly considered that the draft DNA contained some positive elements (e.g. on spectrum policy, the choice of a regulation over a directive), but felt that the overall text did not “hit the mark”. She argued that it was currently missing a standalone chapter on satellite services as well as stronger interventions in respect of open internet rules, and that deadlines for copper switch-off risked introducing complexity without fully taking into account ongoing national retirement programmes. Jégo-Laveissière’s frustrations about the lengthy timeline for the DNA’s eventual implementation were also confirmed by Roberto Viola (Director General, DG CNECT, EC) who, amid some otherwise inconsequential remarks, stated that the act would not be applicable until 2028 or perhaps even 2029. Kobosko’s closing comments raised eyebrows, calling the voluntary conciliation mechanism within the DNA “timid” and suggesting that for Europe to achieve digital sovereignty and high-performance telecoms networks, it would have to consider who should “chip in”.
On the CSA, Kobosko stated that political and technical decisions would need to be taken on the equipment vendors that the EU trusts and those that it doesn’t, recognising that the same answer might not apply to every part of the network. If the bloc does ban a supplier from the market, he emphasised that serious discussions would be required on how that move would be paid for and who would bear the cost – underlining that it should not be worn by consumers. Walter Renna (CEO, Fastweb) warned that if the CSA was adopted in its current form, it would impose considerable costs on operators. He stated that he understood the principle behind the EC’s thinking but that such a “ban and swap” rule would be difficult to effect, impossible in fact within the proposed 36-month timeframe.
Suggestions that the European telecoms sector is in a relatively good position when compared to the US
Speakers on the subsequent panel looked to dispel the notion that the EU is lagging behind global superpowers, with Carlota Reyners Fontana (Director for Information Technology, Communication and Media, DG COMP, EC) stating succinctly that “we are not so bad”. She claimed that network quality and speeds have improved, and there are increasing incentives to invest in infrastructure. Matthias Ecke (MEP, S&D and Shadow Rapporteur on the DNA), pointing to recent DG COMP analysis, stated that the telecoms sector is not in poor shape on the whole. Although the US may be ahead of Europe in terms of fibre coverage, consumers there pay a disproportionate amount more per month for their services due to less intense competition. While Reyners Fontana believed that the DNA could be more ambitious in how it seeks to realise a single market for telecoms, Ecke considered that it was essentially more pro-competition than the Digital Infrastructure White Paper and urged peers to focus on fixing what’s broken and not what isn’t. Cláudio Teixeira (Head of Digital Policy, BEUC) somewhat agreed, stating that the draft DNA was at the very least not the “enemy of competition” reflected in the White Paper. However, highlighting persistent problems with accessibility and affordability, he made clear that consumers are not doing so well that they no longer need protecting, warning that deregulation could risk operators returning to harmful practices that would represent the “ghosts of monopolistic times”.
Benedetto Levi (CEO, Iliad Italia) was another to welcome the EC’s spectrum proposals (which may yet face opposition in the Council), stating that indefinite licences would offer operators predictability and that the harmonisation of best practices with respect to auction design and prices would help to avoid the repeat of the “catastrophe” that was Italy’s 5G award in 2018. Rounding out the discussion, Pietro Labriola (CEO, TIM) gave an impassioned, if familiar, speech that asked EU policymakers to look at regulation through a broader lens that would see certain services provided by telecoms operators and tech firms face equivalent rules. He disputed the suggestion that the sector is in good financial health, arguing that operators such as Deutsche Telekom and Orange only make money outside of Europe. Labriola saw consolidation as a necessary part of the solution, but criticised the use of structural remedies, stating that the last time Italy attempted a four-to-three merger, it ended up with five operators. On this point, Reyners Fontana extended a partial olive branch, stating that telecoms is a sector where M&A tends to deliver efficiencies at a much later date than when the deal takes place, and that this is something the EC is considering as part of its ongoing merger guidelines review.
