Six EU countries are challenging the upcoming Digital Networks Act, pushing to keep national control over key telecom rules. Meanwhile, European consumers, trade partners, and the EU’s own watchdog cast doubt on the Commission’s plans.
This article was first published on EU Tech Loop and has been shared on Euronews as part of an agreement with EU Tech Loop.
Some six European Union member states - Austria, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, and Slovenia - have recently sent a joint position to the Council of the European Union, urging the EU (again) to rethink its approach to the upcoming Digital Networks Act (DNA), according to Brussels-based media reports.
The position's content is hardly new – the EU member states want to retain power over frequency policy and management, among other things.
In the past, EU ministers have also expressed a degree of scepticism towards other major elements of the upcoming DNA, such as network fees, easier mergers for telecommunications companies, and new regulatory requirements for the digital services sector in pursuit of a so-called level playing field.
Although the EU Commission is expected to propose the updated DNA text in January 2026, negative signals from member states, businesses, consumer organisations, and its very own watchdog - EU Regulatory Scrutiny Board - indicate that this will be one of the most challenging endeavours for the Commission next year.
What has been said previously? Ministerial position at the TTE Council
Back in December 2024, at the Transport, telecommunications, and energy council, EU ministers discussed the White Paper “How to master Europe’s digital infrastructure needs?” which essentially served as a prelude to the Digital Networks Act.
At that time, ministers expressed a rather modest and cautious view on the need for new IP interconnection dispute resolution mechanisms (de facto network fees). Ministers stated that the Internet Protocol (IP) interconnection market in the EU works properly, and national regulatory authorities are experienced in handling dispute resolution matters on their own.
Ministers have also questioned one of the main declared needs for the Digital Networks Act – the need to create a so-called level playing field between the telecommunications and digital services sectors, by de facto extending the telecommunications rulebook to the tech industry.
The ministerial document states that while pursuing a level playing field is commendable, this _"_does not necessarily imply that the same regulations should apply to them, since this depends on their activities across the value chain."
Lastly, the ministers also questioned the “easier mergers for telco companies” approach, stressing that the impact on competition in those member states’ markets that are currently unable to operate on a pan-European scale needs to be taken into account.
Consumers are against network fees
In July, a group of business and consumer organisations (including some that would normally applaud the Commission’s strict regulatory approach) criticised the rebirth of fair share/network fees via the proposed IP dispute resolution mechanisms.
The letter also stressed that the concepts of plans for network fees, first pushed by telecom operators in 2022, have already been "clearly rejected in previous consultations" due to their negative impact on consumers, competition, innovation and net neutrality, and therefore should not be reopened.
US-EU trade deal and the EU’s commitment not to introduce network fees
This year’s rocky relationship between the US and the EU on trade (among many other things) is far from over, but in late August, we saw a US–EU trade deal come to fruition.
Article 17 of the agreement explicitly states that the EU commits to not introducing network fees. Whether the EU will hold to this promise in practice remains to be seen.
A no from the EU’s own regulatory scrutiny board
Last but not least, in late October the EU’s own Regulatory Scrutiny Board – an independent body within the Commission that advises the College of Commissioners and provides “quality control and support for Commission impact assessments and evaluations at early stages of the legislative process” – is said to have issued a negative opinion on the preparedness of the Digital Networks Act, disrupting the Commission’s plans to publish the draft text in late December.
