EU Digital Networks Act Proposed

On January 21, 2026, the European Commission unveiled a legislative proposal poised to become one of the most significant overhauls of the continent’s digital infrastructure rules in a generation: the Digital Networks Act (DNA) . This ambitious proposal aims to scrap the current regulatory playbook, replacing the 2018 European Electronic Communications Code (EECC) with a streamlined, directly applicable regulation across all 27 member states . The core mission of the DNA is ambitious yet straightforward: to slash red tape, encourage massive investments in high-speed networks like fiber and 5G, and ultimately forge a true “Digital Single Market” for connectivity . By harmonizing rules that have long been fragmented along national borders, the EU hopes to create an environment where telecom operators can scale up, innovate, and compete on a global stage, finally closing the digital gap with economic rivals like the United States and China . This article delves into the intricacies of the proposed DNA, exploring its key provisions, potential impacts on various stakeholders, and the challenges it faces on its path to becoming law.

The Genesis: Why a Digital Networks Act?

To understand the DNA, one must first understand the problem it seeks to solve. Europe’s digital connectivity landscape is a paradox. While it is home to world-class engineers and a strong industrial base, its telecom market remains deeply fragmented. Under the current system, a company wanting to offer services across the EU must navigate 27 different national regulatory regimes, a costly and complex barrier to entry that has stifled the emergence of pan-European telecom giants .

This fragmentation has had real-world consequences. Investment in next-generation infrastructure has lagged. According to EU Commissioner Thierry Breton, Europe has fallen behind in data center capacity and AI training capabilities . The return on investment for telecom operators has dwindled over the past decade, making it difficult to justify the enormous capital expenditure required for widespread fiber and 5G rollout . The EECC, while well-intentioned, was implemented unevenly by member states, creating a patchwork of rules that added complexity without fostering a unified market . The DNA is the European Commission’s decisive answer to this gridlock, a strategic pivot from a collection of national telecom markets to a single, cohesive “super-market” for digital infrastructure, designed to serve as the backbone for Europe’s digital decade and its ambitions in artificial intelligence and cloud computing .

Key Pillars of the Digital Networks Act Proposal

The DNA proposal is a complex piece of legislation, but its core objectives can be broken down into several transformative pillars. It moves beyond the directive-based approach of the past, opting for a regulation that is binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all member states, thereby leaving minimal room for national divergence .

A. The “Single Passport” for Telecom Operators

Perhaps the most lauded operational change within the DNA is the introduction of a “Single Passport” authorization regime . Currently, a provider seeking to operate in multiple EU countries must file a separate notification with each national regulator. The DNA proposes to replace this cumbersome process with a one-stop-shop system. Here is how it works:

• A. One Notification to Rule Them All: A provider would only need to submit a single notification to the regulatory authority in the member state where it is headquartered .

• B. EU-Wide Validity: Upon acceptance, this notification would serve as a “passport,” granting the provider the automatic right to offer its services in any other EU member state listed in the initial notification. No further paperwork or approvals would be required from other capitals .

• C. Harmonized Conditions: The DNA establishes a single, exhaustive list of conditions that can be attached to this general authorization. Member States are explicitly prohibited from adding extra requirements or “gold-plating” the rules, ensuring a level playing field across the bloc .

• D. Centralized Oversight: A newly created Office for Digital Networks (ODN) , which will replace the existing BEREC Office, would maintain a central, public database of all notifications, providing transparency and oversight .

This single passport is expected to reduce the administrative costs of cross-border operation by more than 30%, effectively removing a historic barrier to growth and encouraging mergers and expansion that could create “European champions” in the telecom sector .

B. A New Deal for Spectrum: Longer Leases and “Use-It-or-Share-It”

Spectrum the radio waves that carry mobile data is the lifeblood of wireless communications. Historically, its management has been a jealously guarded national competence, leading to misaligned auction timings and licensing terms that hinder cross-border network planning. The DNA seeks to modernize this dramatically .

• A. Indefinite and Longer Licenses: The proposal establishes that spectrum usage rights should, in principle, be of unlimited duration. In cases where a limited term is justified, the default license period would be a minimum of 40 years, double the previous 20-year cap . This long-term certainty is designed to encourage operators to invest confidently in infrastructure, knowing they will have access to the spectrum for decades.

• B. The “Use-It-or-Share-It” Principle: To prevent the hoarding of this precious resource, the DNA introduces a “use-it-or-share-it” obligation . Companies that hold spectrum rights but are not actively using it must be open to requests for leasing or sharing it with other operators, provided it is technically feasible. This ensures that spectrum is utilized efficiently and doesn’t lie fallow.

• C. Harmonization and EU-Level Coordination: The DNA creates a framework for greater harmonization of spectrum assignment conditions and timelines across the EU. This includes a stronger role for a new Radio Spectrum Policy Board (replacing the current RSPG) to advise on coordination and ensure that future spectrum for 6G is rolled out in a consistent and timely manner across the continent .

C. The Sunset of Copper and the Rise of Fiber

In a decisive break from the principle of technology neutrality, the DNA mandates a clear and final end date for legacy copper networks . For decades, copper wires have formed the last mile of Europe’s telephone and internet connections, but they are increasingly a bottleneck to the gigabit speeds that modern applications demand.

• A. The 2035 Deadline: The DNA mandates that all copper wire networks must be switched off by December 31, 2035 .

• B. Phased Transition: The switch-off is not a sudden cutover. Member States are required to draft national plans for transitioning to full-fiber networks. Furthermore, the decommissioning of copper in a specific area is conditional upon two key safeguards:

  1. 95% of premises in that area have been passed by a fiber network capable of providing comparable services .

  2. Affordable retail broadband offers are available to all consumers in that area .

• C. Consumer Protection: Before the copper switch-off begins, member states must put in place safeguards for vulnerable consumers, ensuring that no one is left without connectivity .

This “copper sunset” is a powerful structural incentive. By setting a regulatory end-date, the DNA provides absolute clarity to the market, compelling investment in fiber rollout now to meet future demand and the legal deadline .

D. A European Framework for Satellite Communications

Satellite technology, particularly Low-Earth Orbit (LEO) constellations, is no longer a niche player but a critical component of a resilient and ubiquitous digital infrastructure. Recognizing this, the DNA creates a first-of-its-kind, EU-level authorization regime for satellite communications .

Under the current fragmented system, a satellite operator must seek approval from each individual member state where its services are received a logistical and legal nightmare. The DNA proposes to streamline this by allowing the European Commission itself to grant a single, EU-wide authorization . Once this “one-stop-shop” approval is obtained, a satellite operator can provide services across all 27 member states without any further national permissions. This regime will be supported by a future European Table of Allocation of Satellite Frequencies to provide greater transparency and predictability for operators regarding which spectrum bands to use .

E. Cybersecurity and Resilience: The New Mandatory Conditions

In an era of heightened geopolitical tension and escalating cyber threats, the DNA integrates security deeply into its framework. Compliance with stringent cybersecurity rules is now an explicit and non-negotiable condition for obtaining authorization to operate .

• A. Link to NIS2 and the Revised Cybersecurity Act: The DNA requires providers to comply with the security and resilience requirements of the NIS2 Directive and, crucially, the supply chain security rules set out in the proposed revision of the Cybersecurity Act (CSA2) .

• B. “High-Risk” Suppliers: The CSA2 empowers the Commission to designate certain countries or suppliers as “high-risk” due to concerns about foreign government interference. Under the DNA, operators using components from such designated suppliers in critical parts of their networks (like 5G cores) could be forced to remove and replace them within a set timeframe . Failure to comply could ultimately lead to the withdrawal of their authorization to provide services, a prospect that poses an “existential threat” to some operators, particularly Mobile Virtual Network Operators (MVNOs) with legacy supply chains .

• C. Resilience and Preparedness: The DNA also mandates the development of an EU-wide resilience plan for digital infrastructures, requiring operators to take steps to prepare for natural disasters, cyberattacks, and other major disruptions .

F. The “Fair Share” Debate: A Voluntary Path

One of the most contentious issues leading up to the DNA’s publication was the demand from traditional telecom operators that large traffic-generating tech companies (like Google, Netflix, or Meta) pay a “fair share” towards the cost of network infrastructure. The DNA’s final proposal sidesteps this mandatory levy .

Instead of imposing a tax or fee, the DNA establishes a framework for “ecosystem cooperation” and a voluntary conciliation mechanism . Here is how it works:

• A. No Mandatory Payments: The proposal includes no obligation for content or application providers (CAPs) to pay network operators directly.

• B. BEREC Guidelines: The Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) is tasked with publishing guidelines to facilitate technical and commercial cooperation between network providers and digital service companies.

• C. Voluntary Conciliation: If commercial negotiations fail, either party can request a “conciliatory meeting” facilitated by a national authority. BEREC would then issue a non-binding opinion to help guide a resolution .

While falling short of operator demands, this mechanism creates a formal platform for negotiation. It could, in practice, lead to increased fees or new commercial agreements for premium access or interconnection, though it stops short of the binding regulatory intervention many had anticipated.

The Impact on Key Stakeholders

The ripple effects of the Digital Networks Act will be felt far and wide across the digital ecosystem.

• For Traditional Telecom Operators (e.g., Deutsche Telekom, Orange): The DNA is a double-edged sword. On one hand, the single passport, longer spectrum licenses, and copper switch-off provide the regulatory clarity and scale needed to justify massive infrastructure investments. On the other hand, they face new, stringent cybersecurity obligations that may require costly overhauls of their supply chains .

• For Tech Giants and Over-the-Top (OTT) Providers (e.g., Google, Netflix, Meta): They have successfully avoided a mandatory “fair share” tax. However, they are not entirely free from the DNA’s reach. As providers of “digital infrastructure” or information society services that deeply integrate with networks, they may be drawn into the scope of new rules on resilience and interoperability. Furthermore, the voluntary conciliation mechanism could still lead to pressure for greater financial contributions .

• For Satellite Operators and Emerging Tech (e.g., SpaceX’s Starlink, OneWeb): This group stands to benefit significantly. The single EU-wide satellite authorization regime is a game-changer, slashing regulatory barriers and providing guaranteed access to the entire European market, fostering growth and innovation in space-based communications .

• For MVNOs and Smaller Players: The new regime poses a significant challenge. The strict supply chain security requirements, linked to the “high-risk” supplier designations, could be operationally and financially crippling if their existing network components are sourced from now-blacklisted vendors. The cost of replacing core infrastructure to remain compliant could force some out of business .

• For Consumers: In the long term, the DNA promises better, faster, and more secure connectivity, with gigabit networks becoming the norm. The copper switch-off is designed with safeguards to protect consumers, ensuring affordable alternatives are available. Harmonized consumer protection rules across the EU will also make things like switching providers simpler .

Criticisms and the Road Ahead

Despite its transformative goals, the DNA has not been without its critics. Some industry insiders argue that while the Commission claimed to be simplifying rules, the proposal actually introduces new layers of complexity, including additional administrative bodies and reporting requirements, while failing to scrap some outdated rules from the e-Privacy Directive .

The most significant criticism, however, is that the DNA represents “evolution” rather than the “revolution” that was needed . By punting the “fair share” issue to a voluntary mechanism, it left the core problem of asymmetric bargaining power between network operators and tech giants unresolved. Critics argue that this fails to create a truly level playing field and will do little to reverse the sector’s declining returns in the short term.

The proposal now enters the EU’s ordinary legislative procedure. It must be debated, amended, and approved by both the European Parliament and the Council of the EU, representing the member states . This process is expected to be lengthy and fiercely contested, with intense lobbying from all sides. Key battlegrounds will likely include the precise scope of the satellite authorization regime, the details of the “use-it-or-share-it” spectrum rules, and any attempts to strengthen or weaken the cybersecurity supply chain mandates.

Conclusion

The proposed EU Digital Networks Act is a landmark piece of legislation that signals a clear end to the era of fragmented, nationally-focused telecom regulation in Europe. By introducing a single market passport, modernizing spectrum policy, and mandating the sunset of legacy copper, it lays a robust foundation for a future of gigabit connectivity. Its centralization of satellite authorization and tightening of cybersecurity rules reflect a broader push for “digital strategic autonomy.” While critics lament its failure to impose a “fair share” on tech giants and warn of implementation challenges, the DNA undeniably represents a bold and necessary step. Its ultimate form, forged through the coming legislative battles, will determine whether it truly delivers the revolution Europe needs to lead in the digital age. For now, it stands as the most ambitious vision yet for connecting the continent.