EU's Digital Networks Act sets telcos squabbling before the ink is dry
- Reference: 1769090234
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2026/01/22/eu_digital_networks/
- Source link:
The [1]legislation , published Wednesday, aims to create a single market for telecoms across the whole EU. This, it hopes, will stimulate investment in modern networks, an area where Europe is lagging other regions.
To achieve this, the EC says it is necessary to establish an EU-level spectrum authorization framework, rather than leaving this at national level. It also wants to make mandatory a Europe-wide phase out of copper networks in favor of fiber, with a deadline between 2030 and 2035.
[2]
Likewise, it wants to implement a single authorization for satellite services to support the rollout of direct-to-device [3]satellite phone communications .
[4]
[5]
By modernizing the regulatory framework, the EC says it will reduce the administrative burden on companies so they can focus resources on investment instead.
It also proposes a voluntary cooperation mechanism between connectivity providers and other players such as content, application, and cloud providers to "facilitate dialogue on technical and commercial arrangements."
[6]
The latter has aroused the ire of the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), which accuses the EC of implementing a backdoor policy to allow telcos to charge network access fees.
This issue caused some controversy a few years back, when the EC was mulling whether cloud providers and social media firms should [7]pay fees to the network operators to help fund infrastructure, with the reason being that they generate a considerable and growing amount of the traffic flowing through those networks.
However, the idea was [8]quietly shelved following a consultation in 2023.
[9]
Now the CCIA claims the proposed voluntary conciliation procedure "could turn into a binding IP dispute-resolution system, effectively resurrecting the widely rejected network fees." This would allow telcos to extract unjustified revenues from popular online services, harming consumers and undermining net neutrality, it says.
[10]EU considers whether there's Huawei of axing Chinese kit from networks within 3 years
[11]Brussels plots open source push to pry Europe off Big Tech
[12]EU offers UK early gift: Data adequacy until 2031
[13]Devs say Apple still flouting EU's Digital Markets Act six months on
The CCIA's membership comprises giant American tech firms such as Amazon, Google, Meta, Cloudflare, Ebay, Pinterest, and Apple, so it is only to be expected that they oppose any kind of European regulations which might affect them.
The GSMA, which represents mobile network operators, says the DNA proposals don't do enough to address the lack of investment holding back telecoms across Europe.
"Aside from far-reaching proposals on radio spectrum policy, it is now clear that many of the reforms originally promised have unfortunately been left on the table, and that the DNA proposal represents regulatory evolution where revolution is required," the GSMA said in a statement sent to The Register .
We are almost seven years into the 5G era, yet deployment of this technology across Europe continues to trail other major regions such as the US and China, which the GSMA claims is the result of an unfavorable investment environment resulting from regulatory complexity.
"While Europe's mobile operators continue to invest heavily in critical digital infrastructure, they do so with ever-diminishing returns... at present, they are not able to invest enough to ensure Europe's digital capabilities catch up and keep pace with other major territories," it states.
The DNA proposal now begins its legislative journey through the European Parliament and Council for approval. If accepted, it will replace the 2018 [14]EU Electronic Communications Code .
"Our goal is a digital environment where new technologies are readily available, affordable, and grounded in fair trustworthy rules that benefit people," said Henna Virkkunen, the EC's EVP for Tech Sovereignty, Security and Democracy. ®
Get our [15]Tech Resources
[1] https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/proposal-regulation-digital-networks-act-dna
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2aXJXvxDWmm5mFOdf0fxRCAAAA4M&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://www.theregister.com/2025/01/02/satellite_phone_services_starlink/
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aXJXvxDWmm5mFOdf0fxRCAAAA4M&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aXJXvxDWmm5mFOdf0fxRCAAAA4M&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aXJXvxDWmm5mFOdf0fxRCAAAA4M&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2023/01/12/eu_telco_big_tech/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2023/10/12/europe_comms_sector_future_consultation/
[9] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aXJXvxDWmm5mFOdf0fxRCAAAA4M&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2026/01/21/eu_mulls_deadline_of_3_years/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2026/01/11/eu_open_source_consultation/
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2025/12/22/eu_uk_data_adequacy/
[13] https://www.theregister.com/2025/12/16/apple_dma_complaint/
[14] https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/eu-electronic-communications-code
[15] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: This would allow telcos to extract unjustified revenues
Most have usage limits anyway (& you can choose which plan to sign up to)
So if you are a heavy streamer you may want to sign up to a more heavy usage plan (in UK, generally do not have a hard "cap", tend to get throttled if ISP not happy with your usage)
Consumers indirectly tend to pay more anyway, by choosing an appropriate plan.
What would be nice for consumers is badly behaved software & hardware not keeping up a near continual stream of traffic going in the background (not an issue if you have a wired ISP, but if your internet is via mobile, where tend to be stricter limits, then can be a pain for non techie people, and unavoidable in some use cases* unless you go to a lot of tedious effort with blacklisting various things )
* e.g. if you have a "smart" TV & actually want to use those features (internet connected) then you will (with most manufacturers) see traffic even when you are not streaming.
.. instead of being like me with a dumb TV - A very non typical use case these days.
Re: This would allow telcos to extract unjustified revenues
Some of the data usage caps/costs for access is no joke. A friend of mine is a heavy Ingress player, having even bought a vehicle that can offroad comfortably and helped charter a helicopter[1] for operations. She frequently used a BGAN that charged about $6 USD per *megabyte*, and had to use an app that'd shut down all but the necessary data use to not run up huge charges with every use.
And here I thought it was painful that I'm paying about $100 USD/mo for 100GB of 5G tethering before throttling kicks in.
[1] Although she wouldn't fly on it, the people involved wanted to get a very tiny person in there instead to at least keep the cost down a bit.
This would allow telcos to extract unjustified revenues
We already pay for our internet - for me it is €53/month. If that, multiplied by all the many subscribers, is insufficient then the telco is not viable (or wants to stuff cash into shareholders pockets). They don't need to double dip and be paid by us and the services we use (which, indirectly, would also be paid by us).
I pay for a dangling bit of wire which has an advertised capacity (that they may even meet). How I use that bit of wire shouldn't be their concern.