The Digital Networks Act: Where the European Commission and the EU Regulators part ways 

There is much to like in the European Commission’s ambitions for the Digital Networks Act (DNA). The EU needs more investment in connectivity, a deeper Single Market and simpler, more predictable rules. But the EU’s regulators have offered a clear warning: simplification on paper does not necessarily mean simpler, or indeed better, regulation in practice. BEREC’s extensive response broadly supports the DNA’s objectives while questioning the proportionality of some of the proposed solutions. This is not an argument for preserving the status quo, but for ensuring that reform is grounded in evidence. 

Spectrum policy provides perhaps the clearest example. The Commission wants to strengthen harmonisation of spectrum policy, including through changes to the Radio Spectrum Policy Group (RSPG) and a stronger role for the EU. There is an understandable Single Market logic here. There is little benefit to mobile network operators from unnecessarily different policies across the 27 Member States. But the RSPG’s position is an important reminder that spectrum policies remain sensitive to national circumstances, including geography, security, existing spectrum use, coverage obligations and market structure.  

That question goes beyond spectrum. BEREC and RSPG should not have an institutional veto over reform, but their substantive concerns deserve answers. Where is fragmentation producing measurable costs? Which regulatory differences materially deter investment? And what evidence shows that moving a particular regulatory responsibility to the European level will improve outcomes? This is also where the distinction between simplifying regulation and centralising regulation matters. The two are not synonymous. Independent National Regulatory Authorities, with detailed knowledge of their respective national markets, have to remain an important part of any coherent European framework. 

The co-legislators will also need to consider the DNA in a wider international context. Europe is competing for investment, and the UK remains an important neighbouring market with its own approaches, including to telecoms regulation. The EU does not need to replicate the UK’s policies, but significant regulatory divergence should have a clear rationale, particularly where it could affect the relative attractiveness of investing and operating in European connectivity markets.  

The DNA should certainly remove outdated rules, simplify where possible, and strengthen European coordination where this delivers tangible benefits. But it should also preserve meaningful roles for independent NRAs and keep Europe’s wider competitiveness firmly in view. 

For companies in different parts of the internet value chain, the next phase of the DNA negotiations will be as much about navigating the complex European institutional dynamics as analysing the legislative text. As the European Parliament and Council develop their respective positions, the evolving views of the Commission, BEREC, RSPG, national governments and NRAs are what will determine where compromises emerge and which proposals ultimately survive.  

Flint Global can help companies navigate these dynamics by combining detailed regulatory analysis with an understanding of the political and institutional landscape in Brussels and the Member States, including the regulators and their regulatory networks. We can help businesses anticipate the evolution of the debate, identify where there is still scope to shape outcomes, and build evidence-based arguments that resonate with policymakers.

Enjoyed this blog? Sign up for our EU Monthly newsletter for analysis of the most important policy and political developments across the European Union, and timely insight into the issues shaping business and government.