Scandal erupts as six EU member states push back against the Commission’s Digital Networks Act, threatening to keep national control over key telecom rules. Austria, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, and Slovenia have sent a joint position to the Council, arguing that a pan-European DNA would impose obligations that member states are not ready to surrender. With the plan due to be revised in January 2026, critics warn the clash could stall Europe’s digital infrastructure overhaul just as consumers worry about new network fees, interconnection costs, and regulatory overreach.
Proponents say the DNA would level the playing field between telecom operators and digital platforms, extending parts of the telecom rulebook to the tech industry. Yet ministers and watchdogs have raised questions about the balance between national authority and cross-border competition. The EU Regulatory Scrutiny Board has issued a negative opinion on the DNA’s readiness, and consumer groups have long warned against resurrecting IP interconnection fees that could hit households and local businesses. The issue also intertwines with broader transatlantic trade dynamics, where Article 17 of a US-EU deal pledges not to introduce network fees, a pledge that could shape any future DNA text. Brussels, meanwhile, plans to publish a revised DNA in early 2026 as ministers weigh the proper scope, speed, and cost of reform.
-
- A six-country coalition (Austria, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Slovenia) challenges DNA
-
- Pushes to preserve national frequency policy and independence of regulators
-
- Concerns about network fees and their impact on consumers
-
- EU Regulatory Scrutiny Board‘s warning on DNA readiness
-
- Link to US-EU trade dynamics (Article 17) and cross-border data
-
- Timeline: revised DNA expected January 2026
\The six-member bloc frames the debate as a test of sovereignty: should Brussels dictate how national systems allocate frequencies and manage interconnections, or should member states safeguard national policy space? At the December 2024 Transport, telecommunications, and energy council, ministers questioned the necessity of new IP interconnection dispute-resolution mechanisms and warned that extending the telecom rulebook to tech players may not yield a level playing field in all markets. Critics argue that a one-size-fits-all DNA risks weakening competition in smaller markets and could undermine net neutrality. The Commission’s own watchdog voice is muted by the negative SCR result, signaling that DNA is far from ready for prime-time.
On the policy side, the DNA debate remains tied to prices, access, and innovation. While the Commission argues for a level playing field, consumer groups fear renewed network fees would be passed on to households and small businesses. The plan to publish a revised DNA text in January 2026 has drawn intense scrutiny from the Regulatory Scrutiny Board, with critics urging more robust impact assessments before final texts reach ministers. The DNA’s fate also matters for cross-border data flows and the broader US-EU relationship, as Article 17‘s commitment to avoid network fees sets a benchmark for future regulation.
