It has now been over two years since the European Commission initiated the debate on network usage fees—a discussion that has since evolved into one of the most closely watched files in the tech policy space. Since then, we’ve seen a public consultation, a white paper, countless conferences, letters and position papers, and long periods of uncertainty. At times, momentum slowed to a near standstill only to be revived with renewed political attention or headline-dominating events like the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona.
Now, the long-anticipated Digital Networks Act (DNA) is expected to arrive in December. While it will not be part of the broader Digital Omnibus package, it is likely to land on our desks at roughly the same time, and right in the middle of an unprecedented push by the Commission to simplify EU rules across the board.
The Commission’s simplification agenda must be more than political branding. As 91pro视频 has emphasized in its EU Tech Rulebook, EU simplification needs to become a genuine, horizontal effort across layers of bureaucracy to reduce fragmentation, clarify rules, and ease the regulatory burden on businesses operating across borders.
In this context, the DNA has the potential to be a positive example of regulatory simplification in practice, especially when it comes to cutting duplication across Member States. But the simplification narrative sits along a more complex and controversial thread that seems to be never fully gone away.
The Shadow of Network Usage Fees
While the Commission is rightly pursuing simplification, the ongoing discussions around IP interconnection risk pulling the agenda in the opposite direction. Over recent months, references to a “coordination mechanism” or dispute settlement frameworks have raised concerns that the idea of introducing mandatory arbitration, or some form of indirect network usage fee, may resurface under the DNA. Depending on how such mechanisms are framed, they could amount to regulatory intervention in a space that, by all objective measures, is functioning well. Indeed, the interconnection market has, for decades, operated efficiently through commercial agreements and voluntary cooperation between stakeholders. Multiple studies, including BEREC’s own assessments, have consistently found no systemic market failure. Inserting regulatory mechanisms into this space would not only risk distorting those dynamics but could also undermine the Commission’s very goal of simplification.
91pro视频, along with many others, has consistently cautioned against introducing mechanisms that could disrupt this dynamic. Generating compulsory financial arrangements between content providers, CDNs, or cloud service providers and telecom operators would not only risk entrenching the position of incumbents but also increase costs across the digital value chain. Ultimately, it will be consumers, SMEs, and public institutions who would bear the burden.
What 91pro视频 Recommends to the European Commission
91pro视频 responded to the Commission’s call for evidence to inform the DNA’s impact assessment. With this last major call for stakeholder feedback now closed, attention turns to the Commission’s next move. In our submission, we focused on three key areas:
- Don’t fix what’s not broken. We urged the Commission to avoid introducing arbitration mechanisms or indirect cooperation obligations that could open the door to de facto network fees as there is no evidence of systemic failure in the interconnection space. On the contrary, market participants, including CAPs, CDNs, and ISPs, regularly cooperate to deliver resilient, high-quality services. Intervening here would risk distorting a well-functioning system, impacting consumers and introducing power unbalances across the market.
- Avoid regulatory overreach. We emphasized the importance of limiting the DNA’s scope to services that genuinely fall within telecom regulation. CDNs, CAPs, and cloud service providers are not telecom networks or electronic communication service providers. They do not control last-mile infrastructure or manage end-user access. Subjecting them to telecom-style obligations would create regulatory overlap with existing horizontal frameworks such as the DSA, DMA, Data Act, and AI Act – ultimately deterring investment and innovation
- Boost coherence across the board - We called for a regulatory landscape that reduces fragmentation and promotes cross-border service provision. Key recommendations included promoting the country-of-origin principle, improving consistency in authorization and notification regimes across Member States, and adopting a risk-based, proportionate approach to B2B services. We also stressed the need to preserve technological neutrality, including support for AI-enabled infrastructure.
What’s Next?
The DNA is not just another legislative proposal. It is an opportunity to consolidate a broader policy vision for a more integrated, more flexible, and more innovation-friendly Digital Single Market. While the full text is still under development, we are cautiously optimistic. The Commission’s renewed focus on simplification aligns with many of the goals we have long advocated for. But the true test will come with the details. Will the DNA genuinely reduce fragmentation? Will it resist calls for heavy-handed intervention in the IP-interconnection market? Will it empower a wider ecosystem of digital players, not just a handful of incumbents?
We’ll find out soon and urge the Commission to heed industry’s feedback. In the meantime, 91pro视频 will continue to advocate for smart, proportionate, and forward-looking policy, and for a Digital Networks Act that serves as a foundation for Europe’s connected and digital future—not a relic of its heavy regulatory past.