• Digital Networks Act to force fibre rollout and harmonise the 5G spectrum.
• Potential ban on Chinese network kit.
• Europe’s €300 billion bet on regulatory harmonisation.

Imagine the following scenario: A Spanish startup wants to launch a satellite service in Europe but would be subject to 27 different spectrum licensing regimes. Meanwhile, nearly half of Europe’s 5G traffic flows through Chinese equipment that governments view increasingly as a security risk. At the same time, services from Netflix and Google generate massive data loads that telecoms say cost them €40 billion annually to handle.

These are symptoms of a fragmented digital infrastructure that the EU believes is holding back its global competitiveness. The Digital Networks Act 2025 is the EU’s answer to these challenges and potentially the most consequential piece of telecoms legislation since the internet went mainstream.

As the Commission prepares to unveil its proposal in the fourth quarter of this year, industry stakeholders are expecting a contentious debate about the future of European connectivity.

What is the Digital Networks Act?

The Digital Networks Act (DNA) represents the EU’s attempt to replace the current European Electronic Communications Code (EECC) with a more unified regulatory framework.

Unlike the EECC directive, which required individual member states to transpose rules into national law – a process that has been consistently delayed and resulted in fines for five member states – the DNA is likely to take the form of regulation, making it directly applicable in all EU countries, similar to GDPR or the Digital Markets Act.

Executive Vice-President for Tech Sovereignty, Security and Democracy, Henna Virkkunen has been tasked with preparing the legislation.

The Commission estimates that reaching all Digital Decade targets could require the EU to triple its current annual investment in high-tech digital innovation to over €300 billion per year, with over €200 billion needed specifically for connectivity targets.

Five key battlegrounds

1. The great copper switch-off

Perhaps the most concrete proposal involves setting mandatory deadlines for decommissioning legacy copper networks in favour of fibre. The Commission proposes decommissioning copper for 80% of subscribers by 2028 and the remaining 20% by 2030, aligning with the EU’s goal of providing all households with gigabit network access by 2030.

However, the timeline faces significant pushback. The Council has emphasised that “[a] Member State’s specificities must be taken into account” and warns that the rush to deploy fibre shouldn’t “undermine a good competitive environment and burden citizens.”

Deutsche Telekom supports the policy goal but warns against “a binding deadline that disregards the different levels of fibre rollout in the Member States.” The reality of connectivity on the ground varies dramatically.

While operators in seven EU countries have published copper decommissioning plans – with Norway targeting 2025 and Sweden 2026 as the end of copper connections – the CERRE think tank argues for “proportionate targets at national level based on national projected trajectories” rather than uniform deadlines. The list of member organisations of the CERRE shows many large telecoms providers who would be required to invest in necessary infrastructure.

2. Spectrum harmonisation: National sovereignty vs. EU integration

The DNA aims to create a more coordinated EU spectrum policy, potentially including EU-level authorisation schemes for cross-border services like satellites and future 6G networks. This represents a significant shift from the current system where each member state manages its separate spectrum auctions – a lucrative source of national revenue.

The tension is palpable. The Council has “repeatedly stated spectrum is a national competence,” while, industry group GSMA calls for a “pro-investment approach to EU spectrum policy” with more predictable and harmonised auctions.

The debate reflects broader concerns about market concentration. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) oppose some harmonisation proposals, arguing they would “disproportionately benefit the largest operators and restrict challenger operators’ ability to compete.”

The CEPR think tank warns that EU-wide spectrum auctions could allow “one or two operators to acquire all of the available spectrum.”

3. Chinese equipment: The high-risk vendor challenge

With 42% of 5G communications currently transmitted through radio equipment from vendors termed high-risk (HRVs) like Huawei and ZTE. The Commission’s planned review of the Cybersecurity Act may include more stringent requirements to restrict HRV suppliers from telecom networks.

Security implications have been noted by Commissioner Virkkunen who stated some Member States haven’t taken the issue “seriously enough” and concluded the Commission should “take more action.” Nearly all Member States have implemented some restrictions, with Germany, Estonia, Romania, and Sweden explicitly banning Chinese 5G equipment vendors.

However, restrictions come with costs. The European Court of Auditors estimates that limiting HRVs could increase total 5G network investment costs by €2.4 billion per year, with €3 billion needed to replace existing Chinese equipment.

4. Submarine cable security: The hidden infrastructure war

Over 99% of international internet traffic flows through submarine cables, making their protection critical for digital sovereignty. The Commission is proposing a joint governance system for submarine cable infrastructures, including establishing an EU cable vessels reserve to reduce repair times for damaged cables.

Chinese firms reportedly built or repaired 100 of the world’s 400 submarine cables in 2021, while sabotage incidents, though representing only 30% of cable disruptions, pose significant risks. The Commission’s February 2025 action plan includes creating a Cable Security Toolbox and identifying “Cable Projects of European Interest” for EU funding.

5. The Netflix tax debate: Who should pay for network costs?

Perhaps the most commercially contentious issue involves whether large traffic generators (LTGs) like Netflix, Google, and Meta should contribute directly to network infrastructure costs. The world’s eight major content providers generate more than half of global internet traffic, with telecom operators estimating this costs them €36-40 billion annually in network management and deployment.

The debate has split stakeholders and member states. France, Italy, and Spain support legislative intervention, with France and Italy introducing national “fair contribution” proposals. Northern European countries remain sceptical, while BEREC (the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications) concluded that “markets developed very well without regulatory intervention.” BEREC’s website purports to declare its Board of Regulators’ conflicts of interest, although URLs to details on individual Regulator’s are broken.

The Internet Society has written to Commissioner Virkkunen asking the Commission not to intervene in commercial dynamics, while Connect Europe supports a dispute settlement mechanism for unresolved negotiations.

What happens next?

The Commission is currently conducting three parallel studies covering regulatory enablers for cross-border networks, access policy reviews, and financing issues. With the call for evidence ended on July 11, 2025, the legislative proposal is expected in Q4 2025.

The DNA represents more than technical reform – it embodies the EU’s broader struggle to balance digital sovereignty, market integration, and technological competitiveness. Whether it succeeds in creating a truly unified digital market or becomes another compromise that satisfies no one will likely determine Europe’s position in the global connectivity race.

The irony is palpable: while the EU debates copper decommissioning timelines and spectrum auction formats, China and the US are continuing next-generation infrastructure investments. Europe’s tendency toward consensus-building and regulatory perfectionism, typically seen as strengths, may prove to be liabilities in a sector where technological leadership is measured in months, not years.

The Digital Networks Act 2025 is Europe’s bet that it can regulate its way to digital relevance. Whether the bet pays off will become clear soon enough.