With differing appetites and priorities for regulatory reform, the EC is keeping its cards close to its chest in terms of what the eagerly anticipated DNA could propose
Fibre overbuild, economics of subsea cables, and insight as to what the DNA might have in store
On 1 April 2025, BEREC hosted its annual Stakeholder Forum, convening regulators, operators, tech firms and industry associations from across Europe. In a new venue but in the usual fashion, the event began with a series of small ‘meet and greets’ in which co-chairs of the BEREC Working Groups outlined and sought feedback on their 2025/26 priorities, and in some cases offered proposals for future workstreams. In the Market and Economic Analysis session, the issue of “strategic fibre deployments” – i.e. overbuild – drew comments from several attendees and suggestions that the co-chairs investigate the situation in Germany, where Deutsche Telekom has been accused of tactically discouraging fibre deployments by smaller competitors. Subsea cable networks was a topic raised in more than one session, although curiously it is not on the agenda of the Cybersecurity and Resilience Working Group but instead on that of Digital Markets, which is set to focus on mapping current routes as well as the economic regulation relevant to this type of infrastructure. Across a number of the Working Groups, including Fixed Network Evolution and Wireless Network Evolution, there was speculation about what might materialise in the forthcoming Digital Networks Act (DNA), with BEREC co-chairs seemingly as unsighted at this stage as the stakeholders in the rooms regarding what the EC might propose.
The EC appears ready take bold action to reform regulation of the sector, outlining the high level principles that will shape forthcoming proposals
Beginning the afternoon’s conference, Marko Mismas (Incoming Chair 2026, BEREC and Director, AKOS) outlined the projects and tasks on BEREC’s short-term horizon, including an expected opportunity to comment on the draft DNA and review of the EECC early next year. To a question on the three top priorities for the DNA, Mismas argued that the act needs to spur competition, evolve regulation to address the ‘softwarisation’ of networks and stimulate demand. Robert Mourik (Chair 2025, BEREC and Commissioner, ComReg) stated that it would be unfair to distil priorities of the DNA down in such a way, but similarly considered that the promotion of competition will remain paramount and that there should be a greater emphasis on encouraging consumers’ migration from copper to fibre (something which has not seen significant focus to date). Mourik stated that BEREC has been clear that it wants to keep ex-ante regulation in place, albeit not for the next 20+ years and it is actively thinking about how the sectoral framework should change and where it would be possible to deregulate while ensuring that regulators retain the necessary tools to intervene quickly if or where things go wrong.
Roberto Viola (Director General, DG CONNECT, EC) offered few of the specific details many attendees were in search of, rather setting out the direction of travel for the EC’s forthcoming “digital simplification package”, which is set to examine the full spectrum of regulation for what could be streamlined. He painted a fairly bleak picture of Europe’s digital infrastructure overall, stating that the region was lagging behind in the deployment of 5G and data centres, for which he saw no reasonable explanation aside from a collective underinvestment by operators – the money required for which “is small in the scheme of things”. In light of the Draghi and Letta reports, Viola affirmed that the EC is ready to take bold action – a commitment recognised by stakeholders during the networking reception, even if the exact nature of that action is currently unclear. Viola underlined the EC’s determination to complete an ambitious actionable and negotiable DNA by the end of 2025, adding that competitiveness, an investment-friendly environment and the principle of ‘same service, same rules’ will be important pillars of the draft act. He cautioned that it’s worth spending the time now agreeing on the facts and information, including a practical expectation of what can be achieved, so as to avoid spending the next five years trying to get political agreement on a text.
Regulators and operators clashed over how to best protect end users, whether that be through more robust regulation or unfettered technological progress
The first of two cross-industry panels focused on end user rights in the context of quickly developing digital markets. Opinion across the panel differed, with Marina Ljubic Karanovic (HAKOM and co-chair End Users Working Group, BEREC) and Claudio Teixeira (Legal Officer, BEUC) arguing that there has been a lack of focus on the end user. Teixeira argued that end users should not be blamed for not buying fibre services they do not need and cannot afford, pointing out that telecoms is the most complained about sector by consumers due to a number of recurring issues such as price hikes, switching difficulties, poor coverage and customer support as well as a lack of interoperability. Ben Wreschner (Regulation Policy Director, Vodafone) on the other hand, suggested that the greatest protection for end users would be the continuation of technological progress. Wreschner went on to explain that some of the existing body of regulation was preventing this progress, particularly the Open Internet Regulation, which has not kept up with the times, and how a principles-based approach (rather than a regulation) would be more appropriate. Going further, Wreschner raised the issues created by overlapping obligations on operators coming from different regulation and regulators, referencing how the UK Advertising Standards Agency (ASA), the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) and Ofcom all regulated Vodafone on the singular issue of mid-contract price rises. Johan Keetelaar (Senior Advisor, Oxera) agreed that net neutrality rules need to be more flexible to allow for more innovation and coordination across content providers and operators, citing Ofcom’s revised guidance on net neutrality in the UK as a positive development and something the EC as a minimum should look to mirror. Keetelaar also considered that consolidation among operators could help boost growth and benefit consumers in certain situations, but warned that wide-scale consolidation should not be seen as an end goal for the DNA.
Calls for sweeping regulatory changes were grounded by praise for existing frameworks, which emphasised the need to preserve these for stability in the sector
The second panel (and final session of the day), brought together industry and regulators to discuss the future of marker power regulation. Vesna Prodnik (CTO, Telekom Slovenije) criticised the current regulatory landscape and its constraints on operator investment, taking issue with the general consensus that three parallel networks are needed to ensure competition and instead proposing that just two may be sufficient. Prodnik called for symmetric regulation, claiming that this would help to release bottlenecks that are blocking growth in Member States, while ultimately stressing the need for investment and downplaying the risks of potential monopoly power in European telecoms. Both Ingrid Malfait Guilbaud (Director of EU Affairs, Iliad) and Richard Feasey (Senior Advisor, CERRE – but offering views in a personal capacity) were less concerned with the existing regulatory framework and were not convinced that any radical alterations were needed. Guilbaud reminded us that NRAs don’t need to use all the tools available to them if they don’t need to...
Feasey believes there is no regulatory crisis in telecoms (in the same way as there was in say banking), and neither a financial one and that any changes to regulation should have very clear advantages over the current framework, which on the whole has been successful. He praised how 1) it has adapted to new technologies over time (perhaps as a result of the commitment to technology neutrality that has run throughout?), 2) that it has been flexible to different market and competitive conditions in each Member State (although arguably this could be bad for the pursuit of consistency and a single market?) and that 3) the EC has been disciplined in the scope of new regulation (although you could argue there has been a steady increase in consumer-oriented interventions at a Member State level). There was some debate about the costs of the regulatory burden. Feasey reminded us that the cost of change and the uncertainty that goes with that, at a time of peak/just past-peak investment, shouldn’t be ignored, and that we shouldn't simplify regulation for the sake of it when complexities are inherent. His advice was NRAs just needed to work harder.
Guilbaud largely agreed with Feasey, arguing that existing regulation functions well and should therefore be preserved to provide stability and predictability. Carla Amoroso (Market Regulator Deputy-Director, ANACOM) disagreed with Prodnik over her calls to move away from ex-ante regulation towards ex-post competition law at this point in time, arguing that ex-ante regulation – whether at the national or local level – is still necessary to promote competition, particularly in the context of the passive physical infrastructure of former incumbent operators, for which replication by altnets would not be feasible.
