On 21 January 2026, the European Commission (“Commission”) unveiled its landmark proposal for the Digital Networks Act (“DNA Proposal”), an ambitious attempt to overhaul the framework for the regulation and development of electronic communications networks and services across the EU. The Commission’s stated aim with the DNA Proposal is to establish a “modern and simplified legal framework that incentivises the transition from legacy networks to fibre, high quality 5G and 6G networks, and cloud-based infrastructures, as well as increased scale through service provision and cross-border operation.” To do this, the DNA Proposal would replace and consolidate several existing EU laws, including the European Electronic Communications Code (“EECC”), the BEREC Regulation, and parts of the Open Internet Regulation and e-Privacy Directive.
A key theme of the proposal is harmonization of rules—arising first and foremost from the fact that this is a directly-applicable Regulation rather than a Directive like the current European Electronic Communications Code. Several of the substantive provisions in the DNA Proposal may take a significant amount of influence over the communications networks and services away from Member State governments and up to EU level. In turn, the Commission clearly hopes to promote larger-scale communications network and service providers that can operate across the EU, and that have the funds to invest in modern communications infrastructure. The DNA Proposal could, therefore, have a substantial and long-lasting impact on the connectivity and communications markets in the EU, although we anticipate significant debate about many of the provisions of the DNA Proposal throughout the legislative process.
Below, we summarize seven of the most eye-catching changes to the regulatory framework for communications providers in the DNA Proposal.
1. A single authorization / licensing regime
A major pain point for communications service providers that wish to offer services in multiple EU Member States is the existing fragmented approach to obtaining authorization to provide services under the EECC. Different Member States operate their own processes for granting authorizations, and often have slightly different requirements in order to obtain such an authorization.
The DNA Proposal would harmonize the authorization framework. It establishes a single list of conditions applicable to the grant of authorizations to communications networks and communications services that rely on national numbering systems, which Member States would no longer be able to “gold-plate.” It would also introduce a “passport” system, meaning that providers authorized to operate in one Member State would be able to operate in others after simply notifying the competent regulators in those other Member States.
Notably, the list of conditions includes requirements to:
- ensure the security and resilience of their services, including taking steps to prepare for potential natural and man-made disruptions;
- comply with other cybersecurity rules. This would presumably include the requirements of the NIS2 Directive, but the DNA Proposal also explicitly states that compliance with supply chain security requirements set out in the revised Cybersecurity Act (which we describe in our blog post here) is a condition of authorization;
- enable access to data by law enforcement and judicial authorities. The DNA Proposal explicitly mentions complying with data retention requirements, which are likely to be set out in a forthcoming Commission proposal for EU-wide data retention rules; and
- comply with the requirements for interconnection (described below) and to ensure interoperability of services, to the extent applicable to a given provider.
Resilience of communications networks and services is a key theme of the DNA Proposal. For example, it requires the Commission to develop an EU-wide resilience plan for the sector,
2. Measures aimed at enabling broader access to spectrum
The DNA Proposal also aims to make it easier for pan-EU communications network and service providers to access radio spectrum. The Proposal would establish a general authorization to access certain radio spectrum frequencies, which would—similar to the general authorizations to provide communications networks and services—be subject to a single list of conditions that Member States would not be able to alter. It would also make rights to spectrum access, in general, unlimited in duration (although the DNA Proposal does establish several exceptions). Member States will still be able to grant individual rights to use of spectrum “where necessary to maximise efficient use of radio spectrum” taking into account factors including demand for access, the need to avoid harmful interference, and the need to ensure the quality of communications or services using that spectrum.
Access to spectrum under general or individual authorizations is made conditional on compliance with cybersecurity rules, including the rules on security of ICT supply chains set out in the proposal for a revised Cybersecurity Act. It also requires providers to comply with the DNA Proposal’s obligations to use spectrum “effectively and efficiently.” These obligations include:
- a positive obligation to “take steps to organise, allow and offer the sharing of their rights of use, where such sharing is technically feasible and subject to compliance with competition law;” and
- an obligation to “use-it-or-lose-it,” i.e., an obligation on rights-holders that receive a request to use spectrum that they are not using to either grant that request or demonstrate that they have plans to use it in the “foreseeable future in a manner that makes sharing not technically feasible.”
3. An EU-level regime for authorization and access to spectrum for satellite communications networks and services operators
The DNA Proposal would also establish a single, EU-level framework for satellite networks and communications services to obtain authorizations to provide their services, and to obtain access to radio spectrum. Obtaining such authorizations would enable satellite communications network and service operators to provide their services across the entire EU without the need for individual Member State authorizations. The Commission would also be responsible for monitoring and enforcing compliance with these authorizations.
The Commission would be empowered to pass implementing acts on the precise conditions for such authorization and access to spectrum, but the DNA Proposal would require these conditions to include a requirement to be established in the EU, to ensure a high level of security, to maintain permanent control over all transmissions using the spectrum, and to enable data retention and lawful interception in accordance with EU law.
4. Net neutrality maintained, but with potential for broader exceptions
As noted above, the DNA Proposal would replace and include certain provisions from the existing Open Internet Regulation, which enshrines the principle of net neutrality (i.e., that providers of internet access services should treat all traffic equally, without discrimination or interference, irrespective of the nature of the content, the sender or receiver, or the services being used). This is repeated in the DNA Proposal, which also prohibits blocking, throttling, and discrimination against certain types of traffic, although the Proposal does open the door to potentially broader exceptions from this requirement.
Specifically, the DNA Proposal permits throttling and blocking etc., where necessary to: comply with EU or Member State laws; preserve the security of networks, services, and devices; or prevent network congestion and mitigate the effects of such congestion, provided that equivalent categories of traffic are treated equally. The DNA Proposal would also allow providers to offer services that are not internet access services that are “optimized for specific content, applications or services,” and where the optimization is necessary to meet the quality requirements of that content, application, or service. The recitals indicate that this could cover, for example, network slicing to enable a high quality of critical communications services, “experimental services and differentiated use-cases.” The Commission will also have the power to adopt implementing acts to specify these types of specialized services.
5. No “fair share” requirement on major users of communications networks, but a framework for commercial negotiations for access
One topic that has generated significant debate in telecoms policy circles in recent years is whether large technology companies, which make substantial use of electronic communications networks, should be required to pay “fair share” fees to network providers.
The DNA Proposal does not contain any such obligation on these types of companies. Instead, it imposes obligations on communications networks and services providers not to refuse access to their networks and services except in limited circumstances, although access to these networks and services can be subject to commercial negotiation. It also establishes a framework to “facilitate ecosystem cooperation.” Specifically, this framework would require BEREC to publish guidelines on, among other things, facilitating cooperation on technical and commercial matters between electronic communications network providers on the one hand, and electronic communications services and information society service providers on the other.
In the event of any technical or commercial dispute, a communications network provider or their potential customers (including other communications network providers) can request a “conciliatory meeting” with a national competent authority. After such a meeting, BEREC will issue an opinion and set out options for the way forward, taking its guidance into account. It remains to be seen how this operates in practice, but it could lead to significantly increased fees for organizations wishing to make use of electronic communications networks.
6. Mandating switch-off of copper networks
The DNA Proposal would require Member States to require copper wire networks to be switched off in all areas where they are in service by 31 December 2035, with only limited exceptions. To support this, Member States must develop plans to transition to fiber connectivity, and the DNA Proposal would also require network operators to draw up plans to switch off copper networks, which they must submit to national competent authorities.
7. A reorganized structure for oversight at EU level
Finally, the DNA Proposal would strengthen the EU-level involvement in the communications sector. BEREC would continue to be the central coordinator for Member State regulators competent to enforce the law. It would also change the name of the existing Radio Spectrum Policy Group to the Radio Spectrum Policy Body (“RSPB”), which would have full status as an EU body and would advise the Commission and Member State authorities on spectrum policy issues, including coordination. BEREC and the RSPB would be supported by the newly-established Office for Digital Networks (“ODN”), which would replace the BEREC Office and would have the overarching goal of supporting the development of the single market for electronic communications. In essence, the ODN would provide technical support to BEREC, and coordinate with the RSPB.
Beyond the EU-level monitoring framework, national competent authorities will generally remain responsible for monitoring and enforcing compliance with authorizations and spectrum requirements, among others, and would have enforcement powers set out in Member State law.
* * *
Covington’s Technology Regulatory and Public Policy Practices will continue to monitor developments related to the DNA Proposal. If you have any questions about the issues raised in the blog, or are interested in engaging with the legislative process, please do not hesitate to contact us.