A European Commission draft of the forthcoming Digital Networks Act is expected to stop short of imposing new binding obligations on the largest online platforms and cloud providers, instead relying on a voluntary “best practices” approach, according to people familiar with the text.
The draft, due to be presented on 20 January 2026 by the Commission’s technology chief Henna Virkkunen, is billed as a major overhaul of the EU’s telecom and connectivity framework, with the stated aim of encouraging investment in fibre and next-generation networks while reducing fragmentation across the bloc.
At the centre of the political argument is the long-running “network cost contribution” debate, in which large European telecom operators have argued that the biggest traffic-generating services should contribute more directly to infrastructure costs. The operators’ case has been framed around investment needs for gigabit connectivity and 5G coverage, amid pressure on revenues and high capital expenditure.
The reported draft indicates the Commission is not moving towards a mandatory payment or levy system, and is not proposing new enforceable duties targeted at major tech firms. Instead, the largest providers would be asked to engage in discussions and cooperate voluntarily under a framework moderated by the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC), which brings together national telecom regulators.
That approach aligns with the Commission’s earlier public position on “network fees”. In July 2025, the Commission said that requiring large online platforms to pay network fees was not a viable solution for financing 5G and broadband rollout, after analysing the issue in its policy work.
The reported DNA draft nevertheless contains measures with potentially significant impact on telecom operators and national regulators. According to the sources, the Commission plans to address the duration of spectrum licences, conditions for spectrum sales, and a pricing methodology intended to guide national regulators during spectrum auctions — a sensitive area for member states because auctions can raise substantial revenues.
The text is also expected to provide EU-level guidance on the rollout of fibre infrastructure. One element flagged in reporting is flexibility around the 2030 objective for replacing legacy copper networks with fibre: governments could be allowed to extend the deadline if they can show they are not ready.
Supporters of a stronger EU hand argue that more harmonisation is necessary to create a market large enough for pan-European investment models, particularly for high-capacity fixed networks and future mobile technologies. Industry groups have advocated longer, more predictable spectrum licensing and more consistent award conditions across the EU, contending that national divergence delays deployment and raises costs.
Critics of greater centralisation have warned that the DNA could be used to shift powers away from national regulators and governments. The Reuters reporting notes that some national regulators may regard the Commission’s planned interventions in spectrum and rollout guidance as a “power grab”, given that spectrum policy has traditionally been a core national competence even within an EU framework.
Civil society organisations have focused on another risk: that attempts to reshape telecom market rules could open the door to mechanisms that weaken net neutrality, or create pressure for commercial agreements that influence traffic management. In a joint statement published in July 2025, consumer and civil society groups urged the Commission to preserve net neutrality in the DNA and raised concerns about proposals linked to the “fair share” debate, including ideas for dispute-resolution systems between telecom operators and online services.
The broader legislative backdrop matters. Over the past five years the EU has adopted major digital laws, including the Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act, which have triggered criticism in Washington that EU rules disproportionately affect US-based tech companies — claims the EU has rejected. The DNA appears designed to avoid reopening that front by placing the largest platforms in a cooperative, rather than compulsory, regime, while concentrating binding measures on the connectivity sector and the regulatory architecture around it.
For the largest online services, the voluntary framework would also raise practical questions about incentives and enforcement. A “best practices” code moderated by regulators can facilitate dialogue on technical issues — such as network resilience, traffic patterns, and coordination during incidents — but it does not, by itself, create hard obligations or penalties for non-compliance.
The Commission’s proposal, once published, will enter the EU’s ordinary legislative procedure. Member states in the Council and the European Parliament will negotiate amendments in the coming months, and core questions — including the balance between EU coordination and national discretion on spectrum, as well as the extent of any obligations placed on large digital firms — are likely to be contested.
If the reported draft is confirmed, the Digital Networks Act will represent a shift in emphasis: away from compelling Big Tech to fund networks directly, and towards reshaping the telecom rulebook, spectrum practices and infrastructure targets in the hope of unlocking investment. Whether that combination is sufficient to accelerate rollout — without re-igniting net neutrality disputes or national sovereignty arguments — will be tested in the legislative negotiations that follow.
