Earlier this month, ARTICLE 19 submitted a response to the European Commission’s call for evidence on the Digital Networks Act (DNA). In it, we argue that European efforts at modernising connectivity and digital infrastructure must not become a way of helping already dominant actors further entrench their power – but should rather prioritise supporting diverse digital ecosystems that are open, contestable, resilient and democratically accountable.
The European Union presents the DNA as a response to Europe’s competitiveness challenge – a legislation designed to ‘modernise the legal framework for connectivity’ that would ‘boost innovation and investment’ in digital infrastructure in the European Union.
ARTICLE 19 supports efforts to strengthen Europe’s digital infrastructure and improve connectivity across the Union. We believe that robust, resilient and affordable connectivity is essential for participation in modern society and for the exercise of fundamental rights.
However, in its present form, the DNA does little to support a vision of a diverse, open and resilient internet – one that requires infrastructure diversity, independent oversight and that creates a level playing field for new actors to enter and compete.
Instead, the DNA introduces a whole host of new governance structures, procedures and centralised powers that will have a profound influence on who can participate in connectivity markets, who can reach users, how information flows and how future infrastructure is governed.
ARTICLE 19’s submission identifies seven key concerns:
1. Regulatory intervention without demonstrated market failure
The proposed ‘ecosystem cooperation’ framework introduces new mechanisms intended to replace the internet’s flexible and decentralised interconnection system with formal procedures that favour large network operators, and that could be used to exert pressure on content providers to ender paid agreements, raising concerns for net neutrality and access to information.
2. Regulatory simplification vs regulatory expansion
Several proposed provisions introduce additional complexity into the system, without clear added value. Increasing complexity tends to favour actors with substantial legal, regulatory and financial capacity, who can absorb compliance costs, in a way that smaller operators, local providers, community networks and alternative connectivity models often cannot.
3. Concentration and infrastructure lock-in
The DNA introduces very long-duration spectrum rights and quasi-automatic renewal mechanisms, intended to improve ‘investment certainty’. Such measures favour actors who already possess scale, infrastructure assets and regulatory capacity. They also create barriers for new entrants, limit regulatory flexibility, and make alternative spectrum allocation and technological evolution much harder to accommodate, creating a lock-in effect.
4. Harmonisation should not become centralisation
The DNA proposes a transfer of certain regulatory responsibilities from national authorities and the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) to more centralised structures. However, it does not yet provide sufficient evidence that such changes would improve outcomes in a way that outweighs the benefits of the current system of independent oversight, technical expertise, and accountability.
5. Strategic autonomy requires reducing dependency, not merely scaling infrastructure
The DNA frequently evokes strategic autonomy, in ways that too readily measure ‘autonomy’ solely by the size of networks of market actors. Not enough attention is paid to addressing systemic infrastructural dependencies arising from increased concentration of power across the digital ecosystem. Real strategic autonomy can only be achieved by preserving infrastructure diversity, interoperability and the availability of alternative pathways.
6. Satellite governance and concentrated infrastructure power
The DNA places growing emphasis on satellite connectivity as part of Europe’s digital future. However, the proposal gives limited attention to the governance implications of an increasingly concentrated satellite ecosystem, in which a small number of actors control critical connectivity resources. This trend risks increasing infrastructural dependency and may challenge the ability of democratic institutions to exercise meaningful oversight over essential communications infrastructure.
7. Infrastructure diversity and freedom of expression
Overall, throughout the document the DNA, prioritises scale, consolidation and centralisation over preserving infrastructure diversity. This matters because diversity acts as a democratic safeguard: when infrastructure becomes concentrated, risks associated with dependency increase and are often difficult to reverse. This has profound consequences of free expression – community networks, independent internet service providers (ISPs), regional operators and future entrants all contribute to a more open and resilient information environment that must be protected.
Europe needs stronger digital infrastructure – but it also needs safeguards against excessive concentration of economic power, regulatory authority, and infrastructural dependency.
ARTICLE 19 recommends that legislators substantially revise the Digital Networks Act. Competitiveness objectives must be pursued in ways that preserve contestability, support infrastructure diversity, maintain independent oversight, and protect the conditions that enable free expression in the digital age.