As the European Commission moves forward with its proposal for a new Digital Networks Act (DNA), ARTICLE 19 joins European civil society in sounding a clear and urgent alarm: connectivity policy must not come at the expense of rights, equity, and institutional independence.
Over the past weeks, ARTICLE 19 has engaged in the public consultation process surrounding the DNA through two complementary submissions:
- A joint statement led by The European Consumer Organisation (BEUC), co-signed by over 80 public interest groups and industry voices, including ARTICLE 19.
- An individual submission by ARTICLE 19, highlighting the human rights implications of the proposed legislative shifts, particularly around net neutrality, regulatory balance, and inclusive spectrum governance.
These efforts reflect a growing consensus: the Digital Networks Act, in its current framing, risks undermining the foundational values that have shaped Europe’s digital ecosystem.
A coordinated stand against ‘network fees’
The joint statement led by BEUC, and endorsed by ARTICLE 19, unequivocally opposes the proposal to introduce a dispute resolution mechanism for Internet interconnection.
While presented as a technical or harmonising measure, this mechanism is widely understood to be a backdoor for the long-rejected ‘network fee’ model – a scheme that would require content and application providers (CAPs) to pay telecom operators for delivering traffic. In simple terms, telecom operators would be allowed to demand payments from platforms like YouTube, Netflix or Wikipedia just for the traffic they generate when users access their content, despite users already paying for internet access.
This undermines the core principles of net neutrality by effectively introducing a tollgate on what should be open and equal access to the internet. For example, a telecom provider could charge a fee to a streaming platform for access to its users, raising costs that would get passed on to consumers and creating an uneven playing field where only the biggest players can afford to pay.
This would:
- Violate net neutrality principles by monetising access to end-users.
- Increase costs for consumers and limit their access to diverse content.
- Raise significant barriers for new creative industries, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) and Mobile Virtual Network Operators (MVNOs) – mobile service providers that do not own their own wireless infrastructure and may offer more affordable and flexible plans to users (like Lycamobile, Tesco Mobile, Virgin Mobile or Lebara).
- Further concentrate market power in the hands of dominant telecom operators.
As the joint statement notes, similar proposals have already been rejected in multiple consultations and evaluations by the Internet Society (ISOC) and the European Competitive Telecommunications Association (ECTA), which found no market failure warranting such interventions.
‘The Digital Networks Act’s dispute resolution mechanism represents a fundamental threat to the open internet we’ve fought to preserve,’ noted ARTICLE 19’s Senior Programme Officer and spectrum and net neutrality expert dr. Raquel Renno Nunes. ‘By creating a pathway for network fees, the European Commission risks dismantling the very principles that have made the internet a space for innovation, free expression, and equal access. This is not just about technical interconnection – it’s about whether we allow telecom gatekeepers to determine who gets heard online and at what cost.’
The DNA and its structural risks: ARTICLE 19’s response
In our submission, ARTICLE 19 expands this critique into a broader structural warning about the DNA’s institutional design.
Our key concerns include:
- Threats to net neutrality and open interconnection through ambiguous provisions on Quality of Service (QoS) and interconnection rules that could open the door to discriminatory practices.
- Excessive centralisation of regulatory power, particularly the proposed reduction of BEREC’s autonomy and the consolidation of European Commission’s oversight over spectrum governance –potentially weakening independent scrutiny and public-interest decision-making.
- A narrow and outdated framing of universal service, which reduces meaningful connectivity to affordability alone and places disproportionate burdens on small and community-based Internet Service Providers and related industry.
- Risks to spectrum efficient use and infrastructure resilience, with proposals that prioritise exclusive, long-term licensing (mostly owned by large operators), while sidelining shared, unlicensed, and dynamic models vital for inclusive and diverse connectivity.
‘Rather than building a more resilient and open digital future, the Digital Networks Act – if adopted in its current form – may entrench monopolistic practices, marginalise civil society and SMEs, and weaken the EU’s position as a global leader in rights-based digital governance,’ continued Renno Nunes.
What needs to happen next
Across both submissions, civil society urges the European Commission to realign the Digital Networks Act with evidence-based policymaking, fundamental rights, and the long-term resilience of Europe’s digital infrastructure.
This means not only safeguarding the principles of net neutrality but also reinforcing the institutional independence of regulators like BEREC and national authorities – whose role is critical in ensuring balanced, accountable governance.
The Commission must also resist premature regulatory commitments, such as spectrum allocations tied to undefined 6G standards, and instead adopt a more inclusive vision of infrastructure development. This includes actively supporting SMEs and community-based actors, whose contributions are essential to building a diverse and resilient internet ecosystem.
At this juncture, the EU has an opportunity – and a responsibility – to demonstrate that connectivity reform will serve the public interest, not entrench incumbent power.
Read the full submissions:
- BEUC-led Joint Statement on Net Neutrality and the DNA (co-signed by ARTICLE 19)