Digital Networks Act: one market, one regulation

The DNA’s underlying goals may be described as (i) deepening regulatory harmonisation; (ii) improving predictability for long-term infrastructure investment; (iii) accelerating the deployment and take-up of very high-capacity networks; (iv) enhancing resilience and security; and (v) strengthening the internal market. These objectives are aligned with broader strategic priorities for Europe’s competitiveness, digital sovereignty, security and response to structural concerns identified at the EU governance level, including regulatory fragmentation, insufficient scale for cross-border operators, investment gaps in next-generation infrastructure and growing systemic vulnerabilities affecting critical digital networks.^[4]

Accordingly, the DNA sets the scene for a structural approach to persistent challenges in the electronic communications sector, while simultaneously entailing a material reallocation of regulatory influence from national authorities to European institutions.

From directive to regulation

The transition from a directive-based framework to a directly applicable regulation is one of the cornerstones of the DNA. Under the EECC, harmonisation was achieved through transposing laws at a national level.^[5] While this approach ensured convergence with the core principles defined at the EU law level, it allowed some level of discretion in terms of implementation, interpretation and enforcement, which ultimately led to a certain degree of fragmentation among Member States (and, consequently, to regulatory forum shopping), particularly visible in cross-border services offers, such as satellite services.

This shift is intended to reduce national divergences generated through transposition, simplify compliance for operators active in multiple Member States and ensure that regulatory changes enter into force uniformly across all Member States, improving legal certainty and predictability for cross-border operators. However, it also means that Member States’ freedom to introduce national provisions governing the same matters is reduced.

In this sense, the move to a regulation reflects a deeper institutional transformation whereby the EU undertakes a more direct and prominent role in shaping the governance of the electronic communications sector. The harmonisation objective is pursued through centralisation of the rule-making authority at the EU-level, thereby recalibrating the relationship between EU institutions and national regulators in a sector of strategic importance. If, on the one hand, this approach minimises regulatory fragmentation, accelerates policy impact and increases legal certainty across the EU, on the other, it may represent a loss of regulatory sovereignty at a national level.

The ‘single passport’

A particularly visible area of this competence transfer concerns market entry. Under the existing framework, providers wishing to operate in multiple Member States must comply with national notification regimes and national conditions attached to general authorisations. Although harmonised in principle, in practice, operating across all EU Member States entails the need to comply with 27 national regulatory frameworks.

The DNA introduces a ‘single passport’ authorisation regime, according to which, by notifying one Member State, the electronic communications operator would obtain the right to provide networks and services across the EU. As such, this mechanism significantly limits the ability of national authorities to control entry into their domestic markets, as authorisation procedures become standardised at EU level and no longer depend on separate national notifications. From an internal market perspective, the single passport reduces administrative complexity and transaction costs, aligning with the Commission’s objective of fostering larger‑scale European operators capable of substantial investment in advanced communications infrastructures.

The proposal also introduces a cross-border enforcement dimension. In exceptional cases, sanctions for serious breaches could affect an undertaking’s right to provide networks and services across multiple Member States. A compliance failure in one jurisdiction may therefore have EU-wide repercussions, creating a form of regulatory interdependence different from the traditional territorial enforcement model and that reinforces the integrated nature of the single passport system. While national authorities would retain enforcement responsibilities, their role shifts towards supervisors operating within a harmonised EU framework, in a fully integrated EU market.

Spectrum management: a coordinated EU strategy

Spectrum management is one of the most sensitive domains of competence recalibration. Historically, radio spectrum has been primarily managed at a national level, reflecting territorial sovereignty and domestic policy considerations.

The DNA, however, sets out a coordinated EU radio spectrum strategy with investment-oriented rules on assignment duration and licence renewal. In particular, rights of use would, in principle, be of unlimited duration, with unlimited licence duration presented as the default approach. This represents a significant change from the current model, stemming from the EECC, where domestic authorities have increased powers to determine licence duration and renewal conditions.

To this end, the DNA proposes a general authorisation to access certain radio spectrum frequencies, subject to a list of conditions. Member States would retain the ability to award individual rights of use if necessary to maximise efficient spectrum use, taking into account factors such as (i) demand for access; (ii) the need to prevent harmful interference; and (iii) the need to ensure the quality of services using the relevant spectrum. This establishes a clear rule‑exception structure: EU‑level general authorisation as the rule and nationally individual rights as the exception.

By harmonising assignment conditions and promoting long-term or unlimited rights of use, the DNA seeks to enhance investment predictability and reduce regulatory risk. In theory, longer licence durations may encourage capital-intensive network deployment and reduce uncertainty for investors. However, this also limits national flexibility in designing spectrum allocation models aligned with domestic fiscal, industrial or competition policy objectives. While Member States would continue to implement spectrum assignments, their discretion over strategic goals would be constrained by EU-level coordination.

As such, the proposal also seems to acknowledge that national borders are increasingly less relevant for determining an optimal allocation for spectrum use. In parallel, the DNA narrows the use of spectrum policy as a domestic strategic lever and will require reviewing the current obligations and requirements, with foreseeable impacts on strategic planning and commercial decisions over the upcoming years.

Legislative process and institutional balance

At this stage, the DNA remains a framework proposal designed to reframe the policy discussion rather than settle it definitively. The proposal will now proceed through the ordinary legislative procedure, subject to debate and approval by the European Parliament and the Council of the EU. The negotiations will likely focus on the extent of centralisation, the balance between EU-level coordination and national enforcement and safeguards to uphold proportionality and subsidiarity.

For electronic communications operators, it will be essential to engage in the legislative process, as the DNA represents a regulatory reconfiguration with potentially profound implications for authorisation, spectrum rights, investment planning and compliance risk.

Final remarks

The DNA represents a decisive turning point in the development of European electronic communications law, reshaping the exercise of regulatory authority and the allocation of competences within the EU. Rather than merely consolidating existing instruments, the proposal brings a new European-centred governance model.

The centralisation of regulatory influence represents a structural feature of the DNA’s design aligned with the growing expansion of the EU powers, particularly in sectors of strategic importance. Moreover, considering the current external policy debates and the growing threats against EU sovereignty, there seems to be a growing understanding of the necessity to evolve towards a more harmonised policy for strategic positioning.

Whether this change will ultimately strengthen the internal market and enhance Europe’s strategic autonomy will depend on the outcome of the legislative negotiations and the practical implementation of the Regulation. At this stage, however, it is clear that the DNA will not be a mere legislative update, but rather a substantive reconfiguration of digital network governance across the EU.