The European Commission’s forthcoming Digital Networks Act (DNA) marks a key step in shaping Europe’s connectivity framework. Ahead of the proposal, the Call for Evidence launched last June attracted a broad spectrum of responses from industry, regulators, and civil society, reflecting both converging priorities and deep-seated divisions.
Following on our 2024 study of the consultation on the White Paper on the Future of EU Connectivity, this new analysis examines the DNA feedback through four critical themes at the centre of the debate: regulatory intervention in the interconnection market, the revision of net neutrality rules, the convergence between telecoms, cloud operators and content application providers, and the potential extension of Universal Service Obligations (USOs).
The analysis groups respondents in five clusters – trade associations, public authorities, companies, civil society/NGOs, and academia/research institutes – providing a clearer view of where positions align and where they diverge.
Together, these insights offer a snapshot of the policy debate that will shape the next phase of Europe’s digital infrastructure strategy.
The big picture
Engagement levels told their own story. Net neutrality dominated the debate, drawing comments from nearly six in ten respondents (58%). Interconnection (47%) and level playing field (43%) followed close behind, while Universal Service Obligations stirred far less interest, with just 23% weighing in.
Across these themes, however, the direction was strikingly consistent: 71% stakeholders expressing a position on the topics opposed regulatory expansion, while only 29% voiced support. The backing that did emerge was concentrated in specific industry circles, with limited alignment from civil society and public authorities.
What follows is a breakdown of the four workstreams, based only on stakeholders that provided input on each specific topic.
Interconnection: limited appetite for new rules
The interconnection debate left little room for ambiguity. 80% of respondents opposed new regulatory intervention, making it the strongest consensus across the four themes. This opposition was remarkably consistent, spanning trade associations, civil society, and most public authorities.
Support came from only a small minority, largely concentrated among specific industry segments. While some research institutions and national regulators hinted at possible adjustments, the overall picture clearly shows that calls for intervention were the exception and not the rule.
Net neutrality: caution over reopening the framework
Despite the highest volume of feedback, the direction was largely one-sided: nearly four in five respondents (78%) opposed revisiting the Open Internet Regulation.
The limited support (22%) was tied to adapting rules for emerging technologies such as network slicing and differentiated services, and some stakeholders favoured targeted clarifications rather than a full legislative overhaul. In contrast, many civil society groups stressed that stability in the framework remains essential to protect users and preserve trust.
Creating a level playing field
On the question of aligning telecom, cloud, and content application providers under a common framework, views were slightly more fragmented but still tilted in one direction. Support was limited to 35% of respondents, concentrated in parts of the industry and among some research institutions. The majority, however, saw no need to expand telecom rules, warning against regulatory spill-over into cloud infrastructure.
Universal Service Obligations: safeguard or outdated tool?
Universal Service Obligations drew the lowest engagement but revealed one of the clearest fault lines. A majority of 61% opposed their extension, with almost the entire industry aligned in viewing USOs as an outdated instrument.
Support came primarily from NGOs and public authorities, who considered USOs a necessary safeguard to guarantee access to essential services. This split highlights the contrast between widespread industry scepticism and a more social-policy driven perspective among non-industry actors
What to watch next
The consultation leaves little doubt: when it comes to new rules, most stakeholders are not on board. Resistance outweighed support by more than two to one, cutting across the entire debate.
Yet the story doesn’t end here: the few pockets of support show where the pressure points will lie. As the Commission gets ready to table the DNA, these dividing lines will set the stage for one of the most consequential policy debates of Europe’s digital decade.
Disclaimer
This overview does not include contributions from individuals, anonymous submissions, or micro-enterprises.
Percentages by workstream are based only on stakeholders that provided input on each specific topic.
The study reflects the independent assessment of Political Intelligence Brussels and does not represent the perspectives of its clients or other Political Intelligence offices located across Europe.
Manuel De Simone – EU Digital Policy Consultant, Brussels
