Associazione Italiana Internet Provider (AIIP) expresses deep concern about the Digital Networks Act (DNA), the new European regulation that rewrites the rulebook for electronic communications. Behind the rhetoric of “modernization” and “simplification,” the DNA—albeit toned down in relation to the most critical measures that had been envisaged—introduces a framework that reduces competition, weakens national authorities, and paves the way for an unprecedented consolidation of European digital infrastructure.

The original vision of the DNA spurred a dangerous paradigm shift: from open and regulated access, which enabled the development of fiber and a pluralistic ecosystem of operators, to a closed and selective model, in which those with capital, connections, and bargaining power decide who can be on the networks and under what conditions.

This paradigm shift is not neutral for citizens and businesses. The telecommunications sector is the only large European infrastructure market where, thanks to competition, there has been a steady increase in service quality and, at the same time, a significant reduction in end prices over the last 20 years. Dismantling competition inevitably means reversing this dynamic: less choice, less competitive pressure, and higher prices.

The Commission’s Regulatory Scrutiny Board, which had previously expressed a negative opinion on DNA, also continues to express reservations about uncertainties regarding key DNA assumptions when assessing impacts that are not sufficiently addressed and about the lack of clarity on what direct and indirect costs are and how they are distributed among stakeholder groups, the economic value of environmental impacts, administrative costs and possible savings.

Even regardless of the content, AIIP highlights the problematic nature of intervening with a new reform of the sector so soon after that brought about by the New European Electronic Communications Code (EECC, Directive (EU) 2018/1972). The EECC was transposed into Italian law in 2021 but its effective implementation took much longer. For example, the delicate issue of user rights involved complex regulatory activities that were only completed in early 2024. Introducing a new reform before the previous one has been effectively consolidated opens up new uncertainties in terms of interpretation and application, and is particularly dangerous for SMEs. Continuous adaptations to a changing regulatory environment entail significant fixed costs, which have a particularly heavy impact on SMEs, reducing their margins, investment capacity, and competitiveness.

THE CRITICAL POINTS OF DIGITAL NETWORKS ACT

1. Allocation of 5G frequencies for potentially unlimited durations

Spectrum is a scarce resource with high strategic value, the management of which should continue to meet criteria of efficiency, competition, proportionality, European sovereignty, and periodic reassessment of public interest. Granting a public asset for an unlimited period of time, in addition to being inconsistent with established European principles, constitutes a substantial deprivation of that asset from citizens in favor of large mobile operators. This choice appears to be in line with the desire to allocate large portions of the 6 GHz spectrum to 5G, precluding its free use by citizens and businesses for their next-generation Wi-Fi networks and instead guaranteeing more space for paid services.

2. Legal closed networks: wholesale access becomes optional

The Digital Networks Act paves the way for networks shared among a small number of selected operators, in which wholesale access is no longer a pillar of the system but a negotiable variable. Through ad hoc agreements, commitments, and corporate structures, dominant operators can reduce or neutralize access obligations, even in the presence of infrastructure that indirectly benefits from public resources. This marks the end of the idea of the network as a contestable asset: those who are in remain in, those who are out remain out.

3. Symmetric access obligations transformed into theoretical exception

Access obligations, which for years have guaranteed competition and pluralism, are relegated to a residual measure, applicable only after complex, slow, and burdensome procedures. In practice, regulated access becomes an exception, while the rule returns to being the exclusive control of infrastructure by a few large operators. Small and medium-sized operators are gradually being expelled from the decision-making and industrial sphere.

The internet was born as a union of autonomous, distributed, and heterogeneous networks. Promoting large, closed, shared networks goes against the founding principles of the internet, increases systemic fragility, and reduces resilience. When a single network stops, everything stops.

4. Copper switching off and top-down transition

DNA enables centralized and administrative management of the shutdown of legacy networks, reducing the role of competition and individual choice. The technological transition is transformed into a top-down planned process, where the end-user becomes a taxable person and alternative operators lose competitive leverage. The real risk is that of forced migrations to networks and conditions that are not truly contestable over time.

5. Portability and freedom of choice: a step back

After twenty years of regulatory efforts to protect consumers, improve switching procedures, and ensure freedom to change operators, the Digital Networks Act introduces centralized rigidity that risks dismantling virtuous national practices. User freedom of choice risks being sacrificed for the sake of “efficiency” and network optimization, with a cultural setback that sets the sector back decades.

6. National authorities stripped of power and politicized regulation

The DNA drastically reduces the autonomy of national regulatory authorities, transferring control of decision-making to the European Commission. Authorities are increasingly becoming advisory bodies, partly deprived of the ability to intervene in a timely manner and in line with specific local circumstances. Network regulation, once technical and independent, is becoming increasingly centralized and politicized.

7. Takeover risk: the financial phase of the concentration

Once independent operators have been weakened or expelled, we can imagine a second financial phase. Large global groups and investment funds will be able to enter the capital of former European monopolists with the certainty of favorable rules and large markets, standardized by DNA and difficult to compete with. If this happens, prices will rise, quality will stagnate, and economic pluralism will be sacrificed. This will inevitably have an impact on freedom of expression and digital sovereignty.

The Digital Networks Act could therefore mark a point of no return: from infrastructure neutrality to an oligopolistic model, from regulated competition to selection based on economic power. Small and medium-sized operators, which for thirty years have brought the Internet to rural areas, invested in fiber optics, and guaranteed pluralism, are potentially being marginalized, with significant impacts on freedom of enterprise.

In a market structured in this way, competition on price and quality is no longer the result of real competitive pressure, but a discretionary choice made by a few dominant players. Experience shows that, in the absence of credible alternatives, prices tend to rise and innovation slows down.

AIIP, reiterating the critical issues already highlighted in the consultation, calls on Italian institutions and MEPs not to passively accept this drift, but to defend economic pluralism, open networks, local expertise, and the future of the European digital ecosystem.