Today, 21 January 2026, the European Commission published its long-awaited proposal for a Digital Networks Act (DNA). Framed as a technical modernisation of Europe’s telecom rules, the proposal marks a decisive shift away from core principles that have safeguarded an open and neutral internet for almost a decade.

Given what is at stake, we immediately sat down to carry out a first, rapid analysis. The short version: the Digital Networks Act, as proposed today, risks undermining fundamental internet freedoms while claiming to simplify and streamline regulation.

Our full analysis

“Updating” Isn’t Always Progress

The Commission presents the DNA as a technical update to outdated rules, necessary to prepare Europe’s networks for future technologies. But this premise is misleading. Europe’s net neutrality framework is not obsolete. It has evolved over a decade through case law of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU), regulatory decisions across Member States, and repeated guidance from the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC). These protections have ensured that internet traffic is treated equally - a principle that underpins competition, innovation, and free expression online.

But instead of building on this foundation, the DNA tears it down.

Removing the Compass

One of the most consequential changes is the removal of key legal recitals that have guided net neutrality enforcement for years. These recitals did not just add text, they shaped how judges and regulators interpreted the law in concrete, real-world cases.

By deleting 18 of 19 recitals, the DNA reduces legal clarity and weakens citizen rights, creating a more unpredictable environment where corporations could push for paid prioritisation and other traffic discrimination.

A Backdoor for Paid Fast Lanes

Paid “specialised services” (services that receive preferential treatment on the network) were a key battleground in the original net neutrality debate. Europe’s approach allowed them only where technically necessary, and only if they did not harm the open internet.

This balance has been maintained and updated by expert regulators, in 2020 with guidance on how net neutrality applies in the context of 5G and network slicing. Right now regulators seek input in a public consultation to update the net neutrality framework once more should new technology require it.

But the DNA proposal would give the Commission unilateral power to decide when such fast lanes are allowed, potentially overriding independent regulators and BEREC guidance. This is a clear political intervention into what was meant to be impartial expert enforcement.

The Return of “Fair Share”

Another dangerous idea revived in the DNA is the introduction of network fees (often marketed as “fair share”). This concept dates back to the telephone era, where networks charged fees simply to terminate calls. Big telecom companies could earn money by simply having their customers accept calls. But the internet never worked this way.

The vast majority of peering connections (more than 99 %) are settlement-free because global connectivity itself is the product that internet service providers sell. Introducing fees for basic access would distort this model, increase costs for services, and create barriers for startups and smaller providers.

Undermining Regulatory Independence

The DNA also restructures BEREC’s office into an Office for Digital Networks, granting the Commission access to internal discussions and working groups. This may sound like a technical reform, but in practice it dilutes the independence and confidentiality that have been essential to effective enforcement of net neutrality and other telecom rules.

Independent regulators like BEREC have earned trust by grounding decisions in evidence and technical expertise. Politically appointed officials having a seat at the table risks replacing neutral enforcement with political bargaining. This could seriously undermine trust in public institutions and the ability of regulators to do their job.

What's next?

The Digital Networks Act, as presented today, is not the reform Europe needs. Instead of strengthening clarity and legal certainty, it weakens hard-won safeguards, centralises power in political bodies, and risks undermining the open and neutral internet. What is framed as simplification is (once again) erosion. As the proposal now moves to the European Parliament and the Council, lawmakers must decide whether to defend fundamental internet freedoms or allow them to be dismantled under the label of reform.