The Digital Networks Act 2025 gamble

When Executive Vice-President Henna Virkkunen walks into the Commission’s Brussels headquarters later this year to present the Digital Networks Act, she’ll be carrying what amounts to Europe’s digital declaration of independence. But unlike America’s revolutionary document, this one comes with implementation timelines, impact assessments, and enough bureaucratic complexity to make Silicon Valley executives reach for their lawyers.

The numbers tell a stark story: Europe needs to triple its annual high-tech investment to €300 billion to remain competitive with the rest of the world, with telecoms infrastructure alone requiring an injection of over €200 billion. Meanwhile, Chinese firms have built or repaired a quarter of the world’s submarine internet cables, and nearly half of Europe’s 5G traffic flows through equipment from companies Beijing could, theoretically, control.

The isn’t just about faster internet – it’s about who controls the digital highways of the future.

The American vs. European infrastructure philosophy

Where the United States has historically relied on market forces and competitive dynamics to drive network evolution, Europe is doubling down on regulatory harmonisation as its competitive weapon.

The upcoming legislation will replace the fragmented European Electronic Communications Code with a unified regulation directly applicable in all 27 member states – think GDPR for telecom infrastructure.

The philosophical divide runs deeper than policy preferences. American tech giants like Google, Netflix, and Meta generate over half of global internet traffic but resist direct infrastructure contribution mandates, while European telecoms argue they’re shouldering unfair network costs.

The new regulation could force a resolution through mandatory dispute mechanisms when commercial negotiations fail. The implications extend beyond Europe’s borders, touching on fundamental questions about technological independence and competitive positioning.

Five technical battlegrounds reshaping connectivity

Fibre infrastructure: The great copper extinction

Europe’s copper network phase-out represents the largest coordinated infrastructure transition since electrification. The proposed mandatory timeline – 80% fibre conversion by 2028, complete transition by 2030 – would affect hundreds of millions of connections in diverse geographic and economic conditions on the continent.

The technical complexity is staggering. Countries like Norway and Sweden have aggressive 2025-2026 timelines for full-fibre connectivity, while others face significant rural coverage challenges. Deutsche Telekom warns that uniform deadlines ignore “different levels of fibre rollout” in member states, while the FTTH Council argues standardised timelines are essential for supply chain efficiency and investment predictability.

Industry insiders estimate copper decommissioning could save operators billions in maintenance costs annually, as fibre networks experience significantly less signal interference and physical degradation. However, the upfront capital requirements – particularly for rural areas with challenging topography – remain substantial.

Spectrum harmonisation: The sovereignty vs. efficiency trade-off

The radio spectrum represents one of the most valuable and contested resources in modern telecommunications. Currently, each EU member state controls its spectrum auctions – a system that generates significant national revenue but creates operational complexity for cross-border services.

The proposed harmonisation faces fierce resistance from national governments reluctant to cede control over lucrative spectrum sales. Mobile virtual network operators warn that EU-wide auctions could enable market consolidation, allowing dominant players to acquire spectrum in multiple countries simultaneously.

The 6G implications are particularly significant. Unlike previous generation transitions, 6G will likely require unprecedented spectrum coordination for applications like autonomous vehicle networks and industrial IoT systems that operate in borders. The GSMA industry association advocates for a “pro-investment spectrum policy” with extended licence terms and coordinated auction timing.

Cybersecurity architecture: The Chinese equipment dilemma

Perhaps no issue illustrates the tension between economic efficiency and security concerns more clearly than high-risk vendor equipment. Huawei and ZTE gear currently handle 42% of European 5G communications, representing billions in deployed infrastructure that some governments now consider potential security liabilities.

The technical reality is complex. Replacing Chinese equipment in European networks could cost €3 billion according to European Court of Auditors estimates, while increasing annual investment requirements by €2.4 billion.

Yet security experts argue that equipment from companies subject to Chinese national intelligence laws represents an unacceptable risk to critical infrastructure. Germany, Estonia, Romania, and Sweden have implemented explicit bans, while other countries require government authorisation for high-risk vendor deployments.

The pending Cybersecurity Act review may establish EU-wide certification requirements that could effectively standardise restrictions.

Submarine cable security: The internet’s hidden vulnerability

Most internet users never consider submarine cables, yet the majority of intercontinental data flows through underwater fibre networks. The security implications have intensified as Chinese companies expanded their cable construction and repair capabilities – comprising of approximately 100 of the world’s 400 submarine cables.

The Commission’s response includes establishing an EU cable vessel reserve for faster repair capabilities and creating “Cable Projects of European Interest” for strategic funding. The technical challenge involves balancing open international markets with security requirements for infrastructure.

Recent incidents, including suspected sabotage attempts, have elevated submarine cable protection from a technical concern to a national security priority. The proposed joint governance system would coordinate protection measures in member states while maintaining international maritime law compliance.

Network cost distribution: The traffic generator debate

The most commercially contentious issue involves whether major content providers should contribute directly to network infrastructure costs. Companies like Netflix, YouTube, and TikTok generate massive data flows that require constant network capacity upgrades, yet traditional telecoms bear most infrastructure investment burdens.

European operators estimate that traffic from eight major content providers costs them €36-40 billion annually in network management and deployment expenses. However, these same companies have invested €183 billion in European internet infrastructure between 2011 and 2021, complicating simple cost-allocation arguments.

The proposed dispute resolution mechanism could force commercial negotiations in specific timeframes, with regulatory authorities intervening when agreements prove elusive. The approach attempts to balance market-based solutions with regulatory backstops.

Geopolitical implications: Digital sovereignty in practice

The legislation reflects broader geopolitical tensions about technological dependence and strategic autonomy. While American companies dominate content and cloud services, Chinese firms have gained significant influence in network infrastructure and equipment manufacturing.

European policymakers increasingly view telecommunications infrastructure through a security lens, recognising that network control enables data access, service disruption, and potential espionage capabilities. The satellite connectivity provisions specifically aim to reduce dependence on non-EU infrastructure for critical communications.

The timing coincides with accelerating technological competition between the United States, China, and Europe in artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and advanced manufacturing sectors. Digital infrastructure provides the foundation for such emerging technologies, making regulatory choices increasingly strategic.

Implementation challenges and market realities

Converting regulatory proposals into operational networks requires navigating complex technical, economic, and political constraints. The Commission’s three parallel studies – covering cross-border networks, access policy, and financing mechanisms – aim to address implementation complexities before legislative adoption.

Member state resistance remains significant, particularly regarding spectrum harmonisation and mandatory timelines. Northern European countries oppose aggressive cost-sharing interventions, while southern European nations advocate for stronger regulatory frameworks.

Industry fragmentation complicates unified approaches. Large incumbent operators generally support harmonisation for competitive advantages, while smaller players and virtual network operators fear market consolidation. Equipment vendors face conflicting pressures between security requirements and cost efficiency.

The transitional period to legislative adoption could extend several years, during which existing frameworks would coexist with new requirements. The extended implementation timeline reflects both technical complexity and political sensitivity surrounding telecommunications infrastructure.

The broader digital competition context

Europe’s regulatory approach contrasts sharply with American market-driven strategies and Chinese state-directed investments. While the US enables rapid private sector innovation through competitive markets, China coordinates massive infrastructure investments through central planning mechanisms.

The European model attempts to combine market efficiency with regulatory oversight, social objectives, and security requirements. Whether this complex balancing act can generate sufficient innovation speed and investment scale remains an open question.

International technology competition increasingly centres on infrastructure control rather than just service innovation. The ability to shape network architectures, set technical standards, and control data flows provides strategic advantages that extend beyond commercial considerations.

Digital Networks Act: The high-stakes infrastructure experiment

The Digital Networks Act embodies Europe’s desire for competitive advantage at a time of accelerating technological competition. By harmonising regulations, mandating infrastructure transitions, and controlling security risks, European leaders believe they can create sustainable competitive equality with other parts of the world, if not outright advantage.

Yet regulatory perfection may prove incompatible with technological leadership in sectors where innovation cycles (measured in months, not years) determine market positions. While Europe deliberates fibre timelines and spectrum allocation mechanisms, competitors deploy next-generation infrastructure at scale and speed.

The ultimate test isn’t whether Europe can create elegant regulatory frameworks, but whether regulatory coordination can substitute for the entrepreneurial dynamism and capital deployment that have historically driven technological leadership and economic advantage. In a world where digital infrastructure determines economic competitiveness, Europe’s bet on bureaucratic excellence over entrepreneurial chaos represents a high-stakes policy experiments.

See also: FCC chair calls EU satellite strategy ‘anti-American’

Looking to revamp your digital transformation strategy? Learn more about Digital Transformation Week taking place in Amsterdam, California, and London. The comprehensive event is co-located with IoT Tech Expo, AI & Big Data Expo, Cyber Security & Cloud Expo, and other leading events.

Explore other upcoming enterprise technology events and webinars powered by TechForge here.

Tags: 5G, europe, network, networks, telecoms