Introductory speech by Alexandre de Streel (Academic Director and University of Namur) at the European Parliament hearing on the Digital Network Act, Brussels, 24 June 2026.
Many thanks for your invitation at this important hearing.
If I were to summarise what should guide the Digital Networks Act in a single image, I would use the metaphor of what should be the real DNA of Europe: a double helix with sovereignty as the ladder and competitiveness as the rung:
- Sovereignty requires the ability and the incentives to invest;
- Competitiveness requires sustainable competition, efficiency, and innovation.
The double helix DNA has four implications for your work today, that I am drawing for the work I have done for the CERRE Report on the Future of European Telecommunications Regulation.
First, the DNA you build should be simple, predictable and pro-innovation. Let me give you four suggestions in that regard:
- In spectrum policy, Europe needs a more long-term approach. Longer licence durations provide greater regulatory certainty and strengthen incentives to invest. At the same time, the DNA should ensure that spectrum is used effectively and contributes to innovation and network deployment.
- For access regulation, the focus should be much sharper. Regulatory intervention should be a laser focus on persistent local bottlenecks and the DNA should contain a clear test for that.
- On net neutrality, which should remain a core European value, the DNA should allow for the development of innovative network services in 5G and, tomorrow, 6G networks.
- Finally, regarding consumer protection, the DNA should take into account the substantive development of the horizontal EU consumer acquis over the years and retain only provisions which do not overlap with this acquis. Regulation should protect consumers without creating unnecessary duplication because legislation is like tax, too much legislation kills the legislation
Second, the DNA and cybersecurity laws should not to increase the costs of operating networks without considering the consequences for investment.
This is particularly relevant where operators could be required to remove high-risk vendor equipment from their networks or to accelerate the decommissioning of legacy copper infrastructure. Where public policy choices generate such costs, those should be minimized with evidence-based and pro-market choices and compensation mechanisms should be established, just as this is already the case for the net costs associated with universal service obligations.
Third, the DNA should stimulate the internal market when it can be beneficial but not artificially create one when there are few cross-countries’ economies of scale and scope.
- In satellite communications, a stronger European approach is justified as satellite services are inherently cross-border. Thus, there is a strong case for a more centralised management of satellite spectrum and this management should strengthen European competitiveness and strategic autonomy.
- In contrast, fixed networks and, to a significant extent, mobile networks remain rooted in local infrastructures. In these sectors, the objective should not be to manufacture a single market from Brussels or Strasbourg which some EU access products. Rather, the European framework should ensure that national regulatory regimes are efficient, predictable, and supportive of sustainable competition and long-term investment.
Fourth and finally any proposal to centralise additional powers at the Commission should be approached with caution. Most of telecommunications networks remain fundamentally local and are very different from digital services which are inherently global. Therefore, national authorities should continue to play an essential role.
This centralization question becomes even more delicate as the Commission increasingly acts as a geopolitical and industrial-policy actor. For that reason, any extension of central powers should be accompanied by robust safeguard to ensure legal predictability, clear accountability, and full respect for the principle of subsidiarity.
To conclude, the success of the DNA should ultimately be judged against a simple test: does it strengthen the European DNA double-helix? Does it make Europe more competitive, and does it enhance Europe’s digital sovereignty by creating stronger ability and incentives to invest? And ultimately does it improve the long-term interest and welfare of the European citizens.
Thank you very much!
