Community News > Defending the Open Internet in the DNA Consultation

10 April 2026

Defending the Open Internet in the DNA Consultation

Take Action: Defend the Open Internet in the EU Commission’s DNA Consultation

The European Commission has opened a public consultation on the Digital Networks Act (DNA)—a proposal that could fundamentally reshape how Internet traffic is exchanged in Europe and beyond. We’re calling on the global Internet Society community to respond, reaffirming the principles of an open, globally connected Internet and outlining what’s at stake if this proposal is implemented.

How to Contribute

Submissions can be made individually or as a group, including from Internet Society chapters and special interest groups. Regional community working groups can consider:

  • Coordinating joint submissions or shared talking points
  • Hosting local or regional discussions to gather perspectives
  • Translating key concerns into context‑specific examples
  • Engaging national regulators and policymakers alongside this EU process to emphasize the values of an open, global Internet in ongoing policy debates

The deadline for submissions is 5 June 2026. 

Read more about the impact the DNA could have on the open Internet and find resources to help prepare your submissions below.

Why It Matters

The proposed DNA represents a significant shift in EU telecommunications policy. Central to the proposal are “fair share” or network usage fee mechanisms, which would introduce payment obligations for certain Internet traffic. While framed as a response to infrastructure investment challenges, these proposals raise serious concerns for the Internet’s foundational architecture. The Internet has grown and thrived because it is:

  • Decentralized, not centrally priced or regulated.
  • Interoperable, allowing networks to connect voluntarily across borders.
  • Innovation‑friendly, enabling new services to emerge without gatekeeping.

Mandating traffic‑based payments risks replacing this model with one that favors dominant actors, entrenches incumbents, and weakens the Internet’s global nature.

What’s at Stake If the DNA Is Implemented 

  • Undermined interconnection: The Internet relies on settlement‑free peering and negotiated transit, not regulated sender‑pays models. Introducing mandatory fees disrupts these long‑standing arrangements and risks inefficient traffic routing.
  • Harm to competition and innovation: Smaller content providers, startups, community networks, and non‑commercial services may face higher barriers to reaching users, limiting online diversity and innovation.
  • Fragmentation of the Global Internet: If regions impose incompatible traffic payment regimes, the result could be a more fragmented Internet, with unequal access and degraded performance across borders.

Opportunities to Defend and Promote Our Mission

Defending Community Networks

The DNA aims to accelerate gigabit network coverage, implement a set of common rules across the EU, and modernize spectrum management. However, without attention to the needs of community-centered connectivity (CCC), parts of the DNA risk raising barriers for small, local, non-profit, municipal, cooperative, and community network operators—especially during spectrum assignment and copper network switch-off transitions.

In our analysis of the DNA, we observe:For your own contribution, you may consider:
Central to the proposal are “fair share” or network usage fee mechanisms—under the disguised name of “conciliation mechanism,” which would introduce payment obligations for certain Internet traffic.

While framed as a response to infrastructure investment challenges, these proposals raise serious concerns for the Internet’s foundational architecture.		Explaining how mandating traffic‑based payments risks replacing this model with one that favors dominant actors, entrenches incumbents, and weakens the Internet’s global nature.

Reminding the European Commission that BEREC investigations have consistently found IP interconnection markets function competitively, with no evidence of market failure justifying this type of regulatory intervention.
The DNA incorporates the Open Internet Regulation (OIR). Being part of a larger legislative act, net neutrality is no longer a stand-alone instrument to protect end-users, but now read alongside objectives such as resilience, performance, and ecosystem cooperation.Highlighting that this shift does not weaken net neutrality on paper, BUT it undermines its foundations in practice and makes future reinterpretation easier. Keeping the OIR as a separate, standalone regulation matters: it preserves interpretive autonomy and prevents the contextual drift that embedding enables.
Spectrum (1): The proposal prioritizes national IMT-style assignments and investment certainty without explicit deliverables for local/shared/license-exempt access. CCC remains structurally locked out—despite being one of the few models that can deliver last-mile connectivity in high-cost areas. Promoting spectrum for CCC: The DNA could insert and secure CCC needs into Article 17 so the roadmap includes local/shared access tools.
Spectrum (2): Article 27 requires telecom operators to “organize, allow, and offer” spectrum sharing where technically feasible, but then gives them the right to refuse sharing if they show they are using the spectrum or have “plans” to use it “in the foreseeable future,” and allows a de facto blocking of shared use, based on grounds in Article 26(3).Highlighting how this would affect CCC: CCC requires spectrum, and under the current drafting, there is no specific allocation for the needs of people in remote locations. And with the current wording, spectrum holders might find a loophole to avoid sharing spectrum with interested parties.
Copper switch-off: The DNA mandates copper switch-off by 31 Dec 2035 (Articles 54–61). It requires operator switch-off plans to include “arrangements for the migration of access seekers and end-users” (Article 60). If the switch-off process does not include enforceable continuity for access seekers, CCC could be disconnected before equivalent affordable fiber wholesale options exist. The current wording allows for copper networks to be switched off in a given area if 95% of clients in the area are served with fiber, with no mention of what happens to the other 5%.Explaining how copper networks could still be the right connectivity solution for many, including for those in remote locations. 

Promoting the Open Fibre Data Standard (OFDS) 

The Open Fibre Data Standard (OFDS) is an open data, open standards initiative supported by the Internet Society. The initiative seeks to develop and implement a standardized way of describing terrestrial fiber optic networks designed to enable effective information sharing and aggregation among telecommunication regulators and operators.

In our analysis of the DNA, we observe:For your own contribution, you may consider:
There is no mention of the OFDS in the DNA.Promoting the use of the OFDS during the transition from copper networks to fiber networks in your submissions.

Resources to Support Your Contribution

As you prepare submissions, statements, or hold internal discussions, the following materials may be helpful:

Analysis

Internet Society analysis on the topics of the “conciliation mechanism”—the new name for Fair Share, the “cooperation on technical matters,” and the threat to net neutrality rules.

Previous Submissions

Previous Internet Society consultation submissions on the topic of Fair Share: 

Policy Briefs and Commentary

Internet Society policy briefs and commentary: