Companies warn against introducing mandatory fees in telecom plans
The Digital Networks Act (DNA), legislation aimed at overhauling telecom rules to improve connectivity, is set to be presented by the European Commission in December.
Companies say they regret that this 'fair share' mechanism – where content providers would be required to pay telecom operators fees for delivering traffic – is 'still being actively considered' in the ongoing discussions, as it endangers the principle of net neutrality, they claim.
'Measures introducing interconnection charges would risk driving up costs, limiting choice and open access to information, undermining the affordability, quality, and diversity of digital products and services,' the letter says.
The public consultation, asking companies for feedback, ends this Friday and largely builds on a White Paper published in February of last year.
It spells out the different policy options that could be included in an overhaul of the existing telecom regulation, as well as new initiatives including spectrum management and sustainability targets.
The plan, heavily lobbied by the telecom industry when former EU Tech Commissioner Thierry Breton started working on the rules, sought to charge online platforms and other network users for the build-out of telecom infrastructure. It has been watered down since.
Options could include broadening the scope of today's EU telecoms rules, which safeguard network access and competition, to 'ensure a regulatory playing field' with equal rights for all companies active in the sector.
Connect Europe, an association representing telecom providers, called in a publication earlier this month for increased investment in the telecoms sector.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Euronews
an hour ago
- Euronews
Europe's migration crisis isn't just about boats – it's about strategy
Europe's migration crisis is not just a humanitarian emergency or a border control problem. It's a strategic breakdown. From the English Channel to Lampedusa, irregular migration continues to dominate headlines and decide elections. The response thus far from many European capitals has been predictable: short-term containment measures, bilateral return agreements, and new offshore processing schemes. And yet the flow continues, unabated and undeterred. Criminal networks that traffic in human lives adapt. Public pressure rises. And the policies, in turn, grow more reactive. To treat migration as a standalone issue is to miss a much broader point. Irregular migration is a symptom — not the disease. The deeper problem lies in a fragmented European foreign policy, the erosion of state sovereignty in transit countries, and the pervasive influence of malign non-state actors in eastern Libya, led by the renegade General Haftar and his international backers — foremost among them Russia — who malevolently weaponise irregular migration to strong-arm European decision-makers on a range of critical issues, including the recognition of Haftar's secessionist regime based in Benghazi. Strategic blind spots Across North Africa and beyond, these forces have been quietly reshaping migration into an effective lever for political pressure. In Libya, for example, irregular migration has not only become a source of illicit income for criminal networks — but it is also a strategic tool used by the authorities in the Haftar-controlled east to exert influence, extract concessions, or disrupt the European agenda. These networks do not operate in isolation. They are often embedded in local structures and enjoy quiet backing from international players who see irregular migration as a bargaining chip — not a humanitarian concern. Their goal is not stability, but leverage. Equally concerning is the European tendency to engage with these actors in good faith — despite their open disdain for political, legal and diplomatic norms, as well as ethical standards. This spectacle played out in full last week when an EU delegation was abruptly expelled from eastern Libya for the apparent crime of adhering to established diplomatic protocol. Many of these Haftar-aligned groups have a lengthy rap sheet of human rights violations, autocratic behaviour, and disregard for international law. While cooperation with such actors may be tempting for European policymakers eager to secure quick wins on migration and border security that placate domestic audiences, these efforts often amount to little more than window dressing. The reason for this is clear: the Haftar-led regime and its loyalists lack any genuine commitment to democratic principles, human dignity, and legal accountability. Their willingness to violate human rights, cooperate in abuses, or pursue agendas that undermine regional stability makes them unreliable and dangerous partners. Their actions are difficult to predict, and their goals more than often run counter to those of their European counterparts. By engaging these forces sans preconditions or pressure, Europe risks further entrenching them — and turning the serious humanitarian crisis of migration into an exploitable political tool, increasingly used to blackmail and coerce European states and institutions. This is not just a policy failure. It is a strategic vulnerability. Unless Europe urgently reconsiders whom it empowers and on what terms, irregular migration will continue to escalate — not simply as a movement of people — but as a symptom of geopolitical exploitation and structural disorder. The result is chaos. Libya, like other transit states, bears the burden of this political ambiguity. Non-regulatory migration continues to grow, and with tragic human consequences. Smuggling routes expand inland while migrants and refugees are left vulnerable to extortion, violence, and exploitation. European engagement remains focused on border control and externalisation. Proposals like the Rwanda model reflect the desire to contain the issue offshore — to move people, not solve problems. But as we've seen time and again – such deals – however politically useful, rarely survive legal or logistical scrutiny. What is needed is a shift in mindset, from reaction to strategy, from containment to cooperation. Four-point reset If Europe is serious about addressing irregular migration, four changes are essential. Deterrence cannot work without alternatives. Safe pathways, such as those piloted through Safe Mobility Offices in Latin America, should be replicated in North Africa. These can divert irregular flows by offering legal entry for asylum, work, or family reunification. Europe must cease dealing with actors who profit from people smuggling and border disorder as security partners. A clean break from engaging with illegitimate authorities — such as those in eastern Libya — combined with sustained political and economic pressure on subversive parallel state structures, is key to safeguarding Libyan state sovereignty, which in turn is essential to restoring border security. Post-Brexit paralysis on migration must end. A UK-EU admissions agreement rooted in shared responsibility — not unilateral returns — would help rebuild cooperation and restore credibility in clear, legal migration pathways. Voluntary repatriation programs remain vastly underused and underfunded. Europe and the UK must align funding to support returns that are humane, supported by reintegration services, and tied to development incentives for countries of origin. A time for strategic clarity If Europe is to regain control of its migration policy, it must first regain clarity in its strategy. Irregular migration is not just a movement of people — it is a reflection of how Europe engages with the world, and how the world responds in turn. The solution lies not in building higher walls or signing risk-shifting deals, but in crafting partnerships based on accountability, long-term interests, and mutual respect. The time for fragmented fixes is over. What is needed now is a coordinated vision — one that sees migration not as a threat to contain, but as a reality to govern wisely and humanely. Walid Ellafi serves as Minister of Communication and Political Affairs in the Libyan Government of National Unity (GNU).
Euronews
3 hours ago
- Euronews
WATCH Europe Today: China and EU - has summit restored trust?-
After the one-day EU-China summit, the European Union announced on Thursday a tentative agreement with China to alleviate restrictions the country had placed on critical exports of rare earths. How soon might this agreement yield results? What more progress can be expected ahead to ease the lingering trade and political tensions between the two sides? Euronews reporters will explain the upshot of the Beijing meeting on Euronews' Europe Today special summit edition. Anchor Mared Gwyn Jones also quizzes electric vehicle boss Lothar Schuppert, the acting CEO of China's Zeekr, about how EU tariffs are affecting his company's expansion plans. Are they slowing things down? Meanwhile, Austrian EPP MEP Lukas Mandl and Irish liberal Cynthia Ní Mhurchú go face to face on China-EU relations: Is the EU striking the right balance with the Asian giant on security? Watch Euronews' Europe Today here at 8am on Friday.
Fashion Network
11 hours ago
- Fashion Network
Not preparing for EU DPP rules could cost average UK business £1.5m a year
However, according to new research from GS1 UK, many businesses in the UK remain unprepared. Only 16% of managers or higher surveyed at businesses that trade with the EU believe they are fully prepared for DPPs, and 79% say they are concerned that they could be prevented from trading with the EU for failing to comply with the regulation. 'This could have disastrous consequences for UK businesses', says GS1. Based on the mean average value of goods exports to the EU per business, it estimates that exporters who fail to meet DPP requirements could risk losing around £1.5 million in annual revenue, 'as failing to comply could result in products being turned away at the border'. According to those surveyed, this could be 45% of their total annual revenue, with 31% of businesses saying they would not survive if they were no longer able to trade with the EU. For initially targeted businesses including textiles, 'the regulation represents a significant challenge', as the research found that almost one in five businesses across these sectors (17%) are not confident they know what the DPP will require. 'This challenge is particularly acute for the textiles industry, which has faced a difficult five years since Brexit, as UK textile exports to the EU fell by 63% between 2019 and 2023, the report noted Anne Godfrey, CEO of GS1 UK, said: 'The DPP is not a distant regulatory concept, it's a fast-approaching reality that could fundamentally reshape trade with the EU. The clock is ticking and businesses need to get their data in order, or risk being locked out of a £300 billion export market. 'Businesses must act now to prepare. There is also a need for swift practical support and guidance by the government to minimise the risk of economic damage of non-compliance.'
