When Executive Vice-President Henna Virkkunen enters the European Commission’s Brussels headquarters later this year to present the Digital Networks Act, she will be carrying what amounts to Europe’s digital declaration of independence. Unlike historic political declarations, this one is packed with implementation timetables, detailed impact assessments and regulatory complexity likely to keep Silicon Valley lawyers busy.
The numbers paint a clear picture: Europe must roughly triple its annual high-tech investment to around €300 billion to stay competitive globally, with telecoms infrastructure alone needing more than €200 billion. At the same time, Chinese firms have built or repaired a quarter of the world’s submarine internet cables, and equipment from companies based in Beijing handles nearly half of Europe’s 5G traffic — raising questions over who ultimately controls the digital highways of the future.
This debate is not solely about faster connectivity; it is about strategic control of key infrastructure.
The American vs. European infrastructure philosophy
Historically, the United States has relied on market forces and competitive dynamics to drive network evolution, while Europe is betting on regulatory harmonisation as a lever for competitiveness. The new legislation aims to replace the patchwork European Electronic Communications Code with a single regulation directly applicable across all 27 member states — a model similar in reach to the GDPR, but for telecom infrastructure.
The philosophical split runs deeper than policy preference. American content and platform giants such as Google, Netflix and Meta create more than half of global internet traffic and generally resist mandates forcing them to contribute directly to network infrastructure. European telecom operators say they shoulder a disproportionate share of network costs. The new regulation could require mandatory dispute-resolution mechanisms when commercial negotiations stall, a change with implications that extend beyond Europe’s borders to broader questions of technological independence and competitive positioning.
Five technical battlegrounds reshaping connectivity
Fibre infrastructure: The great copper extinction
The coordinated phase-out of copper networks represents one of the largest infrastructure transitions since electrification. The proposal under discussion envisions an 80% fibre conversion target by 2028 and a complete transition by 2030 — timelines that would affect hundreds of millions of connections across a continent with widely varying geographies and economic conditions.
Technical and logistical complexity is profound. Countries such as Norway and Sweden pursue aggressive timelines for full-fibre coverage by 2025–2026, while many member states face substantial rural deployment challenges. Deutsche Telekom has warned that uniform deadlines risk ignoring the differing stages of fibre rollout, whereas the FTTH Council argues that standardised timelines support supply-chain efficiency and investment predictability.
Industry estimates suggest that decommissioning copper could save operators billions in annual maintenance costs because fibre networks suffer far less signal degradation and physical wear. Yet the upfront capital required, particularly for remote and mountainous areas, remains significant and will require carefully designed financing mechanisms.
Spectrum harmonisation: The sovereignty vs. efficiency trade-off
The radio spectrum is one of modern telecommunications’ most valuable and contested resources. Today, each EU member state controls its own spectrum auctions, a system that generates national revenue but complicates cross-border service provision and roaming.
Proposals to harmonise spectrum allocation across the EU face strong resistance from governments unwilling to relinquish control of lucrative auctions. Mobile virtual network operators warn that EU-wide auctions could accelerate market consolidation by enabling dominant players to acquire licences across multiple countries simultaneously.
The arrival of 6G increases the stakes: future applications such as autonomous vehicle networks and industrial IoT will demand unprecedented cross-border spectrum coordination. Industry groups advocate for “pro-investment” policies that offer longer licence terms and aligned auction timetables to foster stable investment conditions.
Cybersecurity architecture: The Chinese equipment dilemma
Few issues highlight the tension between economic efficiency and national security more clearly than the use of equipment from so-called high-risk vendors. Currently, equipment from Huawei and ZTE supports a substantial share of European 5G networks, representing significant sunk costs that several governments now view as potential security liabilities.
Replacing that gear is costly. European Court of Auditors estimates put the replacement bill in the billions and predict increased annual investment needs. Security advocates counter that hardware and software from companies subject to foreign intelligence laws create unacceptable risks to critical infrastructure. Some member states, including Germany, Estonia, Romania and Sweden, have implemented explicit bans; others require prior government approval for high-risk vendor deployments.
The pending Cybersecurity Act review could set EU-wide certification standards that would effectively harmonise restrictions on equipment and suppliers across member states.
Submarine cable security: The internet’s hidden vulnerability
Undersea fibre cables carry the bulk of intercontinental internet traffic, yet they often remain invisible to the general public. The security considerations have escalated as Chinese companies expanded their roles in cable construction and repair, now accounting for a notable share of the global fleet involved in those activities.
The Commission has proposed measures such as creating an EU cable vessel reserve to speed repairs and designating “Cable Projects of European Interest” for strategic funding. Policymakers must balance the benefits of open, competitive international maritime markets with the need to harden critical infrastructure against disruptive incidents.
Suspected sabotage attempts and other incidents have shifted submarine cable protection from a niche technical topic to a national security priority. Proposals for joint governance frameworks aim to coordinate protection measures across member states while respecting international maritime law.
Network cost distribution: The traffic generator debate
One of the most contested commercial questions is whether major content providers should contribute more directly to network infrastructure costs. Streaming and social platforms produce enormous data flows that drive ongoing capacity upgrades, yet traditionally telecom operators have covered the lion’s share of network investments.
European operators estimate that traffic from a handful of large content providers imposes tens of billions of euros in network-related costs each year. At the same time, those same platforms point out that they have already invested heavily in European infrastructure over the past decade, complicating simplistic narratives about who owes what.
The proposed regulatory approach would enforce time-limited dispute-resolution procedures, compelling commercial negotiations while allowing regulatory authorities to intervene if agreements cannot be reached. This seeks a compromise between market-led solutions and regulatory backstops that ensure network sustainability.
Geopolitical implications: Digital sovereignty in practice
The Digital Networks Act sits at the intersection of technology policy and geopolitics. American companies dominate content and cloud services, while Chinese firms have secured substantial positions in manufacturing network equipment and submarine cable projects. European policymakers increasingly frame telecommunications through a security lens: control of networks enables data access, service disruption and potential avenues for espionage.
Provisions focused on satellite connectivity and other critical links aim to reduce reliance on non-EU infrastructure for essential communications. The legislation emerges amid intensifying competition in AI, quantum computing and advanced manufacturing, where control over digital infrastructure will play a decisive role in national and regional competitiveness.
Implementation challenges and market realities
Turning ambitious regulatory proposals into functioning networks requires navigating technical, economic and political constraints. The Commission has launched parallel studies on cross-border networks, access policy and financing mechanisms to identify practical implementation paths before finalising legislation.
Member state resistance remains a significant hurdle, particularly on spectrum harmonisation and rigid deployment timetables. Northern European countries tend to oppose heavy-handed cost-sharing measures, while several southern states press for stronger regulatory obligations to accelerate investment.
Industry fragmentation further complicates a unified approach. Large incumbents often favour harmonisation for the competitive advantages it brings, while smaller operators and virtual network providers fear increased consolidation. Equipment vendors face conflicting pressures to meet security standards while keeping costs manageable.
The transitional phase could span several years, during which existing frameworks will coexist with new rules. That extended timetable reflects both the technical complexity of modern networks and the political sensitivity of reshaping critical infrastructure.
The broader digital competition context
Europe’s regulatory route contrasts with the US market-driven model and China’s state-led investment approach. The US model tends to prioritise rapid private-sector innovation through market competition; China coordinates large-scale infrastructure projects via central planning. Europe is attempting a hybrid: combine market mechanisms with regulatory oversight, social goals and security protections.
Whether this balancing act can generate the scale and speed of investment required to keep pace with global rivals remains uncertain. International competition increasingly centres on control of infrastructure — shaping network architectures, setting technical standards and managing data flows confers strategic advantages that extend beyond pure commercial rivalry.
Digital Networks Act: The high-stakes infrastructure experiment
The Digital Networks Act captures Europe’s ambition to secure competitive parity — and in some areas a strategic edge — during an era of accelerating technological rivalry. By harmonising rules, mandating infrastructure transitions and tightening security requirements, European leaders hope to close investment and capability gaps.
But regulatory thoroughness does not automatically translate into technological leadership. Innovation cycles in communications and adjacent technologies often operate on much shorter timescales than legislative processes. While Europe debates fibre deadlines and spectrum coordination, competitors may push next-generation infrastructure at scale and pace.
The crucial question is whether regulatory coordination can substitute for the entrepreneurial drive and capital deployment that historically underpin technological advancement. In an era where digital infrastructure shapes economic power, Europe’s decision to prioritise bureaucratic coordination over unfettered market dynamics is a high-stakes policy experiment whose outcome will influence the continent’s economic and strategic trajectory for years to come.
See also: FCC chair calls EU satellite strategy ‘anti-American’
Looking to revamp your digital transformation strategy? Learn more about Digital Transformation Week, an event series held in Amsterdam, California and London that runs alongside related conferences on IoT, AI, cybersecurity and cloud technologies.