 In the first part of this series, I looked at the DNA’s overall structure and direction, and flagged some of the broader concerns it raises. After spending more time with the text, however, additional issues start to emerge.
In this second instalment, I want to focus on two such issues: interconnection and the risk that the DNA could end up pulling Content Delivery Networks (CDNs) into telecom-style regulation. Once you start examining these questions, a third one inevitably follows: what all of this could mean for Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) — an area where Europe is, somewhat paradoxically, a global success story. These are not technical footnotes. They go to the heart of how the Internet functions, how the digital single market operates, and whether the EU’s regulatory choices genuinely support competitiveness, innovation, and growth. 1. Interconnection: the Internet’s Quiet Foundation Interconnection rarely features in political debates, yet it is one of the main reasons the Internet works at all. At its most basic level, interconnection is how independently operated networks exchange traffic with one another. It is what turns thousands of autonomous networks into a single, global Internet. Historically, interconnection has been governed by commercial agreements, not by regulators. Networks peer or purchase transit based on efficiency, performance, and cost. This decentralised, market-led model has allowed the Internet to scale, remain resilient, and support innovation without central coordination. For Europe, interconnection is fundamental. It enables cross-border digital services, lowers costs, supports competition between networks, and allows new entrants to reach users without needing permission from incumbents. In practical terms, it is one of the core enablers of the digital single market. 2. How the DNA Risks Re-regulating Interconnection While the DNA preserves commercial interconnection in formal terms, it materially lowers the threshold for regulatory involvement, creating a pathway — rather than a mandate — for the re-regulation of interconnection over time. The DNA does not explicitly announce a shift toward regulating interconnection. But regulatory change rarely comes that way. Instead, the proposal expands the role of national regulatory authorities in ensuring “end-to-end connectivity,” promoting “ecosystem cooperation,” and resolving disputes between actors involved in connectivity and traffic exchange. This language should ring a bell. It closely resembles arguments that large telecom operators have made for years to justify regulatory intervention in interconnection — including claims that upstream actors should be compelled to contribute financially to network costs. The risk is that interconnection gradually moves from being a commercial arrangement to a regulated relationship. Once regulators are empowered to intervene beyond narrowly defined cases of market failure, incentives shift:
From a competitiveness standpoint, this can be problematic. The Draghi report on European competitiveness makes clear that Europe already struggles with fragmentation, regulatory friction, and barriers to scale. Re-regulating interconnection would add friction where none is needed and undermines one of the Internet’s most successful governance models. 3. What This Means for Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) Any serious discussion of interconnection must also consider Internet Exchange Points. IXPs are one of the Internet’s quiet success stories, and Europe hosts two of the largest and most important in the world: DE-CIX in Frankfurt and AMS-IX in the Netherlands. IXPs are neutral infrastructures that allow networks to exchange traffic efficiently, locally, and at low cost. They reduce latency, improve resilience, and enhance competition. They are also a major reason why Europe has been such an attractive place for CDNs, cloud providers, and global networks to deploy infrastructure. Europe’s leadership in IXPs did not happen by accident. It is the product of decades of regulatory restraint and legal certainty. IXPs thrive because peering at their facilities is voluntary, decentralised, and commercially negotiated. Changing the interconnection regime — even indirectly — puts this model at risk. If interconnection becomes subject to routine regulatory intervention:
One of the striking omissions in the draft DNA is the lack of recognition of IXPs as strategic digital infrastructure. At a time when the EU speaks about resilience, sovereignty, and competitiveness, failing to protect the conditions that made DE-CIX and AMS-IX global hubs is a serious blind spot. 4. CDNs: Not Named, but Very Much in the Crosshairs A second issue that becomes apparent on closer reading of the DNA is the position of Content Delivery Networks. Formally, the proposal insists that it does not regulate content or cloud services. CDNs are not explicitly named as regulated entities. But regulatory scope is often shaped less by what is named and more by definitions, authorisation regimes, and dispute mechanisms. The DNA repeatedly emphasises the convergence of telecom networks, cloud, and edge computing into a broader “digital networks” ecosystem. It also reshapes the general authorisation framework and strengthens dispute resolution mechanisms between “undertakings” involved in connectivity and interconnection. This creates a real risk that CDNs — particularly those with infrastructure deployed inside Member States — could be treated as falling within telecom-style regulation. Not because the DNA clearly mandates it, but because it provides regulators with the conceptual and legal tools to argue that it should. 5. Why This Matters for Europe’s Digital Future Pulling interconnection and CDNs into telecom-style regulation would have predictable consequences:
This sits uneasily with Europe’s ambition to attract talent, lead in AI and cloud, and strengthen its strategic autonomy. An open, well-functioning Internet is not a side issue; it is a prerequisite for innovation, economic growth, and security. 6. What Needs to Change If the DNA is to support Europe’s digital ambitions rather than undermine them, several adjustments are essential:
Closing Note This piece is part of an ongoing series examining the draft Digital Networks Act as it moves through the EU legislative process. Given the scope and complexity of the proposal, no single article can capture all of its implications. Subsequent instalments will look more closely at the role of national regulators, the risk of market fragmentation, and whether the DNA genuinely aligns with Europe’s competitiveness and security objectives. The DNA is ambitious. But ambition alone is not enough. Interconnection, CDNs, and IXPs are not peripheral concerns — they are central to how the Internet works and to whether Europe can compete in the next phase of the digital economy. Getting these issues wrong would not just be a regulatory mistake; it would be a strategic one. Comments are closed.
|