The EU Commission is gutting net neutrality

The latest updates

On 21 January 2026, the European Commission published its long-awaited proposal for a Digital Networks Act (DNA)., the proposal has been framed as technical modernisation of Europe’s telecommunication rules, aiming at boosting investment in advanced digital infrastructure and at enhancing connectivity across Member States. Yet, the proposal is much more than that. In its current shape, it marks a decisive shift away from core principles that have safeguarded an open and neutral internet for almost a decade.

Given the high stakes, EDRi-member epicenter.works carried out a first, rapid analysis. The short version: the Digital Networks Act, as proposed, risks undermining fundamental internet freedoms while claiming to simplify and streamline regulation.

“Updating” Isn’t always progress

The Commission presents the DNA as a technical update to outdated rules, necessary to prepare Europe’s networks for future technologies. But this very premise is misleading in itself. Europe’s net neutrality framework is not obsolete. It has evolved over a decade through case law of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU), regulatory decisions across Member States, and repeated guidance from the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC). These protections have ensured that internet traffic is treated equally – a principle that underpins competition, innovation, and freedom of expression online.

Instead of building on this foundation, the DNA tears it down.

Removing the compass

One of the most consequential changes is the removal of key legal recitals that have guided net neutrality enforcement for years. These provisions did not just add text, they shaped how judges and regulators interpreted the law in concrete, real-world cases.

By deleting 18 of 19 recitals, the DNA reduces legal clarity and weakens citizens’ rights, creating a more unpredictable environment in which corporations could push for paid prioritisation and other forms of traffic discrimination.

A backdoor for paid fast lanes

Paid “specialised services”, which services that receive preferential treatment on the network, were a key battleground in the original net neutrality debate. Europe’s approach allowed them only where technically necessary, and only if they did not harm the open internet.

This balance has been maintained and updated by expert regulators. In 2020 , they issued a guidance on how net neutrality applies in the context of 5G and network slicing. Currently, regulators are seeking input in a public consultation to update the net neutrality framework once more should new technology require it.

Yet, the DNA proposal enter in conflict with this process, as it would give the Commission unilateral power to decide when such fast lanes are allowed, potentially overriding independent regulators and BEREC guidance. This is a clear political intervention into what was meant to be impartial expert enforcement.

The Return of “fair share”

Another dangerous idea revived in the DNA is the introduction of network fees, which are often marketed as “fair share”. This concept dates back to the telephone era, where networks charged fees simply to terminate calls. Big telecom companies could earn money by simply having their customers accept calls. But the internet never worked this way.

The vast majority of peering connections, which account to more than 99 % of the total, are settlement-free because global connectivity itself is the product sold by internet service providers. Introducing fees for basic access would distort this model, increase costs for services, and create barriers for startups and smaller providers.

Undermining regulatory independence

The current DNA proposal also restructures BEREC’s office into an Office for Digital Networks, granting the Commission access to internal discussions and working groups. This may sound like a technical reform, but in practice it dilutes the independence and confidentiality that have been essential to effective enforcement of net neutrality and other telecom rules.

Independent regulators like BEREC have earned trust by grounding decisions in evidence and technical expertise. Politically appointed officials having a seat at the table risks replacing neutral enforcement with political bargaining. This could seriously undermine trust in public institutions and the ability of regulators to do their job.

Conclusion

The Digital Networks Act, as presented today, is not the reform Europe needs. Rather than strengthening clarity and legal certainty, it weakens hard-won safeguards, centralises power in political bodies, and risks undermining the open and neutral internet. What is framed as simplification is (once again- erosion. As the proposal now moves to the European Parliament and the Council, lawmakers must decide whether to defend fundamental internet freedoms or allow them to be dismantled under the label of reform.

Contribution by: EDRi member, epicenter.works