Why 17 European Telecom CEOs Want Changes to the Digital Networks Act

The open letter from 17 European telecommunications CEOs is not an argument against network security. Its core message is that the EU’s Digital Networks Act (DNA) should create stronger incentives to invest in connectivity, rather than add obligations that operators say would divert capital away from fibre, 5G and 6G. The signatories, whose companies include Orange, Deutsche Telekom and Telefónica, want legislators to amend the proposal as it moves through the EU process. 46

The headline dispute: replacing high-risk supplier equipment

The CEOs’ most urgent objection concerns proposed rules for suppliers designated “high risk” on cybersecurity grounds. Reporting on the letter says operators could have three years to phase out designated equipment, a requirement the industry says could cost as much as €40 billion. The operators argue that such spending would reduce the money available for next-generation network deployment. 58

That €40 billion is an industry estimate, not a settled public cost assessment. The policy disagreement is therefore not only whether equipment should be replaced, but also how quickly, at whose cost and on what evidence a EU-wide obligation should apply.

The Commission’s security concern has a clear basis in its previous 5G work. In 2023 it concluded that Huawei and ZTE presented materially higher risks than other 5G suppliers, citing the potential exposure of suppliers to intrusive third-country laws on national intelligence and data security. It said national decisions to restrict or exclude the companies were justified under the EU’s 5G cybersecurity toolbox. 17

Why Brussels is seeking a common approach

Before the current proposal, the 5G toolbox largely relied on national implementation. The Commission reported that 24 member states had adopted or were preparing legal measures allowing authorities to assess suppliers and impose restrictions, yet only 10 had actually imposed such restrictions.

That uneven record explains the EU’s push for more binding rules. From Brussels’ perspective, communications networks are interconnected critical infrastructure, so a patchwork of national supplier policies can leave collective vulnerabilities. The Commission has framed the DNA as a single regulation designed to modernise connectivity rules and support advanced, resilient digital infrastructure. 3

The operators’ position is that a common framework should still be proportionate. They warn against a one-size-fits-all removal timetable when operators’ installed networks, replacement options and investment plans differ across countries.

The CEOs’ broader demands for telecom reform

The equipment dispute sits inside a wider call for a more investment-oriented telecom rulebook. The CEOs and Connect Europe have asked policymakers to:

• Reduce regulatory and administrative barriers that they say impede investment and innovation in high-speed networks. 46
• Provide durable or indefinite spectrum licences, giving operators greater long-term certainty for investments with long asset lives. 4
• Allow more scope for market consolidation, reflecting the industry’s view that greater scale can strengthen investment capacity.
• Move away from a regulation-first approach and build a more harmonised telecom single market. 119

These demands reflect a familiar industry argument: European operators face large, long-lived infrastructure commitments, so predictable rules, spectrum certainty and sufficient scale are central to funding network upgrades.

Why they oppose a fixed copper switch-off deadline

The letter also challenges a centrally mandated timetable for retiring legacy copper networks. The DNA sets a phased transition to fibre and requires member states to ensure copper switch-off by the end of 2035 in designated areas where specified fibre coverage and affordable-service conditions are met. 1

Operators do not dispute the direction of travel from copper to fibre. Their concern is that decommissioning needs to account for local deployment conditions, consumer protections, technical readiness and network resilience. They are calling for flexibility rather than a blanket deadline imposed from Brussels. 4

What is really being negotiated

The argument is often portrayed as a simple choice between inexpensive Chinese equipment and security. It is more complicated than that.

The Commission’s position is that high-risk supplier restrictions are necessary to protect critical networks and to correct the shortcomings of voluntary, uneven national action. 17 The operators argue that a rapid, uniform replacement mandate could weaken the very investment needed to improve Europe’s connectivity. 58

The central questions for the European Parliament and member-state governments are therefore practical as well as strategic:

1. How quickly should designated equipment be removed?
2. Who absorbs the replacement cost?
3. How much national discretion should remain in a shared European security framework?
4. Can the EU strengthen security without slowing fibre, 5G and future 6G investment?

The answer will determine whether the DNA is seen primarily as a security-driven intervention, an investment reform, or an attempt to balance both objectives. What the CEOs want is a version that, in their view, makes the balance more favourable to capital investment and operational flexibility; what the Commission is seeking is a more consistent security baseline across the EU. 34