Europe’s spectrum policy at a crossroads: reflections from the ESMC panel

I recently moderated a session on the Digital Networks Act (DNA) at the European Spectrum Management Conference (ESMC), and it raised the question of whether the spectrum community is focusing on the right part of the debate. Much of the discussion centres on mechanisms, veto rights, harmonisation processes, ITU filing coordination, when the more fundamental question sits beneath them. We do not yet share a clear, common view of what we want spectrum governance to deliver.

The timing added a particular edge: the Radio Spectrum Policy Group had published its formal Opinion on the DNA the day before, hot off the press. That meant we got Gerasimos Sofianatos’s (DG CONNECT) immediate reaction to it, which made for a more candid exchange than these sessions sometimes produce.

There was broad consensus across the panel that the current framework has gaps; fragmented auction rules, inconsistent licensing timelines, and uneven rollout across Member States are well-documented problems.

Where the discussion became more substantive was on how the DNA responds to those gaps. The Commission’s position, presented by Sofianatos, is that stronger EU-level coordination is needed to make the single market work for digital infrastructure.

Jonas Wessel (Swedish Post and Telecom Agency, PTS), whose views aligned closely with the freshly adopted RSPG Opinion, was less convinced: the existing governance model has worked reasonably well, and several proposed changes risk increasing administrative burden rather than reducing it. The Commission’s proposed veto rights over Member State award procedures drew particular attention, with the concern that they could slow national spectrum assignments without a clear compensating benefit.

Why agreement breaks down: outcomes, not solutions

But the deeper issue the discussion surfaced is not just disagreement on solutions. It is disagreement on outcomes. Sovereignty, competition, innovation, coverage, and strategic autonomy: these are not always compatible objectives, and the DNA implicitly makes choices between them without always acknowledging it. Solutions that involve trade-offs will find resistance for exactly that reason. Like the blind men in the parable, everyone in the room was touching the same elephant. They just were not holding the same part of it.

6G and the case for regulatory predictability

Luigi Ardito (Qualcomm) welcomed the DNA’s potential to modernise the framework and reduce national fragmentation, while stressing that execution agility for national regulators must be preserved. His more forward-looking point concerned 6G specifically: Europe needs early, proactive allocation of wide-channel spectrum in the upper mid-bands to handle the demands of industrial AI applications. And for operators and their financers to commit the capital that 6G requires, long licence durations and regulatory predictability are not optional extras; they are preconditions for investment.

Coordination with international frameworks

Christiane Seifert (Electronic Communications Committee, ECC, at CEPT) offered an ECC perspective grounded in CEPT’s coordination mechanisms, built on technical consensus across 46 countries and not just the EU-27, have evolved over many years and work reasonably well. The DNA’s internal EU architecture needs to interface sensibly with them, particularly as WRC-27 preparations move forward. On harmonisation, she flagged that CEPT already has well-established procedures, so the DNA’s additional stakeholder-initiated layer may not be necessary.

Natalia Vicente (GSOA) raised a related concern on the satellite side. ITU filing processes are first-come, first-served, so any EU-level coordination that introduces delay before a filing proceeds could disadvantage European operators against non-EU competitors. The goal of simplification is not in question; the concern is whether the proposed mechanism delivers it or adds a parallel layer of complexity instead.

The broadcasting and content blind spot

Dr. Zenthöfer (Wider Spectrum Group), welcoming the DNA’s objectives, raised a question of scope. Its architecture is largely built around mobile broadband and 5G/6G deployment, yet spectrum governance affects the creative and content chain, from production to distribution to the consumer. The Wider Spectrum Group’s asks were concrete: that broadcast radio remains included in all cars, that spectrum policy continues to support terrestrial broadcasting and professional wireless production, and that the DNA actively enables broadcasting innovation.

Where things stand

The DNA is now before the European Parliament and Council. The RSPG Opinion, adopted the day before our session, gives co-legislators a detailed perspective from the national regulators who will implement whatever framework emerges. Several of the more centralising provisions face significant resistance, and the text will likely evolve.

The more important question is whether the legislative process will surface the underlying trade-offs between competing outcomes explicitly, or find ways to defer them to future implementing acts. If it is the latter, the same conversation will be waiting at the next stage.