ANISP Considerations Related to Digital Networks Act (DNA) Project

The National Association of Internet Service Providers in Romania (ANISP) has submitted a series of observations and proposals to the European Commission regarding the Digital Networks Act (DNA), the European legislative initiative aimed at modernizing the regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services.

ANISP supports the objectives of developing European digital infrastructure, increasing network resilience and facilitating investment. However, we believe that achieving these objectives requires preserving effective competition, eliminating unnecessary administrative obligations and avoiding disproportionate costs for independent operators.

Modernizing the European legislative framework must not encourage market concentration in the hands of a few large operators at the expense of regional providers, hosting companies and independent digital infrastructure operators.

1. Fair Interconnection of Internet Networks

One of ANISP’s key proposals concerns the regulation of direct interconnection between IP networks (peering).

In highly concentrated markets, operators controlling access to the majority of end-users may refuse direct local interconnection or impose unfavorable commercial conditions on alternative providers.

This situation may force Internet traffic exchanged between two networks in the same country to transit international exchange points, resulting in increased latency, higher costs and degraded service quality.

In Romania, according to ANCOM data for the first half of 2025, a single operator accounted for 73.1% of fixed Internet connections and 77.4% of the associated data traffic.

ANISP proposes that national regulatory authorities be empowered to impose direct IP interconnection obligations on operators with significant market power or a market share exceeding 50%, under fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory and cost-oriented terms.

Efficient interconnection is essential for the development of cloud services, artificial intelligence and applications requiring low latency.

2. Reducing Bureaucracy and Eliminating Redundant Reporting

The DNA must represent a genuine opportunity for administrative simplification, rather than introducing another layer of regulation.

ANISP calls for the implementation of the European “Once-Only” principle — information should only need to be reported once, including information concerning physical infrastructure and security incidents.

An example of excessive bureaucracy is the requirement imposed on providers in Romania to individually report the geographical coordinates of utility poles used for fiber-optic deployment, even when the same infrastructure belongs to a third party and is shared by multiple operators.

ANISP proposes that information concerning physical infrastructure should generally be collected from its owner, while reporting obligations imposed on operators should be limited to strictly necessary data.

Furthermore, repeated reporting of the same incident to multiple authorities under different European regulatory frameworks should be avoided.

3. Fair Infrastructure Access and Protection of Competition

Europe’s transition from copper networks to fiber-optic infrastructure must not lead to the emergence of new monopolies.

ANISP calls for FTTH infrastructure developed with public funding, state aid or other forms of public support to provide alternative operators with non-discriminatory access to unlit optical fiber (dark fiber) at cost-oriented prices.

Independent providers should also benefit from simplified authorization procedures and access to passive infrastructure, electricity and other resources required for network and data center development.

Consolidation of the European market must not come at the expense of competition or through the weakening of access obligations imposed on dominant operators.

4. Security and Resilience Without Disproportionate Costs

ANISP supports improving the security of digital infrastructure, including preparations for post-quantum cryptography.

However, obligations must be proportionate to each provider’s technical role, size and risk profile.

Responsibilities for application-layer data encryption should not automatically be transferred to IP transport operators or hosting providers.

Where costly technological obligations are introduced, ANISP advocates the principle that “those who impose the obligations must also ensure the necessary funding”, through appropriate European or national support mechanisms.

Internet routing security measures, such as RPKI, ROA and MANRS best practices, should be encouraged through technical assistance and incentives, while avoiding disproportionate certification and auditing schemes.

5. Protecting Hosting, Cloud and Data Center Providers

ANISP calls for a clear distinction between electronic communications services and hosting, cloud, colocation and data center services.

The mere fact that a provider operates an Autonomous System (AS), uses IP addresses or employs BGP routing protocols should not automatically result in its activities being classified as electronic communications services.

This distinction is necessary to prevent the unjustified extension of telecommunications-specific administrative charges to hosting and cloud providers.

6. Preserving the Open Internet and Its Governance Mechanisms

ANISP opposes the introduction of “sender-pays” mechanisms, under which content, hosting, cloud or CDN providers would be required to pay access network operators simply because end-users request traffic from their services.

Such mechanisms could increase the cost of digital services, negatively affect small and medium-sized enterprises and undermine the open Internet model.

ANISP also calls for Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) to be recognized as strategic infrastructure and for neutral, non-discriminatory access to these facilities to be promoted.

New regulations must respect established technical Internet governance mechanisms, including those administered through RIPE NCC, while avoiding parallel administrative registries and procedures.

Conclusion

ANISP believes that the success of the Digital Networks Act should be measured not only by the scale of investments or the size of European operators, but also by the level of competition, service affordability, connectivity quality and the ability of independent companies to innovate and grow.

Europe needs high-performance, resilient digital infrastructure, but it also needs an open, competitive and diverse market.

The Digital Networks Act must remove barriers to the development of the European Internet, not create new ones.