Cross-posted from C4C’s LinkedIn page – see the original article
In Brussels, where policy language often wraps complexity in neutrality, few phrases are more deceptively comforting than “level playing field.” It evokes fairness, balance, an equal start. But when it appears in the European Commission’s Digital Networks Act (DNA) proposal, it risks becoming a euphemism for regulatory capture and economic imbalance, particularly for those who rely on an open, innovative, and competitive internet.
At the Coalition for Creativity (C4C), our members span libraries, research institutions, digital rights organisations, technology businesses, and cultural heritage organisations. And we are alarmed by proposals that could subtly, yet significantly, reshape the rules of internet engagement.
When “Cooperation” Means Compulsion
One of the most concerning elements is the Commission’s suggestion to give new powers to national regulators and the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) to “facilitate cooperation” between network operators and content/application providers (CAPs). That may sound collaborative. In practice, it opens the door to mandated payments from CAPs to telecom providers, a model called “sending party pays”, and unsuccessfully trialled in, for example, South Korea.
Let’s call it what it is: a toll on digital expression.
There is no market failure here to solve. BEREC’s own findings repeatedly confirm that the IP interconnection market is competitive and stable. Prices are falling. Network efficiency is increasing. So why reengineer a system that functions?
The danger isn’t just financial. It’s structural. A new payment regime could disproportionately burden smaller players—research platforms, non-profit tools, cultural digitisation projects—who lack the resources to absorb unpredictable and potentially arbitrary costs. It would force many to divert resources away from innovation, access, and public service into opaque negotiations or legal defences.
From Enforcer to Arbitrator: The Risk of Regulatory Weaponisation
Granting regulators the mandate to broker financial flows between CAPs and network operators also introduces a more insidious risk: regulatory weaponisation.
We’ve already seen how dominant telecom operators can manipulate regulatory ambiguity to their advantage. Prolonged disputes, threats of complaints, or pressure through access negotiations become tools not of dialogue, but of dominance. The eleven-year legal battle between Init7 and Swisscom is a sobering illustration of how long and costly such “cooperation” can become when left unchecked.
Once financial mediation becomes part of a regulator’s role, it risks distorting its core mission—protecting end-users, ensuring market fairness, and safeguarding fundamental rights. Instead, it creates an uneven playing field where size and political access—not public interest—determine who pays, who wins, and who gets squeezed out.
Clarifying Net Neutrality, or Carving Loopholes?
The second DNA proposal promises to “clarify” Open Internet rules for “innovative services.” But clarity can sometimes be a pretext for reinterpretation. The vague invocation of “innovation” risks being exploited as a backdoor for paid prioritisation, “specialised services,” and network slicing models that would allow telecoms to tier the internet.
In such a system, services that can afford to pay for “fast lanes” will reach users quickly and reliably. Those that cannot—open-source educational tools, digitised cultural archives, niche research platforms—may be relegated to slower, less stable delivery. What we risk is a digital hierarchy, where value is dictated not by societal impact or user need, but by the capacity to pay for preferential treatment.
Net neutrality was designed to prevent this. It ensures that traffic flows equally, irrespective of origin. It protects the small, the emerging, the non-commercial. Diluting this principle under the guise of “interpretative guidance” would fundamentally alter the nature of European internet access.
The True Meaning of a Level Playing Field
A genuinely level digital playing field is one where access is open, terms are transparent, and opportunities are not auctioned off to the highest bidder. It is one where libraries, start-ups, research institutions, and cultural projects can reach users on the same terms as commercial giants.
What it is not: a market where incumbent telecoms dictate who pays, how much, and for what. It is not a network that throttles diversity in the name of “cooperation.” And it is certainly not a regulatory model where financial “facilitation” becomes the norm rather than the exception.
Our Ask to the Commission
C4C urges the Commission to:
- Reject any mechanism that leads to network usage fees. The current IP interconnection market does not require this intervention.
- Reinforce—not reinterpret—net neutrality. Paid prioritisation, however dressed up, must remain off the table.
- Maintain regulatory independence. The role of NRAs and BEREC should be to enforce the law, not to arbitrate payments.
- Base decisions on independent evidence. Not on narratives of scarcity pushed by a few powerful stakeholders.
A Pivotal Moment for Europe’s Digital Future
The DNA could set the tone for a new phase of European digital policy. It could reaffirm openness, diversity, and competition. Or it could signal a shift toward pay-to-access models that undermine the very fabric of our digital society.
Let’s not be lulled by comforting phrases or abstract frameworks. Let’s focus on outcomes—and on the users, creators, educators, and researchers who make Europe’s digital ecosystem one of the most vibrant in the world.
Because a “level playing field” that tilts against openness isn’t level at all.
For detailed insights, see our full submission.
