The Radio Spectrum Policy Group’s (RSPG) Nov. 12 opinion on the upper 6-GHz band is framed as a long-term strategic vision for Europe’s digital future. But its practical effect is far less ambitious: it grants mobile operators a cost-free reservation of one of Europe’s most valuable spectrum resources, without deployment obligations, market evidence or a realistic plan for implementation. > At a moment when Europe is struggling to accelerate the deployment of digital > infrastructure and close the gap with global competitors, this decision > amounts to a strategic pause dressed up as policy foresight. The opinion even invites the mobile industry to develop products for the upper 6-GHz band, when policy should be guided by actual market demand and product deployment, not the other way around. At a moment when Europe is struggling to accelerate the deployment of digital infrastructure and close the gap with global competitors, this decision amounts to a strategic pause dressed up as policy foresight. The cost of inaction is real. Around the world, advanced 6-GHz Wi-Fi is already delivering high-capacity, low-latency connectivity. The United States, Canada, South Korea and others have opened the 6-GHz band for telemedicine, automated manufacturing, immersive education, robotics and a multitude of other high-performance Wi-Fi connectivity use cases. These are not experimental concepts; they are operational deployments generating tangible socioeconomic value. Holding the upper 6- GHz band in reserve delays these benefits at a time when Europe is seeking to strengthen competitiveness, digital inclusion, and digital sovereignty. The opinion introduces another challenge by calling for “flexibility” for member states. In practice, this means regulatory fragmentation across 27 markets, reopening the door to divergent national spectrum policies — precisely the outcome Europe has spent two decades trying to avert with the Digital Single Market. > Without a credible roadmap, reserving the band for hypothetical cellular > networks only exacerbates policy uncertainty without delivering progress. Equally significant is what the opinion does not address. The upper 6-GHz band is already home to ‘incumbents’: fixed links and satellite services that support public safety, government operations and industrial connectivity. Any meaningful mobile deployment would require refarming these incumbents — a technically complex, politically sensitive and financially burdensome process. To date, no member state has proposed a viable plan for how such relocation would proceed, how much it would cost or who would pay. Without a credible roadmap, reserving the band for hypothetical cellular networks only exacerbates policy uncertainty without delivering progress. There is, however, a pragmatic alternative. The European Commission and the member states committed to advancing Europe’s connectivity can allow controlled Wi-Fi access to the upper 6-GHz band now — bringing immediate benefits for citizens and enterprises — while establishing clear, evidence-based criteria for any future cellular deployments. Those criteria should include demonstrated commercial viability, validated coexistence with incumbents, and fully funded relocation plans where necessary. This approach preserves long-term policy flexibility for member states and mobile operators, while ensuring that spectrum delivers measurable value today rather than being held indefinitely in reserve. > Spectrum is not an abstract asset. RSPG itself calls it a scarce resource that > must be used efficiently, but this opinion falls short of that principle. Spectrum is not an abstract asset. RSPG itself calls it a scarce resource that must be used efficiently, but this opinion falls short of that principle. Spectrum underpins Europe’s competitiveness, connectivity, and digital innovation. But its value is unlocked through use, not by shelving it in anticipation that hypothetical future markets might someday justify withholding action now. To remain competitive in the next decade, Europe needs a 6-GHz policy grounded in evidence, aligned with the single market, and focused on real-world impact. The upper 6-GHz band should be a driver of European innovation, not the latest casualty of strategic hesitation. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Wi-Fi Alliance * The ultimate controlling entity is Wi-Fi Alliance More information here.

BRUSSELS — Lawmakers in the European Parliament’s legal affairs committee have voted to go ahead and sue the European Commission for axing a proposal to regulate patent licensing. The JURI committee on Tuesday voted in favor of referring the Commission to the Court of Justice of the European Union for breaching EU law by withdrawing a proposal to regulate standard essential patents. The patents, for 4G and 5G networks used in mobile phones and connected cars, have been at the center of a long-running battle between the companies that own them and those that use them. European lawmakers have supported efforts to resolve the fight — and some accuse the EU executive of attacking democracy by killing off the initiative. President Roberta Metsola now needs to mandate the Parliament’s legal service to draft and file a case by Nov. 14, a Parliament official said, citing rules of procedure. If she intends to depart from JURI’s conclusions, she could also bring it to the Conference of Presidents or, in an unlikely scenario, submit it to a plenary vote, they added. Fourteen MEPs voted in favor of the action, against eight who opposed it, the official said. The vote was held behind closed doors.  The motion was spearheaded by German Social Democrat René Repasi, coordinator for the Committee on Legal Affairs and standing rapporteur for disputes involving the Parliament. “With today’s vote, we send a clear message: we will not stand by when the Commission oversteps its mandate,” Repasi said in an emailed statement following the vote. “The Commission’s right to withdraw a proposal, as was conducted with the Standard-Essential Patents (SEP) proposal, cannot be used as a political instrument to short-circuit Parliament’s work or to enforce a deregulation agenda from above. This is not in line with how the democratic processes in the European Union are meant to function.” Members of the European People’s Party, the center-right party allied to Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, were instructed to vote against taking legal action. “Today’s vote reflects Parliament’s concern about the balance of powers between EU institutions, but we must be clear: This legal action will not bring back the withdrawn legislative proposal,” Adrián Vázquez Lázara, the EPP’s lead on the issue, told POLITICO.  While he acknowledged that the withdrawal of the SEP bill raised some question marks, Vázquez Lázara said that legal action was not the right solution. “What can be questioned, however, is the wording and justification used in this specific withdrawal, which raises legitimate concerns about institutional transparency and communication,” Vázquez Lázara said. “Those Members who wish to see the proposal revived should seek political and legislative avenues to achieve that goal, rather than resorting to institutional confrontation.” Patent implementers, which historically supported the regulation and range from carmakers to Big Tech companies and SMEs, cheered the move. “There is still hope for democracy and fairness in the EU legislature,” said Evelina Kurgonaite of the Fair Standards Alliance, which represents the patent users. “We thank MEP [Marion] Walsmann and other JURI members for their leadership in fighting for a fair chance at innovation for  businesses in Europe, especially SMEs.” The Commission declined to comment.

The “anonymous” location data of EU officials in Brussels is up for sale, according to a joint investigation by European media outlets. Three senior officials working for the EU were identified as part of an investigation into phone location data being sold by data brokers. Other phones were located in NATO sites and Belgian military bases. The European Commission has recognized the “worrying conclusions” of the investigation and, as a result, told investigating outlets that it has “issued new guidance to its staff regarding ad tracking settings on business and home devices, and has informed other Union entities.” The investigation was conducted by L’Echo, Le Monde, German public broadcasters (BR / ARD), Netzpolitik.org and BNR nieuwsradio. Journalists posed undercover as employees at a marketing company, and were able to obtain hundreds of millions of location data points from phones in Belgium through data brokers. Data brokers collect and sell aggregated databases of personal information, often gathered from mobile apps or online web trackers. The data is bundled and resold to advertisers, or even law enforcement and governments. Location data is supposed to be anonymous, but it can be used to paint a picture of someone’s daily movements, and combining a few anonymous data points together can lead to re-identifying a person. Investigating publications were able to use the data to figure out surnames, first names and lifestyle habits of at least five people who work or have worked for the EU, three of whom “hold positions of high responsibility.” Two confirmed that the data collected corresponded to their home, workplace and travel. Under the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), it is legal to collect this kind of data from mobile phone users if they consent, but users must be clearly informed about how their data will be used. The Google Play Store and Apple App Store have requirements for apps to disclose the information they gather, but analysis by investigating outlet Netzpolitik has revealed that some apps still gather information such as location data without disclosing this in their policies. A similar undercover investigation by Ireland’s public broadcaster in September spurred Ireland’s Data Protection Commission to suspend the activities of an Irish data broker. The Irish DPC has said it has also identified two data broker companies in other EU member countries, and is engaging with data protection authorities responsible for regulating them.

PARIS — Economy Minister Roland Lescure warned Monday he could stop Shein from selling its products of France after a consumer watchdog report accused the Chinese-founded fast-fashion platform of selling “sex dolls with childlike appearances.” “For terrorist acts, drug trafficking and child pornography, the government has the right to request banning access to the French market,” Lescure said. “These horrible items are illegal.” Over the weekend, France’s Directorate-General for Competition, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Control (DGCCRF) issued a statement alleging that it had “found that the e-commerce site SHEIN was selling child-like sex dolls.” “Their description and categorization on the site leave little doubt as to the child pornographic nature of the content,” the statement added. Shein did not immediately respond to POLITICO’s request for comment. Lescure said that he had filed a legal report on this matter and asked France’s digital regulator Arcom, which is responsible for regulating “very large” platforms like Shein under the European Digital Services Act, to look into the matter. France’s High Commissioner for Youth, Sarah El-Haïry, said Sunday that she would convene “all major platforms” to understand how such products are put on the market. In 2021, then-Economy Minister Bruno Le Maire order popular search engines and mobile app stores to delist another online marketplace, Wish, after several reports from the DGCCRF. Wish was reauthorized a year later. This article was first published by POLITICO in French and translated by Victor Goury-Laffont.

Alcohol has been enjoyed in societies for thousands of years, playing a role in celebrations and gatherings across the world. While misuse continues to cause harm, it’s encouraging to see that, according to World Health Organization data, trends are moving in the right direction. Consumers are better informed and increasingly aware of the benefits of moderation.   While Diageo is only relatively young — founded in 1997 — our roots run deep. Many of our brands date back centuries, some as far back as the 1600s. From iconic names such as Guinness and Johnnie Walker to modern innovations like Tanqueray 0.0, we are proud to continue that legacy by building and sustaining exceptional brands that resonate across generations and geographies. We want to be one of the best performing, most trusted and respected consumer products companies in the world — grounded in a strong sense of responsibility.  That means being transparent about the challenges, proactive in promoting responsible drinking, and collaborative in shaping the future of alcohol policy. We are proud of the progress made, but we know there is more to do. Lasting change requires a whole-of-society approach, bringing together governments, health experts, civil society and the private sector.   We believe a more balanced, evidence-based dialogue is crucial; one that recognizes both the risks of harmful drinking and the opportunities to drive positive change. Our brands are woven into cultural and social traditions around the world, and the industry contributes significantly to employment, local economies and public revenues. Recognizing this broader context is essential to shaping effective, proportionate and collaborative alcohol policies. Public-private collaboration brings together the strengths of different sectors, and these partnerships help scale impactful programs.  > We believe a more balanced, evidence-based dialogue is crucial; one that > recognizes both the risks of harmful drinking and the opportunities to drive > positive change. Across markets, consumers are increasingly choosing to drink more mindfully. Moderation is a long-term trend — whether it’s choosing a non-alcoholic alternative, enjoying fewer drinks of higher quality, or exploring the choice ready-to-drink formats offer, people are drinking better, not more, something Diageo has long advocated. Moderation is not a limitation; it’s a mindset. One of the ways we’re leading in this space is through our expanding non-alcoholic portfolio, including the acquisition of Ritual Beverage Company in the US and our investment in Guinness 0.0. This growing diversity of options empowers individuals to choose what’s right for them, in the moment. Moderation is about choice, and spirits can also offer creative ways to moderate, such as mixing alcoholic and non-alcoholic ingredients to craft serves like the ‘lo-groni’, or opting for a smaller measure in your gin and tonic.  Governments are increasingly taking proportionate approaches to alcohol regulation, recognizing the value of collaboration and evidence-based policy. There’s growing interest in public-private partnerships and regulatory rationality, working together to achieve our shared goal to reduce the harmful use of alcohol. In the UK, underage drinking is at its lowest since records began, thanks in part to initiatives like Challenge 25, a successful public-private collaboration that demonstrates the impact of collective, targeted action.  > Moderation is not a limitation; it’s a mindset. Diageo has long championed responsible drinking through campaigns and programs that are measurable and scalable. Like our responsible drinking campaign, The Magic of Moderate Drinking, which is rolled out across Europe, and our programs such as Sober vs Drink Driving, and Wrong Side of the Road, which are designed to shift behaviors, not just raise awareness. In Ireland, we brought this commitment to life at the All Together Now music, art, food and wellness festival with the launch of the TO.0UCAN pub in 2024, the country’s first-ever non-alcoholic bar at a music festival. Serving Guinness 0.0 on draught, it reimagined the traditional Irish pub experience, offering a fresh and inclusive way for festival-goers to enjoy the full energy and atmosphere of the event without alcohol.  Another example comes from our initiative Smashed. This theatre-based education program, developed by Collingwood Learning and delivered by a network of non-government organizations, educates young people and helps them understand the dangers of underage drinking, while equipping them with the knowledge and confidence to resist peer pressure. Diageo sponsors and enables Smashed to reach millions of young people, teachers and parents across the globe, while ensuring that no  alcohol brands of any kind are mentioned. In 2008, we launched DRINKiQ, a first-of-its-kind platform to help people understand and be informed about alcohol, its effects, and how to enjoy it responsibly. Today, DRINKiQ is a dynamic, mobile-first platform, localized in over 40 markets. It remains a cornerstone of our strategy.  > Diageo has long championed responsible drinking through campaigns and programs > that are measurable and scalable. In the UK, our partnership with the Men’s Sheds Association supports older men’s wellbeing through DRINKiQ. Most recently, this collaboration expanded with Mission: Shoulder to Shoulder, a nationwide initiative where Shedders are building 100 buddy benches to spark over 200,000 conversations annually. The campaign promotes moderation and connection among older men, a cohort most likely to drink at increasing or higher risk levels. Across all our partnerships, we focus on the right message, in the right place, at the right time. They also reflect our belief that reducing harmful drinking requires collective action.  Our message is simple: Diageo is ready to be a proactive partner. Let’s build on the progress made and stay focused on the shared goal: reducing harm. With evidence-based policies, strong partnerships and public engagement, we can foster a drinking culture that is balanced, responsible and sustainable. Together, we can make real progress — for individuals, communities and society as a whole. 

BRUSSELS — Call it a digital love triangle. When EU leaders back a “sovereign digital transition” at a summit in Brussels this Thursday, their words will mask a rift between France and Germany over how to deal with America’s overwhelming dominance in technology. The bloc’s founding members have long taken differing approaches to how far the continent should seek to go in detoxing from U.S. giants. In Paris, sovereignty is about backing local champions and breaking reliance on U.S. Big Tech. In Berlin the focus is on staying open and protecting Europe without severing ties with a major German trading partner. The EU leaders’ statement is a typical fudge — it cites the need for Europe to “reinforce its sovereignty” while maintaining “close collaboration with trusted partner countries,” according to a near-final draft obtained by POLITICO ahead of the gathering.    That plays into the hands of incumbent U.S. interests, even as the bloc’s reliance on American tech was again brought into sharp focus Monday when an outage at Amazon cloud servers in Northern Virginia disrupted the morning routines of millions of Europeans.   As France and Germany prepare to host a high-profile summit on digital sovereignty in Berlin next month, the two countries are still seeking common ground — attendees say preparations for the summit have been disorganized and that there is little alignment so far on concrete outcomes. When asked about his expectations for the Nov. 18 gathering, German Digital Minister Karsten Wildberger told POLITICO he wanted “to have an open debate around what is digital sovereignty” and “hopefully … have some great announcements.”  In her first public appearance following her appointment this month, France’s new Digital Minister Anne Le Hénanff, by comparison, promised to keep pushing for solutions that are immune to U.S. interference in cloud computing — a key area of American dominance.   CONTRASTING PLAYBOOKS   “There are indeed different strategic perspectives,” said Martin Merz, the president of SAP Sovereign Cloud. He contrasted France’s “more state-driven approach focusing on national independence and self-sufficiency in key technologies” with Germany’s emphasis on “European cooperation and market-oriented solutions.”  A recent FGS Global survey laid bare the split in public opinion as well. Most French respondents said France “should compete globally on its own to become a tech leader,” while most Germans preferred to “prioritize deeper regional alliances” to “compete together.” The fact that technological sovereignty has even made it onto the agenda of EU leaders follows a recent softening in Berlin, with Chancellor Friedrich Merz becoming increasingly outspoken about the limits of the American partnership while warning against “false nostalgia.” The coalition agreement in Berlin also endorsed the need to build “an interoperable and European-connectable sovereign German stack,” referring to a domestically controlled digital infrastructure ecosystem.  The fact that technological sovereignty has even made it onto the agenda of EU leaders follows a recent softening in Berlin, with Chancellor Friedrich Merz becoming increasingly outspoken about the limits of the American partnership while warning against “false nostalgia.” | Ralf Hirschberger/AFP via Getty Images Yet Germany — which has a huge trade deficit with the U.S — is fundamentally cautious about alienating Washington.   “France has been willing to accept some damage to the transatlantic relationship in order to support French business interests,” said Zach Meyers, director of research at the CERRE think tank in Brussels.   For Germany, by contrast, the two are “very closely tied together, largely because of the importance of the U.S. as an export market,” he said.   Berlin has dragged its feet on phasing out Huawei from mobile networks over fears of Chinese retaliation, against its car industry in particular.   The European Commission itself is walking a similar tightrope — dealing with U.S. threats against EU flagship laws that allegedly target American firms, while fielding growing calls to unapologetically back homegrown tech. STUCK ON DEFINITION  “Sovereignty is not a clearly defined term as it relates to technology,” said Dave Michels, a cloud computing law researcher at Queen Mary University of London.   He categorized it into two broad interpretations: technical sovereignty, or keeping data safe from foreign snooping and control, and political sovereignty, which focuses on strategic autonomy and economic security, i.e safeguarding domestic industries and supply chains.  “Those things can align, and I do think they are converging around this idea that we need to support European alternatives, but they don’t necessarily overlap completely. That’s where you can see some tensions,” Michels said.  Leaders will say in their joint statement that “it is crucial to advance Europe’s digital transformation, reinforce its sovereignty and strengthen its own open digital ecosystem.” “We don’t really have a shared vocabulary to define what digital sovereignty is. But we do have a shared understanding of what it means not to have digital sovereignty,” said Yann Lechelle, CEO of French AI company Probabl. Berlin isn’t the only capital trying to convince Europe to ensure its digital sovereignty remains open to U.S. interests.   Austria, too, wants to take “a leading role” in nailing down that tone, State Secretary Alexandre Pröll previously told POLITICO. The country has been on a mission to agree a “common charter” emphasizing that sovereignty should “not be misinterpreted as protectionist independence,” according to a draft reported by POLITICO. That “will create a clear political roadmap for a digital Europe that acts independently while remaining open to trustworthy partners,” Pröll said.   Next month’s Berlin gathering will be crucial in setting a direction. French President Emmanuel Macron and Merz are both expected to attend. “The summit is intended to send a strong signal that Europe is aware of the challenges and is actively advancing digital sovereignty,” a spokesperson for the German digital ministry said in a statement, adding that “this is not about autarky but about strengthening its own capabilities and potential.” “One summit will not be enough,” said Johannes Schätzl, a Social Democrat member of the German Bundestag. “But if there will be an agreement saying that we want to take the path toward greater digital sovereignty together, that alone would already be a very important signal.” Mathieu Pollet reported from Brussels, Emile Marzolf reported from Paris and Laura Hülsemann and Frida Preuß reported from Berlin.

BRUSSELS — Almost 60 members of the European Parliament want to include a gift in the bloc’s next long-term budget: a phone with more storage for Ursula von der Leyen. Right-wing politicians filed an amendment on Thursday to the EU’s budget bill, telling the EU executive to “dedicate sufficient funding to provide the president of the Commission with a mobile phone with adequate storage capacity and appropriate IT support to ensure that messages are preserved without exception.” Von der Leyen got in hot water last month over a deleted 2024 text message she received from French President Emmanuel Macron that POLITICO reported had urged her to block the EU-Mercosur trade deal. The Commission said the message was auto-deleted, defending von der Leyen’s use of disappearing messages as being, in part, “for space reasons.” But tech experts debunked that defense as “a non-argument” and ” hard to believe,” because text messages hardly take any space on modern phones. The Commission president already faced an investigation earlier over text conversations with Pfizer’s Chief Executive Officer Albert Bourla about Covid-19 vaccine contracts which were never archived. Lawmakers are due to vote on the EU’s draft budget for 2026 at a plenary session in Strasbourg next week. The amendment on phone storage came from Germany far-right member Christine Anderson and Swedish hard-right member Charlie Weimers. It had been signed by 57 members of parliament on Thursday, largely from Weimers’ European Conservative and Reformists group, Anderson’s Europe Sovereign Nations and the far-right Patriots for Europe. The amendment urged the EU executive to mind “importance of keeping proper records of all official communications of the Commission.”

A U.S. federal judge on Tuesday refused to break up Google for monopolizing the online search and ad markets, and instead imposed lesser restrictions on the tech company’s day-to-day operations. District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington rejected the Justice Department’s request to force the $2.5 trillion company to spin off its Chrome browser and Android products. While Google dodged the most severe possible outcome, the judge ordered that the company must share some of its search data with competitors, a penalty that was still narrowed in scope from what the government asked for. Breaking up Google would have immediately made this the largest antitrust remedy in modern history, with the case drawing comparisons to the 1984 breakup of AT&T and the government’s failed bid to split Microsoft in the early 2000s. The decision offers a glimmer of hope for other tech companies facing potential breakups of their businesses, including Meta, Amazon and Apple. Mehta ruled last August that Google locked up 90 percent of the internet search market through a partnership with Apple to be the default search provider on its Safari web browser. Google had similar agreements with handset makers and mobile carriers like Samsung and Verizon. Mehta also found that Google illegally monopolized the market for ads displayed next to search results. That decision came after a 10-week bench trial, and set up what’s called a remedy trial, which took place in April. It was during that second trial that the Justice Department asked Mehta to break up the company to resolve its illegal monopoly. The case spanned two administrations, starting under President Donald Trump’s first term, going to trial under former President Joe Biden, and now Google has pledged to appeal in Trump’s second administration. Google also faces another remedy trial in September for maintaining what a federal judge ruled in April was an illegal monopoly in the almost $300 million U.S. market for digital ads. Judge Leonie Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia said Google maintained its monopoly by tying together its ad server business, used by online publishers to manage ad sales on their sites, and its ad exchange business, which auctions off digital advertising space on websites. Google claimed it won half the case and vowed to appeal the other half. Other major antitrust cases remain in the wings that could also drastically reshape the way the tech industry operates in America and across the globe. These cases and investigations come as lawmakers and regulators are worried about tech companies cornering the market for artificial intelligence in a similar fashion as what happened with e-commerce, social media and online search. Amazon is slated to go to trial in early 2027 over claims it squashes competition to rip off sellers and consumers while peddling a subpar shopping experience riddled with confusing advertisements. Apple faces claims its billions of iPhones sold since 2007 were designed to lock users into its products while raising costs for consumers, developers and artists, among others. Depositions and discovery in that case are scheduled through early 2027. And chipmaker Nvidia is the subject of a Justice Department investigation over its purchase of AI start-up Run:ai.

LONDON — British and allied spy agencies on Wednesday accused a host of Chinese tech companies of helping the Beijing government conduct an “unrestrained campaign” of cyber attacks around the world. The National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) – a part of Britain’s GCHQ intelligence agency — published details of three China-based companies that it said were linked to state-sponsored attacks against Western critical infrastructure. These attacks, the agency said, overlap with campaigns known as “Salt Typhoon” — a sprawling hacking and espionage campaign believed to be run by China’s Ministry of State Security MSS, the country’s foreign intelligence service. Salt Typhoon’s activities have previously been described by Ciaran Martin, the first head of NCSC, as “China doing a ‘Snowden’ to America,” by accessing vast amounts of U.S. communications data through a “strategic spying operation of breathtaking audacity.” The companies — Sichuan Juxinhe Network Technology Co Ltd, Beijing Huanyu Tianqiong Information Technology Co, and Sichuan Zhixin Ruijie Network Technology Co Ltd — were named by Britain alongside 12 other countries’ intelligence agencies, including partners in the Five Eyes intelligence tie-up such as the United States. The NCSC said malicious cyber activity linked to these companies had “targeted nationally significant organizations around the world” since 2021. Targets included government, telecommunications, transportation and military infrastructure. The British spy agency added that a “cluster of activity” had been observed in the U.K. Britain and its allies alleged on Wednesday that these companies “provide cyber-related products and services to China’s intelligence services, including multiple units in the People’s Liberation Army and Ministry of State Security.” They added that the data stolen through telecommunications, internet and transportation services can help Chinese intelligence track targets’ communications and movements around the world. In 2024, the U.S. was hit by one of the worst cyberattacks in its history after China was able to get access to mobile data related to millions of Americans by burrowing inside major U.S. providers including Verizon, AT&T and Lumen. The New York Times reported ahead of the 2024 election that this included data from phones used by now-President Donald Trump and his Vice President JD Vance. Richard Horne, the NCSC’s chief executive, said in a statement that his agency was “deeply concerned by the irresponsible behavior” of the companies named, who had “enabled an unrestrained campaign of malicious cyber activities on a global scale.” Earlier this month Dan Jarvis, the U.K. government’s security minister, told POLITICO that hackers and hostile states could face repercussions including retaliatory cyber attacks for targeting British institutions.

BRUSSELS — The European Commission is dialing reform, but not everyone is picking up. Following years of talks, Brussels is almost ready to drop a long-awaited telecommunication blueprint designed to upgrade networks and support the industry. The Digital Networks Act, expected to land Dec. 16, will overhaul the current rulebook to make it easier for operators to roll out 5G and fiber, and boost investment in Europe’s digital infrastructure. But it’s likely to upset players from national governments to tech firms in the process. The continent’s biggest telecom companies have long argued that stifling rules and a fragmented single market make it hard for them to scale and earn sustainable profits — and take European networks to the next level. “Never has connectivity been so important to the life of people” but “at the same time, our industry has trouble in many regions to achieve a decent return on capital,” said Vivek Badrinath, the boss of global mobile association GSMA. But not everyone is buying the crisis pitch — here are the battle lines ahead of the proposal. BIG TELCOS VS. BIG TECH Years of lobbying by Europe’s top telcos to have data-hungry platforms such as TikTok, Netflix and Google’s YouTube help foot the bill for network expansion seem to have paid off. The Commission is now weighing how to tackle “challenges in the cooperation” between tech and telecom players in its reforms. One of the options on the table is turning into a political minefield: Empowering regulators to settle potential disputes between the two groups over how they handle traffic. Opponents of regulatory intervention fear that it will give operators a way to pressure content providers for payments, akin to the unpopular proposal known as “fair share” that was floated under the last Commission. At worst, they say, it could even upend the internet as we know it by undermining net neutrality — the principle that service providers need to treat all traffic equally, without throttling or censoring. “This would have immediate and far-reaching consequences, harming European consumers, businesses, digital rights and the sustainability of the creative and cultural sectors, ultimately risking a fragmented Internet and single market,” a broad coalition, ranging from civil society and media organizations to audiovisual players, wrote earlier this month. The continent’s biggest telecom companies have long argued that stifling rules and a fragmented single market make it hard for them to scale and earn sustainable profits. | Andy Rain/EPA Regulators themselves say they don’t see any market failure, or need for a legislative fix. “It’s increasingly hard for me to think that the Commission is approaching this in good faith because they cannot ignore the chaotic impact that something like this would have,” said Benoît Felten, an expert at Plum Consulting who authored a study on the topic commissioned by Big Tech lobby CCIA. Tech companies will fight tooth and nail against any move to hold them to the same obligations that telecom operators have to follow. “The same service, same rules principle should be a no-brainer,” said Alessandro Gropelli, the boss of telecom trade association Connect Europe. “You cannot have competitiveness if one party is playing the game with their hand tied behind their back and the other party is playing the same game with both hands.” INCUMBENTS VS. CHALLENGERS Brussels’ deregulatory mood is further deepening rifts between Europe’s top telecom providers and their challengers, who have long praised the existing rulebook that they say enables them to take on legacy players. “The Commission wants to deregulate dogmatically” in order “to boost the largest operators in Europe,” said Luc Hindryckx, the director general of the European Competitive Telecommunications Association, a trade body. “One way to do it is to weaken the competition to allow a few incumbents to make it through and pave the way for consolidation, because if the competitors are on the verge of bankruptcy, they will ask to be merged.” Telecom challengers are up in arms against the direction of travel, which could see the Commission dial down the regulatory pressure on Europe’s legacy telcos to open their ducts and fiber lines to competitors. The EU executive wants to move away from heavy, upfront rules and closer scrutiny of dominant players to prevent abuse, instead relying on standard law enforcement. It argues the current system worked to boost competition but has outlived its purpose. It is “alarming that the European Commission is now proposing to relax regulation on former fixed monopolies,” a coalition of nine network operators wrote in a letter this month. Signatories — including France’s Iliad and the U.K.’s Vodafone — called out the proposed “backwards step” and warned against the risk of “re-monopolisation.” This shift, the opponents say, could unravel years of progress by undermining market predictability, deterring investment and pushing up wholesale prices — costs that would inevitably be passed on to consumers. “5G has been a disaster because the real 5G is hardly here,” the Commission’s top digital civil servant Roberto Viola said. | Robert Ghement/EPA “In Germany, it seems that people never run a red light. One could say that people no longer run red lights and then change the law that says running a red light is a major offense. What do you think is going to happen?” Hindryckx quipped. The legacy players don’t agree. “The current ex-ante system leads to low investments and harms roll-out of innovative networks,” said Gropelli from Connect Europe. “Reform is a must, or we’ll remain global laggards in roll-out of critical networks.” CAPITALS VS. BRUSSELS National governments also aren’t cheering the reforms, with EU capitals bristling at the idea of Brussels muscling in on territory they consider their own. That’s the case for the allocation of spectrum — the finite and very much in-demand resource powering wireless communications, which is auctioned at a national level for billions of euros. “5G has been a disaster because the real 5G is hardly here,” the Commission’s top digital civil servant Roberto Viola said in September. “We have been sleeping and lost fifteen years in discussing … who should assign the frequencies,” he said. Still, the topic is largely off the table for national governments. “Spectrum harmonization is not the favorite topic of member countries,” Katalin Molnár, the ambassador for Hungary, said last year as the country chaired talks among EU governments on the issue. The current cooperation between countries “works well,” the 27 EU nations said in a joint position, emphasizing that spectrum management is a “key public policy tool” that falls under a “sustained significance of member states’ national competencies in that regard.” This will be a major red line for the Council of the EU, where capitals will eventually hammer out their position on the reforms. The industry, however, says reforms are essential for the economic benefits that the EU is craving. “The wind has never been as strong in the sails of the ship that goes towards a more efficient telecom market today,” GSMA’s Badrinath said. “Is that enough to get the right outcome? Well, that’s what we want to believe.”