Dean and Ben Talk Tech
Telecom analysts Dean Bubley & Benoit Felten discuss tech news, industry publications, regulation / policy and statistics, relating to fixed and mobile telecom, plus cloud and adjacent domains.
Dean and Ben Talk Tech
DBTT Episode 5: EU Digital Networks Act DNA Hot Takes
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
Hot takes on the EU DNA proposals
In this episode, Ben & Dean give their initial opinions on some of the most important elements in the official European Commission DNA document, as well as the tone of the official press conference and speech by EVP Henna Virkunnen.
We'll be honest - we haven't yet read every last word of the 340 page document, together with its annexes and impact assessments. There's certainly going to be a lot more to discuss in future podcasts, but we wanted to get our initial "hot takes" out there as quickly as possible. (And the transcripts are automated & unchecked, sorry)
We talk about changes in access nework regulation, spectrum harmonisation, IP interconnect policy, satellite, sovereignty issues, copper switch-off, 6G, Wi-Fi, BEREC & RSPG and more - although each of those really merits a deep-dive on its own. (Not to mention other aspects such as numbering we don' t tackle at all).
For those of you wanting to skip straight to the section on IP Interconnect and voluntary "conciliation" - we know it's probably the most contentious - it starts at 19:10
A link to the download page for the document itself: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/proposal-regulation-digital-networks-act-dna
Also, check both Dean's & Benoit's LinkedIn timelines for discussion over the past few days from the leaked draft & wider issues on the DNA
https://www.linkedin.com/in/benoitfelten/
https://www.linkedin.com/in/deanbubley/
Please subscribe to our YouTube and audio podcast channels, and either comment here or on LinkedIn
Hello and welcome to this, um, new episode of Dean and Ben Talk Tech, which I think we can call the DNA hot take episode for sure. Um, as most of you know, probably the Digital Networks Act, uh, was published yesterday by the European Commission, all 350 pages of it, uh, with just half as much annexes, if not more. Uh, Dean and I have been, uh, heavily looking into that since yesterday, but it obviously. We have not read everything and we do not yet understand the consequences of everything. Uh, we maybe never will. But, uh, we wanted to basically get the conversation going today with the first few things that really jumped at us. Um, maybe as a, as a quick intro, uh, Dean, what's the overall view from your side?
dean-bubley_2_01-22-2026_104036right. So the overall framing and and I, I've, I've sort of went through a fair bit of the elite draft last week, as well as watching the press conference, um, that Kinnan had yesterday. Uh, yesterday was, uh, 21st of January. If you're watching this later, um. Uh, and there's a couple of things that jumped out. Um, the first is, and we'll talk about this later, the overall thing is framed around things like sovereignty, and we'll talk about, talk about that more, uh, in a while. But the thing which I, I've noticed is that, um, it stays in its lane more than the original white paper and the drag and letter reports from last year, which were very, very. Heavy on, you know, convergence of cloud and com communications and using words like continuum. Um, there was very heavy emphasis in those on sort of specific, um, approaches to dealing with this sort of. Uh, view that the world of everything from cloud and AI and IO OT was converging with telecoms. Um, and instead this is very much more telecom specific. And whilst there are references to, uh, other parts of the technology sector, I think this is a way to avoid stepping on all of the other European Commission initiatives around cloud ai semiconductors. Big infrastructure projects, these sort of things, which I had previously been concerned that they, they would all be pulling in different erections and to me it looks like DNA swerved it.
benoit_2_01-22-2026_114031Yeah. And in, in a sense it means that, that this part, at least the simplification agenda, kind of did its job and they said, okay, let's not overlap with loads of other stuff that we've already regulated on. Um, I agree with you that there are some maybe marginal points where this. Is questionable, but, but by and large I was, I was reassured to see that this is a lot more focused on, basically this is a piece of regulation that addresses telecom, uh, primarily. Um, interestingly, and, and this is also a kind of continuity element, that there were also a lot of, um, uh, hints that this was gonna be a, a major rehaul, if not an entire. Uh, you know, throw everything off the table. Um, piece of regulation on, or deregulation, in fact on, on access conditions. Uh, and it seems that this is, um, not the case again. Uh, I'll have to spend a whole lot more time to see where the subtle changes and differences may be, but certainly it doesn't look like the revolutionary. Stuff that was hinted at, uh, in the white paper, and particularly in the July consultation.
dean-bubley_2_01-22-2026_104036I, I, I mean, I, I think in a way that there's a, a, a bit of a pivot here to a, away from sort of over focusing on the access part of networks, towards the other stuff. We'll talk about interconnect, we'll talk about satellite a bit. Um, and that there's a recognition I get when I speak to some people that. You know, a lot of the big lift of a, um, access network upgrades is done, whether that's fiber, whether that's mobile and 5G, and we're sort of filling in the gaps. Um, I think there's still quite a lot on the, the competition side that we need to, to watch out for, but I noticed that the, the, the DNA, uh. Text I saw yesterday, it, it seemed to suggest that most of the consumer protection things, which is very access oriented, seems to be working quite well and a lot more was focused on, on other aspects. Um, and, uh, um, you know, particularly, well, you know, spectrum is probably the, the, the biggest change. Um, I, I, I've got more on that, but bear mind, any, any thoughts you've got
benoit_2_01-22-2026_114031No, no, I think, I think I agree with you. Um, I think there is a. There's a willingness to embrace a form of stability, which, uh, some may think is, is not entirely in line with the innovation agenda, but, but there is also some sense in saying actually the market structure we've got is kind of working. Let's not, let's not rock the boat. Um, so yeah, I mean spectrum is definitely one area where there seems to be ambitions. Beyond the current, somewhat fragmented if we're honest, uh, way the European market works. Can you, can you say a bit more about that?
dean-bubley_2_01-22-2026_104036The, I mean, there's a couple, there's two two big things. The first is around the governance and the shifting of what was the, if you like, the expert scoop, RSPG to becoming part of Barrack and being renamed as RSPB, the, uh, radio spectrum policy bore, uh, body, um, and becoming. A bit less technically focused and more politically focused, and that may have some ramifications, um, in the way in which the EU deals with spectrum management, um, at, um, pan-European levels like CEPT, which is 44 countries, and then onto ITU with things like World Radio Congress at the end of 2027. Um, so I think that's one to, to watch, but I think the, the headline grab on spectrum was this thing around. Um, it wasn't like full harmonization of all spectrum policy. It was a greater role for Brussels in, um, well potentially vetoing specific, um, spectrum auctions for mobile and how they're run and, and details. But also, um, the shifting to, um, essentially indefinite licensing at the moment for most, this is for mobile spectrum for. 5G and, and future six G Most licenses have like a minimum of 15 to 20 years, which are typically extensible. Um, and, and in reality usually are sometimes with extra conditions. Um, and what this essentially does is it changes those to a presumption of indefinite licenses, which is closer to the US model, um, of how spectrum is run and. Yeah, to some extent there you could argue this. Is that gonna make any differences? Well, in terms of operationally, probably not. It makes it a little bit harder for new entrants, but you don't get new entrants. Generally, when Spectrum license terms are up for renewal. Um, they tend to be rolled over with, with perhaps additional different. Coverage commitments, um, and ongoing license or ongoing sort of, uh, licensing fees. Um, so this makes it more certain and therefore more investible. So I think actually that that's, um, you know, a, a, a, from an investor point of view. A good thing. And from A-C-A-C-A-E-O level, C level view in the op mobile operators is a positive. Um, does it change much in the real world? I'm not sure it does. Um, and I think that the quid pro quo on that interestingly, is more emphasis on what they call, um, use it or share it or use it or lose it. Now, here, there. All sorts of interesting potential scope for, um, avoidance of what's called hoarding of spectrum. So you could say that if you've got an empty part of, of the country and and spectrum with a license on it, it's not being used. There's now gonna be more mechanisms for third party to say, well, they're not using it. Can we use it instead? Which is something which happens to a limited degree in the UK with what I call, um, uh, shared access licenses and local access licenses, local access in particular. Um, now the question is, you know, Denmark's also had something like that, but everyone said it was more like a paper tiger. Uh, and the way they'd structured it, there was no real teeth to it. So I'm very curious to see if that gets implemented properly because, you know, potentially that allows more third party use by, it could be neutral hosts, it could be other models. And I did see some other things in there about, um, more of an emphasis on, again, filling in the gaps in coverage and. There's a lot more discussion on things like passive infrastructure sharing, but also active infrastructure and even spectrum sharing, which is a real positive for the neutral hosts of different sorts. National Roaming gets a reference as a, as a, you know, in extremist mechanism or localized licenses. So I think all of those are quite good. And they also, um, another part of this was more of a recognition of, well, wifi. But it's actually called lan in regulator speak radio, local area network. It also includes things like Bluetooth and other stuff, um, as a bit more of a first class citizen. And there's some stuff there about you should be allowed to share and aggregate wifi networks as long as it doesn't contravene your terms and conditions. Um, and that to me is, is at the very least a little bit of recognition that, that this stuff is important, which I, I've previously criticized the commission for not having a. A wifi strategy, but I'll, I'll take Arlan as a, as a good substitute and it's, it's a decent starting point.
benoit_2_01-22-2026_114031it'd be interesting to see if that feeds into the whole debate around six gigahertz, which we discussed on a previous show and hasn't really landed anywhere. But, but, but certainly at least that recognition is meaningful and it, it also, what you're saying kind of. Explains why GSMA seemed to be a bit pissed off yesterday
dean-bubley_2_01-22-2026_104036Yeah. I mean, so there, there's certain, there's, I think they were happy about the in indefinite licenses. Um, that said, there's a a, you have to be careful here about Yeah. There's nothing that was, it talks about six G hasn't defined future. Well when 5G, we call Pioneer bands, um, but it does say that there could be an implementing act. So we might find that RSPG or RSPB and Barrack come up with a six G strategy roadmap, and in fact, that's referenced as being a likely. So we may well find that there is an implementing act around six G. Um, that is where all the debates around six gigahertz will come up. Maybe seven gigahertz depending on what gets determined at WRC. Um. I think that's, that's also where the Barrack versus CEPT fights might occur as well. Um, and it also for six G strategy, um, it will also, um, potentially impact satellites. And there's a lot in there about satellite, although I have to say I haven't delved into it in a huge amount of detail. Um, and what that implies, the main thing to say on satellite is. Um, passporting and pan-European authorization for satellite services is really important'cause it means that if you wanna offer, say pan-European directed device as part of what, 5G and six G, you don't need to get permission in set 27 countries and then do coordination with everywhere else. That's a big win for co. You know, so Vodafone's got a partnership with a ST Space Mobile. I, I know in the us uh, T-Mobile with starlink and, and you know, that may read across to Europe. I think the mapping between the US satellite constellations in Europe is gonna be an interesting one to watch, as well as how this impacts, um, European constellations, particularly Iris squared, which is the strategic one.
benoit_2_01-22-2026_114031Yeah. Yeah.
dean-bubley_2_01-22-2026_104036But, uh, anyways, more, more to come on satellite and, and, and also spectrum. Generally there's a lot to unpick and what the timelines are and formation of this RSPB rather than SPG, whether we get to the sixth degree strategy before or after World Radio Congress, um, in 27. That, that, the timing on that is gonna be an interesting one to watch.
benoit_2_01-22-2026_114031yeah, absolutely. So, so one of the things that's, that's not directly related to this, but that I looked at a little bit more in depth was copper switch off because
dean-bubley_2_01-22-2026_104036Yeah.
benoit_2_01-22-2026_114031the commission had been very vocal, uh, prior to the publication on them wanting to be. Um, you know, to, to provide tools for acceleration of copper switch off. And in fact, the recitals seem to, you know, give a lot of importance to copper switch off as a key, uh, switch for the European ecosystem into more better digital services. In practice, though, the tools that are. Um, suggested here, or, or, or, or that the commission would like to see implemented? Um, I'm not sure are gonna change very much in the dynamics of things. So, so essentially they were hard pressed to put a cutoff date, which a lot of people anticipated. Should be 2030. They have put a cutoff date, but it's 2035, so that's 10 years away. Um. Also they basically formalize copper switch off planning. Uh, you know, so basically regulators have to submit a switch off plan by 2029, which forces them to figure out zoning and stuff like this. And it's not uninteresting, but it's not, don't think it's an accelerator. It's just a, a stabilizer in a way. Um. So unless the perspective was already that it was gonna be 2040 or 2045, then I don't see much acceleration. And, and what, what this comes down to at core is can you switch the copper off? And so one of the things that I found interesting in there is that without addressing the question of coverage targets that are part of the, uh, digital decade program. Uh, basically the, the, the commission says a copper switch off area can be switched off from 95% of alternative coverage on. Uh, incidentally, I did note something that struck me, which is that they didn't mention VHCN, which was the. preferred terminology for fiber and cable that delivers a gigabit. They actually mention explicitly that the alternative should be FTTH. So that's something I'm gonna have to dig into because that would actually be quite momentous if it looks like they're dropping cable as a good alternative source. I, I don't, I'd be very surprised if that was the case, but maybe it's just a question of wording. So. Long story short, if the commission says 95% is the threshold after which you can initiate switch off, um, well effectively that means that the a hundred percent target is good to have, but not vital in order to move forward. And I think that's, even if it's not an official stance, it's an important step. In recognizing like there's a principle of reality that seems to reassess itself to a certain extent.
dean-bubley_2_01-22-2026_104036Yeah, I, I, I think this, correct me if I'm wrong, there's also something which on the access regulation will make it that you, you can have localized SMP or something like that, which is a, in, you know, positive and negative or alt nets.
benoit_2_01-22-2026_114031Yeah, so that was already the case, and in fact, there are some markets like Sweden and Denmark where you have. Effectively, you know, 50 or 75 market reviews. I think that's actually very cumbersome and unwieldy. Um, I understand the rationale. I'm not sure that it's necessarily a good thing. Um, I, I'd have to look into the wording exactly to see if there's anything new there. But, but certainly that was how certain market functioned. Like I know Sweden and Denmark are the big, uh, examples of this being implemented on mass as it were.
dean-bubley_2_01-22-2026_104036Uh, I mean, what my take with the copper switch off is it's. Yeah, there, there's a sort, there's reality creeping in. Yeah. The, the, there's no way that everywhere is gonna have all fiber in five years time, even with a, a pretty much unlimited bucket of money. There's still gonna be a, you know, issues of everything from, I don't know how you change the railway points, which might depend on copper cabling to all sorts of legacy stuff, which is, is a real pain to unwind. Um, and I think that there's also been some pushback in some countries as well.
benoit_2_01-22-2026_114031Yeah. Just to be clear though, if you look at how this was done in Spain and in France, um, the principle of reality also says just because there was copper, doesn't necess necessarily mean there has to be fiber. So a lot of the stuff that was handled through copper historically is gonna switch over to wireless or IOT or, or combinations thereof. Um, so, so, you know, there, there's a.
dean-bubley_2_01-22-2026_104036Okay.
benoit_2_01-22-2026_114031I think the, the important thing here is if this actually helps to, uh, stir the ecosystem in motion in the various countries to actually start looking into this in depth, then solutions will be found. And, and Spain shows that it's not rocket science and it's not that, that complicated. Um, so you know that that's a, a small positive, I would say. I still think that. The bits that was not really addressed in there is there's a lot about consumer protection, so people need to have a, an access service, et cetera. There's not a lot about competition protection, and we know that COP switch off is a golden opportunity for incumbents to regain market share and consolidate monopoly positions where they have them and, and, and I think. One of the big challenges, and this is what we see in the UK for example, outside the, the EU obviously, but, um, is that if you just let the incumbent do whatever they want, they're gonna, they're gonna focus on tactical switch off where it benefits them and they're gonna keep the copper plant going where they don't offer alternative network services. So yeah, the, the, the. It's good that it's in there. I don't think it's revolutionary. Let's, as a summary, I think that's, that's what we can, what we can see. obviously, yeah, the big one and the one that's gonna be, yeah, exactly. The one that's gonna be discussed, I think, uh, the most is, is, IP interconnect. So what, what's your take on it?
dean-bubley_2_01-22-2026_104036Um, well two things. First off, um. It's very much a focus on IP interconnect as a contentious rather than network access fees. And so I think that, that, we're talking here about this really fractious discussion we started having over the last nine months about, um, the possibility of dispute resolution and regulating IP interconnect. Um, essentially the, the, the. Back of mobile, uh, fixed and mobile networks where they intercept with the interconnect, the internet, and peering and CDNs and content and cloud companies. That was the nexus of a lot of the discussion before, and frankly, what's come out yesterday is raised at least as many questions as it answers. Um. At one level, it sort of tries to be all things to all people. It doesn't go for the nuclear option of, you know, network fees or binding, uh, arbitration, but there's a lot of wiggle room, and you could argue slippery slopes would be
benoit_2_01-22-2026_114031Yeah, so I think I was trying to figure out what the. What the commission's intent was there, and I'm not sure that I know that one way of looking at this is to say, so, so what's in there is this conciliation, uh, notion of conciliation, which is not arbitration, it's non-binding. But at the same time, there's a very detailed process for this conciliation in the articles, which is a little bit weird because if you're gonna put in something that says, okay, if people disagree, you should. Host them over, you know, a coffee and, and have them talk and see if there's a, a, a quiet way of, of resolving that. Uh, it's weird that you put in a super detailed process around it. So the paranoid way of looking at it, and, and I'm not sure it's that paranoid to be honest. The paranoid way of looking at it is the intent for the commission is for parliamentary to look into this and says. And say, well, if this is non-binding, it's useless. Let's make it binding. And, and all you have to do is add a mandatory objective here and there in the wording, and that's what you get.
dean-bubley_2_01-22-2026_104036Hmm.
benoit_2_01-22-2026_114031the, the other way of looking at this, the more positive way of looking at this is the commission knows this will not fly. And they're basically, it's a nod to the connect Europes of this world and saying, well, we met as far as we can. Um, sorry. Uh, I, I, I lean towards the first option. Unfortunately. I actually think that there is some hope that this is gonna be strengthened, um, in, in, uh, parliamentary discussions. Uh, and, and this is by the way, a lot tougher because the people you have to convince that this is a bad idea are the people who do not understand how the internet works at all. So. You're kind of start starting from scratch and that, and that's really tough. Um, the,
dean-bubley_2_01-22-2026_104036there's, there's a little bit, uh, I was gonna say, there's a bit, some of the phrase tries to exclude. Uh, CDNs and some contact companies from the arbitration process, but there's other bits which suggest it's inside. I, I, I, you need to, it seems to be a bit contradictory of first,
benoit_2_01-22-2026_114031There's a lot of question marks about the wording and what it, what it implies if, especially if you fold in the recitals. Um, there seems to be things that are internally at odds within the document. The, the other thing that strikes me is that the entire wording of that article, which is, is it 91? Um, I've got it here. Um, yeah, 1 91, sorry. Ecosystem cooperation. The whole wording of that article seems to imply that. Currently peering is not negotiated in good faith and that the conciliation thing is a way to make that happen. But actually, Barrick said very explicitly, this is a functioning market. As you said, if we focus on interconnection, especially, this is a functioning market, and so it's weird that the wording should presume that. It is not a functioning market and, um, I, I, my concern is that this is the worldview that parliamentary are going to, uh, take with them as they get into that discussion because of the way this is worded.
dean-bubley_2_01-22-2026_104036I, I think you could be right. I mean, the other, the, a lot of it also is gonna come down though to the makeup of, of whatever Barrack turns into and their attitude and if they're coming. Yeah.'cause you could argue that Barrack does a really good job in shining a bright light on questionable practices. Um, and actually. Um, you know, if essentially they, the barrack turns up to a meeting and goes, hang on a sec, that looks unreasonable. No one else does that. Why are you doing this? Um, then that's, that's reasonable, I guess. Um, the danger, as you say, is that the existing wording gets clarified. I say in a way, which becomes, you know, uh, worse, frankly. I mean, there's some weird phrasing like, you know, benefits arising from increased traffic. Well, that implies that firstly the traffic's gonna increase and that the benefit arises from the increased traffic, whatever that means. Um, what happens if traffic stays the same? I mean, does that mean that any benefits from static traffic don't get shared or whatever the phrase or, and if traffic goes down or if there are losses rather than benefits? Do you share those? It's, it's, it's very
benoit_2_01-22-2026_114031But, also, I mean, how do you define sharing the benefits of traffic? I mean, you know, does that mean, that telcos have to start paying on the other end because they're benefiting from traffic?
dean-bubley_2_01-22-2026_104036Uh, I mean, there's all sorts of things. I mean, you just, yeah. You, I mean, benefits from increased traffic. You could argue that if there's a move away from all you can eat back to tiered pricing. Well, the benefit from, you know, increased traffic flows to the, the, the operators, um,
benoit_2_01-22-2026_114031no, I, I, I agree. I think, I think that's, that's an issue. Going back to one point you made, which I think is is crucially important though, is. I think until now, Barrick has been a very reasonable voice in this whole debate. Uh, and it is to some extent, a little bit paradoxical that, uh, the commission should turn to Barrick to basically be the voice of reason on this if they think there is a problem, which Barrick doesn't seem to think. However, at the same time, the DNA has some elements of transformation of Barrick. Uh, which are very hard to anticipate and to be honest, that's not a part of the document that I've pulled over in depth. So I'm not sure I understand what the commission's intent are and what Barrack might look like down the line. but but I think that points me to actually, I still think this is a bad idea whether Barrack stays the same or changes. Uh, because fundamentally there is no rationale for this being identified as a market failure.
dean-bubley_2_01-22-2026_104036I, I, oh, and to be honest, kinin said that yeah, that it generally works very well in her speech yesterday. So it could just be that a lot of this is, is almost like ducking what's the most contentious issue and, and punting it either to Parliament in terms of timing to avoid, you know, frankly this was the thing that, that was most likely to cause a blow up with the us. Um, given the timing of. This DNA coming out the day of Davos and with all the greener stuff going on. So to some extent, yeah, this is almost like punting that to, to a later decision cycle. Um, or it could just be, it could just be the commission punting it to Barrack and saying, well, if Barrack says it's good, then it's, it's all good. So, you know, stop complaining. So you can look at it in a rose tinted way as well, if you want to, but I'm, I'm
benoit_2_01-22-2026_114031Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, I am too. Alright, so hey, we have two and a half minutes to wrap this up. So, so these are the three like big points where we see some potential changes and certainly some areas for discussion. But more broadly, there's a few takeaways that I think are interesting to look into. One of them you mentioned is that sovereignty seems to be at, at the very least, sparkled across this whole thing. I in practice, it's a little bit hard to see
dean-bubley_2_01-22-2026_104036I. I.
benoit_2_01-22-2026_114031how, it
dean-bubley_2_01-22-2026_104036satellite is, I, I think satellite is probably the area which, where it will come, it'll crop up most, and I think the other bits of sovereignty will crop up in the cloud and AI discussions elsewhere in Brussels. Um, uh, but I, but I'd say that from a telecoms point of view, and I haven't looked in the, the white paper and others, there were, and the call for evidence, there's a lot about subsea cables. I haven't looked to see if that's in there as well. Um. I suspect that, that those are gonna be the, the sovereignty focus points. Um, not so much about, you know, vendor and supply chains and so, so on. Um, there was something on cybersecurity and, uh, high risk vendors, uh, separate document. So I, I think that, that the main surface is, is gonna be. Uh, satellite in particular. Uh, but I, I, I need to go through it and unpick what this means. Um, uh, as a bit of a shameless plug, I'm gonna be running my, my next unthinkable lab workshop with, uh, Andrew Collinson in April on Sovereignty and Resilience. Um, so,
benoit_2_01-22-2026_114031Good. Good
dean-bubley_2_01-22-2026_104036something I need to get, get, get on top of.
benoit_2_01-22-2026_114031Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. So, so, um, the other thing which you pointed to me, but looking back, I think is interesting as well is, is that there are mentions here and there of demand being the key driver. And if demand is not there, then you know, what can the commission do? And I think this is to some extent new because it seemed like the previous. Uh, approaches of the commission were very supply driven, and, and I think this is actually a welcome change to some extent. I mean, obviously it's not ha it's not front and center, but it is, it is in there. And maybe as a general conclusion that this notion that there is a bit of a reality check going on is welcome.
dean-bubley_2_01-22-2026_104036Hmm. There was a specific mention on 5G and Spectrum and, and in the impact assessment, um, and it's limited regulatory predictability, that spectrum and lack of demand affect financial attractiveness of high quality 5G deployment projects to investors and that that little phrase of lack of demand. And also when it, I looked at the, when it was talking about traffic and traffic growth, there was a, a term in the, in the draft that I saw leaked, which was, traffic has been growing with no, without any reference to Andy's forecast to continue. Y Yeah, so I think there's a bit of a recognition that demand is not happening and I, you know, on the mobile side, and I think probably also on the fixed broadband and fiber side as well. Um, and I, I would very much like to see more emphasis on demand side as well as supply. Yeah, there's a demand gap rather than supply or
benoit_2_01-22-2026_114031no, absolutely. Absolutely.
dean-bubley_2_01-22-2026_104036Great.
benoit_2_01-22-2026_114031A as as, as we said at the start, this, this is by far not the last time we discussed this. Um, these are our hot takes, but really they're conversation starters and, uh, we'd be very, uh, keen to hear whatever our listeners think about this. And please comment either on YouTube or on LinkedIn where we're gonna share this. Um. Yeah, because we think this is just the start of the conversation, the, the regulatory process. So sorry. The parliamentary process is now gonna take quite a while to get to a, a conclusive text. Um, it's important that voices be heard, And, that means for us it's important that the debate needs to happen.
dean-bubley_2_01-22-2026_104036A Absolutely. and and there's, there's all sorts of stuff we haven't really had time to talk about. I mean, more, more depth on satellite. There's some stuff on numbering, which I need to look at at some point, um, and, and sort of follow up with people on the spectrum side of it. But, um, you know, overall this is a quick take. There's a huge amount in there. And I'm sure we'll be talking about it for a while. There's also a connectivity conference in Brussels, I know in the middle of, uh, February, which would, would probably have, uh, a few more answers. Uh, I, I should be at that. Um, but for now, I think, um, hopefully this is, uh, giving everyone a, another set of takes. I, there's gonna be no shortage of takes, but hopefully ours are, are useful as well. And there's a couple of nuggets in here you hadn't heard before.
benoit_2_01-22-2026_114031Absolutely. And just so that it doesn't become your phrase, I'm gonna be the one to say, hit like and subscribe and speak to you soon.
dean-bubley_2_01-22-2026_104036Cheers. Thanks.
benoit_2_01-22-2026_114031I.