Network Neutrality Is Not a Given: Lessons from Germany for the EU’s Digital Future
The internet’s open architecture has been a cornerstone of innovation and free expression. However, this foundation is increasingly challenged by proposals allowing large telecomoperators (telcos) to charge fees for data delivery, often framed as a “fair share” (aka “network fees”) contribution from large tech companies. A recent internet lab podcast interview with Thomas Lohninger from epicenter.works sheds light on a real-world example in Germany, highlighting why such models pose a significant threat not just to “Big Tech,” but to the entire digital ecosystem.
The German Case: A Real-World Example of Harm
The podcast discusses a formal complaint submitted to the German Federal Network Agency (BNetzA, Bundesnetzagentur) against Deutsche Telekom (DT) by a coalition composed of epicenter.works, Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte (GFF), the German consumer organisation Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband (vzbv), and Stanford Law School Professor Dr. Barbara van Schewick. The complaint alleges that DT violates EU net neutrality law through its interconnection practices.
According to the Netzbremse campaigners, DT has created a “business model based on scarcity”. It allegedly engineers bottlenecks at interconnection points, ensuring that internet traffic flows smoothly only if the content or service provider pays DT, either directly or indirectly. Customers already pay DT for internet access, but their ability to reach desired services without restriction reportedly depends on whether that service also pays DT. This creates paid “fast lanes,” leaving services that don’t or can’t pay stuck in congestion, suffering packet loss, low data throughput, and becoming unusable, especially for real-time or bandwidth-heavy applications.
This practice harms users’ rights under the EU’s Open Internet Regulation to access the applications and services they choose, regardless of where those services originate. The podcast highlights that this impacts a wide range of services, including those from global providers, media outlets (even public broadcasters from other EU countries), and potentially hinders work, education, and democratic participation online.
Beyond the “Big Tech vs. Big Telco” Narrative: Why Network Fees Threaten Everyone
The discussion around network fees frequently simplifies the issue into a battle between giants. Yet, the reality is far more complex. Imposing fees based on traffic fundamentally alters the internet’s established interconnection logic. The stakeholders raising alarms include a broad coalition: consumer groups, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), smaller telcos, broadcasters, start-ups, and civil society organisations. They all stand to lose if telcos are allowed to tinker with connectivity, as the impact is widespread:
- Harm to users: Consumers risk paying twice for the same service – once through their subscription and again indirectly as providers pass on fees. Quality can degrade for services not paying the fee, creating an unequal internet experience.
- Burden on SMEs & start-ups: Increased operational costs, especially for essential cloud services, can stifle innovation and hinder the competitiveness of SMEs and start-ups who cannot afford the fees.
- Market distortion: Fees risk strengthening dominant telcos, harming smaller competitors and reducing consumer choice. Smaller ISPs across Europe oppose these fees for this reason.
- Damage to broadcasters: Resources may be diverted from content creation to paying fees, impacting media quality, diversity, and pluralism.
- Violation of net neutrality: The core principle of treating all traffic equally is fundamentally undermined. Prioritising traffic based on payment is explicitly against the EU’s Open Internet Regulation.
- Risk of fragmentation: Allowing network fees in the EU could set a dangerous global precedent, leading to a fragmented, less reliable, and less secure internet.
The Danger of Weaponising Dispute Resolution
Furthermore, even proposals that stop short of direct fees but introduce mandatory interconnection dispute resolution mechanisms carry significant risks. Large telcos could weaponise the dispute system against smaller content providers, CDNs, or even smaller network operators, initiating costly and burdensome legal challenges over interconnection terms or perceived imbalances. Even if the smaller entity ultimately prevails, the sheer cost and distraction of defending against such actions can stifle competition, discourage market entry, and deter legitimate challenges to unfair interconnection practices, further cementing the power of incumbent operators. A prime example is the Swiss provider Init7, which fought an 11-year legal battle against Swisscom over peering. The Swiss Federal Communications Commission (ComCom) finally forced Swisscom to engage in zero-settlement peering.
A “German” Message with EU Policy Vibes: Uphold the Open Internet
As the EU considers the Digital Networks Act (DNA), the lessons from the German case and the widespread concerns documented in the network fees research are critical. Allowing telcos, through network fees, fair share mandates, or dispute resolution mechanisms prone to abuse, to control or monetise the delivery of data fundamentally breaks the internet’s architecture and harms the digital single market.
The path forward requires evidence-based policymaking. The evidence strongly suggests that network fee models benefit only a handful of large telcos while imposing costs and restrictions on everyone else.
Protecting the open internet is not about siding with “Big Tech”; it’s about safeguarding the engine of free expression, competition, and innovation that benefits all European citizens and businesses. Let’s not reverse decades of progress by reintroducing outdated telephony-era business models into the internet’s core.
Written by Caroline De Cock, LL.M. , Head of Research.
Further Reading
- Konstantinos Komaitis, PhD | Oops…Deutsche Telecom Did It Again! (LinkedIn)
- Dean Bubley (Disruptive Analysis) | Reflections on the Netzbremse Campaign
- Mike Blanche | Reflections on the Netzbremse Campaign
- Euractiv | Net Neutrality Back in Spotlight as Deutsche Telekom Faces Legal Complaint
