The EU Commission plans to share Netflix, Meta and Co. in the network costs. Germany and other EU members prefer not to rush it.
In the dispute over the participation of the US internet giants in the costs for network infrastructures in the EU, several member states have criticized the EU Commission’s hasty approach. In a joint letter, seven governments warn the people of Brussels to be careful. The countries, including Germany, write that the plans for an infrastructure tax for “Big Tech” companies should be discussed openly and transparently.
In January, the EU Commission presented a “European declaration on digital rights and principles for the digital decade”, in which it calls for the “fair and appropriate participation” of all market participants in the infrastructure costs for networks. In May, Commission Vice-President Margrete Vestager confirmed the project and Commissioner Thierry Breton, responsible for the internal market, held out the prospect of a legislative proposal.
Complex issues
Germany and six other EU countries are now emphasizing that network expansion and the relationships between network operators and platforms are “complex issues”. “Policy changes that affect the relationship between operators of telecommunications networks and platform providers must be carefully examined from all aspects and discussed with the participation of the relevant stakeholders,” says the letter, which voonze online has available.
The seven governments say the Commission should have an “open and transparent debate” on the project before making an official proposal. In addition, Brussels should await the result of an ongoing analysis by the European regulatory body (Berek) and conduct a public consultation. In addition to Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands and Sweden have signed the paper first reported by Bloomberg.
A spokeswoman for the German Federal Ministry for Digital Affairs and Transport (BMDV) told voonze online that Germany is “acting together with other member states towards the EU Commission for a transparent process and for the member states to be involved in the debate at an early stage”. The federal government had so far held back in the debate and supported a “general commitment to fair framework conditions”, but did not want this to be understood as approval for an infrastructure fee.
“Such demands must be examined carefully, also with a view to the consequences of an implementation,” said the BMDV spokeswoman. Among other things, it must be clarified whether net neutrality will be affected. In addition, it must be taken into account that the use of the large platforms also stimulates the demand for faster and more expensive Internet access. The federal government made the “in-depth need for testing” clear to the commission. “The EU Commission will now address these issues.”
Meanwhile, the European network operators have followed suit. Despite the recent setback in the coordination of the European digital agenda between the EU Commission, Parliament and the member states, several European associations are again calling for “rapid intervention” by politicians so that companies such as Amazon, Meta or Netflix “do their fair share in expanding the Internet ecosystem in the EU”.
Six industry associations from Bulgaria, France, Italy, Romania, Spain, the Czech Republic and the European organizations ETNO and GSMA emphasize their support for the “ambitious” EU plans to make gigabit internet and 5G available throughout the Union by 2030. However, this can only be achieved if “the responsibility is shared by the entire digital ecosystem,” according to a statement by the associations on Monday.
Oldie but Goldie
The debate is nothing new: For years, telcos have been demanding that companies whose business models rely on network infrastructure should also be asked to pay for them. These “over the top” providers (OTT) include video platforms such as Netflix or YouTube, cloud service providers such as Amazon and Microsoft or social media giants such as Meta.
So far, it has been the large, internationally branched network operators who have made the request: companies such as Deutsche Telekom, Telefónica, Orange and Vodafone. Large corporations and former state telcos are also predominantly represented in ETNO, the European network operator association. As a matter of course, they claim the money that US giants like Meta and the like should transfer for network use.
In politics – including earlier EU Commissions – they have been rebuffed so far. But the tide has shifted in favor of telcos. With the effort to achieve more digital independence from the US giants, Brussels has recently shown itself open to an “infrastructure tax” from Big Tech. The EU Commission and the governments of the member states recently wanted to enshrine the infrastructure fee in their program “Path to the Digital Decade”, but this failed due to resistance from the EU Parliament.
Numerous MEPs and civil society organizations had previously warned that an infrastructure fee for the US internet giants would undermine the principle of net neutrality. This would abolish “important guarantees of net neutrality,” a group of MPs warned in an open letter to the Commission.
“legitimate interest”
The smaller network operators have so far been reluctant to demand an infrastructure fee. You haven’t opened the barrel, but you can’t leave the debate to the big telcos either. The Federal Association of Broadband Communication (Breko) and the Association of Providers of Telecommunications and Value-Added Services (VATM) support the initiative in principle, but call for an open discussion and compliance with network neutrality.
“It is in the legitimate interest of business and the state that a regulatory framework is created that ensures a fair and appropriate contribution from all stakeholders,” says VATM Managing Director Frederic Ufer. “The concerns expressed by 54 members of the European Parliament about the actions of the European Commission must be taken seriously.” Any solution of any kind must be consistent with the principles of net neutrality.
Like the VATM, the Breko also points to the danger of an imbalance in the market. “Distortions of competition must be prevented,” said a Breko spokesman. After a public consultation, a transparent procedure would have to be developed for this, as to how the revenue from an infrastructure fee should be divided among all fiber optic network operators. They should also only be distributed to carriers for a specific purpose, which they then invest in fiber optic expansion.
(vbr)
