The modern internet is built on interconnection. Networks exchanging traffic so that users can reach content and services worldwide. For many years, this model relied heavily on open and settlement-free peering, an approach that worked well when traffic volumes and market power were relatively balanced.

That balance is now being questioned.

The discussion highlighted by Netzbremse reflects a broader structural issue within today’s internet ecosystem: how costs and responsibilities should be distributed between access providers and the large platforms that generate and monetize a significant share of global internet traffic.

Scale Has Changed the Equation

Companies such as Meta, Alphabet (Google and YouTube), Amazon, and large content delivery networks like Cloudflare now operate at a scale that was difficult to imagine when the current peering norms were established. These companies generate substantial revenue by delivering content and services over the internet, while ISPs are responsible for maintaining and expanding the access networks that carry this traffic to end users.

From the perspective of access providers, this raises a question: should traffic volumes of this magnitude continue to be exchanged under the same settlement-free assumptions that applied when traffic was more evenly distributed?

From the perspective of content and cloud providers, open peering remains a foundational principle of a globally reachable internet, helping to avoid fragmentation and barriers to entry.

Changing Peering Practices Among Large Platforms

Historically, some large platforms (Google in particular) were known for offering open peering at internet exchanges, enabling smaller and growing networks to interconnect without strict traffic thresholds. This approach was often seen as beneficial to ecosystem growth and decentralisation.

In recent years, this has changed. Large platforms increasingly restrict peering eligibility based on minimum traffic volumes, geographic scale, or commercial arrangements. While such policies may be operationally justified, they can have the effect of excluding smaller or growing networks, forcing them to rely on transit rather than direct peering.

This shift raises a broader question: as platforms grow, do peering policies that scale with size unintentionally reinforce existing market concentration by making it harder for new or regional networks to interconnect on equal terms?

Deutsche Telekom’s Long-Running Position

Deutsche Telekom (DTAG) has, for many years, publicly expressed concerns about this imbalance. The company argues that it incurs significant costs delivering traffic generated by large platforms without direct compensation, while those platforms derive considerable commercial benefit.

While outright blocking of major platforms is not a practical option given customer expectations, DTAG has taken a different approach. During peak usage periods in Germany, traffic from networks without paid peering arrangements has reportedly been subject to traffic shaping. This has affected well-known platforms such as Meta and, in some cases, infrastructure providers like Hetzner.

Supporters of DTAG’s position describe this as a commercial interconnection dispute. Critics view it as a form of indirect pressure that impacts end-user experience.

The Meta Lawsuit and Market Power Questions

The issue became more visible when DTAG initiated legal action against Meta, seeking approximately €30 million in compensation for peering services.

DTAG’s argument is notable in that it frames the dispute not only as a commercial disagreement, but as a matter of market power. The claim suggests that Meta’s dominance in social media left DTAG with little practical choice but to peer, because customers demanded access to Meta’s services.

If upheld, this argument could influence how dominance and interconnection obligations are interpreted in future regulatory and legal contexts.

A Broader Industry Shift

DTAG is not alone in reassessing its peering strategy. Vodafone has recently ended its open peering policy and cancelled direct peering with YouTube and various cloud service providers. This move suggests a broader reconsideration among European access providers of whether settlement-free peering remains viable at today’s traffic scales.

At the same time, large platforms continue to expand their own infrastructure, deploy caches inside ISP networks, and advocate for open interconnection models that minimize direct transport costs.

Net Neutrality, Economics, and Open Questions

Campaigns such as Netzbremse emphasize the potential risks to net neutrality and consumer experience. Those concerns are not unfounded. Traffic shaping, regardless of intent, can result in uneven performance and reduced transparency for users.

However, the economic questions remain unresolved. When a small number of platforms account for a disproportionate share of traffic, the traditional assumptions behind free peering may no longer reflect the operational realities of access networks.

This leaves the industry facing several open questions:

• Who ultimately bears the cost if no sustainable model is agreed upon?
• How should interconnection models adapt to extreme traffic asymmetry?
• At what point does market dominance affect peering negotiations?
• Can cost recovery be addressed without compromising openness and competition?

An Internet at an Inflection Point

The Netzbremse debate does not present a simple choice between “good” and “bad” actors. Instead, it highlights a system under pressure from scale, concentration, and evolving economics.

As traffic volumes continue to grow and the largest platforms consolidate their positions, the internet’s interconnection model may need to evolve. Whether that evolution can preserve openness, performance, and fairness remains an open—and increasingly important—question.