Global 'Fair Share' Network Funding Debate: Who Should Pay?

Eva Popov -

In an increasingly digital world, the question of who should fund the internet infrastructure remains a critical issue. The International Bar Association’s (IBA) Communications Law Committee has released a comprehensive report titled “The Fair Share Debate: Global perspectives on who should contribute to internet infrastructure.” This report scrutinizes the global contention over whether end users and large content providers, such as Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, Microsoft, and TikTok, should be responsible for these costs.

Unveiling the Core Issue

Telecom operators argue that major online platforms generating significant internet traffic should help foot the bill for network maintenance. On the flip side, tech companies claim that their services drive necessary network enhancements and that extra fees might jeopardize open internet principles and impede innovation. International Bar Association

Theoretical Models of Fair Share

The report sets forth three theoretical frameworks:

  1. Interconnection model: Here, content providers and telecom companies negotiate fees for traffic handling.
  2. Universal service contribution model: Content providers contribute taxes based on traffic volume to support infrastructure.
  3. Regulated peering model: This model establishes fixed prices for the interconnection process.

Perspectives from Around the Globe

In Europe, discussions amplified in 2023, led by former Commissioner Thierry Breton, promoting ‘fair share’ participation despite concerns about potential regulatory consequences. Meanwhile, Australia’s government-backed NBN Co keeps the debate under wraps by maintaining extensive public broadband investments.

India approaches the question cautiously, discussing whether big tech should undertake some network costs. Across Latin America, from Argentina to Peru, the conversation highlights significant traffic from a few platforms, raising possibilities for a fair share model. Remarkably, South Korea implemented the regulated peering and introduced a ‘Netflix law’ to bolster streaming quality.

In the United States, the fair share conundrum sees mixed reactions. The Federal Communications Commission, once advocating a tax-based model for big tech traffic, shows divergence under different administrations regarding regulatory approaches.

A Balanced Approach

Innocenzo Genna from the IBA Communications Law Committee emphasizes the internet’s need for collaboration and balanced contributions among all parties involved. New regulations must support innovation, competition, and ensure the digital ecosystem’s long-term welfare.

As the world progresses in this digital age, “The Fair Share Debate” report emerges as a pivotal guide in understanding and navigating the complex relations of internet infrastructure funding. According to the IBA, the dialogue continues, aiming for solutions that uphold a fair and sustainable internet future.

This report truly reflects the intricate dance of diplomacy, policy, and business interests across our increasingly interconnected globe.