22.07.2025 18:46:00
Дата публикации
Ahead of the adoption of the new Digital Networks Act (DNA) in the EU, 80 organizations — from human rights initiatives to media associations — have signed a joint statement calling for the preservation of the principles of net neutrality. Among others, the authors of the appeal were the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the European Consumer Organization.
The letter is directed against proposals to introduce a dispute resolution mechanism into the law, which essentially legalizes the “fair share” scheme — obliging content platforms to pay providers for data transmission. Such an approach would violate the principle of neutrality, according to which access to all resources should be carried out without restrictions and without preferences on the part of telecom providers.
Proponents of the “fair share” argue that revenues from content providers (Google, Spotify, Netflix, etc.) should compensate for the costs of telecom infrastructure. However, according to the signatories of the statement, the real consequences will be higher prices for users, a narrowing of the market and a blow to innovation.
Platforms and media companies warn that if the network ceases to be neutral, only large telecom operators with a monopoly on terminal connections will benefit. This will destroy equal access to information, especially for small businesses, independent content producers and freelancers.
BEREC, the association of national telecom regulators in the EU, has already refuted the thesis of market failures used by proponents of a “fair share” to justify intervention. By “failure”, they mean an allegedly unfair distribution of costs between Internet providers and content platforms: they say that networks are overloaded due to traffic from YouTube, Netflix and others, and this requires financial compensation.
However, the BEREC report from January 2025 clearly states: the market for interconnection – that is, the exchange of Internet traffic between operators and platforms – is functioning reliably, without congestion or abuse. The balance of interests is maintained, and infrastructure investments continue without systemic disruptions. Therefore, imposing payments or introducing arbitration means artificially replacing a healthy market with manual regulation, which can undermine competition for small operators and independent platforms.
The proposed measures create new barriers for MVNOs (virtual mobile operators) and digital start-ups, infringing on Europe's innovative potential. In essence, we are talking about a return to the model of the era of fixed-line telephony with a paid "access to the line".
Human rights activists emphasize: such a scheme contradicts the spirit of network neutrality and can lead to fragmentation of the Internet - with local restrictions, filters and paid "priority" data flows.
The statement also states that any changes must be subject to transparent consultation, be based on objective data and take into account the results of previous discussions.
(the text is translated automatically)
The letter is directed against proposals to introduce a dispute resolution mechanism into the law, which essentially legalizes the “fair share” scheme — obliging content platforms to pay providers for data transmission. Such an approach would violate the principle of neutrality, according to which access to all resources should be carried out without restrictions and without preferences on the part of telecom providers.
Proponents of the “fair share” argue that revenues from content providers (Google, Spotify, Netflix, etc.) should compensate for the costs of telecom infrastructure. However, according to the signatories of the statement, the real consequences will be higher prices for users, a narrowing of the market and a blow to innovation.
Platforms and media companies warn that if the network ceases to be neutral, only large telecom operators with a monopoly on terminal connections will benefit. This will destroy equal access to information, especially for small businesses, independent content producers and freelancers.
BEREC, the association of national telecom regulators in the EU, has already refuted the thesis of market failures used by proponents of a “fair share” to justify intervention. By “failure”, they mean an allegedly unfair distribution of costs between Internet providers and content platforms: they say that networks are overloaded due to traffic from YouTube, Netflix and others, and this requires financial compensation.
However, the BEREC report from January 2025 clearly states: the market for interconnection – that is, the exchange of Internet traffic between operators and platforms – is functioning reliably, without congestion or abuse. The balance of interests is maintained, and infrastructure investments continue without systemic disruptions. Therefore, imposing payments or introducing arbitration means artificially replacing a healthy market with manual regulation, which can undermine competition for small operators and independent platforms.
The proposed measures create new barriers for MVNOs (virtual mobile operators) and digital start-ups, infringing on Europe's innovative potential. In essence, we are talking about a return to the model of the era of fixed-line telephony with a paid "access to the line".
Human rights activists emphasize: such a scheme contradicts the spirit of network neutrality and can lead to fragmentation of the Internet - with local restrictions, filters and paid "priority" data flows.
The statement also states that any changes must be subject to transparent consultation, be based on objective data and take into account the results of previous discussions.
The EFF emphasizes that this is not a technical nuance, but a fight for the future of the Internet - for its accessibility, freedom and equality. In the absence of obvious market problems, the introduction of controversial mechanisms looks like an attempt to capture the digital environment.
