“It is an issue that lies at the intersection of net neutrality, telecoms regulation, digital industrial policy and consumer protection, raising fundamental policy questions that need to be addressed,” Flannery said in a statement.
The three primary fair share models are the interconnection, universal service contribution, and regulated peering models. The first sets negotiated fees between content providers and telecoms companies for traffic exchange; the second has content providers paying traffic-based taxes wherein the funds go to supporting infrastructure; and the third establishes fixed interconnection prices.
In 2023, then-European commissioner Thierry Breton backed fair share initiatives; however, members of the European Union and regulators highlighted possible investment and net neutrality risks. Latin American countries noted that only a few platforms accounted for most internet traffic.
In 2016, South Korea effected the regulated peering model and implemented the “Netflix law” to drive content providers’ investment in streaming quality.
“The Internet thrives on complementarity, and any regulatory solution must recognise the shared responsibilities and contributions of all stakeholders, rather than reducing the issue to a simple contest between OTTs and telecoms. Any regulation must take into account the roles and contributions of all actors to ensure balanced and fair outcomes,” said Innocenzo Genna, IBA communications law committee senior vice-chair.