KONSTANTINOS KOMAITIS
  • About me...
  • Write. Share. Ignite.
  • Byline
  • Media
  • Books
  • "Internet of Humans" podcast

Write. Share. Ignite.

Old Telcos, New Narratives: AI, Network Fees, and What’s at Stake for Europe

9/26/2025

 
On September 23, 2025, Europe’s major telecommunications companies gathered in Brussels to make their case: AI is coming, data traffic is exploding, and Europe’s digital sovereignty is at risk unless policymakers let telcos charge more, consolidate further, and secure a bigger role in Europe’s AI future.
The pitch sounds familiar. Every few years, new technology becomes the reason telcos argue for higher fees or regulatory favors. This time, it’s AI. The problem? Consumers and Europe’s digital market risk paying the price, while the benefits remain unclear.
Let’s break down what telcos said—and what it really means.

1. “Connectivity is a strategic asset”

What telcos say:
Europe’s competitiveness and security depend on strong connectivity.

Reality check:
Yes, networks matter. But framing connectivity as a “strategic asset” shifts the conversation toward urgency and national security, which makes it politically harder for regulators to reject demands for new fees or special treatment. It’s a way of saying, “Europe can’t succeed in AI without us—so give us more money.”

Consumer impact:
A truly competitive digital market should expand networks efficiently without turning telcos into tollbooth operators for everyone else online.

2. “AI needs Europe’s networks”

What telcos say:
AI traffic is growing fast, and AI platforms should help pay for the infrastructure they use.

Reality check:
Traffic growth is real. But telcos are framing it as a shared European ambition rather than a commercial negotiation. The real goal? New revenue streams—especially from hyperscalers and high-traffic platforms—without necessarily proving that consumers or innovation will benefit.

Consumer impact:
Higher costs imposed on AI platforms could eventually trickle down to users or slow innovation, especially if fees become arbitrary rather than tied to clear cost-sharing principles.

3. “AI traffic will grow 50% per year”

What telcos say:
Rising traffic means Europe needs bigger networks, faster.

Reality check:
True. But using traffic statistics to justify higher fees mixes public policy goals with private revenue strategies. Just because AI traffic grows doesn’t mean handing telcos new rights to charge others is the best—or only—solution.

Consumer impact:
Without careful policy design, consumers could face fewer choices and higher costs if network fees discourage competition or innovation.

4. “We’re democratizing AI”

What telcos say:
We’re giving broad access to AI solutions for everyone.

Reality check:
Most AI traffic will come from cloud platforms and enterprise users, not directly from consumers on telco-owned services. Highlighting “AI for everyone” sounds good but distracts from the main issue: who pays for the underlying infrastructure.

Consumer impact:
Real democratization comes from open markets and fair rules, not from one industry lobbying for financial privileges under the banner of accessibility.

5. “We need AI for secure networks”

What telcos say:
Investing in AI helps us secure networks, which benefits everyone.

Reality check:
Security investments are real, but linking them to demands for higher fees frames them as a public obligation rather than part of normal business operations. It’s another way of turning essential upgrades into bargaining chips.

Consumer impact:
Europe needs secure networks—but funding them through competitive, transparent markets is better than handing telcos regulatory shortcuts.

6. “Europe needs more investment for prosperity”

What telcos say:
Without more funding, Europe will fall behind in AI and digital infrastructure.

Reality check:
This creates a sense of crisis—invest or be left behind—which pressures policymakers to accept telcos’ terms without fully examining whether those terms actually deliver value to consumers or the digital economy.

Consumer impact:
Long-term digital prosperity comes from competition and innovation, not from concentrating power in a few legacy providers.

7. “We need European scale”

What telcos say:
Allowing bigger mergers will help us compete globally.

Reality check:
Consolidation can reduce costs—but it also reduces competition. Framing it as a strategic necessity sidesteps the risk of creating national or regional monopolies with little incentive to innovate or keep prices low.

Consumer impact:
Europe’s digital sovereignty shouldn’t mean fewer choices or higher prices for consumers. It should mean fair competition under EU rules for everyone—domestic or foreign, big or small.

The Bigger Picture: Sovereignty vs. Monopoly

Telcos are right about one thing: AI will reshape Europe’s digital economy, and networks matter. But Europe doesn’t need a digital future where a few legacy companies hold all the cards.
​

True digital sovereignty means open competition, fair regulation, and policies that serve consumers—not just incumbents or foreign tech giants. The EU should design rules that ensure everyone pays their fair share without turning the internet into a patchwork of national champions and hidden fees.
Because in the end, the goal isn’t to protect telcos or big tech. It’s to build a digital market that works for Europeans.


Comments are closed.

    Categories

    All
    5G
    Accountability
    Acpa
    Appeal
    .bank
    Book On The Current State Of Domain Name Regulation
    Cartagena
    Cctlds
    China
    Civil Society
    Coica
    Collaboration
    Conference
    Copyright
    Copyright Infringement
    Counterfeit Goods
    Criminal Activity
    Czech Arbitration Court
    Dag4
    Dakar
    Default
    Democracy
    Digital Sovereignty
    Dns
    Domain Name
    Domain Names
    Domain Names.
    Encryption
    E-PARASITE ACT
    Fair Use
    Free Speech
    Froomkin
    G20
    Gac
    Giganet
    Gnso
    Governmental Advisory Committee
    Gtlds
    Hargreaves Report
    Icann
    Icann Board
    In Rem
    In Rem Jurisdiction
    Intellectual Property
    Intergovernmental Organizations
    International Olympic Committee
    Internet
    Internet Governance
    Interoperability
    Ioc
    Irt
    Jurisdiction
    Justice
    Licensing
    Lobbying
    Loser Pays Model
    Morality And Public Order
    Mueller
    Multistakeholder
    Multistakeholder Participation
    Multistakholderism
    Naf
    Nairobi Treaty
    Ncsg
    Ncuc
    #netflix
    Network Neutrality
    New Gtld Applicant Guidebook
    New Gtlds
    New Kids On The Block
    Ngos
    Ninth Circuit
    Nominative Use
    Nominet
    Non-profits
    Not-for-profit
    Npoc
    Olympiad
    Olympic
    Online Infringement
    Online Infringement And Counterfeits Act
    Open Internet
    Paris Convention
    Pddrp
    Permissionless Innovation
    Phising
    Pipa
    Poll
    Ppdrp
    Preliminary Gnso Issue Report On The Current State Of The Udrp
    Procedural Justice
    Protect Act
    Protect Ip Act
    Public Policy
    Red Cross
    Registrant
    Registrars
    Review
    Rule Of Law
    Russia
    S.3804
    Scorecard
    Senate Bill S.3804
    Senate Hearing
    Senator Leahy
    Sopa
    Sovereignty
    Sti
    Stop Online Piracy Act
    #streaming
    Supplemental Rules
    Technological Sovereignty
    Tmc
    Trademark
    Trademark Bullying
    Trademark Clearinghouse
    Trademark Lobbying
    Trademark Owners
    Trademarks
    Transparency
    Udrp
    Urs
    Us Congress
    Us Department Of Commerce
    Uspto
    Wipo
    WSIS

Proudly powered by Weebly
  • About me...
  • Write. Share. Ignite.
  • Byline
  • Media
  • Books
  • "Internet of Humans" podcast