 Imagine the Internet as a vast, invisible superhighway stretching across the globe. Data streams hurtle along like cars, trucks, and motorcycles, carrying emails, videos, financial transactions, and medical records with astonishing speed. The lanes are invisible, but they are meticulously maintained by interconnection agreements between Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and content platforms.
For decades, these agreements have operated quietly, like skilled traffic controllers behind the scenes, ensuring that billions of “vehicles” of information reach their destinations smoothly and efficiently. They are not flashy, and they rarely make headlines, but without them, the entire system would seize up. They are the arteries of the Internet, carrying lifeblood to every corner of the digital world. Now, imagine a bureaucrat stepping onto that highway, clipboard in hand, telling every driver that any disagreement—any minor fender-bender—must stop the traffic and be resolved through a mandated arbitration lane. Every car, every packet of data, now has to slow down, wait in line, and pass through a slow, opaque system to determine what is “fair.” What was once an agile, self-regulating ecosystem, capable of rerouting instantly around congestion, risks turning into a traffic jam stretching for miles. This is precisely the path Europe is quietly exploring. Through the Digital Networks Act (DNA), the European Commission is considering a framework that would impose mandatory dispute resolution for interconnection agreements. On paper, it reads like a safety measure: if two parties cannot agree, a neutral arbitrator steps in. But in reality, it’s more akin to replacing skilled traffic engineers with bureaucrats who have never driven on the highway themselves, or worse, forcing toll booths into every lane of free-flowing traffic. One misjudgment in that arbitration lane can create ripple effects across the Internet, slowing the flow, raising costs, and undermining the agility that has allowed the Internet to grow into the global powerhouse it is today. Internet interconnection is the foundation of the global Internet’s functioning and survivability. It allows networks—large and small, public and private—to exchange traffic seamlessly, ensuring that data can flow efficiently from any user to any destination across the world. Without interconnection agreements between Internet Service Providers (ISPs), content delivery networks (CDNs), and other operators, the Internet would fragment into isolated networks, undermining its defining feature: universal connectivity. From a user’s point of view, interconnection is what keeps the Internet fast, reliable, and accessible. Every time someone streams a video, makes a video call, or loads a website from across the world, interconnection is what makes that experience smooth and instant. It’s the invisible system that allows different networks to talk to one another—no matter who owns them or where they are located. When networks interconnect freely and competitively, users enjoy real, tangible benefits. Data travels more efficiently, which means faster load times, fewer buffering delays, and more consistent service quality. Because providers don’t need to rely on a single path to reach their destinations, competition helps drive down costs and encourages companies to keep improving their services. This open exchange also sparks innovation: new apps, content platforms, and cloud services can emerge and scale quickly, knowing they’ll be able to reach users everywhere without artificial barriers. Strong interconnection also makes the Internet more resilient. If one network experiences a failure or cyberattack, traffic can automatically reroute through other connections, keeping services online and minimizing disruption. This redundancy is vital for maintaining trust—especially as more of daily life, from banking to education to entertainment, depends on uninterrupted connectivity. However, the introduction of a centralized dispute resolution mechanism for interconnection could threaten this balance. While ostensibly designed to resolve disagreements between network operators, such a mechanism risks introducing regulatory overreach and bureaucratic interference into what has historically been a flexible, market-driven system. Imposing top-down arbitration on interconnection arrangements could have several harmful effects:
The Copyright experience To understand why this is dangerous, consider the analogy with copyright disputes between big tech platforms and news publishers. In France, Google was fined €250 million for failing to negotiate in good faith under the EU copyright directive. Behind closed doors, publishers and platforms hashed out deals that were then enforced by regulators—a process opaque to the public and often skewed in favor of the larger, more powerful players. But interconnection is not copyright. For one, transparency is almost nonexistent. Copyright negotiations happen behind closed doors; the public only sees the final verdict. Who decides what is “fair”? Who sets the fees? For interconnection, secrecy would be catastrophic. ISPs and content networks rely on trust, predictability, and public scrutiny to maintain balance and efficiency. Introducing a black-box arbitration system injects uncertainty into every connection. Second, the power dynamics are fundamentally different. Copyright disputes pit a dominant tech platform against equally dominant publishers. Interconnection, by contrast, is a complex ecosystem of networks, each carrying vast quantities of traffic. Misjudging network capacity or fees does not just cost money—it affects every user’s experience. Arbitrators without deep technical understanding risk skewed outcomes that could inadvertently favor one party over another. Third, and most importantly, copyright is not interconnection. The two operate in fundamentally different spheres. Copyright disputes are about who owns creative content and how that content can be licensed or monetized. They revolve around access to works—music, films, articles, and software—and how creators are compensated for their use. Interconnection, on the other hand, deals with the infrastructure that makes all digital exchange possible. It governs how networks exchange data—through peering, routing, and transit agreements—and ensures that information can move seamlessly across the global Internet. Treating these two domains as if they were the same is a category error. Applying copyright logic to interconnection would be like using traffic court rules to manage a city’s water supply: both are essential systems, but they follow entirely different principles. Copyright can tolerate negotiation delays and exclusive deals because it concerns discretionary access to creative works. Interconnection cannot. If data flow between networks is interrupted, the consequences ripple instantly—websites become unreachable, services fail, and users lose connectivity. Interconnection is not about ownership or exclusivity; it’s about continuity and interoperability. Its value lies in openness and efficiency, not in controlling or restricting flow. Confusing it with copyright-style disputes risks undermining the very foundation of the Internet’s reliability and universality. Think of peering agreements as the express lanes of the Internet. They allow traffic to flow directly between networks, avoiding expensive detours and congestion on third-party networks. These arrangements are negotiated voluntarily, flexibly, and continuously adapted to traffic patterns. Introducing mandatory arbitration is like taking those express lanes and turning them into toll roads where every car must stop and pay a regulator-determined fee before continuing. The natural flow is disrupted, costs rise, and innovation slows. The risks extend far beyond Europe. Policymakers in Brazil and other emerging markets are watching closely. If this model spreads, the result could be a global network choked by bureaucracy, where every disagreement over interconnection—minor or major—must be filtered through opaque dispute resolution channels. Local traffic that once moved freely could now be delayed, rerouted, or taxed, with consequences for consumers, businesses, and start-ups. And then…there are IXPs At the heart of the Internet lie Internet Exchange Points (IXPs)—the physical and operational hubs where networks meet, exchange data, and keep traffic flowing smoothly. They are the interchanges that make the global Internet local, reducing latency, lowering bandwidth costs, and improving performance for everyone from start-ups to streaming platforms. In essence, IXPs are what turn the Internet from a patchwork of private networks into a shared, resilient ecosystem. Introducing mandatory dispute resolution mechanisms into this delicate balance risks distorting the very incentives that make IXPs work. These exchanges thrive on voluntary, trust-based collaboration—networks choose to peer because it’s mutually beneficial, efficient, and cost-effective. When interconnection becomes subject to formal arbitration or regulatory intervention, that cooperative spirit gives way to caution. Networks may hesitate to enter or maintain peering agreements, fearing legal entanglements or regulatory overreach. Smaller players—local ISPs, community networks, and start-ups—would be hit hardest, as they often lack the legal and financial resources to navigate such frameworks. The consequences would extend far beyond administrative friction. IXPs rely on dense participation to deliver benefits at scale: the more networks that connect, the better the performance and resilience for everyone. If participation drops, data that once traveled across town may be forced to detour across continents, increasing latency, costs, and vulnerability. The result is a weaker, less efficient Internet—precisely the opposite of what policymakers intend. Europe’s proposal may appear to offer fairness or safety through arbitration, but in practice, it risks creating a toll booth on the digital superhighway—a mechanism to extract fees or impose conditions under the guise of dispute settlement. What has always been a fast, adaptive, and self-regulating system could become bureaucratic and sluggish. Free-flowing data would turn into a controlled flow, and innovation—dependent on low barriers and high connectivity—would slow to a crawl. Countries that have embraced open, competitive interconnection—such as Brazil, Kenya, and the Netherlands—show what’s at stake. Their robust IXPs have driven local content growth, supported digital entrepreneurship, and strengthened national resilience. Undermining those dynamics through heavy-handed dispute systems risks eroding years of progress. The world is watching. If Europe moves forward and others follow, the invisible highways of the Internet—once open, fast, and decentralized—may soon be clogged with red tape. And unlike a traffic jam on a city road, this gridlock would have global consequences, threatening not just efficiency but the very character of the Internet as a borderless, interconnected commons. Comments are closed.
|