Meta doesn’t think it should pay to renew or maintain telecom networks. The company believes that the content it creates supports the operators’ business model.

The Internet is no longer the diverse Wild West of its early days. Today, a handful of big companies like Google, Meta or Netfix are responsible for most of the internet traffic. To support the services of these big players, telecom providers need to improve their networks. Higher capacity and speed, lower latency, 5G, fiber-to-the-home: the necessary infrastructure is not free.

In Europe, operators are therefore demanding compensation from large tech companies to compensate for large investments. Europe is now considering this approach. Similar arguments can be heard in the US: The tech world is supposed to surf on the capacity of the Internet infrastructure without contributing to it.

Wrong assumption

Meta believes that the request for a contribution is based on an incorrect assumption. Mark Zuckerberg’s company turns it around: It’s like meta and employees who support telecom carriers’ businesses. Moreover, this does not happen automatically: the company points out that it invests many millions in the development of applications and platforms itself.

In addition, technology giants such as Meta or Netflix do not pay for the traffic that flows through Internet providers in the conventional way, but invest in the necessary infrastructure. Think of the content delivery networks that support platforms and services.

According to Meta, content providers have invested a total of $880 billion in global infrastructure over the past decade, including $120 billion between 2018 and 2021. “These contributions have saved telecom operators about $6 billion per year,” Meta argues . Among other things, the company also refers to cooperation with other industry players for transatlantic cabling.

Dual pricing model

For their part, various telecommunications providers are striving for a dual price model in which they can charge not only users but also providers. Meta argues with interesting numbers why this isn’t a fair way to go, according to the company.

The rest of the argument is a bit more vague, with attempts to revitalize the metaverse and bring it into the discussion as if it had ever been more than a catchphrase.