The debate on “fair share” concerns the question of whether technology companies that provide Internet services through telecommunications networks should contribute to their financing. Telecom operators have generally and often repeatedly demanded that the major global platforms such as Google, Meta, Apple, Microsoft and Amazon be required to make this contribution. This debate has existed since at least 2012, starting from the ITU conference in Dubai, when the European Telecommunications Operators’ Association advocated for a “sending party pays model” to address the growing level of Internet traffic connected to operators’ services. Technology companies have always rejected this request, pointing out, amongst other matters, that it is precisely their services that stimulate and justify investments and the modernization of telephone networks towards fiber and 5G. On the other hand, Internet services themselves require significant investments in data centers, software and content.

In the debate very polarized positions have emerged: the largest telecommunications operators are generally in favor of fair share, while technology companies, small telcos, televisions, consumers, civil society and the Internet technical community are normally against it.

The Fair Share Debate in 2025

The European debate on fair share is in a state of dormancy. After the major impetus provided by European Commissioner Thierry Breton until the end of his term (in 2024), the prospects of a possible legislative proposal were dashed as early as October 2023, when European governments, meeting at the Telecoms Council in Léon, expressed a majority opposition. Since then, the idea of a European fair share regulation has entered a phase of regression: although still mentioned in some important official documents, particularly the European Commission’s White Paper on Connectivity and the Draghi’s Report on Competitiveness, the fair share theme has appeared more like the echo of the wishes of certain stakeholders than a convinced institutional direction. Within the Commission, fair share has begun to lose momentum, although it remains on the institution’s table as a legacy of the Breton agenda, while the new Commissioner, Virkkunen, has appeared cautious on the issue.

The absence of a clear European proposal

It should also be noted that a European proposal on fair share has never existed. The debate stemming from Breton’s media campaign never materialized into a sufficiently precise plan – in other words, it never progressed beyond discussions of mere principle. This was due partly to differences of opinion on the practical implementation of fair share among the supporting telcos themselves (1); and partly to the intervention of BEREC, which, with a detailed opinion issued in 2022, highlighted inconsistencies and contradictions in Commissioner Breton’s narrative, making it clear how difficult it would be to implement a concrete proposal.

The Council’s Position

It is therefore not surprising that the European governments, meeting in the Council, subsequently took a firm stance on the issue: the Hungarian Presidency’s Conclusions on the White Paper of December 6, 2024, §29, state that any intervention in the IP interconnection markets should be justified by “deficiencies,” i.e., a malfunction of the IP interconnection market recognized on the basis of economic analysis, not political narratives. In other words, the Council appears to oppose a fair share intended as a political solution to reallocate, within the Internet ecosystem, costs and investments deemed inappropriate by certain stakeholders.

Fair Share in Relations with the US

Added to the cooling at European level are the recent tensions between the EU and the US. The new Trump administration has, in fact, identified “network fee mechanisms” (the American term for “fair share”) as a potential barrier to US trade, susceptible to retaliation through tariffs. According to the White House, the new trade agreement between the EU and the US, announced on July 28, 2025, will include a commitment that “the European Union confirms that it will not adopt or maintain network usage fees.” Although these are American positions, it is hard to imagine the EU insisting on fair share at least as long as a Trump administration is in power in Washington. And to think that just a few months ago, the new American president was acclaimed at the World Trade Center in Barcelona by the CEOs of several major European telecommunications companies and held up as an example to follow.

Fair Share in the Digital Network Act

This shouldn’t mean that the fair share debate has definitively died out within the EU. Since this is a cyclical debate – and indeed, we are already in the third round, following discussions at the OECD in the 1990s and at the ITU in 2012 – nothing prevents relevant proposals from resurfacing in the near future, when political conditions allow.

In this regard, it’s worth remembering that the European Commission will present, by the end of 2025, a proposal to reform the European electronic communications regulatory framework, called the “Digital Network Act” (“DNA”). It’s currently unknown whether a fair share mechanism will be included. The European consultation document for the DNA contains a rather vague and cryptic statement about the DNA potentially granting BEREC or national authorities the power to intervene to facilitate a sort of “cooperation” between the various actors in the “broader connectivity ecosystem.” It is unclear, however, what the Commission now has in mind: by introducing a new term, “cooperation,” and abandoning the traditional models that had shaped the fair share debate, which were based on regulated payments tied to IP interconnection or universal service, the Commission appears to be moving toward a new path, the terms of which, however, are unknown.

The impression is that Brussels, aware that fair share will still lack agreement and political support, is accepting suggestions regarding an unspecified “Plan B.” It is also possible that the topic will be kept on the agenda so that, when negotiations come, it can be exchanged for other topics for which there are greater hopes or ambitions of agreement: for example, spectrum, access deregulation, and the switch-off. In other words, fair share is already a candidate for sacrifice in favor of some more agreeable aspect of the DNA.

(1) There are significant disagreements, among other things, on the model to be implemented (whether it should be an interconnection fee or a contribution to a specialized fund), on the identification of obligated parties and beneficiaries, on possible arbitration mechanisms, and on traffic measurement.