IP peering and fair share: Read the full analysis
Compare Europe and South Korea and assess the case for FRAND interconnection.
You are currently viewing a placeholder content from HubSpot. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.
More InformationSix questions leaders should resolve before supporting sender-pays rules.
What problem is fair share meant to solve?
CAP traffic creates demand for broadband, while operators carry the investment burden. The first task is to distinguish a genuine interconnection market failure from a difficult commercial negotiation.
How does today’s peering economics work?
Settlement-free peering can reduce international transit costs and improve user experience through local caching. Paid agreements also exist, but the commercial balance differs by market and bargaining position.
What does the EU’s draft DNA change?
The draft Digital Networks Act promotes technical and commercial cooperation and voluntary conciliation. It does not mandate payments or allow regulators to impose terms, but it creates a basis for structured evidence.
What does South Korea’s SPNP model show?
South Korea shows how mandatory settlement can change routing, caching and investment incentives. Disputes affected service quality, while research points to fewer caches, weaker IXP development and more offshore traffic.
Turning a polarised debate into an evidence-based decision
Interconnection market analysis
Peering economics and cost models
We quantify incremental interconnection costs, avoided transit costs, capacity needs and investment effects. Scenario models show how alternative payment structures affect operators, CAPs, users and infrastructure partners.
Regulatory impact assessment
We assess proposals against net neutrality, competition law, market analysis and dispute-resolution principles. For the Digital Networks Act and national approaches, we examine legal risk, implement ability and unintended consequences.
FRAND pricing and safeguards
We design guardrails for fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory prices and non-price terms. These can include cost evidence, transparency, equal treatment, review mechanisms and proportionate remedies for actors with market power.
Stakeholder and policy strategy
We support operators, CAPs, regulators, IXPs and investors in consultations and negotiations. The objective is a clear position that connects commercial interests with competition, investment capacity and outcomes for users.
Infrastructure investment scenarios
We analyze how interconnection rules can influence caches, IXPs, data centers, CDNs, cloud services and international traffic routing. This has potential effects on latency, service quality, market entry and attractive location visible early.
Clarify your position
Assess your exposure before interconnection rules and bargaining positions harden.
What mandatory sender-pays rules changed in practice.
Intervention changes more than prices
Mandatory settlement influenced routing, caching, investment incentives and competition beyond the peering market. South Korea shows why regulators should test wider ecosystem effects before adopting SPNP.
2016
South Korea extended SPNP rules to domestic IP peering, introducing mutual settlement between peer operators.
1%
Traffic-share threshold used by the 2020 Traffic Stabilization Law to identify covered content providers.
1M
Daily-user threshold used by the law as a second test for covered content providers.
2023
Netflix and SK Broadband ended their legal disputes and agreed a strategic partnership.
2026
The EU draft Digital Networks Act favours voluntary conciliation and evidence gathering, not mandatory fees.
Regulatory expertise for the internet value chain.
Dr. Richard Majoor
Senior Manager
