Telekom: What Bandwidth?

This translation was generated automatically.

By now it should be clear that Telekom’s argument is absurd. But let’s look at it again.

From Telekom’s blog post, “New rules for DSL?”:

On the one hand, data volumes are growing exponentially. The networks therefore need massive expansion, costing billions. … One solution would indeed be to limit the data volume included in plans. The advantage is that only customers who actually use more would have to pay more. Until now, all users have effectively subsidized the heavier use of a few.

From Obermann’s letter to Minister Rösler:

… terms such as net neutrality and ensuring competition are being misused to enshrine a right to unlimited internet data in flat-rate plans. With traffic increasing so much and networks facing ever-greater performance demands, that cannot work in the long term.

From the DRadio interview, around 19:30, when asked about the very low cost of backbone bandwidth (on a small scale, for example, Hetzner charged €6.90 per 1,000 GB):

Timo Hetzel: How can this bandwidth cost more on Telekom’s network than on the actual internet?

Telekom spokesperson: It’s quite remarkable that people keep making this argument to us. We never said bandwidth is expensive for Telekom. What we say is that (a) revenues are falling … and (b) billions must be invested in network expansion. … This isn’t about backbone traffic either; that argument is also constantly thrown at us. We’ve never argued about backbone traffic. We said the network needs expansion. Primarily, that means the access network, which is expensive because you have to get out the shovel.

So backbone volume isn’t the issue. And the volume on the last mile—a single copper pair—clearly isn’t either. Using that last mile at full capacity 24/7 costs the same as barely using it. Is Telekom really willing to put itself through this PR disaster just to punish a supposedly tiny 3% of customers for no good reason?

No. So what is it, if not a hidden price increase and a smokescreen to push content providers into “managed services”?