welt.de
Deutsche Telekom Accused of Anti-Competitive Fiber Optic Practices in Germany
BREKO accuses Deutsche Telekom of "double digging" to avoid fees, impacting 78 alternative network operators; Telekom denies this, citing a BNetzA report; however, Germany's fiber optic rollout reached 52.8% coverage by June 2025.
- How does the asymmetry in copper network shutdown regulations impact competition in Germany's fiber optic market?
- Deutsche Telekom refutes these allegations, citing a July 2025 Bundesnetzagentur (BNetzA) report finding no conclusive evidence of anti-competitive behavior. However, the BNetzA acknowledges that Telekom's market dominance could potentially hinder competition.
- What long-term effects might the current dynamics in Germany's fiber optic rollout have on consumer access and technological innovation?
- Despite the controversy, Germany's fiber optic rollout reached 52.8% coverage by June 2025, with competitors accounting for 70% of active connections. The increase in collaborations, although characterized by BREKO as favoring Telekom, suggests a shift towards cooperation in the sector.
- What are the immediate consequences of Deutsche Telekom's alleged "double digging" practices on German broadband infrastructure development?
- BREKO, a German broadband association, accuses Deutsche Telekom of "double digging," re-excavating sites where competitors already laid fiber optics to avoid network usage fees. This practice allegedly led to project cancellations for about a third of 78 affected alternative network operators in 2024.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the issue primarily from the perspective of BREKO, a critic of Telekom. The headline, subheadings, and introductory paragraphs emphasize BREKO's accusations of overbuilding and inefficiencies. While Telekom's response is included, it is presented after and less prominently than the criticisms, potentially influencing reader perception toward the negative side of Telekom's practices. The use of strong quotes from BREKO and the Bundesnetzagentur's report which also highlights potential impacts on competition, strengthen this framing.
Language Bias
The article employs language that leans somewhat negatively towards Telekom. Terms like "heftigsten Kritiker" (harshest critics), "Vorwürfe" (accusations), and "Ineffizienzen" (inefficiencies) create a negative connotation around Telekom's actions. The use of phrases like "verlängere...die Lebensdauer ihrer Kupferkabel" (extends the lifespan of its copper cables) implies a negative strategic choice. More neutral language could include "criticism", "allegations", "ineffective practices", "maintains" instead of "verlängere".
Bias by Omission
The article presents a somewhat one-sided view by focusing heavily on BREKO's criticism of Telekom's fiber optic expansion, while giving less emphasis to Telekom's rebuttals and the Bundesnetzagentur's findings. The article also omits the specific details of Telekom's "particularly advantageous cooperation model" with competitors, which limits the reader's ability to fully assess this aspect of the situation. Additionally, while mentioning positive trends in fiber optic expansion, the article doesn't explore potential reasons behind the discrepancy between the number of households with fiber optic cables and those with active connections.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplified dichotomy between Telekom's actions (alleged overbuilding and hindering competition) and the positive expansion of fiber optics overall. It doesn't fully explore the complexities of market dynamics, regulatory frameworks, and the various factors influencing the pace and nature of broadband deployment in Germany. The article presents BREKO's criticism as a primary focus, leaving the reader to draw a certain conclusion without presenting a balanced view of all aspects.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights allegations of the Telekom engaging in "double digging" or "overbuilding," where they lay their own fiber optic cables even where competitors have already done so. This practice, if true, could hinder smaller competitors and prevent fair competition, thus exacerbating inequalities in the market. The asymmetry in copper network shutdown also favors Telekom, potentially disadvantaging competitors further.