Vodafone Germany is changing the open internet, one peering connection at a time

Vodafone’s change and German ISP landscape

• Commenters see Vodafone’s move to a peering intermediary as consistent with a long pattern of outsourcing and cost-cutting, not technical necessity.
• Many report poor past experiences with Vodafone (slow DSL, bad DOCSIS congestion, opaque support).
• Several note that Deutsche Telekom has long done similar things with peering and pricing; the difference is that in some buildings Vodafone is the only high‑speed option, effectively forcing customers onto this policy.
• There’s disagreement whether this is monopoly, duopoly, or cartel behavior, but broad agreement that German wired and mobile internet quality is weak for a rich country.

Impact on users and legal / practical recourse

• Users ask if severe degradation to popular services (e.g. Netflix) could be breach of contract for “1 Gbps” lines.
• Others respond that contracts usually only promise “up to” speeds to the ISP’s own network; performance to third parties is almost never guaranteed.
• Some describe success using official speed-test apps and filing complaints with federal authorities, but the process is slow and individual leverage is limited.
• Switching providers is the main advice, but many note that alternatives are often resellers on the same underlying networks, or simply unavailable in specific buildings.

Workarounds: VPNs, alternative access, municipal ISPs

• Debate on VPNs: some say they can help by avoiding congested or perversely routed paths; others note that they face the same peering bottlenecks unless the VPN provider pays for “fast lanes.”
• Starlink is mentioned but dismissed as equally subject to pricing, peering, and policy changes.
• Municipal / non‑profit ISPs (examples from the Netherlands and US cities) are presented as strong counter‑models, with cheap symmetric fiber and no throttling, though political and legal barriers often limit them.

Peering economics, regulation, and “fair share”

• Many see Vodafone’s move as part of a broader “double‑dipping” trend: charging both end users and content providers, similar to “fair share” proposals in Europe and regulations in South Korea.
• Some argue asymmetric traffic makes free peering unrealistic; others call this pure rent‑seeking that undermines the open internet and should be stopped by strong net‑neutrality‑style rules or even public ISPs.

Other networks and IX decline

• Commenters stress Vodafone is not unique: various incumbents worldwide refuse to peer domestically, causing absurd routes and congestion.
• Large content networks (e.g. Google) are also withdrawing from public IXes in favor of private deals or “verified peering providers,” which may make life harder for smaller networks and weaken the traditional open peering model.

Critique of the article

• Several readers think the article feels AI‑written: repetitive, loosely structured, heavy on slogan‑like contrasts, plus an odd disclaimer about possible inaccuracies.
• Some specific technical claims, especially around how YouTube traffic flows and the portrayal of Deutsche Telekom, are called out as oversimplified or contradictory.