Introduction: The Question of Control
The question "Who owns the internet?" seems simple at first, but turns out to be remarkably complex. The technical answer is: Nobody. The internet is a decentralised 'network of networks' with no central owner.
By 2025, though, that answer describes only the formal architecture. The real ownership and control structures have shifted fundamentally.
The internet has grown from an academic collaboration into a critical piece of global infrastructure. Along the way, different actors have gained dominant positions across its various layers. This analysis examines the current structures systematically.
Table of Contents
This article answers the question "Who owns the internet?" through a systematic look at four layers, from the physical cables right up to political regulation.
Part 1 reveals: Who controls what? Part 2 explains: How does this work technically? Part 3 asks: What does this mean for Europe?
You can skip Part 2 if you are primarily interested in the political and economic aspects.
Part 1: The 4-Layer Model of Internet Governance
To understand who controls the internet, we can divide it into four functional layers. Each one has its own actors, its own power dynamics, and its own challenges:
Layer 1: Physical Infrastructure
The hardware layer: fibre optic cables, submarine cables, data centres, and access networks. This is where a significant shift in ownership is taking place.
Layer 2: Logical Infrastructure
The protocol and management layer: IP addresses, DNS, and technical standards. This is where competing governance models are fought out.
Layer 3: Platform Layer
The application and data layer: search engines, social media, cloud services – the layer visible to end users.
Layer 4: Political Layer
The governance layer: regulation, access policy, and content control by nation-states and international organisations.
Nobody formally owns the internet, yet concentration is emerging on every layer: the physical infrastructure is increasingly controlled by tech corporations, logical management is under geopolitical pressure, the platform layer shows high market concentration, and on the political layer, competing governance models are clashing.
Layer 1: The Physical Infrastructure – Structural Change in Submarine Cables
Let us begin with what you can touch: fibre optic cables, submarine cables, and data centres.
Shift in Ownership Structures: From Telecommunications Companies to Tech Corporations
One of the most significant developments of the past decade concerns an infrastructure layer that end users barely ever see: submarine cables.
Share of International Submarine Cable Capacity 2025 (%)
The data: The share of international cable capacity used by Google, Meta, Amazon, and Microsoft rose from 10% to over 71% in just ten years. [2] [3]
Transcontinental submarine cables used to be built by consortia of traditional telecom companies. National players such as A1 Telekom Austria, Deutsche Telekom, or AT&T shared the costs and risks, while internet companies like Google or Facebook were merely 'customers' who rented capacity.
This model has changed.
Case Study: Meta's 'Project Waterworth' (2025)
In February 2025, Meta announced a sweeping submarine cable project: Project Waterworth. [1] The technical parameters:
| Feature | Detail | Strategic Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Length | > 50,000 km | Longer than the earth's circumference – the longest submarine cable project in the world |
| Reach | 5 Continents | USA, India, Brazil, South Africa – focus on the Global South |
| Technology | 24 Fibre Pairs | Industry-leading (vs. usual 8-16) – massive capacity |
| Goal | AI Innovation | Engine for global AI development, accelerating the digital economy |
"Waterworth is not just meant to create connectivity for Facebook or Instagram – it is designed as an engine for AI innovation worldwide."
— Meta Engineering Team, 2025
Strategic Implication: Vertical Integration
These investments are about more than cutting costs. They enable vertical integration along the entire value chain:
Vertical Integration: How Big Tech controls everything from the app to the submarine cable
These infrastructure projects carry real geopolitical weight. [6] Although built by private US companies, they shape global data routes and affect economic and infrastructural positions. [7]
Route planning takes geopolitical factors into account: Meta's projects steer clear of regions like the Red Sea, where several cables were damaged in 2024, causing connectivity outages in East Africa.
Big Tech's Cable Portfolio 2025
Submarine Cable Projects of Tech Corporations: Global Reach 2025
Layer 2: The Logical Infrastructure – Management and Standardisation
Layer 1 has shown: Big Tech is increasingly controlling the physical cables. But who determines how data is addressed through these cables? This happens on Layer 2.
Moving one layer up from the physical level: where cables are the transmission medium, the logical infrastructure forms the management and addressing layer, the 'rules' of data traffic:
- IP Addresses (Internet Protocol): The unique 'postal addresses' for every device
- DNS (Domain Name System): The distributed 'telephone directory' that translates names into addresses
The Multistakeholder Model Under Pressure
Nobody owns this layer. Instead, it is run by the 'multistakeholder model' [8]: a decentralised governance system involving technical experts, the private sector, civil society, and governments.
Key Organisations:
| Feature | Role | Status 2025 |
|---|---|---|
| ICANN | Coordination of domain names & IP addresses | Under geopolitical pressure, new strategy 2026-2030 |
| IETF | Definition of technical standards (RFCs) | New AI Preferences Working Group (2025) |
| RIPE NCC | IP management for Europe/Middle East | Active participation in UN processes |
These historically technically focused bodies are increasingly caught up in geopolitical disputes. The contest between the open multistakeholder model and state-centralised approaches is reshaping their institutional role.
Case Study: ICANN's Strategic Plan 2026-2030
ICANN's new five-year strategic plan (in effect since 1 July 2025) is striking: for the first time, a technical management organisation names geopolitical threats as a core area of action. [12] [13]
An explicit strategic goal:
'To address geopolitical issues that impact ICANN's mission, in order to secure a single, globally interoperable internet.'
— ICANN Strategic Plan 2026-2030
This sits against the backdrop of initiatives, led above all by China and Russia, to move responsibility for the logical layer away from ICANN and towards UN bodies such as the ITU (International Telecommunication Union).
Impact of AI Development on Layer 2
A notable development: in 2025, the IETF is tackling the 'scraping' of web content by AI crawlers.
In response, it set up a new working group in January 2025: the 'AI Preferences (AIPREF) Working Group'. [16] [17]
The aim of the AIPREF Working Group is to develop a technical standard, much like the established robots.txt, that lets web publishers state in a standardised, machine-readable way how AI models may use their content.
Cross-layer impact: an event on Layer 3 (data collection by AI platforms) triggers a response on Layer 2 (the development of a new protocol).
Layer 3: The Platform Layer – Market Concentration in Digital Services
When most people hear 'internet', they think not of cables or IP addresses but of Google, Facebook, Amazon. That is Layer 3, and here one thing becomes clear: the same companies laying cables on Layer 1 also dominate the platforms.
Now we reach the layer most visible to users: search engines, social media, app stores, e-commerce, and cloud services, the part most people think of as 'the internet'.
Status 2025: High Market Concentration Amplified by AI Investments
Capital Expenditures (Capex) 2023–2026: Big Tech vs. Telecoms in Billion $
| jahr | BigTech | Traditional |
|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 144 | 89 |
| 2024 | 248 | 92 |
| 2025 | 360 | 95 |
| 2026 | 439 | 98 |
In 2025, this layer is dominated by GAMA (Google, Amazon, Meta, Apple) and the 'Magnificent Seven':
- Cloud: AWS dominates and generates the bulk of Amazon's operating profit
- Mobile: Google (Android) and Apple (iOS) hold a duopoly over app access
- Search & Advertising: Google dominates the global search market
- E-Commerce: Amazon holds a 38% US market share
- Social Media: Meta (Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp) dominates
The existing market concentration has been driven even higher since 2024 by massive AI investments.
The capital expenditure (capex) of the tech giants is climbing steeply: from $144 bn (2023) to a projected $439 bn (2026). Meta alone is planning over $100 bn of capex for 2026. [4]
The upshot: the high barriers to entry in the AI sector favour established players with deep capital reserves.
The Regulatory Counter-Offensive: The 'Brussels Effect'
The only global actor pushing back against this dominance with comprehensive, hard-edged regulation is the European Union, through its legislative package of the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Digital Markets Act (DMA). [22] [24]
Digital Markets Act (DMA)
Regulates the market power of 'gatekeepers' by banning self-preferencing, third-party restrictions, and unfair data usage. Affected: Google, Apple, Meta, Amazon, Microsoft, ByteDance. Status: Enforced since March 2024.
Digital Services Act (DSA)
Establishes transparency obligations for very large online platforms (VLOPs): algorithm disclosure, risk management for disinformation, content moderation, and fundamental rights protection. Affected: Platforms with >45 million EU users. Status: In force since February 2024.
Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) are especially large platforms with more than 45 million active users in the EU. Stricter rules apply to them because of their greater impact on society.
Enforcement Practice 2024/2025
2024 and 2025 mark the shift from legislation to enforcement. [27] [31] The European Commission has opened proceedings against several technology companies:
| Company | Violations | Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Self-preferencing in search, Play Store restrictions | Formal investigation since March 2024 | |
| Apple | Anti-steering rules in the App Store, browser choice | EUR 500 million fine (April 2025) |
| Meta | Pay or Consent model, GDPR circumvention | EUR 200 million fine (April 2025) |
| TikTok | Youth protection, algorithmic amplification | Ongoing investigation |
Differentiated positions within the Western alliance:
On the political layer (Layer 4), the EU and the US hold broadly similar positions on an open internet versus state-centralised models.
On the regulatory layer (Layer 3), however, they diverge: the US government has voiced concerns that the DMA and DSA could act as trade barriers that mainly hit US companies.
These differing approaches call for closer transatlantic coordination on internet governance.
Layer 4: The Political Layer – Competing Governance Models
We have seen that tech corporations dominate cables and platforms, while multistakeholder bodies manage addresses. But who decides it stays this way? That is the question of Layer 4, and in 2025 it is more contested than ever.
The fourth and final layer sits above the other three: here, actors negotiate the fundamental questions of regulation and control. Who sets the rules for access, content, and data flows?
Increasing Fragmentation Trends
In 2025, the debate around the 'splinternet', the fragmentation of the internet along national or regional borders, has moved from a theoretical discussion to an observable trend. [32] [33]
Competing Internet Governance Models: Who determines the rules?
Model 1: 'Digital Sovereignty' (State-Centralised)
Actors: People's Republic of China, Russian Federation
Ideology: every nation-state has the unrestricted right to fully control 'its' national internet segment. The internet is seen not as a global commons but as part of national territory. [35] [37]
Implementation:
China: The Great Firewall
Content filtering and data localisation. Foreign companies must store the data of Chinese citizens on local servers. Promotion of domestic platforms (WeChat, Baidu, Alibaba).
Russia: The Sovereign Internet
The 'Sovereign Internet' Law (2019) makes it technically possible to disconnect from the global network. [39] Enforcement has ramped up since 2022: foreign platforms blocked, VKontakte promoted, and traffic filtered at national gateways.
Model 2: 'Multistakeholder Model' (Decentralised-Open)
Actors: USA, European Union
Ideology: an open, global, free, and unfragmented internet. Its governance should not be the preserve of governments, but a consensus process among all actors: the private sector, the technical community, and civil society.
Implementation: defending the model in global forums and using the 'Declaration for the Future of the Internet (DFI)' to build a coalition behind this open model.
The Negotiations in 2025: A Decisive Year at the United Nations
The clash between these governance models is playing out in 2025 at UN forums in New York and Geneva. The year is widely seen as a critical one for the multistakeholder model. [41] [42]
Global Digital Compact (GDC) adopted
WSIS+20 Review – The Key Year
ICANN's new strategy 2026-2030 enters into force
Decisive year for Internet Governance
The debate is not bipolar (West vs. East). States in the Global South play an important role too.
The idea of 'digital sovereignty' resonates strongly across many countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. The reasons are nuanced:
Historical and structural concerns:
- Unease about economic dependence on US tech corporations
- US companies control essential physical infrastructure (Layer 1)
- US companies dominate platform markets (Layer 3)
Economic perspectives:
- The 'multistakeholder model' is sometimes seen as driven primarily by commercial interests
A telling example: Argentina's break with the GDC in October 2024 illustrates the reservations in the Global South. [14] A number of states worry that such frameworks simply cement the existing order.
Part 2: Technical Foundations
Part 1 showed that on each of the four layers, different actors hold differing degrees of power, from US tech corporations laying submarine cables to geopolitical negotiations at the United Nations.
But to grasp why IP addresses are a 'scarce resource', or exactly what ICANN manages, we need some technical grounding.
Part 2 now explains those foundations: how are devices addressed? How does a data packet find its way through the network? And what does net neutrality actually mean in practice?
Addressing and Identity
To make sense of the power struggles, we first need a solid grasp of the technical foundations.
What is an IP address?
An IP address is the basic 'postal address' for every device on the internet. The crucial distinction here is between:
Public IP Addresses
Example: 185.119.160.10
This is the globally unique address your router receives from your ISP (Internet Service Provider). It is the only way your network can be reached from the wider internet. Public IP addresses are a scarce resource and are officially managed.
Private IP Addresses
Examples: 192.168.1.5, 10.0.0.8
Private IP addresses are for internal use within your local network (LAN/WLAN). They work like 'extensions' in an office building: 'extension 101' exists in almost every company, but it only means something internally. These addresses are not routed on the global internet and are defined in RFC 1918.
NAT – The Translator
Your home router acts as a translator using NAT (Network Address Translation): the router has one public IP address. When your laptop (with the private IP 192.168.1.5) visits a website, the router swaps the private IP for its public one. When the reply comes back, it remembers which internal device (your laptop) to forward the data to.
DHCP (Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol) automatically assigns private addresses to the devices on your Wi-Fi.
Management of IP Addresses: The Administrative Hierarchy
Nobody can simply 'grab' a public IP address. They are handed out through a strict top-down hierarchy, the heart of the logical layer (Layer 2):
How IP addresses are distributed: From the global to the local layer
- Global Layer: IANA/ICANN manage the 'large pots' of all IP addresses
- Regional Layer: RIRs (e.g. RIPE NCC for Europe) receive large blocks
- Local Layer: LIRs (e.g. A1 Telekom Austria) receive smaller blocks
- End Customers: ISPs assign you (usually dynamically) a public IP
Address Scarcity: IPv4 vs. IPv6
The system has faced a fundamental problem for over a decade: the addresses of the old IPv4 standard have run out.
| Feature | IPv4 | IPv6 |
|---|---|---|
| Address Length | 32 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Maximum Addresses | ~4.3 billion | 340 undecillion (3.4 × 10³⁸) |
| Status | Globally exhausted since 2019 | Effectively unlimited |
| Example | 185.119.160.10 | 2001:0db8:85a3::8a2e:0370:7334 |
| RIPE NCC | Last blocks allocated in 2019 | Plentiful supply |
Adoption status 2025: the transition is running in 'dual stack' mode, where modern devices carry both address types. Your operating system tries IPv6 first and falls back to IPv4 only when it has to.
IPv6 Adoption by Region (As of Q4 2025)
| region | adoption |
|---|---|
| France | 80 |
| Germany | 75 |
| India | 74 |
| Austria | 42 |
| Global | 47 |
Regional Differences (As of Q4 2025): [47] [50]
- France: ~80% IPv6 usage
- Germany: ~75%
- India: ~74%
- Austria: ~42% (EU mid-range)
- Global: ~47%
A1 Telekom Austria (AS8447) and Magenta Telekom (AS8412) are actively pushing IPv6 adoption. Modern mobile networks (4G/5G) are often already 'IPv6-native'.
DNS – The 'Telephone Directory' of the Internet
The Domain Name System (DNS) is the second pillar of the logical infrastructure. It translates human-readable names (e.g. google.com) into machine-readable IP addresses (e.g. 142.250.184.142).
DNS Resolution: How your browser finds a website
The process is hierarchical:
- Root Servers: 13 global clusters (managed by ICANN/IANA) that know who is responsible for
.at - TLD Servers: Every top-level domain (
.com,.de,.at) has its own nameservers - Authoritative Nameservers: The hoster (e.g. World4You, Easyname) holds the final entry (A record)
Running the registry for all .at domains is the job of nic.at GmbH, based in Salzburg. [52] nic.at operates the TLD nameservers for the .at zone.
New role in 2025: nic.at's CTO has been a Co-Chair of the TLD ISAC (Top-Level-Domain Information and Sharing Analysis Centre) since 2024. [53] This body coordinates information exchange between European registries on security incidents such as zero-day exploits or large-scale attacks on DNS infrastructure.
The takeaway: even 'technical' registries like nic.at are now active players in cybersecurity governance in 2025.
Data Traffic: Routing Between Networks
We now know how addresses (IP) and names (DNS) are managed. But how do data packets actually find their way through thousands of networks?
The 'Network of Networks': Autonomous Systems (AS)
The internet is not a single network, but a federation of thousands of independent networks. Each of these large networks is an Autonomous System (AS).
An AS has:
- A globally unique number: ASN (Autonomous System Number)
- A unified external routing policy
- An operator (ISP, corporation, university)
Examples of Austrian AS:
| Company | ASN | Role |
|---|---|---|
| A1 Telekom Austria AG | AS8447 | Austria's largest ISP, national/international routes |
| Magenta Telekom (T-Mobile) | AS8412 | Second-largest ISP, mobile & fixed |
| Hutchison Drei Austria GmbH | AS8437, AS25255 | Mobile Network Operator |
| AS15169 | Global content network, YouTube, Search |
The Navigation System: Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)
BGP is the 'navigation system' of the internet. It is the protocol through which Autonomous Systems communicate with each other at their 'borders'.
How it works:
An AS (e.g. A1's AS8447) uses BGP to tell its neighbouring AS which IP address blocks (known as 'prefixes') can be reached through its network.
A1 'announces' the prefix 46.74.0.0/15 (a block of 131,072 IP addresses) and thereby tells the rest of the internet:
'Please send all data packets directed to any of these addresses to me, AS8447.'
Every major router on the internet builds a global routing table from these announcements and picks the most efficient path (the one passing through the fewest AS).
The Economics of Routing: Peering vs. Transit
The connection between two AS is a commercial decision, not a technical one. There are two main models for how Autonomous Systems link their networks:
Transit (Paid)
Scenario: a smaller AS (e.g. a local ISP) pays a larger AS (a 'Tier-1 carrier' such as Arelion AS1299 or Cogent AS174) for access to the rest of the internet.
Model: the small ISP buys 'transit' as a paid service, and the large carrier carries all of its traffic out into the global network.
Peering (Cost-Neutral)
Scenario: two AS of similar size (e.g. A1 and Magenta) notice that they exchange a large volume of traffic (A1 customers reaching Magenta servers and vice versa).
Model: they connect their networks directly at an Internet Exchange Point (IXP) (e.g. the Vienna Internet eXchange, VIX) and agree to 'peer', usually on a cost-neutral basis. They exchange their own customer networks, but not access to the rest of the world.
IXPs – The Interconnection Hubs
Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) are physical infrastructures where multiple AS directly connect their networks to each other (peering).
Advantages: IXPs offer lower latency (direct route instead of via a transit provider), reduced costs (no transit provider as a middleman), and higher resilience (multiple direct connections).
Austrian Example: The VIX (Vienna Internet eXchange) is a major IXP where A1, Magenta, Drei, and international carriers peer.
The Principle of Net Neutrality
Within this tangle of connections and commercial agreements, one principle stands out as fundamental, bridging the technical and political layers:
Definition
Net neutrality, enshrined in the EU through Regulation 2015/2120, holds that all data packets on the internet must be treated equally. The internet provider (the operator of Layer 1 and the AS on Layer 2) must not discriminate between types of traffic.
Prohibited practices include:
- Blocking: restricting access to a competitor's legal services (e.g. Netflix)
- Throttling: deliberately slowing a Netflix stream to promote an in-house TV product
- Prioritisation (fast lanes): charging a service provider (e.g. YouTube) so that its data packets are delivered 'faster'
The Current Debate in 2025: The 'Fair Share' Discussion
In 2025, this principle is being challenged by the so-called 'Fair Share' debate.
Position of the telecommunications companies:
Major European telecom companies (the infrastructure operators on Layer 1) argue that large content and application providers (CAPs), namely Google, Meta, Netflix, and Amazon (the dominant actors on Layer 3), generate a large share of all data traffic.
Their demand: these CAPs should help pay for expanding the infrastructure.
Counter-position (Consumer protection & Civil society):
Organisations such as the European Consumer Organisation (BEUC) see this as a potential breach of net neutrality. [63]
Their reasoning:
- Such a fee could push up costs for consumers
- It could make it harder for smaller providers to enter the market
- It could create different classes of service
Status in Austria & the EU (2025)
Austria (RTR): The RTR (Austrian Regulatory Authority for Broadcasting and Telecommunications) is the national regulator for net neutrality. In its 2024 Net Neutrality Report (June 2024), the RTR called the 'Fair Share' debate a 'contentious issue' and stressed that it is keeping a close eye on the discussion at EU level. [64] [65]
EU Level (Tension): While the 'Fair Share' debate rumbles on at the political layer (the EU Commission), the European Court of Justice (ECJ) reinforced the strict reading of net neutrality in July 2025.
In its ruling (C-367/24), the ECJ tightened the rules against so-called 'zero-rating' tariffs and confirmed that any discrimination between traffic (including throttling video streams under specific tariffs) breaches the EU regulation. [67]
There is tension between:
- Political initiatives on cost-sharing (the Fair Share debate)
- Court rulings reaffirming net neutrality (the ECJ)
How these parallel tracks play out will shape what comes next.
Part 3: Conclusion and Outlook
In Part 1, we analysed the four layers of the internet, and in Part 2, we worked through the technical foundations. Now we can answer the question we started with: who owns the internet?
The formal answer, 'Nobody owns the internet', no longer matches the reality on the ground in 2025. The internet is a complex infrastructure with distinct control structures on each of its layers.
Key Findings
1. Physical Infrastructure (Layer 1)
Dominant Actors: US tech corporations (Meta, Google, Amazon)
These companies are increasingly building their own global submarine cable infrastructure. Traditional telecoms are losing their former position as the sole infrastructure operators. The investments enable vertical integration and strategic positioning.
2. Logical Infrastructure (Layer 2)
Management Structures: Multistakeholder organisations (ICANN, RIPE, IETF)
These bodies are increasingly caught up in geopolitical disputes. They must defend and evolve their institutional role in UN processes against rival governance models.
3. Platform Layer (Layer 3)
Market Structure: High concentration among a few tech corporations (Google, Amazon, Meta, Apple)
Market concentration is amplified by capital-intensive AI investments. The sums involved (a projected $439 bn by 2026) favour well-capitalised, established players.
4. Political Layer (Layer 4)
Governance Landscape: Various competing models
The EU leans on regulation (DMA/DSA), while the US favours market-driven solutions. These differing approaches call for transatlantic coordination, even as states in the Global South pursue their own priorities.
What does this mean?
In 2025, the internet has no single central owner.
But the analysis reveals a heavy concentration of power among a handful of tech corporations on the physical infrastructure and platform layers, alongside an intense negotiation among many actors over the governance rules for this global infrastructure.
Areas of action for companies, organisations, and decision-makers:
-
Assess infrastructure dependencies: European organisations increasingly rely on US-based infrastructure (cloud, networks, platforms). It pays to take stock of these dependencies.
-
Understand the regulatory frameworks: the DMA and DSA create new compliance obligations, but also open up opportunities for European providers.
-
Push on with IPv6 migration: the move to IPv6 is technically unavoidable. Austria (42% adoption) sits in the EU mid-range, so steady progress matters.
-
Watch the net neutrality debate: the 'Fair Share' discussion touches fundamental principles of internet architecture, so it is worth taking an informed position.
-
Help shape international cooperation: European digital strategy should take the perspectives of the Global South seriously and build partnership-based approaches.