Introduction: The Question of Control
The question "Who owns the internet?" initially seems simple, yet proves to be scientifically complex. The technical answer is: Nobody. The internet is a decentralised 'network of networks' without a central owner.
By 2025, however, this answer only describes the formal architecture – the actual ownership and control structures have fundamentally changed.
The internet has evolved from an academic cooperation project into a critical global infrastructure. In the process, different actors have achieved dominant positions across various layers of the internet. 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 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 divide it into four functional layers. Each layer 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. A significant shift in ownership structures is evident here.
Layer 2: Logical Infrastructure
The protocol and management layer: IP addresses, DNS, and technical standards. Various governance models are negotiated here.
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 – however, different concentration trends are emerging on every layer: the physical infrastructure is increasingly controlled by tech corporations, logical management is under geopolitical pressure, the platform layer exhibits 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 last decade concerns an infrastructure layer that is barely visible to end users: submarine cable infrastructure.
Share of International Submarine Cable Capacity 2025 (%)
The empirical data: The share of international cable capacity used by Google, Meta, Amazon, and Microsoft rose from 10% to over 71% within ten years. [2] [3]
Previously, transcontinental submarine cables were built by consortia of traditional telecom companies. National actors such as A1 Telekom Austria, Deutsche Telekom, or AT&T shared costs and risks. Internet companies like Google or Facebook were merely 'customers' who rented capacities.
This model has changed.
Case Study: Meta's 'Project Waterworth' (2025)
In February 2025, Meta announced an extensive 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 go beyond cost optimisation. They enable vertical integration along the value chain:
Vertical Integration: How Big Tech controls everything from the app to the submarine cable
These infrastructure projects have geopolitical relevance. [6] Although realised by private US companies, they influence global data routes and impact economic and infrastructural positions. [7]
Route planning considers geopolitical factors: Meta's projects avoid regions like the Red Sea, where several cables were damaged in 2024, leading to connectivity disruptions 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: While cables represent the transmission media, 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, the 'multistakeholder model' manages it [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 oriented bodies are increasingly facing geopolitical issues. The debate between the open multistakeholder model and state-centralised approaches affects 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 noteworthy: For the first time, a technical management organisation identifies geopolitical threats as a core action area. [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 is situated in the context of initiatives (particularly by China and Russia) to transfer responsibilities for the logical layer from ICANN to UN organisations such as the ITU (International Telecommunication Union).
Impact of AI Development on Layer 2
A notable development: In 2025, the IETF is addressing the 'scraping' of web content by AI crawlers.
In response, the IETF established a new working group in January 2025: the 'AI Preferences (AIPREF) Working Group'. [16] [17]
Goal of the AIPREF Working Group: Developing a technical standard – similar to the established robots.txt – allowing web publishers to define in a standardised and machine-readable way how their content may be used by AI models.
Cross-layer impact: A phenomenon on Layer 3 (data collection by AI platforms) triggers a reaction on Layer 2 (development of a new protocol).
Layer 3: The Platform Layer – Market Concentration in Digital Services
Most people don't think of cables or IP addresses when they hear 'internet', but rather Google, Facebook, Amazon. That is Layer 3 – and this is where it becomes clear: The same companies building cables on Layer 1 also dominate here.
Now moving to the layer most visible to users: search engines, social media, app stores, e-commerce, and cloud services – what most people perceive as 'the internet'.
Status 2025: High Market Concentration Amplified by AI Investments
Capital Expenditures (Capex) 2023–2026: Big Tech vs. Telecoms in Billion $
In 2025, this layer is dominated by GAMA (Google, Amazon, Meta, Apple) and the 'Magnificent Seven':
- Cloud: AWS dominates, generates the majority of Amazon's operating profit
- Mobile: Google (Android) & 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 further amplified since 2024 by massive AI investments.
The capital expenditures (Capex) of the tech giants are rising significantly: from $144 bn (2023) to a projected $439 bn (2026). Meta alone is planning over $100 bn Capex for 2026. [4]
Empirically: The high barriers to entry in the AI sector favour established players with corresponding capital resources.
The Regulatory Counter-Offensive: The 'Brussels Effect'
The only global actor countering this dominance with comprehensive, hard regulation is the European Union with its legislative package comprising 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 particularly large platforms with more than 45 million active users in the EU. Stricter rules apply to them as they have a greater societal impact.
Enforcement Practice 2024/2025
The years 2024 and 2025 mark the transition from legislation to implementation. [27] [31] The European Commission is conducting 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 share similar positions regarding an open internet versus state-centralised models.
On the regulatory layer (Layer 3), however, there are differences: The US government expresses concerns that the DMA and DSA could act as trade barriers primarily affecting US companies.
These differing approaches require coordinated transatlantic alignment on matters of internet governance.
Layer 4: The Political Layer – Competing Governance Models
We have seen: Tech corporations dominate cables and platforms, while multistakeholder bodies manage addresses. But who decides that 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: This is where actors negotiate fundamental questions of regulation and control. Who defines the rules for access, content, and data flows?
Increasing Fragmentation Trends
In 2025, the debate surrounding the 'splinternet' – a fragmentation of the internet along national or regional borders – has transitioned from a theoretical discussion to an observable development. [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 not viewed as a global commons, but as part of the 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) enables technical disconnection from the global network. [39] Increased implementation since 2022: Blocking of foreign platforms, promotion of VKontakte, filtering at national transition points.
Model 2: 'Multistakeholder Model' (Decentralised-Open)
Actors: USA, European Union
Ideology: An open, global, free, and unfragmented internet. Its management should not be a privilege of governments, but rather a consensus process between all actors: the private sector, the technical community, and civil society.
Implementation: Defending the model in global forums, 'Declaration for the Future of the Internet (DFI)' to build a coalition for this open model.
The Negotiations in 2025: A Decisive Year at the United Nations
The clash between these governance models is taking place in 2025 at UN forums in New York and Geneva. The year 2025 is classified as a critical year 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.
The concept of 'digital sovereignty' resonates strongly in many countries across Asia, Africa, and Latin America. The reasons are nuanced:
Historical and structural concerns:
- Concerns regarding 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 partially perceived as being primarily oriented towards commercial interests
Empirical example: Argentina's distancing from the GDC in October 2024 illustrates reservations in the Global South. [14] Various states express concerns about frameworks that are perceived as solidifying existing structures.
Part 2: Technical Foundations
Part 1 demonstrated: On each of the four layers, there are different actors with varying degrees of power – from US tech corporations building submarine cables to geopolitical negotiations at the United Nations.
But: To understand why IP addresses are a 'scarce resource' or what exactly ICANN manages, we need a foundational technical understanding.
Part 2 now explains the technical foundations: How are devices addressed? How does a data packet find its way through the network? What does net neutrality mean in concrete terms?
Addressing and Identity
To understand the power struggles, we need a solid grasp of the technical foundations.
What is an IP address?
An IP address is the fundamental 'postal address' for every device on the internet. Crucial to this is the distinction between:
Public IP Addresses
Example: 185.119.160.10
This is the global, worldwide unique address that your router receives from the ISP (Internet Service Provider). Your network is only reachable from the global internet using this address. 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 in your local network (LAN/WLAN). They function like 'extensions' in an office building – 'extension 101' exists in almost every company, but it is only valid 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 possesses one public IP address. When your laptop (with the private IP 192.168.1.5) accesses 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 your devices on the Wi-Fi.
Management of IP Addresses: The Administrative Hierarchy
Nobody can just 'take' a public IP address. They are distributed in 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 are depleted.
| Feature | IPv4 | IPv6 |
|---|---|---|
| Address Length | 32 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Maximum Addresses | ~4.3 billion | 340 undecillion (3.4 × 10³⁸) |
| Status | Globally exhausted since 2019 | Inexhaustibly available |
| Example | 185.119.160.10 | 2001:0db8:85a3::8a2e:0370:7334 |
| RIPE NCC | Last blocks allocated in 2019 | Sufficiently available |
Adoption Status 2025: The transition is running in 'dual stack' mode – modern devices possess both address types. Your operating system tries IPv6 first, using IPv4 only as a fallback.
IPv6 Adoption by Region (As of Q4 2025)
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 driving 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)
The administration (registry) of all .at domains is the responsibility of nic.at GmbH, headquartered in Salzburg. [52] nic.at operates the TLD nameservers for the .at zone.
New role in 2025: The CTO of nic.at has been a Co-Chair in the TLD ISAC (Top-Level-Domain Information and Sharing Analysis Centre) since 2024. [53] This body coordinates information exchange between European registries concerning security incidents such as zero-day exploits or large-scale attacks on DNS infrastructure.
The lesson: Even 'technical' registries like nic.at are actively involved 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 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 = 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. AS8447 from A1) uses BGP to announce to its neighbouring AS which IP address blocks (called 'prefixes') are reachable via 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 creates a global routing table from these announcements and selects the most efficient path (the path passing through the fewest AS systems).
The Economics of Routing: Peering vs. Transit
The connection between two AS is not a technical, but a commercial decision. There are two main models for how Autonomous Systems connect their networks:
Transit (Paid)
Scenario: A smaller AS (e.g. local ISP) pays a larger AS (a 'Tier-1 carrier' like Arelion AS1299 or Cogent AS174) for access to the rest of the internet.
Model: The small ISP buys 'transit' as a paid service. The large carrier forwards all traffic from the small ISP into the global network.
Peering (Cost-Neutral)
Scenario: Two AS of similar size (e.g. A1 and Magenta) realise: They exchange a large volume of data traffic (A1 customers accessing Magenta servers and vice versa).
Model: They connect their networks directly at an Internet Exchange Point (IXP) (e.g. Vienna Internet eXchange, VIX) and agree on 'peering' – usually cost-neutral. 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 complex system of connections and commercial agreements, one principle is of fundamental importance – it bridges the technical and the political layer:
Definition
Net neutrality, enshrined in the EU through Regulation 2015/2120, stipulates: All data packets on the internet must be treated equally. The internet provider (operator of Layer 1 and the AS on Layer 2) must not discriminate against traffic.
Prohibited practices include:
- Blocking: Restricting access to a competitor's legal services (e.g. Netflix)
- Throttling: Deliberately slowing down a Netflix stream to promote an in-house TV product
- Prioritisation (Fast Lanes): Demanding money from 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 corporations (infrastructure operators on Layer 1) argue: Large content and application providers (CAPs) – Google, Meta, Netflix, Amazon (dominant actors on Layer 3) – generate a significant portion of data traffic.
Their demand: These CAPs should contribute financially to the infrastructure expansion.
Counter-position (Consumer protection & Civil society):
Organisations such as the European Consumer Organisation BEUC view this as a potential infringement on net neutrality. [63]
Their reasoning:
- Such a fee could lead to higher costs for consumers
- Market entry for smaller providers could be hindered
- Different classes of service could emerge
Status in Austria & the EU (2025)
Austria (RTR): The RTR (Austrian Regulatory Authority for Broadcasting and Telecommunications) is the national regulatory body for net neutrality. In its 2024 Net Neutrality Report (June 2024), the RTR described the 'Fair Share' debate as a 'controversial issue' and emphasised that it is closely monitoring the discussion at the EU level. [64] [65]
EU Level (Tension): While the 'Fair Share' debate is actively discussed on the political layer (EU Commission), the European Court of Justice (ECJ) further strengthened the strict interpretation of net neutrality in July 2025.
In a ruling (C-367/24), the ECJ tightened the rules against so-called 'zero-rating' tariffs and reaffirmed that any traffic discrimination (including the throttling of video streams in specific tariffs) violates the EU regulation. [67]
There is tension between:
- Political initiatives on cost-sharing (Fair Share debate)
- Judicial decisions reaffirming net neutrality (ECJ)
The outcomes of these parallel processes will determine future developments.
Part 3: Conclusion and Outlook
In Part 1, we analysed the four layers of the internet, and in Part 2, we understood the technical foundations. Now we can answer the initial question: Who owns the internet?
The formal answer 'Nobody owns the internet' does not reflect the empirical reality in 2025. The internet is a complex infrastructure with differentiated control structures across various layers.
Key Findings
1. Physical Infrastructure (Layer 1)
Dominant Actors: US tech corporations (Meta, Google, Amazon)
These companies are increasingly investing in their own global submarine cable infrastructure. Traditional telecommunications companies 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 confronted with geopolitical issues. They must defend and further develop their institutional role in UN processes against alternative 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 required investment volumes (projected $439 bn by 2026) favour well-capitalised established actors.
4. Political Layer (Layer 4)
Governance Landscape: Various competing models
The EU relies on regulatory approaches (DMA/DSA). The US emphasises market-driven solutions. These differing approaches require transatlantic coordination, while states in the Global South are developing their own priorities.
What does this mean?
In 2025, the internet has no single central owner.
However, the analysis reveals a significant concentration among a few tech corporations on the physical infrastructure and platform layers, as well as an intense negotiation process among various actors regarding the governance rules of this global infrastructure.
Areas of action for companies, organisations, and decision-makers:
-
Analyse infrastructure dependencies: European organisations increasingly utilise US-based infrastructure (cloud, networks, platforms). An assessment of these dependencies is advisable.
-
Understand regulatory frameworks: DMA and DSA create new compliance requirements, but also open up opportunities for European providers.
-
Drive forward IPv6 migration: The transition to IPv6 is technically necessary. Austria (42% adoption) ranks in the EU mid-range – continuous progress is essential.
-
Monitor the net neutrality debate: The 'Fair Share' discussion impacts fundamental principles of internet architecture – taking an informed stance is relevant.
-
Shape international cooperation: European digital strategy should consider the perspectives of the Global South and develop partnership-based approaches.