> Meta is ending its direct peering relationship with Deutsche Telekom due to the company's actions that undermine net neutrality and put the open internet at r

> Meta is ending its direct peering relationship with Deutsche Telekom due to the company's actions that undermine net neutrality and put the open internet at risk. [..] This isn't quite correct, and thats why I was complaining about the article missing essential information because it's really misleading and makes you think that that is what is happening. It turns out what happens is Meta wanted is a price cut of 40% on a contract with DT, DT was only open for 16% and decided to move to a different provider. Also (and here other sources where also a bit unclear) there was some curt ruling which boils down to yes the prices from DT are legal and Meta has to pay if they continue to use it (which they did while trying to get a 40% price cut). What is unclear here is who sued for what. FB trying to force lower prices by ab(?) using net neutrality laws? DT suing because FB not paying for continous usage of the service while discussing a new contract? Something else? Did they sue or was it a declaratory action? etc. Most important this might not have as much to do with net neutrality as it seems. Net neutrality is about not unfairly prioritizing some traffic over other traffic. It's also somewhat about you not having to pay every network provider your traffic goes through. But it is _not_ about content providers not paying at all for network traffic, they still pay the provider which connects them to the internet for traffic the same way you as a private person do (just probably much less). And that is where they wanted a 40% price cut as far as I can tell. And that is also where they then moved to a different provider by now and where they don't have to pay DT for traffic flowing from their new provider through the DT network to customers (as far as I can tell). So if you look at it from that perspective it's FB trying to abuse net neutrality by labeling traffic from their servers as transit traffic (but also some articles say the judges said it doesn't matter weather it's transit traffic or not in that case, which makes it even more unclear what exactly the curt case was about, probably some contractual clauses in their previous contract in which case it probably really doesn't matter)