Similarly, the ability of dominant firms to enter into co-employment agreements with customers will be subject to significant restrictions under Article 102 of the TFUE, as these agreements will impose additional intermediation costs on customers and thereby reduce competition. This passage did not include the Commission`s final guidance document on the abuse of excluded persons, published in 2009.  In essence, it minimized sensitivity to the context of interoperability. Current discussions on the application of the doctrine of “essential entities” to digital platforms call into question their adequacy in a context very different from the traditional attitude of physical infrastructures.   Palfrey/Gasser, Interop, 2012, p. 6, 39-53) emphasize, by proposing four different levels of interoperability (technology, data, human, institution), that interoperability should not only be seen as a primary technical problem, but should also include the level of individuals and institutions.  Inge Graef, mandate for portability and interoperability on online social networks, telecommunications policy 2015 (39/6), 502 and following, “in duly justified cases, the requirement for interoperable interpersonal service providers to make their services interoperable, i.e. when access to emergency services or end-to-end connection between end-users is threatened due to a lack of interoperability between communications services between persons.”  The 2002/19/EC Directive on Network Access and Connection is currently defined . Under this directive, NRAs may impose access obligations on network managers on the basis of different legal standards. Article 5 of the Access Directive allows for the introduction of access, interconnection and interoperability requirements (vertical or horizontal) for operators of electronic communications networks, regardless of their market power, where necessary to ensure end-to-end connectivity. As the insignificance of domination shows, the purpose of this standard is not to combat the abuse of market power.
Rather, it aims at “efficiency, sustainable competition and […] the greatest benefit for end-users” – a justification that indicates both the elimination of network effects as a competitive factor between electronic communications networks and a universal service logic. However, in practice, the German national equivalent of Article 5 of the Access Directive – Article 18, paragraph 1 of the TKG – has so far been of limited relevance.  Despite these well-known problems and despite the cooperative nature of collective standardisation, EU competition law has adopted a rather favourable attitude towards collective standardisation. In accordance with the Commission`s guidelines on the applicability of Article 101 of the TFUE to horizontal cooperation agreements , standardisation agreements are generally considered pro-competitive, as they tend to promote the internal market, promote the development of new and improved products or markets, and ensure interoperability and compatibility for the benefit of consumers (paragraph 263). Therefore, where: in the market, companies compete with different business models and different degrees of interoperability.