Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Technology

Internet Providers Warn Against EU Plans To Make Big Tech Cover Telcos Costs (reuters.com) 54

Posted by msmash from the tussle-continues dept.
A group representing internet service providers across Europe said on Tuesday that a proposal to make Big Tech companies pay towards telecom operators' network costs could create systemic weakness in critical infrastructure. From a report: Telecom operators have been pushing the European Union to implement new laws that would see U.S. tech firms like Alphabet's Google, Meta's Facebook, and Netflix bear some of the costs of Europe's telecoms network, arguing that they drive much of the region's internet traffic.

In September, European Commission's industry chief Thierry Breton said he would launch a consultation on so-called "fair share" payments in early 2023, before proposing legislation. Now, the European Internet Exchange Association said the proposals risked reducing the quality of service for internet users across Europe, and could "accidentally create new systemic weaknesses" in critical infrastructure, in a letter addressed to the European Commission's industry chief Thierry Breton and the Executive Vice President Margrethe Vestager.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Internet Providers Warn Against EU Plans To Make Big Tech Cover Telcos Costs More

Internet Providers Warn Against EU Plans To Make Big Tech Cover Telcos Costs

Comments Filter:

  • Part of this sounds like some issue that network neutrality laws address.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Part of this sounds like some issue that network neutrality laws address.

      How? In what way?

      EU ISPs already have plenty of legal options to deal with customers using excessive amounts of bandwidth.

      This isn't about EU users watching more youtube and netflix.
      Services which don't even use the ISPs backbone unless the ISP explicitly chooses to turn away the free caching servers both of those services hand out.

      This is EU ISPs wanting to steal money from US companies. Standard EU practice these days.

      They aren't going to use that money to upgrade their networks anymore than they are usi

      • They aren't going to use that money to upgrade their networks anymore than they are using their customers money to upgrade their networks right now.

        They are still upgrading the network more than the US quasi-monopolies.

        (Message sent over a 1Gps direct-to-the-home optical fiber, not even the fastest option available to me).

        (Though technically, I'm not EU, merely Europe)

        • sounds like Europeans ISPs either don't need the money, or they oversell 1gbps connections and now they can't keep up and want American companies to pay for what they promised

          • It's just a cash grab, and a populist view in Europe to tax American companies extra hard because their own domestic industries can't compete worth a shit.

            Personally, I think they should go for it. At the end of the day, the content companies like Netflix will just pass the cost to the end users, meaning they don't really lose anything except maybe a few subscribers. The end result is that Europeans will pay extra for their internet access without actually realizing it, and they won't be able to lobby their

          • When is Europe paying the United States back for decades of military support so the whole continent isn't right now eating bratwurst or addressing each other as "comrade"?

              I propose a 500% price hike for European citizens using American services, subject to arbitrary blackouts, degradation of service, and maybe geo fencing them completely.

            "wE wIlL bUiLd oUr oWn u stOoPid aMeRiCuNtS!" yeah you go do that, you frogs.

            • Europe has a track record of going to war with each other if there is no empire to keep them under control. Europe sincerely believes the EU will happen regardless of the US. the EU literally exists because of the us. Europeans hate each other more than they hate Americans but they tolerate each other because they know the US will take over of they don't (look at south America). in Europe they've been killing each other for centuries because of their "ethnicity". and they still do.

        • They are still upgrading the network more than the US quasi-monopolies.

          How so? The US has been moving to fiber at a pretty rapid pace over the last 8 years. Just over half of the US population has FTTP now. The majority who don't are in rural areas, and the US has a much larger rural population than Europe.

          (Message sent over a 1Gps direct-to-the-home optical fiber, not even the fastest option available to me).

          Nothing special dude, that's already relatively common in the US. Several of the big fiber players (AT&T, Verizon, a few others) already offer multigig across much of their footprint. AT&T in particular is getting ready to offer 20 gig for residential. I personally p

          • over 1 gigabit for residential is mostly a "scam" (big quotes there) as the average person uses wifi for their devices and in real life wifi can't even get close to saturating gigabit. also the average person uses only the CPE all in one modem-router-AP and luckily a "range extender".

            there are of course lots of enthusiasts with wired devices and infrastructure AP but they're a minority

      • This 100%. All networks are funded by end-users paying for access; this ignores the fact that Google/Alphabet, Microsoft, Facebook/Meta, and Amazon all built their own private networks to keep their traffic off the internet. The only times their data hits the interment is from the users end, who is already paying.

    • To me this sounds like the opposite of network neutrality, where instead of just charging companies and individuals to transmit bits, you start making special deals or taxes for bits depending on who the sender or receiver is.
  • But politicians don't have the balls for it

    • This has little to do with balls. It has much to do with tit-for-tat. Corporate taxes are a direct reflection of how much money goes directly into the politician's pockets. More for the politicians = less for the tax man. Which works out perfectly fine for those only interested in themselves in the political arena. Which, sadly, is almost all of them.

    • They kind of did that by implementing the 15% global minimum tax (adopted by the EU last month). It is effectively an increase as there was no minimum previously and big business managed to avoid taxation.

    • Who do you think pays corporate taxes? Hint: It's consumers, stupid.

      A smarter person would say raise taxes on the individuals who benefit most from corporations, personally. So raise taxes on stock grants, and raise taxes on higher income earners by targeting all the ways they make their money.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by bn-7bc ( 909819 )
        You are right, but that does nit matter to politicians , because when most leople see corp taxes they thunk " zzz, tax the rich companies" and forget that this will hike their prices down the line, and when the prize hike arive they bllame the companies. So the only thing the politicians have to do is not to anger the corps so much thst they move out of the country, and hey presto free money for the treasury(hich they can use for whatever vote gathering scheme they need to re elected the next time around)
  • If it were up to me I would just close any EU based offices so that my "Big Tech" company was outside their jurisdiction completely. If the EU still bullied me and tried to shake me down for more money, then I would just cut off services to people living in the EU. Then those angry europeans would either use a VPN or complain like hell to get their lawmakers to repeal the law. Britain was smart to get out.

    • I would just cut off services to people living in the EU.

      No you would not. There are still billions to be made there even if government creates a new tax. Or maybe you would if it is a fully owned company and you can afford to make bad financial decisions. But if you have a board above you you cannot make such decisions alone, and the others involved will be more greedy than you are angry.

      Then those angry europeans would either

      They would go for the local equivalent that already exists for years and provide a similar set of functionalities. Several new replacements might even appear within hours and ta

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by rcb1974 ( 654474 )
        Yes I would and I would convince the board of directors. Atlas Shrugged and the government would capitulate. Governments have a lot of morons in them. Average people don't switch from one service/product to another as easily as you think, especially if they are over the age of 45. Also, "local equivalent"? I don't think so. They either don't exist or wouldn't work as well. Can you imagine if YouTube on your smartTV, or Gmail, Outlook, Microsoft Teams, Zoom, etc just stopped working? If people found o

        • I would convince the board of directors.

          You are not simultaneously at the board of Meta and Alphabet and Microsoft, so your catastrophe scenario is not possible, even if your convince 1 of them.

          But let's say I am member of the board. Please convince me how your plan to withdraw from a large economy will bring us more customers or more profit.

          Your argument is "governments will capitulate". Here I call you the following declarations when Meta threatened to get out of EU.

          7 Feb. 2022, Press conference in Paris: https://www.bloomberg.com/news... [bloomberg.com]
          * "Aft

          • can you imagine the US pulling out of NATO and leaving Europe to Putin and Xi?

            • can you imagine the US pulling out of NATO and leaving Europe to Putin and Xi?

              The board of directors e.g. Meta/MS/... are motivated by money and compelled to act in a way that maximizes the money the company makes, in particular next quarter or next year. I'm not saying I am a fan of the idea, but it's what currently happens at big companies. This usually means they stay in a market for as long as they are allowed to, like currently several Western companies trading with Russia (despite it being unfriendly to the West) until the last day of particular goods not being sanctioned, or W

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by bn-7bc ( 909819 )
      And deprive myself of all tje EU revenue, remember on a worlwide scale the EU might not have the most population, but it does rank rather high when it comes to average disposable income, which mskes it easier for people to buy higher margin products and services.

  • Paid 2x (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Dr_b_ ( 112464 ) on Tuesday January 03, 2023 @04:50PM (#63177772) Homepage
    in addition to "critics said telecom companies were already compensated by their own customers" if the fees are not legally mandated to go to infrastructure spending and a freeze on rate hikes to end users, it might wind up lining the pockets of executives and shareholders and accomplish nothing. And Google, Netflix, Facebook, etc are not stupid, they will get around this, or pull out completely. With all the fines and increased cost of business, why do business in that market. #cashgrab

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      They won't pull out of the EU, it's far too lucrative. Come on, Apple won't even pull out of China. Human rights abuses? But the profit!

  • Blatant Revenue Grab (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LordofWinterfell ( 90845 ) on Tuesday January 03, 2023 @05:02PM (#63177816)

    As a former telecom worker, this is all bullshit and just a business looking for a revenue source. The upgrades required in their network are 100% funded through their subscribers. Thereâ(TM)s no âoefree lunchâ because Google or Netflix data is what they want. This is a telco saying âoedepending on which business you want to work with, we might charge more for the interactionâ - which is exactly what net neutrality tries to prevent. What stops these telcos to make âoepartnershipsâ with specific providers where their customers get a discount; what if the local telco blocks all data from Disney because they didnâ(TM)t pay the extra fine?

    • About as dumb as asking Ford and GM to pay for the roads in detroit. No free lunch and all right?

      In this case consumers each fill their own gas tanks and buy the cars with their own money. Taxes from gas and the state pays the rest which is collected from the same people using those roads.

      In this situation Google is like Ford. The customers and the state bought the internet lines. Google is just a car people like to drive on it.

      • Except its nothing like that.

        Its more like ordering a pizza, and then when the delivery driver shows up, insisting that the pizza place pays you to answer your door.

    • Yeah, I am the network administrator of a small ISP and I agree. The network cost is paid the users up to the closest IX, then those companies pay to bring their network to the IX.

      The network costs are already paid.

      Moreover some operator like Netflix do lend cache boxes to the ISPs that originate enough traffxc, to be put *within* their network.

      Asking operators to pay again is racketeering, under the threat of blocking, throttling or impeding traffic to go through.

  • It's just that you big shots use so many bits, and these other little guys they don't get so many bits. So they might get a little bit jealous, maybe do something about it.

    Of course that would be a very unfortunate situation. Would be a shame to see these bits spilled out on your nice floor.

  • Double dipping (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ukoda ( 537183 ) on Tuesday January 03, 2023 @06:01PM (#63177950) Homepage
    Ethically the big tech companies are not using the telco's bandwidth, it is the telco's customers, who already pay for that right. While I have little sympathy for the big tech companies this is unfair on them as they never ask to send data on the telco's networks. The telcos are just being greedy, pure and simple. Anything can sound reasonable if you say it fast enough and big tech makes an easy target because they have so much money.

    If the telco markets are open, which they may not be in some countries, they may find that the big tech companies chose to fight back by becoming telcos themselves and use that as a tool to hurt the legacy telcos who think double dipping is ok. It is worth remembering that both Google and Facebook have dabbled in telco offerings. This could simply be be the push they need to do so more aggressively.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by swilver ( 617741 )

      Let's not pretend that big tech is not already paying for their internet connection. Even if only sending data, I would still be paying for the pipeline.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ukoda ( 537183 )
        Sorry, I don't get your point? Of course they are paying for their Internet connection, just like everyone else. However they are not pay for my Internet connection, just like I am not pay for theirs. What is going here is the telecos are are asking for a third payment, to them, from big tech to cover my service.

        • Sorry, I don't get your point? Of course they are paying for their Internet connection, just like everyone else. However they are not pay for my Internet connection, just like I am not pay for theirs. What is going here is the telecos are are asking for a third payment, to them, from big tech to cover my service.

          And you think that the USA should pay you for your internet service?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by ukoda ( 537183 )
            Sounds like a communications break down. Clearly you have failed to understand me. The key point I am try to make is nobody should pay anybody for someone else's Internet service. I pay my local ISP, the USA does not enter the picture when it comes to pay for my Internet service.

            • Sounds like a communications break down. Clearly you have failed to understand me. The key point I am try to make is nobody should pay anybody for someone else's Internet service. I pay my local ISP, the USA does not enter the picture when it comes to pay for my Internet service.

              I was checking before I unloaded on anyone. The EU has been flexing their baksheesh muscles lately, and eventually they will have to stand down from it. You're fine, so nevermind. 8^)

    • If the telco markets are open, which they may not be in some countries,

      Since this is about EU, are you referring to a particular situation that you could make explicit? Telecommunications are an open Market in EU since 1998, following a 10 year transition after Directive 88/301/EEC. Last extension granted was 31 December 2000 (to Greece) (according to https://digital-strategy.ec.eu... [europa.eu] )

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ukoda ( 537183 )
        Thanks for the links. I don't live in the EU and couldn't be bother looking up the situation. Here in New Zealand almost all Internet connections are implemented by Chorus and the ISPs, such as Vodafone, buy that wholesale and retail to end users. So in my case if Chorus were push such as case there would be little that could be done but if it was ISPs, such as Vodafone, who were putting their hand out for a third payment then nothing would stop Google becoming an ISP here and undercutting Vodafone.

        Ch

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      The argument is (and I don't entirely agree) that new services are dramatically increasing bandwidth costs. 1080p video might be 5-10 Mbps, 4k is 50-60 Mbps.

      ISPs have certain legal obligations too, and the market has moved to truly unlimited (no download limits, no paying extra for 4k streaming options etc.) and the tech companies have benefited greatly from that.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ukoda ( 537183 )
        Yes, we are generally using more data and if the cost per bit per seconds has not dropped as fast as the demand has increased then clearly it is hurting ISP's profitability. If that is the case then they should be asking customer's to pay more, not someone they have no commercial relationship with.

        If it is truly costing them more they need to work out how they are going charger their customers more, just like almost every other industry. The closest analogy I could think of would be petrol companies as

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          I guess the issue with asking the customer to pay more is that we are in a recession and broadband is a basic utility now.

          You have to remember that in the EU there is no god given right to profit. Companies have to serve the social good too, and if they are making massive profits they will be expected to contribute.

          Could just tax them more, but it's probably better if they get involved in infrastructure construction. Aside from anything else, they can own it and treat it as an investment/asset.

  • This is like the local roading company wanting payments from Toyota because the local residents choose to drive Toyotas.

    • EU is irate over other US trade policies such as EV subsidies so going after other US companies populism. So much for democracy standing together for fair ideals. Greed wins again. Never mind ruthless Putin and other authoritarians.
  • You folks are hell bent on getting normal liberal Americans to support pulling out of NATO, and letting Putin have your asses.

    He'll treat you really well, and you won't have to worry about how we abuse on you. How about just shutting the internet off, since we are somehow responsible foro your people's use of it.

    Next up - There are American cars on your highways - force the US auto manufacturers to pay for your road work.

    Should European internet traffic have to pay for it's use in the USA as well

  • All that needs to happen is for all of the European telco's to agree to raise the price for local connections.
    Then carry it 1 step further and slow down web traffic from out of the region.

    The major INTERNET SERVICE providers, will then be happy to jump on one of those local carriers.
    And as long as they collude on this, no big deal.

    Why do I say no big deal? Because Europe does not care when their own companies are breaking the laws. They only care when it is outsiders.

  • Just like cellphone companies make sure I know that the fees imposed by Congress and local governments are made clear, I think companies like Netflix would similarly tack on anything they had to pay.

    With Google and Facebook I could see having to kick money back to governments, and then allowed to keep data mining us, and providing even more targeted ads.

  • Since streaming services and online video are expensive to operate, sometimes running at a loss, how about EU providers pay towards the cost of content and hosting?

    These services are why people pay for expensive Internet connections, without which there'd be few selling points for high-speed 'unlimited' access. It's a naked money grab on the part of the EU.

Slashdot Top Deals

Do you suffer painful hallucination? -- Don Juan, cited by Carlos Casteneda

Close