EU Weighs Proposal To Charge Data-Heavy Streamers for Telecom Upgrades (bloomberg.com) 62
The European Union is weighing a proposal to make technology companies that use the most bandwidth, like Netflix and Alphabet, to help pay for the next generation of internet infrastructure, according to a draft document seen by Bloomberg. From the report: The suggestions are part of a "fair-share" vision from the EU's executive arm that could require large tech businesses, which provide streaming videos and other data-heavy services, to help pay for the traffic they generate.
The draft document, which is part of a consultation with the industry, suggested firms might contribute to a fund to offset the cost of building 5G mobile networks and fiber infrastructure, as well as the creation of a mandatory system of direct payments from tech giants to telecom operators. The commission also asked companies whether there should be a threshold that would qualify a company to be a "large traffic generator," the document showed. That could be similar to the European governing body's rules designating some tech companies "gatekeepers" and "very large online platforms" in its recent competition and online content rules.
The draft document, which is part of a consultation with the industry, suggested firms might contribute to a fund to offset the cost of building 5G mobile networks and fiber infrastructure, as well as the creation of a mandatory system of direct payments from tech giants to telecom operators. The commission also asked companies whether there should be a threshold that would qualify a company to be a "large traffic generator," the document showed. That could be similar to the European governing body's rules designating some tech companies "gatekeepers" and "very large online platforms" in its recent competition and online content rules.
Absurdity reaching new levels (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Absurdity reaching new levels (Score:5, Insightful)
Big Telcos have managed to properly influence the EU regulator to get this bill draft passed.
Don't forget, the big streaming companies have long ago offered the solution to the bandwidth problem. For free.
These ISPs explicitly rejected their offers for free local cache servers to reduce bandwidth to a bare minimum.
The ISPs don't have a bandwidth problem to solve. They have a "I want more money" problem to solve.
The only way to solve that problem is to influence government for laws like this, and they will cheat lie and steal in anyway possible to get it.
Re: (Score:1)
The last few yards is usually the most expensive for the ISP. Local cache servers won't help with that.
Re: Absurdity reaching new levels (Score:3)
And that is part of what they customers are paying fully for. The last mile and backhauling infrastructure. The transport to a cache or the closest NAP is relatively cheap.
Double dipping (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
As they should. Subscribers should pay all of their last mile costs and then some.
Re: (Score:2)
Big Telcos have managed to properly influence the EU regulator to get this bill draft passed.
Don't forget, the big streaming companies have long ago offered the solution to the bandwidth problem. For free.
These ISPs explicitly rejected their offers for free local cache servers to reduce bandwidth to a bare minimum.
The ISPs don't have a bandwidth problem to solve. They have a "I want more money" problem to solve.
The only way to solve that problem is to influence government for laws like this, and they will cheat lie and steal in anyway possible to get it.
^THIS^
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that what politicians always mean by "fair share"?
Re: (Score:2)
"Local" cache servers aren't that local. They are inside the ISP's network, and for bigger ISPs they might be at regional hubs, but they are not usually near where the end user is and that data still has to traverse a lot of links to get there.
It's worse for smaller and medium sized ISPs because they don't usually have their own national infrastructure, they rent it along with the last mile lines. The ISP's network is mostly virtual, existing as VPN links on infrastructure owned by other companies and paid
Re: (Score:2)
There are a number of technical problems with local cache servers run by telcos but usually caching is rejected because of objections from the paying public and regulators that the company providing network connectivity should not intercept and modify traffic. Not saying this doesn't happen, just that when people become aware of it usually a lot of outraged noise is generated.
Telcos have a money machine that is driven by things like Netflix. They invest huge wads of money into network infrastructure bu
Re: (Score:2)
Big Telcos have managed to properly influence the EU regulator to get this bill draft passed.
I think you mean improperly - normally money is somehow involved when a government does something that flies in the face of logic and reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Under the same "logic," Netflix should charge Telco/ISP for their subs to access their content. EU idiocy at its best.
Exactly. It's a symbiotic relationship.
Re: (Score:2)
And don't forget, whenever you have europeans here bragging about having NO CAPS and how superior their internet is, remind them that it's a lie.
All UNLIMITED data plans in the EU have a limit. After a couple hundred GB, mobile data is limited to 128kbps. Oh yes, you can keep using it, but it's not what you signed up for.
This is happening all over europe and regulators are perfectly fine with this. Mostly because basically all european mobile players are, well, european. If AT&T operated in Europe it wo
Re: (Score:2)
And don't forget, whenever you have europeans here bragging about having NO CAPS and how superior their internet is, remind them that it's a lie.
All UNLIMITED data plans in the EU have a limit. After a couple hundred GB, mobile data is limited to 128kbps. Oh yes, you can keep using it, but it's not what you signed up for.
This is happening all over europe and regulators are perfectly fine with this. Mostly because basically all european mobile players are, well, european. If AT&T operated in Europe it would be a different game.
Agreed, definitely a different game. You would be limited to 64 kbps...and you would be lucky to get that.
Re: (Score:2)
Netflix should charge Telco/ISP for their subs to access their content.
And with that, we have re-invented cable TV.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, you just don't understand the principle which the EU uses to ensure competition.
You know how in much of the US people only have a choice of one, maybe two ISPs? In the EU most people can pick from dozens. Part of the reason is that the EU has a general policy of making sure that there is competition among ISPs, which means making it affordable for small and medium sized operators, not just the big ones who also own infrastructure or can cross subsidise with things like cable TV.
The bandwidth needed by
When I think of gatekeepers (Score:2)
at least when it comes to internet connectivity, the first thing that comes to my mind is those telcos.
they will just add an data fee / roaming fee for v (Score:2)
they will just add an data fee / roaming fee for video data.
Double dipping (Score:3)
Services like Netflix and Google pay for data services based on their useage - how do you think the data they provide is available to you? Now the euros want to make them pay again because of that traffic? Stupid! Its like charging a per mile fee on gas cars - is the USA they already pay that as part of the gas tax
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Okay. I will elaborate. I recently switched my mobile service from T Mobile to Visible. Visible resells access to the Verizon network. They have a really good 5g network in San Diego county. With Visible, I get unlimited voice, text and data. I also get unlimited hotspot but it's capped at 5mb down/up.
Visible cost me $30 out the door. Before them I was paying T mobile more money AND I had a data line through Cox Communications, our local cable company. I went from paying about $130 a month to $30.
While I do
Re: (Score:2)
And when Verizon raises the rates that they charge Visible to higher then they will sell to you or they buy out Visible?
End up like here, where I pay C$25 (plus tax) a month for 512 MB's of data at 3G speeds, along with limitless voice and text.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll deal with that when I need to but it's working great for now. Also several wireless carries are trying hard to get people to sign up for home Internet. I gladly welcome all the options for Internet. Why would I not?
Re: (Score:2)
I guess I'm just bitter with the shitty prices here in Canada and how every time any competition happens, it gets bought out
Get paid 3 times instead of only 2 (Score:1)
(1) Google pays millions of dollars a year for an Internet connection so that they can make videos accessible to the public
(2) Consumers pay their local Internet Service Provider for an Internet connection so they watch the videos.
The Telcos are already getting paid twice for the same thing. But no amount of money is ever enough. So now they want to be paid a third time.
Re: (Score:2)
That the EU is proposing this is clear evidence of their corruption. It never ends.
What about caching servers? (Score:4, Informative)
Last I recall, there were content cache machines being deployed inside the carrier, so customers watching a streaming video would be local to the high bandwidth carrier network. Has this changed lately, or even with the cache servers the synchronization is eating that much bandwidth they have to add extra to the service producer? Or is this the cost for upgrading their own network to support their own advertised speeds they cannot commit since they are now LAN oversubscribed?
Re: (Score:1)
Or is this the cost for upgrading their own network to support their own advertised speeds they cannot commit since they are now LAN oversubscribed?
This. In order to support their customers usage the telcos need to upgrade their networks. Doing so means someone has to pay, and the telcos are trying to find a "free" pot of money to avoid spending their own, or asking their customers to pay. As the telcos often have the government in their pocket (some are actually government subsidiaries), they might get what they wish.
Re: (Score:2)
According to the summary, they want the money to build out 5G service. Guess there's enough competition that there's no money to upgrade and if rates are raised, people move to the competition.
I'd guess the fix, metering and or quotas is politically nonviable, whereas charging other big businesses is.
In Other News (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
EU will now charge Amazon for their package deliveries causing heavy usage on roads and the funds will go towards building new roads.
In some parts of the world gas taxes are supposed to pay for road maintenance (and trucks do tend to use more gas). Of course, politicians almost everywhere manage to siphon at least some of that gas tax money to other purposes, and electric vehicles are forcing a rethink about how to pay for roads (a mileage based fee based on vehicle weight has been suggested).
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
LOL I wish. They just dump all that money in a general transportation fund in my state (California) and then spend it on light rail so the homeless have somewhere to sleep. Not only do we not have good, safe clean public transportation, but our roads suck because they don't spend the gas tax on maintaining them.
Re: (Score:2)
EU will now charge Amazon for their package deliveries on roads and the funds will go towards building new roads.
EU legislation defines that toll roads need to charges heavy-duty vehicles (trucks) for external cost-charge (CO2 emissions, other pollutant emissions, noise level) caused by vehicles on the roads. The goal is incentivize a renewal towards electric or otherwise less polluting fleets. Proceeds of the tax are used to improve the road system. The revision imposes a distance-based tax rather than time-based as was in place in some countries until recently.
Amazon is paying if they own heavy vehicles that circula
Re: (Score:2)
To formulate it in the terms of the original proposal: corporate users of [roads] are being taxed for the nuisances their heavy usage is causing in terms of [congestion and pollution], and money is used to create [better road system]. You can replace [roads] -> [telecom network] and [congestion and pollution] -> [bandwidth saturation]
A way to see it is it's the "polluter pays" principle.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Toll roads have existed for long, the only new thing is that now the toll for trucks is now proportional to the nuisances. It means they are using the toll as a leverage to influence purchase decisions of corporate trucks. You can reduce or eliminate the toll by choosing vehicles that pollute less. In the meantime, the heavy users that continue to pollute will pay, and the funds help to improve the network. I'm happy with the "polluters pay" principle that UK and USA introduced, before the EU adapted it. Ba
Re: In Other News (Score:2)
You realize those US companies keep declaring losses here, year after year, right?
Here, both Amazon and Starbucks in a UK parlementary commission hearing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
What are they still doing here, apart from ruining honest businesses?
honestly, why did it take so long? (Score:3)
Re:honestly, why did it take so long? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Water is a finite resource. You're paying for the water according to usage, but the cost of pipe rental is fixed.
A network connection exists wether its at 100% utilization or 0% utilization, same as a water pipe. The content (ie the water) is not provided by the telco, but actually come from third parties - especially content suppliers.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The idea that you shouldn't be charged for the amount you actually consume is a bit silly. We even charge for WATER by the amount you use, and that's more vital than internet.
Ah yes. I see you have completely swallowed the phone companies bullshit.
Internet bandwidth is not the same as water. The Phone companies and ISPs throw around words like "consume" but it is all bullshit. Nothing is being "consumed". It is just an excuse to get more money.
Someone else said it perfectly in a comment above. The ISPs don't have a bandwidth problem, they have a "I want more money" problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:honestly, why did it take so long? (Score:4, Interesting)
Companies already pay for outbound bandwidth and traffic flows from their data centers
And customers also already pay for inbound bandwidth and traffic flows to their home.
There is already double-dipping going on. Now the EU wants to, apparently, triple-dip?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is not a valid comparison. The cost of operating a network is the same whether it transmits bits or not. An idle telecoms network has the same operating cost as a fully utilised one.
Therefore paying by bandwidth is the best match to the underlying cost of the network, not by bytes transmitted.
Re: (Score:2)
This seems highly unlikely. Tech runs on electricity. If all your equipment is idling, it's using less power then when it is being fully utilized. So the difference is likely in the power bill the ISP pays. No idea how big of a difference this is and electricity usage doesn't really compared to water usage since we try to match power generation to demand where as water literally goes away when used.
EU regulates heavy streamers (Score:2, Funny)
The EU has had enough of overweight video streamers. In a new regulation, they are now required to pay a tax based on their body mass index (BMI). The EU hopes that this will encourage them to lead healthier lifestyles and reduce the amount of obesity-related healthcare costs.
Many overweight video streamers are outraged by the new regulation. They argue that it is discrimination and that their bodies should not be regulated by the government. However, the EU is standing firm on the regulation and says that it is necessary to help improve the health of its citizens.
Slippery slope (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
You've never been to the USA, have you? We're at the bottom of that slippery slope, where the taxpayer pays for all telecom upgrades and then has to pay by the gigabyte with usage caps and stiff overage charges for using the infrastructure that they and 5 generations of their descendants will pay for.
Re: (Score:2)
And we like it that way!!! Otherwise we wouldn't keep voting for the same crooks. every. single. time. In fact, we like paying numerous times for those wires to be installed but some how didn't get installed the first time we spent the money. Maybe THIS time will be different.
I suspect in another 10 years we'll be passing more legislation to give ISPs more money to close the digital divide though. Won't someone think of the poor politicians that need votes!!!
Insane and stupid (Score:3)
Absurdity (Score:2)
"Sir, our residents wants to visit popular cities in Europe, Lyon, Rome, London, Helsinki. We cannot have the infrastructure to build the local transport to match that demand. Please pass a law so that "heavy tourist destinations" will fund a high speed train to our local towns".
They can only come with this greedy idea, because there are no Internet destinations in EU. Yep, I said it. If EU had a healthy local technology sector, this would be shut down even before coming up for discussions. They know US (an
Re: (Score:2)
Google, Netflix, Amazon ... all have European subsidiaries based there and the content it different than the USA, and streamed locally ... ... These are USA based but international companies, they are EU destinations ...
Want to go to Disneyland ... there is also one in Paris, and they speak French there ...
So you want the customers to pay even more (Score:2)
That's all that this will do. Those big streamers are just going to pass the cost onto their customers. So really, EU wants all its residents to pay for the upgrades without directly taxing them for it. Such a Shining City on the Hill.
Re: (Score:2)
Traffic generators (Score:2)
The commission also asked companies whether there should be a threshold that would qualify a company to be a "large traffic generator," the document showed.
As though Netflix is just pushing bits out onto the backbone for no reason. It's the users generating the traffic. They're the ones who want that data, and the provider is just sending it to them to satisfy their request.