EU Eyes Big Tech as it Seeks Feedback on Who Should Pay Network Costs (reuters.com) 56
The European Commission on Thursday launched a consultation on the future of Europe's telecoms sector, starting a process that could lead to requiring Alphabet's Google, Apple, Meta and Netflix to pay some network costs. From a report: For more than two decades Deutsche Telekom, Orange, Telefonica, Telecom Italia and other operators have lobbied for leading technology companies to contribute to 5G and broadband roll-out. They argue companies including Amazon and Microsoft account for more than half of data internet traffic. The tech firms in response call it an internet tax that will undermine EU network neutrality rules to treat all users equally. The 12-week consultation will end on May 19. EU industry chief Thierry Breton cited the heavy investments required to roll out 5G and broadband, saying he was not targeting any company.
Oh, bullshit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope, their paying customers account for 100% of the Internet traffic they carry.
Re: (Score:3)
Pretty much this. Just another twist on somebody want a legally enforced ride on somebody else.
Telcos should charge going rates of sufficient to handle the traffic from their paying customers. This means you, not Netflix.
Yes there are growth pains, and these companies have helped out with money and additional data centers to avoid broadcasting the latest episode of Wednesday half a million times at once from a central spot.
No need for permanent redirection of content provider profits to telcos, kthxbie.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like pretty soon Amazon and Microsoft will be paying customers.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. That's like governments trying to charge the car manufacturers for the road wear and tear caused by the cars they sell, instead of making the actual car drivers pay via driving licenses, license plates, toll booths, fuel taxes, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
They better watch what they ask for, because Microsoft, Amazon and Google may just end up buying core internet infrastructure in the US and charge THEM (EU, KR ISP's) to reach US content, while charging each other nothing.
The ideal situation is that all ISP's operate and continue to operate peering in a way that costs each other nothing, like they should be, and directing traffic, and NOT charge their customers for bandwidth used, only the size of the bandwidth pipe.
The last thing we want is consolidation i
They already pay (Score:5, Insightful)
They already pay for connectivity and bandwidth, this is just another useless tax on the industry.
Re:They already pay (Score:5, Insightful)
They already pay for connectivity and bandwidth.
Correct. Let's use YouTube as an example. In order for me to watch a video on YouTube, two things have to happen:
(1) Google has to pay for an Internet connection so that their videos are accessible
(B) I have to pay for an Internet connection so that I access their videos
The telecoms are already getting paid twice. This is just a scam they have dreamed up so that they can get paid three times instead of two.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: They already pay (Score:2)
This is because they got used to charging both ends and think they should be getting more. We had to pay to make and pay to accept the same phone call, then texts, and now internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that Google owns some of the infrastructure, and so do some of the ISPs.
That makes it hard for YouTube rivals to afford the bandwidth to deliver video, especially when they are probably getting less ad revenue too. It also makes it hard for smaller ISPs who don't own infrastructure and have to rent it all to compete.
The EU likes competition, it keeps prices down and spurs innovation. The EU isn't very keen on monopolies either.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought that on Slashdot people would know at least basics about how the internet works. Generally speaking, no, Microsoft or Amazon would not be paying for bandwidth. They peer with the ISP's and won't have to pay for sending data to them.
So if you send a GB of data using amazon you pay say 10 cents. Some backbones and such might charge them a little for transit but those ISP's generally won't charge them. Essentially they just pay for their hardware.
Because Amazon and Microsoft have so much market power
Re: (Score:2)
Services and Content drive demand, If I use a streaming service, say Netflix I'm already paying for the bandwidth to use that service. Charging Netflix for just putting content out there is double-taxing the service because I already pay taxes on the communications I consume. It doesn't matter who generates the content w/o consumption of that content there is no revenue stream to tax.
ISPs have a revenue model, As a content provider I can also provide my own backbone and just use ISPs for localized bandwidth
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, that sounds crazy to me. What am I missing?
If you say no to huge market power, I would think that the worst thing that might happen, is that you'll make $0 instead of negative millions.
Isn't breaking even by firing your customers and closing your business, better than losing money? If it's a losing situation, let some other poor shmuck be the loser..
..Until there are no other poor shmucks. Then Ama
Re: (Score:2)
So in other words Microsoft/Amazon are still paying for what is required to get the data to the ISP? (If the backbone is not charging them much then not a lot is required for it)
Re: (Score:2)
>Because Amazon and Microsoft have so much market power, ISP's basically can't say no to this arrangement.
If they are offering to get me their data cheaper then what it would cost me to get it from someone else why would I say no?
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. This is a Telco money grab, as it has been for years.
Don't do it and this is why: (Score:3)
If they're specially taxed they'll naturally demand a say in how things are run.
Consumers pay for services and have some freedom however little to accept or reject doing business with a given company. Altering that deal is asking to be exploited by those who can afford the best lawyers.
Re: (Score:3)
The consumer will (and should) ultimately bear the cost of any change here - either they get charged more by the telcos who they buy consumer ISP services off, or they see their tech service costs rise as Netflix, Disney et al pass the costs on to them as their customer and thus revenue stream.
All the EU are doing is asking who gets stiffed with the negative PR for having to raise prices.
What I would like to see discussed is how does this enforced network cost responsibility gel when it comes to content del
They sell data (Score:2)
The telcos sell Data to their customers.
Tech companies provide that data to them.
Now you want them to pay to provide the product you sell to your customers?
Re: (Score:1)
Hell no... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Who exactly does big tech pay on their end? As an Azure user you pay Microsoft to send data at exorbitant rates. As an ISP client you pay your isp for bandwidth. In the EU Microsoft doesn't pay anyone for data. They do peering on internet exchanges.
Re: (Score:2)
Who exactly does big tech pay on their end? As an Azure user you pay Microsoft to send data at exorbitant rates. As an ISP client you pay your isp for bandwidth. In the EU Microsoft doesn't pay anyone for data. They do peering on internet exchanges.
What does Microsoft pay for the hardware/software and fiber to get their data to the peering point? What you're trying to tell us is that Microsoft doesn't have any costs...and you're wrong, and exactly the type of person the EU telcoss hope will comment on this rule.
Re: (Score:2)
I replied to someone that talked about paying for traffic and specifically specified data. Why would the EU care that Microsoft (like everyone else) pays for their own computers. Microsoft sends money to Cisco, then leverages their monopoly to get free data paid for with EU subsidies. The Cisco part is irrelevant. Meanwhile smaller companies pay for those same data services.
lol that's crazy (Score:1)
that's like the power companies ask electronic appliances manufacturers to share their profit.
Re: (Score:1)
No, more like grid operators charging power plants for services rendered. Which they do. The electronic appliance equivalent is someone like Dell that makes your laptop. They don't get charged for bandwidth.
Re: (Score:2)
No, more like grid operators charging power plants for services rendered AND consumers for the same services rendered.
There is no chance at all that consumer telco costs will go down if this takes effect. There is a certainty than telco profits will go up as they get extra revenue for providing the same service to the same people.
This is regulatory capture by oligopolists, pure and simple.
Re: (Score:2)
No, more like grid operators charging power plants for services rendered AND consumers for the same services rendered.
That's exactly what happens with grid operators.
There is no chance at all that consumer telco costs will go down if this takes effect.
Bit early to say that as there is plenty of precedent of the EU forcing telco's to lower consumer costs. Either way this is about smaller European companies having to pay network cost, but big companies like Microsoft abusing their market power to force getting those services for free. So it may force a single pricing structure for all companies, lowering prices for small ones and raising (from zero) for big ones.
Re: (Score:2)
It's more like demanding that car manufacturers pay for road upgrades. Imagine the European outrage if the US tried to do that for German cars.
Somebody flunked Business 101 (Score:2)
Hey European telco idiots, your subscribers are the ones who are supposed to be paying the cost for maintaining and upgrading network infrastructure. Perhaps you need to sit down and do an operating budget, then adjust your service rates appropriately. I know math is hard, but you can do it!
Re: (Score:1)
In the US Comcast throttled Netflix to essentially blackmail them into paying bandwidth fees. In most US states this is perfectly legal. In the EU with net neutrality rules that is not possible. But sure, stay on your high horse.
Re: (Score:2)
That seems like a non sequitur with regards to the post you're ostensibly responding to. The GP said "hey this European idea is dumb", and you basically responded "oh yeah, well here's something stupid that happened in the US".
Re: (Score:2)
The poster said that european telcos are stupid because subscribers are supposed to be paying the cost. Explaining how that exact same thing isn't true in his own country is relevant. He should have said telco's are stupid because they don't provide free services to his favorite billionaires, no nees to specify European.
Mercantilism 101 (Score:2)
Pretty much all the content providers are foreign. If they are already charging what the market will bear, increasing taxes on them is a win win for the EU.
Mercantilism, it works.
Re: (Score:2)
Note this is what the Internet service providers have already tried multiple times to do in the USA ...
The difference is here we have competition - so prices are lower, and so there is a greater will push this
Corruption (Score:2)
They have free Internet? (Score:2)
<sarcasm> Wow I didn't realise that tech companies have free Internet access in the EU. I was so ignorant that I though they had to pay for a connection based on speed and or data used like everyone else. Shame on them, the EU is right they should pay just like everyone else. </sarcasm>
Blatant money grab (Score:2)
Typical for the EU bureaucrats.
These companies pay for their access.
Their customers pay for their access.
Now the ministers think they should be charged again?
Give you one guess who they believe should be charged again...next?
Re: (Score:3)
Typical for the EU bureaucrats.
Cite other examples then if it is so typical. While you're at it point to any country where bureaucrats always propose perfect and sane laws.
Check your bias, you look a bit stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
It's nonstop:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/0... [nytimes.com]
$14.9 bn from Apple
https://www.voanews.com/a/meta... [voanews.com]
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/0... [nytimes.com]
https://www.reuters.com/articl... [reuters.com]
This is just the EU's metier - a vaguely anti-capitalist stance that companies and people are just big bags of money they can use to squeeze whenever they need more funding for their dumb priorities.
And to be clear, no, no other government is perfect. I never even hinted they were. Just observing that the EU's particular flavor is bitter rage w
Re: (Score:1)
Oh LOL. You think fining companies for breaching the law = moneygrab? Holy crap you've been sucking on the coolaid dispensing teat of corporate propaganda for too long.
Normally I'd offer advice about how the world works but I think you may be too far gone for it to be worthwhile.
Re: (Score:2)
I think finessing the law to punish companies - for example Apple, which made a deal with the still-nominally-sovereign government of Ireland - because they happen to have made giant piles of cash should make anyone suspicious.
Cloaking theft in legal camouflage* is something communist governments do routinely. I wouldn't say that it's admirable that the EU has learned how to do it.
It's pretty usual "Liberal argument 101" to say "ugh, you don't agree with my worldview so I can't be bothered to justify it".
WTF? (Score:2)
Last I checked, Google has been providing Tier-1 fallback services to most Tier-2 providers for years. The idea is that Google won't work as your default transit, but they will make it so massive Tier-2 ISP only need to uplink to a single Tier-2 and to Google. Google gives them a free fallback to cover outages of the Tier-1.
I thi