EU seeks input on making tech companies pay for ISPs’ network upgrades

EU opens proceeding that could mandate direct payments from content providers.

See full article...

 

[deltaproximus]

If anyone believes ISPs would use forced tech company payments to improve the network rather than just increase shareholder profit, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell them.

 

[galahad05]

Yeah I'm not feeling any sympathy with the telcos in this.

 

[Sarty]

I'm sure all the big ISPs would recognize that they now had greatly increased revenue against essentially unchanged costs, and rather than milk that for all it was worth, they'd institute commensurate price reductions for the end customers.

Right?

 

[ryanja]

What, the EU doesn't just give public money to telecoms to spend on hookers and blow instead of the original use of expanding their privately owned for-profit infrastructure like the US does?

 

[Resolute]

Telefonica CEO José María Álvarez-Pallete López told Reuters that payments from tech companies "would not be like a tax—we would charge them like they were customers. Why do some customers pay and others not? It's correcting an anomaly."

When an argument this disingenuous is put forward, you can be certain that the telcos are full of shit.

That said, I've little sympathy for the tech giants either. All the taxes they evade on a global scale could certainly be paying for things like upgrades to essential infrastructure, of which the internet is.

 

[jhodge]

The telcos are already getting paid when they charge for access/transit as the case may be. If they've agreed to peering with Google, etc., then not charging is their choice.

I can't make any logical sense whatsoever of the claim that telcos are deserving of direct payment from entities that are not their customers.

 

[jamesonista]

Let's just make telcos common carriers, and then be done with all this bs (I suppose that only matters in the USA)

 

[xoa]

That this flagrant double dipping argument by local natural monopolies still gets the slightest bit of airtime is a mixture of ludicrous and terrifying. The very idea is outrageous, they aren't a charity, they're already squeezing their actual customers for everything they're worth. What are we all paying [many]$€£¥/month for already!?!!??! To access the internet, for whatever we want! Our money as customers of the ISP is what they're supposed to be using for maintenance and upgrades, yet obviously so many cannot be bothered vs harvesting profit and now are putting our money into lobbying to do more rent seeking from others instead. Disgusting.

 

[enlightened.doggo]

Companies already pay networking costs either indirectly through their hosting providers, or in instances where they own their datacenters they do so directly. Just another attempt by ISPs to double dip.

 

[darkwordsman]

I almost want to say, do this, let telcos face actual capitalism and we'll see the tech companies develop their own networks instead (the telcos have to know that most of them already have been looking to do that type of thing, with Google Fiber, Facebook's balloon networks, Amazon and Tesla with satellite, and I think Microsoft and Apple each looked into possibly buying into cellular companies - they all have the money to do it and especially if they partnered up they could easily put a major hurt on telcos very quickly), putting the telcos out of business. But then that will just further entrench the horrible "ecosystem" BS that we're already dealing with and further strengthen tech companies' boa constrictor control of our modern and future lives.

 

[Jackattak]

This is something right out of The Onion.

Shirley, they can’t be serious. Unless ISPs in the EU function completely differently and have ethics or something.

 

[Gern Blaanston]

Companies already pay networking costs either indirectly through their hosting providers, or in instances where they own their datacenters they do so directly. Just another attempt by ISPs to double dip.

Actually this isn't a double dip, it is an attempted Triple Dip.

For example, YouTube. In order for me to watch a YouTube video two things have to happen:

(1) Google/YouTube has to pay for Internet connectivity (otherwise their videos wouldn't be accessible).
(2) I have to pay for Internet connectivity.

So, the telecoms are already getting paid twice for the same thing. Now they want to be paid three times.

 

[accantant]

What, the EU doesn't just give public money to telecoms to spend on hookers and blow instead of the original use of expanding their privately owned for-profit infrastructure like the US does?

Wellll... Some EU countries just invest in a national ISP, then privatize it "because the free market would be more efficient", effectively gifting this newly created company a monopoly and halting progress for years on end.

 

[Nora Lenderbee]

On the other hand, if Google and Netflix were required to contribute to network upgrades, perhaps they would be able to force the upgrades to actually happen?

Nah, I think the law of unintended consequences would simply end up costing the consumer.

 

[ryanja]

Actually this isn't a double dip, it is an attempted Triple Dip.

For example, YouTube. In order for me to watch a YouTube video two things have to happen:

(1) Google/YouTube has to pay for Internet connectivity (otherwise their videos wouldn't be accessible).
(2) I have to pay for Internet connectivity.

So, the telecoms are already getting paid twice for the same thing. Now they want to be paid three times.

This is reminiscent of the time Comcast held Netflix hostage, throttling their streaming services in spite of saying they were not throttling them and it was all just a mere coinky-dink.

 

[Ralf The Dog]

I have an idea, how about the companies that are hosting content pay for the server side of the network and clients can pay for the client side of the network. They could do this by paying the networking companies that are providing their own service.

 

[Defenestrar]

I don't get it. Don't content providers have to pay for their network access? Are they big enough that they own their own infrastructure and have negotiated peering agreements? If not, why not raise the commercial rates and reinvest in the infrastructure? Or is this a case where some of the more local ISPs are getting shafted by not getting their cut from the upstream carriers? Or is it regulatory? Could (regulatorily) fixed rates not be keeping up with actual expenses?

 

[stormcrash]

I don't know why this keeps coming up, it's such bullshit. Both users and online services are already paying their ISPs for bandwidth/service, and those prices should already be set to allow maintaining and upgrading service. If not the ISPS can get some bonds/financing and make it back on new higher speed service. But no they want to shovel all the money into their pockets and governments keep just wanting to go along with it as they plead poverty

 

[Ralf The Dog]

I don't get it. Don't content providers have to pay for their network access? Are they big enough that they own their own infrastructure and have negotiated peering agreements? If not, why not raise the commercial rates and reinvest in the infrastructure? Or is this a case where some of the more local ISPs are getting shafted by not getting their cut from the upstream carriers? Or is it regulatory? Could (regulatorily) fixed rates not be keeping up with actual expenses?

The theory is, if Youtube did not provide so much content, their customers would not use as much data.

 

[MechR]

The telcos pay corporation taxes in the EU. The EU are fully aware that this is just transferring profits between two companies, but that transfer makes tax revenue for the EU.

Funny that, tech companies are nominally EU-based too, but for tax-dodging purposes.

 

[icrf]

So telcos are just upset their profit margins aren't as fat as the companies that use their services? How about just charging data centers or interconnect providers higher costs. That would achieve the same thing, and be within the capitalist market already established.

This just sounds like a shovel manufacturer complaining when an owner of its shovel strikes gold and they don't get a cut. Okay, that's a pretty crappy comparison, but so is what the telcos are claiming.

 

[keltor]

Fix tax loopholes and stop protectionism (because this is pretty clearly protectionism at its finest.)

 

[SpeakThunder]

If they mandate this for "network expansion" then that network better be owned by the public and not free capital for companies that abuse they're government protected monopolies and have some of the worst customer service out of any type of company. No thank you.

 

[lithven]

The theory is, if Youtube did not provide so much content, their customers would not use as much data.

That's the argument but I'm not paying for a symmetric gigabit connection to read gopher, usenet, and text-only email.

 

[wawah]

Bullshit. .

 

[furrythundar]

I may have glossed over it in the article but I was pleasantly surprised to find that the survey is open to non-EU residents as well.

 

[ichijo]

If I am forced to contribute to your network upgrade, then perhaps that should give me a stake in your company, a share of your profits and a seat on your board.

 

[tjukken]

That this flagrant double dipping argument by local natural monopolies still gets the slightest bit of airtime is a mixture of ludicrous and terrifying.

In this case it's triple dipping. First, the consumer has to pay for Internet access. Then content providers have to pay for ISP upgrades AND for data transfers.

 

[msaroff]

I'm sure all the big ISPs would recognize that they now had greatly increased revenue against essentially unchanged costs, and rather than milk that for all it was worth, they'd institute commensurate price reductions for the end customers.

Right?

An almost perfect post, Just needs the meme generator:

 

[Jeff S]

Either, A) ISPs in Europe are charging their customers enough for the network, and they should get lost because they are just being greedy, demanding revenue for service their customers already paid for, or
B) They are not charging customers enough for the network, and they should just raise prices,

ISP customers should pay for the network, not content providers. The content providers give the ISPs network value, for free. If anything, ISPs should pay content providers. But they shouldn't, because it's been working fine for decades that customers pay once to ISPs for comms, and once to content providers (either through subs, purchases, or ads) for content.

 

[bugabuga]

Of course, should this nonsense pass ISPs will ONLY rely on content provider's payments for upgrades. "We know you continue to pay monthly fees for service and your speed sucks really badly but it's all Google/YouTube's and Netflix's fault! They only sent us so much money and upgrades are now extra expensive! Also please don't think too much about how we used to be to upgrade and have profits before they were forced to pay, those were dark times with lower profits, okay?".

 

[samanime]

So...
Stupid...

Why won't this idea just die? The ISPs have CUSTOMERS that give them MONEY to provide a SERVICE. Upgrading the ISPs' networks to meet the demands of the ISPs' customers is the ISPs' problem. The ISPs have been trying to double- or triple-dip for ages. Thankfully, they've mostly failed for now (aside for occasional small-scale stupidity). Hopefully this one will fail to.

Without the content providers, customers would have no reason to purchase from the ISPs. The content providers provide value for the ISPs already.

 

[JerryLove]

I wasn't aware that Tech companies got their internet access for free. I was pretty sure that they already paid hefty fees to internet backbone providers to host them... thus funding the backbone.

 

[ogvars]

Power companies better pay attention. All those appliances and light bulbs companies selling product that suck up all that energy.

 

[graylshaped]

If anyone believes ISPs would use forced tech company payments to improve the network rather than just increase shareholder profit, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell them.

It turns out it's the purported bridge to nowhere.