Telecom Experts Tell EU Leaders Their Plan To Tax ‘Big Tech’ On Behalf of ‘Big Telecom’ Is A Dumb Idea

from the please-pay-us-billions-of-dollars-for-absolutely-no-reason dept

Last year we noted how FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr had launched a bad faith effort suggesting that “big tech” gets a “free ride” on the internet, and should be forced to fund broadband expansion. This argument, that tech giants like Google and Netflix somehow get a free ride (they don’t) and should “pay their fair share” to fund broadband expansion is a 20 year old AT&T lobbyist talking point.

It’s basically just a telecom lobbying effort to exploit growing (and often valid) animosity at “big tech” to pad big telecom’s coffers. And despite being violently stupid, it’s contagious and spreading.

As the EU contemplates its digital policy trajectory for the next decade, the idea that “big tech” should pay “big telecom” for no coherent reason has also managed to unsurprisingly surface. The rhetoric, that “big tech” gets a “free ride” on the Internet and should therefore give telecom giants billions of dollars, directly mirrors the policy con telecom giants have been running in the U.S. since 2003 or so.

Hoping to talk some sense into EU leaders, a coalition of 29 telecom experts and academics (including myself) have signed off on a letter to EU Commissioners Margrethe Vestager and Thierry Breton, urging them to fight back against the telecom industry’s ploy to tax big tech:

The ideas behind this proposal represent a fundamental misunderstanding of the structure of the internet. First, just like prior proposals, this proposal is based on the mistaken assumption that content providers are causing traffic on broadband networks. Broadband users are requesting this traffic, and they already pay their broadband providers to deliver this traffic to them. Forcing content providers to pay broadband providers for delivering this traffic to their subscribers just results in broadband providers getting paid twice for the same service.

Telecom lobbyists approach a captured politician, urging them to embrace making “big tech” pay for broadband funding. This is then framed as a noble quest to “cure the digital divide,” providing said politician with political brownie points.

The problem, in both the U.S. and the EU, is that telecom giants have hoovered up countless billions in taxpayer dollars for next-generation networks that are then never fully delivered. The answer to this problem is holding telecom giants accountable for decades of subsidy fraud, ensuring that the money we’re already throwing at telecoms is actually used to fund future-proof fiber and 5G.

We’re generally… not doing that. Instead, telecom giants have shifted the conversation to line their pockets further, which is usually dressed up as an adult policy conversation when it’s anything but.

Carl Gahnberg and David Frautschy at The Internet Society have also penned a more technical piece explaining why the plan is a dumb idea. And they’re quick to focus on what happened in South Korea, where clumsy “sender pays” regulation has resulted in an environment where ISPs often try to claim that companies like Netflix owe them even more money just because certain shows are successful.

If you’re interested, Harold Feld had a good Twitter thread explaining how longstanding “sender pays” peering arrangements terminology in telecom was hijacked by industry lobbyists to try and make their cash grab sound like adult policy making:

In telecom policy circles, there’s a lot of technical and legal jargon that tends to obscure what’s actually happening here. And what’s happening is that influential telecom giants are corrupting the regulatory process to effectively double dip and get paid extra for absolutely no reason.

Fortunately there’s a “tell” for which politicians and regulators are operating in bad faith on this subject. One, they’ll always claim “big tech” gets a “free ride on the Internet” (or some variation) despite the fact tech giants pay billions for infrastructure or bandwidth. Two, they’ll rarely meaningfully support telecom subsidy reform if it at all inconveniences the biggest telecom giants.

If you want to address the digital divide, the very first step should be reform of existing telecom subsidy programs so that you ensure existing funds aren’t wasted. These guys with a head full of telecom lobbyist chatter don’t do that; they instead immediately turn to the idea of taxing giant tech companies, throwing even more cash in the laps of a telecom industry with a fifty year history of outright fraud.

That’s not to say there’s not a future where tech giants help subsidize broadband to the poor. But right now, most of these pushes aren’t being proposed in good faith. They’re being proposed by captured policymakers with a pocket full of telecom campaign cash, looking to capitalize on big tech animosity to throw billions of additional dollars at a telecom industry whose subsidy fraud we generally refuse to police.

Filed Under: , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Telecom Experts Tell EU Leaders Their Plan To Tax ‘Big Tech’ On Behalf of ‘Big Telecom’ Is A Dumb Idea”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
18 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

Gotta love it when the rich fight the rich. End of the day, no matter how this turns out… the customer/tax payer will lose. Either in higher prices or wasted tax payer money. This is like whenever baseball contracts are up and millionaires are fighting billionaires and both sides are claiming they are only “concerned about how the fans are being hurt.”

Anonymous Coward says:

And they’re quick to focus on what happened in South Korea, where clumsy “sender pays” regulation has resulted in an environment where ISPs often try to claim that companies like Netflix owe them even more money just because certain shows are successful.

It sounds like we should be a lot more worried about (South Korean[1]) courts using drugs (while court is in session), than about drug dealers attempting to send large monetary amount of drugs (with basically zero prospect of recovery, let alone profits) at children, in the hope of killing them.

[1] And Maybe elsewhere…

Anonymous Coward says:

I fail to see how sender pays doesn’t make sense.
Though the truth is that sending and receiving cost the same to the tech companies, IP traffic can be sent without consent. Unless we bill UDP and TCP differently, how does receiver pays make sense?

I downloading videos costs money, then I should chose if I want to pay at the time before the video is downloaded, not after I download it. Receiver pays is a form of non-consensual billing.

Receiver pays makes me pay for Google’s advertisements as part of my Internet bill. I’m paying for websites’ bloated javascript. That’s messed up. Receiver pays is double dipping. Receiver pays incentivizes wasting bandwidth because the receiver pays for it.

If I open a website, I’m not told how much it will cost to load the page. I can’t say “no this page is too expensive”.

I think sender pays is better in the long term, but the alternative solution could be a way to limit incoming traffic by specific IPs/ranges by something like igmp and ways to allocate it between users, however sender pays is simpler to implement and doesn’t create firewall issues.

I’m s fan of sender pays in principle but we need some kind of Traffic Billing Management Protocol or something to check how much it will cost to send data and manage how much our children can spend on data.

Bonus points for variable rate billing that decreases costs when a given route has lots of surplus capacity, like in the middle of the night.

Diogenes says:

Re: I already paid them for this

I already paid them good money for a 100GB internet connection. If they also charge netflix to send me that data then they are double dipping. But as the article points out if its sender pays then all households should get 100GB free internet. You may like it but the isps obviously wont go for that choice.

Bergman (profile) says:

Re: Re:

They are ALREADY double-dipping. Netflix has an internet connection that they have to pay for just like you do, except they pay for more upload speed than they do download speed. They also pay for a LOT more connection than you do – where you pay a few dozen to a few hundred dollars a month, Netflix pays millions.

What Big Telecom wants is to be not only allowed to triple dip, they want it to be mandated by law that they get their triple dip. So Netflix pays millions per month to be able to send content, you pay a hundred or so a month to get content sent to you, and then Netflix has to pay Big Telecom again for the services they have already paid for, because reasons.

This ignores the fact that much of the network Netflix sends through is actually owned by Netflix, that they spent even more on than they do for a year of internet bought from Big Telecom.

The way it works is you load up your Netflix app, it contacts a Netflix server via the internet connection you pay for, and asks for a list of content, which is sent to you through that network you’ve paid for. You then select your content, pay for it, and it is sent to you from a Netflix Content Delivery Network – 90% of the network that carries the content to you in most countries is owned by Netflix, not your ISP or any other ISP.

That’s how it works now. Both you and Netflix have paid Big Telecom for access to their network, at exorbitant prices for that access, wholly decided by Big Telecom. If the service isn’t profitable, they raise their rates – on both ends – until it is profitable again.

What Big Telecom wants is for Netflix to have to pay them a second time, to deliver the content you bought from Netflix to you, over the network you already paid for, even though Netflix already paid them to do so.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
James Burkhardt (profile) says:

Re:

Id reccommend reading the twitter thread linked in the article. I discusses how ISPs would not want an actual sender pays system and broadly what that actually means.

I might spend the time to highlight the numerous misconceptions you have about the topic tonight, but since that’s going to be much later:

A) the alternative to sender pays is not receiver pays.

B) Your comments on the unfairness of receiver pays make a great argument against metered billing. You then spend the rest of the comment talking about how great metered billing under sender pays is. You pay for Google’s advertisements either way.

C) The sender is not Netflix, its netflix’s ISP. The ‘reciever’ is not you, but your ISP (the terminating network).

Id recommend learning more about what sender pays means in a telecommunications context, and the history of why we dumped it because you seem undereducated about the topic.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re:

“Though the truth is that sending and receiving cost the same to the tech companies, IP traffic can be sent without consent. Unless we bill UDP and TCP differently, how does receiver pays make sense?”

The entire argument is moot from any logic.

Consumers have already paid their subscription for X Mbit/s, 24/7. That’s already the end of it. The ISP’s been paid for the use of that bandwidth.

Now they want to be paid again by every entity which responds to the requests of the already paid-up consumer?

In any sane and rational world the mere attempt to get this legislated should have seen the telecoms proposing it incarcerated for fraud.

Anonymous Coward says:

One, they’ll always claim “big tech” gets a “free ride on the Internet” (or some variation) despite the fact tech giants pay billions for infrastructure or bandwidth.

I rarely see this mentioned. It’s not like Big Tech don’t already pay ISPs for connectivity so they can be on the internet in the first place. IDK how much it costs to keep a datacenter with fat data pipes online, but I’m certain that ISPs are already charging an arm and a leg for it.

Anonymous Coward says:

oh well. that means it’ll definitely happen then! anything that makes absolutely no sense, especially if the idea has come from or been tried in the USA, some stupid politician(s) will want to bring it in! the fact that it’s the telecoms companies that are behind the idea, to try to take away the fact that they have been stealing monies from peoples tax payments, is irrelevant!!

That One Guy (profile) says:

If you can't use what you already have responsibly...

No worries, I’m sure that despite the fact they couldn’t be bothered to use the government subsidies for what they were meant for rather than just padded exec bonuses the ISPs will definitely use the money extorted from the likes of Google to build out and maintain their networks rather than pad exec bonuses and whine about how they need more money.

Maxander (profile) says:

Here me out.

I think i found a solution to this dilemma.

All we need to do is to have the ISP charge corporations for the traffic their services generate. then just charge the end user for their use.

After you done that, you then take the profit made from this and invest it in infrastructure so you can charge for even more traffic. Repeat as needed.

I know my solution is somewhat novell, but I think it just might have a shot of working.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...