Dutch Officials Warn That Big Telecom’s Plan To Tax ‘Big Tech’ Is A Dangerous Dud
from the the-net-neutrality-wars-will-never-die dept
For much of the last year, European telecom giants have been pushing for a tax on Big Tech company profits. They’ve tried desperately to dress it up as a reasonable adult policy proposal, but it’s effectively just the same thing we saw during the U.S. net neutrality wars: telecom monopolies demanding other people pay them an additional troll toll — for no coherent reason.
To sell captured lawmakers on the idea, telecom giants have falsely claimed that Big Tech companies get a “free ride” on the Internet (just as they did during the U.S. net neutrality wars). To fix this problem they completely made up, Big Telecom argues Big Tech should be forced to help pay for the kind of broadband infrastructure upgrades the telecoms have routinely neglected for years.
It’s a big, dumb con. But yet again, telecom lobbyists have somehow convinced regulators that this blind cash grab is somehow sensible, adult policy. Dutifully, European Commission’s industry chief Thierry Breton (himself a former telecom exec) said last September he would launch a consultation on this “fair share” payment scheme in early 2023, ahead of any proposed legislation.
Hoping to steer Breton away from the idea, The European Internet Exchange Association, a coalition of key transit companies, recently warned that trying to sock tech giants with arbitrary polls would result in a less stable internet overall, as companies try to route their traffic around ISPs looking for an extra buck.
Similarly, Dutch Economic Affairs Minister Micky Adriaansens is warning Breton that tech giants will simply offload the higher costs of internet access to consumers (something we’re already seeing in South Korea where such a proposal has already been implemented at telecom lobbyist demand):
“It will penalise the consumers,” she told Reuters in an interview, saying that consumers who pay subscription fees to telecoms providers and also subscribe to streaming and video services may see the latter fees go up with Big Tech likely to pass on the internet tax.
Regulators worldwide are increasingly looking for ways to bridge the “digital divide” and shore up subsidy funding for broadband expansion.
But they’re often not looking at the real problem. Both in the EU and North America, regulators routinely and mindlessly let telecom giants consolidate and monopolize an essential utility. Those monopolies then work tirelessly to drive up rates and crush competition. And, utilizing their lobbying power, they’ve also routinely gleaned billions in subsidies for networks they routinely half-complete.
Serious reform would involve embracing policies that challenge monopolization, and engage in meaningful subsidy reform — ensuring that the billions we give telecom giants first actually go toward meaningful network improvements. Once you’ve done that, you can focus on additional funding mechanisms if they actually make sense.
Instead, EU regulators have decided to embrace a plan that involves Big Tech giving Big Telecom billions of additional dollars for no coherent reason. All while EU providers like Telefonica pretend that erecting these new troll tolls will result in “top-notch digital infrastructure” and are “key to our future quality of life, prosperity, and competitiveness.”
If the EU successfully implements such a scheme, you can be absolutely sure the next step will be the U.S., with captured regulators like Brendan Carr (who has been beating this idiotic drum for a few years now) at the front of the parade at Comcast’s and AT&T’s behest.
Filed Under: broadband, eu, fair share, high speed internet, sender pays, telecom, telecom tax, thierry breton

Comments on “Dutch Officials Warn That Big Telecom’s Plan To Tax ‘Big Tech’ Is A Dangerous Dud”
“All while EU providers like Telefonica pretend that erecting these new troll tolls will result in “top-notch digital infrastructure” and are “key to our future quality of life, prosperity, and competitiveness.””
What’s hilarious to me with that is that I use Telefonica. In the last few years, I’ve gone from a 300Mbps fibre line to a 1Gbps line – free of charge. I didn’t ask for the upgrades, they just notified me that I have the upgrade when it was available. I don’t always get that speed, admittedly, but I haven’t yet encountered something where my usage actually requires the full gig of bandwidth.
Apart from all the other nonsense about what’s clearly an attempt at triple dipping based on the obviously false claim that Netflix et al get free bandwidth and someone else other than the customer using the line should be charged for it – they’re obviously not hurting for capacity (in my area, at least), if they can triple my bandwidth at no additional cost. Then, of course, how deluded do you have to be to think that adding massive extra costs to suppliers won’t be passed on to customers?
“They’ve got money! Help me get it away from them!”
– Big Telecom, referring to Big Tech
– “Traditional News”, referring to Search Engines.
Re:
Re:
-Recording industry, referring to listeners
Re: Re:
Well, the RIAA and their counterparts didn’t really care about “listeners”, they just wanted to be paid. They tried various taxes on blank media (present in some countries but not the US IIRC) and the RIAA did try having new taxes on iPods and the like because piracy existed – but you’d still pay even if you never pirated or you used the media for something other than music (or, if you used it to record your own music!), and of course you’d still be sued for piracy even though you technically already paid.
At least with this nonsense scheme, you’d have to be subscribed to Netflix, et al. to be charged extra, they wouldn’t just charge you just for having the internet.
Re: Re: Re:
When they charge advertising supported platforms more, advertising rates go up, and everybody pays by a minor increase in the costs of goods.
Re: Re: Re:
The US does have a blank media tax, unfortunately.
That should be “gleaned”. To glean is to come after the reapers and pick up what’s left. To ‘gleam’ is to shine brightly.
Re:
and personally I don’t like the usage in this context. Gleaning is, as mentioned, taking the things left behind after the harvest is completed, not just hijacking the truckloads of produce. Taking money for things you don’t then supply would be called theft, by most people at least.
The scorpion is sure not to sting the three-hundred and third frog!
You gotta love an argument that boils down to ‘if we throw more money at the companies that have already demonstrated that they will just pocket it to pad their own profits rather than do what the promised they’re sure to follow through this time’.
Instead, EU regulators have decided to embrace a plan that involves Big Tech giving Big Telecom billions of additional dollars for no coherent reason.
Oh I wouldn’t say that, ‘they have money, make them give us that money and we’ll kick some of it your way’ is coherent enough, what it’s not is something they’d ever be honest enough to admit to.
So, free internet access?
If “Big Tech” is paying to send content to us, why do we need to pay the ISPs?
Thanks for sharing. It is very helpful for me and also informative for all those users who will come to read.