EU Lawmakers Slam 'Radical Proposal' To Let ISPs Demand New Fees From Websites (arstechnica.com) 42
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Fifty-four members of the European Parliament (MEPs) are protesting what they call a "radical proposal" to require payments from online service providers to Internet service providers. Noting that Europe's 2015 "Open Internet Regulation ensures that citizens are free to use whichever apps and websites they wish," the MEPs said they have "deep concern about the European Commission's plans to change our net neutrality legislation in the upcoming Connectivity Infrastructure Act to be proposed in autumn, without having consulted the public, technology experts, academics, civil society, or expert regulatory agencies."
No specific proposal has been released, but "statements to the press indicate that a new provision would require payments from online service providers to broadband providers -- ostensibly to fund the rollout of 5G and fiber to the home," the MEPs wrote in the letter yesterday (PDF) to the European Commission. The letter cited a May 2 Reuters article that said, "Tech giants such as Google, Meta, and Netflix may have to bear some of the cost of Europe's telecoms network, Europe's digital chief Margrethe Vestager said on Monday, following EU telecoms operators' complaints." The MEPs' list of references also includes two Ars Technica articles from 2012 when a similar proposal was being discussed.
Vestager reportedly said at a news conference that "there are players who generate a lot of traffic that then enables their business but who have not been contributing actually to enable that traffic. They have not been contributing to enabling the investments in the rollout of connectivity... and we are in the process of getting a thorough understanding of how could that be enabled." [...] The MEPs' letter further argued that charging websites for access to broadband consumers would help ISPs abuse their monopolies: "Adopting a model that allows for or mandates access fees would be a disastrous return to the economic model for telephony, where telecommunications companies and countries leveraged their termination access monopolies to make communication expensive. Because phone companies had a monopoly over their customers, they could charge exorbitant prices to anyone seeking to call their customers. Broadband providers have the same monopoly over their customers. Allowing them to charge content providers for access could cause significant harm to the Internet economy." The MEPs also doubt such fees would improve broadband connectivity, saying that "factors such as permits or construction capacities can act as more severe barriers than lack of funding." They urged the European Commission to take its time and open an official consultation, saying, "There is no emergency that requires action in autumn 2022."
No specific proposal has been released, but "statements to the press indicate that a new provision would require payments from online service providers to broadband providers -- ostensibly to fund the rollout of 5G and fiber to the home," the MEPs wrote in the letter yesterday (PDF) to the European Commission. The letter cited a May 2 Reuters article that said, "Tech giants such as Google, Meta, and Netflix may have to bear some of the cost of Europe's telecoms network, Europe's digital chief Margrethe Vestager said on Monday, following EU telecoms operators' complaints." The MEPs' list of references also includes two Ars Technica articles from 2012 when a similar proposal was being discussed.
Vestager reportedly said at a news conference that "there are players who generate a lot of traffic that then enables their business but who have not been contributing actually to enable that traffic. They have not been contributing to enabling the investments in the rollout of connectivity... and we are in the process of getting a thorough understanding of how could that be enabled." [...] The MEPs' letter further argued that charging websites for access to broadband consumers would help ISPs abuse their monopolies: "Adopting a model that allows for or mandates access fees would be a disastrous return to the economic model for telephony, where telecommunications companies and countries leveraged their termination access monopolies to make communication expensive. Because phone companies had a monopoly over their customers, they could charge exorbitant prices to anyone seeking to call their customers. Broadband providers have the same monopoly over their customers. Allowing them to charge content providers for access could cause significant harm to the Internet economy." The MEPs also doubt such fees would improve broadband connectivity, saying that "factors such as permits or construction capacities can act as more severe barriers than lack of funding." They urged the European Commission to take its time and open an official consultation, saying, "There is no emergency that requires action in autumn 2022."
This is so dumb ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine if you were already paying a lot of money for your water usage because you filled a big swimming pool every summer that all of your friends and neighbors used. But then the water company argued that despite being a big water user, you never really paid to contribute to the water infrastructure, so they pushed government to force you to help cover their costs of upgrading aging pipes throughout the city.
That's not too far off from this nonsense. Online service providers pay quite a bit for the type of bandwidth they need to transmit their content. If the ISPs didn't charge them enough to profit from that and to reinvest in infrastructure upgrades, that's the ISP's problem!
Re: (Score:3)
It's worse. The ISP of that online service can charge as much as it wants, unless the service goes to some other ISP. That has always been possible.
It looks like the ISPs of the users of that online service want a cut as well. No, if they don't get enough money, they can charge their own clients more.
Taking you pool analogy this is if your friends took the bus to get to you and now the bus company wants money from you, since you created high demand for them.
Subsidizing a monopoly (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
internet service is a privilege
It's a service, like the name says. And if the service provider choses to jerk consumers around and try to nickel and dime them to squeeze every last cent out of them then they deserve every bit of consumer leverage the marketplace can apply to keep them from being yet another perpetual consumer annoyance.
It they want to act like sleazy, money grubbing weasels, screw 'em.
Re:Subsidizing a monopoly (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Subsidizing a monopoly (Score:5, Insightful)
No specific proposal has been released.
which tells me that Europe's digital chief Margrethe Vestager has been lobbied by the ISP's and is repeating their talking points.
No bill has been presented to parliament, and it sounds like it wouldn't get far anyway.
These sorts of stories will hopefully help stop anything like this from happening.
Re: (Score:2)
The user already pays for the network and bandwidth he uses, that should (and presently is) independent of what the network is carrying.
Re:Subsidizing a monopoly (Score:4, Insightful)
How is "Internet" not a utility despite the fact everyone agreed for the last century tht "telelphone" was.
This is playing strange games with definitions my dude.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with your analogy, except this isn't a utility company. Regardless of how teenagers may behave, internet service is a privilege, and we can live just fine without it. Treating it as an essential service just gives Comcast delusions of grandeur and lobbying leverage.
Found the boomer here!
Re: (Score:2)
Companies are already contributing to internet infrastructure. Netflix gives away free caching servers to ISPs, and Google has laid large amounts of fibre and undersea cables. They need infrastructure to provide good service.
In the EU the principle is very much that companies operate for the benefit of society. Obviously companies want to make a profit, and profit can be good for society too, as can jobs and the services on offer. But there is also a responsibility, to the citizens, to the environment. We p
ISPs paid twice (Score:5, Interesting)
Consumers pay a provider for Internet Access. Businesses pay a provider for Internet Access. Access has been paid for at both ends of the connection. Why do ISPs want to get paid a second time from Businesses?
If ISPs do not feel like they are covering costs then they have a choice to increase rates. Regulatory capture is bad for society.
Re: ISPs paid twice (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
When the NBN (internet in Australia) was being proposed for Australia, Netflix and other streaming weren't really available.
Uncle Rupert had FOXTEL (cable network) and the conservatives in his control.
The arguments for a fully optic fibre network were to future proof internet access and to allow Australia to compete in the new information age.
The conservatives said the current usage didn't justify the cost etc.. etc...
The conservatives won the argument
A couple of years l
Re: (Score:2)
I'd argue that the didn't win the argument cos all of us engineers where pretty loudly pointing out that 4K streaming was RIGHT down the road (And actually at the time alot of us where pretty convinced 3D streaming was too. That didnt pan out thankfully as 3D TV makes my brain feel like its being bored out with a power drill after about 15 minutes).
The reality was Uncle Rupes/etc saw the internet as a threat to their shitty free to air, cable and newsprint industrys and united behind opposing making the int
Re: (Score:1)
Telling it like it is. Where are my mod points?
Re: (Score:1)
I was boring people with the need for fiber constantly.
The logic that 2GB listeners would spout made me quite sad, think "wireless is good enough and you don't pay for cables".
What I mean about winning the argument is that the Ruddian fiber network didn't get built.
I really, really wish it was different.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the cost of the upgrades needed to provide universal high speed service are more than consumers can afford. Big internet companies that make very large profits can afford it though, and since those profits depend on people having access to them there is at least some moral obligation there too.
Generally speaking, the way it works in the EU is that the bigger and more profitable your company, the more social responsibility it has.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe Europe should fix the tax shelters in the EU that allow these big companies to keep most of the profit. Paying for a private company's network is not exactly social responsibility. Paying taxes is social responsibility.
Re: (Score:2)
The networks are usually delegated in Europe, i.e. anyone can buy access to it and become an ISP.
Re: (Score:2)
Why wouldn't big internet companies just be their own ISP then?
Re: (Score:2)
They certainly could be, but to get the money for infrastructure they will have to make it available to other ISPs at the same price they charge themselves. Often they are required to spin off that part of the company, e.g. Open Reach in the UK.
Road and utility upgrades (Score:2)
In the Real World, if a developer is going to generate a lot of traffic to a new location (a shopping center, subdivision, office building, etc) they're required to upgrade the surrounding infrastructure as a condition of their permit.
How this would work online is unclear, but I'm sure the lawyers can find a way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is only partially true. In most cases, the government can only do this when you require something from them, such as planning permission. If I was an ISP and Netflix wanted to start using me, I would probably also ask them for some cash upfront for new switches...
What's going on here is that the next town over has a small main street and is pissed off that they are now carrying lots of new cars to the shopping center. Their residents already paid for the roads, but now they want the shopping cente
Re: (Score:2)
In the Real World, if a developer is going to generate a lot of traffic to a new location (a shopping center, subdivision, office building, etc) they're required to upgrade the surrounding infrastructure as a condition of their permit.
A better analogy would be requiring local car dealerships to upgrade the entire town to handle all of the cars they are selling.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Local bosses (Score:2)
"Tube" companies insinuated themselves into the Internet as transport. Their money comes from charging for data transmission. The core concept of the Internet doesn't have local highway robbers.
It'a kind of like the interstate commerce clause in the US Constitution, to give Congress the power to regulate interstate trade, to stop states from charging for the transport of goods across them.
Of course, politicians being what they are, they've perverted it out of all recognition, to more get in the way of tra
Slam (Score:2)
Verb. "Shut (a door, window, or lid) forcefully and loudly."
The only sound on my end that I hear is my keyboard clickety clacking away to write this message. I don't hear any slamming.
Ridiculous (Score:2)
This proposal is ridiculous because the EU have essentially banned the opposite - ISPs "zero rating" websites in terms of data usage...
So it's not fine to zero rate a websites traffic, but it's fine to charge that website more? That doesn't make sense.
Re: Ridiculous (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The top streaming services all have hardware either in or close to major infrastructure points - often inside major ISPs as well. So thats why they are often better than general internet usage.
But thats different to zero rating content delivery to your device, or charging extra for it.
This is just stupid (Score:2)
The ISPs charge their customers for bandwidth. They charge for whatever speed and transfer amounts they want, at whatever price they want.
It's implied that most data that goes to or from their customers will also go from or to somewhere else. How on earth could any reasonable person expect to get paid from someone at the other end of the pipe, when the entire purpose of an ISP is to interface their customers to the pipe in the first place?
An independent point is that without "those online service provider
Double dipping is rude... (Score:4, Insightful)
-Consumers pay an internet service provider for internet access.
-Businesses pay an internet service provider for internet access.
-Consumers' ISPs want to get paid a second time by businesses.
Fuck them and any politician who helps them implement this plan.
Re: (Score:2)
Cringeworthy (Score:2)
"Players who generate a lot of traffic" are the reason people pay for internet access, you fucking dumbasses. They are the reason you have a product to sell. Are you retarded?
Leave the Internet to the pros (Score:2)
The EU Commission should just stay away from the Internet and leave it to the grown-ups to manage. The ongoing cookie fiasco has already shown they are totally out of their depth.