Comments
acmethunder t1_jdexhp5 wrote
Definitly not. Executive bonuses and stock buybacks.
chrisdh79 OP t1_jdetzif wrote
From the article: Proposals to pay for broadband networks by imposing new fees on Big Tech companies "are built on a false premise," Meta executives wrote in a blog post today.
"Network fee proposals do not recognize that our investments in content drive the business model of telecom operators," Meta executives Kevin Salvadori and Bruno Cendon Martin wrote. Meta's comments came a few weeks after Netflix co-CEO Greg Peters spoke out against the proposal being reviewed by European regulators.
Meta executives said telecom operators and content application providers (CAPs) "are symbiotic businesses, occupying different but complementary roles in the digital ecosystem. Every year, Meta invests tens of billions of euros in our apps and platforms—such as Facebook, Instagram, and Quest—to facilitate the hosting of content. Billions of people go online every day to access this content, creating the demand that allows telecom operators to charge people for Internet access. Our investment in content literally drives the revenue and business model of telecom operators."
Internet service providers in the EU argue that Big Tech companies should pay a "fair share" toward network-building costs. In the US, Federal Communications Commission Republican Brendan Carr claims that "Big Tech has been enjoying a free ride on our Internet infrastructure while skipping out on the billions of dollars in costs needed to maintain and build that network."
Big Tech companies don't actually get free access to the Internet, though. Anyone distributing content over the Internet pays their own providers, builds their own network infrastructure, or does some combination of the two.
beef-o-lipso t1_jdewov0 wrote
Of all the problems big tech represents, not paying their share of telecom fees isn't one of them.
[deleted] t1_jdf2xtq wrote
All this does is validate the telecom business model is an outdated system.
Internet is a utility. The global economy would have collapsed if we didn't have internet infrastructure which allowed people to work from home. It's a matter of public need, not a perk of a privilege lifestyle.
The government needs to transition into a municipal approach to the service and stop treating it like a private thing. It's a utility. Treat it like a utility.
formerPhillyguy t1_jdf3puv wrote
The problem is local governments tax that service but don't have to do anything to receive that revenue. You're asking them to work for their money.
[deleted] t1_jdf4tx0 wrote
They tax the business end of the service.
The reality is the economic benefit to a local economy of having stable and accessible internet infrastructure is above and beyond what they collect in taxing the service.
If those tax dollars disappeared overnight and internet became a public utility backed by the state, the expansion of that service would create an economic boom which is just as taxable as the service itself.
Think about the tens of thousands of businesses which use this infrastructure and get taxed. That supersedes the taxation of a single company or group of companies providing the service.
Flameancer t1_jdi55fu wrote
Yea maybe if telcos were utilities I would have more than one option for high speed internet. As it stands my choice is between Spectrum and ATT, but ATT can only give me a 3Mbps connection. So really my only option is spectrum.
[deleted] t1_jdi6as4 wrote
The other issue is jurisdiction over telephone pole infrastructure.
Google ran into a legal issue with localities who had given full control of telephone poles to the ISPs. They were technically considered private property even though the poles were planted on public soil.
Google was basically being told that if they wanted to expand their Google Fiber internet service, they would need to have their own poles built as they couldn't run lines on what already existed.
I believe Google had laws changed locally in a lot of places as even the local governments were tired of the ISPs and their bullshit.
But this is one of those reasons why ISPs have monopolies in many places. Getting infrastructure built is a fucking nightmare.
Flameancer t1_jdi6ixe wrote
Yea google fiber came to my city and paused their rollout but it appears that they are still adding places…..just not near me.
Type_Grey t1_jdgix3k wrote
In other news, my power company wants the manufacturers of my fridge, drier, and thermostat to pay them for high electric demand on top of what I pay for my electric bill.
Seriously BS ask by ISPs.
9-11GaveMe5G t1_jdexe2c wrote
Meta, the broken clock that's right this 1 time
[deleted] t1_jdeurcb wrote
[deleted]
oldtrenzalore t1_jdevxb6 wrote
When the sun rises in the west and sets in the east. When the seas go dry and the mountains blow in the wind like leaves. When there a no more fascists living in Florida, Meta will be dead, but not before.
formerPhillyguy t1_jdf3jnk wrote
I was thinking everything you listed was possible until I got to the fascists part. No way that will ever happen.
peter-doubt t1_jdeutwj wrote
ISPs have been collecting $1 / month per account for ... 20? Years. What did they do, spend it on lobbying?