Submitted by thinkB4WeSpeak t3_yh9idp in technology
Comments
EdoTve t1_iucszp8 wrote
But this says that european telcos want us tech giants to pay for internet infrastructure, which is bonkers. Telcos in europe are no less greedy or scummy than us ones
Hilppari t1_iuennqf wrote
My telco spent all its money on 3g rights in germany and got scammed and billions and had to be bailed out by the government and then was bought be swedish telco and merged into telia.
Martin8412 t1_iudk22c wrote
They absolutely are less greedy. Most IX in Europe are settlement free. That is almost entirely unheard of in the US.
Nice-Day9373 t1_iueqhkw wrote
nobody connects to IXs theses days, carrier grade transit is the norm.
Rickety_Crickel t1_iucvdb8 wrote
True, I don’t think EU regulators are looking at US telecom to pay here but service providers like Netflix. Any privately owned telecom will have the same problems that Charter has, but I don’t see a big problem with making billion dollar companies pay when their traffic is effectively being subsidized by tax payers otherwise. At least in the US telecoms are crowding out small and disruptive businesses by prioritizing traffic for big providers and passing the cost onto customers of the telecom instead of the business.
gordonjames62 t1_iud5wj6 wrote
> EU will lead the way in de-worming internet infrastructure with help from the US gov or not.
I was with you until this.
Greed is not a national problem, but a human problem
Rickety_Crickel t1_iuin651 wrote
It is an international problem, but I don’t have faith the US will regulate telecom better any point in the future. The EU is making real strides towards setting up better standards for tech giants.
The most significant tech legislation to come from the US in the past decade or so was that domestic chip manufacturing bill which hardly curtails the negative impact these billion dollar companies have.
yumyumfarts t1_iudqecd wrote
It should be classified as utility and they should be regulated
Buhodeleste t1_iucsrqp wrote
So, I don't understand. The way I thought it worked was that the telecom providers put the money up for the network infrastructure. They then sell the resultant bandwidth to subscribers. Those subscribers then use that bandwidth any way they choose. If the subscribers choose to watch Netflix day and night, use up all their bandwidth that way, then why are the telecom companies bitching? I don't see a relationship between the telecom companies and the SaaS products their subscribers are using.
drawkbox t1_iucw5x0 wrote
> then why are the telecom companies bitching?
Because they oversell and their infrastructure is pressed constantly, they'd rather you not use it.
They'd rather de-prioritize throughput, put in data caps and limits for rent-seeking than actually build up infrastructure. If you have a node overloaded it takes a long time to even know, and they drag their feet on upgrading it while they turn up the latency causing de-prioritization (throttling though not directly).
We have allowed ISPs to incentivize themselves to not increase network infrastructure throughput, slow progress benefits them. Rather than upgrading for better service, rent-seeking for slower and slower service compared to market/user need.
Without innovations like DOCSIS, like DOCSIS 3.1 + DOCSIS 4 and other throughput multiplexing technologies, we'd be even worse off on infrastructure. These ISPs will just not run fiber.
Buhodeleste t1_iucx5xf wrote
Sounds like we need to make some new laws to straighten that out. Something about only being able to sell bandwidth that the infrastructure can bear. Then strip the leadership of the telecoms of their compensation to pay for it.
KSRandom195 t1_iudhubl wrote
“The infrastructure can bear what I sold you, but not if you and your neighbor use it at the same time.”
switch495 t1_iufk0tc wrote
Local public libraries should become ISPs and run givers in their town - and finally create a nice revenge stream to fund the library and pay for enhanced public services in those libraries
Gloomy-Ad1171 t1_iuge5nn wrote
Chattanooga, TN. They have a county owned power system. Upgraded to “Smart Grid” in the early 2000s and now offer up to 10Gbs home service.
[deleted] t1_iudbyg5 wrote
[removed]
happyscrappy t1_iuew06h wrote
If customers aren't paying for metered service then the ISPs have a strong incentive to try to tamp down customer usage. It allows them to offer lower prices at the same profit margins (or higher margins at the same price). And customers like lower prices.
Going to fiber isn't going to fix this. They can still oversubscribe their uplinks if it saves them money.
Maybe the fix for residential ISPs is to abandon flat-rate service? Better services costs more, as expected.
E_Snap t1_iueyyds wrote
Or you hold them to the agreements that they made when the US government gave them billions on the condition that they run fiber. You do know that not letting corporations run rough-shod over the country is an option, right? Anything involving changing public policy or other large scale changes should involve moving in that direction, not just throwing our hands up and saying “I guess we have to make incentives for capitalists to not be fuckheads!”
happyscrappy t1_iuf30my wrote
> Or you hold them to the agreements that they made when the US government gave them billions on the condition that they run fiber.
That's s myth. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was almost completely unfunded. It authorized telecoms companies to add fees to their customer's bills to pay for infrastructure improvements. Those fees amounted to billions. And only some of it was used for fiber. But it didn't come from the US government, it came from customers.
The act was created to pay for "video dial tone", which was the idea you'd use interactive TV and video conferencing. The type of fiber chosen isn't even relevant today. It's not the type used for high speed internet now. It was used at the time in some ways for 45 mbps internet. Which is not what people are looking for today.
> You do know that not letting corporations run rough-shod over the country is an option, right?
I know you're not a child. I would appreciate it if you don't treat me like one as I am not one either.
> Anything involving changing public policy or other large scale changes should involve moving in that direction, not just throwing our hands up and saying “I guess we have to make incentives for capitalists to not be fuckheads!”
Capitalists are going to act in their best financial interest. Incentives work great to make changes as we know that's how capitalists work. When regulating you can do so most effectively by understanding how the groups you are regulating will operate.
What would be wrong with metered service? It's how we manage electricity usage. If you didn't pay for electricity you would use it a lot differerently.
novacham t1_iuejq1k wrote
>These ISPs will just not run fiber.
Because running fiber is crazy expensive. You have to get multiple jurisidictions and private property owners to allow it. You end up ripping up streets or tunneling under them.
Remove a lot of the red tape to running the infrastructure and it will get a lot cheaper to run.
nyaaaa t1_iuepk5h wrote
The only red tape is the monopoly wanting the red tape.
rcmaehl t1_iuffmmm wrote
Yes, like when Google fiber tried to expand in Louisville and AT&T sued them to monopolize utility poles they didn't even own.
phranq t1_iuf0vui wrote
I have fiber in Idaho...
2istheonlyevenprime t1_iug33hs wrote
Idaho falls?
Gloomy-Ad1171 t1_iuge15y wrote
Fiber was ran in most of my city in the early 2000s, then sat dark for decades.
zsaleeba t1_iud0nlb wrote
Because they want to charge twice for the same bandwidth - once to their customers and secondly to hold rich tech giants to ransom over providing service to them.
GoldWallpaper t1_iue7clb wrote
They're bitching because they have no revenue growth through adding subscribers, so they need to appease shareholders some other way.
It's a transparent money grab, but telcos have pockets deep enough to buy politicians (who don't know shit about the internet to begin with, and so will believe whatever they're paid to believe).
Budget-Government-52 t1_iuet1tp wrote
Honestly, this is some of the most flawed logic I’ve ever seen. They are really blaming the provider for offering the content their subscribers are wishing to access.
While we’re at it, let’s make McDonald’s pay me for their chicken sandwich being so damn delicious. This shit is ludicrous. European telcos did a race to the bottom and now can’t afford to support their infrastructure. So instead of raising prices and generating revenue to support their network, they just blame the content providers and not their subscribers. Oof man.
QwertzOne t1_iucrsxl wrote
Ok, hold on, so why cloud providers like AWS charge insane money for data transfer?
trillospin t1_iue8hvy wrote
They charge for egress.
They want you to keep everything in AWS, don't use services by other providers.
They don't pay for transit between AWS data centres.
nyaaaa t1_iuer7jf wrote
To make money.
RaveNdN t1_iuct1ih wrote
Because who else is going to do it. Amazon has a scary amount of the world’s information and can charge an insanely high amount to Protect it.
QwertzOne t1_iucuaxp wrote
I actually wonder, what's the actual cost for Amazon to use European network infrastructure, how does it work currently. Let's say that Amazon bills $0.1/GB for data transfer from VM to internet, how much goes to telecoms, if they complain about additional pressure on network infrastructure? I would actually want to see some concrete data, because both Amazon and telecoms are greedy, but to what degree?
DRM2020 t1_iudua0h wrote
Amazon and others have to pay for the infrastructure or build it partially thus there are costs related to data transfer.
Paying by volume is fair, price is the question. Avoiding monopoly is the safest answer. Same goes for search, social media, and any other sector.
Andrethegreengiant3 t1_iucygwr wrote
Google or Microsoft or Oracle
Klapkop t1_iud8m8d wrote
More like ruining the internet... Still think this plan is bs though.
N3KIO t1_iuewrmj wrote
Why not just setup 5G/6G towers and provide service like that?
Why rip roads up for miles?
Wouldn't that be more cost effective?
xbabyjesus t1_iui6hig wrote
There’s a limited amount of RF spectrum between the customer and the tower, and 5G has lower coverage than slower tech (3g, etc) due to the higher frequency, so they need a lot more towers (10x-ish). It’s not very cost effective outside of high density urban areas.
11001110100 t1_iucq1qb wrote
My man Al Gore needs some cash too while we’re at it
gordonjames62 t1_iud5k3a wrote
I'm sure all the legal actions against google and apple and microsoft will make these tech giants so happy to work with the EU for a price.
[deleted] t1_iudav71 wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_iue9y33 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iuf1ej6 wrote
[deleted]
Alucard256 t1_iufg1so wrote
Imagine a group of city states ancient times pressuring Rome to dismantle the aqueduct they created because now their citizens want water too.
Sad-Stranger8447 t1_iufgjkw wrote
Network engineer here
The infrastructure to power the internet is very expensive. Space & power in data centers. Very expensive carrier grade routers, network backbones, engineers to monitor it 24/7/365. Each telco has different relationships with the US OTTs. Some US OTTs spend next to nothing with various carriers, but expect the telcos to fund their forever growth. That isn’t economically feasible.
IPushButton t1_iudsk39 wrote
I thought the thumbnail was the blizzard logo as a scrolled by...
mrkitzero t1_iugb4k5 wrote
So typical of Europeans to think someone else should pay. They stole the world's wealth for centuries. Still have the same mindset.
[deleted] t1_iucofp9 wrote
[deleted]
the_simurgh t1_iucozks wrote
they are paid by the customers. they received government funds to build and deploy their infrastructure. this is nothing more than bullshit by an industry that is trying to greedily suck down more money all while they paid nothing for the infrastructure that is giving them profit.
it is time to nationalize all infrastructure and remove the for profit motives.
touch_slut t1_iucqwia wrote
This! They are parasites and we should produce real not-for-profit competition for them.
yuxulu t1_iucqthi wrote
Isn't there an american ruling some time ago to make this possible?
the_simurgh t1_iucr2mx wrote
the american government has expanded civil forfeiture and eminent domain to the point even the rich couldn't challenge it. literally all it takes is the next generation getting into office who believes in this kinda of action to make it happen
deliosenvy t1_iucqu2f wrote
No fucking way it's fair. First of all we are hardly utilizing all available bandwidth, these companies built most of the network with public funds which they also get to charge the public for usually with absurd prices.
FUCK NO. Service providers are raking in massive profits let them develop additional capacity from their own share of profits.
TechniCruller t1_iucr7x8 wrote
Hahahahaha kick rocks. European technology infrastructure is dog shit.
The-Brit t1_iud06y6 wrote
So does that mean that my extremely rural 1Gb FTTP is shit?
TechniCruller t1_iud1a7w wrote
No. I’m talking about technology infrastructure, the reason the EU/UK is so dramatically far behind the USA in data center development.
MileysMooseKnuckle t1_iudehsk wrote
Sure buddy.
I've seen you yanks bitch about Internet costs where one month for a capped data pack costs more than my entire year of unlimited access.
I'm going through anything from 100gb to 500 a month assuming no new games have come out, paying pennies for it and it never slows down. If it does drop for any noticeable length of time I don't pay for that month.
And I can chose from a huge amount of providers on infrastructure owned by multiple different companies, not just one monopoly pissing in your pocket and telling you its raining.
TechniCruller t1_iudfz7s wrote
…what? How is that relevant to data centers? I’m talking about the actual technology infrastructure from a business perspective, not consumer lol. Consumer experience is a product of marketplaces.
Capped data packs? Lol is this 2005? I suppose you’re another Euro that assumes all Americans are poor and without healthcare? The only people that use that shit are the poors in like the Midwest and shit.
kennethtrr t1_iuevd9h wrote
Today I learned ALL Comcast subscribers and various other massive telco companies are ONLY used by poor people. Put on your clown mask now bro 🤡
TechniCruller t1_iuew0j8 wrote
Comcast has a 1.2TB data cap?
kennethtrr t1_iuew53o wrote
Correct, it’s best to Google claims you make on the internet before shouting them out. Data caps are the norm in the US.
TechniCruller t1_iuewbeg wrote
I’ve not had a data cap in the USA since 2005. 1.2TB/month is hardly even something I’d consider as a cap, since less than 1% of use cases would ever come close.
kennethtrr t1_iuex3rk wrote
Incorrect again, during the pandemic when everyone and their dog was working from home Comcast was forced to temporarily lift the limit since so many people were exceeding their data caps. 1.2 TB isn’t even enough for a household that streams lots of 4K films. I also love your moving goalposts, quite the redditor. First it was, there are no data caps in the US except poor dumb rural people, and now it’s oh wait, I DONT HAVE DATA CAPS, and thus no one else should have them either!!! Maybe travel outside your house idk.
urielsalis t1_iuetaks wrote
So my 10gbps FTTH for 30eur a month sucks?
TechniCruller t1_iuetmkk wrote
It’s not relevant to the point I’m making. Not sure how you fail to understand that. It seems this thread is full of people that don’t have a clue.
Dismal_Photo_1372 t1_iucrh3e wrote
Umm. That's not how this works. If the eu taxes them, they pay.
cachemonet0x0cf6619 t1_iucsfwx wrote
umm, y’all remeber the net neutrality discussion we had a few years ago.
that’s what this is. you’re providing special treatment.
you can’t tax netflix and not brit box? if you did what’s the bar that gets britbox to pay taxes.
i get that they want revenue but it shouldn’t be at the expense of competition.
Buhodeleste t1_iuct0c6 wrote
If they can't provide service using the revenue they have because of shitty business decisions then maybe the infrastructure should be Nationalized.
Winners_History t1_iudid3j wrote
> Nationalized
OMG Yes! I want the same government that runs the DMV and IRS to be totally, rather than 'somewhat', involved in more areas on which I depend!
Buhodeleste t1_iudl1ag wrote
You don’t have a drivers license or pay taxes? I bet you do both of those things. Sounds like they’re doing a good job to me 🤷🏻♂️
Winners_History t1_iuer7gh wrote
> a good job
Neither agency mentioned "does a good job".
The DMV routinely fails to maintain its databases to the point it's either "leaked" to scammers or is unavailable to customers, or both. As for the IRS, do you enjoy being unable to file taxes online without having to pay a third party?
cachemonet0x0cf6619 t1_iue83l4 wrote
you’re comparing administrative duties with technical competence.
you see how slow the gov moves and you expect them to keep up with infrastructure demand?
tatanka01 t1_iucqdd2 wrote
Unpopular, but a better solution would be metered connections. Treat it like a utility where you pay a rate for each gigabyte used.
zilozi t1_iucs1h9 wrote
Yeah definitely a Super un-popular opinion. We can't really advance as a species with metered connections. Metered connections are also very punishing for poor families and large families.
Winners_History t1_iudp89q wrote
If we "can't advance as a species" without paying for what we use, I'd like to hear your definition of "advance".
IolausTelcontar t1_iuejdlx wrote
Bits are not used or used up. They aren’t a finite resource to be rationed.
Winners_History t1_iues3eb wrote
Oh? Then I can just run out and pick some off a bush, right? I don't "need" infrastructure to move them around?
Government price-controls invariably lead to one thing - scarcity of the product in question.
IolausTelcontar t1_iueu3li wrote
Infrastructure is the only thing needed. There is no finite resource to consume. Stop being obtuse.
xbabyjesus t1_iui7b4p wrote
Network infrastructure is the finite resource. There’s a limit to how much data you can transmit over a network.
marvbinks t1_iucu40k wrote
Yay. Let's take the Internet back 20 years!
SoDi1203 t1_iufzne2 wrote
I knew it was a good idea to keep my 19.2 kbps dial-up modem plugged in the wall.
Rickety_Crickel t1_iucrrnz wrote
Telecoms are some of the scummiest tech business, if not the most in terms of negative impact to the world 100% due to greedy assholes. I worked for Charter for 5 years as an engineer, management at all levels laughs at customers including large businesses like Visa and small ones like a neighborhood tool store or dental office when they expect the service they pay for and don’t receive it, ie fraud in any other context…
Executives give themselves huge bonuses paid for by US taxpayers that was supposed to go towards building internet infrastructure. It’s complete theft, people should be in jail over it which is also acknowledged and laughed at by management.
No telecom in the world should be privately owned, same for power companies and hospitals. It’s an essential service that parasites have infested. EU will lead the way in de-worming internet infrastructure with help from the US gov or not.