Big Telecom Eyes More Broadband Usage Caps (And A Tax On Big Tech) As Revenues Sag

from the do-not-pass-go,-do-not-collect-$200 dept

Things aren’t too exciting if you’re a telecom executive right now.

All the hype in tech is singularly fixated on the more headline catching, stock fluffing, and usually very broken aspects of “AI.” 5G, hyped as a transformative world changing tech by overly eager telecom marketing departments, wound up being a consumer dud that users don’t want to pay extra for. And subscriber growth is slowing to a trickle outside of new home builds.

So what is a poor telecom monopoly to do? If you’re AT&T CTO Jeremy Legg attending a global telecom grievance session held at a recent industry event, the answer is to start charging consumers more money for the same product in the form of usage caps and overage fees:

“One thing I would say is the telco industry historically has had these all-you-can-eat business models and I think the world is moving more toward consumption-based business models versus all-you-can-eat business models and so we’re going to have to adapt to that reality.”

By “we,” of course, Legg means you, the bandwidth-purchasing consumer.

We’ve noted for decades that there’s absolutely no technical justification to have usage caps and overage fees on fixed broadband lines. It’s simply the act of price-gouging an uncompetitive market where consumers usually can’t switch to an alternative provider. AT&T has been at the forefront of this movement for decades, so it’s not surprising to see this as their very first answer to sagging revenues.

Of course it’s not all bad news for telecom. The last five year fixation on the obvious problems with “big tech” has allowed telecom to largely skirt under the internet policy radar. You don’t hear much about efforts to rein in telecom monopoly power anymore; outside of some freshly restored net neutrality rules that probably will never be enforced and may not survive the next presidential election.

International telecom executives know they need something to goose stock valuations and spike sagging revenues:

“The reality is that our return on investment, our growth, is not good enough, and we can’t be happy with where we are as an industry at the moment,” said Kim Andersen, the chief technology officer of Australia’s Telstra, in a DTW call to arms. “We need to reinvent this industry and save this industry.”

In telecom, of course, that won’t actually involve being innovative or developing new exciting products people actually like. Because what most people want is a simple, dumb, inexpensive pipe to the internet. And it most certainly won’t involve trying to compete harder for subscriber affections, because that again would involve lowering prices, expanding access, or improving low-quality customer service, all stuff that harms short-term quarterly returns.

Enter the other big looming telecom gambit: the effort to force tech companies to pay them billions of dollars for no reason. Pitched to regulators in the EU and U.S. as a way to shore up broadband to areas telecoms historically couldn’t care less about, the idea effectively involves pretending that tech companies get a “free ride” on the internet, then imposing extra, duplicative telecom surcharges simply for existing.

I’d recommend this Internet Society piece on these so-called “sender pays” initiatives and how they ultimately just break the internet while driving up costs for everybody.

Of course consumers and enterprise broadband customers alike pay an arm and a leg already for broadband access thanks to widespread telecom monopolization. And despite a steady stream of billions in subsidies, those monopolies’ fiber expansions are mysteriously always left somehow half-complete. And now they’re proposing forcing tech giants (read: you) to pay for more fiber you may never see.

Despite this being a ham-fisted cash grab by an industry long known for ham-fisted cash grabs, these efforts are gaining more traction than you might think. The model has seen some success in South Korea, driving companies like Twitch out of the country and driving up costs for consumers. In the EU, telecoms are pushing for a tax for any tech company that accounts for over 5% of a telco’s average peak traffic.

The telecom industry effort has so far seen little meaningful traction under the Biden administration. But if Trump wins the next election, I 100% guarantee that one of FCC Boss Brendan Carr’s (R, AT&T) top priorities will be pushing big tech companies to pay telecoms billions of dollars in new, senseless telecom taxes in exchange for a bunch of layoffs and fiber networks you’re unlikely to ever actually see.

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
Lightbulb icon Laughing icon Flag icon Lightbulb icon Laughing icon

Comments on “Big Telecom Eyes More Broadband Usage Caps (And A Tax On Big Tech) As Revenues Sag”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
20 Comments
David says:

Re: Re:

Well, yeah. Trump will enjoy presidential immunity in and beyond office for having a special team assassinate the 3 remaining liberal justices “for the benefit of the U.S.” (maybe add Roberts to the mix for good measure), and the prospect of having him nominate more bootlickers as replacement will be enough to keep House and Senate Republicans from even impeaching him.

A republic, if you can keep it. Most aren’t even trying.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

On the other hand if there are caps then physical media becomes important again

This presumes that companies would make that transition, and I simply do not see that happening.

From a business perspective, it doesn’t make sense for businesses to go back to making physical discs and run the risk of not selling enough of them. Not when you have the subscription model handy. That’s also not forgetting how CD drives aren’t a thing for most modern laptops, at least not where I am.

And even if we were to ignore how greedy devs won’t be keen to give up subscription fees for one-time purchases, there are still good reasons to have an online model for things like patch updates (sidestepping the new trend of developers releasing horrifically buggy products that have to be emergency-patched afterwards).

A return to physical media would require a massive corporate paradigm shift and heads to roll. And if the government can’t punish Boeing for literal loss of passenger lives with anything more than a token cost for doing business, I don’t see a paradigm shift happening any time soon.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Not really. Participating in capitalism doesn’t necessarily mean putting profits so far ahead of people that human suffering is a necessary by-product of generating revenue. Sure, capitalism will never be an “equivalent exchange” situation where everyone is compensated fairly for their labor and whatnot. But it doesn’t have to require human suffering as a component of its existence.

Late Stage Capitalism is what gets us skyrocketing rents, out of control inflation, and a generation that will be worse off than the previous one. LSC is a bunch of rich people buying up houses and charging exorbitant rents while another group of rich people refuse to raise wages for workers because that might affect their stock holdings and C-suite executive pay. LSC creates “profit at any cost” thinking that leads to the kinds of negligence and shortcut-taking that has caused injuries and deaths. Unregulated, unconstrained, profit-at-any-cost capitalism is LSC, and the only thing more threatening to society than LSC is similarly unrestrained authoritarianism.

I don’t have a solution to the problem⁠—I’m not an economist, I’m just some dude with a laptop. But the first step to solving the problem is identifying it. Too many of our leaders are either unwilling or unable to take even that step.

buttwipinglord (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Housing should not be tied to wealth.
I am 33, still live at home because there are no affordable houses even in buttfuck middle a nowhere where I live. No one is building small houses. And the only small houses that look affordable are deceptive because they are MFG homes in parks where they bleed you for space rent every month. Making it like you are paying for a mortgage on a way nicer house than you actually have. And you can be evicted with no means to move your house if you don’t pay “space rent”.

My parents made less money than I do and at 30 were able to afford a nice 1400 sqft house (for roughly 90k in northern CA mind you!) and be able to afford to raise 2 kids in 1991.

Someone I know looked at buying a house for 300k recently that was something like 40-50 years old and after they went through the whole process they were told their total monthly payment would be like 2800$ which they couldn’t afford even 2 incomes.
And for extra context, my parents home which is 20( years newer than that house and is nearly 1.5x the footage after consolidating two mortgages into 1 (due 2009 wiping them out) is only roughly 1400$ a month.

The disparity is unfathomable sometimes.

Just a Guy says:

Goodbye AT&T

I have the option of AT&T or Google Fiber in my area. AT&T was here first, and I signed up as soon as it was available.

Although Google offered services recently, I have had no real reason to change. AT&T with 1 Gbps for $70 per month has been excellent.

Jeremy Legg’s comment alone is sufficient for me to change. I can’t believe such a comment would come from a CTO. I will call both AT&T and Google fiber tomorrow.

Add Your Comment

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...