There is Nothing Fair About the European Commission’s “Fair Share” Proposal
web.archive.org
In a fight between the big tech companies and the internet provider giants, it can be very tempting to not care who wins and loses. However, in the case of the ISPs' "fair share" proposals, ISP victory would mean undermining one of the very foundations of the internet—net neutrality.After the...

After the European Commission held a public consultation on whether they should adopt what they call a “fair share” proposal, they unfortunately voted to move forward with this dangerous plan. This proposal is nothing but a network usage fees regime, which would force certain companies to pay internet service providers (ISPs) for their ability to deliver content to consumers. This idea not only hurts consumers, but also breaks a status quo that facilitated and continues to facilitate the rapid spread of the global internet.

  • Pekka@feddit.nl
    6·
    1 year ago

    The law that requires phones to use USB-C, does not say it will last forever. In fact, the update to USB-C proves that they look for new technologies and update the law once such a thing is needed. Maybe now people have to buy new chargers, but in the long term, keeping chargers the same will reduce e-waste as people can use USB-C to charge many devices. You can charge your MacBook and smartphone with the same charger because of USB-C and the USB power delivery specification.

    But the Fair Share part is a bit weird, consumers already pay for the network. But often they don’t pay for the amount of data that they use. It would make more sense to just charge users again based on their network usage, but I understand that that would be highly unpopular. In the end, someone has to pay for all the traffic though.

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      2·
      1 year ago

      But often they don’t pay for the amount of data that they use.

      Data, as in volume, costs nothing on the internet. What costs money (and what everyone, including your ISP, is buying from upstream providers) is bandwidth.

      • aksdb@feddit.de
        1·
        1 year ago

        I don’t think that is completely truly possible that way. In the end there are a bottle necks - for example the peering routes. It would be insane to have them scaled for the worst case of all potential users being online at the same time and actually using their bandwith 100%. Which in turn likely means that providers are “overselling” what they have. If all end-users would actually use the 100% of their bandwith 100% of the time, the providers would be fucked.

    • Wiredfire@kayb.ee
      1·
      1 year ago

      keeping chargers the same will reduce e-waste as people can use USB-C to charge many devices

      That’s my point… we already could charge many devices from the chargers we had

      • Rakn@discuss.tchncs.de
        5·
        1 year ago

        Yeah and most people have USB-C chargers nowadays. It will just get rid of other connector forms and going forward unify it. It’s awesome.

        If you are a heavy Apple user that might be annoying for you. But in the gran scheme of things that’s the minority.