SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Dutch Officials Warn That Big Telecom's Plan To Tax 'Big Tech' Is A Dangerous Dud:
For much of the last year, European telecom giants have been pushing for a tax on Big Tech company profits. They've tried desperately to dress it up as a reasonable adult policy proposal, but it's effectively just the same thing we saw during the U.S. net neutrality wars: telecom monopolies demanding other people pay them an additional troll toll — for no coherent reason.
To sell captured lawmakers on the idea, telecom giants have falsely claimed that Big Tech companies get a "free ride" on the Internet (just as they did during the U.S. net neutrality wars). To fix this problem they completely made up, Big Telecom argues Big Tech should be forced to help pay for the kind of broadband infrastructure upgrades the telecoms have routinely neglected for years.
It's a big, dumb con. But yet again, telecom lobbyists have somehow convinced regulators that this blind cash grab is somehow sensible, adult policy. Dutifully, European Commission's industry chief Thierry Breton (himself a former telecom exec) said last September he would launch a consultation on this "fair share" payment scheme in early 2023, ahead of any proposed legislation.
[...] But they're often not looking at the real problem. Both in the EU and North America, regulators routinely and mindlessly let telecom giants consolidate and monopolize an essential utility. Those monopolies then work tirelessly to drive up rates and crush competition. And, utilizing their lobbying power, they've also routinely gleamed billions in subsidies for networks they routinely half-complete.
[...] If the EU successfully implements such a scheme, you can be absolutely sure the next step will be the U.S., with captured regulators like Brendan Carr (who has been beating this idiotic drum for a few years now) at the front of the parade at Comcast's and AT&T's behest.
(Score: -1, Troll) by khallow on Thursday March 09, @04:14PM (4 children)
Your education no doubt was at least partially paid for with public funds. Does that mean you should be nationalized?
Just because your country had a remarkable lack of wisdom as to fund its own telecom infrastructure rather than delegating that to private industry is a terrible excuse. We no doubt would see the same lack of wisdom in how that infrastructure gets run.
(Score: 2) by ilsa on Thursday March 09, @07:14PM (3 children)
I cannot even fathom how someone can be so willfully, mindboggling wrong every single time. It's too the point where when I see your account name, my first thought is "Oh god what idiotic thing is he going to say THIS time?"
It's too consistent to be just because of simple stupidity. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
The most polite thing I can assume is that you suffered a stroke at some point in your life and it destroyed some key decision centre in your brain that reverses the final result of any thought process, like some kind of weird NOT gate.
I don't understand why you're even on this site. You should be spending your time on truthsocial, gab, or twitter where you can mingle with like-minded individuals.
(Score: -1, Troll) by khallow on Thursday March 09, @07:38PM (2 children)
Your ignorance drives the process. Remember your earlier post?
The core argument was that telecom shouldn't be privatized because they were "built" with public funds. Well, your country spent public funds on a lot of stuff. What else should be nationalized as a result? The obvious one is education - most countries (including all developed world countries) spend massive amounts on education. Congrats your argument can be used to nationalize people just like it can be used to nationalize businesses you don't like.
Here's my take on the matter. Your country's government has no more business running your telecoms than it does running your life. It doesn't matter what they spent on telecom infrastructure. That's just a sunk cost [wikipedia.org] and is irrelevant to future choices.
(Score: 2) by ilsa on Friday March 10, @09:45PM (1 child)
You expect me to argue with you, yet the entire premise of your argument is so completely nonsensical that there is nothing to argue.
You are literally the definition of "Not even wrong".
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 11, @07:55AM
Protip: my argument is an argument from absurdity that follows naturally from the argument you made. The premise is completely ridiculous because your argument is similarly completely ridiculous. And I'll note that the fact that your country's government gave money to a telecom without any guarantee of benefit is a blaring klaxon of its unsuitability for running any sort of business much less a complex one like a telecom.
Leave it to the professionals.