I am not sure I understand the problem they're trying to fix with this. It's not big tech that's using up the bandwith, it's the users and I assume they are already being charged what the market will bear and the telco's are making a profit. What gives?

This includes big tech and people at home.

So if you spend all day on Youtube or Netflix then expect to have to pay for the large number of GB that you will use -- just as Youtube/Netflix will have to pay for those GB to get to the backbone/Internet-exchanges.

The problem is that ISPs like to advertise all-you-can-eat packages at some low cost. They then find that they lose when a couch potato burns through many many GB.

The solution is simple: £X gets you Y GB, if you want more then you have to pay more. The trouble is that the ISP marketing departments do not like this reality and go crying "unfair" to government.

To counter that slightly, my bill is increasing by £3 per month for the telco to install more equipment to cope with the streaming load.

I don't stream in general, although i have streamed 1 missed program, and one series of 10 episodes due to the BBC not making it available on terrestrial TV. Else, everything is freeview.

As such, i am subsidising those people who do stream. So a tax on those providing the services to offset the cost would (hopefully) be beneficial to me. Though i doubt there will be a £3 drop in costs for my broadband.

Tariffs based on bandwidth rather than volume are standard because they better reflect the costs incurred for the services provided: the max volume for specified bandwidth for a period of time is also easily calculated.

But the main reason that the internet remains open is that interconnect agreements generally forbid preferential charging: a packet is a packet, whether it's carrying video or e-mail. The interconnects are also where any adjustments should be made. This can and should be done without any kind of political interference. It would be a big mistake to threaten this just to make it easier for the telcos to provide similar services: vertical integration never favours the customer.

What gives?

EU politicians up for re-election, trying to show that they're tough on profit, and tough on the causes of profit.

I pay €70/month for my internet (plus mobile, plus VoIP landline).

Multiply by the number of subscribers to the national telco, I can't help but think that maybe it's a question of how the money is being spent, rather than a lack of it.

What worries me is not just the potential Balkanisation of the internet (those who pay vs those who don't), but also the fact that what this will really translate into is price hikes for everybody.

If the big companies account for 50%+ of traffic, then it would seem the telcos are selling a service to access the big companies... meaning they should probably foot the bill for access, or not provide access (and lose customers to competitors who do). If they sell an "upto mbps" service, they should expect people to want to use it - irrespective of the origin of the data - even if the business model is to sell an over subscribed/contended service for as much as they can get away with... the inter-connects are the price of providing a service. There are no options to buy "cheap internet, but without tiktok, youtube, facebook and netflix" - even though there are some that might actually like the option.

It sounds like a rerun of the net neutrality stuff in the US that got talked about a few years back, where the ISPs didn't want to just provide dumb pipes, but were also trying to "add value" with their own TV services (or whatever).

Whatever happens, customers will pay more to cover these new costs because either their netflix sub will go up or their telco sub will... because neither of those two groups of companies ever try to price gouge at every available opportunity...

"In May, the GMSA estimated that cloud providers and hyperscalers like Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Apple, Meta, and Netflix account for 57 percent of global traffic."

Without observing that on a broadband access network, subscribers account for 100% of that traffic (and already pay for its transit).

So if I purchase something physical online or over the phone, should that mean I never have to pay postage again because the company I bought it from are one of the big senders of parcels and clog up the network and they have to pay to send it to me?

Are these people nuts or what?

Service providers pay a fee for their internet connection.

Customers pay a fee to their ISP for internet access.

So, they are really saying Provider -> CDN is ok, but they want the provider to pay for CDN -> customer (which the customer has already paid for)?

As the founder of PIPEX the first commercial ISP in Europe, which became by far the largest international ISP. This claim by Telcos is all about them trying to reestablish their cosy monopolies. As usual they are corrupting the political system to enable them to extort money. Rather than do their job of investing and innovating in the services their customers demand. ( Which is far harder work for management, than lobbying politicians.)

While I have no sympathy for large tech, when they also abuse their monopoly, at least they innovate and invest. Telcos, always drag their feet on investment and seek to slow innovation.

I hope(but do not expect) the EU politicians to do the right thing and put kerbs on the abuse of ALL monopolies in the interest of its public. Rather than support one monopoly over another.