France stalls plan to make Google and pals foot broadband rollout France has put off plans to force Google and other web giants to help build broadband networks. The nation has instead handed off the controversial issue to a governmental panel described by activists as "an obscure committee". Fleur Pellerin, France's junior minister for the digital economy, told a roundtable on net …
"France's government wants big web firms with high volume traffic to contribute to investment in high-speed internet, which is currently funded by telcos."
So presumably those internet firms will then receive a hefty portion of the profit that the telcos make by selling access to that high-speed internet?
Oh look, un cochon volant.
I knew there was always something funny with the Frogs, all arse backwards based on this bit
"French broadband provider Iliad already tried to get the attention of web firms by launching a feature that blocks all online ads after Google continued to refuse to pay for the traffic it sends to customers in the country."
Google sends traffic to customers? In the rest of the world customers *request* traffic from Google, we dont have it forced down our intertubes.
What have existing taxes got to with this? I was implying that something like a drive through places extra demand on road surfaces, ok not to the extent of the amount of internet traffic google service. You really think that just because a web site is popular it should start paying specifically for this purpose to ISPs? Censoring a website because they've not bunged somebody some cash and not backed up by law? Surely that is called extortion which I thought would have been illegal?
If you are referring to google and other international companies doing legal tax evasion that is not the point of my comment, the comment I was replying to nor directly related to the article. What was your point again?
Governments, whether the french, uk or where ever, should sort out their tax laws and stop blaming companies for trying to improve their profits, thats why they exist. I personally blame the the UK government for failing to get the taxes it thinks it should have. Make the tax system simpler for SMEs, free up time and resources for those companies and the tax depts then concentrate for effort on large/huge companies.
This post has been deleted by its author
This is not a snarky comment.
In just what sense do Google "operate" in a country? Is it by having a datacenter there? Is it enough that residents of the country type the Google URL into their browsers? Is it only by having a "headquarters" of some kind in a country?
We can expect that international companies, Google and others, will analyze the tax laws of all the countries in which they have a presence and make placements and adjustments to improve profits, which is very likely to mean reduce their tax total across all countries. The also will petition or agitate otherwise to have laws that don't work too heavily against their profit objective. Those who expect otherwise are dreamers and are likely to be disappointed and angry. If the French are unhappy about the tax revenue they get from Google their legislators can change their tax laws, to the extent they are not constrained by treaty agreements, or negotiate with other nation-states to change matters. Whining about bad google not paying its "rightful" share of taxes, however that might be defined, is unlikely to be useful.
You request ads? Bizzare.
If you use Google then I am afraid, yes, yes you do.
There are alternatives out there that do not have adverts on their pages. They are not as good but the option is there. Yet if you still use Google then you are requesting the ads and it is up to you to block them.
Using googles search I do. Same way when I read a newspaper or magazine, plenty of ads in those. Unlike a newspaper _I_ can choose if I want the ads with a blocker. Notice the emphasis, I don't want anyone in between filtering my traffic.
Sometimes I do want the ads, when I'm looking to buy something.
The implication was that Google were forcing data to the client PCs, rather than the reality that the site the user HAS CHOSEN to visit uses adverts to keep itself running etc.
Those arent forced or unwanted, theyre necessary and/or wanted by the site operators. Its free choice, if you dont like having adverts "shoved" at you, dont go to those websites.
That said, maybe it is time to change things, make every website advert free or subscription only, pay your $2 a year to get access to a site and no more adverts, yay!
There is no 'funding gap', that's just a complete fabrication.
Web companies pay their own telcos for connectivity. No one gets a free ride.
If French ISPs claim they are not getting enough money for carrying web traffic, they are free to renegotiate interconnect fees and peering agreements with the source of the traffic.
They don't, because they haven't got a jambe to stand on.
Only in the ISP industry is excess demand considered a problem. In any other industry on earth it would be called an 'opportunity', and priced accordingly.
(ps, see this; https://www.dephormation.org.uk/?page=47).
It's these crazy users wanting access to google's shiny services.
There should be some way to make them pay for all the infrastructure required to deliver content to them.
How about some kind of monthly payment for using the service? That could go directly to the ISP.
If the user wanted to use more stuff on the web, then they could pay for faster access at a higher price.
that way, the ISP would be fairly compensated for the use of their infrastructure.
It's possibly a controversial approach for France - but they could set it up so that the ISP made the decision about the amount they need to charge for access at various speeds.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
