Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
euractiv | EU regulators give negative view on proposal to make ["]platforms["] pay for telecom infrastructure
as if (line, spectrum) telecom carriers do not already charge "users" (biz media operators, individual media operators by device and service area) for delivery by volume (data type and Q) aka "subscription plan type"?
BEREC stressed that the internet [sic] has a proven ability to self-adapt [sic] to changing conditions, including increasing traffic volume and changing demand patterns [differential pricing?]. In other words...In 2012, the telecom providers called for a similar sending-party-pays principle.
wut receiving-party is free of charges?
Another important argument of the telecom companies is that, while the tech platforms ["media operators"] are generating and monetising most of the network traffic rents, they [telecom companies] are left with bearing infrastructure costs [capEx] of up to €36-40 billion per year.
So what. CapEx is a P&L allowance; S/T, L/T liabilities are balance sheet finance artifacts.
BEREC noticed that this point needs to be thoroughly analysed since network infrastructure costs are not very traffic-sensitive [contradiction ALERT!] and their capacity needs to be enhanced ["bandwidth throttling and capping"?] only when higher peak capacity is required. However, the picture changes with mobile networks [spectrum bandwidth] that have a higher degree of traffic sensitivity.
"net neutrality" GIGO
The regulators' view is that the internet operators ["media operators"] and content providers ["media operators"] are mutually dependent [wut], as the demand  for [price of] content [data transmission] drives the demand for [price of] broadband access [carrier subscription] and, vice versa, internet availability [sic] leads to higher demand  for [price of] internet telecom carrier network services.

euractiv | Public service media looks for innovative solutions to old problems

Despite the recently-published European Media Freedom Act's focus [nope] on protecting [nope] public service media [operators], innovation [sic] at the newsroom level is needed to ensure that such outlets [media operators] can continue to function [?].

The EU's Media Freedom Act, published last month with the aim of boosting transparency and independence in the media, includes a number of safeguards aimed specifically at public service media: outlets [media operators] that are funded [in part or wholly] by [a government] and produce content [programmes] for the public.

contradiction ALERT
In order to further safeguard outlets, the regulation also obliges national governments to ensure that these organisations receive sufficient funding [?!] to protect their editorial independence [?!].

The specific [nope] focus on public service media follows concerns raised in the Commission's 2022 Rule of Law report, which for the first time, looked specifically at the challenges facing these types of outlets [media operators] and the steps countries [?!] could take to defend against the political pressure they might face. ....

See matrix of category errors
Wired | Biden's Privacy Order Slaps a Band-Aid on the EU-US Data Crisis, 7 Oct
"THE UNITED STATES is not going to stop spying on Europeans' data, but it is going to make sure that spying is 'proportionate.'"
noyb.eu | Executive Order on US Surveillance unlikely to satisfy EU law, 7 Oct
There is continuous "bulk surveillance" and a "court' that is not an actual court.
Max Schrems, chair of noyb.eu: "The EU and the US now agree on the use of the word 'proportionate' but seem to disagree on the meaning of it. In the end, the CJEU's definition will prevail— likely killing any EU decision again. The European Commission is turning a blind eye on US law again and allowing the continued surveillance of Europeans." ...
by Cat on Wed Oct 12th, 2022 at 09:58:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:

Oui 4


Occasional Series