[Bloat] Re: [Cake] [NNagain] The French have decided to destroy the Internet within their own country by taxing Gigabits (Dr. Peering)

[Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>]

David,

I feel you are barking up the wrong tree here.

> On Nov 4, 2026, at 18:57, David P. Reed <dpreed@deepplum.com> wrote:
> 
> Sascha, et al. -
>  The law is never about "how will we enforce it", because (sarcasm on) such petty details as enforcement is not germane to Governments' Will to Control (sarcasm off).
>  When they try to dream up "technical means" for enforcement, rather than just putting the law on the books, they may all of a sudden try to interfere with all kinds of Internet mechanisms. This won't be easy, but we have the history of Thought Control starting with the early Internet deployments where the words "breast" and so forth were supposed to be detected by all Internet routers in all packets. Senator Exon of the US got some "tech pundits" to say that was possible and easy, and I got involved politically to suppress the "Exon Box" idea, which was politically gaining steam, even among "progressives.:
>  The issue, of course, is that the legislators invent dynamite-scale enforcement mechanisms that interfere with every damn thing in order to solve a pretty narrow problem.
> 
> Note that the Post Office in most countries are NOT allowed to inspect all letters and packages.

I would be surprised though, if the postal service did not keep track of the number of packets and their weight per each other countries, no?

> But the fascist instinct exists everywhere, even France. "There oughta be a law" is what voters first turn to, both on the Left and the RIght - which is why just saying "The Rule of Law" is not equivalent to democracy.
>  If you want to charge a tax on a behavior of a consumer, you basically need to surveill actual consumption by each individual, which is not technically feasible. No more than enforcing a law that says you can't listen to the words of Islam or read Mein Kampf. 

That is not what that amendment actually proposes... it is really quite explicit, ingress bytes per ASN aggregated monthly. NOT per individual end-user, as the tax is not per individual but per ASN (at least that is the plan, we all agree that this plan is likely going nowhere).

> 
> I don't get really upset about this until the Tax Policy starts to move to an implementation that destroys our rights to privacy (meaning the right to be left alone, not the right to keep data secret).

All they require is for ISPs to monitor what competent ISPs likely already monitor for internal reasons anyway, the aggregate ingress data per ASN... If that would leak, it would be unfortunate for the ISPs as it might reveal interesting data about that ISP to its competitors, but for the ISP's endusers that likely would be no privacy issue as they are not part of the aggregated data

That is not ment to mean all is fine with the amendment (and we all seem to agree it is going nowhere and deservedly so), just that privacy or censorship in my opinion are not really affected.

Regards
	Sebastian.


>  On Wednesday, November 4, 2026 12:03, "Sebastian Moeller via Cake" <cake@lists.bufferbloat.net> said:
> 
> > Hi Sascha,
> > 
> > On November 4, 2026 5:20:01 PM GMT+01:00, Sascha Meinrath
> > <sascha@thexlab.org> wrote:
> > >Hi Sebastian,
> > >
> > >My point is that if I VPNed to a point outside France, then a French ISP would
> > have no way to know that I've accessed the type of media that should be taxed.
> > 
> > 
> > A misunderstanding, the amendment prposes to tax every single bit independent of
> > the source... it makes zero exemptions, not for FOSS, not for non commercially ial
> > entities. Sure the motivation is to tax big tech primarily, but the current
> > (half-baked) legal implementation is not differentiating...
> > 
> > 
> > > In essence, VPNs (and proxy services) would create extraordinary problems for
> > even instrumenting the proposed taxing regime.
> > 
> > How? Like with a CDN the tax would hit the vpn provider... the ASN of the source
> > IP....
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > >
> > >--Sascha
> > >
> > >On 11/4/26 10:40 AM, Sebastian Moeller wrote:
> > >> Hi Sascha,
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> On Nov 2, 2026, at 15:30, Sascha Meinrath <sascha@thexlab.org>
> > wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> I can't wait until the French Parliament learns about VPNs... It
> > would be absolutely *wonderful* if all the ISPs passed along the tax to their
> > customers... and then taught all their customers that VPNed traffic would, for
> > obvious reasons, be exempted.
> > >>
> > >> Not how this is supposed to work: the ISP aggregates its end-customer
> > bound traffic volume by ASN and reports these aggregates quarterly, the tax office
> > sends the ASNs the tax bill. VPN does not really matter, except now it is the VPN
> > provider that is on the hook for the money. The amendment does not address VPNs
> > but for CDNs that are in a similar picckle the idea is that CDN operators either
> > pass on the cost or "eat" it themselves (both half-baked ideas). The only oddity
> > VPNs add is that they typically receive no money from the actual content
> > providers, but the end users.
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> I find proposals like this to be absolutely idiotic -- and, they are
> > yet another step in the global data obfuscation arms race.
> > >>
> > >> Oh, that proposal is pretty half-baked, no arggument there, but I think
> > we differ in which of its half-baked-ness we consider worst ;)
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> #encrypteverything
> > >>
> > >> Well, if you look what this is supposed to operate on encryption is not
> > really an option, as this operates on source and destination IP addresses, that
> > are somewhat prickly to encrypt if you want packets delivered...
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> --Sascha
> > >>>
> > >>> On 11/2/26 6:23 AM, Sebastian Moeller via Nnagain wrote:
> > >>>> Hi Michael,
> > >>>>> On Nov 2, 2026, at 08:44, Michael Welzl
> > <michawe@ifi.uio.no> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> The tax is 5 cents per Gigabyte. This is insane.
> > >>>> Back of the envelop calculations for video streaming (assuming
> > this to be the one category driving most of the sustained capacity usage):
> > >>>> common use seems to be HD streaming (say on average at 5 Mbps),
> > with say 2 hours per day, 7 days per week:
> > >>>> (5 * 1000^2) * (60 * 60 * 2 * 30) / (8 * 1000^3) = 135 GB
> > >>>> -> 135 * 0.055 = 7.425 Euro/month
> > >>>> typical cost for midrange (ad-free) video streaming in france:
> > 8-15 Euro
> > >>>> depending on the reference contract tier, the tax almost as large
> > as the total revenue, no way this could be priced-in without significant price
> > increases.
> > >>>> The proposed tax indeed seems quite steep, however it is capped
> > at 15% of revenue in france or 2% of world-wide revenue
> > >>>> So that would get this more in like with a 15% tax... on revenue,
> > still nothing to sneeze at, but a far cry from the numbers one gets when simply
> > multiplying...
> > >>>> Regards
> > >>>> Sebastian
> > >>>> P.S.: My take this is half-baked and will not make it through the
> > further legislative process in that form.
> > >>>>> It goes against how we agree to use the Internet.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> English version:
> > >>>>> "France has recently approved a highly controversial
> > "Internet Traffic
> > >>>>> Tax" (or Gigabyte Tax) as part of the 2027 budget bill
> > amendments. The
> > >>>>> new levy targets digital content providers based on the
> > volume of data
> > >>>>> they transmit to French internet users, which is monitored by
> > network
> > >>>>> operators and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) heavily
> > utilizing
> > >>>>> Internet Exchange Points like France-IX."
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Google AI summary:
> > >>>>> "Key Metrics & Tax Rates
> > >>>>> • €0.055 per gigabyte charged to content
> > providers.
> > >>>>> • Capped at 15% of a provider's French revenue.
> > >>>>> • Capped at 2% of a provider's global revenue.
> > >>>>> • Measured directly by French network operators and
> > ISPs."
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On 2026-10-31 13:56, Frantisek Borsik wrote:
> > >>>>>> Crossposting, because this garbage idea might "inspire"
> > more countries
> > >>>>>> and
> > >>>>>> have a horrible impact also on bufferbloat everywhere.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> *Original post by Dr. Peering:*
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> *"The French have decided to destroy the Internet within
> > their own
> > >>>>>> country
> > >>>>>> by taxing Gigabits. Here’s Octave Klaba's excellent
> > analysis [in
> > >>>>>> French,
> > >>>>>> link below] showing just how insane the finance bill
> > actually is. The
> > >>>>>> IXP
> > >>>>>> taxation amount is, just for starters, ridiculous!"*
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> https://x.com/drpeering/status/2116468659392807
> > >>>>>>
> > <https://x.com/drpeering/status/2116468659392807381?a=E-elnbppn-MAi-LNIrU&s=46>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> *Octave's post:*
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > https://fr.linkedin.com/posts/octave-klaba-3a0b3632_jai-lu-lamendement-i-1358-au-plf-2027-activity-7522219045576888320-uqkw
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> *Copy+paste:*
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> J'ai lu l'amendement I-1358 au PLF 2027, adopté ce
> > vendredi à
> > >>>>>> l'Assemblée :
> > >>>>>> une taxe de 0,055 € par Go envoyé vers les
> > abonnés des FAI français. Le
> > >>>>>> chiffre est abstrait, alors comparons-le. Corrigez-moi si
> > vous voyez
> > >>>>>> des
> > >>>>>> erreurs.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Deux comparaisons et un cas concret :
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> 1. Le transit et le peering. Un port 100 Gbps coûte
> > environ 6 300 € par
> > >>>>>> mois chez un fournisseur de transit mondial. En
> > interconnexion directe
> > >>>>>> avec
> > >>>>>> un FAI européen, compter 3 à 5 fois plus,
> > soit 20 à 30 k€ par mois. Sur
> > >>>>>> ce
> > >>>>>> port (a), la taxe atteint 1,02 M€ par mois, soit
> > environ 3400 % à 16300
> > >>>>>> %
> > >>>>>> du prix d'une interconnexion vers les FAI
> > français. On change donc
> > >>>>>> profondément le modèle économique de
> > la bande passante en France.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> 2. Les hyperscalers sont critiqués pour le prix de
> > leur trafic sortant,
> > >>>>>> qui
> > >>>>>> va d'environ 0,08€ à 0,045€ par Go selon
> > le volume. La taxe, 0,055 €
> > >>>>>> par
> > >>>>>> Go, représente 68 % à 123 % de ce prix. On
> > parle donc de doubler, pour
> > >>>>>> le
> > >>>>>> trafic vers la France, un prix déjà
> > jugé trop élevé !
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> 3. Le cas d'OVHcloud. Nous envoyons de l'ordre de 500
> > Gbps au 95e
> > >>>>>> percentile vers les FAI français, soit environ 324
> > Gbps en moyenne. Sur
> > >>>>>> un
> > >>>>>> an, la taxe brute atteindrait 70 M€. Le texte la
> > plafonne à 15 % du CA
> > >>>>>> réalisé en France ou à 2 % du CA
> > mondial, soit entre environ 23 et 70
> > >>>>>> M€
> > >>>>>> par an que nous devrions collecter pour l'État, et
> > donc répercuter sur
> > >>>>>> nos
> > >>>>>> clients.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Conclusions :
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> 1. Une taxe porte en général sur une petite
> > fraction de son assiette.
> > >>>>>> Celle-ci vaut plus de 3000 % du coût du transit, et
> > environ 100 % du
> > >>>>>> prix
> > >>>>>> public des hyperscalers. Rappelez-vous la loi SREN,
> > votée pour
> > >>>>>> supprimer
> > >>>>>> les frais de transfert qui empêchaient les clients
> > de quitter un
> > >>>>>> fournisseur cloud. Ici, on parle de doubler le prix du
> > trafic sortant
> > >>>>>> vers
> > >>>>>> les internautes français, un prix
> > déjà très problématique.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> 2. Le garde-fou, un plafond calculé sur le chiffre
> > d'affaires, est
> > >>>>>> incohérent. Ce chiffre d'affaires couvre des
> > serveurs, du stockage, des
> > >>>>>> datacenters et des équipes sans rapport avec la
> > bande passante. C'est
> > >>>>>> comme
> > >>>>>> créer une taxe calculée sur la consommation
> > électrique des usines
> > >>>>>> automobiles en France, plafonnée à 15 % du
> > chiffre d'affaires des
> > >>>>>> constructeurs. Quel rapport entre les deux ?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> 3. Une taxe nationale de ce type frappe à coup
> > sûr les entreprises
> > >>>>>> établies
> > >>>>>> en France, alors que leurs concurrents mondiaux sans
> > présence en France
> > >>>>>> livrent le même trafic aux mêmes FAI
> > français sans payer cette taxe en
> > >>>>>> pratique. Cela crée une distorsion de concurrence
> > au détriment des
> > >>>>>> acteurs
> > >>>>>> nationaux et déclasse les entreprises qui
> > embauchent en France. Une
> > >>>>>> taxe
> > >>>>>> qui produit l'effet inverse serait une meilleure
> > approche.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> (a) Facturé au 95e percentile, ce port n'est pas
> > plein en permanence :
> > >>>>>> avec
> > >>>>>> un profil journalier type (22 % vers 4 h, 90 % vers 21
> > h), il
> > >>>>>> transporte en
> > >>>>>> moyenne 57 % de sa capacité, soit 18,6 millions de
> > Go par mois.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> All the best,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Frank
> > >>>>>> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> In loving memory of Dave Täht: 1965-2025
> > >>>>>> https://libreqos.io/2025/04/01/in-loving-memory-of-dave/
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
> > >>>>>> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714
> > <+421%20919%20416%20714>
> > >>>>>> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885 <775%20230%20885>
> > >>>>>> Skype: casioa5302ca
> > >>>>>> frantisek.borsik@gmail.com
> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>>> Bloat mailing list -- bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
> > >>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to
> > bloat-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net
> > >>>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>> Bloat mailing list -- bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
> > >>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to
> > bloat-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net
> > >>>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>> Bloat mailing list -- bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
> > >>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to
> > bloat-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net
> > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>> Nnagain mailing list -- nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
> > >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to
> > nnagain-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Sascha Meinrath
> > >>> Director, X-Lab
> > >>> Palmer Chair in Telecommunications
> > >>> Penn State University
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > 
> > --
> > Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Cake mailing list -- cake@lists.bufferbloat.net
> > To unsubscribe send an email to cake-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net
> >