Month: August 2020

Beware Those Coming After Your Delivery Apps

Beware Those Coming After Your Delivery Apps

The pandemic has, for better or worse, forced us to live online. That has made internet retail, digital services and delivery apps a godsend for millions of us sequestered at home.

This entirely new sector of the economy has allowed us to safely buy and enjoy without the risk of coronavirus. At the press of a button, your favorite food and drinks are magically delivered to your door.

But as you bite into your meal delivered by Grubhub, Uber Eats or DoorDash, there is a movement afoot to make that even more difficult.

Getting in between you and your food delivery is a coalition of advocacy groups working around the country to regulate, limit and severely restrict companies that offer delivery via applications.

Dubbing themselves “Protect Our Restaurants,” this Washington-based coalition of social justice groups is calling on state and local government to cap the commissions on delivery service apps.

They have already been successful in the District of Columbia, Seattle and San Francisco, where commission rates for food deliveries are now capped at 15 percent. And there is a bevy of other city councils lining up to join them, some wanted an even lower cap at 5 percent.

They claim delivery companies, the same ones that have empowered consumers, given vast new capabilities to restaurants and provided good income to couriers, are “exploiting” each of these groups in pursuit of the almighty dollar.

The hospitality industry is already on its last leg due to state-imposed lockdowns. Why would getting in the way between you and your next hot meal be the new issue of economic and social justice?

In July, it was projected by the NPD group that restaurant deliveries made up as much as 7 percent of food orders, 50 percent more than pre-pandemic. That number is underestimated, but it proves the rush is not yet over.

That means more customers are using food delivery apps to put meals on the table, sampling restaurants and kitchens so desperate for the income. And that service comes at a price.

For orders placed through a delivery app to a restaurant, the app charges either a flat or percentage-based fee as a commission, which funds the logistics, the courier’s pay and marketing costs. This amount varies between 13.5 percent and 40 percent, depending on which options a restaurant agrees to when they sign up.

It is that variance in commission rates that so enrages activists in this space. Plenty of anecdotes have swarmed social media warning of high fees for conducting businesses through the apps.

And while these caps on commission are well intended, they are counter-productive.

It will mean fewer order volumes that can be processed, less money will be available to couriers who sign up to deliver for the app, and apps will have to limit which businesses they accept. That would hurt restaurants, couriers and consumers who depend on these services.

This would end up hurting more people than it purports to help. That would be both anti-consumer and anti-innovation in the same fell swoop, which seems bonkers several months into a pandemic.

The other complaint mounted is antitrust concerns, similar to congressional hearings against Apple, Amazon, Facebook and Google earlier this month. Activists want to use the weapons of the Federal Trade Commission to break up the “monopoly power” of delivery services.

Most of these companies, however, are true American success stories. They have existed for less than 10 years, have pivoted multiple times, expanded their services, and found a good niche empowering restaurants to quickly and reliably get their food to delivery customers.

Thousands of delivery workers have quick and easy work, giving much-needed income to students, those between jobs, and people who want extra income. They often contract with multiple services, depending on which offers the highest commission per delivery, similar to rideshare drivers.

The benefits to restaurants are also clear: less money is spent on hiring a delivery driver or vehicle, commissions charged are transparent and partnering with a well-known app helps attracts more customers who would otherwise never order from that specific restaurant. Most of these restaurants likely never had delivery before they signed up for these apps. That is hardly a case for trustbusting.

If those aiming to regulate food delivery companies and are successful in doing so, they’ll set up a paradox of their own making: the only companies that will be able to comply with the regulations and caps will be the firms with the most capital and resources. This would lockout any potential new competition and do more to restrict consumer choice than enhance it.

The last few months have provided every consumer with plenty of uncertainty. Being able to order products right to our door, though, has been a blessing.

Intervening in the market to undermine the choice of consumers and business contracts with restaurants would make that process arguably worse, and not better.

Originally published here.


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Menjaga Hak Kekayaan Intelektual untuk Mendorong Ekonomi Kreatif

Hak kekayaan intelektual (HAKI) merupakan hal yang sangat penting untuk dilindungi untuk mendorong inovasi di berbagai bidang. Tanpa adanya perlindungan HAKI, maka akan makin kecil pula insentif yang dimiliki oleh para individu untuk berkarya, karena setiap orang dapat dengan mudah mencuri ide dan hasil karya yang mereka buat untuk mendapatkan keuntungan materi.

Salah satu inovasi yang paling penting untuk didorong di era perkembangan teknologi yang makin pesat seperti saat ini adalah ekonomi kreatif. Istilah “ekonomi kreatif” (creative economy) sendiri merupakan istilah yang diperkenalkan oleh penulis dan akademisi asalh Britania Raya, John Howkins, yang mendefinisikan ekonomi kreatif sebagai sistem ekonomi di mana aktivitas yang dilakukan dan nilai yang diciptakannya didasari pada ide dan kreativitas, dan bukan pada sumber daya tradisional seperti tanah buruh, dan modal. (Howkins, 2001).

Howkins sendiri mendasari gagasanya mengenai ekonomi kreatif dengan melihat fenomena yang terjadi di Amerika Serikat pada akhir dekade 1990-an, di mana banyak perusahaan baru yang tumbuh dengan bertumpu dari eksplorasi dan pengembangan ide-ide kreatif. Perusahaan-perusahaan ini umumnya adalah perusahaan-perusahaan teknologi yang revolusioner, yang melakukan disrupsi terhadap berbagai sektor-sektor konvensional.

Badan Pariwisata dan Ekonomi Kreatif (Bekraf) sendiri membagi ada 16 sektor ekonomi kreatif di Indonesia. Bidang-bidang tersebut antara lain adalah (1) aplikasi dan pengembangan permainan, (2) arsitektur, (3) desain produk, (4) fashion, (5) desain interior, (6) desain komunikasi visual, (7) seni pertunjukan, (8) film, animasi dan video, (9) fotografi, (10) kriya, (11) kuliner, (12) musik, (13) penerbitan, (14) periklanan, (15) seni rupa, dan (16) televisi dan radio (Elshinta.com, 30/08/2018).

Namun, perkembangan industri ekonomi kreatif, yang sangat penting untuk menopang ekonomi Indonesia di masa depan, juga bukan tantangan. Salah satu tantangan terbesar bagi pelaku industri ekonomi kreatif adalah masih rendahnya perlindungan hak kekayaan intelektual (HAKI) terhadap karya yang mereka buat. Hal ini tentunya memiliki dampak yang negatif, di mana praktik-praktik pembajakan yang akan sangat merugikan para pelaku usaha kreatif akan makin mudah dilakukan dengan rendahnya pendaftaran terhadap HAKI.

Catatan Badan Pusat Statistik (BPS) tahun 2019, misalnya, hanya ada 11,05% pelaku sektor ekonomi kreatif yang memiliki HAKI, dari 8,2 juta pelaku usaha yang bergerak di sektor industri tersebut. Ini berarti hanya sekitar 900.000 para pelaku usaha sektor industri kreatif yang memiliki HAKI atas karyanya.

Hal ini salah satu sebabnya karena kurangnya pengetahuan dan kesadaran. Hal ini mendorong Bekraf untuk makin mendorong para pelaku ekonomi kreatif untuk mendaftarkan karyanya agar bisa menjadi aset di masa depan (Indopolitika, 27/10/2019).

Salah satu upaya dari Bekraf untuk mendorong dan menyosialisasikan pentingnya HAKI kepada para pelaku industri kretif adalah melalui program pendaftaran HAKI yang tidak dipungut biaya, yang diberlakukan di berbagai daerah. Melalui program ini, diharapkan akan makin banyak para pelaku industri kreatif yang mendaftarkan karya-karya yang mereka buat (Kliklegal.com, 2017).

Akan tetapi, pendaftaran HAKI oleh pelaku ekonomi kreatif juga tentu harus diikuti degan penegakan hukum yang jelas dan kuat. Apabila makin banyak para pelaku ekonomi kreatif yang mendaftarkan karyanya kepada pemerintah, namun tidak diikuti dengan perlindungan yang kuat atas HAKI tersebut, maka tentu pendaftaran tersebut menjadi sia-sia belaka.

Bila kita ke pertokoan atau pusat perbelanjaan di berbagai daerah, misalnya, kita bisa dengan mudah menemukan berbagai produk kreatif bajakan yang dijual bebas dengan harga murah. Produk-produk tersebut bukan saja hasil karya para produsen dan seniman luar negeri, namun tak jarang juga dari dalam negeri.

Hal tersebut tentu akan sangat merugikan para pekerja kreatif yang menghasilkan karya-karya tersebut. Mereka menjadi tidak bisa mendapatkan manfaat finansial dari karya-karyanya. Bagi para pelaku usaha kreatif, untuk membuat karya tertentu, tentunya dibutuhkan waktu yang tidak sedikit dan usaha yang besar.

Bila kita tidak memberikan perlindungan HAKI terhadap para pekerja industri kreatif, maka mereka tidak akan dapat memiliki kontrol atas karya yang mereka buat dengan menggunakan kreativitas yang mereka miliki. Setiap orang bisa mengopi dan menjiplak brand atau produk yang mereka hasilkan, dan tentunya insentif seseorang untuk menggunakan kreativitasnya akan makin berkurang. Hal ini tentu merupakan sesuatu yang berbahaya, mengingat bahwa industri ekonomi kreatif merupakan sektor industri yang makin terus berkembang dari tahun ke tahun.

Industri ekonomi kreatif sendiri, di Indonesia, merupakan sektor yang mengalami pertumbuhan yang sangat pesat dari tahun ke tahun. Berdasarkan data dari Badan Pusat Statistik (BPS) pada 2010, kontribusi industri ekonomi kreatif di Indonesia adalah 528 triliun rupiah. Angka ini menjadi meningkat di tahun 2014 menjadi 784 triliun rupiah (Rahman, 2018).

Pada 2015, kontribusi industri kreatif di Indonesia terhadap Gross Domestic Products (GDP) mencapat 852 triliun rupiah, dan di tahun 2016 dan 2017, angka tersebut tidak juga menurun. Kontribusi industri kreatif di Indonesia pada 2016 adalah 922 triliun rupiah, dan mencapai 990 triliun rupiah di tahun 2017, atau sekitar 7,4% dari total GDP Indonesia (Rahman, 2018).

Angka tersebut tentu adalah jumlah yang tidak kecil dan sangat besar. Industri kreatif merupakan sektor yang mengalami pekembangan yang sangat pesat dan terus tumbuh dari waktu ke waktu.

Untuk itu, perlindungan terhadap HAKI, khususnya untuk para pelaku industri kreatif merupakan sesuatu yang sangat penting agar industri kreatif di Indonesia dapat makin bertumbuh ke depannya, yang tentunya akan membawa manfaat yang sangat besar bagi perekonomian dan peningkatan kesejahteraan negara kita.

Selain itu, kontribusi industri ekonomi kreatif di Indonesia yang terus meningkat di Indonesia juga membawa dampak yang sangat positif terhadap meningkatnya tenaga kerja di sektor tersebut. Berdasarkan data dari Kementerian Sekretariat Negara Republik Indonesia, pada 2016, sektor ekonomi kreatif di Indonesia sudah menyediakan 16,2 juta lapangan kerja bagi tenaga kerja Indonesia. Angka ini meningkat menjadi 16,4 juta lapangan kerja di tahun 2017 (Kementerian Sekretariat Negara Republik Indonesia, 2018).

Sebagai penutup, untuk itu, perlindungan hak kekayaan intelektual adalah hal yang sangat esensial untuk mendorong perkembangan dan kemajuan ekonomi kreatif di Indonesia. Pemerintah harus bisa memberi perlindungan dan menjaga para pekerja kreatif atas karya yang mereka buat.

Originally published here.


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Argentina’s telecom price controls are economic masochism

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina – Last week, in a bid to ensure unrestricted access for everyone to telecommunication services, the Argentinian government decided to extend a price freeze for TV, internet and mobile services until the end of the year, deeming them “essential public services”.

Prices on these services have been frozen since May, and it was expected that the ban would be lifted at the end of this month.

In response, Luca Bertoletti, Senior European Affairs Manager at the Consumer Choice Center, criticises the move saying that such a policy was populist and economically illiterate, and will destroy Argentina’s relationship with the International Monetary Fund who has been supportive of the country’s – though unsuccessful so far – road to prosperity.

“The Covid-19 crisis has overburdened most economies in the world and Argentina is no different. In order to help the economy get back on track, the Argentinian government will finally need to implement pro-free market reforms instead of holding onto socialist policies such as price controls on telecom services,” said Maria Chaplia, European Affairs Associate at the Consumer Choice Center.

“Argentina’s government should pull itself together and start making the right decisions, instead of pushing the country further down. Argentina deserves better than a populist government that pretends to act in the interests of consumers by extending price controls of TV, internet and mobile services at the expense of future prosperity,” concluded Bertoletti.

Originally published here.


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Análisis internacional: “Cómo los controles de precios en Argentina podrían tener consecuencia de gran alcance”

Luca Bertoletti y Maria Chaplia, Senior European Affairs y Asociada de Asuntos Europeos,en el Consumer Choice Center respectivamente, analizaron la decisión del Gobierno argentino de declarar “esenciales” a los servicios de telecomunicaciones y las consecuencias que traerá no sólo en el país, sino en el mundo.

Telecomunicaciones, Argentina

La semana pasada, en un intento por asegurar el acceso irrestricto de todos a los servicios de telecomunicaciones, el gobierno argentino decidió extender la congelación de precios de los servicios de TV, Internet y móviles hasta fin de año, por considerarlos “servicios públicos esenciales”. Los precios de estos servicios han estado congelados desde mayo, y se esperaba que la prohibición se levantara a finales de este mes.

Prohibir que las empresas de telecomunicaciones suban los precios puede parecer una política sensata, pero es todo lo contrario. Los controles de precios son una política económica desastrosa e irresponsable que solo conduce a una escasez de oferta, lo que priva a los consumidores de opciones, expulsa del mercado a las empresas que alguna vez tuvieron éxito y reduce la calidad de los servicios prestados.

La crisis de Covid-19 ha sobrecargado a la mayoría de las economías del mundo y Argentina no es diferente. El camino hacia la recuperación económica requerirá una gran inversión que requiere la certeza legislativa. Las empresas latinoamericanas a menudo tienen que recurrir al financiamiento externo y cuando surgen riesgos sin precedentes, como los controles de precios, el costo del financiamiento también aumenta, según Maryleana Méndez, secretaria general de la Asociación Interamericana de Empresas de Telecomunicaciones.

A primera vista, la decisión del gobierno argentino de extender los controles de precios puede verse como la que beneficia a los consumidores. La lógica detrás de dichos controles de precios es clara: asegurarse de que todos los consumidores argentinos, incluso los de bajos ingresos, puedan disfrutar de los servicios de televisión, Internet y móviles.

Si bien este enfoque tiene su origen en motivos nobles, lamentablemente está condenado al fracaso y, al final, las empresas perderán todos los incentivos para operar en el mercado. Si las empresas no tienen la libertad de fijar precios como deseen, teniendo en cuenta sus costos operativos, ¿cuál es la razón para continuar? Una solución es reducir la calidad de sus precios simplemente para mantenerse a flote. Por el contrario, los consumidores que pueden pagar más se quedan fuera y no se puede satisfacer su demanda.

La intromisión del gobierno argentino en las fuerzas del mercado es inaceptable y socialista en su esencia, y también empeorará la relación del país con el Fondo Monetario Internacional. Y aunque el gobierno del presidente Alberto Fernández (y sus predecesores) ha desconfiado ampliamente del FMI, Argentina es el principal cliente del FMI.

El país ha recibido más de 20 programas de ayuda financiera del FMI desde finales de la década de 1950. Argentina permanece constantemente al borde del colapso, por lo que ya es hora de que el país tome el camino de la liberalización económica y comience a tomar su relación con el FMI más en serio en lugar de llevar a cabo otra intervención dañina y populista. Los controles de precios son masoquismo económico.

Todo consumidor desea tener tantas opciones para elegir como sea posible y poder equilibrar razonablemente el precio y la calidad. Si no hay nadie que les proporcione estas opciones, todos pierden, especialmente a largo plazo. Al igual que con los derechos de propiedad intelectual, si las empresas no obtienen protección para sus invenciones, hay pocos incentivos para que innoven.

La sobreregulación de la industria de las telecomunicaciones es una política costosa que tendrá un impacto negativo en el clima de inversión de Argentina en el futuro, obstaculizando su recuperación económica y destruyendo su relación con el FMI. El gobierno de Argentina debería recuperarse y comenzar a tomar las decisiones correctas, en lugar de empujar al país más hacia abajo. Argentina se merece algo mejor que un gobierno populista que pretende actuar en interés de los consumidores ampliando los controles de precios de los servicios de televisión, internet y móviles a costa de la prosperidad futura.

Originally published here.


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

How price controls in Argentina could have far-reaching consequences

Last week, in a bid to ensure unrestricted access for everyone to telecommunication services, the Argentinian government decided to extend a price freeze for TV, internet and mobile services until the end of the year, deeming them “essential public services”. Prices on these services have been frozen since May, and it was expected that the ban would be lifted at the end of this month.

Banning telecommunications companies from raising prices might seem like a sensible policy, but the opposite is true. Price controls are a disastrous and irresponsible economic policy that only leads to a shortage of supply, thereby depriving consumers of choice, driving once-successful companies out of the market and reducing the quality of services provided.

The Covid-19 crisis has overburdened most economies in the world and Argentina is no different. The road to economic recovery will require a lot of investment that necessitates the need for legislative certainty. Latin American companies often have to resort to external financing and when unprecedented risks arise – such as price controls – the cost of financing goes up as well, according to Maryleana Mendez, general secretary of the Inter-American Association of Telecommunications Companies.

At first glance, the decision of the Argentinian government to extend price controls can be seen as the one that benefits consumers. The logic behind the said price controls is clear: to make sure that every Argentinian consumer – even those on low incomes – can enjoy TV, internet and mobile services.

While this approach stems from the noble motives, it is unfortunately doomed to fail and, in the end, companies will lose every incentive to operate in the market. If companies don’t have the freedom to set prices as they wish – keeping in mind their operational costs – what is the reason for them to carry on? One solution is to reduce the quality of their prices simply to keep afloat. Conversely, consumers who can afford to pay more are left out, and their demand cannot be met.

Argentina government’s meddling with the market forces is unacceptable and socialist ait its core, and will also worsen the country’s relationship with the International Monetary Fund. And while the government of President Alberto Fernandez (and his predecessors) has been widely distrustful of the IMF, Argentina is the IMF’s biggest client.

The country has received more than 20 financial aid programmes from the IMF since the late 1950s. Argentina constantly remains on the brink of collapse, so it’s high time the country took the path of economic liberalisation and started taking its relationship with the IMF more seriously instead of pulling off another harmful and populist intervention. Price controls are economic masochism.

Every consumer wants to have as many options to choose from as possible and to be able to reasonably balance out price and quality. If there is no one to provide these choices for them, everyone loses, especially in the long run. Similar to intellectual property rights, if companies don’t get protection for their inventions, there is little incentive for them to innovate.

The overregulation of the telecommunications industry is an expensive policy that will have a negative impact on Argentina’s investment climate in the future thereby hindering its economic recovery and destroying its relationship with the IMF. Argentina’s government should pull itself together and start making the right decisions, instead of pushing the country further down. Argentina deserves better than a populist government that pretends to act in the interests of consumers by extending price controls of TV, internet and mobile services at the expense of future prosperity.

Originally published here.


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Ranking 2020: Das sind die besten Flughäfen in Europa

Am Flughafen kann vieles schiefgehen – oder gut laufen. Ein Ranking zu den 30 größten Airports in Europa zeigt nun, wie passagierfreundlich sie sind. In den Top 10 sind auch zwei deutsche Flughäfen.

Trotz Pandemie und wochenlangem Stillstand an zahlreichen Flughäfen hat die internationale Verbraucherschutzorganisation Consumer Choice Center (CCC) auch im Corona-Jahr 2020 die 30 größten europäischen Flughäfen auf ihre Passagierfreundlichkeit hin untersucht und daraus ein Ranking erstellt. Auf dem jährlichen European Airport Index landen im Corona-Jahr 2020 zwei deutsche Flughäfen in den Top 10.

Flughafen-Ranking in Coron-Zeiten

In die Bewertung flossen unter anderem ein: die Entfernung vom Stadtzentrum, die Anbindung an den Nahverkehr, die Anzahl von Restaurants, Geschäften, Lounges und Flugsteigen, die durchschnittliche Wartezeit an der Sicherheitskontrolle sowie die Wege zwischen den einzelnen Terminals. Aufgrund des Coronavirus kamen auch neue Analysepunkte hinzu: So wurde bewertet, ob die Flughäfen genügend Sicherheitsabstand bieten und ob eine Corona-Teststation vorhanden ist.

Airport-Ranking in Europa: Zürich ist der beste Flughafen

Für jede Kategorie konnten die Flughäfen eine gewisse Punktzahl erreichen. Ist der Flughafen beispielsweise nur maximal zehn Kilometer vom Stadtzentrum entfernt, bekommt er die Maximalpunktzahl von 30. Bei 20 Kilometer sind es nur noch 15 Punkte, und ab 35 Kilometern gibt es keine Punkte mehr.

Flughäfen, die eine eigene Corona-Teststation haben, bekommen auf einen Schlag 15 Extrapunkte. Insgesamt können die Airports so die Höchstzahl von 235 Punkten erreichen.

Mit 205 Punkten belegt der Flughafen in Zürich Platz eins. Den zweiten Platz nimmt der Düsseldorfer Flughafen mit 165 Punkten ein, und Platz drei erreicht der Flughafen von Kopenhagen.

Überblick: Top 10 des European Consumer Airport Index 2020

  1. Flughafen Zürich in der Schweiz
  2. Flughafen Düsseldorf in Deutschland
  3. Flughafen Kopenhagen-Kastrup in Dänmark
  4. Manchester Airport in Großbritannien
  5. Flughafen Brüssel in Belgien
  6. Airport Charles de Gaulle in Frankreich
  7. Flughafen Frankfurt in Deutschland
  8. Amsterdam Airport Schiphol in den Niederlanden
  9. Paris Orly Airport in Frankreich
  10. Heathrow Airport London in Großbritannien

Berlin-Tegel letztes Mal im Ranking

Erstmals in der Liste taucht der neue Flughafen in Istanbul auf. Er belegt Platz elf. Und da der Flughafen Berlin-Tegel kurz nach der Eröffnung des neuen Hauptstadtflughafens BER am 8. November vom Netz gehen soll, ist er das letzte Mal in diesem Ranking zu finden. Im vergangenen Jahr belegte er noch Platz 28 – in diesem Jahr schafft es Berlin-Tegel auf den 26. Platz. 

Originally published here.


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Zürich er den bedste lufthavn

Københavns Lufthavn (CPH) har ikke haft meget at glæde sig over her i foråret, hvor den – som andre lufthavne også – har ligget øde hen uden fly og passagerer. Corona pandemien havde skylden.

Nu får CPH lidt af glæde sig over. Danmarks største lufthavn er nemlig blevet kåret som Europas tredje-bedste. Kun Zürich og Düsseldorf får flere points.

Kåringen kommer fra Consumer Choice Center, der repræsenterer forbrugere og forbruger-organisationer i 100 lande verden over.

Det nye ”European Airport Index” er det andet, som CCC har produceret. Det fokuserer alene på kundevenlighed.

I år har CCC også set på, hvordan lufthavnene har håndteret Corona pandemien i forhold til deres passagerer.

Har deres indretning med sociale afstande, information til passagerer, Corona test-faciliteter osv. haft kunden kunden i centrum?

Derudover har CCC også målt de 30 største lufthavne i Europa på deres udvalg af direkte destinationer, butikker, restauranter og andre passager-services.

”Dette år har været et af de mest udfordrende for rejsebranchen, fordi mange lufthavne var lukket i flere uger. Nogle sågar i måneder,” forklarer Fred Roeder. Han er Managing Director for Consumer Choice Center i Bruxelles:

“Mens rejser så småt begynder at vende tilbage igen, vil vi gerne fortælle forbrugere, hvilke lufthavne der er de bedste at bruge i Europa. Hvis de skal rejse her i sensommeren eller til efteråret, vil det være en god idé at starte eller slutte sn rejse i vel-designede lufthavne som Zürich, Düsseldorf og København,” fortsætter han.

Når man kigger nærmere i CCC’s omfattende rapport, kan man se, at også andre faktorer end de nævnte indgår i vurderingerne:

  • Hvor tæt ligger lufthavnen på bycentrum
  • Hvor mange lounges byder den på
  • Kan passagerer gå nemt mellem terminaler, eller skal de bruge bus og tog?
  • Ventetid ved paskontrol og Security
  • Informations-niveau til passagerer om f.eks. forsinkelser
  • Flyenes præcise afgang og ankomst

Originally published here.


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

ECJ Privacy Ruling Has Huge Costs

In July, the European Court of Justice struck down the Privacy Shield Agreement, used by companies to transfer data between the EU and the United States.

PA Gov. Wolf has it right on legalizing cannabis

Washington, D.C. – Unveiling his legislative priorities on Tuesday, Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf formally called on the State Legislature to legalize cannabis as a means of helping support small business funding across the state.

He proposed that proceeds from cannabis businesses go to restorative justice programs and small business financing as a measure of COVID-19 relief,

Yaël Ossowski, deputy director of the consumer advocacy group Consumer Choice Center, praised Wolf’s call.

“For too long, lives and resources have been wasted in the failed War on Drugs. By calling on state lawmakers to legalize recreational cannabis, Gov. Wolf is taking the next practical step to save lives and improve our communities,” said Ossowski.

“The benefits of legalization have already paid out massive dividends to the people in Colorado, California, Michigan, Oregon, and more, via tax revenues and also by reversing the harsh criminalization that has had a disproportionate impact on low-income and minority communities.

“As the fifth-most populous and one of the most diverse states in the country, Pennsylvania can show every state in our nation that legalizing cannabis is a positive step forward for justice and the economy,” said Ossowski.

“Officials should ensure that Pennsylvania embraces smart cannabis policy, one that encourages competition, entrepreneurship, avoids red tape and eradicates the black market to spur a new revolution in entrepreneurship and opportunity.

“The Consumer Choice Center applauds the governor’s efforts, and hopes legislators line up behind his proposal,” said Ossowski.

Read more about the Consumer Choice Center’s Smart Cannabis Policy Recommendations

CONTACT:

Yaël Ossowski

Deputy Director

Consumer Choice Center

yael@consumerchoicecenter.org

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva, Lima, Brasilia, and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org.

Scrapping Public Health England should only be the beginning

Scrapping Public Health England, a body with the ambition of nannying every Brit, is a significant step towards enhancing personal responsibility and allowing greater freedom. But there’s much further to go.

The UK government should drastically change its approach to healthcare and lifestyle regulations to create an enduring change. With 320,000 confirmed cases of Covid-19 across the country and close to 41,000 dead, there is an urgent need to find a scapegoat. PHE is problematic for many reasons, but it is hardly the root of the UK’s failed Covid response. Enormous centralisation and bureaucracy, on the other hand, are what the UK government needs to do away with. The response to the pandemic gives us clear examples.

It took the UK over six weeks to catch up with other developed countries’ testing capabilities. Germany’s decentralised and private laboratory network had already tested over two per cent of its population while the UK had tested a meagre 0.7 per cent. Britain’s centralised testing system, and its failure to scale up Covid-19 tests, might help explain part of the mortality gap between the two countries.

Testing, as we have learned, should be decentralised, which makes it more easily accessible to all groups of the population. The US government failed to stop the pandemic early on for a similar reason. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA)’s initial regulations prevented state and private labs from developing their own coronavirus diagnostic tests.

During the crucial weeks of February and March, it was only possible to get tested for Covid-19 in the US at the Centre for Disease and Control (CDC). The consequences were devastating. As a result of a massive shortage of tests, many undetected cases speeded up the spread of Covid. On 29 February, the US government allowed private labs to begin developing their own tests.

On 16 March, the procedure was decentralised further, making it possible for commercial manufacturers to distribute and labs to use new commercially developed before obtaining an FDA’s Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA). Not long after the red tape had been cut, private labs went on developing tests that were notably more effective, allowing many more people to get tested.

The centralisation at the NHS has also contributed to its vulnerability towards external shocks such as Covid-19. Decentralised hospital systems that promote private competition and patient choice have proven to be much more resilient, as Germany’s system demonstrates.

With that in mind, introducing more market mechanisms in the NHS would not mean that patients would be denied care – you can have universal healthcare in a social insurance model too. Having more private hospitals does not necessarily lead to fewer hospital beds, but a better allocation of skills and resources. Indeed, it allowed Germany to scale up its ICU capacity, as well as keeping services such as cancer treatments and screenings open in different locations.

Another reason not to get overjoyed about the season finale of the Public Health England’s reign is that it would continue to deal with the agency’s other non-Covid public health work, such as obesity policy, until the spring. Boris has set out to introduce radical anti-obesity measures, and there is every reason to expect the PHE will contribute its most poisonous ideas to that debate. One last time.

While free-marketers like me have been cheering the fall of the PHE with sugary milkshakes and burgers, health secretary Matt Hancock announced that nannying will be “embedded right across government… and in the work of every single local authority. We will use this moment to consult widely on how we can embed health improvement more deeply across the board.”

Even without PHE, we need to look at health issues, such as obesity, through the prism of innovation, education and personal responsibility. PHE’s better health marketing campaign to promote a healthy lifestyle is just one part of Boris’ anti-obesity approach, which tells us that even without institutions such as PHE, nannying will likely continue to flourish. That’s where we need a fundamental mindset change, not just an institutional one.

Abolishing old agencies and setting up new ones often gives the impression that such actions will have a positive lasting impact on our lives. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. While it is tempting to think that merely putting an end to the PHE will help make the UK better prepared for health crises, it is naive, to say the least. Neither will it move the needle away from paternalism. But it’s a great start!

Originally published here.


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Scroll to top