fbpx

Author: Yaël Ossowski

Net Neutrality Rules Set To Be Reintroduced In The US

On September 26, the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel spoke at the National Press Club and said that she is a supporter of net neutrality. She proposed the revival of the net neutrality rules which had been rolled back in 2017 and said that the FCC would invite public comment on how restoring net neutrality rules can help ensure internet access is fast, open, and fair. 

Under Rosenworcel’s proposal, the FCC would have the power to oversee broadband internet access as a “telecommunications service” under Title II of the Communications Act. Title II of the Communications Act gives the FCC clear authority to serve as a watchdog over the communications marketplace and look out for the public interest. 

What were the US’s net neutrality rules?

Net neutrality principles ensure that all online service providers are treated equally. The net neutrality rules that the US had pre-2017 said three simple things: 

  • No blocking: Internet service providers (ISPs) should not block users’ access to certain platforms/websites. 
  • No throttling: ISPs cannot single out internet traffic based on where its coming from or who it’s going to. 
  • No paid prioritization: ISPs cannot accept money to speed up access to a certain platform or service.

“I believe this repeal of net neutrality put the agency on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of the law, and the wrong side of the public. It was not good then, but it makes even less sense now,” Rosenworcel said discussing the repeal of these rules in 2017. Her proposal claims that it will return to these rules and will ensure that “broadband service is on par with water, power, and phone service; that is: essential.” 

Read the full text here

FCC, Now Controlled by Democrats, Wants To Reinstate Obama-Era ‘Net Neutrality’ Rules

An announcement from the Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday proposing to reinstate “net neutrality” regulations could reshape the future of the internet — as well as further fuel the debate over government censorship of online speech. 

The debate over whether internet service providers, such as Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast, are a public utility that should be regulated by the FCC has been ongoing for years. Net neutrality rules, first imposed by the Obama administration and then rescinded during President Trump’s term, don’t allow internet providers to charge higher rates for faster speed and access to certain websites.

Now, a day after Democrats gained a majority in the FCC for the first time during President Biden’s term, the commission is beginning the process of restoring the Obama-era net neutrality rules.

“I believe this repeal of net neutrality put the agency on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of the law, and the wrong side of the public,” FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said Tuesday. “So today we begin a process to make this right. This afternoon, I am sharing with my colleagues a rulemaking that proposes to restore net neutrality.”

The commission will vote on the rulemaking on October 19 and then open the regulations up to public comment, Ms. Rosenworcel said. 

Supporters of net neutrality say the rules are essential to ensuring that internet service providers — who may themselves own entertainment and content services — can’t discriminate against competitor’s content, while opponents argue the regulations may disincentivize companies from building out services to rural parts of the country and lead to government censorship. 

Read the full text here

FTC Goes After Amazon

Amazon is the target of a high-profile, high-stakes lawsuit, brought by the U.S. government through the Federal Trade Commission. Attorney generals from 17 states joined the legal action, contending that the retail behemoth is using unfair strategies in both its online supermarket market for shoppers and its market for online marketplace services purchased by sellers.

“Our complaint lays out how Amazon has used a set of punitive and coercive tactics to unlawfully maintain its monopolies,” explained FTC Chair Lina M. Khan. “The complaint sets forth detailed allegations noting how Amazon is now exploiting its monopoly power to enrich itself while raising prices and degrading service for the tens of millions of American families who shop on its platform and the hundreds of thousands of businesses that rely on Amazon to reach them. Today’s lawsuit seeks to hold Amazon to account for these monopolistic practices and restore the lost promise of free and fair competition.”

In the filing, the FTC and state attorneys general argue that other retailers and suppliers are excluded from competing with Amazon through its practices related to pricing, product selection and other business aspects. The lawsuit also calls out Amazon’s Prime service, alleging that the company conditions sellers to obtain Prime eligibility for their products using the company’s “costly” fulfillment arrangements.

Read the full text here

The Internet didn’t need the FCC’s ‘net neutrality’ in 2015, and we definitely don’t need it now

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE | September 26, 2023

The Internet didn’t need the FCC’s ‘net neutrality in 2015, and we definitely don’t need it now

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Federal Communications Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel announced her agency is beginning the steps to reclassify broadband providers as public utilities under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, commonly known as “net neutrality.”

This marks a step back for all American Internet users, who have thus far profited from a more innovative broadband marketplace since the repeal of these rules in 2017 by former chair Ajit Pai.

Yaël Ossowski, deputy director of the Consumer Choice Center, reacted to the announcement:

“Resurrecting the idea of Title-II regulation of the Internet, after its successful repeal in 2017, is the idea that nobody needs in 2023. Since then, we’ve seen incredible innovation and investment, as more Internet customers begin using mobile hotspots and satellite Internet, getting more Americans online than ever before.

“Regulating ISPs like water utilities or electricity providers is a path toward more government control and oversight of the Internet, plain and simple,” said Ossowski.

“As we’ve seen with the recent Missouri v. Biden court case, today’s major Internet problem isn’t broadband providers blocking certain access or services, but government agencies attempting to strong-arm and jawbone Internet providers and platforms into censoring or removing content they don’t agree with. This is more concerning than any worst-case scenario dreamed up by FCC commissioners.

“Bringing these dead regulations back to life will be a losing issue for millions of Americans who enjoy greater Internet access and services than ever before.

“Rather than support Americans’ access to the Internet, it stands to threaten the vast entrepreneurial and tech spaces across our country and will push companies to set up in jurisdictions that promise true Internet freedom rather than state-imposed regulation of content and delivery of Internet services.

“We implore the FCC to whole an open and honest public engagement process on these proposed net neutrality regulations, and we are certain consumers will have their say against this proposal,” added Ossowski.

Contact

Stephen Kent, Media Director

Stephen@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.

***Please send media inquiries to yael@consumerchoicecenter.org.***

‘We raise our glass to you, Virginia’: Group applauds new approach to beer delivery

A Richmond-based consumer advocacy group is applauding Virginia for a new approach to beer regulation and delivery.

The recent budget passed by Virginia’s General Assembly allocates funding for the creation of a Virginia Beer Distribution Company, or VBDC. The VBDC will be a branch of the state’s Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and will set Virginia breweries free to self-distribute limited quantities of their products directly to retailers and restaurants.

“This is a huge win for consumers and beer lovers in Virginia,” said Yael Ossowski, the deputy director for the Consumer Choice Center. “The “three-tier system” is an archaic system for getting beer in front of consumers, a remnant of Prohibition that still holds back many of Virginia’s neighbors from having the best market for beer possible.”

Read the full text here

Biden’s FTC is declaring war on consumer preferences in their latest Amazon antitrust lawsuit 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE | September 26, 2023

The FTC’s latest Amazon antitrust case seeks to end your consumer preferences

WASHINGTON, D.C. – This morning, the Federal Trade Commission launched another antitrust lawsuit against the tech firm Amazon, claiming that unique offerings to Amazon Prime subscribers, including faster logistics, bundled services, and low prices, are somehow harmful to consumers and should result in the company being broken up.

Yaël Ossowski, deputy director of the Consumer Choice Center reacted to the lawsuit:

“Consumers know they’re getting a myriad of benefits with their Prime subscription, whether that’s faster delivery, cheaper prices, or bundled services like data storage and content streaming. That’s what consumers want, and why millions buy from Amazon everyday.

“I think many Americans would be appalled if they learned what Biden’s FTC is proposing with these lawsuits: that Amazon Prime, as it stands, should cease to exist.

“That the FTC would waste their resources going after an innovative company that consistently offers value for consumers reveals more about the agency’s political grudge than any perceived harm to consumers. Consumers have overwhelmingly had their welfare increased because of Amazon’s products and services. Government efforts to break that up are harmful to consumers.

“Behind the U.S. military, Amazon is the most favorable institution in the country, mainly because millions of consumers have had experience with Amazon’s platform, have been employed by the company, or have used their services in any way,” said Ossowski.

“It is well known FTC Chair Lina Khan has spent her career trying to build an antitrust lawsuit against Amazon, as is revealed in her 2017 article on “Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox, but those efforts fall flat with consumers who benefit and appreciate their services.”

“As we mentioned in our USA Today oped on this topic, consumers have voted with their wallets when it comes to Amazon’s services, including Amazon Prime. That an agency of the federal government would spend valuable time and resources trying to punish a company for offering too many affordable products and services in a unique way only seems laughable,” added Ossowski.

Contact

Stephen Kent, Media Director

Stephen@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.

***Please send media inquiries to yael@consumerchoicecenter.org.***

This Sneaky Bipartisan Bankruptcy Reform Will Sting Tech Consumers

If there’s one theme emerging this year in Washington, D.C., it’s the full-on bipartisan rampage against American tech firms.

In a courthouse just blocks away from the Capitol, Google is defending its search engine against the Justice Department, while down the street the Federal Trade Commission is finalizing its case to break up Amazon. The DOJ is also reportedly probing Elon Musk’s company expenses at Tesla, laying the groundwork for an eventual case against the tech mogul.

Congress’ anger toward technology companies is red-hot and taking shape in the unlikeliest of forms — federal bankruptcy law reform.

Republican Takes on the Bankruptcy Reform

Last week in the Senate Judiciary Committee, a hearing was held on reforms to Chapter 11 bankruptcies, aimed at ending “corporate manipulation” of its statutes.

The discussion highlighted recent examples of companies undergoing multidistrict class-action lawsuits and their strategy of spinning off separate holding companies to more quickly and efficiently adjudicate claims in bankruptcy courts, rather than endure years-long jury trials.

It’s known as a “Texas Two-Step.”

It’s a model that plaintiff attorneys and Democrats generally deplore, a fact repeatedly made clear during the hearing, but one that has proven to render judgments quickly and with a better assessment of whether claims against large companies are legitimate. Most interestingly, comments by Republican senators indicate their party’s intent on using Chapter 11 to target what they perceive as the “harms” of Big Tech.

“In social media, there is no model like this,” stated Sen. Lindsey Graham. “We may not agree on how to resolve this issue, but if you’re harmed by social media, you have nothing. Zero. Zip. There’s where I hope the committee can come together and create rights of actions.”

Sen. Josh Hawley, who recently authored a book titled The Tyranny of Big Tech and has positioned himself as a chief antagonist of Silicon Valley, went one step further.

“If you wanna know why private rights of action are so darn important, and why we need to use them against the big tech companies, this is the reason why,” he said.

Tech Consumers Will Be Harmed

When Republicans invoke a “private right of action,” they’re talking about allowing consumers to individually sue any company for privacy violations or other “harms” yet defined.

While Hawley and Graham allude to a broad social media “harm,” independent researchers have yet to make any definitive case on what that means. Certainly not enough to mount a legal case.

Tech consumers who depend on these products and services could also soon bear the brunt of the regulatory and legal costs we see all too often in health care, banking, and food production, that of upwardly creeping prices and less innovation.

Everything would change for tech users, advertisers, and adjacent industries. Whether these services are free won’t matter once the free-for-all litigation can begin and lawyer-funded TV ads and billboards coax the next class of plaintiffs for attempts at billion-dollar settlements.

With the threat of more lawsuits — legitimate or not — comes higher costs for compliance and adjudication. When the target is a consumer-facing company with thousands of products and millions of buyers, these added costs are passed down to consumers.

At the same time, these cases overfill the docket alongside many real tort claimants who deserve justice, such as survivors of environmental catastrophes and victims of defective products.

Will Republicans Contract Lawsuit Fever?

Massive class-action lawsuits are the favored tool of legal firms because many companies would rather settle than subject themselves to lengthy litigation, which promises large payouts to the firms that organize the class and file the case.

Think of the corporate cases against Starbucks, a multi million-dollar suit over its fruit drinks not having “enough fruit,” or Burger King, with a class-action lawsuit over “false advertising,” alleging that hamburgers in TV ads are larger than when they’re served in the fast-food restaurants.

The U.S. is nominally the most highly litigious country in the world, so these examples should come as no surprise.

If Republicans also contract lawsuit fever, we’ll see a world with an explosion of mass tort class-action lawsuits filed against American technology companies, many of which would be without merit.

This would tie up resources for hundreds of innovative firms that consumers know and love and would place even more inflationary pressures on prices. Not to mention that it would pervert the true purpose of our judicial system — to deliver justice.

American citizens and consumers rely on a fair and virtuous legal system to protect our rights and ways of life. If anything, we should continue to demand that this be upheld.

Yaël Ossowski is a Canadian-American journalist and deputy director of the Consumer Choice Center.

Published in American Spectator (archive link).

Comments on India’s Competition (Amendment) Act, 2023

Dear Competition Commission of India,

In order to follow through on your call for stakeholder groups to provide regulatory comments on the updates to the Competition Act, we want to offer thoughts from a consumer perspective. For reference, the Consumer Choice Center is a globally consumer advocacy group championing policies that are fit for growth, promote tech innovation, and enshrine lifestyle freedom, all the while promoting consumer choice.

In reviewing The Competition (Amendment) Act of 2023, we add the following:

Proposed Section 29A

With the proposed amendment in Section 29A, we would insert the phrase “and on consumer choice” after the phrase “an appreciable adverse effect on competition,” in order to more precisely adhere to a limited competition and antitrust definition that elevates the effect to consumers and prices, rather than “competition”.

Proposed Section 18

With the proposed amendments in Section 18, we would insert “consumer choice” to come before “competition,” again demonstrating the usefulness of consumer choice and pricing comparisons as a more accurate rubric for determining competition.

Overall, we remain positive to the Competition Commission’s updated guidelines on mergers and general antitrust law. As India’s digital economy grows and continues to offer unique goods and services to Indian consumers, we believe all Central Government agencies should also adhere to a competition policy that upholds consumer choice and regulatory barriers that may be impeding that, and perhaps leading to higher prices or reduced competition. Impact to consumers is key.

Defining the adequate level of competition is an impossible task for any government agency or department, and should best be left to consumers who will better determine market size and performance. Where regulatory barriers exist, or where fraud and deception exist, should be a more targeted focus for competition regulators than only concerns for competition — domestic or otherwise.

LINK TO PDF

Consumer Choice Center Raises a Glass to Virginia’s New Chapter for Beer Distribution

RICHMOND, VA  — The Consumer Choice Center (CCC) enthusiastically welcomes a recent development in Virginia’s approach to beer regulation, marked by the recent signing of the state budget by Governor Glenn Youngkin. This budget allocates funding for the creation of the Virginia Beer Distribution Co. (VBDC), a branch of the state’s Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. The VBDC will set Virginia breweries free to self-distribute limited quantities of their products directly to retailers and restaurants. 

Yael Ossowski, deputy director of the Consumer Choice Center weighed in on the news, saying, “This is a huge win for consumers and beer lovers in Virginia. The “three-tier system” is an archaic system for getting beer in front of consumers, a remnant of Prohibition that still holds back many of Virginia’s neighbors from having the best market for beer possible.” 

The VBDC will operate primarily online and simplify the process for retailers buying beer from registered breweries. Taxes and fees will be gathered during the transactions, adding to the state’s revenue. Breweries will take on the responsibility of delivering the beer sold through the VBDC. Industry insiders project that if even just 100 breweries opt to self-distribute 500 barrels of beer each year, the new structure will generate $6.9 million in tax and fee revenue for Virginia.

Yael Ossowski continued, “Some brewers will want to use the VBDC system to grow their footprint in Virginia, and others won’t. Distribution contracts make a lot of sense for some fantastic breweries, and less sense for others. This is about choice, and Virginia just expanded it for entrepreneurs and consumers alike. We applaud this move by the House of Delegates and Gov. Youngkin. ” 

“There is still much more to do to liberalize the state’s alcohol market, but for the moment, we raise our glass to you, Virginia,” he added.

US Green Activism, Bad Journalism Jeopardize Canada’s Forests

Canada is a world leader in sustainable forest management. The deforestation rate hovers near zero, wildfires have been in decline for decades (despite the recent tragedies) and the billions of trees dotting our landscape suck large amounts of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. These are all points of celebration, but that’s lost on many who claim to champion environmental views.

Barry Saxifrage, visual carbon columnist for Canada’s National Observer’s (CNO), has a much starker view: “Our forests have reached a tipping point,” he declared on August 21. Beaming with colorful charts and scientific jargon, his article alleges that because of “decades of surging” logging emissions, “Canada’s managed forest is a gigantic carbon bomb.”

This is a stunning visual that calls us to action, but it’s just not true.

Those claims were recirculated for an American audience by New York Timescontributor David Wallace-Wells with the drastic headline, “Forests Are No Longer Our Climate Friends.”

The issue with both articles, apart from their climate doomerism, is that they’re largely based on questionable research published last year by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)—a US activist group that has routinely criticized Canadian forestry for years.

We thoroughly debunked that report in the Hamilton Spectator in response, but the mainstream has decided the claims fit the bill enough to stick.

Saxifrage and Wallace-Wells express valid concerns about climate change and wildfires, which I believe we all share. But their specific claims contradict a broad scientific consensus and leave readers with the false impression that our managed forests have set us on a course to climate armageddon. 

Both articles are shot through with analytical errors, key factual omissions and other distortions that are plainly intended to drive an agenda focused more on politics than climate solutions.

(Mis)counting carbon emissions

To give a quick breakdown, Canada’s managed forests “both remove carbon from the atmosphere as they grow … and emit it when they die and decay or burn,” explains Natural Resources Canada (NRCan).

A variety of human and natural activities affect this balance. Logging emits CO2; replanting trees removes it from the atmosphere. Natural disturbances—forest fires, for instance—emit carbon dioxide, while natural tree regeneration removes carbon. Human activity in managed forests, like slash burning, fire suppression and insect control, also affects the forests’ ability to remove carbon from the atmosphere. This is very well studied by a broad spectrum of academics.

Read the full text here

Scroll to top
en_USEN