fbpx

Tech Regulation

The 1983 Video Game Crash and a History Lesson for Lina KhanCoke won’t give you cancer

The youngest chair in FTC history should familiarize herself with how the video game industry has survived and thrived since its inception instead of blocking mergers that would benefit consumers.

The video game industry is getting a lot of attention lately thanks to both exciting tech advancements and unprecedented interference by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The sector has witnessed substantial growth in recent years, which is why antitrust concerns are being raised by Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chair, Lina Khan. It can often feel like ancient history, but video gaming’s future hasn’t always been so bright in the U.S. In fact, it was almost “game over” for the business at the start of the 1980s.

The 1983 Video Game Crash, as it is known today by industry insiders, left the market for video games with no clear path to recovery. A primary culprit for the industry’s downfall was third party publishers, who were flooding the market with subpar products. Up until this time, Activision was a primary provider of video games, and with interest in gaming growing fast, other opportunistic firms sought to get in on the action by offering lower-priced, lower-quality games to consumers.

Parents would scoop up a handful of these off-brand games for the price of one Activision video game, assuming that their kids would be thrilled. They quickly learn this was not the case.

User reviews didn’t exist at this time and since parents weren’t consulting other children for feedback on the games being sold, it was hard to be clued in on what was worth buying.

Trust in the gaming market dropped, and increasingly risk-averse consumers were hesitant to buy the top-shelf games for fear of being duped again.

It wasn’t until Nintendo released the Nintendo Entertainment System in 1985 that interest in gaming rebounded. Super Mario Bros, along with other addictive games like Tetris, Atari’s Gauntlet, and Sega’s OutRun, restored interest and faith in gaming products. Since then, the industry has grown at an impressive rate.

Access and options for gamers have dramatically improved thanks to techinnovations in mobile gaming, as well as the surge of engagement duringthe COVID-19 lockdowns. Consumers were particularly eager for novel in-home entertainment, and multiplayer as well as online-based gaming allowed them to connect and create affinity networks like never before. And though the pandemic was a nightmare for millions of Americans, gaming has been credited as “a positive force in the field of mental health.”

Today gaming is big business, on track to be worth $321 billion by 2026, which is why Lina Khan and the FTC have their sights set on the sector. Since her appointment as FTC Chair by President Joe Biden, Khan has made clear her negative view of corporate growth, which is unfortunate, given that US gaming firms have yet to catch up with the likes of Japan’s Sony Interactive Entertainment Studios.

The Japanese juggernaut’s long march toward market dominancesolidified in 2020 when Sony released the Playstation 5 (PS5), which quicklybecame the global favorite for next-generation gaming consoles.

In response, Microsoft’s US-based Xbox Games Studios went on defense,announcing its plan to purchase Activision-Blizzard in January 2022. The merger brought Guitar Hero, World of Warcraft, Call of Duty, Diablo, and Candy Crush Saga all under one roof. Microsoft’s interest, therefore, is unsurprising, but this mutually beneficial business transaction between Microsoft and Activision-Blizzard was enough to draw the attention and legal might of Lina Khan’s FTC.

Instead of allowing Microsoft to improve its competitive stance against Sony, the FTC sought to block the merger. The legal battle turned out to be a huge waste of time and resources at taxpayers expense. What is particularly puzzling is the fact that other jurisdictions around the world were already greenlighting the deal, and yet our own government opposed an American firm’s advancement against a foreign entity with 70 percent market share.

Fortunately for Microsoft, Khan’s claims against the merger carried little weight in court. Unfortunately for Khan, her failed filing has led many to call into question her understanding of business and antitrust law. For instance, the FTC asserted that the merger could result in Microsoft restricting Activision-Blizzard games only to Xbox consoles, an unconvincing claim given Microsoft’s standing commitment to maintain the distribution status quo with Sony.

The hypocrisy was clear to gamers watching the case play out in court, who are most all aware that Sony’s popular title, The Last of Us, is only available on PlayStation consoles. And who is to say there is anything wrong with exclusivity in the first place?

The role of the FTC is to ensure consumer welfare in the marketplace, and right now it seems Khan is willfully overstepping her authority. It’s unclear who exactly she thinks the FTC is protecting in slowing down Microsoft. The FTC’s interference is delaying opportunities for gamers and developers at a time when creativity for gaming content is really taking off. Although the 2020 lockdowns surged interest in gaming users, the ability for developers to collaborate and curate new games has been hampered by remote work and other hardships brought on by the pandemic.

If we have learned any lessons from the Video Game Crash of 1983, it should be that improvements in gaming access and quality should be encouraged, not derailed. Today’s gamers have high expectations for new and innovative experiences, and FTC interference only gets in the way of content development and distribution.

Though the great gaming crash occurred just before Lina Khan was born, the FTC’s youngest chair in its history should familiarize herself with how this industry has survived and thrived since its inception. Gamers call the shots, and like other consumers, they’re the most powerful source of accountability for an industry supported by their hard-earned dollars.

The FTC stepped far outside its lane at the expense of taxpayers, and one can only hope that a lesson was learned.

Originally published here

Ke arah kebolehcapaian kenderaan elektrik oleh pengguna

Agensi Tenaga Antarabangsa meramalkan menjelang akhir 2023 sebanyak 14 juta kenderaan elektrik akan dijual di pasaran global.

Sementara itu pada suku pertama tahun ini saja, terdapat peningkatan hampir 25 peratus (2.3 juta) kenderaan elektrik yang dijual berbanding tempoh sama tahun lalu.

Salah satu sebab utama permintaan untuk kenderaan elektrik berkembang pesat ialah kerana potensinya untuk mengurangkan pelepasan gas rumah hijau dan menjadi lebih mesra alam.

Selain itu, potensi kos operasi yang lebih rendah berbanding kenderaan enjin pembakaran dalaman juga mendorong peningkatan permintaan, terutamanya kos elektrik yang lebih rendah berbanding petrol atau diesel dan kurangnya kos penyelenggaraan bahagian dalaman kereta.

Malaysia tidak terkecuali daripada gelombang global peralihan kenderaan elektrik. Gelombang ini memaksa Malaysia untuk lebih bersedia dalam menyediakan dasar dan infrastruktur yang mampu menarik minat industri untuk melabur dan membuka peluang pekerjaan serta meluaskan lagi pilihan kepada pengguna.

Oleh sebab itu, kerajaan mewujudkan Jawatankuasa Pemandu EV Kebangsaan (NEVSC) yang melibatkan pelbagai kementerian dengan tujuan menggubal dasar dan menyelesaikan isu berbangkit dalam pelaksanaan ekosistem kenderaan elektrik di Malaysia.

Terbaru kerajaan menyasarkan untuk mencapai 15 peratus kenderaan elektrik di jalan raya pada 2030 dan 38 peratus menjelang 2040.

Angka itu bukanlah sasaran yang sukar untuk dicapai, tetapi dasar dan peraturan kerajaan akan memainkan peranan penting dalam menggalakkan penggunaan kenderaan elektrik di Malaysia bagi jangka masa panjang.

Dalam Belanjawan 2023, kerajaan mengambil pendirian bagi melanjutkan pengecualian duti import dan duti eksais sepenuhnya ke atas kenderaan elektrik import penuh (CBU) sehingga 31 Dis 2025.

Bagi kenderaan elektrik pemasangan tempatan, pengecualian penuh duti import ke atas komponen dan duti eksais serta cukai jualan telah dilanjutkan sehingga 31 Dis 2027.

Namun, dalam kes ini, sepatutnya tiada teknologi khusus yang perlu ditetapkan oleh kerajaan tetapi harus dipilih oleh pengguna. Teknologi neutral mesti digunakan untuk memastikan tiada teknologi atau pihak yang mendapat sebarang kelebihan berbanding pihak lain.

Ini penting untuk menjamin pengguna membuat pilihan secara bebas tanpa dikawal atau dipaksa oleh dasar berat sebelah.

Sementara itu, bagi pengeluar peralatan mengecas kenderaan elektrik mereka akan menikmati insentif 100 peratus pengecualian cukai dari tahun taksiran 2023 hingga 2032, dan 100 peratus elaun cukai pelaburan untuk tempoh lima tahun.

Satu lagi dasar yang baik, cukai jalan untuk kenderaan elektrik adalah percuma sehingga 2025. Kementerian Pengangkutan sedang membangunkan struktur cukai jalan yang kurang daripada kenderaan pembakaran dalaman.

Pengguna juga boleh menikmati pelepasan cukai pendapatan individu sehingga RM2,500 ke atas perbelanjaan berkaitan pengecasan peralatan.

Walaupun dasar kerajaan sekarang agak terbuka, masih terdapat banyak cabaran kepada pengguna untuk memiliki kenderaan elektrik. Ia melibatkan pemilikan yang masih mahal yang membolehkan hanya kumpulan tertentu sahaja memilikinya.

Walaupun teknologi bateri bertambah baik, ia masih mempunyai jarak pemanduan yang terhad berbanding kenderaan pembakaran dalaman.

Begitu juga infrastruktur pengecasan yang terhad dan masa pengecasan yang lebih lama berbanding kenderaan tradisional membuatkan pengguna masih teragak-agak untuk beralih kepada kenderaan elektrik.

Kos bateri yang tinggi, hayat bateri dan kesan alam sekitar daripada pengeluaran dan pelupusan bateri yang melibatkan pelepasan karbon dioksida menjadikan pemilikan besar-besaran mencabar.

Sebagai contoh, dasar Tesla adalah untuk memastikan setiap bateri yang mencapai penghujung hayatnya boleh dikitar semula dan digunakan semula berulang kali.

Perlu ada garis panduan untuk pengurusan bateri litium-ion yang hanya boleh dikendalikan oleh profesional berkelayakan yang memenuhi piawaian infrastruktur tertentu.

Malaysia sedang dalam fasa peralihan ke arah penggunaan kenderaan elektrik yang akan mengambil jangka masa panjang. Peranan kerajaan adalah untuk memastikan dasar yang diperkenal dan dilaksanakan mampu terus menggalakkan industri berinovasi dan bekerjasama agar cabaran tersebut dapat diselesaikan.

Kerajaan juga perlu sedar, dasar melindungi industri automotif tempatan dengan alasan patriotik hanya akan membebankan pengguna apabila terpaksa membayar dua kali ganda semata-mata untuk mendapatkan kenderaan yang lebih berkualiti.

Keterbukaan teknologi adalah prasyarat penjimatan kos untuk sektor pengangkutan yang mampan.

Originally published here

FTC loses case to block Microsoft Activision $69B deal

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission cannot stop Microsoft’s proposed $69 billion purchase of Activision Blizzard, a California judge ruled on Tuesday.

The deal, originally announced 17 months ago, can now move forward by the July 18 deadline. 

In her ruling, Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley said, “Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision has been described as the largest in tech history,” and “it deserves scrutiny.”

Microsoft has committed in writing, in public, and in court to keep Call of Duty on PlayStation for 10 years on parity with Xbox,” she continued. “It made an agreement with Nintendo to bring Call of Duty to Switch. And it entered several agreements for the first-time to bring Activision’s content to several cloud gaming services.”

“The Court finds the FTC has not shown a likelihood it will prevail on its claim this particular vertical merger in this specific industry may substantially lessen competition, and “the motion for a preliminary injunction is therefore denied,” Corley added.

The Activision purchase will give Microsoft ownership of popular video game titles like Call of Duty, World of Warcraft and Candy Crush.

The FTC wanted to block the deal because the trade regulator believed Activision’s incorporation into Microsoft would hurt competition in the video game industry.

In an interview with FOX Business, Stephen Kent at the Consumer Choice Center, said “Judge Corley showed a deep respect for consumer interest, namely the gamers who will be most impacted by Microsoft acquiring Activision-Blizzard. 

“Biden’s FTC under Lina Khan has shown no interest in consumer protection, as illustrated throughout the hearings and pointed out on the final day by Judge Corley herself,” he said. “President Biden should be taking note of how poor FTC Chair Lina Khan has been at her job, and how far she’s strayed from the mission of consumer protection.”

Read the full text here

Judge Strikes Another Blow Against Biden’s Activist FTC With Ruling in Microsoft-Activision Merger

A federal judge in California struck another blow against President Biden’s activist Federal Trade Commission chief, Lina Khan, by denying a government request to block Microsoft’s pending acquisition of gaming giant Activision Blizzard.

Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of California’s Northern District said Tuesday the FTC failed to make a compelling case that the $70 billion deal between the two tech giants would harm consumer choice in the video game market. She denied the agency’s request for a preliminary injunction blocking the transaction until it could fight the merger at an internal court.

“The FTC has not raised serious questions regarding whether the proposed merger is likely to substantially lessen competition in the console, library subscription services, or cloud gaming markets,” Judge Corley wrote.

Consumer advocates praised the ruling as yet another rebuke for Ms. Khan, one of the more activist FTC leaders in recent memory. A Biden appointee, Ms. Khan has been crusading against what she has called “exploitative,” “collusive,” and “abusive” tactics in the technology industry, using the FTC’s antitrust oversight as her primary bludgeon. Another judge blocked the FTC’s attempt earlier this year to stop Meta from taking over a virtual reality fitness company, Within Unlimited.

“The FTC set out, it seems, to protect the business interests of Sony’s PlayStation, completely ignoring their duty to regulate in the interest of American consumers,” the media director for the Consumer Choice Center, Stephen Kent, said. “President Biden should be taking note of how poor FTC Chair Lina Khan has been at her job, and how far she’s strayed from the mission of consumer protection.”

Read the full text here

The value of social media for Hungary

As a former member of parliament in Hungary, I know firsthand how the Orbán regime has weaponised media outlets in the country to serve the purpose of government propaganda and its reelection campaigns. Many Europeans have seen the crass billboards attacking European institutions and demonizing refugees.

However, Orbán’s media leverage goes well beyond billboards that your average Hungarian can ignore: most of our principal news publications act as mouthpieces for the government, defaming the opposition or anyone who contradicts government-approved talking points.

I received this treatment myself when I ran for re-election when I had to experience the two very extreme cases of being ignored by the local outlets during my term as if I did not exist or, as the election neared, a full-scale smear campaign that was launched against me with no factual basis.

Only a few independent media outlets remain in Hungary. As a result, Hungarians wishing to speak truth to power have taken to social media sites.

Nowhere else could you even imagine directly messaging and tagging elected officials, organizing protests, and sharing experiences that unearth everyday corruption in Hungary?

The Orbán regime uses social media to its advantage through a network of paid influencers who echo Fidesz’s narrative.

Read the full text here

The FTC has lost their bid to kill the Microsoft-Activision/Blizzard deal

It’s a great day for consumer choice worldwide, as a ruling has been issued out of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California from Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley, denying the Federal Trade Commission’s request for a preliminary injunction to halt the acquisition of Activision-Blizzard by Microsoft. 

“The FTC set out it seems, to protect the business interests of Sony’s PlayStation, completely ignoring their duty to regulate in the interest of American consumers. Judge Corley called out the FTC on it during the hearings and has delivered a sharp ruling here that will allow the deal to go forward,” said Stephen Kent, Media Director for the Consumer Choice Center. “President Biden should be taking note of how poor FTC Chair Lina Khan has been at her job, and how far she’s strayed from the mission of consumer protection.” 

<< Read: The Federal Trade Commission’s embarrassing antitrust crusade | by Stephen Kent of the Consumer Choice Center (The Hill) >>

After five days of hearings involving the FTC, Microsoft, Activision-Blizzard, Sony, and Nintendo, Judge Corley pointed out on the final day that the FTC had fallen short of providing a consumer interest to justify blocking the deal, saying “This is about harms to the consumer, not to Sony.”

“The Consumer Choice Center is excited to see gamers win this case brought by the FTC, because they are indeed the real winners in Microsoft coming together with a top-notch game developer like Activision-Blizzard,” added Kent. 

The deal has one more hurdle to clear in the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority, and we have confidence that they too will join the rest of the world’s consumer protection agencies in letting the acquisition deal close by its July 18th deadline.

Read the ruling here

The EU’s ‘regulate first, innovate later’ mantra will sink U.S. tech firms

Last week, a bespeckled white-haired Frenchman strolled the streets of San Francisco in between high-profile meetings and uncomfortable photo ops.

With his horn-rimmed round glasses, wavy hair, and tailored suit, as well as a full entourage of slickly-dressed Europeans, the European Union Commissioner for the Internal Market, Thierry Breton, made his rounds in Silicon Valley.

Breton’s powerful role within the EU’s executive body is to oversee trade in Europe’s single market system, comprising nearly 500 million consumers and citizens. It makes him tremendously powerful. What other European politician could secure meetings with Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and Sam Altman in just one day?

While the mandate for Breton’s role is rather large — everything from broadband to online platforms, and climate change — his goal in San Francisco was to meet with US tech titans and CEOs to prepare them for the imminent enforcement of the Digital Services Act (DSA), an all-encompassing EU law intended to create a “safer digital space” for Europeans.

The law will come into force at the end of August and lay dozens of new obligations on internet companies that wish to serve users in the European bloc.

The DSA could best be described as Europe’s regulatory model for Big Tech and the Internet. The only problem? Only a sliver of the companies the Digital Services Act targets for restrictions or regulations are even based in the EU.

Out of the 17 companies designated “Very Large Online Platforms” by the law — meaning they will be held to the highest burden of regulation and rules — only one is based somewhere in Europe: Zalando, an online fashion retailer.

The rest are from…you guessed it…the United States. This includes firms such as Meta, Twitter, Google, Snapchat, and Amazon, but also Chinese firms such as TikTok and Alibaba.

The DSA enforces a litany of expansive restrictions and rules that go far beyond any US regulation: severe limits on targeted advertising, more diligent content moderation to remove what the EU deems “illegal” content, protocols for weeding out “disinformation”, and more.

Considering how much Big Tech has been forced to censor users to appease regulators in the free speech haven of the US, it will only get worse overseas.

While the principal aims of the DSA are well-intended — safeguarding consumer privacy and protecting minors — how these provisions are enforced or interpreted should concern all of us who believe in an open web.

To begin, there is platform liability attached to both disinformation and illegal content. In the US, we have Section 230, which exempts platforms from being liable for users’ posts. In Europe, every major online platform would be forced to instantly police its users or face severe penalties while still being weighed down by impossible questions.

Do platforms decide what is disinformation or will governments provide examples? What if a government gets it wrong, like in the early days of COVID? Or has more malicious intent like in unfree surveillance societies?

With no First Amendment-like protections for speech on the European continent, we know the censorious demands of European officials will soon swallow entire budgets of tech firms in order to comply, money that would otherwise be used to deliver value for users. Will it all be worth it?

We know that each platform has the ability to moderate or censor as they see fit, but this is usually done by internal policies and codes that users voluntarily accept, not reaction to a policeman holding the regulatory baton. Rather than focusing on restricting and limiting American tech firms, the Europeans should be doing everything possible to change their own rules in order to foster the innovation that Silicon Valley has been able to provide for decades.

The mindset promulgated from Brussels is “regulate first, innovate later,” in hopes that the talent and ideas will spring from a stable, regulated environment. If that were the case, we’d have dozens of European tech unicorns vying for global dominance. Instead, there are barely any. Or they’ve been bought up by an American company.

Europe has chosen to forgo becoming the world’s test market for innovative products and services, opting instead to be the ultimate playground of bureaucratic and legal restrictions. While some American politicians and regulators may look over with a gleeful eye, it is clear that consumers and creators are getting left behind on the Old Continent, and American users will soon be in the crosshairs.

Originally published here

The Federal Trade Commission’s embarrassing antitrust crusade

Lina Khan is one of the most radical chairs of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) the United States has ever seen. Luckily for consumers, Khan has not been very successful. The latest evidence comes from San Francisco, where Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California is presiding over the FTC v. Microsoft & Activision Blizzard’s preliminary injunction hearing.

The suit was brought on by the FTC over its expressed antitrust concerns for the burgeoning cloud video gaming industry. It’s not going well, and it’s because Khan is not guided by the traditional metrics of consumer protection and welfare that have long characterized the FTC’s approach to antitrust enforcement.

Coming off a predictable defeat in court against Meta over its bid to acquire the virtual-reality fitness company Within, President Biden’s antitrust warrior appears to have learned little. The FTC chair’s approach to blocking Meta’s purchase was to harken to an ominous “campaign to conquer VR” by Mark Zuckerberg, based on his previous acquisition of Oculus for the purpose of developing Meta’s capacity for VR headsets.

Where most see these tech acquisition deals as a simple matter of comparative advantage for companies looking to serve consumers better products at better prices, Lina Khan appears to see only the phantom of Standard Oil magnate John D. Rockefeller. It’s why her agency has adopted a more radical posture around antitrust policy, expanding its view of what constitutes unfair competition in a 2022 policy statement to include Yale-worthy buzzwords “exploitative, collusive, abusive” in its framework for identifying antitrust violations. The vagueness is the point.

In the minds of progressives like Khan who romanticize the antitrust battlesof the early 20th century, they’re carrying the banner against predatory price schemes and corporate monopolies. However, in nearly every fight Khan’s FTC has picked with big business (Amazon, Meta, Microsoft) since 2021, Khan has demonstrated what she wrote in the Yale Law Journal in 2017, that, “Animating these critiques is not a concern about harms to consumer welfare, but the broader set of ills and hazards that a lack of competition breeds.”

Khan fears corporate expansion (“powers we oppose”) of all kinds and believes it is the role of the federal government to erect obstacles and throw stones to slow their efforts, even when consumers are voting enthusiastically with their dollars for exactly what the tech sector is offering.

In the case of FTC v. Microsoft & Activision BlizzardKhan’s first week in court has been an embarrassment. At issue is whether or not Microsoft absorbing Activision-Blizzard presents a unique threat to competition within the cloud gaming space. Some video game companies keep their licensed games within the walled gardens of their console, such as Nintendo with access to Mario Kart or The Legend of Zelda. Others license their games cross-platform, such as Activision and their top hit, Call of Duty. For reasons unknown, the FTC has made it their mission to ensure that PlayStation, a Japanese company, has ready access to Call of Duty for its users.

Microsoft has offered a number of long-term licensing deals during this process to display good faith and disinterest in cutting off Sony from its major titles. It’s bad business for both parties. At the outset of the hearings, it was revealed via internal emails from within Sony, the unquestioned global leader in video game consoles and chief advocate of the FTC’s crusade, that they didn’t really care much at all about Call of Duty. In the words of Sony CEO Jim Ryan about Microsoft-Activision, “I don’t want a new Call of Duty deal. I just want to block your merger.”

Sony is who the FTC is working to protect, and American consumers should wonder why.

If the federal government is trying to block a company from being acquired, typically that company’s stock price doesn’t go up — but Activision’s has. That’s because, for almost everyone watching, it has become clear that Lina Khan’s FTC is not bringing a case to protect American consumers from corporate predation or an uncompetitive marketplace, but instead to merely make their presence known.

This is how chaperons act on a school field trip or middle school dance; they just want you to know they see you. Only in this case, “being seen” means millions in legal fees for all parties involved, including the public, who foots the bill for proceedings. 

It’s trolling on a multimillion-dollar government budget, and while it’s beneath the dignity of an institution dedicated to a level playing field for businesses and consumers alike, it’s very much on brand for Lina Khan.

Originally published here

Technological neutrality is the best mechanism of cyber security and protects consumer data privacy

KUALA LUMPUR, 26 th June 2023 – The Consumer Choice Center (CCC) emphasizes the
importance of governments supporting and maintaining technological neutrality in putting in
place the best mechanisms for cybersecurity systems and consumer data protection.

Representative of the Malaysian Consumer Choice Center, Tarmizi Anuwar said: “Technology
changes very quickly and faster than amendments or changes in laws. In this regard, laws that
are friendly to innovation and technology or so-called neutral technology need to be prepared so
that healthy competition between private companies becomes the best method of determining
the mechanism in data privacy regulations.”

In addition, Tarmizi commented on the recommendation of the Minister of Communications and
Digital that the private sector makes investments related to aspects of cyber security and data
privacy according to the appropriateness of their respective operational levels which is
considered positive. However, it is necessary to remain consistent and not put an excessive
burden on the private sector.

“The recommendation can be considered good because the enforcement of interoperability
standards can be prepared and implemented by the firm that handles the data, and is not
necessarily determined by law. This will also give space to start-up companies to operate at a
cost that matches their capabilities.”

“Basically, every company has its own interest in protecting the cyber security or privacy data of
their consumers. Excessive legal stipulations such as imposing specific software will cause an
increase in business costs and subsequently increase prices for consumers”, he said.

Explaining Malaysia’s efforts to collaborate with Southeast Asian countries in creating a data
sharing protocol to become a regional data processing hub, he said the government must make
the concept of industry-based data portability as the main standard.

“In order to become a regional data processing hub, the government needs to use industry
standards as the main policy and strategy. This standard is a faster and more efficient way and
is able to coordinate the differences in laws in each country to enforce and regulate portability
over the law.” he concluded.

If Brendan Carr is reconfirmed to the FCC, how will consumers fare?

CCC Managing Director, Fred Roder (left), FCC’s Brendan Carr (middle), CCC Deputy Director Yaël Ossowski (right)

On Monday, President Joe Biden re-nominated Brendan Carr to the Federal Communications Commission. For consumer advocates like us at the Consumer Choice Center who work on many issues related to tech innovation and the protection of our rights online, that’s welcome news.

Now, the US Senate must confirm Carr’s nomination. It would be a welcome opportunity to continue efforts and opportunities to both support and defend consumer choice.

Throughout his tenure at the chief telecom regulator, Carr has chiseled out his space as a principled voice and worthy fighter for many consumers issues.

His dedication to the expansion of rural broadband access, smart investment in telecom and Internet infrastructure, and common-sense rules to help facilitate American ingenuity and entrepreneurship stand out as some major achievements.

Whether it was the repeal of Title II classification for Internet Service Providers (net neutrality), the protection of free speech, or his desire to address the influence of the Chinese Communist Party through TikTok and other platforms, Carr has never missed an opportunity to an evidenced-based approach vital to policymaking.

We hope to continue working with Commissioner Carr in his new tenure despite some disagreements on the nuances of specific policies because we believe he is earnest, sincere, and willing to hear arguments and policy cases from all sides of the aisle. There will be many opportunities to ensure policies are in the interest of consumers.

Issues such as online free speech, upholding Section 230, and how best to avoid government interference in content moderation will prove to be pivotal issues in the next term, and it will be of great benefit to a wide spectrum of American consumers to have someone like Brendan Carr at the helm.

If US Senators confirm Carr for another tenure, we look forward to working together for smart policies to benefit consumers around the country.

Here is a clip of our conversation with FCC Commissioner Carr on Consumer Choice Radio:

Scroll to top
en_USEN