fbpx

Tech Regulation

The arguments for and against universal chargers

European Commission pushing to establish USB-C as standard for all phones

The European Commission is under fire from tech giant Apple after unveiling plans to make USB-C connectors the standard charging port for all phones and small electronic devices sold across the EU. 

The bloc’s executive body “believes a standard cable for all devices will cut back on electronic waste”, reported France 24. But Apple and other critics argue that “a one-size fits all charger would slow innovation and create more pollution”, the news site continues.

The new rules could “affect the entire global smartphone market” if approved by the European Parliament and member states of the EU, which is home to more than 450 million people including “some of the world’s richest consumers”.

Read the full article here

EU wants to unify chargers again, specifically targeting Apple

Several years ago, the European Union announced that it wanted to unify mobile chargers across all manufacturers. The goal was to eliminate electronic waste because previously switching phones often means getting a new and completely different charger. But, by the time the EU got involved, almost all major manufacturers were already using micro-USB. Now, the EU is looking to update the requirement, modernizing for USB-C and removing the remaining loophole.

What is the current situation?

Currently, EU regulations require that all phones be able to charge via a universal charger (originally micro-USB, but USB-C also qualifies). At the time of the original regulations, the only major manufacturer not using the micro-USB charging port was Apple, which famously uses its proprietary Lightning connector. The universality of the micro-USB connector is attractive for swapping between phones, but Apple argued that its Lightning connector gave it capabilities not afforded by micro-USB.

This argument allowed Apple to find a middle ground with the EU regulators – making a micro-USB to Lightning adapter available to all iPhone and iPad owners. This would allow them to use the chargers they already own with their new phones, which is exactly what the EU was trying to accomplish. But, in the past few years, things have changed in the industry, leading to some changes in the regulations.

Read the full article here

Inside Sources Logo

The Smart Way to Think About Crypto Regulation

Within the usually boring procedure of shepherding another massive infrastructure bill through Congress last month, a fiery debate erupted over the future of cryptocurrencies and digital assets.

The Senate bill contained broad language to ensure tax and regulatory compliance on all cryptocurrency transactions, regardless of origin, as a revenue generator.

However, traditional financial transactions cannot compare to the complex algorithmic crypto world of mining, staking, rewards, and smart contracts. It is easy to see why many digital currency enthusiasts were alarmed.

In a hackneyed manner no one saw coming, the entire future of the crypto industry, including projects such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, Non-Fungible Tokens, and blockchains, was thrown into peril.

Amendments to adapt the language or delete it outright were proposed. But following Senate rules, even a single voice of opposition could kill them. Or, in this case, a desire to spend $50 billion more on defense spending killed them. And that was that.

To be clear, America deserves a fair and substantive debate on the nascent crypto space. If we are to consider regulation, we need testimony from innovators, entrepreneurs, advocates, and skeptics. Instead, we witnessed a collage pasting marathon, with proposals and taxes glued together without even a thought for millions of crypto consumers.

Most shockingly, however, the rules have actually very little to do with the innovative nature of the crypto space and everything to do with how much money legislators thought they could extract from the industry and token holders. This was laid bare in the Biden administration’s fact sheet on the infrastructure bill, which claimed the $1 trillion plan would be funded by “strengthening tax enforcement when it comes to cryptocurrencies.”

Despite the inelegance of these proposals, there are smart and consumer-friendly policies we can adopt on cryptocurrencies and crypto projects.

To begin, federal agencies can concentrate on the causes of fraud and abuse. With every successful crypto token or coin, there are dozens of scam sites or exchanges that defraud users or siphon all digital assets they can before they shut down, known in the industry as a “rug pull.”

By focusing resources on dishonest brokers and projects committing fraud, the government could save millions of consumers from losing their hard-earned money, all the while differentiating between bad actors and good ones. This would help boost confidence in the system overall.

Second, any crypto regulation should make technological neutrality a core tenet, meaning that government should not declare winners or losers. Just like the vinyl record was replaced by the CD-ROM and then the MP3, governments should not choose a preferred technology and instead allow innovation and consumer choice to make that determination.

The less than a decade-old crypto industry hosts an intense competition that rapidly changes each day. Whether through algorithmic mining (Proof of Work) or block validation (Proof of Stake), users and entrepreneurs are testing and adapting best practices. If the government endorses one method or outlaws another, because of environmental or technical concerns, it risks backing the wrong horse and stifling innovation.

Third, regulators must not pigeonhole cryptocurrencies only as investments fit for taxing, but rather as technological tools that empower consumers and foster innovation. A unique crypto asset class, separate from traditional securities, would help users benefit from the decentralization and encryption that these projects offer while ensuring reasonable taxation of gains.

Last, regulators must provide legal certainty to the budding crypto sector or risk pushing all crypto activity to the black market, where no rules or regulations will be followed. The disastrous effects of the Drug War on cannabis users or victims of 1920s Prohibition underscore this point.

Clear guidelines that allow crypto companies to open bank accounts, take out insurance, and compensate workers legally will safeguard innovation, continue to create value for entrepreneurs and consumers, and will allow firms to pay taxes and follow rules. This will be vital.

Legislators should view the crypto industry as a friend rather than a foe. With more opportunities will come more investment, more jobs, and more innovation – and that means we’ll all be better off.

Originally published here

Coalition Warns Against Broadband Proposals

The Consumer Choice Center joined a coalition of consumer and tax advocacy organizations flagging concerning developments in the infrastructure bill negotiations. Price controls and rate regulation; dramatic expansion of executive brand and agency authority; and government-controlled internet should never be on the table.

You can read the letter below or click HERE for a full version:

July 23, 2021

RE: Broadband Infrastructure Spending

Dear Senators:

We write to you today over some concerning developments in the bipartisan infrastructure negotiations on broadband. We are guided by the principles of limited government and believe that the flaws in the infrastructure framework go well beyond the issues discussed here. Nonetheless, our present aim is to advocate specifically against proposals that would enact price controls, dramatically expand agency authority, and prioritize government-controlled internet. 

The infrastructure plan should not include rate regulation of broadband services. Congress should not authorize any federal or governmental body to set the price of any broadband offering. Even steps that open the door to rate regulation of broadband services will prove harmful in the long run.  

Nor should Congress continue to abdicate its oversight responsibilities to executive branch agencies like the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. Giving NTIA unchecked authority to modify or waive requirements, renders all guardrails placed by Congress meaningless. There must be oversight of the programs to ensure that taxpayer dollars go toward connecting more Americans to broadband as opposed to wasteful pet projects. 

Historically, attempts by NTIA to close the digital divide through discretionary grants have failed, leading to wasteful overbuilds, corruption, and improper expenditures. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 created the $4 billion Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) grant program administered by NTIA. From 2009, when BTOP was instituted, to 2017, at least one-third of all the reports made by the Inspector General for the Department of Commerce were related to the BTOP program, and census data showed that the BTOP program had no positive effect on broadband adoption. And this was with only $4 billion in taxpayer dollars. We cannot afford to make the same mistake with much greater sums.

Legislation must be clear and not create ambiguities that are left to the whims of regulators. While “digital redlining” is unacceptable, the FCC should not be allowed to define the term however it sees fit and promulgate any regulations it thinks will solve problems—real or imagined. Doing so would give the agency carte blanche to regulate and micromanage broadband in any way it desires. This would be an egregious expansion of FCC authority. Moreover, definitions and regulations could change whenever party control of the agency changes, leading to a back-and-forth that creates uncertainty for consumers and businesses. 

Legitimate desire to ensure that low-income Americans have access to broadband infrastructure should not be used as a smokescreen to codify aspects of the recent Executive Order on Competition, which should not be included in any bipartisan infrastructure agreement. Republicans fought hard to support the FCC’s Restoring Internet Freedom Order. Any legislating on the functions and deployment of Internet technologies must move as a standalone bill through regular order with committee review. These questions are far too important to shoehorn into a massive bill without rigorous debate.   

Any funding for broadband buildout must target locations without any broadband connection first, and this should be determined by the Congressionally mandated FCC broadband maps. Congress has oversight over the FCC and the FCC has already conducted several reverse auctions. Reverse auctions get the most out of each taxpayer dollar towards closing the digital divide. Areas where there is already a commitment from a carrier to build out a network, should not be considered for grants, and the NTIA should not be able to override the FCC’s map to redefine “unserved” and subsidize duplicative builds.  

Government-controlled Internet should not be prioritized in any grant program. With few exceptions, government-owned networks (GONs) have been abject failures. For example, KentuckyWired is a 3,000-mile GON that was sold to taxpayers as a $350 million project that would be complete by spring of 2016. Those projections could not have been more wrong.   More than five years past the supposed completion date, fiber construction for KentuckyWired is still “in progress” in some parts of the state and a report from the state auditor has concluded that taxpayers will end up wasting a whopping $1.5 billion on this redundant “government owned network” over its 30-year life. NTIA should certainly not encourage these failures to be replicated.

We appreciate your work to help close the digital divide and agree that access to reliable internet is a priority, however we should not use this need to serve as a cover for unnecessary government expansion. Please feel free to reach out to any of the undersigned organizations or individuals should you have questions or comments. 

Regards,

Grover G. Norquist
President
Americans for Tax Reform

Jennifer Huddleston*
Director of Technology & Innovation Policy
American Action Forum

Phil Kerpen
President
American Commitment

Krisztina Pusok, Ph. D.
Director
American Consumer Institute
Center for Citizen Research

Brent Wm. Gardner
Chief Government Affairs Officer
Americans for Prosperity

Jeffrey Mazzella
President
Center for Individual Freedom

Andrew F. Quinlan
President
Center for Freedom and Prosperity

Jessica Melugin
Director Center for Technology and Innovation
Competitive Enterprise Institute

Matthew Kandrach
President
Consumer Action for a Strong Economy

Yaël Ossowski
Deputy Director
Consumer Choice Center

Roslyn Layton, PhD
Founder
China Tech Threat

Ashley Baker
Director of Public Policy
The Committee for Justice

Tom Schatz
President
Council for Citizens Against Government Waste

Katie McAuliffe
Executive Director
Digital Liberty

Annette Thompson Meeks
CEO
Freedom Foundation of Minnesota

Adam Brandon
President
FreedomWorks

George Landrith
President
Frontiers of Freedom

Garrett Bess
Vice President
Heritage Action for America

Carrie Lukas
President
Independent Women’s Forum

Heather Higgins
CEO
Independent Women’s Voice

Tom Giovanetti
President
Institute for Policy Innovation

Ted Bolema
Executive Director
Institute for the Study of Economic Growth

Seton Motley
President
Less Government

Zach Graves
Head of Policy
Lincoln Network

Matthew Gagnon
Chief Executive Officer
Maine Policy Institute

Matthew Nicaud
Tech Policy Specialist
Mississippi Center for Public Policy

Brandon Arnold
Executive Vice President
National Taxpayers Union

Tom Hebert
Executive Director
Open Competition Center

Ellen Weaver
President & CEO
Palmetto Promise Institute

Eric Peterson
Director
Pelican Center for Technology and Innovation

Lorenzo Montanari
Executive Director
Property Rights Alliance

Jeffrey Westling
Resident Fellow, Technology & Innovation Policy
R Street Institute

James L. Martin
Founder/Chairman
60 Plus Association

Saulius “Saul” Anuzis
President
60 Plus Association

David Williams
President
Taxpayers Protection Alliance

Dann Mead Smith
President
Washington Policy enter

Mark Harmsworth
Small Business Director
Washington Policy Center

If president’s goal is high-speed internet for all, government regulations still stand in the way

The COVID-19 pandemic has, if nothing else, demonstrated the need for high-speed internet service.

It was shown in schools as teachers sought to instruct students via remote learning. It was shown in businesses as they sought to bolster their online presence. It was shown in everyone who learned about Zoom meetings for the first time back in March 2020 and now probably can’t imagine everyday life without them.

President Joe Biden and many members of Congress recognize that. That’s why, as part of the president’s American Jobs Plan, it’s been proposed to spend $100 billion to bring high-speed broadband service to every American.

But is throwing more tax dollars at the situation really the best solution?

Yael Ossowski, deputy director of the Consumer Choice Center in Washington, D.C., doesn’t think so. He argues that simply spending money won’t address the real challenges — the myriad of different rules between municipalities and states overseeing internet infrastructure that serve as a true barrier to getting more Americans connected.

Mr. Ossowski points to a recent study by the Federal Communications Commission that found more than 700 examples of laws and statutes that hamstring internet providers before they can connect one home. These include ambiguity on application processes, high permit fees for networks, slow approval processes and burdensome rules.

A different study, this one done by the University of Pennsylvania, found that local government internet utilities — which are prevalent in some parts of the nation as compared to private firms providing the service — are often too expensive to maintain.

Plus, there’s the assumption in the president’s plan that the solution centers on primarily focusing on broadband fiber connections. An argument can be made that investments in mobile and satellite networks are worthy of consideration, too. But those efforts also have been hampered by burdensome government regulations.

What is clear is that as mobile networks expand and speeds improve, and as fiber technology makes it way to more rural areas across the nation, more Americans will be connected to faster and better internet. However, in order to do that, what’s needed is a focus on the power of private investment, clear regulatory rules, and the removal of red tape. This is another case of where those in Washington, D.C., may have good intentions and the ability to do some good, they don’t have a stranglehold on the best ideas.

Originally published here.

The Consumer Choice Center stands opposed to antitrust actions on innovative tech firms

Today, the Consumer Choice Center sent a letter to the members of the House Judiciary Committee to explain our opposition to a series of bills soon to be introduced on the House floors related to antitrust actions.

The full letter is below, and available in PDF form to share.

READ THE LETTER IN PDF FORM

Dear Member of the House Judiciary Committee,

As a consumer group, we write to you to raise your attention about a series of bills that will soon be introduced on the floor of the House and make their way to the House Judiciary Committee.

These bills, soon to be introduced by Democrats and co-sponsored by some Republicans, relate to antitrust actions to be taken against tech firms based in the United States.

These include the Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act, End Platform Monopolies Act, Platform Anti-Monopoly Act, Platform Competition and Opportunity Act, and Augmenting Compatibility and Competition by Enabling Service Switching Act.

In our view, these bills are not about concern for the consumer, the consumer welfare standard as traditionally understood in antitrust law, or even because companies like Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, and Microsoft are “too big.” 

Rather, these actions are a zealous takedown of American innovators that will harm consumers and punish innovation. This is a dangerous precedent.

Many of the tech companies in the crosshairs offer free or inexpensive services to consumers in a competitive marketplace that boasts hundreds of social apps for messaging, photo sharing, social networking, and online marketplaces that offer quick delivery, stellar service, and unbeatable prices.

As consumers of these services, we understand that there are often decisions made by these companies that raise concerns. For political conservatives, the issue hinges on whether there is bias in the moderation of accounts, comments, and products. For liberals, it is about whether these companies are too powerful or too big to be reined in by government, and questions about how they pay their taxes or whether various tech companies played a part in getting Donald Trump elected in 2016.

These are all valid concerns, and we have been active in calling them out where necessary.

However, using the power of the federal government to break up innovative American companies subject to domestic law, especially in the face of mounting competition from countries that are not liberal democracies, such as China, is wrong and will lead to even more unintended consequences.

The American people benefit from a competitive and free market for all goods, services, and networks we use online. Weaponizing our federal agencies to break up companies, especially when there is no demonstrated case of consumer harm, will chill innovation and stall our competitive edge as a country.

If there are breaches of data or if consumer privacy is compromised, the Federal Trade Commission should absolutely issue fines and other penalties. We agree with this. If there are egregious violations of law, they should be dealt with immediately and appropriately.

Let us be clear: The internet is the ultimate playground for consumer choice. Government attempts to intervene and regulate based on political considerations will only restrict consumer choice and deprive us of what we’ve thus far enjoyed.

The overwhelming majority of users are happy with online marketplaces and with their profiles on social platforms. They’re able to connect with friends and family around the world, and share images and posts that spark conversations. Millions of small businesses, artists, and even news websites are dependent on these platforms to make their living. This is an especially important point.

Using the force of government to break apart businesses because of particular stances or actions they’ve taken, all legal under current law, is highly vindictive and will restrict the ability for ordinary people like myself or millions of other consumers to enjoy the platforms for which we voluntarily signed up. 

We should hold these platforms accountable when they make mistakes, but not invite the federal government to determine which sites or platforms we can click on. The government’s role is not to pick winners and losers. It’s to ensure our rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, as the Declaration of Independence states. 

As such, when these bills come before you as legislators, we urge you, as a consumer advocacy group speaking for millions of people just like you around the country, to reject them. 

Sincerely Yours,

Yaël Ossowski

Deputy Director, Consumer Choice Center

yael@consumerchoicecenter.org

The Path We Shouldn’t Take on Tech Regulation

Let’s conduct a thought experiment: At the behest of several large legacy news outlets, a government institutes a law requiring that every time a news story is linked to on social media, the social network must pay a fee to news outlets.

In other words, to allow a newspaper column or celebrity gossip blog link to appear elsewhere, that website will have to shell out money to the news outlet where it originated.

While such a case seems laughable elsewhere, that is precisely what Australia recently attempted in its escalating war against tech companies like Facebook and Google.

And countries like Canada, the United Kingdom, France, and other EU nations are lining up to be next.

Late last year, the News Media Bargaining Code was introduced in the Australian Parliament to “address bargaining power imbalances between Australian news media businesses and digital platforms.” The bill was the multi-year effort of the country’s competition and consumer commission, requested by the conservative-leaning Liberal Party.

In pitching the law, Prime Minister Scott Morrison made all the necessary overtures signaling opposition to “Big Tech.”

By imposing a link tax on tech firms, the idea was to bolster Australian media companies that have been losing advertising revenue to these platforms. But that comes at a significant cost to both consumer choice and to the openness of the Internet itself.

The founder of the World Wide Web, Tim Berners-Lee, said such a proposal would make the Internet “unworkable,” imposing costs and taxes on what is supposed to be a free space on the open network. In other words, these regulations would likely halt the most basic principles the internet was founded on in the first place.

It is up to media firms to discover innovative and effective methods of capturing digital audiences, not lobby governments to siphon money for them.

Google conceded early in the fight, creating a “news showcase” in countries like Australia, the UK, and Argentina that would offer some premiums to publishers. But Facebook stood its ground.

And though Morrison and his fellow parliamentarians unleashed the pendulum, it eventually swung back hard against Australian consumers.

Recently, millions of Australians logged onto Facebook to find out they could no longer share links or articles from Australian news sites. Rather than upend their business model to comply with proposed legislation, the company decided to block domestic news from being shared on the platform altogether.

It was a bold move intended to demonstrate to the government that media outlets need Facebook more than they need them.

Later, however, Facebook announced it struck individual agreements with smaller publishers in the commonwealth country.

“After further discussions with the Australian government, we have come to an agreement that will allow us to support the publishers we choose to, including small and local publishers,” said Facebook global news VP Campbell Brown.

This precedent is important for two reasons.

First, Australia’s bill is one of the most brazen attempts to use domestic media law to score revenue from an American tech company.

Second, it shows that this has everything to do with bailing out traditional media companies and almost nothing to do with consumers.

Much like in the European Union and some Latin American countries, the fixation on taxing and restricting tech companies hinges on getting a piece of the pie. Concern for the consumer, and their continued access to information online, is secondary.

We have seen it with Uber and Apple in Brussels and London, and it will no doubt continue as tax-starved countries attempt to reign in what they perceive as the golden goose.

That is why these policies are so destructive to consumers and the fundamental principles to an open Internet.

The key to media outlets thriving and evolving in the digital age will be innovation and creativity, all of which benefit consumers, not bans, tax hikes, or zealous media laws.

Originally published here.

Nueva Ley Federal de Cinematografía perjudicaría a los consumidores

Luca Bertoletti, responsable de Asuntos Gubernamentales de Consumer Choice Center (Centro de Elección del Consumidor), se refirió en entrevista a la iniciativa para crear nueva Ley Federal de Cinematografía y el Audiovisual.

Las cuotas de contenido en México: va contra los consumidores

La decisión del senador Monreal de impulsar las cuotas de contenido en el Senado el lunes va en contra de los consumidores. Hay muchos ejemplos de por qué las cuotas de contenido no funcionan. Tomemos como ejemplo la Unión Europea: desde que el bloque europeo puso en marcha la ley de cuotas de contenido, de todos los estados miembros de la UE, Lituania obtiene el mayor acceso con el 52% de los títulos. Con sólo un 11%, Portugal obtiene la peor experiencia para los abonados.

La idea de que las cuotas de contenido impulsarán automáticamente la producción cinematográfica local es utópica: es igual de probable que los servicios de streaming reduzcan el total de títulos disponibles para ajustarse a la cuota sin necesidad de gastar fondos adicionales. Dijo Luca Bertoletti, responsable de asuntos gubernamentales del Consumer Choice Center.

Nos hemos comprometido con casi un millón de consumidores mexicanos y pedimos a los responsables políticos que nos escuchen. Las cuotas de contenido sólo harán más fuerte el mercado ilegal y pondrán un precedente peligroso para el éxito del Tratado de Libre Comercio, especialmente el USMCA y el acuerdo de libre comercio con la Unión Europea. ¿es este el legado que quiere dejar este senado? – concluyó Bertoletti.

Originally published here.

Centro de Elección del Consumidor, en contra de cuotas de contenido nacional

Luca Bertoletti, responsable de asuntos gubernamentales de Consumer Choice Center (Centro de Elección del Consumidor), afirma que la nueva Ley Federal de Cinematografía y el Audiovisual propuesta por el senador Ricardo Monreal, que impone una cuota de contenidos nacionales en todas las plataformas digitales que operan en México, perjudicará directamente a los consumidores.

“La decisión de impulsar las cuotas de contenido va en contra de los consumidores. Hay muchos ejemplos de por qué las cuotas de contenido no funcionan, un ejemplo es la Unión Europea y Netflix o Amazon Prime: desde que el bloque europeo puso en marcha la ley de cuotas de contenido, de todos los estados miembros de la UE, Lituania obtiene el mayor acceso con 52 por ciento de los títulos. Con sólo un 11 por ciento, Portugal obtiene la peor experiencia para los abonados”, relató.

Agregó que la idea de que las cuotas de contenido impulsarán automáticamente la producción cinematográfica nacional en México es utópica. “Es igual de probable que los servicios de streaming reduzcan el total de títulos disponibles para ajustarse a la cuota sin necesidad de gastar fondos adicionales”, señaló.

Originally published here.

Fun Police

ConsEUmer Podcast

Consumer Choice Center Cast

Follow us

Facebook-f Twitter Instagram Linkedin Youtube Spotify

Contact Info

712 H St NE PMB 94982
Washington, DC 20002

info@consumerchoicecenter.org

© COPYRIGHT 2024, CONSUMER CHOICE CENTER

Scroll to top
en_USEN
it_ITIT pt_BRPT fr_FRFR es_ESES de_DEDE en_USEN