Howard Dean Is Out Stumping For Big Pharma Patent Protection, No Matter How Many People In Poor Countries Die As A Result

from the yaaaaah! dept

If ever there was a situation that called for a circumvention of the normal patent process and lifespan, surely it would be the COVID-10 pandemic. It seems obvious that a global pandemic is the perfect situation to go beyond the normal restrictive patent protections for things like therapeutics and vaccines and instead operate from a posture of information-sharing and collaboration so that the world can get back to something resembling normalcy. Instead, products of research that are often based on publicly-funded scientific campaigns are being locked up in patent offices, fought over among patent holders, and used for pure profiteering over a public health crises. It's in that reality that we've had to witness some folks who absolutely know better, such as Senator Ben Sasse, advocate for longer patent protections for COVID-19 treatments, rather than the opposite.

But if you thought that this kind of pro-pharma shill work was limited to Republicans like Sasse, fear not oh ye both-sides-ers, because here comes Howard Dean to demonstrate that the other side of the aisle is equally capable of spewing this nonsense. Dean recently penned an op-ed pushing Joe Biden to not issue a special waiver that would allow poor countries access to produce generic COVID-19 vaccines.

HOWARD DEAN, the former progressive champion, is calling on President Joe Biden to reject a special intellectual property waiver that would allow low-cost, generic coronavirus vaccines to be produced to meet the needs of low-income countries. Currently, a small number of companies hold the formulas for the Covid-19 vaccines, limiting distribution to many parts of the world.

“IP protections aren’t the cause of vaccination delays,” Dean claimed in a column for Barron’s last month. “Every drug manufacturing facility on the planet that’s capable of churning out Covid-19 shots is already doing so.” “Creating a new medicine is a costly proposition,” wrote Dean. “Companies would never invest hundreds of millions in research and development if rivals could simply copy their drug formulas and create knockoffs.”

Even in just those two paragraphs, there is a ton to unpack. First and foremost, it's worth remembering that Dean, once considered a progressive representative in Congress, is now in the business of influencing lawmakers on behalf of large pharma companies. To be clear, Dean himself is not registered as a lobbyist... which is hilarious. He does work for Dentons, a law and lobbying firm. And, anytime the public catches wind of the potential for lowering drug prices in favor of healthcare concerns, there is Howard Dean to tell you how awful that would be.

His official role is as a senior advisor to its government affairs practice focused on corporate health care clients, though as The Intercept has previously reported, he engages in almost every lobbying activity imaginable. In the past, Dean has argued that he is not a lobbyist but has declined to discuss what he does at the firm or the identities of his clients. Neither Dean nor Dentons responded to a request for comment from The Intercept.

“He sorts of pops up whenever you argue against anything that would lower drug prices,” said James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, a nonprofit that works to reform intellectual property rights to expand access to medicine. “It’s appalling because he’s introduced as a progressive; he still gets on ‘Rachel Maddow,’” said Love. “But he’s on the payroll. He’s not a registered lobbyist — he somehow finds a way not to register — but he’s sort of an influencer, he’s paid to influence the debate.”

In other words, note that when Howard Dean speaks on the topic of pharmaceuticals, you should picture big pharma as the ventriloquist.

But back to Dean's original claims. The idea that patents haven't held back vaccine production and that all the possible production is currently happening is... well... it ain't fucking true.

Dean’s claim that global vaccine manufacturing is already at capacity is patently false. Foreign firms have lined up to offer pharmaceutical plants to produce vaccines but have been forced to enter into lengthy negotiations under terms set by the intellectual property owners. The waiver, however, would allow generic drug producers to begin copying the vaccine without delay.

Many of the manufacturing plants prepared to mass produce low-cost vaccines are centered in India, which has committed to supplying the poorest countries in the world. But the waiver petition, Dean wrote, “is unreasonable and disingenuous; it’s a ruse to benefit India’s own industry at the expense of patients everywhere. President Biden would be wise to reject it.”

Except that doesn't make an iota of sense. To start, generic medicines exist. And, yet, pharma companies still make the medicines that eventually go generic. What we're talking about in this instance is a waiver that would allow generic versions of patented COVID-19 vaccines far earlier than the normal patent system would allow. It's worth noting that companies like Pfizer and Moderna have already made a ton of money on vaccine contracts with various countries. Arguing that those companies wouldn't have created vaccines without the normal patent protection length is arguing that those companies would have just left all the money they've already made on the table for... reasons. As far as I'm able to tell, not making money is not the primary motive of big pharma.

But as to Dean's claim that this is harmful to "patients everywhere", tell that to the god damned underserved and poor nations currently operating with barely any vaccine distribution at all. It might be fun for Dean to non-lobby for pharma patents here in the States while citizens in poor nations literally get sick and die from COVID-19, but it damned sure isn't the progressive posture Dean is regularly lionized for. And leaving a patent waiver off the table means that some of these poorer countries will be dealing with COVID-19 for years.

The column references a proposal led by India and South Africa — joined by Kenya, Bolivia, Pakistan, and dozens of other countries — to request a temporary waiver of intellectual property rights over the creation of Covid-19 vaccines. The waiver to the World Trade Organization would allow unfettered access to the intellectual property and formulas necessary to retool factories and ramp up production of vaccines for the developing world, much of which is currently projected not to reach significant vaccination rates until as late as 2024.

And that's before you take into account that these same pharma companies Dean is non-lobbying for have promised their investors that they plan to jack up the price for these life-saving vaccines in the very near future. You know, the exact sort of thing that will diminish poorer nations' ability to vaccinate their peoples.

So, to summarize, here is what Howard Dean, progressive champion, is doing with op-eds like this. He is shilling for big pharma companies' ability to control manufacturing of vaccines to help end a global pandemic through strict patent control in a manner that will keep poorer countries from having the vaccine sooner than they would otherwise. If Biden did issue the waiver, it would mean that more people in the world would get vaccinated sooner. Uncomfortable as it might be to hear, this in turn means that whatever the literal body-count Dean's advocacy would generate might be, it would certainly not be zero. People will die due to this. And, if you're into pure self-interest and are reading this from a wealthy nation now getting vaccines rolled out relatively quickly, failing to vaccinate poorer nations could easily result in wider COVID-19 spread, which in turn could easily lead to the evolution of new variants that could get around the vaccines we have today.

Dean's advocacy is a literal threat to the world, is my point. And if you think that I'm exaggerating that point, you aren't paying attention to the news.

Filed Under: access to medicine, big pharma, covid, covid vaccines, howard dean, patents

State Laws Restricting Community Broadband Are Hurting US Communities During The Pandemic

from the do-not-pass-go,-do-not-collect-$200 dept

We've talked for years about how telecom monopolies like Comcast and AT&T have ghost written laws in more than twenty states, banning or hamstringing towns and cities looking to build their own broadband networks. We've also noted with COVID clearly illustrating how broadband is essential for education, opportunity, employment, and healthcare, such restrictions are looking dumber than ever. Voters should have every right to make local infrastructure decisions for themselves, and if big ISPs and armchair free market policy wonks don't want that to happen, incumbent ISPs should provide faster, cheaper, better service.

As the pandemic continues, some cities have found ways around such restrictions -- by focusing more specifically on serving struggling, low income Americans. Texas is one such state that long ago passed municipal restrictions, courtesy of Dallas-based AT&T. AT&T doesn't want to upgrade or repair many of its DSL lines, but it also doesn't want communities upgrading or building networks either lest it become a larger trend (too late). As a result, in San Antonio, an amazing 38% of homes still don't have residential broadband.

The city's existing network can't really expand commercial service thanks to a law written by AT&T. But that law doesn't prohibit the city from servicing the poor by offering free service, something made possible by the recent CARES Act:

"This year in a number of cities, the pandemic has inspired some narrower versions of municipal broadband that get around these restrictions, focused on creating “affordable networks” that specifically target low-income households. Several of these were born out of the immediate need to bridge the homework gap.

“Pre-Covid there were at most a handful of networks being built to address affordability; now, we’ve started informally keeping a list and we’re over 30,” Siefer says. “The phenomena of setting up a network for that reason, in that way, is new."

In San Antonio's case, the city used $27 million in CARES Act funding to expand its existing network to 20,000 students across the city’s 50 most vulnerable neighborhoods. Entrenched monopolies (and the law makers, policy wonks, think tankers, and academics paid to love them) love to insist that such networks are an inevitable taxpayer boondoggle. Yet those same folks never make a solitary peep as we throw massive tax breaks at companies like AT&T for literally doing absolutely nothing. Or billions more at a rotating crop of companies for networks they, time and time and time again, fail to deliver.

The problem is that these community funding solutions are temporary, and lack funding to continue for more than a year or two, despite our very obvious broadband coverage gaps (42 million without service, 83 million locked under a monopoly). The other problem, of course, is that overpriced, slow, and spotty US broadband is the direct result of corruption and monopolization, problems we often refuse to even acknowledge, much less do anything about.

The solutions here aren't complicated, we just don't want to do them. We could easily ask voters if they want to discard the 20+ protectionist laws written by monopolies, letting local citizens decide local infrastructure issues themselves. We could beef up antitrust enforcement, and refuse to rubber stamp mindless telecom mergers that inevitably lead to more consolidation, less competition, and higher prices. We could embrace policies that upset incumbent monopolies by driving additional competition to market. We could reform campaign finance laws so AT&T and Comcast don't all but own countless state legislatures.

But we don't do that. Instead, we let monopolies write state and federal policy and laws with an eye on protecting the status quo. Laws that make disruption by smaller players expensive, cumbersome, and often impossible. We then throw billions of dollars at said monopolies for networks they routinely only half deploy. We rubber stamp harmful mergers and fail to hold monopolies accountable for much of anything. Once that's done, we then stand around with a dumb look on our collective faces wondering why US broadband is utterly mediocre in nearly every single metric that matters.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, covid, municipal broadband, pandemic, state's rights

Ajit Pai Tried To Strangle A Broadband Aid Program For Low Income Americans. Then A Pandemic Hit.

from the you're-really-not-helping dept

While recently departed FCC boss Ajit Pai was perhaps best known for ignoring the public and making shit up to dismantle FCC authority over telecom monopolies, many of his other policies have proven to be less sexy to talk about--but just as terrible.

One of the biggest targets throughout Pai's four year tenure as boss was the FCC's Lifeline program, an effort started by Reagan and expanded by Bush Jr. that long enjoyed bipartisan support until Trumpism rolled into town. Lifeline doles out a measly $9.25 per month subsidy that low-income homes can use to help pay a tiny fraction of their wireless, phone, or broadband bills (enrolled participants have to chose one). The FCC, under former FCC boss Tom Wheeler, had voted to expand the service to cover broadband connections, something Pai (ever a champion to the poor) voted down.

Despite constant pledges that one of his top priorities was fixing the "digital divide," Pai's tenure as boss included a notable number of efforts to scuttle the Lifeline program that weren't paid much attention to -- until a pandemic came to town. COVID-19 has shone a bright spotlight on the fact that 42 million Americans still can't access broadband (double official FCC estimates), and millions more can't afford service thanks to monopolization and limited competition.

Under Chairman Ajit Pai's "leadership," the FCC voted 3-2 in late 2017 to eliminate a $25 additional Lifeline subsidy for low-income native populations on tribal land. As part of Pai's effort, he also banned smaller mobile carriers from participating in the Lifeline program. Pai's attempt to neuter Lifeline in tribal areas certainly hurt overall enrollment, but didn't always fare well in the courts. One ruling (pdf), for example, noting that Pai and his staff not only pulled their justifications completely out of their asses, but failed to do any meaningful research whatsoever into how the cuts would impact poor and tribal communities:

"The Commission's adoption of these two limitations was arbitrary and capricious by not providing a reasoned explanation for its change of policy that is supported by record evidence. In adopting the Tribal Facilities Requirement, the Commission's decision evinces no consideration of the exodus of facilities-based providers from the Tribal Lifeline program. Neither does it point to evidence that banning resellers from the Tribal Lifeline program would promote network buildout."

That's a polite way of the court saying that Pai based his decisions on ideology, not evidence (kind of a theme throughout his tenure as reflected by other court rulings). On the other end of these decisions are real, struggling human beings. Human beings the Washington Post recently did an excellent piece on as it surveyed the real-world damage from Pai's decisions to neuter a program that already did the bare minimum to help struggling Americans:

"The restrictions have been especially problematic during the pandemic, as Americans find themselves more dependent than ever on their mobile devices to stay connected. Many Lifeline subscribers say they have had to make unfair trade-offs — talking either to family or to doctors, for example, or participating in their communities or saving precious minutes for emergencies — that most Americans would find unfathomable."

Lifeline as a program is no stranger to fraud, with companies from Sprint to AT&T being routinely busted for taking money for people that don't technically exist. As the report notes, Pai hid his ideological assaults on the program under the guise that he was exclusively worried about said fraud, yet didn't take the steps necessary to prevent said fraud from happening:

"Under Pai’s watch, for example, the U.S. government for years did not fully implement a national verification system — a state-of-the art digital tool designed to determine eligibility and crack down on the fraud Republicans sought to prevent. The myriad missteps are laid bare in a report released by the Government Accountability Office in late January, which found that by summer 2020, most states still had not implemented the technology. Those that did found it even harder for Lifeline applicants to get approved, creating undue delays even in cases in which low-income Americans should have qualified easily for the program."

Again, Pai's tenure was largely pockmarked by doing huge favors for entrenched telecom monopolies, then using flimsy or nonexistent data to justify those policies. All while simply ignoring the fact that monopolization and a lack of competition creates most of the sector's problems (note how he'd never discuss US broadband prices). Concern about fraud was never symmetrical; while Pai went out of his way often to highlight Lifeline fraud, he never once even mentioned the problem with throwing billions in tax cuts and regulatory favors at monopolies like AT&T in exchange for doing absolutely nothing. That's before you even get to Pai's most recent subsidization scandals, which doled out billions to companies that gamed the FCC process.

This kind of facts-optional ideology has, for years, been brushed aside as normal policymaking (former FCC boss turned top cable lobbyist Mike Powell wasn't all that different). Unfortunately while this stuff gets dismissed as boring policy wonkery or "partisan politics," it's good to remember this kind of behavior has very real costs that the purveyors of said policies try very hard not to think much about.

Filed Under: ajit pai, arbitrary and capricious, covid, digital divide, fcc, lifeline, pandemic

Comcast Wants A Cookie For Suspending Its Bullshit Broadband Caps For a Few Months

from the do-not-pass-go,-do-not-collect-$200 dept

For years, Comcast has slowly but surely expanded its pointless and arbitrary broadband usage caps and overage fees into all of its markets (picture the boiling frog metaphor, with you as the frog). And for most of that time, the company avoided doing so in the Northeast where it faces more competition from competitors like (uncapped) Verizon FiOS. But recently, likely fearing an incoming Biden FCC willing to do its job, Comcast rushed to finally push these useless, confusing, and expensive restrictions into the Northeast. In the middle of a pandemic. When people were already struggling to pay for basic utilities and rent.

Needless to say, lawmakers weren't happy about it. Massachusetts lawmakers were quick to complain about the practice, noting that price gouging captive customers during a financial and health crisis isn't a good look. This morning, Pennsylvania AG nabbed headlines after Comcast announced it would be pausing the expansion of usage caps for a few months (until July):

"The Philadelphia-based cable giant said it would postpone the new charges after Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro (D) raised concerns that Comcast’s policy threatened to disproportionately harm cash-strapped Americans who are learning, working and communicating primarily online."

There are a couple problems here. One, The Washington Post (like a lot of outlets) never even informs readers that the caps are technically unnecessary. They're literally the monopolistic price gouging of captive customers using technically unnecessary nonsense. That's kind of important context, without which the reader walks away possibly thinking Comcast is somehow being altruistic here. This is pretty standard practice for a mainstream US tech press which has a violent allergic reaction to calling a duck a duck (in this case, monopolistic price gouging).

Two, I know from my conversations with Massachusetts lawmakers last week that briefly suspending the caps for a few months was Comcast's idea. It was their base offer in negotiations, and they're unwilling to go further. As such, what's portrayed here as a savvy win for PA AG Josh Shapiro is really just him agreeing to let Comcast get away with doing what is effectively nothing. These restrictions shouldn't exist in the first place. Suspending them for just a few months in one portion of the country is an empty gesture. Comcast will simply bring them back once the PR heat dies down a bit.

If there's an area the modern FCC and state regulators have failed miserably, under both parties, it's broadband caps. It shouldn't take a pandemic to realize that monopolies imposing costly, confusing, and unnecessary restrictions to drive up the already high cost of broadband access isn't a great idea (such restrictions are also also abused competitively in the streaming space). And, with only the occasional exception, and despite endless, breathless yammering on about the "digital divide," most federal and state regulators clearly couldn't give any less of a shit.

Filed Under: broadband caps, covid, fees, josh shapiro, pennsylvania, usage caps
Companies: comcast

House Lawmakers Question Telecom Giants Over Broadband Price Gouging During A Pandemic

from the do-not-pass-go,-do-not-collect-$200 dept

House lawmakers say that telecom giants are exploiting a national health and economic crisis to make an extra buck.

The subject of their ire are broadband usage caps, which we've long made very clear are little more than price gouging of captive customers in uncompetitive US broadband markets. Such restrictions don't manage congestion, aren't technically necessary, and serve no financial function outside of price gouging, given flat rate broadband is already hugely profitable, and "heavy" users can already be bumped to business class tiers.

Broadband caps are a monopolistic toll on captive customers. And while the Trump FCC struck a temporary pinky swear agreement with ISPs to suspend them during the first few months of the pandemic (which many ignored), ISPs like Comcast and AT&T were not only quick to return to the punitive charges, some ISPs like Comcast actively expanded them. Sure, millions of Americans are struggling to pay for essential services and rent, but monopolies are always going to monopolize unless they face one of two things: penalties via competition, or penalties via functional regulators. The US broadband sector has neither.

Regulators inclined to look away from the problem of US telecom monopolization in normal times have found it harder to do so via COVID, even if that usually doesn't result in any serious repercussions. This week, House Energy & Commerce Committee members Reps. Frank Pallone, Jr, Mike Doyle, and Jerry McNerney lambasted companies like Comcast for doubling down on their greedy bullshit during an economic crisis:

"Over the last ten months, internet service became even more essential as many Americans were forced to transition to remote work and online school. Broadband networks seem to have largely withstood these massive shifts in usage. Unfortunately, what cannot be overlooked or underestimated is the extent to which families without home internet service — particularly those with school-aged children at home — have been left out and left behind.” “This is an egregious action at a time when households and small businesses across the country need high-speed, reliable broadband more than ever but are struggling to make ends meet."

This is all a very polite way of saying monopolies are ripping customers off during a tragic crisis. The lawmakers in question fired off equally polite letters to most telecom CEOs, asking for more detail on the timing of many capping decisions.

Granted this is empty rhetoric until the incoming administration arrives and the makeup of Congress shifts away from GOP control. For four years, the Trump administration was literally incapable of even acknowledging that US broadband isn't competitive, resulting in mediocre service in nearly every global metric that matters, and some of the highest prices for broadband in the developed world. They similar turned a blind eye as telecom monopolies used a universe of bogus surcharges to jack up the cost of broadband and TV services post sale, a tactic that effectively lets them falsely advertise lower rates.

Again, lawmakers were happy to turn a blind eye to this stuff in normal times, but as the wheels of government shifts its focus to providing COVID aid to struggling Americans, broadband monopolies' relentless efforts to price gouge captive customers who can't vote with their wallets is going to find itself increasingly in the spotlight. Which is why Comcast recently expanded its broadband caps now when it knows nobody in government gives a damn.

Filed Under: broadband, congress, covid, fcc, pandemic, price gouging