France Is About To Waste A Ton Of Money Trying To Build Its Own Airbnb

from the french-for-boondoggle dept

It's no secret that the French government seems to hate big internet companies. It's spent years attacking them from basically every angle -- they allow too much piracy, they don't protect privacy, they protect privacy too much, they don't censor enough, they censor too much. Often it really seems like the issue is that these companies are not French companies.

But, really, can you think of any truly successful internet company that started in France? There are a few local to France, but has any really expanded beyond French borders?

So, it's kind of hilarious that after years and years of attacking various internet companies, France now thinks that the government can build its own competitor to Airbnb:

The French government will join forces with the tourism industry to build an Internet site aimed winning back customers from U.S. online travel giants such as Airbnb Inc. and Booking Holdings Inc.

The initiative is part of government-led stimulus package to revive tourism in one of the world’s top destinations as hotels, restaurants, theme parks as well as travel sites and tour operators are among the hardest hits by lockdowns and restrictions to fight the global coronavirus pandemic.

Of course, as Alec Stapp rightly points out, we've been down this path before with France, a decade and a half ago when they tried to build a Google competitor called Quaero. Don't remember Quaero? It was announced with great fanfare as a pan-EU project (led by France, of course) to create a EU-focused competitor to Google, modeled after the EU's (more successful) attempt to build a Boeing competitor in Airbus. But, from the very start, it was so obvious that Quaero had no chance (we jokingly said that the name "was French for boondoggle"). Within a few years it was clear that it was just a way for French companies to siphon off free money from the French government without ever building anything useful.

It's not difficult to predict that this "Airbnb" competitor will be more of the same -- especially when you combine the internet-illiterate French government with the legacy hospitality industry that always seems more focused on attacking Airbnb than on engaging in any actual innovation.

Filed Under: france, hotels, internet, short term rentals, startups
Companies: airbnb, quaero

Hotel Lobbyists Push Forward Their Plan To Kill The Internet Because They Hate Competing Against Airbnb

from the come-on dept

In the midst of this "techlash" atmosphere, it seems that basically every industry whose business models have been upended by competition brought about by the internet is now cynically using the anger directed at successful internet companies as an opportunity to kneecap the wider internet. We've recently pointed out that many of the efforts to undermine Section 230 of the CDA (the law that makes much of the good parts of the internet possible) are actually being pushed by Hollywood out of frustration that they're no longer able to maintain their monopoly rents in a gatekeeper business. Similarly, the big telcos have been using this opportunity to pull a "but look over there!" to point at the big internet companies, while trying to distract from the much greater privacy violations they regularly engage in.

Not to be left out, it appears the hotels are now making a major push to attack the internet, because they're sick of competing against Airbnb. This is no surprise. Two years ago, we wrote how the hotel industry had mapped out a secret plan (which was leaked to the NY Times) to kneecap Airbnb through bogus litigation and getting friendly politicians to help them attack the company. Sometimes politicians were more obvious than others about helping the hotel industry out in this plan, like the time that (now disgraced) former NY Attorney General Eric Schneiderman flat out admitted that he was attacking Airbnb to protect local hotels from competition.

As we noted a few weeks ago, a former top hotel exec, Ed Case, got elected to Congress last year. Case was actually on the board of the hotel industry's main lobbying group, the American Hotel & Lodging Association (AHLA). We wrote that he was planning to introduce a bill to undermine Section 230 at the behest of his former employers. On Monday of this week, he did exactly that with a press release that quotes the AHLA (leaving out that until just recently, Case was on the board of that organization (corruption? what corruption?)). The bill, H.R.4232 or the Protecting Local Authority and Neighborhoods Act (PLAN Act), would amend Section 230 to make it clear that it does not apply to Airbnb. Literally, that's the entire point of the law.

Case's explanation of the bill is hilariously misleading:

His “Protecting Local Authority and Neighborhoods” (PLAN) Act would end abusive litigation by Internet-based short-term rental platforms like AirBnb, HomeAway, VRBO, Flipkey, and others attempting to avoid accountability for profiting from illegal rentals.

Note what he's saying? It's about "ending abusive litigation." What?!? The "abusive litigation" is merely Airbnb asking courts to say that Section 230 means that they -- as an internet platform -- shouldn't be liable for the postings of individuals users if those users violate local city and state laws (exactly what Section 230 was designed to do). Cities and states are free to pass whatever laws they want regarding short-term rentals. But they shouldn't be able to pin liability on 3rd party platforms just because local officials don't want to bother to enforce their own laws. But Case's description of the law flips all of this on its head, and suggests that Airbnb's attempt to have liability properly applied to those violating the law... is "abusive litigation."

And, of course, he leaves out that courts right now appear to already believe that Section 230 doesn't protect Airbnb in such situations (which I think is an obvious misreading of the law, but...).

The AHLA quote on this is even more ridiculous.

The national organization of the AHLA also released a statement in support. “For too long, these Big Tech short-term rental platforms have been hiding behind this antiquated law in order to bully and threaten legal action against local elected officials who are simply trying to protect their residents from illegal rentals that are destroying neighborhoods and access to affordable housing,” said Chip Rogers, President and CEO of the national American Hotel & Lodging Association. “These Big Tech rental platforms are invoking a loophole in a federal law to snub their noses at local government leaders across the country, while continuing to profit from illegal business transactions.”

Get that? It's an "antiquated law" and they're "invoking a loophole." Neither is accurate. Section 230 is about the proper allocation of liability. You don't blame the tool for what the user does with it -- but that's what many of these laws are designed to do.

Either way, the AHLA is going full-court press on this. And they're not just focused on pushing this loophole for Airbnb. It appears they're going all in on stripping Section 230 protections from any internet service hosting 3rd party content. As part of this, they recently released what can only be described as a push poll to mislead people about Airbnb, the laws around these issues, and Section 230. Each question in the poll is at best actively misleading and at worst, completely bullshit.

The poll was designed, not surprisingly, to get people to "vote" for the position the hotel industry wants. So the questions are phrased in a manner such that I'm almost surprised they didn't get 100% of people supporting their campaign.

If Airbnb is making a profit from short-term rentals on its site, Airbnb should ensure the owner renting the property is following the local laws and safety requirements.

If you're not familiar with the nuances here, you're probably going to say you agree with that statement. But it leaves out what that means. How is Airbnb supposed to know whether or not the homeowners are following every local law that impacts them? If the homeowners are violating local laws, isn't that up to local officials to enforce, and not Airbnb? Should DoorDash be required to police whether or not the restaurants that use it for delivery are complying with local health laws? Or, more directly, should AHLA hotels be required to police whether or not any of their customers do anything illegal inside their hotel rooms? Because that's basically what AHLA is asking for here. If a drug deal or prostitution happens inside an AHLA hotel, should that hotel be held legally liable?

Airbnb should be required to remove rental listings from its website that are classified as illegal or banned by local government laws.

Again, that sounds good, but leaves out this: how the fuck does Airbnb know whether or not certain listings are "illegal"? Isn't that, again, up to local officials to enforce? The AHLA ignores all of that and pretends that it's somehow obvious which listings are legal and which are not. So, once again, should AHLA hotels be required to stop any activities in its members' hotels that is "classified as illegal or banned by local government laws"? I'm sure the AHLA would say that's impossible because they don't know what's happening in those rooms. Well, that's the fucking point. Airbnb doesn't know whether or not these listings do everything to comply with local laws. That's on the people doing the listings and the local enforcement officials.

From there, there are a bunch of questions not targeting AIrbnb specifically, but the wider premise of CDA 230:

The Communications Decency Act should be amended to remove potential loopholes, that allow Internet companies to profit off illegal activity on their web sites.

Uh, yikes. Again, this assumes that it's somehow obvious what is "illegal activity." This "amendment" would basically kill the open internet. Because the risk of liability here would be huge. How could any company that allows 3rd party speech know whether any content violates any laws? That's insane, and completely goes against the entire point of Section 230.

The Communications Decency Act should be amended to make it clear that web sites are accountable for removing illegal products or services.

Again, this assumes, incorrectly, that there's some sort of obvious "illegal products or services." These things don't show up with a flag -- just as someone checking into an AHLA member hotel to do a drug deal doesn't wear a giant sign over their head announcing the same.

Honestly, the funniest thing about the push poll is that the question that got the least amount of support was the one that has nothing to do with the internet and Section 230, but rather is just a "hey, don't you just hate Airbnb" type question -- and that got the least support:

Short-term rentals are depleting housing options for local residents and increasing the cost to rent or own a home. Short-term rental sites should comply with local laws protecting housing for permanent residents.

People tend to like Airbnb. It provides a better service, often at a lower price. Hotels tend to offer pretty bad services at inflated prices. And again, this whole line of questioning completely misrepresents the point. If local officials want to undermine tourism and business travel in their regions -- that's their decision, no matter how short-sighted. But they shouldn't be able to force a company into policing their laws just because local officials are too lazy to do so.

Filed Under: cda 230, competition, ed case, hotels, intermediary liability, push poll, section 230, short term rentals
Companies: ahla, airbnb

Former Hotel Exec Gets Elected To Congress, Decides First Order Of Business Is To Destroy Airbnb

from the really,-now? dept

Ed Case represents Hawaii's 1st district in Congress. He was just elected in 2018, though he actually was in Congress once before, when he represented Hawaii's 2nd district from 2002 to 2007. He left Congress last time to run for the Senate, but that flopped. And he lost another attempt at rejoining Congress in 2010. In 2013 he announced that he was joining a Hawaii-based hotel operator, Outrigger Enterprises Group, as Senior Vice President and Chief Legal Officer. At the time, he said that doing so "likely ends any further political career." In 2016, he joined the board of directors of the American Hotel & Lodging Association, a large hotel trade group. AHLA has been among the leading hotel industry groups pushing to kill Airbnb. The hotel industry, as a whole, seems to have spent much of the last decade looking for any possible way to attack and kill Airbnb rather than improve its own products.

And now Case is back in Congress -- and apparently an early order of business is to continue to push for AHLA and his former employer's goals. As sent to me by a few people, Case has sent a letter around to his House colleagues, asking them to support and cosponsor a new bill that he has not yet released, that would strip Section 230 protections from any short-term rental platform like Airbnb:

Dear Colleague:

Is your community one of a multitude throughout our country suffering from the negative effects of illegal vacation rentals? Effects that include unavailability of affordable housing, avoidance of standard consumer protections and loss of state and local government revenue?

If so, please join me as an original cosponsor of the Protecting Local Authority and Neighborhoods (PLAN) Act. This bill would end abusive litigation by internet-based short-term rental platforms attempting to avoid accountability for profiting from illegal rentals and strike down local regulations aimed at curbing this illegal activity and its widespread negative impacts.

Over the past decade-plus, the short-term vacation rental industry has exploded through the internet-based marketing platforms of Airbnb, HomeAway, VRBO, Flipkey and others. While some communities welcome this activity, which is largely conducted in residential neighborhoods, many others are concerned with several negative consequences.

These include the loss of affordable housing as residential units are converted to transient accommodations for tourists, and the failure of many unit owners and rental operators to comply with basic consumer safety, public accommodations and tax requirements as must the legal lodging industry. A survey of related news also makes clear that commercial lodging activity in otherwise residential neighborhoods gives rise to serious community safety and disruption issues.

As a result, from Hawai‘i to Maine state and local governments are updating their land use laws to put parameters around short-term rental activity, tailored to reflect local concerns and as always has been the case with land use regulation. However, the short-term rental online platforms have repeatedly gone to court to strike down these laws, claiming Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act (CDA 230) preempts local efforts to stop the listing and booking of illegal rentals by these platforms. They have sued cities large and small – including New York City, Boston, Miami, Anaheim, San Francisco, Portland, Ore., Chicago, Miami Beach, Palm Beach and Santa Monica – to protect a business model they know relies in large part on concealing the illegal activity of their third-party operators.

The PLAN Act would amend CDA 230 to make clear the statute does not shield platforms when they facilitate illegal rental bookings. Platforms would also be accountable if they fail to stop booking rentals after receiving notice from a private property owner that short-term rentals are prohibited at that location.

This is a narrow, targeted change to the statute to ensure short-term rental companies and internet platforms comply with state and local planning, zoning, rental, labor and tax laws and end their abusive stretching of CDA 230’s original intent. State attorneys general, mayors, and local officials have called for similar updates to CDA 230 to enable them to uphold their local laws and protect citizens living and working in their communities.

This is yet another attack on Section 230. As we've discussed in the past, Section 230 absolutely should protect these businesses -- even as the 9th Circuit has ruled the other way -- because it's a classic Section 230 issue, in which city governments are holding platforms liable for the speech of their users. If cities want to limit small, local businesses and block short-term rentals, that's their business -- but they shouldn't get to leverage sites like Airbnb to be their enforcers (which is all these laws really do).

But it's seems highly questionable for Case to go from being an exec at a hotel company and a board member of the big hotel trade group (that has long attacked Airbnb and similar sites) to wasting little time in Congress to push for a law that directly helps his former employers. I'm sure he truly believes that this is the right thing to do, but it certainly stinks of the kind of "soft corruption" that makes people not trust their government at all. It's not illegal, but it sure looks sketchy. Case has done other good things in Congress, including trying to get the intelligence community to pay attention to basic civil liberties (which sure would be nice). But this new plan to modify Section 230 to help his former colleagues is not that.

Filed Under: cda 230, congress, ed case, hawaii, hotels, section 230, short term rentals, vacation rentals
Companies: ahla, airbnb, outrigger

Cubs, Nationals Launch Another Trademark Opposition Over A 'W' Logo

from the wins-and-losses dept

Back in 2015, we wrote about a really dumb trademark dispute between a financial services firm and two Major League Baseball teams, the Washington Nationals and Chicago Cubs, over the letter "W." This insanity went on for years, with the MLB teams claiming there would be some sort of customer confusion in the public between professional baseball teams and a company that provided money management.

Well, in case you thought that this was insanity of the one-off variety, both baseball clubs are back at it with an opposition for the trademark of Starwood Hotels and Resorts, whose logo is, you guessed it, a "W."

At the end of November, the Nationals and Cubs filed an opposition with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board against Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide. The Nationals and Cubs are apparently upset with Starwood’s pending trademark application to register “W” in connection with “Entertainment services, namely, planning, conducting and hosting music festivals, concerts and performances by musical groups and individuals.”

Starwood claims to have started using “W” in connection with the aforementioned services as early as January 2005. The Nationals and Cubs could care less. They say that if Starwood gets its wish of registration, then Starwood will be given permission to confuse people into thinking that its services are in some way approved, endorsed or sponsored by the Nationals and/or Cubs.

This is the type of situation that calls for people to recognize the subtle differences and to keep their eye on the ball for trademark law, which is customer confusion. Yes, all three trademarks in question are versions of the letter "W." Yes, all three entities in question are in some segment of the entertainment industry, two being baseball teams and the third wanting to use its trademark for music concerts and performances. That, however, doesn't equate to Starwood's use somehow resulting in public confusion. Just to be clear, this is one of the many iterations of hotel logo we're talking about.

Really makes you think of the Cubs and/or Nationals, right? And, with just a brief moment of thought put into this, it becomes clear that fear of confusion makes no sense. A member of the public is going to go to a Starwood property to see a concert, see the "W" logo, and... what? Think the Cubs are affiliated with the concert? Or maybe the Nationals? Both? These baseball teams are somehow putting on concerts at Starwood properties?

Fortunately, the general consensus appears to be that the MLB teams aren't going to prevail.

This seems like a stretch of a case for the Washington Nationals and Chicago Cubs, since Starwood is very widely known for its “W” brand of hotels and no reasonable person is confusing said hotel brand with the baseball clubs. Further, Starwood already owns trademark registrations for the “W” brand, including one in relation to providing hotel services, food and beverage and bar and cocktail lounge services. Unless the Cubs and Nationals are also going to attempt invalidating those registrations, this new opposition seems half-hearted and destined to fail.

So, strike two?

Filed Under: baseball, entertainment, hotels, trademark, w
Companies: chicago cubs, starwood hotels, washington nationals

New York City Hotels Say Obnoxious $25 'Destination Fee' 'Improves The Customer Experience'

from the that'll-work dept

Taking a page from the telecom and banking sector playbooks, New York City hotels have decided to add a $25 "destination fee" just for the honor of being able to sleep somewhere near the audio visual cacophony that is Times Square. Major hotel chains like Hilton, Marriott and Starwood are all adding the new destination fees, which aren't part of the advertised rate -- and are only added to the final tally at checkout. Said fees mirror other "resort fees" used to jack up advertised rates in other destination locations like Hawaii, the Florida coast, or Las Vegas.

In many instances, the fee is being called an "urban destination charge," and is being applied each day of a customer's stay:

"But this week, a guest booking a room at the Hilton New York was alerted as he finalised payment that a “Daily Mandatory Charge” of $25 would be added to the room rate, covering an “Urban Destination Charge”, “premium” internet access, local and freephone calls, and a total of $25 credit for food and drink in the hotel.

The credit, it turned out, is a one-off figure – though the Urban Destination Charge is due every day of the stay."

If you've paid attention to the problems in the telecom sector, you've probably realized that this is now standard industry procedure. Cable and phone companies alike often make up entirely nonsensical fees (with names like the Internet Cost Recovery fee or Broadcast TV fee) with the express goal of advertising one price, then charging another. To add insult to injury, they'll then crow about how their advertised rate has remained the same from year to year. That's been an obvious case of false advertising for going on a decade, yet legal or regulatory accountability for the misleading charges remains elusive at best.

In telecom, the FCC had made a little noise about cracking down on the misleading surcharges in the form of a "nutrition label" for broadband that would clearly disclose any caveats, but that effort appears to have stalled. In the hotel industry where competition makes such action less pressing, the FTC gave hotels a fairly tepid warning about the practice in 2012, stating that the practice of hidden fees "may be deceptive" and "may violate the law." Hints that a new FTC crackdown on the practice was coming similarly emerged last year, only to apparently disappear back into the swamp of regulatory intent and good intentions.

Just like in the telecom industry, when hotels are asked whether jacking up the advertised rate post sale could be construed as predatory and obnoxious, they'll usually trot out some rubbish about how the practice enhances the "customer experience." Take this bit of prattle from Starwood owners Marriott International, for example:

"The Destination Fee was created as a way to lift the guest experience by providing added value to a hotel stay. Each hotel may offer a combination of hotel services (such as dry-cleaning, pressing or a food & beverage credit); local experience vouchers for free/discounted events and attractions (such as city tours), and/or access to fitness programs (such as yoga or cycling) in nearby studios..."The implementation of the Destination Fee gives us the opportunity to test how a bundle of benefits that our research shows are valuable to guests might enhance the stay."

Of course that's bullshit, since not knowing what the hell you'll actually be paying for your room kind of puts a damper on the entertainment value of the whole affair, and users are usually docked these fees regardless of whether they use amenities or not. The goal again is to falsely advertise a lower rate, full stop. That may be a problem for competitors foolish enough to clearly advertise their real rates, since they superficially could appear to be a worse value. On the flip side, hitting your visitors with obnoxious, hidden fees is a wonderful way to help drive business to the share economy competitors these companies have been whining about for the better part of a decade.

Filed Under: destination fee, fees, ftc, hotels, nyc, sneaky fees, times square

Arizona Motel 6 Branches Start Handing Out ICE To Unsuspecting Customers

from the KNOCK-N-TALK-Room-Service™ dept

Motel 6 sure seems to love handing over guest info to law enforcement. A couple of years ago, a Rhode Island branch decided to start faxing its guest list to local police every night -- something the PD had never asked it to do. This pleased the mayor, who proudly noted he knew everyone who was staying at the motel every night. Backlash followed and the police chief announced he would no longer accept Motel 6's guest list faxes.

Two years later, Motel 6 branches in Arizona are doing pretty much the same thing. This time, however, the info appears to be going straight to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Free ICE in motel rooms never goes out of style. An undocumented motel guest detained under suspicious circumstances led to local journalists digging into public records.

A Phoenix New Times review of court records found that between February and August, ICE agents made at least 20 arrests at Motel 6s, showing up roughly every two weeks. (Since many of the documents we reviewed contained only vague details about where ICE encountered an individual, the actual number is likely even higher.)

All took place at one of two Motel 6 locations: 4130 North Black Canyon Highway or 1530 North 52nd Drive. Both are in predominantly Latino neighborhoods. New Times was unable to find records indicating that ICE conducted arrests at other local motels during this same time period.

So far, nothing all that conclusive. Some things can be inferred from the New Times' investigation of public records, but there's nothing specifically noting ICE agents are working from motel guest lists. However, nothing in the records indicates how ICE is locating these undocumented motel guests. The only thing stated in the documents is agents were "following up on tips."

The New Times decided to go right to the source -- motel employees -- and got some very straightforward answers.

“We send a report every morning to ICE — all the names of everybody that comes in,” one front-desk clerk explained. “Every morning at about 5 o’clock, we do the audit and we push a button and it sends it to ICE.”

[...]

[F]ront desk staff at multiple Motel 6 locations in the Valley said that they regularly share guest information with local police.

“I don’t know how it works, but if you check in and you have a warrant, you’re going to get picked up,” one young woman explained.

ICE has refused to comment on the veracity of these employees' claims, saying doing so would compromise investigative techniques. However, if this is what's happening, it's neither "investigative" nor much of a "technique." It's just someone running a list against DHS/ICE databases and hoping for a hit. The motel is doing all the legwork, and there's precious little of that being done.

Even if you consider the employees' statements to be unreliable hearsay, there's the corporate response to the New Times story, which makes it explicitly clear sending guest lists to ICE was exactly what was happening:

Regarding your media story on the Phoenix-area location, this was implemented at the local level without the knowledge of senior management. When we became aware of it last week, it was discontinued. We are currently further investigating and will provide more information shortly.

This is better but far from completely comforting. ICE can't demand any motel hand over guest lists in perpetuity, but there's nothing in the law (or even on-point Supreme Court decisions) that forbids agents from popping in and checking out lists in person. The same goes for local law enforcement, which may take its own look-see and pass that on to the feds if anything catches their eye. Motel 6's corporate rollback of an extremely localized unofficial policy may return a little privacy to its guests, but the law and the courts see very little that's protected in information turned over to third parties.

Filed Under: hotels, ice, law enforcement, privacy
Companies: motel 6

Why Is The Hotel Industry More Focused On Harming Airbnb Than Improving Their Own Product?

from the innovate-and-compete,-guys dept

It's no secret that the hotel industry hates competition from Airbnb. Hell, politicians have even admitted to crafting anti-Airbnb policies to keep hotels from being disrupted. But, now, the NY Times has got its hands on a specific plan from the hotel industry to basically hamper Airbnb and burden it with legal and policy challenges (I should note, by way of some sort of disclosure, that I'm typing this while sitting at a desk at an Airbnb apartment in Washington DC -- and, similarly, that it's much nicer and significantly cheaper than comparable hotels, but I digress...).

Last year, Airbnb underwent a rough regulatory patch.

The short-term rental company became a Federal Trade Commission target last summer after three senators asked for an investigation into how companies like Airbnb affect soaring housing costs. In October, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York signed a bill imposing steep fines on Airbnb hosts who break local housing rules.

The two actions appeared unrelated. But one group quietly took credit for both: the hotel industry.

Years back, we wrote about writer Andy Kessler's concept of political entrepreneurs v. market entrepreneurs, which (loosely defined) were those who basically used policy making to lock up markets for themselves and restrict competitors as opposed to entrepreneurs who innovated and created more value in the market by serving customers. In more traditional economics, it's rent seeking v. market innovation and growth. Most people recognize how rent seeking is bad: it's using the levers of regulations and politics to limit competition and innovation, in order to extract a greater share of the revenue/profits (since there's less competition, if any) while similarly limiting innovation and economic growth that improve people's lives.

And the hotel industry seems like a prime example of this right now.

Both were partly the result of a previously unreported plan that the hotel association started in early 2016 to thwart Airbnb. The plan was laid out in two separate documents that the organization presented to its board in November and January. In the documents, which The New York Times obtained, the group sketched out the progress it had already made against Airbnb, and described how it planned to rein in the start-up in the future.

The plan was a “multipronged, national campaign approach at the local, state and federal level,” according to the minutes of the association’s November board meeting.

The NY Times report has many more details, but all of it is basically summed up as "annoy Airbnb and limit their ability to grow as much as possible." There doesn't appear to be anything in there about "providing a better experience to our customers so they might prefer us to Airbnb." There doesn't seem to be anything in there about "better competing with Airbnb." Nope, it's entirely about trying to undermine Airbnb. I've noted in the past (and in this post!) that I've used Airbnb a bunch, and have found it almost universally better than hotels. The experience is more unique, but also just... better overall. And I've spoken with many Airbnb hosts. It's true that some are running "businesses" renting out multiple units on Airbnb, but isn't opening up more people for running successful small businesses a good thing?

And, yes, I know lots of people like to claim that Airbnb is driving up rent -- even if the data doesn't currently support that claim. But even if true (and, again, it's the hotel lobby that has mostly been pushing this narrative, though plenty of well meaning folks have picked up on it), that's an issue to deal with in other ways (such as increasing housing stock, rather than limiting it with other regulations) rather than shutting down a useful business that opens up new opportunities, and can also increase tourism and local business.

Again, it's perhaps no surprise that the hotel industry has been fighting Airbnb, but with the NYTimes getting its hands on the actual strategy documents from the hotel industry, that industry has made it clear that it's seeking to shut down and limit competition, rather than innovate themselves.

Filed Under: competition, hotels, innovation, political entrepreneurs, rent seeking, startups
Companies: airbnb

EU Advocate General Declares That Hotels Don't Need To Pay Copyright License To Have In-Room Television

from the oh-ok dept

We've seen all manner of silly claims by copyright licensing groups as to what requires what kind of license in every kind of circumstance. These licensing groups have gone after children's charities. A UK collection society had the strategy of calling up local businesses and demanding payments should they hear music playing in the background. The Author's Guild once claimed that reading a book out loud constituted the need for a separate license, while ASCAP asserted with a straight face that the ring of a mobile phone was a public performance. This panoply of idiocy might be funny, except for the very real harm done through this kind of harassment.

Even the good stories in this vein weigh heavily in that they are necessary at all. For instance, the advocate general for the EU's Court of Justice recently wrote an opinion advising that hotels didn't need a copyright license just to have televisions within guest rooms. It's a good ruling, but conjures the frustrating question as to why it was needed in the first place. The answer, of course, is because a collection group was attempting to collect from hotels for just that reason.

On Monday, Court of Justice of the European Union advocate general Maciej Szpunar published his opinion on a case brought by the Verwertungsgesellschaft Rundfunk, a royalty collecting and copyright management company comparable to the BPI in the UK or MPAA in the US. The collecting company had asked a local court to force a hotel to pay extra licensing fees because guests were watching TV in their rooms. Vienna's Commercial Court, in its turn, sought guidance from the CJEU on how EU copyright law should be interpreted in this case.

At issue in this case was an EU directive on rental and lending rights, which affords broadcasters the right to allow or not allow the rebroadcasting of their content to the public. Specifically, the law states that this right applies only when an entrance fee to view such content is levied by the rebroadcaster. What the collection society argued was that hotels were levying such a fee, because it included televisions in rooms for which they were charging guests. That isn't remotely how the law was supposed to be applied.

But Verwertungsgesellschaft Rundfunk made the argument anyway, because facts and truth have no place in the realm of a collection society, where the only goal is to seek as much rent as possible in every circumstance, while providing as little value as possible. Again, it's a good opinion, but it's not a ruling in the case. That ruling will be taken up by the other justices on the court and they will take Szpunar's opinion on the matter into account. The general feeling appears to be that the court will side with Szpunar's opinion, which is also good.

But all I can think about is why is this necessary to begin with?

Filed Under: advocate general, cjeu, copyright, court of justice, eu, hotel rooms, hotels, licenses, public performance
Companies: verwertungsgesellschaft rundfunk

FCC Fines More Companies For Blocking Convention Center WiFi, Says Hilton Obstructed Investigation

from the anti-competitive-shenanigans dept

Over the last year, one of the FCC's major crackdowns has been on companies that block customer WiFi at convention centers in order to drive visitors and exhibitors to the center's own, absurdly-priced WiFi services. It began last year when the FCC fined Marriott $600,000 for blocking user WiFi to force them on to Nashville convention center services costing upwards of $1,000 per day. Marriott feebly tried to argue it was simply protecting consumers from security threats before it gave up the fight, realizing that both the law and public sentiment were both decidedly against them.

The FCC has since fined other companies for similar behavior, including a $750,000 fine levied against a company by the name of Smart City Holdings for doing the same thing at a string of convention centers all over the country. Now the FCC says it has levied yet another fine of $718,000 against a company by the name of M.C. Dean for blocking user access to their own WiFi while visiting the Baltimore convention center:

"As the exclusive provider of Wi-Fi access at the Baltimore Convention Center, M.C. Dean charges exhibitors and visitors as much as $1,095 per event for Wi-Fi access. Last year, the Commission received a complaint from a company that provides equipment that enables users to establish hotspots at conventions and trade shows. The complainant alleged that M.C. Dean blocked hotspots its customers had tried to establish at the Baltimore Convention Center. After receiving the complaint, Enforcement Bureau field agents visited the venue on multiple occasions and confirmed that Wi-Fi blocking activity was taking place."

In all of these instances the companies in question used hardware that sent de-authorization packets to user mobile hotspots and tethered smartphones, confusing the devices and disrupting any attempted connection to them. In M.C. Dean's case, the FCC found that the hardware it was using in the Baltimore convention center was powerful enough to disrupt WiFi connectivity for people simply passing by outside. As with everything the FCC does lately, only Commissioners Ajit Pai and Mike O'Rielly (think the Statler and Waldorf muppets but much less funny) opposed cracking down on this behavior.

In perhaps a more interesting companion announcement, the FCC notes that it has also fined Hilton hotels $25,000, but for obstructing the FCC's investigation into similar behavior. According to the FCC, Hilton ingeniously tried to deflate any investigation into WiFi blocking by simply refusing to answer the agency's questions:

"In August 2014, the Commission received an initial consumer complaint alleging that the Hilton in Anaheim, California blocked visitors' Wi-Fi hot spots unless those consumers paid a $500 fee to access Hilton's Wi-Fi. The Commission has also received Wi-Fi blocking complaints involving other Hilton properties. In November 2014, the Bureau issued Hilton a letter of inquiry seeking information concerning basic company information, relevant corporate policies, and specifics regarding Wi-Fi management practices at Hilton-brand properties in the United States. After nearly one year, Hilton has failed to provide the requested information for the vast majority of its properties."

Surely playing mute will work? In all cases, the FCC states these companies are violating Section 333 of the Communications Act by maliciously interfering with or causing interference to lawful WiFi hotspots. Marriott had initially tried to argue that the definition of "interference" in Section 333 was ambiguous enough to create doubt over FCC authority over unlicensed spectrum here, but after regulators, the public, Google, Microsoft and wireless carriers all started yelling at Marriott in unison, it became pretty clear that trying to argue the point (just to defend clearly anti-competitive behavior) just wasn't going to be worth it.

Filed Under: blocking, convention centers, fcc, hotels, wifi
Companies: hilton, smart city holdings