New Right To Repair Bill Targets Obnoxious Auto Industry Behavior

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

It's just no fun being a giant company aspiring to monopolize repair to boost revenues. On both the state and federal level, a flood of new bills are targeting companies' efforts to monopolize repair by implementing obnoxious DRM, making repair tools and manuals hard to find, bullying independent repair shops (like Apple does), or forcing tractor owners to drive hundreds of miles just to get their tractor repaired (one of John Deere's favorite pastimes). The Biden administration even just got done signing an executive order asking the FTC to tighten up its restrictions on the subject.

This week the list of right to repair legislation jumped by one with the introduction of the "Right to Equitable and Professional Auto Industry Repair" Act (REPAIR Act), which would mandate equitable access to repair tools and tech, boost the FTC's authority to handle consumer complaints, and mandate additional transparency by the auto industry:

"Americans should not be forced to bring their cars to more costly and inconvenient dealerships for repairs when independent auto-repair shops are often cheaper and far more accessible,” said Rep. Rush. “But as cars become more advanced, manufacturers are getting sole access to important vehicle data while independent repair shops are increasingly locked out. The status quo for auto repair is not tenable, and it is getting worse. If the monopoly on vehicle repair data continues, it would affect nearly 860,000 blue-collar workers and 274,000 service facilities."

The auto industry has been particularly obnoxious when it comes to providing independent access to data, tools, and repair manuals for cars with increasingly complicated internal electronics. That's a particular problem when an estimated 70 percent of U.S. cars are serviced by independent repair shops. The industry has also been obnoxious in their attempts to scuttle legislation attempting to address the problem, including running ads in Massachusetts that claimed an expansion of that state's right to repair legislation would only be of benefit to stalkers and sexual predators.

The problem for companies looking to monopolize repair is several fold. One, the harder they try to lock their technologies down, the greater the opposition grows. And that opposition tends to be both broad and bipartisan, ranging from the most fervent of urban Apple fanboys, to the most rural of John Deere tractor owners. This isn't a battle they're likely to win, and while we haven't seen federal legislation on this front passed yet, if the industries continue to push their luck in this space it's only a matter of time.

15 Comments

Comcast Continues To Bleed Olympics Viewers After Years Of Bumbling

from the you're-not-doing-a-good-job dept

NBC (now Comcast NBC Universal) has enjoyed the rights to broadcast the US Olympics since 1998. In 2011, the company paid $4.4 billion for exclusive US broadcast rights to air the Olympics through 2020. In 2014, Comcast NBC Universal shelled out another $7.75 billion for the rights to broadcast the summer and winter Olympics in the US... until the year 2032.

Despite years of experience Comcast/NBC still struggles to provide users what they actually want. For years the cable, broadband, and broadcast giant has been criticized for refusing to air events live, spoiling some events, implementing annoying cable paywall restrictions, implementing heavy handed and generally terrible advertising, often sensationalizing coverage, avoiding controversial subjects during broadcasts, and streaming efforts that range from clumsy to scattershot.

Not too surprisingly, years of this continues to have a profound drag on viewer numbers, which are worse than ever:

"Through Tuesday, an average of 12.2 million people watched the Olympics in prime-time on NBC, cable or the Peacock streaming service, down 42 percent from the 2018 Winter Olympics in South Korea. The average for NBC alone was 10 million, a 47 percent drop, the Nielsen company said."

And this was with Comcast/NBC's attempt to goose ratings by jumping right to Olympics coverage before the Super Bowl postgame celebrations had barely started. This year's ratings were also impacted by doping scandals, COVID, an Olympics location that barely had any snow, and disgust at the host country's human rights abuses:

"One woman on Twitter proclaimed the Olympics were “over for me. My lasting impression will be fake snow against a backdrop of 87 nuclear reactors in a country with a despicable human rights record during a pandemic. And kids who can look forward to years of therapy.”

While the Olympic veneer might not be what it used to be, you still have to think Comcast could boost viewership by exploiting the internet to broaden and improve coverage and provide more real-time live coverage of all events, while bundling it in a more coherent overall presentation. After all, they've only had two decades to perfect the formula.

19 Comments

Peloton Outage Prevents Customers From Using $2,500 Exercise Bikes

from the dumb--tech-is-smart-tech dept

Peloton hasn't been having a great run lately. While business boomed during the pandemic, things have taken a sour turn of late on a bizarre host of fronts. In just the last month or two the company has seen an historic drop in company valuation, fired 20 percent of its workforce, shaken up its executive management team, been forced to pause treadmill and bike production due to plummeting demand, been the subject of several TV shows featuring people having heart attacks, and now has been caught up in a new scandal for trying to cover up a rust problem to avoid a recall.

Some of the issues have been self-inflicted, while others are just the ebb and flow of the pandemic. Most users still generally love the product, and a lot of these issues are likely to fade away over time. But adding insult to injury, connectivity issues this week prevented Peloton bike and treadmill owners from being able to use their $2000-$5000 luxury exercise equipment for several hours Tuesday morning. The official Peloton Twitter account tried to downplay the scope of the issues:

For much of Tuesday morning the pricey equipment simply wouldn't work. I have a Peloton Bike+, and while the pedals would physically spin, I couldn't change the resistance or load into my account; you just were stuck staring at a loading wheel in perpetuity. Some app users say they had better luck, but many Bike, Bike+, and Peloton Tread owners not only couldn't ride in live classes, they couldn't participate in recorded classes because there's no way to download a class to local storage (despite the devices being glorified Android tablets).

The outage (which occurred at the same time as a major Slack outage) was ultimately resolved after several hours, but not before owners got another notable reminder that dumb tech can often be the smarter option. Your kettlebells will never see a bungled firmware update or struggle to connect to the cloud.

16 Comments

Medical, Home Alarm Industries Warn Of Major Outages As AT&T Shuts Down 3G Network

from the alarm-o-pocalypse dept

It was only 2009 that AT&T heralded its cutting edge 3G network as it unveiled the launch of the iPhone (which subsequently crashed AT&T's cutting edge 3G network). Fast forward a little more than a decade and AT&T is preparing to shut that 3G network down, largely so it can repurpose the spectrum it utilizes for fifth-generation (5G) wireless deployments. While the number of actual wireless phone users still using this network is minimal, the network is still being heavily used as a connectivity option for some older medical devices and home alarm systems.

As such, the home security industry is urging regulators to delay the shutdown to give them some more time to migrate home security users on to other networks:

"The Alarm Industry Communications Committee said in a filing posted Friday by the FCC that more time is needed to work out details. A delay of at least 60 to 70 days could help some customers who have relied on AT&T’s 3G network, although arrangements remain to be negotiated, the group said.

“It would be tragic and illogical for the tens of millions of citizens being protected by 3G alarm radios and other devices to be put at risk of death or serious injury, when the commission was able to broker a possible solution but inadequate time exists to implement that solution,” the group said.

If you recall, part of the T-Mobile Sprint merger conditions involved trying to make a viable fourth wireless carrier out of Dish Network (that's generally not going all that well). T-Mobile's ongoing feud with Dish has resulted in T-Mobile keeping its 3G network alive a bit longer than AT&T. So the alarm industry is asking both the FCC and AT&T for a little more time, as well as some help migrating existing home security gear temporarily on to T-Mobile's 3G network so things don't fall apart when AT&T shuts down its 3G network (currently scheduled for February 22).

AT&T gave companies whose technology still use 3G three full years to migrate to alternative solutions. And it's not entirely clear how many companies, services, and industries will be impacted by the shut down. But there's an awful lot of different companies and technologies that still use 3G for internet connectivity, including a lot of fairly important medical alert systems. Nobody seems to actually know how prepared we truly are, so experts suggest the problems could range anywhere from mildly annoying to significantly disruptive:

Again, this is all something that could have been avoided if we placed a little less priority on freaking out about various superficial issues and a put a little more attention on nuanced, boring policy issues that actually matter.

25 Comments

15 Years Late, The FCC Cracks Down On Broadband Apartment Monopolies

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

A major trick dominant broadband providers use to limit competition is exclusive broadband arrangements with landlords. Often an ISP will strike an exclusive deal with the owner of a building, apartment complex, or development that effectively locks in a block by block monopoly. And while the FCC passed rules in 2007 to purportedly stop this from happening, they contained too many loopholes to be of use.

Susan Crawford wrote pretty much the definitive story on this at Wired a while back, noting that the rules are so terrible, ISPs and landlords can tap dance around them by simply calling what they're doing... something else:

"...The Commission has been completely out-maneuvered by the incumbents. Sure, a landlord can’t enter into an exclusive agreement granting just one ISP the right to provide Internet access service to an MDU, but a landlord can refuse to sign agreements with anyone other than Big Company X, in exchange for payments labeled in any one of a zillion ways. Exclusivity by any other name still feels just as abusive."

Fifteen years later and the FCC is finally doing something about it. After being nudged toward the action via Biden's executive order on competition, the FCC has finally voted to update its rules on this front, tightening rules banning outright building by building monopolies.

There's still some wiggle room for ISPs though, even under the new rules that should be formally adopted later this year. One thing ISPs enjoy doing is striking a financial partnership with a landlord, then signing a deal that bans anybody but the primary ISP from advertising in the building. Under the updated rules ISPs and landlords can still do this, they just have to be transparent about it.

The updated rules do tighten up the rules to clearly prohibit other shady tactics, however. For example the FCC's original 2007 rules prohibited ISPs from blocking any competitors from using in-building wiring (which in many cases was installed by a regional monopoly years ago). So to get around this, cable and phone monopoly lawyers came up with a workaround: the ISP would deed ownership of the in-building wires to the landlord, who would turn around and grant exclusive access to those wires to their favored ISP (read: whichever ISP gave them the most money or had the best lawyers).

According to a statement by FCC boss Jessica Rosenworcel, the rule update specifically prohibits this practice:

"We clarify that sale-and-leaseback arrangements violate our existing rules that regulate cable wiring inside buildings. Since the 1990s, we have had rules that allow buildings and tenants to exercise choice about how to use the wiring in the building when they are switching cable providers, but some companies have circumvented these rules by selling the wiring to the building and leasing it back on an exclusive basis. We put an end to that practice today."

Again, it's fairly inexcusable that it took the FCC literally the better part of a generation to outlaw these kinds of practices to help boost building-by building competition. But it's fairly representative of a U.S. regulatory apparatus that's consistently handcuffed, under-funded, and lobbied into apathy by regional monopolies who very much prefer the profitable status quo (cable providers, as you'd expect, fought against these latest rule updates). And while it's great news the FCC still did something about it, enforcement and actual tough penalties (not the FCC's strong suit) will be key. As will acting more swiftly and competently when they find telecom monopoly lawyers have crafted entirely new convoluted legal workarounds.

31 Comments

FTC Promises To Play Hardball With Robocall-Enabling VOIP Providers

from the whac-a-mole dept

Every year or so, the FCC unveils a new plan to combat robocalls it claims will finally tackle the annoying menace. Granted, year after year, the problem either gets worse or stays relatively the same. We've already noted that this is generally due to few things: one, a steady erosion by the courts (and lobbyists) of what the FCC can or can't actually do when it comes to various annoyances like automated spam texts or live robocalls.

The other issue is that regulators and policymakers tend to frame the problem as one exclusive to scammers -- when a wide variety of telecoms, marketing, and debt collection companies use all the same dodgy tactics to annoy consumers they often know can't pay anyway. If you hadn't noticed, trying to craft rules that leave huge carve outs for "legitimate" companies while still hamstringing outright scammers generally doesn't work very well. You've also got to craft rules and systems that allow robocalls people want (medical and dental appointment reminders, for example).

Even when only talking about scam robocalls, there's still room for meaningful improvement. The steady adoption of SHAKEN/STIR authentication technology has helped crack down on phone number spoofing. Targeting "gateway providers," who act as a proxy here in the U.S. for robocalls originating overseas, could also help.

Meanwhile the FTC says it's also going to start filing lawsuits against voice over IP (VOIP) companies that fail to cooperate with investigations into illegal robocalls:

"Companies that receive FTC Civil Investigative Demands must promptly produce all required information,” said Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “These demands are not voluntary. Companies that don’t respond fully, or don’t respond at all, will have to answer to a federal district court judge, as these cases demonstrate."

The agency receives upwards of two million consumer complaints about robocalls every nine months. The YouMail Robocall Index indicates that there are still 3.9 billion robocalls placed to U.S. consumers alone every single day, or 5.3 million robocalls per hour. And again, contrary to the narrative generally seeded by regulators, most U.S. robocallers aren't "scammers": they're cable companies, banks, and debt collectors.

And while a lot of the calls are companies calling about overdue bills, many of these calls cross a line into outright harassment. Many of these companies know the customers they're reaching out to can't pay; yet the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC) has repeatedly testified before Congress that these robocallers can sometimes call folks upwards of hundreds of times a day, even after being asked to stop. And they often use many of the same tactics used by outright scammers.

As with everything at the FTC, it's a matter of resources. The agency is tasked with tackling everything from bleach labeling to home heating system repair scams, generally with limited staff and funds. And while the FCC and FTC dole out a ton of fines against robocallers, the vast majority of them are simply never paid or collected. Either because the target company is a scammer that's hard to find, or they're a deep-pocketed corporation that can litigate any penalties for ignoring robocall rules into oblivion.

Again though, you'll notice focus remains on "illegal" robocalls, which is a problem when the courts and lobbyists keep weakening the definition of what constitutes a "legal" robocall and what regulators can do about it. The broader the definition and the more loopholes allowed to make sure large, "legitimate" companies can continue to annoy and harrass people, the easier they are for outright scam robocallers to exploit.

23 Comments

Gift Of Sight Stolen As Medical Implant Company Implodes

from the the-future-is-now dept

Techirt has long discussed how in the modern era, the things you buy aren't actually the things you buy. And the things you own aren't actually the things you own. Things you thought you owned can be downgraded, bricked, or killed off entirely without much notice. That game console with backward compatibility? It no longer has backward compatibility. That smart home hub or smart speaker at the heart of your living room setup you've enjoyed for years? It not long works. The movies and books you thought were permanently in your personal catalog? Sorry, they aren't anymore. That perfectly good two-year-old phone? It no longer gets security updates, putting you and your data at risk.

This is all bad enough when talking about smart home hubs or smart refrigerators, but it's quite another thing entirely when it comes to medical implants. IEEE Spectrum has the Cory Doctorow-esque cautionary tale of Second Sight Medical Products whose Argus optical implants were commonly installed in patients in the early aughts to help them see. Accurately heralded as immeasurably innovative at the time, these devices may soon no longer work or be supported because the company that made them is going bankrupt:

"Terry Byland is the only person to have received this kind of implant in both eyes. He got the first-generation Argus I implant, made by the company Second Sight Medical Products, in his right eye in 2004 and the subsequent Argus II implant in his left 11 years later. He helped the company test the technology, spoke to the press movingly about his experiences, and even met Stevie Wonder at a conference. “[I] went from being just a person that was doing the testing to being a spokesman,” he remembers.

Yet in 2020, Byland had to find out secondhand that the company had abandoned the technology and was on the verge of going bankrupt. While his two-implant system is still working, he doesn’t know how long that will be the case. “As long as nothing goes wrong, I’m fine,” he says. “But if something does go wrong with it, well, I’m screwed. Because there’s no way of getting it fixed."

Users went from the miracle of suddenly being able to see their first Christmas tree, to the terror of the gift being taken away from them with absolutely no recourse. Not only that, the systems that were installed create new health complications if they're left installed but stop working, and are difficult to remove -- a cost that has to be eaten by the patients. The company's patients went from having their lives revolutionized by technology to, well, the opposite:

"These three patients, and more than 350 other blind people around the world with Second Sight’s implants in their eyes, find themselves in a world in which the technology that transformed their lives is just another obsolete gadget. One technical hiccup, one broken wire, and they lose their artificial vision, possibly forever."

It's quite the cautionary tale for the entire electroceutical sector, and those who assume the cutting edge technologies that help them today will stick around for tomorrow. It's one thing for your flip phone or Betamax player to become irrelevant, it's another thing for essential health devices embedded in your skull to simply stop working because their manufacturer couldn't keep their finances in order.

41 Comments

NASA Says 2nd Gen Starlink Satellites Will Cause Headaches For NASA, Hubble

from the not-worth-it dept

The problem with Space X's Starlink, as we've noted a few times, is several fold. One, the initial deployment of roughly 12,000 low orbit satellites is only going to be able to service around 500,000 to 800,000 total subscribers. In a country with 20-40 million who lack broadband, and another 83 million who live under a broadband monopoly. So despite a lot of rhetoric to the contrary, it's barely going to put a dent in the problem it claims to solve. At $100 per month (plus $500 hardware charge) it's also not all that affordable, the other major issue for rural Americans without broadband.

The other major problem for Starlink is the fact the low orbit constellations cause significant light pollution that harms scientific research, something Musk insisted absolutely wouldn't happen and scientists say can't be mitigated. For Starlink to have a meaningful impact at scale (and make any money in the process) it needs both the struggling Raptor engine delays to be resolved, it needs supply chain issues to be resolved, and it needs to launch roughly 30,000 second generation Starlink satellites.

But NASA is now warning the FCC that those newer satellites will cause even more problems for scientific research, space flight, and the Hubble telescope:

"The Hubble orbits at 535 km, and about "8 percent of composite images captured by the Hubble telescope are impacted by satellites captured during exposures," NASA said. "This proposed Starlink license amendment includes 10,000 satellites in or above the orbital range of Hubble, a situation that could more than double the fraction of Hubble images degraded." NASA also said that "degradation severity will increase."

NASA's letter to the FCC dings Starlink for being overly optimistic about this all either not being a problem or somehow working itself out (which has been a bit of a trend with the company). And again, this is all for a service whose reviews have not been particularly great.

U.S. and European regulators alike were so high on Musk's promise of next-gen connectivity they generally haven't done much to implement basic guidelines for deployments or the rise of "space junk." Worse, the Trump FCC decided to dole out nearly a billion in subsidies to Musk (who claims to loathe subsidies) to deploy Starlink broadband to areas that didn't make any coherent sense (like traffic medians and airport parking lots). Some of those subsidies have been rolled back via scrutiny by the Rosenworcel FCC, but it's still not clear why the wealthiest man on the planet needs subsidization of any kind.

So far, Starlink only has about 150,000 customers due to supply chain constraints, and many of the customers waiting in line say Starlink customer service is basically nonexistent. And while the service will certainly be a big step up for folks stuck in remote locations who can afford it, the reality is the majority of people just aren't going to be able to get the service anytime soon. Given the country could instead focus on the uniform deployment of fiber and 5G, it continues to raise the question of whether any of this is actually worth it.

9 Comments

Superbowl Ads Try To Make 5G Sexy, But Consumers Still Aren't Buying The Hype

from the big-yawn dept

For years now, wireless carriers have struggled to make fifth generation wireless (5G) interesting to consumers. While the technology does provide faster, lower-latency connectivity, that's more of an evolution than any kind of revolution. But in a bid to excite consumers (and justify high prices), wireless carriers have been pouring it on a little thick for years, trying to insist that 5G will somehow revolutionize the future, cure cancer, solve climate change, and generally turn America's urban landscape into the smart cities of tomorrow. And don't get me started on the "race to 5G."

During the Super Bowl, Verizon used Jim Carrey and T-Mobile hired Dolly Parton and Miley Cyrus to try and make 5G sexy, but most consumers still generally couldn't care any less about 5G:

"5G service has yet to really resonate with consumers, said Roger Entner, founder of Recon Analytics. Entner notes that out of monthly surveys of 3,000 consumers, 5G service ranks 5th out of 9 categories for the most important reason to pick a new wireless provider, and 9th out of 9 as a reason to leave a provider. "Just saying my G is bigger than your G — consumers don’t give a hoot," Entner told Axios. "And that’s because we really haven’t seen these must-have applications that are reliant on 5G."

On the one hand, wireless providers want to use 5G to target cable providers by offering home broadband services over 5G. The problem: these aren't companies that have ever been all that interested in competing on price. And wireless still tends to come with odd caveats that make it an inferior alternative to technologies like fiber or even modern cable.

Most consumer surveys show that consumers generally want two things from wireless providers: more reliable coverage and lower prices. The industry isn't interested in providing the second one (and thanks to telecom consolidation that's not likely to change anytime soon). And 5G range in the U.S., has been hindered by a lack of "middle band" spectrum in the U.S., which, unlike high band spectrum (fast speeds, short distances), and low-band (good range, slower speeds), provides both decent speeds at a decent range. The lack of said spectrum has meant that U.S. 5G deployments are generally slower than most overseas deployments, creating an even bigger chasm between reality and hype.

Desperate to make 5G more interesting than it is, wireless carriers have taken to over-promoting what the technology can actually do. This almost always involves taking something you could theoretically already do over 4G or WIFI (like giving someone a tattoo on the other side of the country! or using special effects at concerts!) then pretending it's only made possible thanks to the miracle of 5G. But time and time again, consumers have made it clear they're not buying it. It's even resulted in a 40% jump since 2019 in inter-carrier disputes over misleading ads, given even they know they're full of shit on the subject.

13 Comments

FCC To Take A Closer Look At Racial Discrimination In Broadband Deployment

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

The regional monopolization of U.S. broadband comes with all manner of nasty side effects. The lack of competition at the heart of the country's monopoly and duopoly problem contributed to high prices, comically bad customer service, slow speeds, spotty coverage, annoying fees, and even privacy and net neutrality violations (since there's often no market penalty for bad behavior). But it also results in "redlining," or when a regional monopoly simply refuses to upgrade minority neighborhoods because they deem it not profitable enough to serve.

The National Digital Inclusion Alliance has done some interesting work on this front, showing how companies like AT&T, despite billions in subsidies and tax breaks, routinely just avoids upgrading minority and low income neighborhoods to fiber. Not only that, the group has long showed how users in those neighborhoods also struggle to have their existing (older and slower) services repaired.

Again, defenders of the status quo will insist that these neighborhoods don't get upgraded because the return on investment (ROI) doesn't make it worth it, and that's a company's, like AT&T, right. But that (usually intentionally) ignores the billions upon billions of dollars we've thrown at regional monopolies for fiber networks that, time and time again, are only half delivered. Companies like AT&T routinely get to have their cake (billions in subsidies, regulatory favors, and tax breaks) and eat it too (only half deliver the upgrades they've promised for literally 20 years).

It's 2022 and the FCC has only just announced that it's going to take a look at the problem. Prompted by language in the recently passed infrastructure bill, the FCC has announced it's creating a task force to tackle "digital discrimination":

"Specifically, the Commission must adopt final rules to facilitate equal access to broadband service that prevents digital discrimination and promotes equal access to robust broadband internet access service by prohibiting deployment discrimination based on the income, racial or ethnic composition, and other agency determined relevant factors of a community. Additionally, the cross-agency Task Force to Prevent Digital Discrimination will oversee the development of model policies and best practices states and local governments can adopt that ensure ISPs do not engage in digital discrimination."

The problem, as usual, is that the real underlying disease here is regional monopolization. A company like AT&T not only faces little competitive pressure to expand service beyond the most profitable areas, it all but owns most state legislatures (and during Trump, federal regulators as well). As usual with broadband, if you don't tackle the regional monopolization and the corruption that protects it, you don't fix the real problem. And not only does the FCC (under both parties) not tackle this problem, you'd be hard pressed to find an FCC official capable of admitting the problem exists.

That's not to say this initiative won't do some good in terms of building awareness and creating some basic guidelines. But a program like this is only as good as its enforcement, and the idea some company like AT&T will face any serious penalties for 20 years of bad behavior on this front seems unlikely. The U.S. broadband monopoly problem has been obviously apparent for the last 20 years. 83 million currently live under a broadband monopoly, usually Comcast. You literally cannot find a single instance in the last five years where this problem was candidly acknowledged by regulators and lawmakers of either party, which kind of makes it hard to fix.

It's somehow gotten even worse during the (often justified) policy freak out surrounding "big tech." "Big telecom" has just almost completely fallen off the policy table, and even the idea of having some base levels of accountability for regional monopiles with 20 years of documented, anticompetitive behavior under their belts feels like a distant afterthought. You'll know things have changed when you see an FCC official clearly capable of acknowledging telecom monopolization and corruption are bad things. Until then we seem stuck in the age of half measures and incomplete solutions.

2 Comments

Surprise: U.S. Cost Of Ripping Out And Replacing Huawei Gear Jumps From $1.8 To $5.6 Billion

from the patriotic-grift dept

So we've noted that a lot of the U.S. politician accusations that Huawei uses its network hardware to spy on Americans on behalf of the Chinese government are lacking in the evidence department. The company's been on the receiving end of a sustained U.S. government ban based on accusations that have never actually been proven publicly, levied by a country (the United States) with a long, long history of doing exactly what it accuses Huawei of doing.

To be clear, Huawei is a terrible company. It has been happy to provide IT and telecom support to the Chinese government as it wages genocide against ethnic minorities. It has also been caught helping some African governments spy on the press and political opponents. And it may very well have helped the Chinese government spy on Americans. So it's hard to feel too bad about the company.

At the same time, if you're going to levy accusations (like "Huawei clearly spies on Americans") you need to provide public evidence. And we haven't. Eighteen months of investigations found nothing. That didn't really matter much to the FCC (under Trump and Biden) or Congress, which ordered that U.S. ISPs and network operators rip out all Huawei gear and replace it to an estimated cost of $1.8 billion. Yet just a few years later, the actual cost to replace this gear has already ballooned to $5.8 billion and is likely to get higher:

"The FCC has told Congress that applications to The Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Reimbursement Program have generated requests totaling about $5.6 billion – far more than the allocated funding. The program was established to reimburse providers with 10 million or fewer customers who must remove Huawei Technologies Company and ZTE equipment."

That's quite a windfall for companies not named Huawei, don't you think?

My problem with these efforts has always been a nuanced one. I have no interest in defending a shitty global telecom gear maker with an atrocious human rights record which very well may be a proven to be a surveillance lackey for the Chinese government. Yet at the same time, domestic companies like Cisco have, for much of the last decade, leaned on unsubstantiated allegations of spying to shift market share in their favors. DC is flooded with lobbyists who can easily exploit both xenophobia and intelligence worries to their tactical advantage, then bury the need for evidence under ambiguous claims of national security:

"What happens is you get competitors who are able to gin up lawmakers who are already wound up about China,” said one Hill staffer who was not authorized to speak publicly about the matter. “What they do is pull the string and see where the top spins.”

But some experts say these concerns are exaggerated. These experts note that much of Cisco’s own technology is manufactured in China."

So my problem here isn't necessarily that Huawei doesn't deserve what's happening to it. My problem here is generally a lack of transparency in a process that's heavily dictated by lobbyists, who can hide any need for evidence behind national security claims. This creates an environment where decisions are made on a "noble and patriotic basis" that wind up being beyond common sense, reproach, and oversight. That's a nice breeding ground for fraud.

My other problem is the hypocrisy of a country that doesn't believe in limitations on spying, complaining endlessly about spying, without modifying any of its own, very similar behaviors. AT&T has been proven to be directly tethered to the NSA to the point where it's literally impossible to determine where one ends and the other begins. Yet were another country to ban AT&T from doing business there, the heads of the very same folks breathlessly concerned about surveillance ethics would explode. What makes us beyond reproach here? Our ethical track record?

And my third problem is that the almost myopic, focus on Huawei has been so massive, we've failed to take on numerous other privacy and security issues, whether that's the lack of a meaningful federal privacy law, the rampant security and privacy issues inherent in the Internet of things space (where Chinese-made hardware is rampant), or election security with anywhere close to the same level of urgency. These all are equally important issues, all exploited by Chinese intelligence, that see a small fraction of the hand-wringing and action reserved for issues like Huawei.

Again, none of this is to defend Huawei or deny it's a shitty company with dubious ethics. But the lack of transparency or skepticism creates an environment ripe for fraud and myopia by policymakers who act as if the entirety of their efforts is driven by the noblest and most patriotic of intentions. And, were I a betting man, I'd wager this whole rip and replace effort makes headlines for all the wrong reasons several years down the road.

12 Comments

WarnerMedia Sued For Giving People Want They Wanted (The Matrix, Streaming) During An Historic Health Crisis

from the oh-no,-not-what-people-want dept

AT&T got a lot wrong (and still really can't admit it) with the company's $86 billion acquisition of Time Warner. There were endless layoffs, a steady dismantling of beloved brands (DC's Vertigo imprint, Mad Magazine), all for the company to lose pay TV subscribers in the end.

But the one thing the company did get right, with a little help from COVID, was its attacks on the dated, pointless, and often punitive Hollywood release window. Typically, this has involved a 90 day gap between the time a move appears in theaters and its streaming or DVD release (in France this window is even more ridiculous at three years). Generally, this is done to protect the "sanctity of the movie going experience," as if for thirty years the "sanctity of the movie going experience" hasn't involved sticky floors, over priced popcorn, big crowds and mass shootings.

During COVID, big streamers like AT&T and Comcast shifted a lot of their tentpole films (like Dune) directly to streaming, which technically saved human lives, but resulted in no limit of raised eyebrows and scorn among the "Loews at the mall is a sacred space you can't criticize" segment of Hollywood. You might recall that AMC Theaters was positively apoplectic when Comcast showed that release windows were a dated relic, declaring it would never again show a Comcast NBC Universal picture anywhere in the world if Comcast kept threatening the sacred release window (the threat lasted about a week).

WarnerMedia (in the process of being spun off by AT&T) has faced similar whining from the industry. This week the company was hit with a lawsuit (pdf) by Village Roadshow Films, which claims the company "rushed" the release of The Matrix Resurrections from 2022 to 2021 as part of an (gasp) effort to boost streaming's popularity. All through 2021, AT&T/Time Warner released films simultaneously in theaters and on streaming to boost HBO Max subscriptions. And people liked it.

Unsurprisingly, Village Roadshow Films did not, claiming the effort (dubbed "Project Popcorn") was a "clandestine plan to materially reduce box office and correlated ancillary revenue generated from tent pole films that Village Roadshow and others would be entitled to receive in exchange for driving subscription revenue for the new HBO Max service." HBO Max and AT&T telegraphed this intention, so it seems hard to argue this was somehow clandestine. The suit also accuses WarnerMedia of ignoring the fact that piracy would have hurt the overall profits to be made from the film, though, again, metrics proving clear financial harm appear lacking.

But just as unsurprisingly, Warner Brothers thinks Village Roadshow Films is just annoyed by reality and shifting markets:

"In a statement shared with The Verge, Warner Bros. called the lawsuit “a frivolous attempt by Village Roadshow to avoid their contractual commitment to participate in the arbitration that we commenced against them last week. We have no doubt that this case will be resolved in our favor."

Again, while it's true that AT&T attacked the sacred old release window to goose streaming subscriptions, this was something that happened during an historic plague in which indoor transmission of a deadly virus could kill or disable you. It's also almost an afterthought that in the advanced home theater and mall shooting era, this is something consumers desperately wanted. For all its downsides, COVID had a strong tendency to painfully highlight shortcomings (see: broadband, the U.S. healthcare system) and dated antiquities (like release windows or a disdain for telecommuting) that no longer served us.

While there's a shrinking sect of Hollywood folks like Spielberg who still think in-person theaters and release windows are sacred and above reproach, COVID laid bare the fact that not that many people agree with them. And while that certainly disadvantaged folks financially dependent on older models (like theater owners and studios heavily vested in release windows), the reality is what it is, and a popular change was accelerated all the same.

41 Comments

Google Stadia's Failure Is Almost Complete

from the deprioritized-indeed dept

While Google's Stadia game streaming service arrived with a lot of promise, it generally landed with a disappointing thud. A limited catalog, deployment issues, and a quality that couldn't match current gen game consoles meant the service just never saw the kind of traction Google (or a lot of other people) originally envisioned. In the years since, developers have been consistently abandoning the platform, and Google has consistently sidelined the service, even shutting down its own development efforts as a parade of executives headed for the exists.

Now, Google is basically just selling the technology off to other companies eager to give video game streaming a go and succeed where Google couldn't.

In the last few months, Google executives have apparently been working on a plan to salvage some aspect of the project by selling Google Stadia tech to companies like Bungie and Peleton. In short, these companies will license the Google tech (now creatively named "Google Stream") for use in their own game streaming services called something entirely different. Google's first party Google Stadia service still exists for now, but it has been "deprioritized" within the company on the way to an inevitable, untimely death:

"The Stadia consumer platform, meanwhile, has been deprioritized within Google, insiders said, with a reduced interest in negotiating blockbuster third-party titles. The focus of leadership is now on securing business deals for Stream, people involved in those conversations said. The changes demonstrate a strategic shift in how Google, which has invested heavily in cloud services, sees its gaming ambitions."

Unfortunately (for Google) Sony just bought Bungie for $3.6 billion, and already has its own streaming technologies and platforms that Bungie will likely use (Sony also leans on Microsoft's cloud technology). And while Google also has been working on a game streaming deal with AT&T, such "me too" type efforts from the telecom sector never quite amount to much. That leaves Peloton, which is being rumored as an acquisition target by Amazon, and isn't doing gaming so much as it's doing the gamification of exercise.

Somebody will dominate the game streaming space, but it's not going to be Google. While the Google technology certainly works well, the business plan was an unmitigated failure by any measure. And much like Google Fiber (which Google eventually got bored with and froze without ever really admitting to anybody that's what happened), Stadia will die without being formally declared as dead, having never seen even a fraction of its originally envisioned potential.

12 Comments

Automakers Can't Give Up The Idea Of Turning Everyday Features Into Subscription Services With Fees

from the pay-more-for-the-same-product dept

At the same time car companies are fighting the right to repair movement (and the state and federal legislation popping up everywhere), they're continuing the quest to turn everyday features -- like heated seats -- into something users have to pay a recurring fee for.

In 2019, BMW had to abandon a plan to charge $80 per year for Apple CarPlay. The company, having learned nothing, began floating the idea of charging a subscription for features back in 2020, when it proposed making heated seats and heated steering wheels something you pay a permanent monthly fee for. Last December, Toyota proposed imposing a monthly fee for customers who wanted to be able to remotely start their vehicles.

Each and every time these proposals come forward the consumer response is swift and overwhelmingly negative. But with $20 billion in annual additional potential revenue on the table between now and 2030, the industry seems poised to ignore consumers:

"Still, automakers see dollar signs. Stellantis (formerly Fiat Chrysler), Ford, and GM each aim to generate at least $20 billion in annual revenue from software services by 2030. Over-the-air capabilities open up huge opportunities for carmakers to introduce new subscription or pay-per use features over time, Wakefield, of AlixPartners, said. Someday, you may be able to fork over extra to make your car more efficient, sportier, or — in an electric vehicle — unlock extra range for road trips."

Keep in mind these are decisions being made during a pandemic when most households continue to struggle.

This sort of nickel-and-diming works well in the telecom sector where captive subscribers often can't switch to a different competitor. But in the auto space, companies risk opening the door to competitors gaining inroads by... not being nickel-and-diming assholes. Many companies may also be overestimating their own product quality; one JD Power survey found that 58% of people who use an automaker's smartphone app wouldn't be willing to pay for it. At the same time, as with gaming microtransactions, if enough people are willing to pay to make it worth it, it may not matter what the majority of car consumers think.

49 Comments

Hypocrisy Rules As Companies Try To Smear New FTC Nomination Alvaro Bedoya

from the rat-fucking-du-jour dept

Throughout the Trump administration, a lot of folks had absolutely no problem with the mindless rubber-stamps appointed to key regulatory positions. Ajit Pai, for example, couldn't have demonstrated regulatory capture any more clearly, rubber-stamping every idiotic whim of telecom monopolies at every conceivable opportunity (often with the help of fabricated data and fraud). Revolving door regulation and unqualified industry lackey appointments hit a fevered pitch not seen at any point in U.S. history, and at every step a long list of organizations and individuals made it abundantly clear they were fine with all of it.

Fast forward to Biden's efforts to replace some of these folks, and a lot of these same organizations and individuals that turned a blind eye to the worst aspects of Trumpism are now fanning their face about perceived conflicts of interest, "partisan politics," and all manner of hypocritical injustices.

See the intentionally gridlocked nomination of new FCC Commissioner Gigi Sohn, for example. Sohn is popular across both sides of the aisle and, whatever you think of her positions and politics, highly competent. Yet her nomination has been stuck in congressional purgatory for months thanks to completely false claims ranging from she wants to "censor conservatives," to laughable claims from revolving door cable lobbyists that her history as an expert on consumer advocacy means she can't regulate telecom fairly. All coming from industry folks who don't actually believe anything they're saying.

The same gamesmanship is also imperiling the nomination of Alvaro Bedoya to the FTC. Bedoya is a professor and founding Director of Georgetown Law’s Center on Privacy & Technology and is widely respected. Whatever one thinks of Bedoya's politics and positions, there's no real doubt that he's competent and qualified for the role. But companies that don't really want competent, objective regulators have been working overtime to smear Bedoya in the same way they're working to smear Sohn. Usually through proxy groups and think tanks they funnel money, and then flimsy arguments, to.

For example the "American Consumer Institute Center for Citizen Research" is not really a consumer group. It's one of countless 501(c)(3) nonprofits corporations covertly fund, and use to create the illusion of broad support (or opposition) for/to things big companies want. For example the American Consumer Institute was paid by telecom to scuttle FCC oversight of telecom monopolies, yet pretended to just be an objective organization giving an honest, objective opinion.

The group is also popping up in the attacks against Bedoya, attempting to frame him as some kind of radical. Usually, because he's (gasp) levied accurate criticisms at the actually radical modern Trump GOP:

"If confirmed, Bedoya would bring a record of hyper-partisan, extremist advocacy to the FTC and would steer the agency in a direction of over-reaching and harmful regulatory policies....He has amplified Twitter posts calling Governors Abbott and DeSantis “death-eaters”and urging Republican Senators to resign. Additionally, Bedoya has shared numerous social media posts calling President Trump and individuals in the Trump administration “racist and white supremacist."

Believing that Donald Trump is racist and terrible is not a disqualifying character flaw. And, of course, groups like the American Consumer Institute don't really care about "hyper-partisanship," "extreme advocacy," or anybody being called out for racism. They're trying to squash Bedoya's nomination because the companies they're aligned with don't want the FTC or FCC ramping up consumer protection and antitrust reform. If they can't scuttle the nominations, they hope to delay both the FCC and FTC from having working voting majorities for as long as possible.

It's not serious policy opinion, it's the kind of bad faith, theatrical proxy, rat fuckery that's been the norm in DC for more than 20 years. Despite this, the press still can't really help itself and will also quote and amplify groups like this as if they're actually objective, well-intentioned observers, and not, say, rat fucking propagandists for hire.

15 Comments

Kia, Subaru Disable Useful Car Features, Blames Mass. Right To Repair Law

from the underhanded-gibberish dept

In late 2020, Massachusetts lawmakers (with overwhelming public support) passed an expansion of the state's "right to repair" law. The original law was the first in the nation to be passed in 2013. The update dramatically improved it, requiring that, as of this year, all new telematics-equipped vehicles be accessible via a standardized, transparent platform that allows owners and third-party repair shops to access vehicle data via a mobile device. The goal: reduce repair monopolies, and make it cheaper and easier to get your vehicle repaired.

Of course major auto manufacturers didn't like this, so they set about trying to demonize the law with false claims and a $26 million ad campaign, including one ad falsely claiming the expansion would only really help sexual predators. Once the law passed (again, with the overwhelming support of voters) automakers sued to stop it, which has delayed its implementation. Simultaneously, they're pushing legislation that would delay the bill's launch date until 2025, giving them more time to kill it.

In the interim, companies like Kia and Subaru have started disabling useful features (like remote start), and blaming the law:

"Subaru disabled the telematics system and associated features on new cars registered in Massachusetts last year as part of a spat over a right-to-repair ballot measure approved, overwhelmingly, by the state’s voters in 2020. The measure, which has been held up in the courts, required automakers to give car owners and independent mechanics more access to data about the car’s internal systems.

But the “open data platform” envisioned by the law doesn’t exist yet, and automakers have filed suit to prevent the initiative from taking effect. So first Subaru and then Kia turned off their telematics systems on their newest cars in Massachusetts, irking drivers like the Ferrellis. “This was not to comply with the law—compliance with the law at this time is impossible—but rather to avoid violating it,” Dominick Infante, a spokesperson for Subaru, wrote in a statement. Kia did not respond to a request for comment."

Recall that the Massachusetts law needed to be expanded in the first place because automakers were behaving in predatory ways as they attempted to monopolize repair. That law is now on hold... and may never actually be implemented...because of the industry lawsuit. While complying with it may prove difficult given the archaic nature of many car systems (Wired finds an engineer willing to argue as much), completely disabling all telematics system seems performative. You're to assume that the same industry that falsely claimed the law would only be of benefit to sex pests, is genuinely worried about compliance and not, say, interested in finding creative ways to vilify the new law or gain leverage in the ongoing lawsuit aimed at killing it entirely.

Given the industry's track record of honesty so far on this subject, trusting that this truly was a purely technical consideration feels like a big ask.

In the interim this is only one of countless battles no going on around the country as consumers, farmers, medical professionals, and others fight back against obnoxious DRM, repair monopolies, and draconian crackdowns on independent repair. Three different federal right to repair legislative proposals were introduced this week alone, in addition to more than a dozen state proposals already introduced. At this point, for repair monopolists, the right to repair movement is a sort of finger trap puzzle in that the more they wriggle and clamp down on independent, affordable repair options, the bigger the movement gets.

29 Comments

New FCC Broadband 'Nutrition Label' Will More Clearly Inform You You're Being Ripped Off

from the transparently-terrible dept

For years we've noted how broadband providers impose all manner of bullshit fees on your bill to drive up the cost of service post sale. They've also historically had a hard time being transparent about what kind of broadband connection you're buying. As was evident back when Comcast thought it would be a good idea to throttle all upstream BitTorrent traffic (without telling anybody), or AT&T decided to cap and throttle the usage of its "unlimited" wireless users (without telling anybody), or Verizon decided to modify user packets to track its customers around the internet (without telling anybody).

Maybe you see where I'm going with this.

Back in 2016 the FCC eyed the voluntary requirement that broadband providers be required to provide a sort of "nutrition label" for broadband. The idea was that this label would clearly disclose speeds, throttling, limitation, sneaky fees, and all the stuff big predatory ISPs like to bury in their fine print (if they disclose it at all). This was the example image the FCC circulated at the time:

While the idea was scuttled by the Trump administration, Congress demanded the FCC revisit it as part of the recent infrastructure bill. So the Rosenworcel FCC last week, as instructed by Congress, voted 4-0 to begin exploring new rules:

A final vote on approved rules will come after the Biden FCC finally has a voting majority, likely this summer. And unlike the first effort, this time the requirements will be mandatory, so ISPs will have to comply.

This is all well intentioned, and to be clear it's a good thing Comcast and AT&T will now need to be more transparent in the ways they're ripping you off. In fact, when AT&T recently announced it would be providing faster 2 and 5 Gbps fiber to some users, it stated it would be getting rid of hidden fees and caps entirely on those tiers. AT&T announced this as if they'd come up with the idea, when in reality they were just getting out ahead of the requirement they knew was looming anyway. So stuff like this does matter.

The problem of course is that forcing ISPs to be transparent about how they're ripping you off doesn't stop them from ripping you off. Big broadband providers are able to nickel-and-dime the hell out of users thanks to two things: regional monopolization causing limited competition, and the state and federal corruption that protects it. U.S. policymakers and lawmakers can't (and often won't) tackle that real problem, so instead we get these layers of band aids that only treat the symptom of a broken U.S. telecom market, not the underlying disease.

16 Comments

Hollywood, Media, And Telecom Giants Are Clearly Terrified Gigi Sohn Will Do Her Job At The FCC

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

Media and telecom giants have been desperately trying to stall the nomination of Gigi Sohn to the FCC. Both desperately want to keep the Biden FCC gridlocked at 2-2 Commissioners thanks to the rushed late 2020 Trump appointment of Nathan Simington to the Commission. Both industries most assuredly don't want the Biden FCC to do popular things like restore the FCC's consumer protection authority, net neutrality, or media consolidation rules. But because Sohn is so popular, they've had a hell of a time coming up with any criticisms that make any coherent sense.

One desperate claim being spoon fed to GOP lawmakers is that Sohn wants to "censor conservatives," despite the opposite being true: Sohn has considerable support from conservatives for protecting speech and fostering competition and diversity in media (even if she disagrees with them). Another lobbying talking point being circulated is that because Sohn briefly served on the board of the now defunct Locast, she's somehow incapable of regulating things like retransmission disputes objectively. Despite the claim being a stretch, Sohn has agreed to recuse herself from such issues for the first three years of her term.

Hoping to seize on the opportunity, former FCC boss turned top cable lobbyist Mike Powell is now trying to claim that because Sohn has experience working on consumer protection issues at both Public Knowledge and the FCC (she helped craft net neutrality rules under Tom Wheeler), she should also be recused from anything having to do with telecom companies. It's a dumb Hail Mary from a revolving door lobbyist whose only interest is in preventing competent oversight of clients like Comcast:

"He said it is not clear why those would be the only issues from which she would recuse herself, “given the breadth of issues in which Public Knowledge was involved” under Sohn. He said the recusal should ”logically extend“ to all the matters she advocated for at Public Knowledge, or none.

Second, he said: “Next, in the more recent years since her service at the Commission during the Obama administration, Ms. Sohn has been publicly involved on matters of direct interest to our membership. There is no logical basis for treating these matters differently from the retransmission and copyright issues for purposes of recusal."

Facebook, Amazon, and Google all tried similar acts of desperation to thwart FTC boss Lina Khan, suggesting that because she opined on antitrust matters as an influential academic, she was utterly incapable of regulating these companies objectively. But both have a deep understanding of the sectors they're tasked with regulating. Both are also the opposite of revolving door policymakers with financial conflicts of interest, which you'll note none of these critics have the slightest issue with.

Of course telecom and big broadcasters aren't the only industries terrified of competent, popular women in positions of authority. Hollywood (and the politicians paid to love them) are also clearly terrified of someone competent at the FCC. The Directors Guild of America is also urging the Senate Commerce Committee to kill Sohn's nomination. Their justification for their opposition? Sohn once attempted to (gasp) bring competition to the cable box:

"Hollander pointed to one of the proposals that Sohn championed when she served as counselor to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler during Barack Obama’s second term. Wheeler and Sohn saw the proposal, introduced in 2016, as a way to free cable and satellite subscribers from having to pay monthly rental fees for their set top box. The proposal would have required that pay TV providers offer a free app to access the channels, but ran into objections from the MPAA, which said it would be akin to a “compulsory copyright license.” It’s unlikely that the proposal would come up again in that form, as it was sidelined when Jessica Rosenworcel, who now is chairwoman of the FCC, declined to support it."

You might recall the 2016 proposal in question tried to force open the cable industry's dated monopoly over cable boxes by requiring cable companies provide their existing services in app form (it wasn't "free"). You might also recall that the plan failed in part because big copyright, with the help of the Copyright Office, falsely claimed the proposal was an attack on the foundations of copyright. It wasn't. But the claims, hand in hand with all kinds of other bizarre and false claims from media and cable (including the false claim the proposal would harm minorities), killed it before it really could take its first steps.

I had my doubts about the proposal. Streaming competition will inevitably kill the cable box if we wait long enough, so it would seemingly make sense to focus the FCC's limited resources on more pressing issues: like regional broadband monopolization and the resulting dearth of competition. But the FCC's doomed cable box proposal most absolutely was not an "attack on copyright." Companies just didn't want a cash cow killed (cable boxes generate about $20 billion in fee revenue annually), and the usual suspects were just absolutely terrified of disruption, competition, and change.

Congress was supposed to vote Sohn's nomination forward on Wednesday, but that has been delayed because Senator Ben Ray Luján suffered a stroke (he's expected to make a full recovery). Industry opponents to Sohn's nomination then exploited that stroke to convince Senator Maria Cantwell to postpone the vote further so they could hold yet another hearing. Industry wanted an additional hearing so they can either try to scuttle the nomination with bogus controversies they spoon feed to select lawmakers, or simply delay the vote even further.

We're now a year into Biden's first term and his FCC still doesn't have a voting majority. If you're a telecom or shitty media giant (looking at you, Rupert), that gridlock is intentional; it prevents the agency from restoring any of the unpopular favors doled out during Trumpism, be it the neutering of the FCC's consumer protection authority, or decades old media consolidation rules crafted with bipartisan support. It's once again a shining example of how U.S. gridlock and dysfunction are a lobbyist-demanded feature, not a bug or some inherent, unavoidable part of the American DNA.

These companies, organizations, and politicians aren't trying to thwart Sohn's nomination because they have meaningful, good faith concerns. Guys like Mike Powell couldn't give any less of a shit about ethics or what's appropriate. They're trying to thwart Sohn's nomination because she knows what she's doing, values competition and consumer welfare, and threatens them with the most terrifying of possibilities if you're a monopoly or bully: competent, intelligent oversight.

12 Comments

Congress Introduces New Agricultural 'Right to Repair' Bill With Massive Farmer Support

from the let-me-fix-my-shit dept

Back in 2015, frustration at John Deere's draconian tractor DRM helped birth a grassroots tech movement dubbed "right to repair." The company's crackdown on "unauthorized repairs" turned countless ordinary citizens into technology policy activists, after DRM (and the company's EULA) prohibited the lion's share of repair or modification of tractors customers thought they owned. These restrictions only worked to drive up costs for owners, who faced either paying significantly more money for "authorized" repair (which for many owners involved hauling tractors hundreds of miles and shelling out thousands of additional dollars), or toying around with pirated firmware just to ensure the products they owned actually worked.

Seven years later and this movement is only growing. This week Senator Jon Tester said he was introducing new legislation (full text here, pdf) that would require tractor and other agricultural hardware manufacturers to make manuals, spare parts, and and software access codes publicly available:

"We’ve got to figure out ways to empower farmers to make sure they can stay on the land. This is one of the ways to do it,” Tester said. “I think that the more we can empower farmers to be able to control their own destiny, which is what this bill does, the safer food chains are going to be."

The legislation comes as John Deere recently was hit with two new lawsuits accusing the company of violating antitrust laws by unlawfully monopolizing the tractor repair market. In 2018 John Deere had promised to make sweeping changes to address farmers' complaints, though by 2021 those changes had yet to materialize. Tester's legislation also comes as a new US PIRG survey shows that a bipartisan mass of famers overwhelmingly support reform on this front.

Tester's proposal is just one of several new efforts to rein in attempts to monopolize repair, be it John Deere or Apple. More that a dozen state-level laws have been proposed, and the Biden administration's recent executive order on competition also urges the FTC to craft tougher rules on repair monopolization efforts. In an era rife with partisan bickering, it's refreshing to see an issue with such broad, bipartisan public support, resulting in an issue that only had niche support a half decade ago rocketing into the mainstream.

Read More | 13 Comments

Suicide Hotline Collected, Monetized The Data Of Desperate People, Because Of Course It Did

from the money-matters dept

Another day, another privacy scandal that likely ends with nothing changing.

Crisis Text Line, one of the nation's largest nonprofit support options for the suicidal, is in some hot water. A Politico report last week highlighted how the company has been caught collecting and monetizing the data of callers... to create and market customer service software. More specifically, Crisis Text Line says it "anonymizes" some user and interaction data (ranging from the frequency certain words are used, to the type of distress users are experiencing) and sells it to a for-profit partner named Loris.ai. Crisis Text Line has a minority stake in Loris.ai, and gets a cut of their revenues in exchange.

As we've seen in countless privacy scandals before this one, the idea that this data is "anonymized" is once again held up as some kind of get out of jail free card:

"Crisis Text Line says any data it shares with that company, Loris.ai, has been wholly “anonymized,” stripped of any details that could be used to identify people who contacted the helpline in distress. Both entities say their goal is to improve the world — in Loris’ case, by making “customer support more human, empathetic, and scalable."

But as we've noted more times than I can count, "anonymized" is effectively a meaningless term in the privacy realm. Study after study after study has shown that it's relatively trivial to identify a user's "anonymized" footprint when that data is combined with a variety of other datasets. For a long time the press couldn't be bothered to point this out, something that's thankfully starting to change.

Also, just like most privacy scandals, the organization caught selling access to this data goes out of its way to portray it as something much different than it actually is. In this case, they're acting as if they're just being super altruistic:

"We view the relationship with Loris.ai as a valuable way to put more empathy into the world, while rigorously upholding our commitment to protecting the safety and anonymity of our texters,” Rodriguez wrote. He added that "sensitive data from conversations is not commercialized, full stop."

Obviously there are layers of dysfunction that have helped normalize this kind of stupidity. One, it's 2021 and we still don't have even a basic privacy law for the internet era that sets out clear guidelines and imposes stiff penalties on negligent companies, nonprofits, and executives. And we don't have a basic law because it's hard (though writing any decent law certainly isn't easy), but because a parade of large corporations, lobbyists, and revolving door regulators don't want the data monetization party to suffer even a modest drop in revenues from the introduction of modest accountability, transparency, and empowered end users. It's just boring old greed. There's a lot of tap dancing that goes on to pretend that's not the reason, but it doesn't make it any less true.

We also don't adequately fund mental health care in the states, forcing desperate people to reach out to startups that clearly don't fully understand the scope of their responsibility. We also don't adequately fund and resource our privacy regulators at agencies like the FTC. And even when the FTC does act (which it often can't in terms of nonprofits), the penalties and fines are often pathetic in scale of the money being made.

Even before these problems are considered, you have to factor that the entire adtech space reaches across industries from big tech to telecom, and is designed specifically to be a convoluted nightmare making oversight as difficult as possible. The end result of this is just about what you'd expect. A steady parade of scandals (like the other big scandal last week in which gay/bi dating and Muslim prayer apps were caught selling user location data) that briefly generate a few headlines and furrowed eyebrows without any meaningful change.

32 Comments