FTC Warns Pharma Companies That It May Go After Them For Sham Patent Listings Designed To Delay Generic Competitors

Patents

from the abusing-the-orange-book,-green-with-greed dept

For many, many years we’ve detailed how big pharma companies, who only care about the monopoly rents they can receive on medicine while under patent, have concocted all sorts of scams and schemes to avoid having to compete with generic versions, even after their patents have expired (or been invalidated). But one of their older tricks is apparently popular yet again, though the FTC is now warning pharma that it might finally start cracking down.

If it does, it will just be reinforcing the kinds of actions the FTC used to bring. Twenty years ago, the FTC went after Bristol Meyer Squibb for false listings in the Orange Book. The Orange Book, managed by the FDA, is where pharma companies list the FDA-approved drugs they have under patent, which alerts generic drug companies basically not to make generic versions of those drugs.

But, of course, this creates a very tempting scenario: if pharma can get drugs not actually under patent into the Orange Book, they effectively save themselves from generic competition, and they get to profit massively (at the expense of the public and their need for affordable medicine).

However, despite enforcement against such abuse years ago, it seems that the FTC and the FDA have kinda let these things slip over the past few years. And Big Pharma has really taken advantage of that. Thankfully, it looks like the FTC is finally interested in cracking down on this practice again. In a new policy statement, it warns pharma companies that it’s looking into the abuse of the Orange Book and sham patent inclusions.

Brand drug manufacturers are responsible for ensuring their patents are properly listed. Yet certain manufacturers have submitted patents for listing in the Orange Book that claim neither the reference listed drug nor a method of using it. When brand drug manufacturers abuse the regulatory processes set up by Congress to promote generic drug competition, the result may be to increase the cost of and reduce access to prescription drugs.

The goal of this policy statement is to put market participants on notice that the FTC intends to scrutinize improper Orange Book listings to determine whether these constitute unfair methods of competition in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Of course, this raises some questions, including why do we make the pharma companies themselves the party responsible for making sure their patents are “properly” listed. Why don’t we have at least some process in place for these listings to be reviewed, whether when they’re submitted to the Orange Book or even if another party (such as the generic drug manufacturers) contest an Orange Book listing.

It seems the dumbest possible system is to assume that the Big Pharma companies will be honest in their Orange Book listings.

And, even though the FTC is now putting these companies “on notice,” the fact that the FTC has brought these cases in the past seems like it should be “notice” enough. Instead, it sounds like the FTC let enough pharma companies get away with this for long enough that the big pharma firms felt cleared to abuse the system this way and to delay competition in the marketplace.

The one thing I find interesting in this statement, is that they note that improperly listing things in the Orange Book may “constitute illegal monopolization.”

The improper listing of patents in the Orange Book may also constitute illegal monopolization. Monopolization requires proof of “the willful acquisition or maintenance of [monopoly] power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident.” This requires proof that “the defendant has engaged in improper conduct that has or is likely to have the effect of controlling prices or excluding competition,” and courts have recognized that improperly listing patents in the Orange Book may constitute an “improper means” of competition. Accordingly, improperly listing patents in the Orange Book may also be worthy of enforcement scrutiny from government and private enforcers under a monopolization theory. Additionally, the FTC may also scrutinize a firm’s history of improperly listing patents during merger review

This seems exactly correct, but notable in that very few people seem to recognize that (1) patents are government granted monopolies, and thus (2) an abuse of the patent system to get a patent or patent-like protections you don’t deserve are therefore an illegal monopoly seems like an important point. I would hope that this could get expanded to other abuses of patent and copyright law as well.

Still, given that we’ve been facing this and multiple other schemes from Big Pharma to delay generics for decades, I’m not sure anything is really going to change just yet, but at least the FTC is waking up (again?) to this issue. Now let’s see if it actually starts bringing cases…

Filed Under: competition, drug prices, ftc, generics, monopoly, orange book, patents, pharma

With HR 3557, Broadband Monopolies Are Pushing A Bill That Would Crush Your Town’s Ability To Stand Up To Them

Broadband

from the this-is-why-we-can't-have-nice-things dept

For thirty-plus years, giant telecom monopolies have worked tirelessly to crush all broadband competition. At the same time, they’ve lobbied state and federal governments so extensively, that the vast majority of politicians are feckless cardboard cutouts with little real interest in market or consumer health.

The result has been fairly obvious: Americans pay some of the highest prices in the developed world for sluggish, slow broadband with historically abysmal customer service.

Telecom lobbyists love to insist that often-shitty U.S. broadband is the envy of the modern world (it isn’t). They also love to argue that the only reason U.S. broadband isn’t even more awesome is because of “too much government regulation,” unnecessary red tape, and “bureaucracy.”

In this way they get to have their cake (enjoy unchecked monopoly power free from competition or regulatory oversight) and eat it too (demonize any government effort to do anything about monopoly power as the antithesis of progress). It’s an endless cycle where your broadband monopoly gets more powerful and the government gets weaker. Often under the pretense of “deregulation” and “reform.”

It’s a pretty successful con. Telecom giants like Comcast and AT&T have effectively lobotomized the country’s top federal telecom regulator (the FCC) for going on the better part of a decade. They also have the majority of Congress under their bootheel, to the point where we can’t pass even basic consumer protection reforms, or nominate and seat any popular reformers to federal agencies.

Even when you see “antitrust reform” performatively mentioned in Congress, telecom is never included. And this is all before the looming right wing Supreme Court’s Chevron Deference ruling strips away any remaining independent authority the FCC (and every other federal regulatory agency) has left.

With the feds rendered useless on consumer protection and monopoly busting, telecom lobbyists have increasingly taken aim at the last vestiges of state and local government power.

During the Trump FCC, that involved stripping away your town’s or city’s local authority over everything from cell tower placement to utility pole rates (again under the pretense that mean ‘ole Mayors, not unchecked monopolization and consolidation, is what’s holding back better broadband).

The Ajit Pai era net neutrality repeal tried to ban states (unsuccessfully) from protecting broadband consumers. 16 States have passed laws banning your town or city from building its own broadband. House Republicans even tried to ban community-owned broadband networks entirely in the middle of a pandemic that painfully showcased the importance of affordable, reliable broadband.

The goal throughout is obvious: AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Charter, CenturyLink and other telecom giants want to be free to rip you off with high prices and substandard service. They want to be free of all meaningful competition. And they want local, state, and federal governments absolutely powerless to do anything about it. If there are any rules, they want to write them to their personal benefit.

It’s a campaign they’ve been winning for decades.

Nineteen proposed new telecom laws just stumbled forth from the the House Energy and Commerce Committee. One of them, HR 3557 (the American Broadband Deployment Act of 2023) focus on “pre-empting” any remaining local government authority over telecom giants. This is being presented, once again, as a “streamlining” of unnecessarily bureaucratic government power.

In reality, HR 3557 would make it all but impossible for local governments to have much of a say in telecom infrastructure placement (regardless of environmental or historical impact), negotiate fair rates with telecom giants for things like rights of way, or utility pole usage, or have much of a any role in terms of consumer protection. From Doug Dawson, a widely respected industry consultant:

[HR 3557] “Eliminates cable franchise renewals and eliminates the ability of local governments to require rules such as an ISP having to serve the whole community, the local government requiring PEG channels, or the local government requiring customer service standards.”

It’s worth noting that the human beings actually involved in local governments weren’t invited to the single hearing on this subject, which speaks volumes:

“When the committee held an initial hearing on broadband permitting streamlining, including a draft of the American Broadband Deployment Act, no state or local government was invited to testify.”

In telecom policy conversations, local governments are always framed as some kind of faceless bureaucrats hell bent on ruining everybody’s good time for no coherent reason. But a lot of the systems telecom lobbyists are trying to dismantle serve important functions:

“Local permitting and cable franchising processes are intended to make sure that communications infrastructure is deployed equitably and in the public interest, that work is done safely and in a way that protects valuable public resources, including the rights of way. Local governments are the stewards of these finite public resources.”

It’s no coincidence that this new lobbying push comes as local governments around the country increasingly eye building their own fiber networks with an eye on affordability and even coverage (something that’s very popular among long-neglected consumers). As Dawson notes, AT&T and Comcast certainly don’t want your piddly Mayor standing in the way of them doing whatever they want:

“The biggest killer is that the law would give holders of franchise agreements the ability to cancel the agreement without losing any rights-of-ways included in the agreement. This would also kill local franchise fees, a major source of revenue for many governments. Perhaps the most severe provision is that franchise contract holders can eliminate any contract provisions they deem to be commercially infeasible.”

To be clear: some of the telecom bills winding through Congress are actually helpful. One would renew the FCC’s authority to conduct spectrum auctions, bizarrely lapsed due to a recent bout of government incompetence. Another would make broadband grants tax exempt (a boon to telecoms big and small).

But as Dawson quite correctly notes, legislation like HR 3557 is seeded in there in the hopes it worms its way into a broader bill under the pretense of a broader telecom reform package. I’d be genuinely surprised if the bill itself wasn’t written by an AT&T or Comcast lawyer (probably using ALEC as a proxy):

“This bill is going for a home run to eliminate local regulations these big companies don’t like. I’ve written recently about regulatory capture, and this is an ultimate example of changing the laws to get what the big monopoly providers want…This bill is the ultimate example of the biggest companies in telecom flexing their power and influence to bypass some of the last vestiges of regulation.”

As the federal government becomes (quite intentionally) more dysfunctional, feckless, and corrupt, most meaningful telecom policy fights have shifted to the state or local level. In town after town, locals now find themselves fighting block by block against monopoly power, with less and less meaningful support from the feckless and captured federal government. Now, industry is eyeing the killing blow.

Filed Under: american broadband deployment act, broadband, community broadband, corruption, fcc, hr 3557, local government, monopoly, municipal broadband, pre-emption, regulatory reform, telecom

Biden Re-Announces $42 billion Investment In Broadband, Because Apparently People Didn’t Notice The First Time

Broadband

from the if-at-first-nobody-notices... dept

While the Biden administration has been a bit of a hot mess on broadband consumer protection (see: the Gigi Sohn fiasco), the administration has done some amazing things for overall investment in broadband. Largely thanks to both COVID relief legislation (The American Rescue Plan Act, ARPA) and the IIJA (Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act).

When the IIJA was signed into law in late November of 2021, the administration, and most of the press, clearly pointed out the bill included a whopping $42 billion to shore up broadband access. Apparently nobody noticed, because the White House is… announcing it again now that money is about to start flowing in earnest:

President Biden on Monday is set to announce more than $42 billion to expand high-speed internet access nationwide, commencing the federal push to help an estimated 8.5 million families and small businesses finally take advantage of modern-day connectivity.

The money, which the administration plans to parcel out to states over the next two years, serves as the centerpiece of a vast and ambitious campaign to deliver reliable broadband to the entire country by 2030 — ensuring that even the most far-flung parts of the United States can reap the economic advantages of the digital age.

It didn’t get much traction the first time around because it’s not as attention-grabbing as falsely claiming rudimentary “AI” chatbots will kill us all or falsely claiming poorly drawn NFTs will revolutionize the planet. But it’s going to be transformative all the same. You can see a breakdown here of how much each state is prepared to receive in broadband subsidies, and the totals are historic.

I spend pretty much every week now talking to a different city, town, utility, or cooperative, and they’re all busy using (or planning to use) either COVID relief money or infrastructure bill cash to build amazing things. Many of them are in the process of delivering affordable, gigabit-capable fiber to rural regions for the first time in history, or building open access fiber network that will finally drive competition to markets long ago monopolized by companies like AT&T and Comcast.

The problem, of course, will be several fold. One, despite spending $400 million on the problem, the government still doesn’t have particularly accurate broadband maps. And while the FCC is working to slowly fix that, the end result has been a bit of a mess so far, and it’s something entrenched monopolies can exploit to overstate coverage and misdirect essential funds away from promising challengers.

The new FCC maps do have a welcome new challenge system (where municipalities or locals can challenge inaccurate data), but state leaders routinely tell me the system favors the deep-pocketed monopolies over often under-funded local representatives. It’s hard to fix a problem you can’t measure, and we’re still struggling to measure U.S. broadband gaps.

The other problem is we still don’t really have an FCC that’s willing to stand up to monopolies. Nor do many U.S. states (the ones in charge of dispersing the funds). As a result we’re already seeing telecom and cable giants (with a long, long history of subsidy fraud) exploit state corruption to funnel a big chunk of historic funding away from potential competitors and back into their own pockets.

So while some states are going to use the funds to shore up funding of independent challenges to monopoly power (like open access fiber networks shared by multiple competitors), significantly more are going to throw the lion’s share of this money at the very monopolies responsible for the problem we’re trying to fix.

So yes, there’s going to be an historic, welcome infusion of broadband subsidies to areas that need it, but I’m also positively certain that without competent state and federal corruption reform — and a general lack of interest in reining in monopoly power (in both markets and across government) — there are also going to be telecom boondoggles, waste, and fraud on a scale we’ve never quite seen before.

The end result might still be a net overall benefit, but it won’t have the same overall impact it could have had if we had lawmakers and regulators keen on genuinely taking aim at the real reason the “digital divide” still exists in 2023: regional telecom monopolization and the corruption that protects it.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, fcc, fiber, gigabit, high speed internet, infrastructure bill, monopoly, open access, telecom

Comcast Tells FCC It’s Just Too Hard To Explain Its Bullshit Broadband And TV Fees To Consumers

Broadband

from the can't-do-the-bare-minimum dept

For the better part of the decade, the generally feckless FCC has been trying to require that broadband ISPs be a little more honest about broadband fees and limits at the point of sale. The FCC has been pondering implementing a “nutrition label for broadband” for years but could never quite get around to it. The infrastructure bill demanded it, so the FCC finally got around to acting.

But big ISPs like Comcast, as usual, are dragging their feet. The cable giant recently told the FCC that it was just too difficult to itemize out all the bullshit fees it uses to pad your bill at the point of sale.

From usage caps to its infamous “broadcast TV surcharge,” the cable giant uses all manner of bogus charges to advertise you one rate, then charge you something else. One Consumer Reports study found that the cable industry makes an estimated $28 billion a year from bogus fees, which they calculated can drive up the advertised price by as much as 24 percent.

Obviously Comcast doesn’t want this gravy train going away, but consumer advocates are clearly unimpressed by this latest delay tactic:

“The label hasn’t even reached consumers yet, but Comcast is already trying to create loopholes. This request would allow the big ISPs to continue hiding the true cost of service and frustrating customers with poor service. Congress created the label to end these practices, not maintain them, and Comcast offers no compelling reason for the FCC to violate Congress’ intent.”

Keep in mind the FCC is doing the absolute bare minimum here. They’re not banning ISPs and cable companies from ripping you off, they’re just politely asking that the broadband industry be slightly transparent about their fees. And despite turning the FCC into a feckless invertebrate on consumer protection over the last seven years, industry can’t even do the bare minimum.

More generally, whether telecom, hotels, or airlines, U.S. regulators have made it clear that they’re ok with giant corporations ripping you off with spurious surcharges provided they’re just moderately clever about it. Even here, when the government is finally prodded to action after decades of apathy, the end result at best winds up being slightly more transparency.

Filed Under: broadband, broadband caps, consumer protection, fcc, hidden fees, jessica rosenworcel, monopoly, telecom
Companies: comcast

Telecom Industry Ass Kisser Ajit Pai Comes Out Of Hiding To Once Again Pretend That Killing Net Neutrality Was A Great Idea

Broadband

from the thank-the-states-for-net-neutrality dept

Every so often, I see somebody, who has no idea what they’re talking about, say some variant of: “well, the internet still works despite all of that freaking out by consumer groups, therefore net neutrality must not have been important.” I’ve noted repeatedly how that statement is the claim of deeply unserious people for a deep well of reasons, yet the uninformed hot take never quite seems to die.

This week, I saw several folks pop up again trying to make the same argument:

So look, net neutrality rules were an imperfect, stopgap measure to prevent your regional broadband monopoly from abusing a lack of competition to rip off consumers or bully competitors. Trump’s captured FCC boss Ajit Pai stripped the rules away using an array of sleazy tactics that even involved the use of dead and fake people to pretend the idea was popular (something you generally don’t have to do when your argument stands on its merits).

In the years since the federal repeal, the entire west coast and huge swaths of the midwest and east coast have passed state-level net neutrality laws. That’s why many of the worst case scenarios didn’t manifest, not because “net neutrality didn’t matter.” ISPs don’t want to run afoul of state AGs, so they’ve avoided some of the heavier-handed behaviors consumer groups warned about.

But make no mistake, big ISPs like Comcast and AT&T still routinely abuse their captive markets to rip off consumers fairly vigorously. And it’s important to understand: the Trump repeal of net neutrality didn’t just kill net neutrality rules, it effectively neutered much of the FCC’s consumer protection authority at industry behest. If you’re at all celebrating that, you’re violently misinformed and not paying attention.

Joining this latest “the internet still works therefore net neutrality must not have mattered” sing-a-long is former FCC boss Ajit Pai, who, before the FCC, worked at Verizon, and immediately after joined AEI (where old captured telecom regulators often go to write about how telecom monopolies are great) and a hedge fund that invests in telecom.

After being widely criticized for years, Pai had mostly been quiet post FCC. At least until he popped up this week in a piece over at National Review, where Pai tries to argue that thanks to his decision to kill federal net neutrality protections, US broadband competition is magically soaring, and all the folks that warned about the negative impact of eliminating the rules should feel silly and bad:

In sum, the critics were confident and clear: A digital apocalypse was upon us. Half a decade later, we can now make a sober assessment of their predictions. Were they right?

In an era defined by the paranoid style of American political argument, it may not surprise you to learn that they were not. In fact, they were diametrically wrong. The evidence is indisputable today that in the five years since the FCC’s decision to repeal net-neutrality regulations went into effect, American consumers are benefiting from broadband networks that are stronger and more extensive than ever.

It’s very telling that Pai writes an entire column on this subject yet never once manages to mention that the primary reason many of the worst outcomes didn’t materialize is because states stepped in to pass state laws ISPs aren’t keen on violating.

So completely captured was Pai by the industry he pretended to oversee, his net neutrality repeal even tried to ban states from protecting broadband consumers. Fortunately the courts have time and time again shot that effort down, pointing out the FCC can’t abdicate its responsible on consumer protection, then turn around and tell states what they can do.

In the years since the net neutrality fracas, I’ve really tried to shift the conversation and people’s attention away from “net neutrality” and over to telecom monopolization and federal corruption, because that’s what this was always about.

While it’s still helpful to have competent consumer protection, you wouldn’t need net neutrality rules if the U.S. had robust competition (because users, annoyed by predatory behavior, could just switch ISPs). It doesn’t. And captured regulators like Pai, ever keen to inform you that U.S. broadband is secretly wonderful, are a major reason why.

As a result, the vast majority of Americans have just one or two ISPs to choose from. ISPs that dramatically over-charge for service, routinely rip consumers off with errant fees, and feature some of the worst customer service of any industry in America. And when federal regulators try to do anything about it, they’re quickly set upon by industry shitweasels (just go ask recent FCC nominee Gigi Sohn).

In response, almost all meaningful broadband policy fights have shifted to the state and local level, including the rise in community-owned broadband cooperatives, utilities, and municipal broadband networks. Federal telecom policymakers have repeatedly shown they’re too corrupt to stand up to the giant telecom monopolies they’re supposed to oversee. Ajit Pai was a poster boy for the phenomenon and is very keen to rewrite history and his ugly legacy of telecom monopoly ass kissing.

If you’re at all celebrating the fact that captured and corrupt regulators gave a giant middle finger to the public just so a bunch of lumbering telecom monopolies could rip everyone off with reckless abandon, you’re a deeply unserious person who wasn’t paying attention and should be laughed at.

Filed Under: ajit pai, broadband, california, consumer protection, digital divide, gigi sohn, high speed internet, monopoly, net neutrality, oregon, telecom, washington

Telecom Lobbyists Have Had The FCC Under Their Boot Heel For 7 Straight Years And Nobody Much Seems To Care

Broadband

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

For four years under the Trump administration, the FCC was little more than a mindless rubber stamp, stripping away media consolidation rules, gutting net neutrality, and approving competition-eroding telecom mergers (often without even reading the deal details).

Things were supposed to be slightly better under the Biden FCC. But an inexplicable eight month delay in staffing the agency by the White House, followed by a grotesque smear campaign against the belated nomination of popular reformer Gigi Sohn, has left the agency without a voting majority two and a half years into Biden’s first term, leaving it incapable of implementing meaningful reform.

Hoping to have better luck after Sohn’s derailed nomination, Biden recently selected someone arguably safer for the spot: Anna Gomez. Gomez is generally well liked and has experience in both industry (lobbying for Sprint) and government (the FCC, NTIA), but her policy positions are a black box, and she’s generally not seen as somebody eager to challenge telecom and media giants.

Congress, for its part, continues to make it very clear their interest in telecom consumer protection is muted at best. Gomez isn’t expected to even see a Congressional hearing before the fall, ensuring she’s not seated until the tail end of 2023 or early 2024:

In a note for New Street Research on Monday (registration required), analyst Blair Levin said it was “unlikely there will be a hearing before the fall,” pushing a potential Democratic majority at the FCC until late 2023.

“While we expect a Democratic majority to quickly move forward with a process to adopt an order like the 2015 Open Internet Order (classifying ISPs as Title II carriers), it will take a while and may not be done before the 2024 election,” added Levin.

While the telecom industry seems to approve of Gomez, they still might try to obstruct or delay her appointment, ensuring the Biden administration has as little time as possible to implement key and popular reforms, like the restoration of net neutrality. Telecom and media giants want to keep the FCC without a voting majority until the next presidential election for what should be obvious reasons.

But this still assumes that even with a voting majority, the Biden FCC has the political backbone to wade into policies that seriously challenge telecom and media giants. I’ve seen no indication current FCC staffers much care about the bipartisan media consolidation limits stripped away under Trump. Nor has there been much urgency to restore the FCC’s broader consumer protection authority.

And while Democratic FCC Commissioners Jessica Rosenworcel and Geoffrey Starks talk a good game about bridging the “digital divide” and addressing the “homework gap” (a lack of affordable broadband for kids), they generally lack the courage to even identify that concentrated monopoly power is the primary reason US broadband is spotty, slow, and expensive. It’s a political risk to do so.

It doesn’t get much attention in the Big Tech era, but the telecom’s lobbying gambit here has proven to be a masterful one. They’ve effectively sidelined the nation’s top media and telecom regulator for 7 (what will ultimately be 8) years. And because telecom and media policy isn’t deemed that interesting in the big tech “censorship” era, it’s generally seen only passing press attention.

If I’m a telecom lobbyist, I’m positively thrilled that I’ve sidelined regulators for the better part of the decade. But this attack on federal regulatory power (soon to be worse thanks to Supreme Court Chevron deference decision) has a counter pendulum: it shifts the fight to the state and local level where it may be more difficult for telecom lobbyists to manage.

In broadband, for example, corrupt federal incompetence at policing monopoly power has resulted in towns and cities all over the country taking the matter into their own hands and building better, faster, cheaper, fiber networks. Networks often directly owned by locals with an eye on competitive open access. All looking to enjoy a massive infusion of federal funds thanks to COVID relief and infrastructure bills.

Lobbyists may find it easy to corrupt Congress and derail federal top down solutions to monopoly power, but fighting every pissed off town and city in the country simultaneously as they work to directly shove a stick into the eye of telecom monopolization will prove to be another fight entirely.

With a 50 year assault on the regulatory state (read: even semi-competent federal government oversight of corporations) approaching the end game thanks to the Supreme Court, all fights are now local brawls. Anybody interested in reform will have to fight block by block and work outward. For lumbering, unpopular corporate giants, I’m not sure that’s a battle that will prove to be so easily won.

Filed Under: anna gomez, broadband, geoffrey starks, high speed internet, jessica rosenworcel, monopoly, net neutrality, telecom

Minnesota Passes Helpful But Lobbyist Limited ‘Right To Repair’ Law

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the fix-your-own-shit dept

Despite industry best efforts to prevent it, the “right to repair” movement shows no sign of slowing down.

This week, Minnesota was the latest state to pass a new right to repair law. State lawmakers added right to repair provisions to an omnibus bill (SF 2774) after obtaining bipartisan support across both chambers. The language requires electronics manufacturers to let independent repair shops and consumers buy the parts and tools necessary to repair their own tech. 

It’s a direct response to years of efforts across numerous industries designed to make repair more difficult, whether that’s by making tools and manuals hard to come by, implementing obnoxious DRM, or buying up local repair shops in a bid to create a monopoly over repair.

As is often the case, Minnesota’s new rules come with some caveats. Most notably they don’t apply to several business segments where industry efforts to monopolize repair are the worst, such as game consoles, medical equipment, or motor vehicles. Still, they cover things like appliances, which should help reduce consumer costs and prevent environmental waste.

In a statement, right to repair advocates at PIRG still called the passage a notable win:

“This is the biggest Right to Repair win to date. Minnesotans know that when things break, you fix them. And when manufacturers refuse to let us access what we need for the repair, you fix the law to make them cooperate,” said Nathan Proctor, senior director for U.S. PIRG’s Right to Repair campaign. “Repairs cut waste and save consumers money. It’s common-sense, and it is becoming increasingly clear that manufacturers’ attempts to thwart repair will no longer be tolerated. Minnesota won’t be the last state to codify that.” 

Lobbyists in the auto, gaming, and medical equipment industries managed to successfully narrow the scope of the bill throughout the legislative process. The auto industry in particular has been engaged in an all out lobbying campaign to falsely claim right to repair reforms aid sexual predators. Other companies, like Apple, have tried (again, falsely) to claim right to repair is a threat to security and privacy.

Still, Minnesota is only the second state to pass meaningful right to repair restrictions. The first was New York, which saw its right to repair restrictions watered down after passage thanks to last minute wheeling and dealing by NY Gov. Kathy Hochul. The movement shows no sign of slowing down, and the more obnoxious companies are on the issue, the greater the pressure to implement reform.

Minnesota’s new rules take effect starting July 1st, 2024, and cover technology sold on or after July 1st, 2021.

Filed Under: appliance repair, bipartisan, freedom to tinker, independent repair, minnesota, monopoly, right to repair

Eshoo, Booker Bill Would Kill Dumb, Monopoly-Backed State Bans On Community Broadband

Broadband

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

We’ve noted for decades how telecom monopolies convinced corrupt state legislatures to pass counterproductive bans on creative community broadband networks. The bills are protectionist crap that are ghost written by telecom giants like AT&T and Comcast, and designed to protect their regional broadband monopolies from grass roots competitive disruption on a town by town level.

The harmful nature of such bills were highlighted during COVID, prompting several states (Arkansas and Washington) to roll them back. But 17 states still have such laws in the books, hampering the creation or expansion of cooperatives, city-owned utilities, municipalities, and public private partnerships and other creative attempts to expand access to faster, more affordable broadband.

Enter U.S. Reps. Anna G. Eshoo (CA), Jared Golden (ME) and U.S. Senator Cory Booker (NJ) who have reintroduced their Community Broadband Act, which would strip away state restrictions, allowing communities to decide for themselves whether to build their own broadband networks:

“The Community Broadband Act would empower cities, towns and villages in every state to choose for themselves whether and how to invest in locally-owned broadband infrastructure. Without this flexibility for communities, federal broadband grant programs will not be able to reach their full potential.” –National League of Cities

In short, the bill would amend the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to not only eliminate such protectionist bans already on the books, but also prohibit states from blocking communities from building their own broadband networks.

For decades U.S. telecom monopolies lobbied for such bills under the pretense they were simply looking to protect U.S. taxpayers from wasteful spending. In reality, the U.S. doles out untold billions of dollars to entrenched telecom monopolies that then routinely fail to deliver the next-generation networks (or jobs) they’ve long promised in exchange for a rotating crop of regulatory favors.

Booker and friends also introduced this bill several years ago, but it routinely struggles to gain any traction in a corrupt Congress slathered in Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, and Charter campaign contributions. Said corruption is so extensive, most U.S. regulators and lawmakers lack the courage to even acknowledge telecom monopolies are real, much less that they cause very obvious consumer and market harm.

Instead, we generally enjoy throwing billions of dollars at companies like AT&T with a long history of taxpayer fraud, who then, time after time, fail to fully deploy the next-generation networks promised. As a result, local communities have been frustrated for decades by the lack of competition, high prices, spotty coverage, slow speeds, and terrible customer service that results.

But when communities decide to take action (often at direct voter behest), they often run face-first into hostile, captured state lawmakers or regulators, as well as a bevy of lawsuits from companies like Comcast very keen on protecting the very broken, but very profitable status quo.

Entrenched incumbent monopolies could have responded to these organic, grass roots efforts by providing better, faster, cheaper service to neglected areas, but quite often it’s simply much cheaper to effectively buy a state law or a state or federal lawmaker. As billions in new infrastructure bill broadband subsidies head to the states, the debate has taken on renewed importance.

Numerous studies have consistently shown that community broadband networks (which take on a wide variety of forms ranging from direct municipal builds to cooperatives) provide better, faster, cheaper broadband service. Our recent Copia study on America’s broadband problems outlines how embracing such alternatives are a great way to spur real competition in a very broken market.

Filed Under: anna eshoo, broadband, community broadband, competition, cory booker, fcc, gigabit, high speed internet, jared golden, monopoly, regulatory capture, telecom

New Colorado Bill Protects Farmers’ ‘Right To Repair’

Policy

from the fix-your-own-shit dept

Starting next year, Colorado farmers will have a much easier time repairing their equipment thanks to a new state law protecting their “right to repair.”

Colorado’s new bill, the Consumer Right to Repair Agricultural Equipment Act, requires that agricultural equipment giants like John Deere provide consumers and independent repair shops the “parts, embedded software, firmware, tools,” and other documents needed to repair increasingly complicated hardware they own:

Starting January 1, 2024, the bill requires a manufacturer to provide parts, embedded software, firmware, tools, or documentation, such as diagnostic, maintenance, or repair manuals, diagrams, or similar information (resources), to independent repair providers and owners of the manufacturer’s agricultural equipment to allow an independent repair provider or owner to conduct diagnostic, maintenance, or repair services on the owner’s agricultural equipment.

Numerous companies have attempted to monopolize repair by acquiring competitors, suing independent repair shops, implementing annoying DRM, or just generally making it difficult to obtain needed parts, documents, and tools. It’s been a problem that has touched numerous sectors, from agricultural and medical equipment to everyday consumer electronics.

John Deere’s been one of the worst offenders. The company’s draconian repair restrictions on agricultural equipment often result in customers having to pay an arm and a leg, or drive hundreds of additional, costly miles to get their tractors repaired. The company routinely claims to have seen the light and promises to change, only to further double down on its efforts to monopolize repair.

Lobbyists have increasingly been attacking such reform efforts, usually by falsely claiming that cracking down on these companies’ attempted repair monopolies would create all manner of privacy and security risks for U.S. consumers. Automakers in Massachusetts went so far recently as to lie and claim the state’s right to repair efforts would embolden sexual predators.

Most of the companies keen on monopolizing repair (John Deere, Apple, Verizon, Microsoft, U.S. automakers, U.S. medical equipment makers) have worked tirelessly to ensure any federal legislative solution remains sidelined, despite widespread, bipartisan support for such measures (polls consistently show public support for reform ranging anywhere from 75 to 95 percent).

Filed Under: colorado, farmers, independent repair, monopoly, reform, right to repair

Biden Administration Makes It Clear Broadband Consumer Protection Has Never Been Much Of A Priority

Policy

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

Earlier this month we noted how a successful, often homophobic smear campaign scuttled the nomination of popular reformer Gigi Sohn to the FCC. The GOP and telecom sector, as usual, worked in close collaboration to spread all manner of lies about Sohn, including claims she was an unhinged radical that hated Hispanics, cops, puppies, and freedom.

But there was no shortage of blame to be had on the Democratic side as well.

Unlike the shock and awe Khan nomination and promotion, the Biden administration waited nine months to even nominate Sohn, giving industry ample runway to create its ultimately successful campaign. Maria Cantwell buckled to repeated GOP requests for unnecessary show hearings, used to push false claims about Sohn that the industry had seeded in the press via various nonprofits. Chuck Schumer failed to whip up votes. Senators Masto, Kelly, and Manchin all buckled to industry fear campaigns, preventing a swift 51 vote Senate confirmation.

And nobody in the Biden administration thought it was particularly important to provide any meaningful public messaging support as Sohn faced down a relentless, industry smear campaign, alone. The entire process from beginning to end was a hot, incompetent mess.

And from every indication, there’s also no real evidence that the Biden administration had a plan B in the wake of Sohn’s nomination falling apart. Weeks after the fact and the White House still hasn’t pulled Sohn’s name from consideration or proposed a replacement candidate:

In a note to financial types, former top FCC official Blair Levin, now a media analyst, said a growing list of people apparently interested in the open seat suggests  it would be a fair assumption that the White House did not have a plan B. “It may be sometime before it selects a new nominee, further delaying the moment when the Democrats obtain an FCC majority,” Levin said.

Given this was the industry’s entire goal, I’m sure they’re pleased.

AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and News Corporation want to keep the nation’s top telecom and media regulator gridlocked at 2-2 commissioners, so it can’t take action on any issues deemed too controversial to industry, whether that’s restoring net neutrality, forcing broadband providers to be more transparent about pricing, or restoring media consolidation limits stripped away during the Trump era.

Whoever is chosen to replace Sohn will surely be more friendly to industry in a bid to avoid a repeat. Assuming that person is even seated, it won’t be until much later this year, at which point they’ll have very little time to implement any real reform before the next presidential election. The policies that will be prioritized probably won’t be the controversial or popular ones, like net neutrality.

I’m not sure who has been giving Biden broadband policy advice of late, but it’s pretty clear that for all of the administration’s talk about “antitrust reform” (which has included some great work on “right to repair”), a functioning FCC with a voting majority and competent broadband consumer protection has never actually been much of a priority.

Yes, the Biden administration has done good work on pushing for an infrastructure bill that will soon throw $45 billion at industry to address the digital divide. But most of that money will be going, as usual, to entrenched local monopolies that helped create the divide in the first place through relentless efforts to crush competition and stifle nearly all competent oversight.

And without a voting majority, the agency will have a steeper uphill climb when it comes to basic things like shoring up broadband mapping, or holding big ISPs accountable should they provide false broadband coverage data to the FCC. The current FCC says all the right things about that pesky “digital divide,” but its leaders are generally terrified to even mention that telecom monopolies exist, much less propose any meaningful strategy to undermine their power.

It seems clear that Biden’s advisors don’t really think the FCC’s role as consumer watchdog is important (they’ve shoveled a lot of the heavy lifting to the NTIA), or didn’t think fighting over the FCC’s consumer protection authority was worthwhile. And given the current DC myopic policy focus on Big Tech, having a functioning media and telecom regulator willing and able to hold the nation’s hugely unpopular telecom monopolies accountable has easily just… fallen to the cutting room floor.

There’s a reason that Americans pay some of the most expensive prices for mediocre broadband in the developed world. There’s a reason that 83 million Americans live under a broadband monopoly. And it’s in no small part thanks to a feckless, captured FCC, and politicians who don’t have the backbone to stand up to major campaign contributors bone-grafted to our intelligence gathering apparatus.

Filed Under: 5g, antitrust reform, biden, broadband, digital divide, fcc, fiber, gigabit, gigi sohn, high speed internet, jessica rosenworcel, monopoly, regulatory capture, telecom