FreshRSS

Zobrazení pro čtení

Jsou dostupné nové články, klikněte pro obnovení stránky.

Republicans Are Angry The FCC Admitted Broadband Deployment Discrimination Exists

Od: Karl Bode

Last December I wrote a feature for The Verge exploring the FCC’s long overdue effort to stop race and class discrimination in broadband deployment. For decades, big telecoms have not only refused to evenly upgrade broadband in low income and poor areas (despite billions in subsidies for this exact purpose), they’ve provably charged poor and minority neighborhoods significantly more money for worse service.

To be clear the FCC’s plan doesn’t actually stop such discrimination. Regulators didn’t even have the moral courage to call out big telecoms with a history of such practices (see: AT&T’s “digital redlining” in cities like Cleveland and Detroit). The FCC simply acknowledged that this discrimination clearly exists and imposed some loophole-filled rules stating that big ISPs shouldn’t discriminate moving forward.

As with the FCC’s restored net neutrality rules, I highly suspect the historically feckless and captured FCC ever actually enforces the guidelines with any zeal. But the effort to acknowledge that such discrimination exists (as it has been documented in both electrical utility deployments and highway location selection) was viewed as progress by civil rights groups. And also enough to send the GOP into a multi-month tizzy.

Last February, 65 US House Republications submitted a resolution of disapproval claiming, falsely, that the Biden administration was using the pretense of “equity” to “expand the federal government’s control of all Internet services and infrastructure.” And last week, the Federalist Society hosted a function at which GOP officials (including Trump appointed FCC Commission Nathan Simington) gathered to make up claims the rules were already having a “chilling effect across the broadband industry“:

“Out of fear of running afoul of the rules, companies will certainly avoid otherwise planned investments,” said Erin Boone, chief of staff and wireless advisor for Republican FCC Commissioner Nathan Simington.”

As you might recall, this was the same claim Republicans made about some modest net neutrality rules. For a decade the GOP proclaimed that modest and largely unenforced FCC net neutrality rules would have a devastating impact on broadband investment. But if you looked at earnings reports, public data, and even CEO statements, it was patently obvious the claim was absolute bullshit.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is also positively flummoxed that a telecom regulator acknowledged that digital broadband discrimination exists, penning a lengthy missive falsely stating that the FCC’s half-assed effort would most assuredly harm poor Americans:

“These rules undermine public and private sector efforts to build modern broadband networks—jeopardizing connectivity for all Americans.”

This is the perpetual doom cycle U.S. telecom policy has inhabited for 30 odd years.

Democrats weakly propose long overdue but meekly enforced rules to address a problem they’ve ignored for the better part of thirty years. Republicans pop up to proclaim these bare-minimum efforts are somehow a “radical socialist takeover of the internet” (or some variant), which “both sides” news outlets parrot without much in the way of skepticism, giving the GOP unearned credibility on telecom policy.

It doesn’t matter whether it’s broadband privacy, net neutrality, racial discrimination, or even very basic efforts to stop your cable company from ripping you off with bullshit fees. It doesn’t matter how basic the proposal is or if it ever even sees enforcement.

The pretense is always the same: that the government doing the absolute bare minimum is, in reality, a “radical government running amok” and “chilling all investment in the broadband industry.”

It makes me wonder how the AT&T earlobe-nibbling politicians of today would respond to a Democratic party and regulators with an actual antitrust enforcement backbone. In lock step with GOP whining, major telecom policy and lobbying groups have also sued to block the modest digital discrimination rules in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in St. Louis, claiming falsely it’s akin to “rate regulation.”

The goal of most Republicans (and a not insubstantial number of Democrats) is a market in which regional, highly consolidated monopolies like AT&T and Comcast are allowed to freely run amok, taking bottomless advantage of the one-two punch of feckless oversight and limited competition while being slathered with subsidies. All dressed up as some kind of noble defense of free markets and the little guy.

I’ve been seeing some variation of this for the better part of 25 years of covering the broadband industry, and it’s utterly remarkable how utterly impervious the whole corruption-fueled dynamic is to both reason and meaningful change.

Valve’s Legal Lawsuit in UK: A Battle of Monopolies and Skepticism

Od: Mat

Article Reading Time: 4m

In the latest chapter of the ongoing saga of “Gamers vs. The Titans,” Valve Corporation is entangled in yet another legal battle. This time, the UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal is the arena, and the stakes are high—£656 million ($840 million) high. Digital rights activist Vicki Shotbolt is leading this charge, accusing Valve of monopolistic practices that inflate game prices and stifle competition​ (evident – find legal help)​​ (Notebookcheck)​.

The Accusations Against Valve

Valve’s Steam platform, a dominant force in PC gaming, is accused of enforcing price maintenance clauses. These clauses allegedly prevent game publishers from selling their titles at lower prices on competing platforms. By enforcing these rules, Valve ensures its 30% commission remains untouched, leading to higher prices for gamers​ (Eurogamer.net)​.

The Reality of Steam’s Market Dominance

Steam’s 30% commission is significantly higher than the 12% taken by the Epic Games Store, a competitor that holds a mere 15% of the market compared to Steam’s overwhelming 80% share​ (Kakuchopurei)​​ (Eurogamer.net)​. Despite this disparity, developers often have no choice but to flock to Steam due to its vast user base and market influence. This creates a quasi-monopolistic environment where Valve dictates terms, much to the detriment of competition and consumer pricing.

The Skepticism Surrounding the Lawsuit

While the lawsuit against Valve is a bold move, there’s a palpable sense of skepticism about its potential outcomes. We’ve seen similar scenarios before, like the lawsuit against Sony regarding PlayStation’s digital pricing. Launched with much fanfare, the PlayStation lawsuit promised up to £500 in compensation for PS5 owners. Yet, four months on, the case has fallen into a deafening silence​ (GAMINGbible)​​ (GB News)​.

The PlayStation lawsuit’s quiet descent into obscurity raises doubts about the efficacy of such legal battles against tech giants. Are these lawsuits genuine efforts to curb monopolistic behavior, or are they grandiose displays that ultimately falter under the weight of legal complexities and corporate power?

A Critical Look at Valve’s Practices and the Lawsuit

Critics argue that Valve’s practices are a classic example of market manipulation, where the dominant player uses its position to enforce unfair terms. These practices include demanding price parity across platforms and leveraging its user base to pressure publishers into compliance. Yet, the lawsuit’s success hinges on proving these practices not only exist but also violate antitrust laws to a degree that warrants such a substantial payout.

The skepticism is warranted. Legal battles of this nature are protracted and often end in settlements or dismissals rather than landmark rulings that reshape industry practices. While the lawsuit shines a spotlight on Valve’s questionable tactics, there is no guarantee of a victory that benefits consumers and developers.

The Broader Implications

For gamers, this isn’t just about a courtroom showdown; it’s about the future landscape of digital game distribution. If Valve is found liable, it could set a precedent that forces the company to alter its pricing strategies, potentially leading to more competitive prices and better deals for consumers. However, given the history of such lawsuits, a healthy dose of skepticism remains prudent.

Will See..

The Valve lawsuit is a high-stakes game with potentially far-reaching consequences for the gaming industry. While the allegations against Valve underscore the need for fairer practices and more competition, the path to achieving this through legal means is uncertain. As the case unfolds, whether this will be a turning point for digital distribution or just another chapter in the long history of corporate dominance and legal battles remains to be seen.
We will monitor this. Stay with us on WePlaygames.net

Sources:

The post Valve’s Legal Lawsuit in UK: A Battle of Monopolies and Skepticism appeared first on WePlayGames.net: Home for Top Gamers.

Apple deal could have been “suicide” for Google, company lawyer says

John Schmidtlein, partner at Williams & Connolly LLP and lead litigator for Alphabet Inc.'s Google, arrives to federal court in Washington, DC, US, on Monday, Oct. 2, 2023.

Enlarge / John Schmidtlein, partner at Williams & Connolly LLP and lead litigator for Alphabet Inc.'s Google, arrives to federal court in Washington, DC, US, on Monday, Oct. 2, 2023. (credit: Bloomberg / Contributor | Bloomberg)

Halfway through the first day of closing arguments in the Department of Justice's big antitrust trial against Google, US District Judge Amit Mehta posed the question that likely many Google users have pondered over years of DOJ claims that Google's market dominance has harmed users.

"What should Google have done to remain outside the crosshairs of the DOJ?" Mehta asked plaintiffs halfway through the first of two full days of closing arguments.

According to the DOJ and state attorneys general suing, Google has diminished search quality everywhere online, primarily by locking rivals out of default positions on devices and in browsers. By paying billions for default placements that the government has argued allowed Google to hoard traffic and profits, Google allegedly made it nearly impossible for rivals to secure enough traffic to compete, ultimately decreasing competition and innovation in search by limiting the number of viable search engines in the market.

Read 19 remaining paragraphs | Comments

❌