Policy – Page 29

US plan to protect consumers from data brokers faces dim future under Trump

consumer financial protection bureau, data brokers, Policy / Shannon Garcia / December 3, 2024

Plan unlikely to survive Trump administration

CFPB Director Rohit Chopra touted the proposed rule, saying it targets brokers who sell “our most sensitive personal data without our knowledge or consent” and “profit by enabling scamming, stalking, and spying.” But whether the proposal ever becomes a rule is doubtful because of the impending leadership change in the White House.

Chopra, a Democrat, was nominated by President Biden in 2021 and confirmed by the Senate in a 50-48 party-line vote. President-Elect Donald Trump can nominate a replacement.

The CFPB’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is an initial step toward imposing rules, and any final action would have to come after Trump takes over. Comments on the proposal are due by March 3, 2025.

“Unfortunately, it will be up to Trump’s CFPB to finalize this proposed rule, and he and his billionaire donors are intent on shutting this agency down to take away a key advocate for American consumers,” US Sen. Ron Wyden, (D-Ore.) said in a statement issued today.

Wyden said the CFPB proposal “act[s] on my 2021 request to close a key loophole that enables sleazy data brokers to sell Americans’ personal data to criminals, stalkers, and foreign spies. Letting anyone with a credit card buy this data doesn’t just harm Americans’ privacy, it seriously threatens national security when sensitive information about law enforcement, judges, and members of the armed forces is on the open market.”

Trump DOGE appointee: “Delete the CFPB”

The CFPB itself could be defanged by the Trump administration and the incoming Republican-controlled Congress. Consumer advocacy groups have said they expect the agency to be targeted.

“President-elect Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress are weighing vast changes to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, seeking to limit the powers and funding of a federal watchdog agency formed in the wake of the 2008 banking crisis,” The Washington Post reported on November 23. “The early discussions align the GOP with banks, credit card companies, mortgage lenders and other large financial institutions, which have chafed at the CFPB under Democratic leadership and sought to invalidate many of its recent regulations.”

US plan to protect consumers from data brokers faces dim future under Trump Read More »

China hits US with ban on critical minerals used in tech manufacturing

biden administration, china, china tariffs, Donald Trump, export ban, Policy, rare earth metals, tech manufacturing, us-china trade war / Shannon Garcia / December 3, 2024

Although China’s response to the latest curbs was swift and seemingly strong, experts told Ars that China’s response to Biden’s last round of tariffs was relatively muted. It’s possible that this week’s ban on exports into the US could also be a response to President-elect Donald Trump’s threat to increase tariffs on all Chinese goods once he takes office.

Analysts warned Monday that new export curbs could end up hurting businesses in the US and allied nations while potentially doing very little to block China from accessing US tech. On Tuesday, four Chinese industry associations seemingly added fuel to the potential fire threatening US businesses by warning Chinese firms that purchasing US chips is “no longer safe,” Asia Financial reported.

Apparently, these groups would not say how or why the chips were unsafe, but the warning could hurt US chipmaking giants like Nvidia, AMD, and Intel, the financial industry publication closely monitoring China’s economy forecast said.

This was a “rare, coordinated move” by industry associations advising top firms in telecommunications, autos, semiconductors, and “the digital economy,” Asia Financial reported.

As US-China tensions escalate ahead of Trump’s next term, the tech industry has warned that any unpredictable rises in costs may end up spiking prices on popular consumer tech. With Trump angling to add a 35 percent tariff on all Chinese goods, that means average Americans could also end up harmed by the trade war, potentially soon paying significantly more for laptops, smartphones, and game consoles.

China hits US with ban on critical minerals used in tech manufacturing Read More »

Judge again rejects the Elon Musk Tesla pay plan now valued at $101 billion

elon musk pay plan, Policy, Tesla / Shannon Garcia / December 2, 2024

The new stockholder vote could shift the burden of proof, but only if the vote is “fully informed and uncoerced,” McCormick wrote. Shareholder Richard Tornetta, the plaintiff who launched the lawsuit that got Musk’s pay rescinded, “has demonstrated that the vote was not fully informed,” today’s ruling said.

The January ruling in which McCormick voided the pay package said the deal was unfair to shareholders and that most of the board members were beholden to Musk or had compromising conflicts. In Tesla’s subsequent request asking shareholders to re-approve the pay plan, the company said that a yes vote could “extinguish claims for breach of fiduciary duty by authorizing an act that otherwise would constitute a breach” and correct “disclosure deficiencies” and other problems identified in the 2018 stock award.

“Tesla debuted the argument in the Proxy Statement, which described stockholder ratification as a powerful elixir that could cure fiduciary wrongdoing—not for those harmed by the wrongdoing, but for the wrongdoers. Tesla told stockholders that the Post-Trial Opinion got Delaware law wrong and that their vote would ‘fix’ it,” McCormick wrote.

But the claims in Tesla’s proxy statement are “materially false or misleading,” McCormick wrote today. “As discussed above, under Delaware law, ratification cannot be deployed post-trial to extinguish an adjudicated breach of the duty of loyalty,” and it “cannot cleanse a conflicted-controller transaction” without a full suite of required legal protections.

304 million Tesla shares

Musk’s pay plan would provide options to purchase nearly 303.96 million Tesla shares for $23.33 each, McCormick wrote. Tesla’s stock price soared in recent months and was at $357.09 today.

The plaintiff argued that the value gained by shareholders when the pay package was rescinded “equals the intrinsic value of the freed-up shares, which is the trading price, minus the exercise price, multiplied by the number of options,” McCormick wrote. The plaintiff came up with a value of $51 billion based on the $191.59 per-share closing price on the date of the January 2024 ruling. As previously noted, the latest Tesla price suggests the pay package could have been worth $101 billion to Musk.

Judge again rejects the Elon Musk Tesla pay plan now valued at $101 billion Read More »

Elon Musk asks court to block OpenAI conversion from nonprofit to for-profit

AI, elon musk, openai, Policy / Mike M. / December 2, 2024

OpenAI provided a statement to Ars today saying that “Elon’s fourth attempt, which again recycles the same baseless complaints, continues to be utterly without merit.” OpenAI referred to a longer statement that it made in March after Musk filed an earlier version of his lawsuit.

The March statement disputes Musk’s version of events. “In late 2017, we and Elon decided the next step for the mission was to create a for-profit entity,” OpenAI said. “Elon wanted majority equity, initial board control, and to be CEO. In the middle of these discussions, he withheld funding. Reid Hoffman bridged the gap to cover salaries and operations.”

OpenAI cited Musk’s desire for Tesla merger

OpenAI’s statement in March continued:

We couldn’t agree to terms on a for-profit with Elon because we felt it was against the mission for any individual to have absolute control over OpenAI. He then suggested instead merging OpenAI into Tesla. In early February 2018, Elon forwarded us an email suggesting that OpenAI should “attach to Tesla as its cash cow,” commenting that it was “exactly right… Tesla is the only path that could even hope to hold a candle to Google. Even then, the probability of being a counterweight to Google is small. It just isn’t zero.”

Elon soon chose to leave OpenAI, saying that our probability of success was 0, and that he planned to build an AGI competitor within Tesla. When he left in late February 2018, he told our team he was supportive of us finding our own path to raising billions of dollars. In December 2018, Elon sent us an email saying “Even raising several hundred million won’t be enough. This needs billions per year immediately or forget it.”

Now, Musk says the public interest would be served by his request for a preliminary injunction. Preserving competitive markets is particularly important in AI because of the technology’s “profound implications for society,” he wrote.

Musk’s motion said the public “has a strong interest in ensuring that charitable assets are not diverted for private gain. This interest is particularly acute here given the substantial tax benefits OpenAI, Inc. received as a non-profit, the organization’s repeated public commitments to developing AI technology for the benefit of humanity, and the serious safety concerns raised by former OpenAI employees regarding the organization’s rush to market potentially dangerous products in pursuit of profit.”

Elon Musk asks court to block OpenAI conversion from nonprofit to for-profit Read More »

US blocks China from foreign exports with even a single US-made chip

AI chips, applied materials, Chips Act, kla, lam research, Policy, samsung, semiconductor, us-china trade war / DJ Henderson / December 2, 2024

But while Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo said that these new curbs would help prevent “China from advancing its domestic semiconductor manufacturing system” to modernize its military, analysts and “several US officials” told The Post that they pack “far less punch” than the prior two rounds of export controls.

Analysts told The Wall Street Journal that the US took too long to launch the controls, which were composed around June. As industry insiders weighed in on the restrictions, word got out about the US plans to expand controls. In the months since, analysts said, China had plenty of time to stockpile the now-restricted tech. Applied Materials, for example, saw an eye-popping 86 percent spike in net revenue from products shipped to China “in the nine months ending July 28,” the WSJ reported.

Because of this and other alleged flaws, it’s unclear how effectively Biden’s final attempts to block China from accessing the latest US technologies will work.

Beyond concerns that China had time to stockpile tech it anticipated would be restricted, Gregory Allen, the director at the Wadhwani AI Center at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told the WSJ that these latest controls “left loopholes that Huawei and Chinese companies could exploit.”

Loopholes include failing to blacklist companies that Huawei regularly uses—with allies and American companies allegedly lobbying to exempt factories or fabs they like, such as ChangXin Memory Technologies Inc., “one of China’s largest memory chipmakers,” The Post noted. They also include failing to restrict older versions of the HBM chips and various chipmaking equipment that China may still be able to easily access, Allen said.

“These controls are weaker than what the United States should have done,” Allen told The Post. “You can make a halfway logical argument that says, ‘Sell everything to China.’ Then you can make a reasonable argument, ‘Sell very little to China.’ But the worst thing you can do is to dramatically signal your intention to cut off China’s access to tech but then have so many loopholes and such bungled implementation that you incur almost all of the costs of the policy with only a fraction of the benefits.”

US blocks China from foreign exports with even a single US-made chip Read More »

FCC approves Starlink plan for cellular phone service, with some limits

Policy, starlink / Kelly Newman / November 27, 2024

Eliminating cellular dead zones

Starlink says it will offer texting service this year as well as voice and data services in 2025. Starlink does not yet have FCC approval to exceed certain emissions limits, which the company has said will be detrimental for real-time voice and video communications.

For the operations approved yesterday, Starlink is required to coordinate with other spectrum users and cease transmissions when any harmful interference is detected. “We hope to activate employee beta service in the US soon,” wrote Ben Longmier, SpaceX’s senior director of satellite engineering.

Longmier made a pitch to cellular carriers. “Any telco that signs up with Starlink Direct to Cell can completely eliminate cellular dead zones for their entire country for text and data services. This includes coastal waterways and the ocean areas in between land for island nations,” he wrote.

Starlink launched its first satellites with cellular capabilities in January 2024. “Of the more than 2,600 Gen2 Starlink satellites in low Earth orbit, around 320 are equipped with a direct-to-smartphone payload, enough to enable the texting services SpaceX has said it could launch this year,” SpaceNews wrote yesterday.

Yesterday’s FCC order also lets Starlink operate up to 7,500 second-generation satellites in altitudes between 340 km and 360 km, in addition to the previously approved altitudes between 525 km and 535 km. SpaceX is seeking approval for another 22,488 satellites but the FCC continued to defer action on that request. The FCC order said:

Authorization to permit SpaceX to operate up to 7,500 Gen2 satellites in lower altitude shells will enable SpaceX to begin providing lower-latency satellite service to support growing demand in rural and remote areas that lack terrestrial wireless service options. This partial grant also strikes the right balance between allowing SpaceX’s operations at lower altitudes to provide low-latency satellite service and permitting the Commission to continue to monitor SpaceX’s constellation and evaluate issues previously raised on the record.

Coordination with NASA

SpaceX is required to coordinate “with NASA to ensure protection of the International Space Station (ISS), ISS visiting vehicles, and launch windows for NASA science missions,” the FCC said. “SpaceX may only deploy and operate at altitudes below 400 km the total number of satellites for which it has completed physical coordination with NASA under the parties’ Space Act Agreement.”

FCC approves Starlink plan for cellular phone service, with some limits Read More »

Google’s plan to keep AI out of search trial remedies isn’t going very well

AI, ai search, Antitrust law, copilot, generative ai, Google, google search, google search monopoly, microsoft, Policy, search engines / Kelly Newman / November 27, 2024

DOJ: AI is not its own market

Judge: AI will likely play “larger role” in Google search remedies as market shifts.

Google got some disappointing news at a status conference Tuesday, where US District Judge Amit Mehta suggested that Google’s AI products may be restricted as an appropriate remedy following the government’s win in the search monopoly trial.

According to Law360, Mehta said that “the recent emergence of AI products that are intended to mimic the functionality of search engines” is rapidly shifting the search market. Because the judge is now weighing preventive measures to combat Google’s anticompetitive behavior, the judge wants to hear much more about how each side views AI’s role in Google’s search empire during the remedies stage of litigation than he did during the search trial.

“AI and the integration of AI is only going to play a much larger role, it seems to me, in the remedy phase than it did in the liability phase,” Mehta said. “Is that because of the remedies being requested? Perhaps. But is it also potentially because the market that we have all been discussing has shifted?”

To fight the DOJ’s proposed remedies, Google is seemingly dragging its major AI rivals into the trial. Trying to prove that remedies would harm Google’s ability to compete, the tech company is currently trying to pry into Microsoft’s AI deals, including its $13 billion investment in OpenAI, Law360 reported. At least preliminarily, Mehta has agreed that information Google is seeking from rivals has “core relevance” to the remedies litigation, Law360 reported.

The DOJ has asked for a wide range of remedies to stop Google from potentially using AI to entrench its market dominance in search and search text advertising. They include a ban on exclusive agreements with publishers to train on content, which the DOJ fears might allow Google to block AI rivals from licensing data, potentially posing a barrier to entry in both markets. Under the proposed remedies, Google would also face restrictions on investments in or acquisitions of AI products, as well as mergers with AI companies.

Additionally, the DOJ wants Mehta to stop Google from any potential self-preferencing, such as making an AI product mandatory on Android devices Google controls or preventing a rival from distribution on Android devices.

The government seems very concerned that Google may use its ownership of Android to play games in the emerging AI sector. They’ve further recommended an order preventing Google from discouraging partners from working with rivals, degrading the quality of rivals’ AI products on Android devices, or otherwise “coercing” manufacturers or other Android partners into giving Google’s AI products “better treatment.”

Importantly, if the court orders AI remedies linked to Google’s control of Android, Google could risk a forced sale of Android if Mehta grants the DOJ’s request for “contingent structural relief” requiring divestiture of Android if behavioral remedies don’t destroy the current monopolies.

Finally, the government wants Google to be required to allow publishers to opt out of AI training without impacting their search rankings. (Currently, opting out of AI scraping automatically opts sites out of Google search indexing.)

All of this, the DOJ alleged, is necessary to clear the way for a thriving search market as AI stands to shake up the competitive landscape.

“The promise of new technologies, including advances in artificial intelligence (AI), may present an opportunity for fresh competition,” the DOJ said in a court filing. “But only a comprehensive set of remedies can thaw the ecosystem and finally reverse years of anticompetitive effects.”

At the status conference Tuesday, DOJ attorney David Dahlquist reiterated to Mehta that these remedies are needed so that Google’s illegal conduct in search doesn’t extend to this “new frontier” of search, Law360 reported. Dahlquist also clarified that the DOJ views these kinds of AI products “as new access points for search, rather than a whole new market.”

“We’re very concerned about Google’s conduct being a barrier to entry,” Dahlquist said.

Google could not immediately be reached for comment. But the search giant has maintained that AI is beyond the scope of the search trial.

During the status conference, Google attorney John E. Schmidtlein disputed that AI remedies are relevant. While he agreed that “AI is key to the future of search,” he warned that “extraordinary” proposed remedies would “hobble” Google’s AI innovation, Law360 reported.

Microsoft shields confidential AI deals

Microsoft is predictably protective of its AI deals, arguing in a court filing that its “highly confidential agreements with OpenAI, Perplexity AI, Inflection, and G42 are not relevant to the issues being litigated” in the Google trial.

According to Microsoft, Google is arguing that it needs this information to “shed light” on things like “the extent to which the OpenAI partnership has driven new traffic to Bing and otherwise affected Microsoft’s competitive standing” or what’s required by “terms upon which Bing powers functionality incorporated into Perplexity’s search service.”

These insights, Google seemingly hopes, will convince Mehta that Google’s AI deals and investments are the norm in the AI search sector. But Microsoft is currently blocking access, arguing that “Google has done nothing to explain why” it “needs access to the terms of Microsoft’s highly confidential agreements with other third parties” when Microsoft has already offered to share documents “regarding the distribution and competitive position” of its AI products.

Microsoft also opposes Google’s attempts to review how search click-and-query data is used to train OpenAI’s models. Those requests would be better directed at OpenAI, Microsoft said.

If Microsoft gets its way, Google’s discovery requests will be limited to just Microsoft’s content licensing agreements for Copilot. Microsoft alleged those are the only deals “related to the general search or the general search text advertising markets” at issue in the trial.

On Tuesday, Microsoft attorney Julia Chapman told Mehta that Microsoft had “agreed to provide documents about the data used to train its own AI model and also raised concerns about the competitive sensitivity of Microsoft’s agreements with AI companies,” Law360 reported.

It remains unclear at this time if OpenAI will be forced to give Google the click-and-query data Google seeks. At the status hearing, Mehta ordered OpenAI to share “financial statements, information about the training data for ChatGPT, and assessments of the company’s competitive position,” Law360 reported.

But the DOJ may also be interested in seeing that data. In their proposed final judgment, the government forecasted that “query-based AI solutions” will “provide the most likely long-term path for a new generation of search competitors.”

Because of that prediction, any remedy “must prevent Google from frustrating or circumventing” court-ordered changes “by manipulating the development and deployment of new technologies like query-based AI solutions.” Emerging rivals “will depend on the absence of anticompetitive constraints to evolve into full-fledged competitors and competitive threats,” the DOJ alleged.

Mehta seemingly wants to see the evidence supporting the DOJ’s predictions, which could end up exposing carefully guarded secrets of both Google’s and its biggest rivals’ AI deals.

On Tuesday, the judge noted that integration of AI into search engines had already evolved what search results pages look like. And from his “very layperson’s perspective,” it seems like AI’s integration into search engines will continue moving “very quickly,” as both parties seem to agree.

Whether he buys into the DOJ’s theory that Google could use its existing advantage as the world’s greatest gatherer of search query data to block rivals from keeping pace is still up in the air, but the judge seems moved by the DOJ’s claim that “AI has the ability to affect market dynamics in these industries today as well as tomorrow.”

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

Google’s plan to keep AI out of search trial remedies isn’t going very well Read More »

Biased AI in health care faces crackdown in sweeping Biden admin proposals

GLP-1, health, healthcare, Policy, weight loss / Beth Washington / November 27, 2024

Prior authorization

Elsewhere in the over 700-page proposal, the administration lays out policy that would bar Medicare Advantage plan providers from reopening and reneging on paying claims for inpatient hospital admission if those claims had already been granted approval through prior authorization. The proposal also wants to make criteria for coverage clearer and help ensure that patients know they can appeal denied claims.

The Department of Health and Human Services notes that when patients appeal claim denials from Medicare Advantage plans, the appeals are successful 80 percent of the time. But, only 4 percent of claim denials are appealed—”meaning many more denials could potentially be overturned by the plan if they were appealed.”

AI guardrails

Last, the administration’s proposal also tries to shore up guardrails for the use of AI in health care with edits to existing policy. The goal is to make sure Medicare Advantage insurers don’t adopt flawed AI recommendations that deepen bias and discrimination or exacerbate existing inequities.

As an example, the administration pointed to the use of AI to predict which patients would miss medical appointments—and then recommend that providers double-book the appointment slots for those patients. In this case, low-income patients are more likely to miss appointments, because they may struggle with transportation, childcare, and work schedules. “As a result of using this data within the AI tool, providers double-booked lower-income patients, causing longer wait times for lower-income patients and perpetuating the cycle of additional missed appointments for vulnerable patients.” As such, it should be barred, the administration says.

In general, people of color and people of lower socioeconomic status tend to be more likely to have gaps and flaws in their electronic health records. So, when AI is trained on large data sets of health records, it can generate flawed recommendations based on that spotty and incorrect information, thereby amplifying bias.

Biased AI in health care faces crackdown in sweeping Biden admin proposals Read More »

ISPs say their “excellent customer service” is why users don’t switch providers

broadband, federal communications commission, Policy / Beth Washington / November 26, 2024

Broadband customer service

ISPs tell FCC that mistreated users would switch to one of their many other options.

Credit: Getty Images | Thamrongpat Theerathammakorn

Lobby groups for Internet service providers claim that ISPs’ customer service is so good already that the government shouldn’t consider any new regulations to mandate improvements. They also claim ISPs face so much competition that market forces require providers to treat their customers well or lose them to competitors.

Cable lobby group NCTA-The Internet & Television Association told the Federal Communications Commission in a filing that “providing high-quality products and services and a positive customer experience is a competitive necessity in today’s robust communications marketplace. To attract and retain customers, NCTA’s cable operator members continuously strive to ensure that the customer support they provide is effective and user-friendly. Given these strong marketplace imperatives, new regulations that would micromanage providers’ customer service operations are unnecessary.”

Lobby groups filed comments in response to an FCC review of customer service that was announced last month, before the presidential election. While the FCC’s current Democratic leadership is interested in regulating customer service practices, the Republicans who will soon take over opposed the inquiry.

USTelecom, which represents telcos such as AT&T and Verizon, said that “the competitive broadband marketplace leaves providers of broadband and other communications services no choice but to provide their customers with not only high-quality broadband, but also high-quality customer service.”

“If a provider fails to efficiently resolve an issue, they risk losing not only that customer—and not just for the one service, but potentially for all of the bundled services offered to that customer—but also any prospective customers that come across a negative review online. Because of this, broadband providers know that their success is dependent upon providing and maintaining excellent customer service,” USTelecom wrote.

While the FCC Notice of Inquiry said that providers should “offer live customer service representative support by phone within a reasonable timeframe,” USTelecom’s filing touted the customer service abilities of AI chatbots. “AI chat agents will only get better at addressing customers’ needs more quickly over time—and if providers fail to provide the customer service and engagement options that their customers expect and fail to resolve their customers’ concerns, they may soon find that the consumer is no longer a customer, having switched to another competitive offering,” the lobby group said.

Say what?

The lobby groups’ description may surprise the many Internet users suffering from little competition and poor customer service, such as CenturyLink users who had to go without service for over a month because of the ISP’s failure to fix outages. The FCC received very different takes on the state of ISP customer service from regulators in California and Oregon.

The Mt. Hood Cable Regulatory Commission in northwest Oregon, where Comcast is the dominant provider, told the FCC that local residents complain about automated customer service representatives; spending hours on hold while attempting to navigate automated voice systems; billing problems including “getting charged after cancelling service, unexpected price increases, and being charged for equipment that was returned,” and service not being restored quickly after outages.

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) told the FCC that it performed a recent analysis finding “that only a fraction of California households enjoy access to a highly competitive market for [broadband Internet service], with only 26 percent of households having a choice between two or more broadband providers utilizing either cable modem or fiber optic technologies.” The California agency said the result “suggests that competitive forces alone are insufficient to guarantee service quality for customers who depend upon these services.”

CPUC said its current rulemaking efforts for California “will establish standards for service outages, repair response time, and access to live representatives.” The agency told the FCC that if it adopts new customer service rules for the whole US, it should “permit state and local governments to set customer service standards that exceed the adopted standards.”

People with disabilities need more help, groups say

The FCC also received a filing from several advocacy groups focused on accessibility for people with disabilities. The groups asked for rules “establishing baseline standards to ensure high-quality DVC [direct video calling for American Sign Language users] across providers, requiring accommodations for consumers returning rental equipment, and ensuring accessible cancellation processes.” The groups said that “providers should be required to maintain dedicated, well-trained accessibility teams that are easily reachable via accessible communication channels, including ASL support.”

“We strongly caution against relying solely on emerging AI technologies without mandating live customer service support,” the groups said.

The FCC’s Notice of Inquiry on customer service was approved 3–2 in a party-line vote on October 10. FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said that hundreds of thousands of customers file complaints each year “because they have run into issues cancelling their service, are saddled with unexpected charges, are upset by unexplained outages, and are frustrated with billing issues they have not been able to resolve on their own. Many describe being stuck in ‘doom loops’ that make it difficult to get a real person on the line to help with service that needs repair or to address charges they believe are a mistake.”

If the FCC leadership wasn’t changing hands, the Notice of Inquiry could be the first step toward a rulemaking. “We cannot ignore these complaints, especially not when we know that it is possible to do better… We want to help improve the customer experience, understand what tools we have to do so, and what gaps there may be in the law that prevent consumers from having the ability to resolve routine problems quickly, simply, and easily,” Rosenworcel said.

ISPs have a friend in Trump admin

But the proceeding won’t go any further under incoming Chairman Brendan Carr, a Republican chosen by President-elect Donald Trump. Carr dissented from the Notice of Inquiry, saying that the potential actions explored by the FCC exceed its authority and that the topic should be handled instead by the Federal Trade Commission.

Carr said the FCC should work instead on “freeing up spectrum and eliminating regulatory barriers to deployment” and that the Notice of Inquiry is part of “the Biden-Harris Administration’s efforts to deflect attention away from the necessary course correction.”

Carr has made it clear that he is interested in regulating broadcast media and social networks more than the telecom companies the FCC traditionally focuses on. Carr wrote a chapter for the conservative Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 in which he criticized the FCC for “impos[ing] heavy-handed regulation rather than relying on competition and market forces to produce optimal outcomes.”

With Carr at the helm, ISPs are likely to get what they’re asking for: No new regulations and elimination of at least some current rules. “Rather than saddling communications providers with unnecessary, unlawful, and potentially harmful regulation, the Commission should encourage the pro-consumer benefits of competition by reducing the regulatory burdens and disparities that are currently unfairly skewing the marketplace,” the NCTA told the FCC, arguing that cable companies face more onerous regulations than other communications providers.

Jon is a Senior IT Reporter for Ars Technica. He covers the telecom industry, Federal Communications Commission rulemakings, broadband consumer affairs, court cases, and government regulation of the tech industry.

ISPs say their “excellent customer service” is why users don’t switch providers Read More »

Workers demand more transparency after Intel secures $8B CHIPS funding

AI chips, Chips Act, chips fabs, chips plants, Donald Trump, intel, Policy, semiconductor / Mike M. / November 26, 2024

Intel awarded nearly $8B to “supercharge” US semiconductor innovation.

An aerial view from February 2024 shows construction progress at Intel’s Ohio One campus of nearly 1,000 acres in Licking County, Ohio. Credit: Intel Corporation

On Tuesday, the Biden-Harris administration finalized a CHIPS award of up to $7.865 billion to help fund the expansion of Intel’s commercial fabs in the US. By the end of the decade, these fabs are intended to decrease reliance on foreign adversaries and fill substantial gaps in America’s domestic semiconductor supply chain.

Initially, Intel was awarded $8.5 billion, but it was decreased after Intel won a $3 billion subsidy from the Pentagon to expand Department of Defense semiconductor manufacturing. In a press release, Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo boasted that the substantial award would set up “Intel to drive one of the most significant semiconductor manufacturing expansions in US history” and “supercharge American innovation” while making the US “more secure.”

For Intel, the CHIPS funding supports an expected investment of nearly $90 billion by 2030 to expand projects in Arizona, New Mexico, Ohio, and Oregon. Approximately 10,000 manufacturing jobs and 20,000 construction jobs will be created “across all four states,” the Commerce Department’s press release said. Additionally, Intel estimated that the funding will create “more than 50,000 indirect jobs with suppliers and supporting industries.”

According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which oversees CHIPS funding for manufacturing and research and development initiatives, the “funding will spur investment in leading-edge logic chip manufacturing, packaging, and R&D facilities.”

The sprawling effort includes the construction of two new fabs in Chandler, Arizona, the modernization of two fabs in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, building a new leading-edge logic fab in New Albany, Ohio, and creating a “premier hub of leading-edge research and development” in Hillsboro, Oregon. By the end, Intel expects to operate America’s largest advanced packaging facility in New Mexico and “one of only three locations in the world where leading-edge process technology is developed” in Oregon, NIST said.

Who’s enforcing worker safety commitments?

To succeed, Intel will need to build a talented workforce, so $65 million has been set aside to fund those efforts. The majority, $56 million, will “help train students and faculty at all education levels,” Intel said. Another $5 million will “help increase childcare availability near Intel’s facilities,” and the final $4 million will support efforts to recruit women and “economically disadvantaged individuals” as construction workers, Intel said.

Recruitment could be challenging if worker safety concerns are continually raised, though. Chips Communities United (CCU), a coalition of “labor, environmental, social justice, civil rights, and community organizations representing millions of workers and community members nationwide,” has been monitoring worker concerns at facilities receiving CHIPS funding. While the coalition fully supports Intel’s US expansion, they recently requested a full environmental impact statement at one of Intel’s Arizona fabs, detailing potential environmental and worker hazards, as well as mitigation plans.

As of August, CCU said that Ocotillo workers and communities had been given “insufficient detail on the use, storage, and release of hazardous substances, as well as other environmental impacts, to conclude that there are no significant environmental impacts.”

Workers have a bunch of questions. But perhaps most urgently, they need more information on how environmental safety commitments will be enforced, CCU suggested, because no one wants to work in constant fear of chemical exposure. Especially when Intel’s facilities in Oregon were revealed last year to have “accidentally turned off its air pollution control equipment for two months and underreported its CO₂ emissions.”

NIST noted that Intel is required to protect workers to receive CHIPS funding and has promised to meet regularly with workers and managers at each project facility to discuss worker safety concerns.

Intel could not immediately be reached for comment on whether it’s currently in discussions with workers impacted by CCU’s recent claims.

Weighing in on the Intel Community Impact Report that NIST released today, CCU applauded Intel’s commitments to bring workers to the table, adopt the “most protective health and safety standards for chemical exposure,” “segregate PFAS-containing waste for treatment and disposal,” and “make environmental compliance public when it comes to energy and water use,” CCU coalition director Judith Barish told Ars. But the enforceability of the promised workplace safety conditions remains a concern at Intel’s facilities.

“Protective workplace health and safety regulation” has “historically been missing in semiconductor production,” Barish told Ars. And it’s a big problem Intel’s current plan is to regulate the management of toxic chemicals following guidelines developed by industry—not government.

“Unlike government regulations, this standard is not easily available for public inspection since it is proprietary, copyrighted, and can only be inspected by purchasing it,” Barish told Ars. “Allowing a regulated entity to write the regulations that will be applied to it violates basic principles of good government.”

While segregating PFAS-containing waste sounds good, Barish said that workers need more transparency to understand how it “will be separated, stored, and treated and what the environmental impacts will be for nearby communities.”

It’s also unclear to workers what might happen if Intel fails to follow through on its commitments. The Commerce Department has emphasized that Intel’s funding will be disbursed “based on Intel’s completion of project milestones,” but workers “aren’t clear on the penalties or clawbacks the Commerce Dept. would impose if Intel failed to meet workforce, health and safety, or environmental milestones and metrics,” Barish said.

Intel only approved unionized workers at one site

For top talent to be attracted to Intel’s facilities, establishing the most protective safety protocols will be critical. But just as critical for workers—especially “economically disadvantaged” workers Intel is targeting for construction jobs—will be worker benefits.

Barish noted that Intel has only committed to employing unionized construction workers at one of four sites. The company may struggle to recruit workers, Barish suggested, without being clear about their rights to “join a union free from intimidation, captive audience meetings, exposure to anti-union consultants, threats of retaliation, and other obstacles to achieve bargaining.”

CCU plans to continue monitoring concerns at Intel’s fabs and others receiving CHIPS funding as the presidential administration potentially introduces CHIPS Act changes next year.

On the campaign trail, President-elect Donald Trump attacked the CHIPS Act, saying he was “not thrilled” with the price tag, CNBC reported. However, analysts told CNBC that any changes under Trump would likely be smaller rather than something drastic like repealing the law.

The Commerce Department continues to tout the CHIPS Act as a firmly bipartisan initiative. Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger, whose company’s large investment depends on bipartisan support for the CHIPS Act continuing for years to come, echoed that sentiment after the award was finalized.

“With Intel 3 already in high-volume production and Intel 18A set to follow next year, leading-edge semiconductors are once again being made on American soil,” Gelsinger said. “Strong bipartisan support for restoring American technology and manufacturing leadership is driving historic investments that are critical to the country’s long-term economic growth and national security. Intel is deeply committed to advancing these shared priorities as we further expand our US operations over the next several years.”

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

Workers demand more transparency after Intel secures $8B CHIPS funding Read More »

Trump targets Mexico and Canada with tariffs, plus an extra 10% for China

Canada, china, Donald Trump, mexico, Policy, syndication, tariffs / 9u50fv / November 26, 2024

Trump had in particular targeted Mexico on the campaign trail, threatening to impose “whatever tariffs are required—100 percent, 200 percent, 1,000 percent” to stop Chinese cars from crossing the southern border.

He has also warned Mexico’s president, Claudia Sheinbaum, he would impose tariffs of 25 percent if she did not crack down on the “onslaught of criminals and drugs” crossing the border.

The levies could be imposed using executive powers that would override the USMCA, the free trade agreement Trump signed with Canada and Mexico during his first term as president.

“There’s a lot of integration of North American manufacturing in a lot of sectors, particularly autos, so this would be pretty disruptive for a lot of US companies and industries,” said Warren Maruyama, former general counsel at the Office of the US Trade Representative. “Tariffs are inflationary and will drive up prices,” he added.

Ricardo Monreal, leader of Mexico’s ruling party in the lower house of congress, said tariffs would “not solve the underlying issue” at the border. “Escalating trade retaliation would only hurt people’s pockets,” he wrote on X.

Diego Marroquín Bitar at the Wilson Center think tank warned that unilateral tariffs “would shatter confidence in USMCA and harm all three economies.”

In a joint statement, Canada’s deputy prime minister, Chrystia Freeland, and public safety minister Dominic LeBlanc hailed the bilateral relationship with the US as “one of the strongest and closest… particularly when it comes to trade and border security.”

They also noted that Canada “buys more from the United States than China, Japan, France, and the UK combined,” and last year supplied “60 percent of US crude oil imports.”

“Even if this is a negotiating strategy, I don’t see what Canada has to offer that Trump is not already getting,” said Carlo Dade at the Canada West Foundation.

While Trump put tariffs at the center of his economic pitch to voters, President Joe Biden has also increased levies on Chinese imports. In May, Biden’s administration sharply increased tariffs on a range of imported clean-energy technologies, including boosting tariffs on electric vehicles from China to 100 percent.

Biden’s administration has also pushed Beijing for several years to crack down on the production of ingredients for fentanyl, which it estimated claimed the lives of almost 75,000 Americans in 2023. Beijing this year agreed to impose controls on chemicals crucial to manufacturing fentanyl following meetings with senior US officials.

Additional reporting by William Sandlund and Haohsiang Ko in Hong Kong, Christine Murray in Mexico City, Ilya Gridneff in Toronto, Joe Leahy in Beijing, and Alex Rogers in Washington.

Trump targets Mexico and Canada with tariffs, plus an extra 10% for China Read More »

Supreme Court wants US input on whether ISPs should be liable for users’ piracy

The Supreme Court signaled it may take up a case that could determine whether Internet service providers must terminate users who are accused of copyright infringement. In an order issued today, the court invited the Department of Justice’s solicitor general to file a brief “expressing the views of the United States.”

In Sony Music Entertainment v. Cox Communications, the major record labels argue that cable provider Cox should be held liable for failing to terminate users who were repeatedly flagged for infringement based on their IP addresses being connected to torrent downloads. There was a mixed ruling at the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit as the appeals court affirmed a jury’s finding that Cox was guilty of willful contributory infringement but reversed a verdict on vicarious infringement “because Cox did not profit from its subscribers’ acts of infringement.”

That ruling vacated a $1 billion damages award and ordered a new damages trial. Cox and Sony are both seeking a Supreme Court review. Cox wants to overturn the finding of willful contributory infringement, while Sony wants to reinstate the $1 billion verdict.

The Supreme Court asking for US input on Sony v. Cox could be a precursor to the high court taking up the case. For example, the court last year asked the solicitor general to weigh in on Texas and Florida laws that restricted how social media companies can moderate their platforms. The court subsequently took up the case and vacated lower-court rulings, making it clear that content moderation is protected by the First Amendment.

Supreme Court wants US input on whether ISPs should be liable for users’ piracy Read More »