2020年10月23日 星期五

On Tech: Why Washington hates Big Tech

American politicians are divided on almost everything. They agree on this: Big Tech must change.

Why Washington hates Big Tech

Daniel Zender

American politicians from opposite parties don’t agree on much — except that technology superpowers are too powerful.

Liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans applauded the Justice Department’s lawsuit this week accusing Google of illegally protecting its monopoly over search and search advertising. And members of a House committee on both sides mostly agreed that Google, Facebook, Amazon and Apple had grown too muscular and were abusing their power.

To find out how America’s tech giants became bipartisan punching bags, I spoke with my colleague Cecilia Kang, who has written about technology companies and Washington policy for nearly 15 years.

Shira: For years, Washington politicians tended to agree that technology companies were great American successes. How did that change?

Cecilia: The moment that many people point to was the 2016 U.S. election, when Russians used Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Instagram to spread disinformation and disrupt the election. But I would say the political backlash to Big Tech started earlier.

Even in the Obama administration, there was the beginning of unease about tech companies’ influence over commerce, the exchange of ideas, entertainment, advertising and other areas of our lives. And it was easy to see Big Tech as symbols of something amiss when Americans’ wages stagnated, but tech companies got richer.

Could the tech companies have done anything different to avoid political anger?

In some ways it was inevitable. Apple, Google, Amazon and Facebook together have a stock market value of more than $5 trillion. Amazon is one of the biggest employers in the United States. You can’t hide at that size. And there is an American tradition of suspicion of big corporations.

ADVERTISEMENT

(Read Cecilia’s latest: The Federal Trade Commission is moving closer to a decision about filing an antitrust lawsuit against Facebook.)

Republicans tend to believe the government should be hands-off with corporations. But now prominent Republican politicians want more government intervention or even breakups of Google and other tech companies. Why?

Enforcing antitrust laws is generally seen as a technical, nonpartisan area of law and policy.

And there’s a belief among some conservatives that because companies like Facebook and Google have so much power, they too tightly control what people say online and are biased against conservative views. It’s fairly novel for Republicans to link free speech to antitrust violations like this.

Is there evidence that Google or Facebook exhibit bias against conservative material online?

From what I understand, credible research tends to show that it isn’t true. It’s hard to believe conservative voices are suppressed online when people like our colleague Kevin Roose show how widely shared conservative content is on Facebook.

ADVERTISEMENT

If President Trump or other conservative figures have their social media posts flagged or fact checked by internet companies, it’s often for nonideological reasons — they are more likely to push the limits of companies’ rules against bullying or sharing false information on important issues like elections.

But most Americans, especially Republicans, believe internet sites censor political viewpoints the companies disagree with.

I get it. Companies like Facebook, Google and Twitter have enormous influence over what we see or don’t online, and there’s little transparency about how they make those decisions. And top executives of large tech companies are largely seen as liberal.

Google’s former chief executive said the antitrust lawsuit was a political hit job by the Trump administration. Was it?

Something can be both politically motivated and done on the merits.

If Joe Biden becomes president and Democrats take over a majority of the Senate, would the Google lawsuit end? Would Big Tech be more in favor?

ADVERTISEMENT

No. There’s a consensus among Democrats that Big Tech has gotten too powerful and deserves antitrust scrutiny.

If you don’t already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

Government deserves blame, too

I want to spend another moment on how government officials have handled technology companies.

When I saw politicians cheering the antitrust lawsuit against Google, I wondered if they should be wallowing in shame instead. If government officials had effectively enforced the rules, that might have stopped or slowed some of Google’s behavior before it led to what the government now says is an illegal monopoly.

Corporations are going to do what they do — find ways to give people a product or service they like and make money doing so. It’s up to our elected representatives and watchdogs to make sure companies don’t cross the lines.

That’s also a point that my colleague Kate Conger made about Uber and similar app-based companies. One of the ways Uber and Lyft got big fast was their novelty in taking contractor rules typically used for people like the owner of a trucking business and applying it to millions of people who drive perhaps a few hours a week.

Now, more cities and states are questioning whether this widespread gig work was a misapplication of the law that created crummy jobs and burdened taxpayers with costs like unemployment insurance that the companies should be paying instead. Uber and other app-based companies are now fighting a law in California that would reclassify their workers as employees.

One of Kate’s questions, and mine, is: Where were the government officials before now? “The legality of the gig employment model has been in question since these companies’ founding,” Kate told our colleague Jill Cowan for the California Today newsletter. “But California and other states moved slowly to clarify and enforce the law.”

Like Google’s tactics to make its search engine and other web services more prominent, gig work was a legal, ethical and policy question mark for years. There is no clear cut answer, to be fair, but government officials chose not to do much about Google or Uber until the problem became a huge, expensive mess to try to fix.

Before we go …

  • Russian hackers are at it again: U.S. officials said Russia’s state hackers had targeted computer networks of dozens of state and local governments and aviation networks, my Times colleagues reported. There’s no evidence that the Russians disrupted any essential election information or changed any votes. American officials wanted to call attention to the activity in case the hackers try to create chaos around the November election.
  • He made the phone of choice for criminals and mobs: This is quite a yarn from Vice about a business owner whose customized BlackBerry phones became the go-to choice for criminals, gangs and drug dealers to hide their tracks from law enforcement.
  • This is the most heartwarming thing you’ll read today. Promise: A woman in New Jersey and a man in Quebec bickered and bonded playing the online game Final Fantasy. Last month, they got married. Lauren Rowello writes for The New York Times about how they fell in love.

Hugs to this

Two young raccoons broke into a California bank after hours. They made a mess, but don’t worry. They didn’t steal anything. (And they weren’t harmed.)

We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else you’d like us to explore. You can reach us at ontech@nytimes.com.

If you don’t already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for On Tech with Shira Ovide from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

2020年10月22日 星期四

On Tech: Why the 5G pushiness? Because $$$.

Selling 5G capability is a huge opportunity for phone companies. Be careful.

Why the 5G pushiness? Because $$$.

James Marshall

I find it helpful to look for the profit motives behind what’s happening in our shopping lives.

So why does it feel as if every other commercial you see on TV or online is a phone company blaring “5G! 5G! 5G!” into your ear holes? Because each once-in-a-decade changeover in wireless technology is a shot for companies like Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile to pad our cellphone bills without us going nuts and to steal customers from one another.

That’s not necessarily bad for us, but it does mean that the next time you’re buying a new phone or staring at a marketing message from a phone company, you should watch your wallet. You want to make sure you’re making a purchase that is good for you, and not just good for the phone company’s bottom line.

I wrote last week that America’s phone companies are overselling the current abilities of 5G, the next generation of wireless technology. My colleague Brian X. Chen has detailed how the reality of 5G coverage differs from the hype: Most of what exists now is not much of an advancement.

Yes, 5G will eventually make our phones zippier and usher in new technologies we couldn’t have imagined. Just not now. This means you do not necessarily need it right now.

ADVERTISEMENT

(Readers outside the United States: This advice may not apply to you. Some other countries’ 5G networks are further along or less of a mess. I’ll discuss places where 5G is working well in an upcoming newsletter.)

But right now is a very real opportunity for phone companies. Americans who are buying new, 5G-ready smartphones — like the latest crop of iPhone models — are often directed to the phone companies’ pricier service plans.

Those plans — including those with “unlimited" use of internet data — are great for many households, but they’re expensive and inflexible for others. (It’s more accurate to call them “unlimited” with the air quotes because they don’t exactly provide unlimited use of phone data.)

To be fair, the phone companies are spending a fortune to upgrade the country’s wireless networks to 5G. And it’s understandable that they’re trying to recoup their costs.

ADVERTISEMENT

But that’s not the only thing happening here. What Americans pay for their smartphone service plans hasn’t budged for awhile, and the phone companies are trying to reverse that by giving us a reason to pay more.

The most important factors in a phone company making money on smartphone service are getting customers to stick with the company for a long time, and getting them to pay more each month. The shift to 5G is a shot to do both.

Phone companies’ profit motives can help us get a good deal. But I find it helpful to repeat a line from Brian in a column last year. “Telecommunications is one of the world’s most lucrative industries, and wireless carriers will turn a profit no matter what,” he wrote. “You can’t beat the house.”

If you don’t already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

ADVERTISEMENT

YOUR LEAD

Read this before buying a new smartphone

In last week’s newsletter about why 5G is still the pits in the United States, a number of readers asked: If they’re buying a new smartphone in any case, should they go for one that is capable of operating on 5G cellphone networks? (Phones must have specialized parts to connect to 5G phone networks, so older phones aren’t capable of getting 5G.)

Short answer: Even if you’re getting a new smartphone now, it probably makes sense to go for a slightly older model that doesn’t support 5G. Save your money. Buy more cookies instead.

One of the questions came from Elizabeth Schultz in Manchester, N.J. She has a seven-year-old iPhone, and is debating buying a new $400 iPhone SE or one of the just released iPhone 12 models at $700 and up.

The iPhone SE isn’t capable of connecting to 5G cellphone networks, and Elizabeth is worried that AT&T, her current phone company, might make 4G networks obsolete in a few years if she goes for that one.

Rob Pegoraro, who writes about cellphone service for The New York Times’s product review site, Wirecutter, tackled this question:

  • Between the iPhone 12 mini and the iPhone SE, I would go with the SE. AT&T barely has the ultrafast type of 5G known as “millimeter wave,” and you’ll get a modest or no speed benefit with AT&T’s current 5G in your area based on its coverage map. And I can’t think of any scenario in which AT&T shuts down 4G service over the life of a smartphone purchased today. Current phones with 5G parts also tend to be larger and drain the phone battery more than many people expect.
  • My other suggestion is to consider changing your cellphone plan. Service has generally gotten far cheaper at the major carriers since you last bought a smartphone, but you can’t count on the companies to tell you that you’re paying too much.

Before we go …

  • My colleagues have been busy bees on Google and antitrust! In an interview with our reporter Cecilia Kang, the government’s lead lawyer in the case against Google said that when AT&T was split apart in the 1980s because of an antitrust lawsuit, “consumers wound up much better off.” I’m sure he wasn’t making an analogy to Google at all, nope!Steve Lohr spoke to legal brainiacs who proposed the creation of a specialist government regulator to police major U.S. tech companies, similar to how the Federal Aviation Administration is a watchdog for airlines.An unlikely and well-funded collection of professional tech skeptics who have urged more aggressive uses of U.S. antitrust laws helped set the stage for the Google lawsuit, Adam Satariano and David McCabe write.Greg Bensinger, a member of The New York Times’s editorial board, wrote that the government’s case against Google “is both too narrow and too long coming to dethrone the company.” And the last word here goes to Google’s former chief executive, who told The Wall Street Journal that it’s bad policy to use antitrust laws to regulate companies like Google.
  • The deeper meaning behind a vote on contract work: A California ballot measure over whether Uber and other app companies should reclassify workers as employees is “just the beginning” of a national debate over regulating gig work, my colleague Kate Conger said in our California Today newsletter.
  • How to take better photos of your pets: Try a sheet as a backdrop, be patient and consider a shutter timer. Here are more tips from my colleague J.D. Biersdorfer.

Hugs to this

“Dogo Argentino” is not the corny name of a fictional pet detective but a real and adorable dog breed that will start competing in the Westminster Dog Show.

We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else you’d like us to explore. You can reach us at ontech@nytimes.com.

If you don’t already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for On Tech with Shira Ovide from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018