The conference where she delivered the speech was at the re:publica in Berlin (http://re-publica.de/12/). I've seen her talk in entirety on Friday, and I was deeply impressed with her opinions. Usually, when politicians (particularly older politicians) talk about Internet topics, their opinion is mingled with half-knowledge and the hope to enslave the internet and make it a read-only thing.
However, Kroess' speeach was fantastic and it made me almost happy to see such a level of understanding of the importance of the internet, and the questions, dangers, and opportunities it raises for the future to come, in a politician. Especially someone who has such an important position in the EU.
She's great (or at least the dutch think she is), and did a good job as well when she was commissioner on competition, handing out some big fines to business cartels. see
I think we first were a bit disappointed that she was no longer keeping businesses on the straight and narrow, when she moved from competition to the digital agenda: it seemed like she was rearranged to a position where she would be less dangerous. In retrospect, that impression might have been wrong, and she might have just decided that keeping the digital world from being corrupted (by roaming fees, broadband prices, copyright agreements) was a more important thing to go after now than business cartels :-).
I wasn't so happy about her work as competition commissioner. They went very far in the direction of price fixing. For instance, the EC tells telcos what to charge for roaming even though no one can claim that the telecom sector isn't very competitive. It's cut throat actually.
I understand the the telco's are very competitive, but for some reason, free market competition appeared to fail to have an effect on prices like texting or data roaming. Oddly enough, you roam through various network using the internet, and there free market seems to have worked between fiber providers into keeping the prices low and efficiency high.
The price of something being "high" doesn't mean there is a market failure. It may just be an expression of customer preferences. If high roaming fees are used to subsidise cheap local calls and data plans, that may be a problem for EU officials who travel a lot, but it may be exactly what regular folks want.
The job of the competition commission is to make sure there is real competition, but what they have done is plain old price fixing. In this case, their actions make low income people subsidise the mobile life-style of high income people.
Isn't it actually the reverse?: don't the EU actions actually stop the previous practice of Telco's to subsidize the calling behavior of the majority by adding additional fees to a smaller group that heavily uses roaming?
I'm not sure what the free-market theory on that is (it is an interesting topic though) - making a smaller group of customers pay (and have limited alternatives but to pay) to be more competitive in other parts of your market.
Yes, I think that's exactly what happened before the prices were fixed and it's a completely normal facet of markets. You could make a case that governments should protect minorities. But I see a couple of issues in this case:
The competition commission doesn't have a legal mandate to give preferencial treatment to minorities. They have a very clear mandate and they should stick to it in the interest of seperation of concerns.
The particular minority concerned in this case is a rather wealthy one that benefits from free markets in other respects more than the average person. They don't need extra help from governments.
Helping minorities by fixing individual prices tends to be inflexible because any change in the underlying economics or social culture has to be to be compensated with new regulation which often doesn't happen in a timely fashion.
Preferencial treatment for minorities should, in my view, focus on life and death issues, freedom of expression, legal matters, etc.
The prices charged for roaming where insanely and artificially high.
The EU commission provided multiple opportunities for the telcos to get their act together, which they didn't. Enforcing fair prices within the common market is exactly one of the missions of the EU commissioner in charge.
No wonder that the telcos hate it, but in this regard there was no competition. They all gouged their customers mercilessly until the EU put a stop on this.
I'm not a telco, nor do I work for one. I'm a consumer, so the reason why I hate this is not the same reason why the telcos hate it. Their interest is to make money. My interest as an EU citizen is good governance. Countries where arbitrary prices are fixed for populist reasons tend to be poor.
The competition commission should make sure that the markets aren't rigged and leave it to the market to determine the right price. I'm not saying markets always work well, but the telecoms market does.
I think our dispute comes down to a single question: Are high prices alone proof enough of a dysfunctional market? You seem to say that by definition excessive prices are a market failure that has to be fixed by the government. I disagree. I think the standard of proof has to be higher than that.
If governments effectively start to target profit margins for particular services it will result in massive misallocation of capital. The prices of basic services will go up and innovation will suffer, because one reason for innovating is to earn very high margins for a while until cheaper alternatives become available.
Addendum, here're a couple of her positions that I remember. (Caveat, as it happens with human memory being prone to error, there may be wrong facts):
- She's absolutely for Network neutrality especially on mobile devices
- She's against censoring the internet since it's far too valuable to modern democracies
- She even went so far and flew over to an eastern-european country that wanted to impose internet censoring laws and convinced them to hold back.
- She said that we need to make sure to protect children that surf the internet but without any kind of censorship. Especially she said (and I found that impressive) that children in road traffic aren't safe either, but that does not mean that we should forbid road traffic. Instead parents have to take care and be responsible, and she said the internet has to be handled similarly. I found that impressive because 'protecting the children' is usually the main argument of choice when a politician tries to undermine or censor the internet.
- She stated that she's urging all european countries to increase the amount of internet users they have. She stated that she finds it deeply shocking that, i.e., Italy had only 41% people who ever used the internet (here, the number might be the other way around, I don't remember anymore), and that we need to make sure that more people use it as soon as possible.
I agree she is awesome (I'm biased as being both Dutch and liberal myself) but it is important to note that the reason she can speak so frankly is that she is on her last term. (She has said she is too old to stand for re-election next term)
I agree. This cat and mouse game between lawmakers and the people is quite exhausting. If it isn't SOPA, it's PIPA, CISPA, ACTA... and they'll just keep coming until one of them makes it into law.
I think we should be focusing our power into pushing for legislation that prevents these kinds of bills to be passed, rather than fighting them off time and time again.
It's rather obviously one between the rightsholders and other people, with lawmakers as the playing pieces. It's just that the it's a lot easier for rightsholders to write large checks and buy the representation they want. Like all marketing, election campaigns are very capital-intensive.
Yes and no. It's true that you can't just have Congress pass a law that says "future Congresses can't do xyz," because future Congresses can just repeal it.
But you can do something even better. Pass legislation that takes a step in the other direction. Repeal the DMCA anti-circumvention clause and demand an international treaty that requires other countries to do likewise. Reduce copyright terms. Eliminate statutory (as opposed to actual) damages for noncommercial infringement.
This would do three things. First, all of those things are good policy, and passing them would help us. Second, it would put the copyright extremists on the defensive and makes them spend their political capital to try to prevent a series of sensible bills from being passed. And third, when we succeed in passing them, it shifts the status quo, so that the next outrageous bill they propose looks like an even larger departure from the baseline, making it easier to defeat.
All of this is predicated on having a government that makes wise policy choices as opposed to acting in the self-perceived interests of its sponsors. The USG is not such a government.
"The controversial agreement, which opponents say was conducted behind closed doors, aimed to fight against counterfeiting at international level through greater co-ordination of anti-counterfeiting measures and tougher enforcement."
WSJ is a great place for propaganda and framing it wrong.
