Coyote Blog

The new EU regulations on device charging standards are a really bad idea.  Via engadget:

The European Parliament has voted to make USB-C the common charging standard in the EU. All mobile devices with up to 100W power delivery (including phones, tablets and earbuds) sold in the region will have to come with a USB-C charging port by the end of 2024. Laptops will need to make the switch by spring 2026. Products that come to market before these deadlines won't be affected.

Most people I talk to seem to love this.   It is a relief for folks to know that all their devices will charge from the same cord, though it is already that way in my life because I have explicitly bought all my devices to use USB-C.  Yes, I have already standardized on USB-C myself so I have no problem at this moment in time with that charging technology.  The problem is the qualifier -- this moment in time.  Any government regulation that freezes technology in place is a really bad idea.  Sure, the EU says they are open to new technologies, but this makes adopting a new technology a matter of getting permission from one of the slowest and least efficient regulatory bodies on the planet.  When mobile phone technology cycles are 6-18 months long, who is going to bother with spending 3-5 years to get EU permission on a new approach.

When I go on rants like this with people I know, they tell me to calm down -- what, after all, would need to be changed with USB-C?  My answer is: "possibly everything".

Thank God we did not try to do this 15 years ago when mobile phone and charging technology was in flux.  Oh wait, we did!  Because we came inches away from similar charging standard regulation for phones about 2009.  Here is the article in Mother Jones lauding the United Nations-designed (!!) cell phone charger:

Good news: The [United Nationals Telecommunications] Union just approved a universal charger. If enough manufacturers adopt it, the industry could make half as many chargers—thus reducing greenhouse gases from manufacturing and transporting replacement chargers by as much as 15 to 24 million tons a year.

Bonus: The universal charger will likely use half as much energy on standby as conventional chargers, solving the “wall wart” problem.

The EU was trying to do the same thing in 2009, though fortunately it was voluntary.

The articles are helpfully illustrated with pictures of the handsets they were designing for:

Yes, had international regulators had their way 16 years ago, we would be stuck with something designed for these phones where one texted hello as 4433555555666.  It does not take hindsight to understand why this was a bad idea.  I wrote at the time:

There are at least two problems with this.  The first is that consumers are all different.   A lot of cell phones (and other devices like my kindle) are standardizing on a mini-USB connection.  Should I use the UN's solution, which is likely inferior?  Why?  Most of the time I don't even travel with a charger, I plug the mini-USB into my computer to charge.  That way I only have 1 charger on the road, for my computer.  You want me to carry 2, in the name of having fewer chargers?   You might say, "well, I hadn't thought of this situation," and I would say, "that's the point - you can't, there are 6 billion of us individuals out there."

The second problem is innovation.  Who says that innovation won't demand a different type of connection in 2 years?  Do you really want your technology gated to some working group at the UN?  Go back in time and imagine the government locking in a standard on something.  We still would have 801.11a wireless only, or cars would still all have crank starts (but they would all turn the same direction!) or cars would all have the same size wheels.  If the UN had invented something 3 years ago, it would have been power only and not data.  Today, most cell phones have power connections and connectors that double as data ports.

So many things would have been wrong with these.  They were power only and not data and power as we use today.  The cable was hard-wired to the wall-wart which would be incredibly annoying today.  It would have been either an old barrel connector, or if it was a form of USB it would likely have been one of the old hated non-symmetrical kind.  I don't think there was any data capability but if there were it would have been horribly slow.

Every single EU regulator would look at that old standard and say, yes it was misguided and would have been a mistake.  But THIS time it is smart?

I have not really written on Brexit here, for a couple of reasons.  First, I am not at all informed about the issues, so it is hard to pontificate intelligently.  Second, I am torn because, were I British, I likely would have supported Brexit but for completely different reasons than many others.

My understanding is that many folks (in a parallel with Trump voters in the US) voted for Brexit out of fear of global free trade and immigration, both of which I support.  I, on the other hand, would have voted for Brexit to shed the absurd, overreaching EU regulatory state.  So I likely would have supported it, but don't want to be counted among modern anti-global nationalists.

But if you want to see the type of BS that would have driven me into the arms of the Brexit camp, this is it.

he European Parliament’s approval of the Copyright Directive today is the end of the internet as we know it. This new regulation creates substantial new controls on what we can share online which threaten freedom of expression, undermine creativity, and cement the dominance of technology giants.

The Copyright Directive will create two internets. The first, a heavily censored version for European users, including filters to prevent you from uploading content. The second, a free internet where creativity is encouraged, for everyone else.

The directive represents everything that’s wrong with the EU’s policymaking process. It was written at a substantial distance from Europeans, heavily influenced by lobbyists and national compromises. There is a serious lack of accountability.

By the way, I would have had completely the opposite instincts than President Obama during Brexit.  The day Brexit passed, as President I would have immediately announced to Britain that if they were leaving the EU's common market, they were welcome to join one with the US and would have sent a trade envoy over that day.  Instead, President Obama did nothing but threaten and scold Britain for trying to get out from under the EU's regulatory umbrella.

Via Tim Worstall, Gawain Towler reports this bill in front of the European Supreme Soviet Parliament:

Written declaration on fixing fuel prices
The European Parliament,"“ having regard to Rule 116 of its Rules of Procedure,
A.
Whereas we are witnessing an unprecedented rise in fuel prices, and
this scandalous surge is having a devastating effect on economic
activity in various sectors: transport and other services, industry,
agriculture and fisheries,
B. Whereas in Portugal, the major oil
companies in the first quarter of this year, vis-à-vis the first
quarter of 2007, made net profits of 22.9% (GALP), and consolidated
profits of 36.5% (REPSOL) and 63.4% (BP), which were fundamentally the
result of practising speculative pricing, as a result of the
speculative valuation of oil stocks
bought at lower prices,

1.
Calls for the establishment of a tax, for each Member State, to be
levied exclusively on these profits so as to bring them back into the
coffers of the Member State. This tax should be paid within 60 days
after the end of each quarter, with the value and scope of the levy
depending on the readiness of the oil companies to reduce their
speculative gains thanks to the 'stock effect';
2. The revenue
generated by this tax should be returned on a proportional basis to the
various economic sectors in each Member State;
3. Instructs its
President to forward this declaration, together with the names of the
signatories, to the Council, Commission, and Parliaments of the Member
States.

"depending on the readiness of oil companies to reduce their speculative gains thanks to the 'stock effect'"??  What the *&#$@% does this mean?  What economic concept are they even trying to get at?

Further, I was amazed at the statement that BP made net profits of 63.4%.  It took me a while to figure out that this was the quarter over quarter profit growth, not the profit margin.  I can't tell if these guys are just ignorant or if this is a translation issue into English, so i will give them the benefit of the doubt.  In case you are wondering, BP's net profit margin in the first quarter of 2008 was 8.3% of revenues, which in the grand scheme of industry is actually below average.

One reason fuel prices are so high in Europe is because the government takes more than half of fuel revenues in taxes:

Fuel taxes are also the central issue for truckers in Europe, because
they account for a large portion of the retail price of fuel. Unleadedgasoline
sold for $8.65 per gallon and diesel for $9.62 per gallon Tuesday in
Britain, which charges a flat $3.77 per gallon in fuel duty and imposes
a 17.5 percent consumptiontax on the total price

So, 61% (44% from the $3.77 plus the 17.5%) goes to government and 8.3% goes to the BP shareholders.  So lets tax BP shareholders more to lower the price!