vox--2020-02-18--America’s monopoly problem, explained by your internet bill

In the summer of 2017 , I decided it was time to put my big-girl pants on and try to talk to my internet provider about my bill .
It had been gradually ticking up over the past several months without explanation — let alone better service — and I wanted to know what was up .
When I called the company ’ s customer service line , the woman on the end of the other phone knew something I did not : I didn ’ t really have other service options available in my area .
And so , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reduced .
More than two years later , I ’ m still mad about it .
And yes , that could seem a little petty .
But that monthly annoyance speaks to a broader trend that all Americans should be aware of — and angry about .
Across industry after industry , sector after sector , power and market share have been consolidated into the hands of handful of players .
Lately , you ’ ve probably heard a lot of complaints about the size and scope of big tech companies : Facebook @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But competition is lacking across countless industries , including airlines , telecommunications , light bulbs , funeral caskets , hospitals , mattresses , baby formula , agriculture , candy , chocolate , beer , porn , and even cheerleading , just to name some examples .
When you look , monopolies and oligopolies ( meaning instead of one dominant company , there are a few ) are everywhere .
They ’ re a systemic feature of the economy .
When you look , monopolies and oligopolies are everywhere .
They ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There ’ s little denying that since the 1970s , the way antitrust has been approached in the United States has led to a landscape where a smaller number of big players dominate the economy .
Incumbents — companies that already exist — are growing their market shares and becoming more stable , and they ’ re becoming harder and harder to compete with .
That has affected consumers , communities , competitors , and workers in a variety of ways .
Proponents of the laissez faire , free-market thinking of recent decades @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worked themselves out — if an entity grows big enough to be a mega-corporation , it deserves its status , and just a handful of players in a given space is enough to keep prices down and everyone happy .
A growing group of vocal critics of various political stripes , however , are increasingly warning that we ’ ve gone too far .
Growth and success at the top often doesn ’ t translate to success for everyone , and there ’ s an argument to made that strong antitrust policies and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with government investments that target job-creating technology , could spur redistribution and potentially boost the economy for more people overall .
If two pharmaceutical companies make a patent-protected drug and then raise their prices in tandem , what does that mean for patients ?
When two cell phone companies talk about efficiencies in their merger , what does that mean for their workers , and how long does their subsequent promise not to raise prices for consumers actually last ?
And honestly , wouldn ’ t it be a lot easier to delete @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attractive social media platform out there besides Facebook-owned Instagram ?
We should be asking the government and corporate America how we got here .
Instead , we just keep handing over our money .
Seriously , be mad about your internet bill In 2019 , New York University economist Thomas Philippon did a deep dive into market concentration and monopolies in The Great Reversal : How America Gave Up on Free Markets .
And one of his touch points for the book is the internet .
Looking at the data , he found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other developed economies in broadband penetration and that prices are significantly higher .
In 2017 , the average monthly cost of broadband in America was $ 66.17 ; in France , it was $ 38.10 , in Germany , $ 35.71 , and in South Korea , $ 29.90 .
How did this happen ?
In his view , a lot of it comes down to competition — or , rather , lack thereof .
To a certain extent , telecommunications companies and internet service providers are a sort of natural monopoly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to entry give early entrants a significant advantage .
It costs money to install a cable system , because you have to dig up streets , access buildings , etc.
, and once one company does that , there ’ s not a ton of incentive to do it all over again .
On top of that , telecom companies paid what were often super low fees — maybe enough to create a public access studio — to wire up cities and towns in exchange for , essentially , getting a monopoly .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ could come in by regulating the network or forcing the company that built it to lease out parts of it to rivals .
As Philippon notes , that ’ s what happened in France — an incumbent carrier was compelled to lease out the “ last mile ” of its network — basically , the last bit of cable that gets to your hours or apartment building — and therefore letting competitors have a chance at also appealing to customers .
In 2017 , the average monthly cost of broadband in America was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was $ 38.10 , and in South Korea , $ 29.90 .
In the US , however , just a few big companies , often without overlap , control much of the telecom industry , and the result is high prices and uneven connectivity .
In 2018 , Harvard law professor Susan Crawford examined the case of , what do you know , New York City in an article for Wired .
The city was supposed to be “ a model for big-city high-speed internet , ” she explained , after Mayor Mike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ install its FiOS fiber service in residential buildings in 2008 , ending what was then Time Warner Cable ’ s local monopoly .
In 2015 , a quarter of New York City ’ s residential blocks still didn ’ t have FiOS , and one in five New Yorkers still don ’ t have internet access at home .
“ New York City could be in a very different position today if those Bloomberg officials had called for a city-overseen fiber network .
The creation of a neutral , unlit ‘ last mile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the city , like a street grid , would have allowed the city to ensure fiber access to everyone , ” Crawford wrote .
Instead , multiple states ( though not New York ) have put up roadblocks to municipal broadband to keep cities from providing alternatives to and competing with local entities .
It ’ s an example of lobbying at its finest , so that powerful corporations can keep competitors out and charge whatever they want .
And it ’ s hardly just the internet .
Philippon found similar phenomena in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and multiple other arenas , due to a lack of competition .
In an interview with the New York Times , he estimated that corporate consolidation is costing American households an extra $ 5,000 a year .
“ Broadly speaking , over the last 20 years in the US , we see profits of incumbents becoming more persistent , because they are less challenged , their market share has become both larger and more stable , and at the same time , we see a lot of lobbying by incumbents , in particular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protect their rents , ” Philippon told me .
Incumbents have gotten good at keeping competitors out — and they ’ ve been allowed to do it The government is supposed to use antitrust law to ensure competition and stop companies from becoming so big they push everyone else out .
Basically , antitrust is supposed to prevent anti-competitive monopolies .
In the US in recent decades , regulators , enforcers , and the courts have taken a more lax attitude toward antitrust , which has resulted in more mergers , or companies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s hard for rivals to stay in the game .
“ We basically had a whole legal framework prior to the 1970s that was dedicated to making sure that our businesses were protected from concentrated capital , and so producers were allowed to collaborate in a lot of different ways through unions or coops or various associations , and they got help in the form of lending , supports , patents , copyrights , etc.
, ” said Matt Stoller , a fellow at left-leaning think tank the Open Markets Institute and author @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Monopoly Power and Democracy .
“ Those were all things that were dedicated to protecting the producer from the capitalist , and we just reversed those assumptions.
” Basically , the prevailing viewpoint has been that the market , by and large , can take care of itself , and the government doesn ’ t need to take such a hands-on approach .
And that ’ s led to gradual concentration over time .
For example , traditional economic thinking is that if profits in a certain industry become very high , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the market , and those excess profits get competed away .
But that ’ s become less and less true over time in the United States .
“ It ’ s true sometimes , you could even argue that it ’ s true often , but it ’ s not always true — and if you ’ re not careful , you can end up in a situation where it ’ s not true anymore , and that ’ s exactly where we are today , ” Philippon said .
Incumbents have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for competitors to enter , and they use a variety of tactics to keep them out — predatory pricing , patents , contracts , etc .
In 2016 , Lina Khan , now counsel on the House subcommittee on antitrust , penned an influential paper on the antitrust issues surrounding Amazon .
In it , she used the example of Amazon and Quidsi , an e-commerce company that ran Diapers.com .
Amazon tried to buy Quidsi in 2009 , and after its founders declined , Amazon cut its prices for diapers and other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Amazon Mom .
Quidsi couldn ’ t keep up — Amazon has the resources to drop prices and take a hit in order to compete , Quidsi does not .
And so it wound up selling to Amazon in 2010 .
Regulators looked at what happened but didn ’ t pursue a case against Amazon , and Amazon later scrapped the discounts and went back to what it was charging before .
By dropping its prices , it basically pushed Quidsi out .
Varsity Brands , which is owned by private equity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the cheerleading industry .
Stoller recently laid out the tactics it ’ s engaged in to achieve its position and maintain it .
The company has managed to vertically integrate multiple levels of the cheerleading industry , ranging from competitions to apparel , and has gobbled up competitors big and small .
Its rivals aren ’ t allowed to showcase their apparel at Varsity events , and it offers contracts to gyms that give them a cash rebate if they send cheerleaders to its competitions and gets them to buy its equipment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its uniforms to the Supreme Court .
In the 2020 Netflix series Cheer , Varsity ’ s monopoly is featured , and the consequences of it evident : to see cheerleading competitions , people have to pay for a specific Varsity app .
They ’ re no longer shown on ESPN .
“ Varsity uses the great aspects of cheerleading to generate incredible revenue that only benefits them , ” said Kimberly Archie , founder of the National Cheer Safety Foundation .
Amazon declined to comment for this story , and Varsity Brands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comment for this story .
This isn ’ t all to say that anticompetitive behavior is always allowed , and mergers aren ’ t sometimes blocked .
In February , the FTC sued to block personal care company Edgewell from acquiring razor startup Harry ’ s .
The DOJ has also probed Live Nation on its practices after its 2010 merger with Ticketmaster and alleged that the combined company pushed venues into using Ticketmaster over other ticketing companies .
This is about prices , but there ’ s also more to it A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comes down to its potential to drive up prices .
The fewer options there are , the fewer places consumers have to shop , and the less pressure there is to keep prices low .
Antitrust enforcers and regulators , when examining a potential merger or acquisition , or considering if a company is engaging in anticompetitive behavior , are supposed to apply a consumer welfare standard .
Basically , it ’ s fine for a company to be really big , as long as a consumer isn ’ t harmed .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Robert Bork in 1978 , and it ’ s guided a lot of US antitrust policy ever since .
Court rulings over time have been more permissive in antitrust cases , rendering practices that were once illegal legal .
And the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission , the two federal regulators most involved in antitrust matters , have also become more lax .
Basically , it ’ s fine for a company to be really big , as long as a consumer isn ’ t harmed .
Most directly under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has translated directly to whether they ’ re paying higher prices .
But a lot of the time , prices go up anyway .
Sometimes , as Philippon ’ s book shows , the price hikes aren ’ t immediate but instead are gradual .
Having fewer players in a space , there ’ s no one to compete them back down .
Or competitors will rise prices in tandem — for example , in the pharmaceutical industry , the prices of competing drugs will sometimes go up at the same time .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ often argue that “ efficiencies ” — combined supply chains , shared resources , or worker redundancies that can translate to layoffs — will make things better for consumers and bring costs down , but if there ’ s no one to compete with them , the opposite can occur .
A New York Times report in 2018 found hospital mergers raised prices for hospital admission in the majority of cases .
But beyond consumer pricing , antitrust advocates note that there are other factors to consider .
Corporate concentration means companies have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ therefore could push wages down .
Monopolies and oligopolies can also harm suppliers — if Amazon gets big and powerful enough , it could control what shippers such as FedEx and UPS can charge it .
Consumers also lose the ability to vote with their wallets and eyeballs — basically , to say , I don ’ t like what a company is producing , what it ’ s charging , or how it ’ s behaving and go somewhere else .
Just look at Facebook .
“ As soon as they achieved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and they were right .
Every time they were caught cheating , nothing happened because there was nowhere else to go , ” Philippon said .
Amazon does drive prices down , and Facebook ’ s services are free for consumers , but that doesn ’ t mean that their dominance is good .
More and more research is connecting concentration to higher prices for consumers , lower wages for workers , and other developments you wouldn ’ t expect to see in a competitive economy .
Just as the shift toward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ competition could take a long time , too There ’ s no one remedy for getting more competition back into the US economy , and even sector by sector , it ’ s really complicated .
It ’ s one thing to call for Instagram to be broken away from Facebook , but no one agrees how to fix virtually anything in the American health care system .
It ’ s a good thing that antitrust is getting more airtime , with politicians , the press , and the public paying more attention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tech giants have been a main area of focus as of late , with regulators and lawmakers at the state and federal levels launching probes and holding hearings .
Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have railed against powerful corporations on the campaign trail , and on the right , Republican Sen. Josh Hawley has taken on a crusade against big tech .
But it ’ s going to take a lot more than public pressure for things to change .
For one thing , it ’ s often hard to recognize how monopolized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brands can be housed under a single umbrella , and a lot of people don ’ t even realize it .
But as I noted in 2018 , it ’ s really everywhere : Experts and advocates have laid out a range of ideas for restoring healthy competition in the economy and reviving regulators .
Some of it would entail new laws and frameworks , which , given the current state of affairs in Washington , seems unlikely — Congress can barely agree to fund the government , let alone enact a major @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy .
But it has happened in the past , and as recently as the 20th Century .
“ What happened in the New Deal was a systemic attack on every aspect of the old order , and the old order was somewhat similar to what we have now , ” Stoller noted .
But even without sweeping legislation , there ’ s a lot regulators , enforcers , and the courts can do now under existing law .
The FTC and DOJ can be more active in their scrutiny of mergers and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strike down deals .
After the FTC approved pharmaceutical company Bristol-Myer ’ s Squibb ’ s acquisition of fellow drugmaker Celgene in November of last year , Democratic commissioner Rohit Chopra in his dissent warned of the dangers of regulators ignoring obvious risks and instead clinging to the status quo .
“ When watchdogs wear blindfolds or fail to evolve with the marketplace , millions of American families can suffer the consequences , ” he wrote .
So back to my internet bill , where this all began : in the summer of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called my internet provider to cancel my service .
The person on the other end of the line asked where I was moving ; I told them it was the same burough , different area .
Wouldn ’ t you know that discount I ’ d had originally , the one that went away as my bill gradually went up , it was now somehow again available .
Turns out in my new building , there was more than one option .
Sign up for The Goods newsletter .
Twice a week , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Goods stories exploring what we buy , why we buy it , and why it matters .

In the summer of 2017, I decided it was time to put on my big-girl pants and try to talk to my internet provider about my bill. It had been gradually ticking up over the past several months without explanation — let alone better service — and I wanted to know what was up. When I called the company’s customer service line, the woman on the phone knew something I did not: I didn’t really have other service options available in my area. So, no, my bill would not be reduced.
More than two years later, I’m still mad about it. And yes, that could seem a little petty. But that monthly annoyance speaks to a broader trend that all Americans should be aware of — and angry about. Across industry after industry, sector after sector, power and market share have been consolidated into the hands of a handful of players.
Lately, you’ve probably heard a lot of complaints about the size and scope of big tech companies: Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Apple. But competition is lacking across countless industries, including airlines, telecommunications, lightbulbs, funeral caskets, hospitals, mattresses, baby formula, agriculture, candy, chocolate, beer, porn, and even cheerleading, just to name some examples. When you look, monopolies and oligopolies (meaning instead of one dominant company, there are a few) are everywhere. They’re a systemic feature of the economy.
When you look, monopolies and oligopolies are everywhere. They’re a systemic feature of the economy.
There’s little denying that since the 1970s, the way antitrust has been approached in the United States has led to a landscape where a smaller number of big players dominate the economy. Incumbents — companies that already exist — are growing their market shares and becoming more stable, and they’re getting harder and harder to compete with. That has affected consumers, communities, competitors, and workers in a variety of ways.
Proponents of the laissez-faire, free market thinking of recent decades will say that the markets have basically worked themselves out — if an entity grows big enough to be a mega-corporation, it deserves its status, and just a handful of players in a given space is enough to keep prices down and everyone happy. A growing group of vocal critics of various political stripes, however, are increasingly warning that we’ve gone too far. Growth and success at the top often doesn’t translate to success for everyone, and there’s an argument to be made that strong antitrust policies and other measures that curb concentration, combined with government investments that target job-creating technology, could spur redistribution and potentially boost the economy for more people overall.
If two pharmaceutical companies make a patent-protected drug and then raise their prices in tandem, what does that mean for patients? When two cellphone companies talk about efficiencies in their merger, what does that mean for their workers, and how long does their subsequent promise not to raise prices for consumers actually last? And honestly, wouldn’t it be a lot easier to delete Facebook if there was another, equally attractive social media platform out there besides Facebook-owned Instagram?
We should be asking the government and corporate America how we got here. Instead, we just keep handing over our money.
Seriously, be mad about your internet bill
In 2019, New York University economist Thomas Philippon did a deep dive into market concentration and monopolies in The Great Reversal: How America Gave Up on Free Markets. And one of his touchpoints for the book is the internet. Looking at the data, he found that the United States has fallen behind other developed economies in broadband penetration and that prices are significantly higher. In 2017, the average monthly cost of broadband in America was $66.17; in France, it was $38.10, in Germany, $35.71, and in South Korea, $29.90. How did this happen? In his view, a lot of it comes down to competition — or, rather, lack thereof.
To a certain extent, telecommunications companies and internet service providers are a sort of natural monopoly, meaning high infrastructure costs and other barriers to entry give early entrants a significant advantage. It costs money to install a cable system because you have to dig up streets, access buildings, etc., and once one company does that, there’s not a ton of incentive to do it all over again. On top of that, telecom companies paid what were often super-low fees — maybe enough to create a public access studio — to wire up cities and towns in exchange for, essentially, getting a monopoly.
But that’s where the government could come in by regulating the network or forcing the company that built it to lease out parts of it to rivals. As Philippon notes, that’s what happened in France: An incumbent carrier was compelled to lease out the “last mile” of its network — basically, the last bit of cable that gets to your house or apartment building — and therefore let competitors have a chance at also appealing to customers.
In 2017, the average monthly cost of broadband in America was $66.17; in France, it was $38.10, and in South Korea, $29.90
In the US, however, just a few big companies, often without overlap, control much of the telecom industry, and the result is high prices and uneven connectivity. In 2018, Harvard law professor Susan Crawford examined the case of, what do you know, New York City in an article for Wired. The city was supposed to be “a model for big-city high-speed internet,” she explained, after then-Mayor Mike Bloomberg struck a deal with Verizon to install its FiOS fiber service in residential buildings in 2008, ending what was then Time Warner Cable’s local monopoly. In 2015, a quarter of New York City’s residential blocks still didn’t have FiOS, and one in five New Yorkers still don’t have internet access at home.
“New York City could be in a very different position today if those Bloomberg officials had called for a city-overseen fiber network. The creation of a neutral, unlit ‘last mile’ network that reaches every building in the city, like a street grid, would have allowed the city to ensure fiber access to everyone,” Crawford wrote.
Instead, multiple states (though not New York) have put up roadblocks to municipal broadband to keep cities from providing alternatives to and competing with local entities. It’s an example of lobbying at its finest, so that powerful corporations can keep competitors out and charge whatever they want.
And it’s hardly just the internet. Philippon found similar phenomena in cellphone plans, airline prices, and multiple other arenas, due to a lack of competition. In an interview with the New York Times, he estimated that corporate consolidation is costing American households an extra $5,000 a year.
“Broadly speaking, over the last 20 years in the US, we see profits of incumbents becoming more persistent, because they are less challenged, their market share has become both larger and more stable, and at the same time, we see a lot of lobbying by incumbents, in particular to get their mergers approved or to protect their rents,” Philippon told me.
Incumbents have gotten good at keeping out competitors — and they’ve been allowed to do it
The government is supposed to use antitrust law to ensure competition and stop companies from becoming so big that they push everyone else out. Basically, antitrust is supposed to prevent anticompetitive monopolies. In the US in recent decades, regulators, enforcers, and the courts have taken a laxer attitude toward antitrust, which has resulted in more mergers, or companies growing to the point that it’s hard for rivals to stay in the game.
“We basically had a whole legal framework prior to the 1970s that was dedicated to making sure that our businesses were protected from concentrated capital, and so producers were allowed to collaborate in a lot of different ways through unions or coops or various associations, and they got help in the form of lending, supports, patents, copyrights, etc.,” said Matt Stoller, research director at the American Economic Liberties Project, an organization aimed at combating corporate power, and author of Goliath: The 100-Year War Between Monopoly Power and Democracy. “Those were all things that were dedicated to protecting the producer from the capitalist, and we just reversed those assumptions.”
Basically, the prevailing view has been that the market, by and large, can take care of itself, and the government doesn’t need to take such a hands-on approach. And that’s led to gradual concentration over time.
For example, traditional economic thinking is that if profits in a certain industry become very high, it becomes attractive for new incumbents to enter the market, and those excess profits get competed away. But that’s become less and less true over time in the United States. “It’s true sometimes, you could even argue that it’s true often, but it’s not always true — and if you’re not careful, you can end up in a situation where it’s not true anymore, and that’s exactly where we are today,” Philippon said.
Incumbents have a lot of mechanisms to make it hard for competitors to enter, and they use a variety of tactics to keep them out — predatory pricing, patents, contracts, etc.
In 2016, Lina Khan, now counsel on the House subcommittee on antitrust, penned an influential paper on the antitrust issues surrounding Amazon. In it, she used the example of Amazon and Quidsi, an e-commerce company that ran Diapers.com. Amazon tried to buy Quidsi in 2009, and after its founders declined, Amazon cut its prices for diapers and other baby products and launched a new service, Amazon Mom. Quidsi couldn’t keep up — Amazon has the resources to drop prices and take a hit in order to compete, Quidsi does not. And so it wound up selling to Amazon in 2010. Regulators looked at what happened but didn’t pursue a case against Amazon, and Amazon later scrapped the discounts and went back to what it was charging before. By dropping its prices, it basically pushed Quidsi out.
Varsity Brands, which is owned by the private equity firm Bain Capital, has a monopoly on the cheerleading industry. Stoller recently laid out the tactics it’s engaged in to achieve its position and maintain it. The company has managed to vertically integrate multiple levels of the cheerleading industry, ranging from competitions to apparel, and has gobbled up competitors big and small. Its rivals aren’t allowed to showcase their apparel at Varsity events, and it offers contracts to gyms that give them a cash rebate if they send cheerleaders to its competitions and get them to buy its equipment. It took a copyright case over its uniforms to the Supreme Court. In the 2020 Netflix series Cheer, Varsity’s monopoly is featured, and the consequences of it are evident: To see cheerleading competitions, people have to pay for a specific Varsity app. They’re no longer shown on ESPN.
“Varsity uses the great aspects of cheerleading to generate incredible revenue that only benefits them,” said Kimberly Archie, founder of the National Cheer Safety Foundation.
Amazon declined to comment for this story, and Varsity Brands did not respond to a request for comment for this story.
This isn’t all to say that anticompetitive behavior is always allowed, and mergers aren’t sometimes blocked. In February, the Federal Trade Commission sued to block the personal care company Edgewell from acquiring razor startup Harry’s. The Justice Department has also probed Live Nation on its practices after its 2010 merger with Ticketmaster and alleged that the combined company pushed venues into using Ticketmaster over other ticketing companies.
This is about prices, but there’s also more to it
A lot of the concern about corporate concentration comes down to its potential to drive up prices. The fewer options there are, the fewer places consumers have to shop, and the less pressure there is to keep prices low.
Antitrust enforcers and regulators, when examining a potential merger or acquisition, or considering if a company is engaging in anticompetitive behavior, are supposed to apply a consumer welfare standard. Basically, it’s fine for a company to be really big, as long as a consumer isn’t harmed. The concept was first introduced by conservative judge Robert Bork in 1978, and it’s guided a lot of US antitrust policy ever since. Court rulings over time have been more permissive in antitrust cases, rendering practices that were once illegal legal. And the DOJ and the FTC, the two federal regulators most involved in antitrust matters, have also become more lax.
Basically, it’s fine for a company to be really big, as long as a consumer isn’t harmed
Most directly, the consumer welfare standard has translated directly to whether they’re paying higher prices. But a lot of the time, prices go up anyway.
Sometimes, as Philippon’s book shows, the price hikes are gradual. With fewer players in a space, there’s no one to compete to drive them back down. Or competitors will raise prices in tandem — for example, in the pharmaceutical industry, the prices of competing drugs will sometimes go up at the same time. When companies merge, they’ll often argue that “efficiencies” — combined supply chains, shared resources, or worker redundancies that can translate to layoffs — will make things better for consumers and bring costs down, but if there’s no one to compete with them, the opposite can occur. A New York Times report in 2018 found hospital mergers raised prices for hospital admission in the majority of cases.
But beyond consumer pricing, antitrust advocates note that there are other factors to consider. Corporate concentration means companies have to compete less for workers, and therefore could push wages down. Monopolies and oligopolies can also harm suppliers — if Amazon gets big and powerful enough, it could control what shippers such as FedEx and UPS can charge it.
Consumers also lose the ability to vote with their wallets and eyeballs — basically, to say, I don’t like what a company is producing, what it’s charging, or how it’s behaving and go somewhere else. Just look at Facebook. “As soon as they achieved monopoly, they said forget the rules, and they were right. Every time they were caught cheating, nothing happened because there was nowhere else to go,” Philippon said.
Amazon does drive prices down, and Facebook’s services are free for consumers, but that doesn’t mean that their dominance is good. More and more research is connecting concentration to higher prices for consumers, lower wages for workers, and other developments you wouldn’t expect to see in a competitive economy.
Just as the shift toward monopolization has been gradual, getting more competition could take a long time, too
There’s no one remedy for getting more competition back into the US economy, and even sector by sector, it’s really complicated. It’s one thing to call for Instagram to be broken away from Facebook, but no one agrees on how to fix virtually anything in the American health care system.
It’s a good thing that antitrust is getting more airtime, with politicians, the press, and the public paying more attention to corporate concentration and its effects. Tech giants have been a main area of focus as of late, with regulators and lawmakers at the state and federal levels launching probes and holding hearings. Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have railed against powerful corporations on the campaign trail, and on the right, Republican Sen. Josh Hawley has taken on a crusade against Big Tech.
But it’s going to take a lot more than public pressure for things to change. For one thing, it’s often hard to recognize how monopolized the economy has become. Dozens of brands can be housed under a single umbrella, and a lot of people don’t even realize it. But as I noted in 2018, monopolies are really everywhere:
Four companies, for example, control 97 percent of the dry cat food sector: Nestlé, J.M. Smucker, Supermarket Brand, and Mars. According to the report, Nestlé has a 57 percent hold on the industry, owning brands such as Purina, Fancy Feast, Felix, and Friskies. Altria, Reynolds American, and Imperial have a 92 percent market share of the cigarette and tobacco manufacturing industry. Anheuser-Busch InBev, MillerCoors, and Constellation have a 75 percent share of the beer industry. Hillenbrand and Matthews have a 76 percent share of the coffin and casket manufacturing industry.
Experts and advocates have laid out a range of ideas for restoring healthy competition in the economy and reviving regulators. Some of it would entail new laws and frameworks, which, given the current state of affairs in Washington, seems unlikely — Congress can barely agree to fund the government, let alone enact a major overhaul of the workings of the US economy. But it has happened in the past, and as recently as the 20th century. “What happened in the New Deal was a systemic attack on every aspect of the old order, and the old order was somewhat similar to what we have now,” Stoller noted.
But even without sweeping legislation, there’s a lot that regulators, enforcers, and the courts can do now under existing law. The FTC and DOJ can be more active in their scrutiny of mergers and companies’ practices, and judges can strike down deals. After the FTC approved the pharmaceutical company Bristol-Myers Squibb’s acquisition of fellow drugmaker Celgene in November of last year, Democratic Commissioner Rohit Chopra in his dissent warned of the dangers of regulators ignoring obvious risks and instead clinging to the status quo. “When watchdogs wear blindfolds or fail to evolve with the marketplace, millions of American families can suffer the consequences,” he wrote.
So back to my internet bill, where this all began: in the summer of 2018, I moved apartments and gleefully called my internet provider to cancel my service. The person on the other end of the line asked where I was moving; I told them it was the same borough, different area. Wouldn’t you know — that discount I’d had originally, the one that went away as my bill gradually went up, was now somehow again available. Turns out in my new building, there was more than one option.
Sign up for The Goods’ newsletter. Twice a week, we’ll send you the best Goods stories exploring what we buy, why we buy it, and why it matters.


vox--2020-02-18--The coronavirus cruise ship quarantine is a scary public health experiment

It ’ s a hypochondriac ’ s worst nightmare and a startling public health crisis : The largest coronavirus outbreak outside of mainland China is currently floating in Japanese waters , on a cruise ship owned by Princess Cruises .
The outbreak was first detected when an 80-year-old passenger tested positive for the virus on February 1 , a week after disembarking in Hong Kong .
By February 4 , the remaining 3,700 passengers and crew of the luxury Diamond Princess ship — currently docked at the port city of Yokohama , Japan — were asked to stay on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the number of people aboard with the disease — known as Covid-19 — has surged to 454 .
While those who tested positive have been allowed to leave the ship for treatment , the rest have had to remain there until at least February 19 , with the exception of American citizens .
On Saturday , the US Embassy in Tokyo announced a chartered flight would arrive to evacuate citizens and their families who opted to leave .
By the time the group of 328 boarded the airplane Sunday , 14 had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the State Department , but were deemed “ fit to fly ” anyway since they weren ’ t showing symptoms .
“ These individuals were moved in the most expeditious and safe manner to a specialized containment area on the evacuation aircraft to isolate them in accordance with standard protocols , ” the State Department said in a statement .
The new cases bring the total number of Americans on the cruise ship who became infected to 58 ( of about 400 total ) .
But they were not the only ones @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
After being barred from docking in five countries , another ship — Holland America ’ s MS Westerdam — finally disembarked on February 13 in Sihanoukville , Cambodia .
Two days later , the ship ’ s first coronavirus case was confirmed in an American who had already traveled to Malaysia — setting off a global search for other Westerdam passengers who may have been exposed to the virus .
The cruise ship health emergencies have unfolded in the context of a worsening outbreak : As of February 17 , there were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and 1,800 deaths , mostly in mainland China .
As a wave of coronavirus panic sweeps the cruise industry , more questions are being raised about how governments and cruise ship operators handled these health scares .
Chief among them : is quarantining people onboard a safe , or even ethical , strategy to contain the virus ?
Did the measures taken by countries and cruise companies make the outbreak worse ?
Let ’ s walk through what we know .
1 ) What does cruise ship quarantine mean ?
Since the 80-year-old @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Diamond Princess cruise ship in Japan has transformed into a mass public health experiment .
Passengers who have tested positive for the virus have disembarked and been admitted to hospitals in the Yokohama area , according to the World Health Organization .
The others have been held in quarantine onboard at the order of the Japanese Ministry of Health .
For nearly two weeks now , the passengers on the ship have been asked to stay in their rooms , wear masks , and only walk on the deck for a couple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least six feet of distance from other passengers .
They ’ re having meals delivered to their rooms , and have plenty of TV , movie , and newspaper options to keep them busy .
Officially , the objective of this quarantine is to prevent further spread of the virus onshore , particularly ahead of the Summer Olympics , which begin in Tokyo in July .
“ In this unprecedented situation , the Japanese Ministry of Health authorities are working with us collaboratively on additional enhancements and approving new procedures as we adapt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this situation , ” said Jan Swartz , president of Princess Cruises , in a statement .
On the other hand , “ The Japanese government is probably valuing stopping the spread of the novel coronavirus to their country more than the higher risk of harm to passengers from this mass cruise ship quarantine , ” said Steven Hoffman , director of the Global Strategy Lab and a professor of global health at York University .
The quarantine is supposed to end on February 19 , according to Princess Cruises , “ unless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So it ’ s not yet clear whether it will end then .
And that ’ s a source of worry , for reasons we ’ ll get to next .
2 ) Could the quarantine lead to more coronavirus infections ?
Doctors and health researchers have been skeptical of this quarantine for exactly that reason .
“ They ’ ve basically trapped a bunch of people in a large container with [ the ] virus , ” said University of Toronto epidemiology professor David Fisman , over email .
“ So [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ is generating active transmission.
” For the same reason , Michael Mina , another epidemiologist at Harvard University , called the quarantine unethical on Twitter : Their concern is driven by the mounting case toll and details emerging from the ship , which paint an alarming portrait .
According to a must-read New York Times report , as of February 10 , Japanese officials had only tested 439 of the 3,700 passengers onboard for the coronavirus , citing shortages of testing supplies .
This meant that at least a fraction of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and not know it .
Among those who ’ ve tested positive recently are 10 crew members .
“ And according to employees , the infected crew members identified on Sunday had been eating in the mess hall alongside their co-workers , ” the Times reports .
Last Wednesday , a Japanese health official who was checking in on passengers on the ship also tested positive for the virus — raising further questions about whether people on board are protected from the virus .
Given the risk of further spread among the crew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re trying to serve , the quarantine on the Diamond Princess increasingly seems to pose an “ unacceptable risk , ” as Mina said .
3 ) How are the people on the ship doing ?
You can hear from them directly : Passengers and crew have been sharing their experiences of the quarantine through tweets and videos .
And they ’ re reporting more fear and anxiety every day as more people are diagnosed : 4 ) How can the cruise company just lock these people up ?
It ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s the Japanese government .
People on the ship “ are in Japanese waters , and this is being managed by public health officials in Japan , ” said Isaac Bogoch , a professor at the University of Toronto .
So the passengers onboard the ship , as visitors of Japan , are subject to Japan ’ s quarantine protocols , he added .
According to the cruise company , the passengers hail from all over the world : America , Australia , Canada , and Japan , among other countries .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the spread of disease — but only when you ’ re dealing with people who are already sick .
“ All the evidence we ’ ve got to go on is based on quarantining people who are infected , ” said Mark Eccleston-Turner , a global health law researcher at Keele University in England .
When quarantines are done arbitrarily , with no scientific basis , he added , they ’ re “ not in line with human rights obligations.
” The cruise ship quarantine is not just a human rights or justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a public health problem .
In this case , people who aren ’ t yet sick and who may not have been exposed to the new coronavirus are being held together in close proximity with people who may already have the disease .
Layer on top of that the fact that we don ’ t yet know exactly how this virus spreads ; all we know is that respiratory viruses like it — MERS and SARS — spread mainly through exposure to droplets , from coughing or sneezing .
But like SARS , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the new coronavirus may be able to spread long distances through pipes in buildings , and potentially via feces , too .
It ’ s also possible the virus could spread through the cruise ship ’ s ventilation systems , though in a letter to passengers and crew , the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said it has no evidence of that yet .
6 ) So is the cruise ship quarantine an epic failure ?
Well , as Fisman and Mina already said , quarantining people on a cruise ship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and unethical at worst .
A Tokyo doctor who specializes in infectious diseases told the New York Times that the experiment was “ an unprecedented failure.
” We should learn from this lesson that a quarantine on a ship is impossible , and we should not repeat this in the future , ” Eiji Kusumi said .
But others point out that the cruise ship company and the Japanese government were caught in a difficult position .
“ In a perfect world , ” Bogoch said , “ the passengers could have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a safe quarantine environment in Japan or sent back to their home countries for medical care there .
“ But the logistics of letting 3,700 people off a ship and finding appropriate accommodations , medical care , and basic needs — with no warning — would be challenging at best , ” he added .
At the same time , the global community has had ample warning for years that a pandemic threat of this nature could arise at any time .
So one can make the argument that governments , even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with an emergency plan in place .
7 ) What happened to the Americans who evacuated the ship in Japan , and the passengers who left the Westerdam ship in Cambodia ?
On Sunday , 328 Americans got on two cargo planes headed for military bases in the US : the Travis Air Force Base in Fairfield , California , or Lackland Air Force Base near San Antonio , Texas .
But after the passengers had already left the ship , the US government got the results of their recent coronavirus tests and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The State Department decided to repatriate them anyway , simply separating them from other passengers on the planes in an area cordoned off using plastic sheets , according to the Times .
Separately , the Westerdam passengers were welcomed in Cambodia on February 13 , and then dispersed around the world — returning home or onward with their travels .
At the time , no one had tested positive for Covid-19 .
But two days later , the ship ’ s first coronavirus case was confirmed in an American passenger who had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the ship ’ s and Cambodia ’ s thoroughness in testing passengers .
Her case has set off an unprecedented global search for other Westerdam passengers who may have been exposed to the virus .
8 ) What do these cruise ship emergencies reveal about the larger outbreak ?
The Japanese case shows us that quarantining people on cruise ship to stop the spread of Covid-19 can backfire , while the Cambodia case suggests that letting people disembark and disperse around the world can create a public health nightmare .
In both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sloppiness : proper quarantine protocols weren ’ t followed , and passengers weren ’ t adequately tested before moving on with their travels .
While all parties involved could have done better , the situations also reveal just how challenging containing the spread of this highly contagious virus is going to be in a time of global travel .
On the bright side , the cruise ship debacles could actually contribute to science .
“ It may shed light on the incubation period [ for this disease ] , transmission dynamics , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bogoch .
Marion Koopmans , who studies emerging infectious diseases and heads the department of virology at Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam , Netherlands , thinks we can learn a lot about how the disease spreads when we know exactly how the virus began spreading on the ship .
“ Cruise ships have these shows , several restaurants with joint dinners — so was there a close contact situation that involved a sick person with many people around him or her ?
” she wondered .
There ’ s also understanding precisely what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outbreak : whether the passengers and crew would have acquired the new coronavirus with or without being forced to stay on the ship .
“ Are these truly new infections acquired after quarantine , or would these people have already acquired [ the virus ] and it ’ s just the regular incubation period ?
” Bogoch asked .
Once we get answers to these questions , they might shed light on the larger outbreak .
9 ) Given the potential for outbreaks like this , should cruises be banned ?
There is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spread on cruise ships — in particular , from norovirus , the highly contagious bug spread by ingesting the stool or vomit of an infected person , often through food or touching a contaminated surface .
Koopmans said she wasn ’ t sure if that ’ s because of “ surveillance bias ” — we ’ re more likely to hear about what happens on a massive cruise ship than in a small hotel or restaurant — or because there ’ s something inherently risky about cruise ships .
She has studied norovirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a striking finding in one paper : The researchers looked at norovirus outbreaks over time and found that whenever a new , fast-spreading variant was emerging , it was often accompanied by a big wave of outbreaks on cruise ships .
In other words , what happened aboard was a signal that there was a larger outbreak on the ground .
“ For a virus that likes to spread in groups of people , cruise ships are notorious , ” Koopmans added .

It’s a hypochondriac’s worst nightmare and a startling public health crisis: The largest coronavirus outbreak outside of mainland China is currently floating in Japanese waters, on a cruise ship owned by Princess Cruises.
The outbreak was first detected when an 80-year-old passenger tested positive for the virus on February 1, a week after disembarking in Hong Kong. By February 4, the remaining 3,700 passengers and crew of the luxury Diamond Princess ship — currently docked at the port city of Yokohama, Japan — were asked to stay on the ship under quarantine orders.
Since then, the number of people aboard with the disease — known as Covid-19 — has surged to 542. While those who tested positive have been allowed to leave the ship for treatment, the rest have had to remain there until at least February 19, with the exception of American citizens.
On Saturday, the US Embassy in Tokyo announced a chartered flight would arrive to evacuate citizens and their families who opted to leave. By the time the group of 328 boarded the plane Sunday, 14 had tested positive for the virus, according to the State Department, but were deemed “fit to fly” since they weren’t showing symptoms.
“These individuals were moved in the most expeditious and safe manner to a specialized containment area on the evacuation aircraft to isolate them in accordance with standard protocols,” the State Department said in a statement. The new cases bring the total number of Americans on the cruise ship who became infected to 58 (of about 400 total).
But they were not the only ones caught in a Covid-19 cruise ship drama. After being barred from docking in five countries, another ship — Holland America’s MS Westerdam — finally disembarked on February 13 in Sihanoukville, Cambodia. Two days later, the ship’s first coronavirus case was confirmed in an American who had already traveled to Malaysia — setting off a global search for other Westerdam passengers who may have been exposed to the virus.
The cruise ship health emergencies have unfolded in the context of a worsening outbreak: As of February 17, there were more than 73,000 cases of the disease and 1,800 deaths, mostly in mainland China.
As a wave of coronavirus panic sweeps the cruise industry, more questions are being raised about how governments and cruise ship operators handled these health scares. Chief among them: Is quarantining people onboard a safe, or even ethical, strategy to contain the virus? Did the measures taken by countries and cruise companies make the outbreak worse? Let’s walk through what we know.
1) What does cruise ship quarantine mean?
Since the 80-year-old passenger tested positive for the virus, the Diamond Princess cruise ship in Japan has transformed into a mass public health experiment. Passengers who have tested positive for the virus have disembarked and been admitted to hospitals in the Yokohama area, according to the World Health Organization. The others have been held in quarantine onboard at the order of the Japanese Ministry of Health.
For nearly two weeks now, the passengers on the ship have been asked to stay in their rooms, wear masks, and only walk on the deck for a couple of minutes each day, keeping at least six feet of distance from other passengers. They’re having meals delivered to their rooms, and have plenty of TV, movie, and newspaper options to keep them busy.
Officially, the objective of this quarantine is to prevent further spread of the virus onshore, particularly ahead of the Summer Olympics, which begin in Tokyo in July.
“In this unprecedented situation, the Japanese Ministry of Health authorities are working with us collaboratively on additional enhancements and approving new procedures as we adapt our process to the unique challenges of this situation,” said Jan Swartz, president of Princess Cruises, in a statement.
On the other hand, “The Japanese government is probably valuing stopping the spread of the novel coronavirus to their country more than the higher risk of harm to passengers from this mass cruise ship quarantine,” said Steven Hoffman, director of the Global Strategy Lab and a professor of global health at York University.
The quarantine is supposed to end on February 19, according to Princess Cruises, “unless there are any other unforeseen developments.” So it’s not yet clear whether it will end then. And that’s a source of worry, for reasons we’ll get to next.
2) Could the quarantine lead to more coronavirus infections?
Doctors and health researchers have been skeptical of this quarantine for exactly that reason. “They’ve basically trapped a bunch of people in a large container with [the] virus,” said University of Toronto epidemiology professor David Fisman, over email. “So [I’m] assuming ‘quarantine’ is generating active transmission.”
For the same reason, Michael Mina, another epidemiologist at Harvard University, called the quarantine unethical on Twitter:
The decision to keep the passengers & crew on the ship is no longer ethical and is wholly inappropriate. 10 crew are infected and crew cannot self quarantine, and room together. Clearly this has transmitted among them placing all at unacceptable risk. https://t.co/8GsI5ThDgg — Michael Mina (@michaelmina_lab) February 11, 2020
Their concern is driven by the mounting case toll and details emerging from the ship, which paint an alarming portrait. According to a must-read New York Times report, as of February 10, Japanese officials had only tested 439 of the 3,700 passengers onboard for the coronavirus, citing shortages of testing supplies. This meant that at least a fraction of the remaining thousands onboard may have the virus and not know it.
Among those who’ve tested positive recently are 10 crew members. “And according to employees, the infected crew members identified on Sunday had been eating in the mess hall alongside their co-workers,” the Times reports.
Last Wednesday, a Japanese health official who was checking in on passengers on the ship also tested positive for the virus — raising further questions about whether people on board are protected from the virus.
Given the risk of further spread among the crew, and to the passengers they’re trying to serve, the quarantine on the Diamond Princess increasingly seems to pose an “unacceptable risk, Mina said.
3) How are the people on the ship doing?
You can hear from them directly: Passengers and crew have been sharing their experiences of the quarantine through tweets and videos. And they’re reporting more fear and anxiety every day as more people are diagnosed:
Diabetic passenger David Abel says he was without food for 17 hours on quarantined Princess cruise ship after 10 passengers test positive for novel #coronavirus.https://t.co/ih7WAoIJ4h pic.twitter.com/N1Lh5E7zJr — euronews (@euronews) February 5, 2020
"At this moment, we are very scared."
The Indian crew members on the quarantined #DiamondPrincess cruise ship are asking Prime Minister @NarendraModi for help as they remain stranded in Yokohama, Japan #クルーズ船 #CoronavirusOutbreak #coronavirus pic.twitter.com/SFfGdwwvcD — QuickTake by Bloomberg (@QuickTake) February 11, 2020
"We feel like sitting ducks here."
Novelist, Gay Courter explains what life is like being quarantined onboard the Diamond Princess cruise ship, after some passengers tested positive for coronavirus.
Get the latest on #coronavirus here: https://t.co/tNKhlqpEMK pic.twitter.com/ZlvkQimwIF — Sky News (@SkyNews) February 9, 2020
Aun Na Tan and her family have been confined to their cabin on a quarantined cruise ship docked in Japan. Tan says families who booked separate rooms from their children are now unable to see each other https://t.co/yl50Vovw2p pic.twitter.com/KsPvwxHDMi — Reuters (@Reuters) February 10, 2020
4) How can the cruise company just lock these people up?
It’s not the cruise company quarantining people; it’s the Japanese government.
People on the ship “are in Japanese waters, and this is being managed by public health officials in Japan,” said Isaac Bogoch, a professor at the University of Toronto. So the passengers onboard the ship, as visitors of Japan, are subject to Japan’s quarantine protocols, he added. According to the cruise company, the passengers hail from all over the world: America, Australia, Canada, and Japan, among other countries.
5) Is this quarantine ethical?
Quarantines can be effective tools for containing the spread of disease — but only when you’re dealing with people who are already sick.
“All the evidence we’ve got to go on is based on quarantining people who are infected,” said Mark Eccleston-Turner, a global health law researcher at Keele University in England. When quarantines are done arbitrarily, with no scientific basis, he added, they’re “not in line with human rights obligations.”
The cruise ship quarantine is not just a human rights or justice issue, though; it’s a public health problem. In this case, people who aren’t yet sick and who may not have been exposed to the new coronavirus are being held together in close proximity with people who may already have the disease. Layer on top of that the fact that we don’t yet know exactly how this virus spreads; all we know is that respiratory viruses like it — MERS and SARS — spread mainly through exposure to droplets, from coughing or sneezing.
But like SARS, there’s already some suggestion that the new coronavirus may be able to spread long distances through pipes in buildings, and potentially via feces, too.
It’s also possible the virus could spread through the cruise ship’s ventilation systems, though in a letter to passengers and crew, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said it has no evidence of that yet.
6) So is the cruise ship quarantine an epic failure?
As Fisman and Mina already said, quarantining people on a cruise ship seemed like a bad idea at best and unethical at worst. A Tokyo doctor who specializes in infectious diseases told the New York Times that the experiment was “an unprecedented failure.” We should learn from this lesson that a quarantine on a ship is impossible, and we should not repeat this in the future,” Eiji Kusumi said.
But others point out that the cruise ship company and the Japanese government were caught in a difficult position. “In a perfect world,” Bogoch said, “the passengers could have been let off the ship” then placed in a safe quarantine environment in Japan or sent back to their home countries for medical care there. “But the logistics of letting 3,700 people off a ship and finding appropriate accommodations, medical care, and basic needs — with no warning — would be challenging at best,” he added.
At the same time, the global community has had ample warning for years that a pandemic threat of this nature could arise at any time. So one can make the argument that governments, even cruise companies, should have been ready with an emergency plan in place.
7) What happened to the Americans who evacuated the ship in Japan, and the passengers who left the Westerdam ship in Cambodia?
On Sunday, 328 Americans got on two cargo planes headed for military bases in the US: the Travis Air Force Base in Fairfield, California, or Lackland Air Force Base near San Antonio, Texas. But after the passengers had already left the ship, the US government got the results of their recent coronavirus tests and learned that 14 tested positive for the virus.
The State Department decided to repatriate them anyway, simply separating them from other passengers on the planes in an area cordoned off using plastic sheets, according to the Times.
Separately, the Westerdam passengers were welcomed in Cambodia on February 13, and then dispersed around the world — returning home or onward with their travels. At the time, no one had tested positive for Covid-19. But two days later, the ship’s first coronavirus case was confirmed in an American passenger who had already traveled to Malaysia, raising questions about the ship’s and Cambodia’s thoroughness in testing passengers. Her case has set off an unprecedented global search for other Westerdam passengers who may have been exposed to the virus.
8) What do these cruise ship emergencies reveal about the larger outbreak?
The Japanese case shows us that quarantining people on a cruise ship to stop the spread of Covid-19 can backfire, while the Cambodia case suggests that letting people disembark and disperse around the world can create a public health nightmare. In both cases, there appears to have been sloppiness: Proper quarantine protocols weren’t followed, and passengers weren’t adequately tested before moving on with their travels.
While all parties involved could have done better, the situations also reveal just how challenging containing the spread of this highly contagious virus is going to be in a time of global travel.
On the bright side, the cruise ship debacles could actually contribute to science. “It may shed light on the incubation period [for this disease], transmission dynamics, the clinical spectrum of illness,” said Bogoch.
Marion Koopmans, who studies emerging infectious diseases and heads the department of virology at Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, Netherlands, thinks we can learn a lot about how the disease spreads when we know exactly how the virus began spreading on the ship. “Cruise ships have these shows, several restaurants with joint dinners — so was there a close contact situation that involved a sick person with many people around him or her?” she wondered.
There’s also understanding precisely what impact the quarantine had on the larger outbreak: whether the passengers and crew would have acquired the new coronavirus with or without being forced to stay on the ship. “Are these truly new infections acquired after quarantine, or would these people have already acquired [the virus] and it’s just the regular incubation period?” Bogoch asked. Once we get answers to these questions, they might shed light on the larger outbreak.
9) Given the potential for outbreaks like this, should cruises be banned?
There is indeed a surprisingly robust science of disease spread on cruise ships — in particular, from norovirus, the highly contagious bug spread by ingesting the stool or vomit of an infected person, often through food or touching a contaminated surface.
Cruise ships and viruses: studied them for years with norovirus https://t.co/ppx4EsVG0J check out this paper: we found that cruise ship outbreaks were an early warning indicator of new pandemic norovirus variants https://t.co/hT6sMcoVFO — Marion Koopmans (@MarionKoopmans) February 6, 2020
Koopmans said she wasn’t sure if that’s because of “surveillance bias” — we’re more likely to hear about what happens on a massive cruise ship than in a small hotel or restaurant — or because there’s something inherently risky about cruise ships.
She has studied norovirus outbreaks on cruises extensively and came to a striking finding in one paper: The researchers looked at norovirus outbreaks over time and found that whenever a new, fast-spreading variant was emerging, it was often accompanied by a big wave of outbreaks on cruise ships. In other words, what happened aboard was a signal that there was a larger outbreak on the ground. “For a virus that likes to spread in groups of people, cruise ships are notorious,” Koopmans added.


vox--2020-02-18--Vox’s guide to the 2020 presidential candidates

The 2020 presidential race is officially underway , and several Democrats are hoping to take their shot at unseating President @ @ @ @ @ Biden , Sen. Bernie Sanders , Sen. Elizabeth Warren , and former South Bend , @ @ @ @ @ emerged as early frontrunners in the crowded field , but there are still a total @ @ @ @ @ their shot .
Now that the primaries have begun , the candidates are touring the @ @ @ @ @ they attempt to establish frontrunner status and build momentum through early primary state wins .
@ @ @ @ @ find everything you need to know about the 2020 Democratic primary : who the candidates @ @ @ @ @ for debates and primaries , and more .
And if you want to learn more @ @ @ @ @ positions , check out our 2020 candidate policy guide here .

Cookie banner
We use cookies and other tracking technologies to improve your browsing experience on our site, show personalized content and targeted ads, analyze site traffic, and understand where our audiences come from. To learn more or opt-out, read our Cookie Policy. Please also read our Privacy Notice and Terms of Use, which became effective December 20, 2019.
By choosing I Accept, you consent to our use of cookies and other tracking technologies.


vox--2020-02-18--Why Congress and the Pentagon are tussling over US troops in West Africa

The Trump administration might want US troops who have been fighting for years in Western Africa to get out .
But a testy argument between the Pentagon and members of Congress over the weekend shows that doing so could be politically difficult for the president .
Back in December , multiple reports indicated Defense Secretary Mark Esper was weighing options for a reduction — or even a complete withdrawal — of US service personnel in West Africa .
According to a US Africa Command spokesperson , there are currently approximately 1,200 US personnel ( including military personnel , civilians , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Africa , the majority in the country of Niger .
The main reason they ’ re there is to train local military forces to fight terrorist groups .
But the US also collects intelligence for itself and to share with others , as well conducts airstrikes against adversaries when American forces deem it necessary .
The Trump administration , though , has its eyes on “ great power competition , ” meaning preparing the US military and diplomatic corps to confront Russia and China for the long haul .
Helping Western African countries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t really fit that focus .
It ’ s why the Pentagon is thinking about where it ’ s best to place US troops to meet those and other needs .
“ We ’ ve begun a review process where I ’ m looking at every theater , understanding what the requirements are that we set out for , making sure we ’ re as efficient as possible with our forces , ” Esper told reporters in December .
The prospect of a withdrawal has worried French President Emmanuel Macron , whose troops @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the region .
“ If the US decided to withdraw from Africa , it would be bad news for us , ” he said in a January news conference .
” I would like to be able to convince President Trump that the fight against terrorism to which he is deeply committed is playing out also in this region , ” Macron continued .
According to NBC News , lawmakers from both parties still see immense value in America ’ s presence in West Africa .
Meeting on the sides of the Munich @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and representatives from both parties reportedly tore into Esper for considering a troop reduction .
Sen. Lindsay Graham ( R-SC ) , a staunch ally of President Donald Trump , reportedly even threatened Esper , warning him he could “ make [ Esper ’ s ] life hell ” if the Pentagon opted to withdraw all US troops from the region .
Graham denies that he said this , and Pentagon spokesperson Alyssa Farah , who was present at the meeting , also stated this was never said .
The meeting “ was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on what the future U.S. presence in Africa will look like , ” Farah tweeted Tuesday .
But Graham has made no secret of his opposition to removing US forces from West Africa .
In January , Graham and Sen. Chris Coons ( D-DE ) sent a letter to Esper “ to express our serious concern regarding reports of a possible decision to significantly reduce or completely withdraw U.S. Armed Forces ” from West Africa .
The senators said that although they support the administration ’ s “ desire to do more to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Russia and China , “ [ w ] e must not forget the continued threat from violent extremist [ sic ] to our interests and our homeland.
” The ongoing spat between Congress and the White House highlights once again how hard it is for presidents to end US military commitments .
We saw this same dynamic play out back in 2018 when Trump tried to withdraw US forces from Syria .
Graham and other lawmakers on both sides of the aisle also balked at that , with Graham warning that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our nation , the region , and throughout the world.
” It also says something important about the debate over whether maintaining a US troop presence in West Africa is worth the cost , both in terms of lives and money , regardless of how small that presence may be .
“ The mission is worth it , ” Emily Estelle , the Africa team lead for the Critical Threats Project at the American Enterprise Institute , told me .
The threat “ in the Sahel has been growing even with this mission @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rapidly if the mission ends.
” Why the US cares about West Africa Since at least the George W. Bush administration , the US has been working with governments in West Africa to counter Islamic extremist groups operating in that area .
But the US troop presence there ramped up considerably under the Obama administration , which sent special forces to train and assist local partners in countering both al-Qaeda and ISIS groups operating in the region .
Here are just a couple of reasons why : In 2012 , al-Qaeda in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parts of northern Mali .
And in 2013 , Boko Haram pushed out Nigerian troops and officials from 10 local government areas near the borders of Niger , Chad , and Cameroon — an area about the size of Maryland .
These and other events led to thousands of deaths and millions displaced .
France launched a direct military intervention in Mali in 2013 in what was known as Operation Serval .
The goal was to stop AQIM and its allies , which at that point had taken about half of Mali ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The US provided transport and telecommunications support to the French , such as refueling aircraft and passing along intelligence .
The US has maintained a small presence in the Sahel ever since , mostly supporting its European and African partners to combat terrorists , though the French are firmly in the lead and cover most of the costs .
Officials in Paris have long said they expect the US to continue providing intelligence , logistics , and aerial refueling support .
Just this month , the US added a logistics hub in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drone base in Niger .
“ The theory underlying all of these missions is that it ’ s cheaper , less risky , and more effective to train and equip local forces to fight than rely on American troops operating far from home on unfamiliar terrain , ” US military experts Phillip Carter and Andrew Swick explained for Vox in 2017 .
This is evident in America ’ s 800-strong presence in Niger , says Rida Lyammouri of the Netherlands Institute for International Relations .
He told me that training Nigerian troops helps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ affiliates , but also gives the US a base to track militants with drones if necessary .
America ’ s involvement hasn ’ t come without risk .
In October 2017 , most notably , four US Special Forces members died in an ambush in Niger .
There are even concerns that US ( and French ) operations may have led to civilian casualties .
Despite that , Lyammouri believes the situation in these countries could worsen if the US or even the French were to leave because extremist groups could spread their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ghana and the Ivory Coast .
That ’ s why , in his mind , the US mission in West Africa is a core national security priority .
“ It ’ s not in our interest to wait until bad things happen , ” Lyammouri said .
“ It ’ s our responsibility to support these countries in the fight against groups that are looking to destabilize them.
” The American Enterprise Institute ’ s Estelle added there are other reasons for the US to stay involved that are closer to home .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ currently focused primarily on fighting local enemies , some experts fear they could turn their attention toward attacking America down the line .
The presence of US forces on the ground in these places only raises that likelihood .
Second , Estelle says keeping US troops in West Africa will help the Pentagon push back against Russia and China .
Moscow is increasing arms deals and security agreements with regional nations , and China is considering building a second military base in Senegal .
“ It ’ s a false dichotomy to say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Africa to counter China and Russia , ” Estelle told me .
“ China and Russia are competing in Africa.
” However , the US can ’ t really say its presence has vastly improved the security situation .
“ The region has experienced a devastating surge in terrorist attacks against civilian and military targets , ” Mohamed Ibn Chambas , the head of the UN Office for West Africa and the Sahel , said on January 8 .
He noted that there were more than 4,000 deaths reported in 2019 alone in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about 770 deaths three years earlier .
That may be exactly why US lawmakers want troops to stick around : The situation may be bad , but it could get a whole lot worse if they leave .
Whether or not the Pentagon agrees with that assessment will form the basis of the legislative-executive fight for the weeks to come .

The Trump administration might want US troops who have been fighting for years in Western Africa to get out. But a testy argument between the Pentagon and members of Congress over the weekend shows that doing so could be politically difficult for the president.
Back in December, multiple reports indicated Defense Secretary Mark Esper was weighing options for a reduction — or even a complete withdrawal — of US service personnel in West Africa. According to a US Africa Command spokesperson, there are currently approximately 1,200 US personnel (including military personnel, civilians, and contractors) in all of West Africa, the majority in the country of Niger.
The main reason they’re there is to train local military forces to fight terrorist groups. But the US also collects intelligence for itself and to share with others, as well conducts airstrikes against adversaries when American forces deem it necessary.
The Trump administration, though, has its eyes on “great power competition,” meaning preparing the US military and diplomatic corps to confront Russia and China for the long haul. Helping Western African countries deal with their terrorism problems doesn’t really fit that focus. It’s why the Pentagon is thinking about where it’s best to place US troops to meet those and other needs.
“We’ve begun a review process where I’m looking at every theater, understanding what the requirements are that we set out for, making sure we’re as efficient as possible with our forces,” Esper told reporters in December.
The prospect of a withdrawal has worried French President Emmanuel Macron, whose troops lead much of the antiterror fighting in the region. “If the US decided to withdraw from Africa, it would be bad news for us,” he said in a January news conference.
”I would like to be able to convince President Trump that the fight against terrorism to which he is deeply committed is playing out also in this region,” Macron continued.
According to NBC News, lawmakers from both parties still see immense value in America’s presence in West Africa.
Meeting on the sides of the Munich Security Conference last weekend, US senators and representatives from both parties reportedly tore into Esper for considering a troop reduction. Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC), a staunch ally of President Donald Trump, reportedly even threatened Esper, warning him he could “make [Esper’s] life hell” if the Pentagon opted to withdraw all US troops from the region.
Graham denies that he said this, and Pentagon spokesperson Alyssa Farah, who was present at the meeting, also stated this was never said. The meeting “was a constructive, bipartisan, bicameral discussion on what the future U.S. presence in Africa will look like,” Farah tweeted Tuesday.
But Graham has made no secret of his opposition to removing US forces from West Africa. In January, Graham and Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) sent a letter to Esper “to express our serious concern regarding reports of a possible decision to significantly reduce or completely withdraw U.S. Armed Forces” from West Africa.
The senators said that although they support the administration’s “desire to do more to focus on our near-peer competitors” such as Russia and China, “[w]e must not forget the continued threat from violent extremist [sic] to our interests and our homeland.”
The ongoing spat between Congress and the White House highlights once again how hard it is for presidents to end US military commitments. We saw this same dynamic play out back in 2018 when Trump tried to withdraw US forces from Syria. Graham and other lawmakers on both sides of the aisle also balked at that, with Graham warning that it could “lead to devastating consequences for our nation, the region, and throughout the world.”
It also says something important about the debate over whether maintaining a US troop presence in West Africa is worth the cost, both in terms of lives and money, regardless of how small that presence may be.
“The mission is worth it,” Emily Estelle, the Africa team lead for the Critical Threats Project at the American Enterprise Institute, told me. The threat “in the Sahel has been growing even with this mission, but it will certainly worsen more rapidly if the mission ends.”
Why the US cares about West Africa
Since at least the George W. Bush administration, the US has been working with governments in West Africa to counter Islamic extremist groups operating in that area. But the US troop presence there ramped up considerably under the Obama administration, which sent special forces to train and assist local partners in countering both al-Qaeda and ISIS groups operating in the region.
Here are just a couple of reasons why: In 2012, al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) took over parts of northern Mali. And in 2013, Boko Haram pushed out Nigerian troops and officials from 10 local government areas near the borders of Niger, Chad, and Cameroon — an area about the size of Maryland. These and other events led to thousands of deaths and millions displaced.
France launched a direct military intervention in Mali in 2013 in what was known as Operation Serval. The goal was to stop AQIM and its allies, which at that point had taken about half of Mali’s territory, from gaining more power. The US provided transport and telecommunications support to the French, such as refueling aircraft and passing along intelligence.
The US has maintained a small presence in the Sahel ever since, mostly supporting its European and African partners to combat terrorists, though the French are firmly in the lead and cover most of the costs. Officials in Paris have long said they expect the US to continue providing intelligence, logistics, and aerial refueling support. Just this month, the US added a logistics hub in Ghana and is close to completing a drone base in Niger.
“The theory underlying all of these missions is that it’s cheaper, less risky, and more effective to train and equip local forces to fight than rely on American troops operating far from home on unfamiliar terrain,” US military experts Phillip Carter and Andrew Swick explained for Vox in 2017.
This is evident in America’s 800-strong presence in Niger, says Rida Lyammouri of the Netherlands Institute for International Relations. He told me that training Nigerian troops helps them better fight off al-Qaeda and ISIS affiliates, but also gives the US a base to track militants with drones if necessary.
America’s involvement hasn’t come without risk. In October 2017, most notably, four US Special Forces members died in an ambush in Niger. There are even concerns that US (and French) operations may have led to civilian casualties.
Despite that, Lyammouri believes the situation in these countries could worsen if the US or even the French were to leave because extremist groups could spread their influence down into the coastal countries of Ghana and the Ivory Coast.
That’s why, in his mind, the US mission in West Africa is a core national security priority. “It’s not in our interest to wait until bad things happen,” Lyammouri said. “It’s our responsibility to support these countries in the fight against groups that are looking to destabilize them.”
The American Enterprise Institute’s Estelle added there are other reasons for the US to stay involved that are closer to home.
First, though regional terrorist groups are currently focused primarily on fighting local enemies, some experts fear they could turn their attention toward attacking America down the line. The presence of US forces on the ground in these places only raises that likelihood.
Second, Estelle says keeping US troops in West Africa will help the Pentagon push back against Russia and China. Moscow is increasing arms deals and security agreements with regional nations, and China is considering building a second military base in Senegal. “It’s a false dichotomy to say that the US should move forces from Africa to counter China and Russia,” Estelle told me. “China and Russia are competing in Africa.”
However, the US can’t really say its presence has vastly improved the security situation. “The region has experienced a devastating surge in terrorist attacks against civilian and military targets,” Mohamed Ibn Chambas, the head of the UN Office for West Africa and the Sahel, said on January 8. He noted that there were more than 4,000 deaths reported in 2019 alone in Burkina Faso and Niger, compared to about 770 deaths three years earlier.
That may be exactly why US lawmakers want troops to stick around: The situation may be bad, but it could get a whole lot worse if they leave. Whether or not the Pentagon agrees with that assessment will form the basis of the legislative-executive fight for the weeks to come.


vox--2020-02-18--Ring is finally requiring a basic security feature to help prevent hacks

Following a spate of customer complaints and lawsuits that claimed Amazon ’ s Ring home surveillance system left customers vulnerable to hacks , the company announced Tuesday that it ’ s finally making two-factor authentication mandatory for its devices .
Also , following reports that the company ’ s apps shared personal information with third parties , Ring said it was suspending third-party analytics services and giving customers the ability to opt out of data sharing with advertisers .
Now that Ring is rolling out two-factor authentication for all its apps and web services ( including its social media platform @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into their accounts will get a six-digit code via text or email that they must enter along with their password .
This helps prevent hacks from parties who only have the account owner ’ s password — assuming that the account owners using the authentication-by-email option aren ’ t using the same password for their email .
Last month , Ring had made two-factor authentication a default setting on new devices , but that didn ’ t protect its existing customers .
Today ’ s change comes a week after Google announced it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nest accounts that aren ’ t connected to a Google account .
Ring did not respond to Recode ’ s request for comment on if this recent decision was influenced by Google , but the company did say it was “ the next step in a long line of privacy and security updates Ring is making to bring even more transparency , privacy , and control to users via Control Center.
” A Ring spokesperson also told Recode that mandatory two-factor authentication will be rolled out over the next few days , so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while longer before they are forced to secure their accounts .
They must also update their apps to the most recent version .
Here ’ s what the two-factor login screen will look like , for those of you who didn ’ t enable it when it was optional .
( But you really should have it on every account that offers it .
Look how easy it is ! )
: Recode had previously written about how it was a disservice to Ring ’ s customers not to make this security measure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be for an unauthorized user to access the company ’ s devices — which , as several stories and subsequent lawsuits alleged — was a very real possibility .
Several Ring customers reported that hackers commandeered their cameras — some of which were inside their homes — and talked to and threatened them through Ring ’ s two-way remote speaker feature .
While Ring had offered two-factor authentication as an option , that ’ s not nearly as effective as making it required for users .
Studies have shown that people are unlikely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offered , and at least one of the parties suing Ring claimed he didn ’ t know two-factor authentication was even an option .
Ring also announced that it has “ temporarily ” suspended “ most ” third-party analytics services in its apps and websites .
A recent report from the Electronic Frontier Foundation ( EFF ) noted that Ring ’ s app for Android devices sent personally identifiable information about its customers to third-party trackers , including Facebook .
Ring is also offering customers the ability to opt out of having their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Facebook , Google , and Twitter also allow users to refuse to have their information shared with advertisers .
But this does not stop them from collecting that information in the first place .
A representative for the EFF told Recode the group was in favor of Ring ’ s new policies , but it does not think they go far enough .
“ These reforms come after a backlash against Ring for its recklessness in considering security concerns , and did not happen until after customers ’ privacy and personal information were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy analyst at EFF , said .
“ Making two-factor authentication mandatory and offering more transparency and control over third-party trackers are steps in the right direction .
However , we continue to express serious concerns about Ring ’ s fundamental problems of surveillance and enmeshment with law enforcement that threaten the larger community.
” Users can opt out of data sharing in Ring ’ s Control Center , which the company introduced a few weeks ago .
The control center lets account owners see and manage who has access to their accounts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lets users specify how and when law enforcement can access their Ring footage , including a new option that allows them to opt out of this entirely .
Ring ’ s partnerships with almost 900 police departments across the country have been a major source of controversy for the surveillance product .
Users have always had the ability to turn down police requests to see their footage , but now they can opt out of receiving police access requests from the start .
To opt out of third-party data sharing on your Ring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tap the three horizontal lines on the top left ) > Control Center > Privacy information and control > Third-party service providers > Personalized advertising .
Toggle the switch to disable .
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network .
All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists .

Following a spate of customer complaints and lawsuits that claimed Amazon’s Ring home surveillance system left customers vulnerable to hacks, the company announced Tuesday that it’s finally making two-factor authentication mandatory for its devices. Also, following reports that the company’s apps shared personal information with third parties, Ring said it was suspending third-party analytics services and giving customers the ability to opt out of data sharing with advertisers.
Now that Ring is rolling out two-factor authentication for all its apps and web services (including its social media platform Neighbors), customers trying to log into their accounts will get a six-digit code via text or email that they must enter along with their password. This helps prevent hacks from parties who only have the account owner’s password — assuming that the account owners using the authentication-by-email option aren’t using the same password for their email.
Last month, Ring had made two-factor authentication a default setting on new devices, but that didn’t protect its existing customers. Today’s change comes a week after Google announced it will be requiring two-factor authentication for all Nest accounts that aren’t connected to a Google account.
Ring did not respond to Recode’s request for comment on if this recent decision was influenced by Google, but the company did say it was “the next step in a long line of privacy and security updates Ring is making to bring even more transparency, privacy, and control to users via Control Center.”
A Ring spokesperson also told Recode that mandatory two-factor authentication will be rolled out over the next few days, so users may have to wait a little while longer before they are forced to secure their accounts. They must also update their apps to the most recent version.
Here’s what the two-factor login screen will look like, for those of you who didn’t enable it when it was optional. (But you really should have it on every account that offers it. Look how easy it is!):
Recode had previously written about how it was a disservice to Ring’s customers not to make this security measure mandatory, considering how invasive it would be for an unauthorized user to access the company’s devices — which, as several stories and subsequent lawsuits alleged — was a very real possibility. Several Ring customers reported that hackers commandeered their cameras — some of which were inside their homes — and talked to and threatened them through Ring’s two-way remote speaker feature.
While Ring had offered two-factor authentication as an option, that’s not nearly as effective as making it required for users. Studies have shown that people are unlikely to use two-factor authentication when it is offered, and at least one of the parties suing Ring claimed he didn’t know two-factor authentication was even an option.
Ring also announced that it has “temporarily” suspended “most” third-party analytics services in its apps and websites. A recent report from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) noted that Ring’s app for Android devices sent personally identifiable information about its customers to third-party trackers, including Facebook.
Ring is also offering customers the ability to opt out of having their information shared with advertisers. Platforms like Facebook, Google, and Twitter also allow users to refuse to have their information shared with advertisers. But this does not stop them from collecting that information in the first place.
A representative for the EFF told Recode the group was in favor of Ring’s new policies, but it does not think they go far enough.
“These reforms come after a backlash against Ring for its recklessness in considering security concerns, and did not happen until after customers’ privacy and personal information were compromised,” Matthew Guariglia, a policy analyst at EFF, said. “Making two-factor authentication mandatory and offering more transparency and control over third-party trackers are steps in the right direction. However, we continue to express serious concerns about Ring’s fundamental problems of surveillance and enmeshment with law enforcement that threaten the larger community.”
Users can opt out of data sharing in Ring’s Control Center, which the company introduced a few weeks ago. The control center lets account owners see and manage who has access to their accounts. There is also a section that lets users specify how and when law enforcement can access their Ring footage, including a new option that allows them to opt out of this entirely. Ring’s partnerships with almost 900 police departments across the country have been a major source of controversy for the surveillance product. Users have always had the ability to turn down police requests to see their footage, but now they can opt out of receiving police access requests from the start.
To opt out of third-party data sharing on your Ring app, go to the Menu (tap the three horizontal lines on the top left) > Control Center > Privacy information and control > Third-party service providers > Personalized advertising. Toggle the switch to disable.
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network. All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists.