After a decade of consultation and debate, on June 7, the European Union approved a directive that will require all electronic devices sold in the EU to be equipped with a USB-C charging port by 2024. thereby legally imposing a single electronic charging standard on the wider European market. This requirement applies to everything from laptops and speakers to smartphones. The move sparked an international debate about whether it’s time for governments to set mandatory standards for charging electronic ports, ending more than 30 years of innovation and proliferation of ports and devices.
In the US, three senators have called on Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo to begin a mandatory phase-out of US electronic charging. Not surprisingly, some commentators have opposed government intervention on the grounds that governments should not stifle innovation by picking winners and losers – while others have applauded mandatory standards for electronic payments as it would prevent consumers from constantly throwing away their old charging cables/devices. And buy a new one. Commenting on the issue, Apple said: “We are concerned that a strict rule that only enforces one type of connector will stifle innovation rather than encourage it.”
USB-C, the latest version of USB electronic ports, was introduced in 2010. It was approved as a voluntary industry standard in 2014 and has gradually been implemented by most laptops, smartphones and other manufacturers, sometimes with other ports. After all, nothing – until now – has prevented any manufacturer from introducing a new charging port/device or ditching an old one. Historical Flexibility of Changing Charging Ports Apple has regularly introduced new ports and currently relies on the “Lightning” port for iPhones. Anyone who has owned a cell phone/laptop for the last 30 years has gone through several generations of charging ports.
Full disclosure: Between the 1990s and early 2010s, I kept all of my old chargers under the misguided assumption that they could one day be reused. Finally, I threw away shoeboxes full of outdated charging equipment. My experience shows the large and perhaps unique role environmental influence played in this power port/device standardization and innovation. Unlike most economic debates about mandatory standards and unfettered innovation, the EU’s debate over USB-C has turned heavily on the environmental impact of consumers discarding old charging devices and the impact of this electronic waste on the global climate. Avoiding waste has never been a key aspect of debates over creativity and innovation – but it is now.
Arguments against innovation are as old as civilization: when we fix things, economies of scale kick in, lowering costs and increasing predictability. However, unlimited creativity opens the door to unlimited new ideas and imaginative (and often successful) innovations. The last level (standardization) is, of course, legal. During the 1800s, for example, investors in some railroad designs successfully argued for the need for standard track widths (thus axle widths) for a single legal railroad, suggesting that non-standard rail gauge widths would discourage hodgepodge growth. Costs because engines and cars on one gauge line can’t run on another.
In contrast, since the 1950s, computer industries have grown in a completely different environment. In the year In the 1990s, these industries were deregulated and dominated by large corporate rulers (including governments in general and military organizations in particular). This has led to a small number of private sellers and large private and government customers becoming unrealistic. A burden (some would say a benefit) for government regulators to agree on non-binding standards. In such an unregulated industry, non-mandatory standards are often proprietary, while over time, open standards that encourage add-ons/applications have played an increasingly important role.
For electronic battery charging and more, this environment has allowed both formal and fundamental innovations to coexist in the computer industry. Technical debates and market forces, not legislation, tended to drive standards, but innovators willing to take risks could still innovate and introduce new products/services/features outside the agreed upon standards. However, this mixed environment has been criticized as contributing to vendor oligopolies, as large institutional customers/buyers form a relatively small group that routinely prefers the benefits of standards. In addition, with proprietary attributes, customer loyalty, and distribution chain, large suppliers may add non-standard proprietary attributes at any time. These proprietary innovations can be controversial, with some ‘adding great value’ and others ‘forcing existing customers to buy useless features’ – which naturally leads us to electronic charging obligations.
For most Americans, the most familiar example of standardization and deregulation may be the low-power electrical outlets we all see in our walls. Although electricity began to spread across the US in the 1880s and power plugs began to appear in the 1890s, it wasn’t until 1912 that Harvey Hubbell introduced the two-blade parallel-sloped plug and socket we all know today. In the year By the 1920s, the Hubbell plug/socket design was accepted as standard and soon required by law. Once required by law, with some modifications, the basic design has survived for over a century. Some argue that these mandatory plug-in standards stifle innovation, while others argue that they reduce costs, promote safety, and encourage adoption. Importantly, the mandatory standardization seems to be a channel for a wide range of innovations outside the basic shape of the electrical plug.
And that’s at the heart of the debate over whether the US should follow the EU’s lead and mandate USB-C for electronic devices. Because the government machinery moves so slowly, it will take years or even decades to change the electronic charging standard once it’s locked in by law and vendors and customers build expectations around it. This does not mean that innovation in charging electronics will end any more than it did for electrical plugs. But the precise definitions in any Electronic Payments Act mean that any creation that is transferred outside of it is defined.
Roger Cochetti provides consulting and consulting services in Washington, D.C. He was a senior executive at Communications Satellite Corporation (COMSAT) from 1981 to 1994. He also directed Internet public policy for IBM from 1994 to 2000 and later served as senior vice president and general manager. VeriSign Policy Officer and Group Policy for CompTIA. During the Bush and Obama administrations, he served on the US State Department’s International Communications and Information Policy Advisory Committee, testified many times on Internet policy issues, and served on advisory committees to the FTC and various UN agencies. He is the author of the Mobile Satellite Communications Handbook.
