Chris Dixon

Regulatory hacks

A common way to think of business regulations is by analogy to sports: the rules are specified up front, and the players follow the rules. But real regulations don’t work that way. Regulations follow business as much as business follows regulations.

Sometimes the businesses that change regulations are startups. Startups don’t have the resources to change regulations through lobbying. Instead, they need to start with regulatory hacks: “back door” experiments that demonstrate the benefits of their ideas. With luck, regulators are forced to follow.

Nextel was one of the all-time great regulatory hacks. In the late 80s and early 90s, the FCC’s rules banned more than two cellular operators per city. As Nextel’s cofounder said, “the FCC thought a wireless duopoly was the perfect market structure”. Nextel (called Fleet Call at the time) circumvented these rules by acquiring local (e.g. taxi, pizza truck) dispatch radio companies, which they then connected to create a nationwide (non-dispatch) cell phone service.

Predictably, the cellular incumbents tried to regulate Nextel out of existence. From a 1991 New York Times article:

In a move that could threaten cellular telephone companies, the Federal Communications Commission may decide on Wednesday to grant a small radio company’s request to provide a new form of mobile telephone service in six major cities, including New York. If the request is approved, the action could inject new competition into the industry. At the moment, Federal rules permit only two cellular systems to operate in any city. But the new proposal could open up a regulatory back door, allowing companies that provide private radio service for taxi fleets and delivery services to offer mobile telephone services to individuals…. The proposal has alarmed the industry, which has heatedly opposed it and enlisted support in Congress late last year to delay the F.C.C.’s decision.

The incumbents argued that Nextel’s service would interfere with public safety frequencies and therefore endanger the public. They also argued that Nextel’s service would be too expensive:

Some analysts contend that the radio handsets for Fleet Call and its imitators will be more expensive than cellular units. The technical features of cellular equipment are now standardized nationwide, making it possible to bring down costs through higher selling volumes. Specialized mobile services are currently different in each city.

And their call quality would be inferior:

Some analysts contend that Fleet Call’s local service is likely to be inferior as well. “It is highly unlikely to be as good as cellular service,” said Denise Jevne, telecommunications analyst with T. Rowe Price Associates in Baltimore.

The FCC eventually decided not to block Nextel. Nextel grew to become a top five US cellular operators before it was acquired by Sprint in 2004 for $35B. Their service turned out to be cost-competitive, high quality, and safe. The only thing endangered were the incumbents’ profits.

What Nextel faced in 1991 is very similar to what many startups face today. Uber is being threatened by the taxi industry, Aereo by the TV broadcasting industry, and Airbnb by the hotel industry. Some industries, like finance, are so heavily regulated that almost any new idea runs into regulatory objections.

Of course regulations that truly protect the public interest are necessary. But many regulations are created by incumbents to protect their market position. To try new things, entrepreneurs need to find a back door. And when they succeed, it will all look obvious in retrospect. Today’s regulatory hack is tomorrow’s mainstream industry.

 

  • Anonymous

    I doubt more than 10% of regulations are those that “truly protect the public interest”. Most of what the government does is to protect itself or crony interests.

    • http://www.cdixon.org/ chris dixon

      I tend to agree, especially in industries with very large incumbents who lobby a lot (healthcare, finance, energy, etc).

      • Anonymous

        Should/how do you quantify regulatory risk? Seems like the attitude is usually “try and see” by pushing the envelope.

        Regardless of how you view rent-seeking, it exists. The industries you mention have imbalanced power with relatively low cost/consumer compared to profit/supplier (and spread out over large populations).

        • http://www.cdixon.org/ chris dixon

          I don’t know how to quantify it, but in general it’s a function of whether a startups is outside of or contrary to regulations, combined with the lobbying power of the industry they are going after.

    • http://www.cdixon.org/ chris dixon

      I tend to agree, especially in industries with very large incumbents who lobby a lot (healthcare, finance, energy, etc).

      • http://www.justanentrepreneur.com Philip Sugar

        I agree, add telecommunications and automotive in there.

      • http://florianfeder.org Florian Feder

        I don’t think these are good examples of industries that use regulations to protect their interests. The healthcare, finance and energy sectors all would rather not be so heavily regulated, and when they lobby then to reduce regulation. Quite the opposite of your Nextel story.

  • http://www.StartBreakingFree.com Brian Armstrong

    Interesting, was not aware of the Nextel history – thanks for sharing it.

    I think you’re right, there is almost a positive correlation between startups which make regulators nervous and real innovation. I’ve heard at least one prominent VC describe this as something they seek out specifically (ideas which make regulators nervous).

    We are certainly navigating these waters with bitcoin at Coinbase.

    • http://www.cdixon.org/ chris dixon

      Just to be clear, there are plenty of innovative startups that don’t have many regulatory issues. Google, Apple etc.

      • Victor

        @cdixon:disqus Google has had its fair share of regulatory problems around content copyright for using for search and for displaying snippets/full-text. The issues have only now gone away given the size and importance of its service.

        In the early days of yahoo it was not obvious that you could even crawl the web without attracting lawsuits — hell even linking was in question.

        However Google’s issues were with the generally accepted law and not with a single regulatory body as in your example

        • http://www.cdixon.org/ chris dixon

          True. Although I’d argue that for Google/Yahoo, regulatory issues weren’t central the way they were for Nextel.

    • Anonymous

      I remember having a conversation very much like this with you already.

      How’s it going? :D

    • http://www.cdixon.org/ chris dixon

      Just to be clear, there are plenty of innovative startups that don’t have many regulatory issues. Google, Apple etc.

      • http://www.StartBreakingFree.com Brian Armstrong

        Agreed.

  • Pingback: Regulatory hacks – Chris Dixon | Itsaat

  • Alexander Close

    The original analogy to sports may hold more truth than I think is intended. One could argue that players don’t always follow the rules. They do so until then can win by bending the rules – some sports more so than others.

    Formula One racing is an interesting example. Every year the rules of car design change, and every year the smartest team engineers hack a way to make the cars go faster. (in often mind-blowing creative ways) Until the next year when that design-hack gets shut down by the rules, and the process repeats itself.

    The analogy could even be argued to re-enforce your point, that the innovative ones finding the “back door” can further push the mainstream industry.

    • http://www.cdixon.org/ chris dixon

      Thanks – good point. Maybe I shouldn’t have used sports since I don’t know them well :) I guess board games, or any other activity where the rules are set up front and kept rigid.

    • http://www.cdixon.org/ chris dixon

      Thanks – good point. Maybe I shouldn’t have used sports since I don’t know them well :) I guess board games, or any other activity where the rules are set up front and kept rigid.

  • http://www.justanentrepreneur.com Philip Sugar

    Paypal is a great example.

    There are some examples though where you do need to protect the public.

    I live in a flyover state and when I tell people about Airbnb they shake their head. I know how I would feel about random people staying at a house next to me and my young children. Being in an historic Eastern Shore town I’m in the midst of actual B&B’s and they have regulation which I want. When I look at Airbnb Terms of Service, the all capital letter disclaimers and limitations of liability I get even more nervous.

    I also was hit by a car that was borrowed (to go to a job interview) on a walking path in the corporate center. I can tell you if I didn’t have great under/uninsured from State Farm the doctors initial diagnosis of 50% use of my right arm would probably have turned out correct.

    So for me its pretty clear. When your actions have no potential effect on me, great. When they do even if its unlikely, I want regulation.

    • http://www.cdixon.org/ chris dixon

      Agree with the principle. It could be that some of these services only have limited uses. I’m not saying all regulation is bad, or that all startups are good. Just that creating change often requires back doors.

      With a lot of these services, btw, you could flip the argument around. Airbnb behavior already happens, e.g. on Craigslist. Wouldn’t it be better to happen through a (self?) regulated platform designed for that purpose with safeguards etc?

      • http://www.justanentrepreneur.com Philip Sugar

        I think the last argument is a bad one. Every child has been told a million times that just because somebody else is doing it doesn’t make it right. Also that argument goes right out the door when you are taking a percentage cut versus a free speech argument.

        In my case I really harbored no ill will except to Geico who was her minimum insurance provider that didn’t want to pay for my expensive painful rehab. It was a friend loaning a friend a car for an interview she was looking at a map when she hit us. However, if some company had made money off of that transaction, I would feel very differently.

  • Pingback: Sidestepping regulatory risk | For the love of spreadsheets

  • Anonymous

    Reminds me of how Lyft (Uber but with real people as drivers rather than professional drivers) only can let you make a donation to your driver due to regulations rather than being able to charge for their service.

    • http://www.cdixon.org/ chris dixon

      Yeah Lyft and Sidecar have similar regulatory challenges.

  • http://www.salesblend.com/ David Chevalier

    A regulatory hack is born when regulators can’t create needed changes like when the rate of change of technology is too high for regulators to keep up with. Or, as you suggest, when regulations are kept rigid by incumbents.

    With Nextel, was it a combination of technological change and corruption or one or the other?

    • http://www.cdixon.org/ chris dixon

      From what I can tell from old news stories, it was mostly the incumbents trying to prevent competition (and upset that Nextel was paying less for spectrum).

      • http://www.justanentrepreneur.com Philip Sugar

        MCI was another great example. They were the forerunners in telecommunication.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MCI_Communications

        They used Microwave transmission to lower the cost of long distance.

  • http://twitter.com/statspotting StatSpotting.com

    Thanks for the post. Solid perspective

    So here is one heuristic for startup ideas
    look for obviously dumb regulations and bypass
    those.

  • Pingback: Chris Dixon:不按规则办事 | Walkpai

  • Pingback: Chris Dixon:不按规则办事 | 囧图网

  • Pingback: Chris Dixon:不按规则办事 | HTML5工作室

  • Anonymous

    The problem with regs that are “truly to protect the public interest” is that they are often hijacked by incumbents, who attempt to use the regulatory framework (which is usually well-intended at the beginning) to engage in rent-seeking behavior. This is what Michele Boldrin and David Levine wrote about in their recent white paper on patents for the St. Louis Fed. Some weak patent protection may be beneficial, they say, but over time any patent system invented will succumb to political pressure by incumbents to tilt it in their favor. Eventually you have a patent regulatory system that is a net cost to society.

  • Pingback: Chris Dixon:不按规则办事 | 云动态

  • http://www.nextuc.com/ Jonathan Trent

    Cool story about Nextel. I never knew that’s how they got started. That stupid regulation for them to work around should have never been there to begin with though.

  • Drake Pruitt

    Chris, I was part of the founding team at Nextel in the PNW. What’s also often overlooked is that by breaking the duopoly, we forced market innovations like successful PCS spectrum auctions, digital data services, nationwide push-to-talk, and bundled services plans; all things that are taken for granted today. Thanks for sharing.

  • http://about.me/brandonmarker Brandon Marker

    “Today’s regulatory hack is tomorrow’s mainstream industry” –I saved that one. Nice comparison with Nextel.

    Those financial barriers are slowly looking more penetrable. The next 5 years should prove interesting for that sector.

  • http://wac6.com/ William Carleton

    Provocative thesis! In a way, Kickstarter (or its pivot to handle technical design and development projects, in addition to artistic ones) was a regulatory hack around the problem that new businesses can’t raise money from normal people. Maybe the metaphor is imperfect because Kickstarter did not in fact permit companies to sell equity – they had to sell schwag or access or pre-sell goods; but the success certainly made it easier to imagine what equity crowdfunding in the US (it’s already happening in Europe) might look like, and arguably helped get legislation passed. The story is still be written, but right now it would appear the regulators have chosen to assert themselves rather than be obliging.

  • http://twitter.com/kdamschen Kristina Damschen

    Excellent post! I think Uber is a great example of this issue and very close to what Nextel went through.
    In major cities, Uber is fulfilling a need that is not being met for its citizens. I have had such great experiences with the service and the easy use of the app provides yet another benefit that I cannot get with normal taxi services.

    However, I can see an issue with leaving it unregulated in side effects such as increased traffic. This was a great study done in NY on the possibility of issuing more permits in the city: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/07/31/157477611/does-new-york-city-need-more-taxis

    So where does the solution and compromise come in? Tough to say due to your point that incumbents want to protect their market position. I thought surely we would see more challenges against this service in favor of regulated taxi drivers.. but then this summer, Washington DC voted in favor of Uber. Even though the case was presented that Uber was going around necessary regulations, the FCC chairman backed Uber. He said that he supported innovation and blocked the issue for the time being.

    That was back in July, and there is a new wave of anti-Uber proposals coming from the DC Taxi commission. Guess we will see who will win out in this next round, and if that will be setting a precedent for what is to come.

  • http://www.facebook.com/fadwa.mrabet.37 Fadwa Mrabet

    helpful insights

  • Pingback: Airbnb, Coursera and Uber: The rise of the disruption economy — Tech News and Analysis

  • Pingback: Airbnb, Coursera and Uber: The rise of the disruption economy ← techtings

  • http://twitter.com/dalialasaite Dalia Lasaite

    Good post. Also, actually the regulatory hack with by far the biggest impact recently was the CDO

  • Pingback: Airbnb, Coursera and Uber: The rise of the disruption economy | Apple Related

  • Pingback: Airbnb, Coursera and Uber: The rise of the disruption economy | Start Meme

  • Pingback: On Disruptive Startups - Invisible//Ink//DigitalInvisible//Ink//Digital

  • Pingback: Chris Dixon:不按规则办事 | 科技热

  • Pingback: Chris Dixon:不按规则办事 - 阅趣-阅读的乐趣