Connect with us

Antitrust

Broadband Roundup: Everyone (Almost) Gangs Up on Google, Muni Broadband Fact Sheet, SHLB Anchornet Conference

Published

on

Photo of Google CEO Sundar Pichai testifying before the House Judiciary Committee in December 2018 by Drew Clark

It seems that everyone except California and Alabama wants in on the action, whatever that action is, against Google.

Attorneys general for 48 U.S. states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico on Monday announced an antitrust investigation, although not a lawsuit, against search engine giant Google.

Appearing on the steps of the Supreme Court, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton charged that Google “dominates all aspects of advertising on the internet and searching on the internet.”

Paxton said the probe’s initial focus is online advertising. “They dominate the buyer side, the seller side, the auction side and the video side with YouTube,” he said during a Monday news conference.

“There’s nothing wrong with being a dominant player when it’s done fairly,” said Sean Reyes, the Republican attorney general of Utah. He said there is a “presumption” of innocence in such an investigation but still said there is a “pervasiveness” to complaints about Google’s business practices.

Anodyne commentary emanated from many sources, including at Public Knowledge, where Senior Policy Counsel Charlotte Slaiman said, “It is now clear that a number of states, as well as our two antitrust enforcement agencies, are taking the power of digital platforms seriously.”

“For too long, the substantial and persistent market power of these companies has gone largely unexamined.” She said that antitrust enforcement would make the platforms “more fair and more competitive.”

And yet: “antitrust is only a piece of the puzzle. This is particularly true in digital platforms, which suffer from the lock-in of network effects and other incumbency advantages, making them particularly difficult to fix through antitrust alone.”

We’ll be watching closely to see who and when someone can clearly say what the problem is with Google.

Fact sheet from Next Century Cities on municipal broadband

Next Century Cities released a new fact sheet, “The Opportunity of Municipal Broadband.” The two-page document outlines “the benefits of municipal networks,” highlighting the variety of funding methods used to build networks, including revenue bonds, loans and Tax Increment Financing.

While acknowledging that muni networks “are not a small undertaking,” the summary outlines the benefits obtained by cities from Chattanooga, Tennessee;  to Virginia Beach, Virginia; to Portland, Oregon. In the latter city, the local government “had been paying $1,310 per month per site to a private ISP to connect its schools. The district eventually switched to a publicly owned network, and was able to connect schools to a speed 40 times greater for just $616 per month per site.”

The document also highlighted the role that municipal networks play in providing economic development opportunities, in improving utility efficiency, and in helping promote local success. And it highlights at more than 11 million Americans living in states where municipal networks are restricted by state legislation.

Schools, Health and Libraries Broadband Coalition’s E-rate extensive conference

The 9th Annual SHLB AnchorNets Conference takes place in Washington on Wednesday, October 16, to Friday, October 18. The event includes more sessions on E-rate and education than any other event, with sessions on “fiber build or buy,” and whether to “do it yourself” or to “create a cost-effective bandwidth strategy with dark fiber leases.”

The conference will also feature multiple workshops on E-Rate, including cost-modelling and invoicing, a guide to rural anchor institutions, and a how-to-session on responding to Requests for Proposal for RFPs.

Broadband Breakfast is proud to serve as Media Partner sponsor of SHLB’s AnchorNets conference this year.

Breakfast Media LLC CEO Drew Clark is a nationally respected U.S. telecommunications attorney. An early advocate of better broadband, better lives, he founded the Broadband Census crowdsourcing campaign for better broadband data in 2008. That effort became the Broadband Breakfast media community. As Editor and Publisher, Clark presides over news coverage focused on digital infrastructure investment, broadband’s impact, and Big Tech. Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Clark served as head of the Partnership for a Connected Illinois, a state broadband initiative. Now, in light of the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, attorney Clark helps fiber-based and wireless clients secure funding, identify markets, broker infrastructure and operate in the public right of way. He also helps fixed wireless providers obtain spectrum licenses from the Federal Communications Commission. The articles and posts on Broadband Breakfast and affiliated social media, including the BroadbandCensus Twitter feed, are not legal advice or legal services, do not constitute the creation of an attorney-client privilege, and represent the views of their respective authors.

Antitrust

FTC Commissioner Concerned About Antitrust Impact on Already Rising Consumer Prices

Noah Phillips said Tuesday he wants the commission to think about the impact of antitrust rules on rising prices.

Published

on

Screenshot of Federal Trade Commissioner Noah Phillips

WASHINGTON, May 17, 2022 – Rising inflation should be a primary concern for the Federal Trade Commission when considering antitrust regulations on Big Tech, said Commissioner Noah Phillips Tuesday.

When considering laws, “the important thing is what impact it has on the consumer,” said Phillips. “We need to continue to guard like a hawk against conduct and against laws that have the effect of raising prices for consumers.”

Current record highs in the inflation rate, which means money is becoming less valuable as products become more expensive, has meant Washington must become sensitive to further price increases that could come out of such antitrust legislation, the commissioner said.

Phillips did not comment on how such movies would mean higher prices, but that signals, such as theHouse Judiciary Committee’s antitrust report two years ago, that reign in Big Tech companies and bring back enforcement of laws could mean higher prices. He raised concerns that recent policies are prohibiting competition rather than facilitating it.

This follows recent concerns that the American Innovation and Choice Online Act, currently awaiting Senate floor consideration, will inhibit America’s global competitiveness by weakening major American companies, thus impairing the American economy. That legislation would prohibit platform owners from giving preference to their products against third-party products.

This act is one of many currently under consideration at Congress, including Ending Platform Monopolies Act and Platform Competition and Opportunity Act.

Small businesses have worried that by enacting some legislation targeting Big Tech, they would be impacted because they rely on such platforms for success.

Continue Reading

Antitrust

Critics and Supporters Trade Views on American Innovation and Choice Online Act

American Innovation and Choice Online Act is intended to protect fair competition among businesses, but panelists differed on its impact.

Published

on

Photo of Amy Klobuchar from August 2019 by Gage Skidmore used with permission

WASHINGTON, May 10, 2022 – Experts differed on the effect that antitrust legislation targeting big tech companies allegedly engaging in discriminatory behavior would have on small businesses.

Small businesses “want Congress not to do anything that will screw up or weaken the services that they rely on for their business,” said Michael Petricone, senior vice present of the Consumer Technology Association, at a Protocol Live event on Thursday.

Petricone said that antitrust bill would encourage tech companies to relocate to other countries, harming the American economy. He said small businesses would be affected the most.

Instead, Petricone called for  a “smarter immigration policy” to allow foreign innovators access to American tech market, as well as the defeat of the antitrust legislation.

But other said that small businesses suffer from predatory behavior by big tech companies. “Companies can’t get their foot in the door when there is already self-preferencing,” said Awesta Sarkash, representative for Small Business Majority, an advocacy organization, adding that 80% of small businesses say they want antitrust laws to protect them.

Self-preferencing on online platforms is detrimental to the success of small businesses who rely on social media advertising for business, she said. The new antitrust proposals would ensure an level playing field and promote fair competition, she said.

The American Innovation and Choice Online Act would prohibit certain online platforms from unfairly preferencing products, limiting another business’ ability to operate on a platform, or discriminating against competing products and services.

The bill sponsored by Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn, was introduced to the Senate on May 2 and is awaiting Senate floor consideration.

The debate follows concerns raised by both democrats and republicans about America’s global competitiveness as the bill would weaken major American companies.

If passed, the bill will follow the European Union’s Digital Services Act which similarly sets accountability standards for online platforms, preventing potentially harmful content and behavior.

Continue Reading

Antitrust

Watchdogs Cannot Allow Another T-Mobile/Sprint Merger Under New Consolidation Guidelines, Event Hears

A Yale economics professor called on the FTC and DoJ to make it easier for them to pursue harmful mergers.

Published

on

Screenshot of Yale economics professor Fiona Scott Morton

WASHINGTON, May 10, 2022 – A professor of economics said at an Information Technology and Innovation Foundation event late last month that the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission, during its recently announced review of mergers, should ‘plug those holes’ that previously allowed T-Mobile to acquire Sprint.

“I would say that one thing that we have accumulated a great deal of evidence on is that we are missing problematic mergers – that we are not [stopping] mergers that turn out to be harmful,” said Fiona Scott Morton, the Theodore Nierenberg Professor of Economics at Yale University School of Management, at the April 28 event, referring to the FTC’s failure to stop the Sprint/T Mobile merger and accused it of not appropriately protecting consumers.

“We are under enforcing as a general matter and we should therefore use this review of the merger guidelines to plug those holes,” she said, adding, “Are we catching nascent competitors that are going to prove to be important competitors in the future? It turns out we are not doing that,” she said.

She also responded to critics asserting that the FTC simply needs more money to effectively enforce their guidelines.

“Here is where I am going to play fiscal conservative,” she said. “How about we change the rules to make it easier for the government to bring these cases and then we do not need to spend $2 billion more, we could spend half a billion dollars more because there would be a significant deterrent effect and the government would have less work to do.”

Merger guidelines will give industry more certainty

In January, the FTC under Chair Lina Khan and the Justice Department’s antitrust division launched a public inquiry into modernizing merger guidelines established under previous leadership, on which Khan said was an attempt to “accurately reflect modern market realities and equip us to forcefully enforce the law against unlawful deals.” Public comments were due on April 21.

Howard Shelanski, a partner at law firm Davis Polk, said at the ITIF event that FTC guidelines serve several purposes.

“One thing is certainly, just to let parties considering mergers to have an idea of what kind of scrutiny they are in for at the agencies,” he said.

He explained that the guidelines serve to inform stakeholders at which levels of industry concentration presumptions of harm will be triggered and what theories of harm the FTC will pursue.

“I think [guidelines] also let parties know how agencies will consider different kinds of defenses that [will] likely be raised,” Shelanski added. “So, the guidelines certainly serve a public purpose, but they also signal to courts about what lies behind the [FTC’s] thinking when it chooses to investigate and ultimately challenge a merger.”

Continue Reading

Recent

Signup for Broadband Breakfast

Get twice-weekly Breakfast Media news alerts.
* = required field

Trending