Connect with us

Antitrust

Broadband Roundup: Two Separate State Antitrust investigations of Google and Facebook, and Broadband Mapping

Published

on

Photo of Letitia James in September 2013 by Matt Cohen used with permission

Two separate bi-partisan groups of state attorneys general on Friday confirmed that they are launching antitrust investigations into tech giant companies Google and Facebook.

New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat, on Friday announced that she and eight other state attorneys general will be investigating Facebook. She said that the probe she is leading will consider whether Facebook “has stifled competition and put users at risk,” as she said in a statement.

“We will use every investigative tool at our disposal to determine whether Facebook’s actions may have endangered consumer data, reduced the quality of consumers’ choices, or increased the price of advertising.”

Joining in the Facebook probe are attorneys general of Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee and the District of Columbia, Ms. James said.

Meanwhile, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, announced in a news release Friday that on Monday “a multistate investigation into whether large tech companies have engaged in anticompetitive behavior that stifled competition, restricted access and harmed consumers.”

The Paxton-led group of attorneys general is apparently targeting Google, according to The Wall Street Journal, and could include 40 state attorneys general joining in.

Four member of Congress release two pieces of broadband mapping legislation

On Friday, Reps. Dave Loebsack, D-Iowa, Bob Latta, R-Ohio, introduced bipartisan legislation designed to improve the accuracy of the Federal Communications Commission’s broadband availability maps.

The “Broadband Deployment Accuracy and Technological Availability (DATA) Act,” H.R. 4229, is similar to the Broadband DATA Act introduced in the Senate by Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss.

The legislation is cosponsored by Reps. Billy Long, R-Missouri, and Donald McEachin, D-Virginia. Additionally, Long and McEachin introduced the “Mapping Accuracy Promotes Services (MAPS) Act,” H.R. 4227, which will help hold broadband providers accountable by making it against the law to knowingly provide inaccurate data to the FCC. (Reps. Loebsack and Latta also cosponsored that bill.)

Specifically, the Broadband Deployment Accuracy and Technological Availability (DATA) Act:

  • Requires the FCC to collect granular service availability data from wired, fixed wireless, and satellite broadband providers.
  • Requires strong parameters for service availability data collected from mobile broadband providers to ensure accuracy.
  • Asks the FCC to consider whether to collect verified coverage data from state, local, and tribal governments, as well as from other entities.
  • Creates a process for consumers, state, local, and Tribal governments, and other groups to challenge FCC maps with their own data, and requires the FCC to determine how to structure the process without making it overly burdensome on challengers.

See other topical pieces on broadband mapping and data on Broadband Breakfast.

Upcoming broadband-related events for the week ahead

With impeccable timing, Georgetown Law Center’s Continuing Legal Education Center on Tuesday, September 10, hosts its antitrust enforcement symposium.

Also on Tuesday, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration hosts a half-day conference on spectrum policy at the National Press Club.

On Wednesday, Brookings Institution holds a half-day session on the “challenges and opportunities” in federal privacy legislation.

Also on Wednesday, Citizens Against Government Waste holds an event on “setting the record straight on autonomous vehicles, 5Gs and the 5.9 GigaHertz band.”

And on Wednesday and Thursday, the Cloud Comms Summit Washington meets at Lansdowne Resort and Spa in Virginia to learn from experts in the cloud communications space.

Finally, this week Internet 2 extended the deadline for submissions for their 2020 Global Summit to Friday, September 13. The summit, which takes place from March 29-April 1, 2020, in Indianapolis, aims to showcase collaborative efforts in which research and educational networks are transforming research and scholarship.

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