June 18, 2021—The package of five new antitrust bills introduced last Friday would “radically change how firms compete,” said a critic close to the technology industry.
The comments, by Aurelien Portuese, director of antitrust and innovation policy at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation in an interview with Broadband Breakfast, represent a sharp critiques of the bills by legal experts and tech industry executives.
The bills would not achieve their stated goals, Portuese said. He says that they would stifle competition and lead to less, not more innovation.
Portuese said that, because the bills target companies above a certain market cap and would only apply to those companies, they would lead to “a two-level playing field” in which the laws would apply to certain companies and not to others.
“These bills allow practices for some companies while prohibiting the very same practices to their rivals, and conversely, would prohibit some practices to some companies while allowing them for rivals.”
Because the measures were drafted to target a specific companies such as Apple, Amazon, Facebook and Google, they were a form of “overt discrimination.”
Apple will be regulated by the new laws, but their competitor in the music streaming industry, Spotify, will not. This would give Spotify a competitive advantage over Apple.
Antitrust law should be used to foster innovation
Antitrust policy should be employed to foster as much innovation as possible, and not simply break up large firms into smaller ones, said David Teece, executive chairman of the Berkeley Research Group, to an online panel hosted by ITIF.
For his part, Portuese said that antitrust law is a “question of leadership, not of law.” Currently, there are three active legal cases employing antitrust philosophy involving Google, Facebook, and Apple, all of which, he said, are being prosecuted under the current antitrust law.
These current antitrust tools are sufficient, he said, and the lack of antitrust actions taken by past administrations is a problem of enforcement, and not the legal framework itself.
Lina Khan, a longstanding critic of Big Tech, was appointed chairwomen of the FTC on Tuesday. As chairwoman, she will have considerable leeway in directing how and what the FTC regulates. That could mean a major shift in the commission’s enforcement on antitrust.
Portuese also made the point that tech innovation requires large capital expenditures. By specifically targeting the U.S.’s top firms and breaking them up, the overall amount of innovation that occurs in the technology industry will diminished, he said.
Enforcement for political gain
Samuel Palmisano, the former CEO of technology company IBM, said that he sees the new antitrust legislative proposals as less about competition policy and more about politics.
“We see both the right and the left wanting to break up media and social platforms because they don’t like what’s being published, or not published,” Palmisano said at the ITIF event. “There can be a legitimate debate about media fairness or Section 230, but antitrust isn’t the tool for that debate.”
Editor’s Note: A previous version of this story incorrectly spelled the last name of Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan, as “Kahn.” The story has been corrected, and Broadband Breakfast apologizes for the error.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.”
- State Broadband Offices Have Obligation to Explain NTIA Notice of Funding to Applicants
- Mountain Connect Features NTIA’s Alan Davidson, 2 Colorado Senators and State Attorney General
- Senate Bill Would Alter Google Advertising, DOJ Cybersecurity Policy Reversal, Comcast on Hybrid Fiber-Coax
- Rahul Sen Sharma: The Metaverse is Not Web 3.0
- AT&T and DISH Agreement, FCC Adds More States in Robocall Fight, $50M from Emergency Connectivity Fund
- FCC Seeks Comment on Higher Broadband Speeds and Increased Security Measures for Certain Carriers
Signup for Broadband Breakfast
Broadband Roundup3 months ago
Microsoft App Store Rules, California Defers on Sprint 3G Phase-Out, Samsung’s New IoT Guy
Broadband Roundup4 months ago
‘Buy American’ Waiver Request, AT&T Cuts Dividend for Builds, Jamestown Municipal Broadband Program
Broadband Roundup3 months ago
More From Emergency Connectivity Fund, Rootmetrics Says AT&T Leads, Applause for House Passing Chips Act
Broadband Roundup4 months ago
AT&T Speeds Tiers, Wisconsin Governor on Broadband Assistance, Broadband as Public Utility
WISP3 months ago
Wireless Internet Service Providers Association CEO Claude Aiken to Step Down in April 2022
Big Tech2 months ago
‘Cartel’ is ‘Most Absurd Term Ever’ for Media Allowed Revenue Share With Tech Platforms: NMA
Broadband Roundup3 months ago
Rosenworcel’s Proposal for 9-1-1, Harris to Talk Broadband, AT&T Joins Ericsson Startup 5G Program
Blockchain4 months ago
NFTs May Be Central to the Emerging ‘Internet of Value,’ Say Experts at Pulver VON3