Ownership

I would like to explore three rather divergent policy issues, unified by my views on what I see as being in the best interests of American consumers.

The repeal of federal network neutrality rules became official June 11, giving broadband providers the right to block or throttle Internet traffic or to prioritize traffic in exchange for payment. But at least for now, some major ISPs are saying they won't do any of those things. The Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T websites all say they aren't doing any blocking, throttling, or paid prioritization.

In a rare rebuke of President Donald Trump, Republican Senate leaders set up a vote for the week of June 11 that would undo the White House deal to revive Chinese telecommunications company ZTE Corp. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross was on Capitol Hill late June 11 to lobby against the move. But Democratic and Republican lawmakers said that an agreement had been reached to wrap into the National Defense Authorization Act an amendment that would ban ZTE from buying components from US suppliers.

AT&T, one of the world’s largest telecommunications companies, figures prominently in the annals of antitrust law. Since the late 19th century, under various names and configurations, the entity once known as Ma Bell has often been targeted by regulators trying to rein in its size and keep it from amassing monopoly power.  On the afternoon of June 12, a federal judge is expected to issue a ruling in AT&T’s latest battle with the Justice Department, which is attempting to block the company’s $85.4 billion takeover of Time Warner.

Makan Delrahim, who heads the Justice Department’s antitrust division, has spent months laying out a case for greater scrutiny of the country’s powerful technology industry, making the argument in speeches from Chicago to Rome. And his rhetoric — he told an audience at the University of Chicago in April that "enforcers must take vigorous action" if digital platforms harm competition — is being closely watched in the tech industry amid fears that Washington's souring view on Silicon Valley could eventually result in a crackdown.

In America we want institutions that make our democracy strong—that seems like a no brainer. So as one line of thinking goes, antitrust enforcers should step beyond consumer welfare and think about what would be good or bad for our democracy, or for values like the free speech the First Amendment protects. The suggestion is that perhaps enforcers should broaden the consumer welfare lens to think about effects on democracy or expression. I’d like to focus my remarks today on two responses to that suggestion.

The AT&T/Time Warner case could be decided any number of ways. Judge Richard Leon could rule in the government's favor, forcing AT&T to abandon the deal or to sell off key assets such as Turner or DirecTV to move forward. Judge Leon could side with AT&T, saying there is no threat to competition and allowing the deal to proceed unimpeded. In that scenario, AT&T would not be required to divest anything or make any other concessions and could close the deal by June 18.

The two events in Washington (net neutrality June 11 and AT&T/Time Warner ruling June 12) could lead to further consolidation of wireless, cable and content giants, public-interest advocates say. And they fear that behemoths like AT&T might someday prioritize their own TV shows and other content over rivals’. Internet service providers (ISPs) deny that they would engage in such a practice — yet consumer watchdogs worry that people would have little legal recourse if they did.