September 2010

The majority of respondents to a Center for Competitive Politics poll on possible new political contribution disclosure rules (68%) said they favored making the heads and largest donors appear in campaign ads to take responsibility for them.

That requirement was part of the DISCLOSE Act, a bill that would have boosted disclosure requirements on TV and radio ads, among other things. It passed in the House but failed in the Senate. Other poll findings, which were a mixed bag on how much disclosure there should be and who should be doing it, included that 44% said unions and nonprofits that get grants and loans should be prohibited from running political ads and that 62% either strongly or somewhat disagree that citizen's contributions to advocacy groups running political ads should have their name and address posted online. "Americans' views on disclosure are much more complex than 'reform' groups like to claim," said Center Chairman Bradley Smith.

Video programmers are in Washington Sept 16 to lobby on retransmission consent rules, which govern negotiations between broadcasters and the platforms, such as cable stations, that pay to air their content.

The group of non-broadcast TV stations, which will meet with members on Thursday, said the Federal Communications Commission should launch a proceeding to examine the rules. Critics of the rules argue they too heavily favor broadcast television stations because they can pull their content at any time. TV stations go dark for viewers when that happens. The broadcasters say they deserve the muscle to negotiate a fair compensation for their work. The video programmers also sent a letter to Congress on Thursday, signed by the Outdoor Channel, Starz, Africa Channel, Retirement Living TV and the Gospel Music Channel. Si TV wrote to members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus to say that the system is broken. The signatories are concerned that retransmission consent payments will not come from consumers, but from their own non-broadcast-affiliated networks.

The House Committee on the Judiciary's Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy held a hearing Sept 16 on competition in the digital marketplace. In his opening remarks, Subcommittee Chairman Hank Johnson (D-GA) urged that the hearing not become "a forum for Google-bashing." No such luck.

Most lawmakers on the panel argued that antitrust officials have a place in ensuring competition among technology companies but questioned witnesses about how to find the right balance. Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) argued that antitrust law needs to evolve to fit the digital world where "vertical acquisitions are even more worrisome than before."

Richard Feinstein, director of the Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Competition, explained how it protects consumers by applying well-established principles of competition to fast-changing technology markets. His testimony focused on two recent FTC matters to illustrate the agency's flexibility in investigating and bringing enforcement actions in high-tech markets. Last year, the FTC charged Intel Corporation with using unfair methods of competition dating back to 1999 to stifle competition. The agency recently reached a settlement with the company that will help restore lost competition and prevent Intel from suppressing competition in the future, while allowing the company to compete aggressively.

Also last year, the FTC investigated Google's proposed acquisition of mobile advertising firm AdMob and ultimately decided not to oppose the transaction. The Commission initially had concerns that the loss of head-to-head competition between the two leading mobile advertising networks would harm competition. However, Apple's acquisition of the third-largest mobile ad network, Quattro, and the introduction of its own mobile advertising network, iAd, indicated that Apple would quickly become a strong player in the mobile advertising market. The investigation provided an example of how the agency addresses rapidly changing technology markets, in which there is sometimes a short track record of past competition and great uncertainty about the future path of the market.

Perennial Google critic Scott Cleland, who submitted a 40-page testimony to the committee, bemoaned what he labeled the "Google-opoly" and argued that "Google is a vastly more-serious antitrust threat than Microsoft ever was." He called for Google to be "prosecuted."

Morgan Reed, executive director of the Association for Competitive Technology (ACT), a lobby for software developers, expressed concern about Google's acquisition of ITA, a travel software company. The deal is under Justice Department review.

Ed Black of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, an association that includes Google, refuted Cleland's point about the company burying the competition in its rankings. He said he went onto Google on Wednesday and searched for "mapping directions" and the top result was not Google. He characterized the online market for content and applications online as highly competitive. "Barriers to entry ... just aren't there," he said, noting that Facebook has surpassed Google in "time spent" domestically. In fact, the tenor of Cleland's Google concerns may be singular to him, Black suggested.

Geoffrey Manne, executive director of the International Center for Law and Economics at Lewis and Clark Law School, cautioned against aggressive antitrust enforcement of emerging industries particularly those related to the Internet and other digital technologies "where ignorance about market structure, competition, technology and consumer demand is legion."

Mark Cooper, research director at the Consumer Federation of America, dismissed such a claim, saying "the notion that antitrust regulators can't identify anti-competitive practices [in the digital marketplace] is bunk." (Read Dr Cooper's testimony)