July 2017

[Commentary] The tremor in Silicon Valley emerged from Brussels, not the San Andreas Fault. The European Union’s decision on Google’s search practices makes clear the absence of domestic regulation has opened the door for policies to be decided by foreign governments. It should be a worry – and a wake-up – for all the companies whose platforms drive internet services. The EU has leveled a record-breaking $2.7 billion fine against Google for its search practices. But that’s just money (albeit lots of money).

A more pervasive consequence is the EU mandate that Google alter the manner in which its search results are presented. Domestic internet programs might want to consider their own corporate interest in embracing domestic policy regulatory oversight. The decision of the EU is a wake-up call that perhaps having policies established by the US government isn’t such a bad idea after all.

[Tom Wheeler is a former Chairman to the Federal Communications Commission]

[Commentary] It’s clear that most US consumers depend upon a few big players in order to access the internet. Therefore, the critical question is whether these companies have the incentive and ability to harm consumers and competition. That is, are they motivated to control what kinds of innovations come to consumers? And do they have the tools to do so? Both the Federal Communications Commission and the Department of Justice have recognized in recent proceedings that the answers are yes and yes.

In 1776, Thomas Paine didn’t need the permission of any other content creator or distributor to circulate Common Sense. But without rules prohibiting blocking, throttling, and the like, broadband providers would gain the power to limit what unpopular content flows over their networks—to the detriment of consumers and democracy. One challenger to the 2015 Open Internet Order argued exactly this to the DC Circuit: that the rules violated its right to block legal but unpopular content. An Open Internet has worked for America, creating a virtuous circle of innovation, trust, adoption, and further innovation. That circle should not be broken.

[Terrell McSweeny is a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission. Jon Sallet is the former general counsel of the Federal Communications Commission. Both are alumni of the antitrust division of the Department of Justice]

Before the advent of the iPhone, if someone wanted to buy a cell phone, he or she would go to the carrier first. The phone itself — and who made it — didn’t matter as much as the service it ran on. The quality of the network mattered in the early days, and there was pent-up demand for a Verizon iPhone that became available in 2011. As it grew in market share, the iPhone shook up this dynamic, creating high demand for Apple’s iPhone instead of a phone on AT&T or a phone on Verizon.