Antitrust vs. net neutrality: Consumer welfare in focus

[Commentary] The House Judiciary Committee has heard testimonies on “Net Neutrality: Is Antitrust More Effective than Regulation in Protecting Consumers and Innovation?” I, however, would characterize the question a la a Seinfeld episode (paraphrasing): “Are you just saying you want to have Internet freedom for the little guy or do you really want to have Internet freedom for the little guy?”

If you want to protect the little guy, then this committee hearing was for you. The answer to the question posed -- given the empirical evidence -- is yes, antitrust is more effective than regulation at protecting consumers and innovation -- at least when the proposed regulation is “net neutrality.” Why is antitrust so much better than regulation at ensuring innovation in the Internet ecosystem? The reason is simple: unlike regulation, which specializes in control by the few -- a few commissioners, the few well-connected lobbyists, a few politically favored corporations -- antitrust is the law of the people.

For all their talk about wanting to preserve the Wild West of the Internet, net neutrality proponents seem to think consumers don’t know what they want until they’re told -- and free music is not what they really want. This convoluted and patronizing consumer welfare analysis is antithetical to antitrust.

Antitrust does not judge the legitimacy of consumer desires; it merely ensures that corporations do not censor your demands through anticompetitive practices.

[Boliek is an associate professor of law at Pepperdine University School of Law]