Competition/Antitrust

The News Media Alliance, which represents the newspaper industry, laid out a potential antitrust case against its foes, Google and Facebook, in comments filed with the Federal Trade Commission. The organization outlined legal considerations — including non-price harm to consumers, such as the newspaper industry’s ability to sustain journalism — and explained “how they connect to a potential antitrust case against one or more platforms.” 

In Sept, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will kick off its planned Hearings on Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century.  The timing is auspicious.  Now that the FTC once again oversees the entire internet ecosystem, including broadband internet service providers (ISPs), it should pursue two overarching objectives.

US broadband service, already slower and more expensive than in many other countries, could get even pricier. That's because major internet providers such as AT&T and Verizon want the Federal Communications Commission to scrap a key provision that some say helps keep broadband costs low for small businesses and consumers. Under the rule, large telecommunication companies must allow smaller rivals to piggy-back on their networks at rates set by the government.

In July 2018, the 30 members of the Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee gathered at the Federal Communications Commission to develop and agree to debate new model state and local laws for broadband deployment. The group comprised one elected official and five total representatives of state or local governments — along with a wide range of members representing telecommunications companies, academic institutions known for their opposition to municipal broadband investment, and stakeholders representing the National Grange and LGBT Technology Partnership & Institute.

Some 39 percent of rural Americans lack access to broadband Internet. Rural communities tend to be less profitable for broadband service providers, since a smaller number of customers spread over a larger geographical area prevents economies of scale that are achievable in a densely populated region.

In recent years AT&T and Verizon have eliminated their cheaper rate tiers for low and mid-speed Internet access, except at the very slowest levels. Each company now charges essentially identical monthly prices – $63-$65 a month after first-year discounts have ended – for home wireline broadband connections at almost any speed up to 100/100 Mbps fiber service. This policy of upward “tier flattening” raises the cost of Internet access for urban and rural AT&T and Verizon customers who only have access to the oldest, slowest legacy infrastructure.

AT&T: “Competition has never been greater than it has been over the past two years, and as a result prices are at all-time lows, output is at all-time highs, and innovation, network quality and consumer satisfaction are at unprecedented levels.”

Verizon: “The evidence of a robustly competitive and innovative mobile wireless marketplace remains overwhelming and is only growing stronger."

But not everyone in the wireless industry is seeing the same picture.

I want today to register my concern that laws and regulations intended to promote privacy may build protective moats around large companies (some of which already possess significant amounts of data about people) by making it more difficult for smaller companies to grow, for new companies to enter the market, and for innovation to occur—and insist that competition be part of our conversation about privacy. If our concern is warranted, the questions for proponents of new privacy rules then must include: Are we willing to allow a reduction in competition or innovation?

American democracy, like any democracy, requires the freedom to speak. But American democracy has always recognized the corollary: the strength of speech rests on access to communications networks. From the Post Office, to the telegraph, the telephone, and broadband, governmental action of various stripes has helped connect Americans to each other. The Benton Foundation serves that mission. Our goal: To bring open, affordable, high-capacity broadband to all people in the U.S.

The Free State Foundation says the Federal Communications Commission got it right in its 2017 Wireless Competition Report when it concluded that the mobile wireless broadband market is competitive.