Ownership

No industry should be free from antitrust scrutiny, including big tech. But the splitting of this tech antitrust review across two federal agencies (the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division), despite the many similar competition issues that will be investigated, illustrates the absurdity of having two federal agencies handling civil antitrust enforcement.

A proliferation of antitrust investigations into the tech giants is offering competitors a chance to sound off on claims that their larger rivals are playing dirty. If the Department of Justice or Federal Trade Commission pursue formal investigations into Google, Facebook, Amazon or Apple, they’ll need all the evidence they can get. The companies that compete with them could provide that by the ton. But, speaking up can come at a cost to smaller companies, including angering the powerful corporate giants and signaling to investors that you might go under without government intervention.

Apparently, the Justice Department is moving closer to approving T-Mobile’s $26 billion merger with Sprint, but only if the companies sell multiple assets to create a new wireless competitor. The department is pushing T-Mobile and Sprint to sell a prepaid mobile service and valuable radio frequencies that carry data to wireless devices. The companies have approached three internet and television providers — Dish Network, Charter and Altice — about buying Boost Mobile, a prepaid service owned by Sprint, and airwaves owned by Sprint.

The go-to metric for antitrust enforcers has long been increasing prices. Critics, however, have begun to question whether that approach needs an update, given that tech giants like Google and Facebook offer free services. And this week, some of the nation’s leading antitrust enforcers made clear they’re willing to take a broader view. Justice Department antitrust chief Makan Delrahim said his office will consider factors like privacy violations or free speech restrictions as signs that product quality and market competition have deteriorated.

A small liberal think tank has spent years urging Washington to crack down on the United States’ biggest tech companies — a lonely crusade that barely registered with the political establishment. Now the Open Markets Institute has become one of the most influential drivers of Democratic politics in the fight to rein in Facebook, Amazon and Google, seeing its ideas embraced by Elizabeth Warren and forcing presidential candidates like Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker and Joe Biden to take a side.

While social media companies and digital networks are relatively new, the problems of information laundering and manipulation are not. Of course, verbatim application of 20th-century media policy won’t work for today’s digital environment; some of it didn’t work very well last century either. But its core concerns should be taken seriously and its principles—especially transparency, responsibility and structural design to promote news investment—can be adapted for the 21st century.

The Senate Commerce Committee held an oversight hearing of the Federal Communications Commission. Some highlights:

e digital economy is a fact of life, but it is not all things to all people.  There has been robust public discussion about whether the broader economy, undoubtedly transformed by digital technologies, is working well for everyone.  While some commenters have tried to dispatch the antitrust laws to address these problems, I do not believe the antitrust laws are bent towards values other than competition. Therefore, the right question is whether a defined market is competitive.  That is the province of the antitrust laws.... As we think about antitrust enforcement in the digital eco

Google has fired about a half-dozen of its largest lobbying firms as part of a major overhaul of its global government affairs and policy operations amid the prospect of greater government scrutiny of its businesses. In the past few months, the company has shaken up its roster of lobbying firms, restructured its Washington policy team, and lost two senior officials who helped build its influence operation into one of the largest in the nation’s capital. The firms Google has dumped make up about half of the company’s more than $20 million annual lobbying bill.