No images? Click here Welcome to The Corner. In this issue, we look at how the FCC’s new Democratic majority could act to rein in Big Tech, and at Musk’s misuse of Starlink.
Austin Ahlman After spending the last two and half years deadlocked 2 to 2, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has reentered the policy battlefield with the confirmation of new commissioner, Anna Gomez, last week. Democratic appointees now hold a majority for the first time since the Obama administration. The standoff has meant that few regulatory decisions of importance have been made since President Joe Biden took office. Gomez’s quiet ascension follows a year-plus-long battle over former nominee Gigi Sohn, who withdrew from consideration in March, after a scorched-earth campaign against her nomination waged by large technology and telecommunications corporations undermined support among centrist members of the Senate Democratic caucus. In recent months, FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel has shown signs she is willing to challenge platform and telecom monopolists, and Democratic commissioner Geoffrey Starks has demonstrated strong reformist instincts. This means the FCC’s direction appears to hinge on Gomez’s appetite for taking on these powerful corporations. Gomez’s mix of experience in both the public and private sectors smoothed her path to confirmation but led to some questions about whether she is up for big fights. If Gomez, Starks, and Rosenworcel prove ready to follow President Biden’s lead in cracking down on dangerous concentrations of private power and control, there is no shortage of items they can quickly address, including: Restoring net neutrality to internet service providers: In most advocates’ view, the Commission’s top priority is to again categorize the internet as a “common carrier service” under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. The 2015 implementation of such “net neutrality” provisions under Obama-era FCC chair Tom Wheeler was the crowning achievement of the open internet movement, before being reversed by Trump-appointed FCC chair Ajit Pai in 2018. Net neutrality is a rare issue where public advocates and large tech companies mostly align, sharing distrust of a regulatory regime that gives internet service providers the power to discriminate against some internet content by throttling the speed at which it is delivered. With every Democratic commissioner previously voicing support for net neutrality, such a move looks likely. Applying net neutrality principles to Google, Facebook, and Twitter. In a November 2017 speech sponsored by the Open Markets Institute, Senator Al Franken said the FCC’s authority under the Federal Communications Act of 1934 can also serve as a model for regulating Big Tech platforms. A reinvigorated FCC could swiftly move to take up this challenge from Franken, who also was a leading champion of net neutrality, by declaring the platforms to be essential online communications infrastructure and regulating them accordingly. Most importantly this would include requiring them to provide the same service at the same price to all users. Taking this path would also enable the FCC to work more effectively with the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in addressing some of the threats to democracy posed by Facebook and Google. For instance, the FCC could target Facebook’s threat to block access to news in California, as Facebook is already doing in Canada, as punishment for legislation to force the platforms to pay the news publishers who employ the journalists who actually create the information that underlays the platforms’ business model. Such a move would also enable the FCC to join the DOJ and FTC in addressing the threats to democracy posed by Elon Musk’s control of Twitter and Starlink, as the Open Markets Institute called for them to do last November. Since then, Musk has throttled access to news sites and competing platforms and to directly interfered in Ukraine’s war of defense against Russia. Reversing Trump-era deregulation of television broadcast stations. Under former chair Ajit Pai, the FCC drastically cut restrictions limiting cross-ownership of print media and television broadcast entities, allowing for greater concentration in smaller media markets. Building on the Obama-era FCC’s questionable decision to scale back restrictions on foreign investments in broadcast stations, the Trump-era FCC also made it easier for American television stations to bring on foreign investors and weakened rules for reporting their identities. Rosenworcel recently demonstrated an interest in combatting consolidation in the sector: When hedge fund Standard General moved to buy broadcast television giant Tegna Inc., Rosenworcel used regulatory maneuvers to block the deal without a full vote of the deadlocked commission. Ensuring fair distribution of new infrastructure and IRA benefits and funds. The FCC can also ensure that the expansions of telecom infrastructure under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act are implemented equitably. Pending rulemaking around “digital discrimination of access” language in the infrastructure bill will clearly indicate whether the new Democratic majority is willing to challenge telecommunications providers and large platforms on behalf of the public.
The Center for Journalism & Liberty at the Open Markets Institute released a statement to underscore their deep concerns about the decision to hear U.S. v Google, a case over the tech giant’s monopolization of the search market that went to trial this week, behind closed doors. “This decision impairs the public’s right to information of national interest and restricts the ability of journalists all over the world to access first-hand information as the trial unfolds,” the statement read. OMI joined other groups including the American Economic Liberties Project, Demand Progress, and the Revolving Door Project in filing a transparency motion seeking a publicly available audio feed of the unsealed portions of the trial, which received coverage in Common Dreams. Separately, Open Markets executive director Barry Lynn was quoted in The American Prospect on the trial, saying, “This is the most amazing period in antitrust in a hundred years,” while cautioning against high expectations. “It’s important not to oversell this case. Our side always does this.” Open Markets senior reporter Karina Montoya also published an article in Tech Policy Press on what to watch for during the proceedings. “As the trial unfolds, the public and journalists should closely scrutinize anything Google says about what happens behind the court’s closed doors,” Montoya writes. In addition, Open Markets published a blog post explaining the issues at stake in the case, such as the exclusive deals and the favorable terms the company strikes to maintain its dominant position in the search market.
A new biography of Elon Musk this week disclosed that he used his control over the Starlink Satellite network to block a Ukrainian attack on Russia’s naval fleet in Crimea, in an action that affected the course of the war. The revelation came roughly a year after Open Markets Institute first warned of such a danger in a policy brief published last September. Open Markets and CJL called for a stricter regulatory regime to lay the groundwork for a fair space broadband market. 📝 WHAT WE'VE BEEN UP TO:
🔊 ANTI-MONOPOLY RISING:
We appreciate your readership. Please consider making a contribution to support the continued publication of this newsletter. 📈 VITAL STAT:80%The portion of general search queries in the U.S. going to Google’s search distribution channels, which forms the basis of the arguments in the complaint leading to Google’s trial. (CNN) 📚 WHAT WE'RE READING:“Containing Big Tech.” In his book, the veteran Silicon Valley entrepreneur Tom Kemp offers an account of how Google, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, and Apple secured their dominant market position. Kemp also explores how their misuse of our personal data, their problematic deployment of underdeveloped AI tools, and their abuse of their outsized market power are threatening America’s economic and democratic values. Kemp explores a variety of potential policies to curtail the giants’ growing power. “Market Concentration Implications of Foundation Models: The Invisible Hand of ChatGPT.” This report from the Brookings Institution details how the market structure of foundation models — the large AI models that enable products like ChatGPT — tends toward natural monopoly. Researchers Jai Vipra and Anton Korinek argue that the growing importance of these models and their bias toward monopoly present unprecedented regulatory challenges, especially to ensure there is viable competition among the producers of frontier AI models. 🔎 TIPS? COMMENTS? SUGGESTIONS? We would love to hear from you—just reply to this e-mail and drop us a line. Give us your feedback, alert us to competition policy news, or let us know your favorite story from this issue. |