Forget the FCC — Should the FTC Enforce Net Neutrality?

Republicans argue existing antitrust laws can prevent abuse.

"Man Controlling Trade," by Michael Lantz, 1942; outside the Federal Trade Commission Building.
National Journal
June 20, 2014, 10:50 a.m.

The whole de­bate over net neut­ral­ity is fo­cus­ing on the wrong agency, ac­cord­ing to con­gres­sion­al Re­pub­lic­ans.

The Fed­er­al Trade Com­mis­sion — not the Fed­er­al Com­mu­nic­a­tions Com­mis­sion — should po­lice ab­uses by In­ter­net ser­vice pro­viders, the law­makers ar­gued dur­ing a House Ju­di­ciary Com­mit­tee hear­ing Fri­day.

While the FCC has broad power to reg­u­late com­mu­nic­a­tions net­works, the FTC fo­cuses on ab­us­ive busi­ness prac­tices that harm com­pet­i­tion and con­sumers in all sec­tors.

Net neut­ral­ity is the prin­ciple that In­ter­net ser­vice pro­viders shouldn’t ma­nip­u­late what con­sumers can ac­cess on­line. Ad­voc­ates fear that without gov­ern­ment rules, pro­viders like Com­cast could lim­it ac­cess to in­form­a­tion or cre­ate a two-tiered In­ter­net that be­ne­fits the largest cor­por­a­tions.

House Ju­di­ciary Com­mit­tee Chair­man Bob Good­latte, a Vir­gin­ia Re­pub­lic­an, said the gov­ern­ment shouldn’t stand by and al­low broad­band pro­viders to en­gage in an­ti­com­pet­it­ive be­ha­vi­or, but he warned that ri­gid net-neut­ral­ity reg­u­la­tions could stifle in­nov­a­tion.

“I be­lieve that vig­or­ous ap­plic­a­tion of the an­ti­trust laws can pre­vent dom­in­ant In­ter­net ser­vice pro­viders from dis­crim­in­at­ing against com­pet­it­ors’ con­tent or en­ga­ging in an­ti­com­pet­it­ive pri­cing prac­tices,” Good­latte said dur­ing the hear­ing of the Sub­com­mit­tee on Reg­u­lat­ory Re­form, Com­mer­cial and An­ti­trust Law.

He ac­know­ledged that the an­ti­trust laws — which pro­hib­it busi­nesses from re­strain­ing com­pet­i­tion — may have to be up­dated so they can be “promptly and ef­fect­ively” ap­plied to the In­ter­net mar­ket­place.

Re­pub­lic­an FTC Com­mis­sion­er Joshua Wright agreed that his agency is up to the task. He ar­gued that an­ti­trust is a “su­per­i­or ana­lyt­ic­al frame­work” be­cause it re­lies on eco­nom­ic ana­lys­is to pro­tect con­sumer wel­fare.

But Demo­crats warned that an­ti­trust en­force­ment by the FTC is too nar­row to pre­vent the range of po­ten­tial ab­uses by In­ter­net ser­vice pro­viders.

Rep. John Con­yers, the top Demo­crat on the Ju­di­ciary Com­mit­tee, said an­ti­trust can’t ad­dress noneco­nom­ic harms, such as re­stric­tions on free speech and polit­ic­al de­bate on the In­ter­net. He sug­ges­ted he could be open to the FTC tak­ing a lead­ing role on net neut­ral­ity if the agency re­lied on a broad in­ter­pret­a­tion of its power to com­bat “un­fair” busi­ness prac­tices — but he noted that Re­pub­lic­ans wouldn’t sup­port that ap­proach.

Tim Wu, a Columbia Uni­versity law pro­fess­or who coined the term “net neut­ral­ity,” also ar­gued that the FCC should con­tin­ue to take the lead on net-neut­ral­ity reg­u­la­tions.

“I have the highest ad­mir­a­tion for the an­ti­trust laws,” Wu test­i­fied. “But I simply don’t think they’re equipped to handle the broad range of val­ues and policies that are im­plic­ated by net neut­ral­ity and the open In­ter­net.”

He ar­gued that the gov­ern­ment must not only pro­tect com­pet­i­tion but also en­sure that In­ter­net pro­viders don’t block polit­ic­ally con­tro­ver­sial web­sites, loc­al news sources, or small blogs. Those val­ues wouldn’t be in­cluded in a tra­di­tion­al an­ti­trust ana­lys­is, he said.

But Rep. Dar­rell Issa, a Cali­for­nia Re­pub­lic­an, laid in­to Wu, claim­ing the law pro­fess­or was ad­voc­at­ing gov­ern­ment con­trol of on­line speech. Issa noted that the FCC already reg­u­lates of­fens­ive speech on broad­cast TV.

“This is the FCC’s role. They’re a reg­u­lat­ory policy en­tity that ac­tu­ally does lim­it free speech,” Issa said. Wu countered that net neut­ral­ity is the “ex­act op­pos­ite” be­cause it en­sures In­ter­net pro­viders don’t con­trol on­line speech.

The FCC en­acted net-neut­ral­ity reg­u­la­tions in 2010 that barred In­ter­net pro­viders from block­ing web­sites or “un­reas­on­ably” dis­crim­in­at­ing against any traffic. But Ve­r­i­zon sued, and the D.C. Cir­cuit Court of Ap­peals struck the rules down earli­er this year.

FCC Chair­man Tom Wheel­er is now try­ing to re­write the reg­u­la­tions in a way that can sur­vive fu­ture court chal­lenges. His pro­pos­al would still bar In­ter­net pro­viders from block­ing web­sites, but would al­low them to charge web­sites for faster ser­vice as long as the agree­ments are “com­mer­cially reas­on­able.” That change has promp­ted a massive blow­back from lib­er­als, who fear it could dis­tort the In­ter­net in fa­vor of com­pan­ies that can pay for the spe­cial “fast lanes.”

What We're Following See More »
DEMOCRATS WILL INTRODUCE RESOLUTION ON FRIDAY
Pelosi Pushing Legislation to End National Emergency
9 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"Speaker Nancy Pelosi is throwing her muscle behind a legislative effort to block President Donald Trump’s national emergency declaration, the first formal step to counter Trump and squeeze Republicans on the border wall. Democrats will introduce legislation Friday to terminate the emergency proclamation and Pelosi is urging House colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the resolution, according to a letter obtained by POLITICO on Wednesday."

Source:
IT IS A PUBLIC HEARING
Cohen Testifying at House Oversight Feb. 27
11 hours ago
THE LATEST
AVOIDS SHUTDOWN WITH A FEW HOURS TO SPARE
Trump Signs Border Deal
5 days ago
THE LATEST

"President Trump signed a sweeping spending bill Friday afternoon, averting another partial government shutdown. The action came after Trump had declared a national emergency in a move designed to circumvent Congress and build additional barriers at the southern border, where he said the United States faces 'an invasion of our country.'"

Source:
REDIRECTS $8 BILLION
Trump Declares National Emergency
5 days ago
THE DETAILS

"President Donald Trump on Friday declared a state of emergency on the southern border and immediately direct $8 billion to construct or repair as many as 234 miles of a border barrier. The move — which is sure to invite vigorous legal challenges from activists and government officials — comes after Trump failed to get the $5.7 billion he was seeking from lawmakers. Instead, Trump agreed to sign a deal that included just $1.375 for border security."

Source:
COULD SOW DIVISION AMONG REPUBLICANS
House Will Condemn Emergency Declaration
5 days ago
THE DETAILS

"House Democrats are gearing up to pass a joint resolution disapproving of President Trump’s emergency declaration to build his U.S.-Mexico border wall, a move that will force Senate Republicans to vote on a contentious issue that divides their party. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said Thursday evening in an interview with The Washington Post that the House would take up the resolution in the coming days or weeks. The measure is expected to easily clear the Democratic-led House, and because it would be privileged, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) would be forced to put the resolution to a vote that he could lose."

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login