Category Archives: Net Neutrality

Myths and Historical Errors: Cherry Re Yoo

cherry.jpg Dr. Barbara Cherry sent me a response to Dr. Chris Yoo’s “novel” opinion of her antitrust theory. Dave Farber posted Barb’s comments on his Interesting People list, although without her postscript with the pointer to her articles and book. Farber appended a response from Chris, which I’ll post separately.
From: “Cherry, Barbara” <cherryb at indiana.edu>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 18:28:04 -0400
Subject: Re: Prof. Yoo responds for Prof. Farber

John,

Christopher Yoo’s response unfortunately contains several historical analytical errors that I’ve repeatedly discussed in my writings. It is unlikely that he actually read my TPRC paper to which you provided a link in our blog, as he would have readily discovered some of them.

Perhaps the fundamental problem is that many economists and legal scholars commenting on the network neutrality debate DO NOT understand the history of common carriage. Under the common law, common carriage obligations were TORT obligations imposed on carriers (in their relationship with customers) simply by virtue of their status of engaging in the business. In other words, the obligations are STATUS-BASED and unrelated to the industry’s market structure. Attributing the imposition of common carriage obligations to natural monopoly is a MYTH, unfortunately so often erroneously repeated in the secondary literature that it is believed to be true.

The rest after the jump. Continue reading →

Social Welfare: Reed Asks Yoo

DPRPhotoSmall.jpg David P. Reed asks a question and Christopher S. Yoo responds on Farber’s Interesting People list. I’m posting both in full here, with my thoughts at the end; basically, law isn’t a science, and anecdotes can turn into legal cases; some have already regarding net neutrality.
From: David P. Reed [dpreed@reed.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 11:50 AM
To: David Farber
Cc: ip
Subject: Re: [IP] re-distribution of op-ed on Net Neutrality — a reaction and a reply from one of the authors

I read through the long comment by Chris Yoo below, and as a non-lawyer interested in policy, I ask the following simple question:

Is there a well-regarded (one might ask for scientifically reasoned) argument that antitrust law as currently interpreted and practiced has a substantial impact measured in some currency like $ on social welfare?

Otherwise this entire argument is about nothing more than vaporware proceeding from a faith that competition (however loosely defined) creates social welfare best. AFAIK, this is largely an article of faith, just as the “End of History” was a grand article of faith posited by many of the same people as “truth”.

It is just not fair to imply that the core of “today’s settled antitrust law” carries even the level of weight as Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. There have been no replicable studies of its practice.

Law professors and lawyers who don’t challenge its truthiness squarely are merely behaving as dogmatic mandarins always do – asserting authority of professional status, rather than rigor of reasoning, experiment, or argument.

I say this not as FOX News or Hillary Clinton would call an elitist, but as a person who genuinely is unconvinced by magical faith in authorities.

That’s Reed’s question. Yoo’s response, and my thoughts, after the jump. Continue reading →

Novel Point of View: Dr. Chris Yoo’s Opinion of Dr. Barbara Cherry’s Antitrust Opinion

csyoo.jpg I previously posted a pointer to Barbara Cherry’s examination of antitrust history in response to Dave Farber’s posting of an op-ed against net neutrality. Dave responds:

( INDEED I AM NOT A LAWYER AND SO I ASKED PROF. YOO, ON THE FACULTY OF PENN LAW AND ONE OF THE AUTHORS OF THE EDITORIAL, TO REPLY TO THIS NOT — IN PARTICULAR PROF. CHERRY’S COMMENTS. DAVE FARBER)

— re-distribution of op-ed on Net Neutrality — a reaction and a reply from one of the authors, David Farber, Interesting People, Fri, 9 May 2008 15:23:10 -0400

Here’s Prof. Yoo’s response:

From: “Christopher S. Yoo” <csyoo@law.upenn.edu>
Date: May 9, 2008 2:51:40 PM EDT
To: “David Farber” <dave@farber.net>
Cc: “Faulhaber, Gerald” <faulhabe@wharton.upenn.edu>

Dave Farber forwarded me a recent e-mail asking for a lawyer’s reaction to Barbara Cherry’s recent presentation and paper questioning whether antitrust law can protect against the harms envisioned by network neutrality proponents. As the only lawyer among the co-authors of the op-ed that Dave, Michael Katz, Gerry Faulhaber, and I worked up for the Washington Post, I am happy to offer a few thoughts. (Those interested in a different take on the relationship between network neutrality and antitrust law may want to look here: http://ssrn.com/abstract=992837.)

Barbara’s work is based on a theory advanced by Neil Averitt and Robert Lande that would place consumer choice at the center of antitrust policy. As Averitt and Lande explicitly recognize, their theory would represent a fairly significant break (they would call it a paradigm shift) away from current antitrust law, which focuses on maximizing economic (and particularly consumer) welfare.

Interestingly, antitrust law once was quite friendly toward the consumer choice perspective that Barbara favors. (I review these developments in vol. 94 of the Georgetown Law Journal at pages 1885-87, http://ssrn.com/abstract=825669.) Early cases like FTC v. Brown Shoe (1966) and Times-Picayune Publishing v. United States (1953) invalidated exclusive dealing and tying contracts (which are among the types of antitrust practices most similar to network nonneutrality) because they infringed on unfettered consumer choice.

The rest of Dr. Yoo’s response after the jump, and my response in a following post. Continue reading →

Freedom v. Market Mythology

art_brodsky.jpg Here’s a question that answers itself:
…what is it about individual freedom that “conservatives” like the Spectator and Armey don’t like?

To be fair, the debate is larger than the Spectator and Armey. Most congressional Republicans oppose the idea of giving consumers freedom on the Internet. They take shelter in their anti-government, anti-regulation rhetoric, preferring to allow Internet freedom to apply to the corporations which own the networks connecting the Internet to consumers, rather than to consumers themselves. There could, of course, be a larger discussion about the meaning of “conservative” and Republican, and whether the two are synonymous.

(To be fairer still, it’s not only Republicans. Many a Democrat also speaks out against Internet freedom. They don’t have the fig-leaf of misbegotten ideology to hide behind, as they largely back worthwhile government action in many other areas. They are simply servants of corporate and/or union interests. The question applies equally: What about freedom don’t they like?)

— Why The ‘Right’ Gets Net Neutrality Wrong, Art Brodsky, HuffingtonPost, Posted May 5, 2008 | 10:21 AM (EST)

The clue is “servants of corporate … interests”. (Unions occasionally get into this act; corporations much more frequently.) And it’s not simple greed for corporate lobbyist money or kickbacks or the revolving door: many politicians and people really believe the “free market” will solve all problems. That’s the origin of the doctrine of “market failure” that has pervaded all U.S. federal departments and agencies. Nevermind that when it’s a major airline or automobile manufacturer or, even worse, a financial institution such as Citibank, these same people support all sorts of governmental market manipulations and bailouts. We’re talking mythology here, kind of like the “rational actor” myth of economics.

Brodsky digs into the misconceptions behind this myth:

[Peter] Suderman’s analysis: “In fact, not only were all of these companies [eBay and Google] born in an era with no mandated net neutrality, it’s utterly unclear that a lack of neutrality would’ve impeded them in any way whatsoever.”
That is not how it happened. This is how it happened: Continue reading →

Anti-Trust Still Not Appropriate for Net Neutrality

farber-10.jpg I admire Dave Farber; he’s done a lot for computing and the Internet. But sometimes I can’t agree with him:
Antitrust law generally takes a case-by-case approach under which private parties or public agencies can challenge business practices and the courts require proof of harm to competition before declaring a practice illegal. This is a sound approach that has served our economy well.

— Hold Off On Net Neutrality, By David Farber and Michael Katz, Interesting People, Friday, January 19, 2007; A19,

In an op-ed he’s recently reposted on his Interesting People list, he’s recommending antitrust instead of legislation to deal with net neutrality. So far as I know, Farber is no lawyer. In this case, I tend to go more by lawyers who have actually studied the problem, for example Prof. Barbara Cherry, who used to work for the FCC and has examined the history of common, statutory and administrative law in the U.S., as well as the way Internet provision has been wrenched out of one legal regime into another by the FCC, and how the FCC has also stripped broadband of its common carriage status. Those who say that we shouldn’t regulate because we don’t know what will happen and anti-trust will catch problems if they occur are not taking into account that anti-trust doesn’t automatically apply to or address problems in the new legal regime into which broadband has been thrust.

-jsq

Murdoch Wants Another NYC Newspaper

murdoch2_AP_2.jpg
Rupert Murdoch AP Photograph
Four months after Rupert Murdoch bought the Wall Street Journal, the editor quit. Murdoch already owns the New York Post. Now he wants to buy Newsday. Nevermind that such a purchase would be illegal. The good money is on Kevin Martin’s FCC letting it happen anyway. After all, if he doesn’t need a law to enforce, what’s to stop him not enforcing the laws he’s already got?

Despite having had no success at preventative or forensic oversight of the FCC, Congress is going to give it another go:

However, the looser ownership rules the FCC passed in December – over an outcry from many interest groups – has stirred criticism from many in Congress, suggesting that Murdoch’s Newsday bid faces the first stirrings of a backlash.

The commerce committee in the Senate yesterday approved a “resolution of disapproval” measure that would overturn the new ownership rules, creating more of a hurdle for Murdoch.

Senator Byron Dorgan, the measure’s leading sponsor, said: “We really do literally have five or six major corporations in this country that determine for the most part what Americans see, hear and read every day. I don’t think that’s healthy for our country.”

Dorgan is backed by 25 senators, including Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and is confident it will pass the Senate. A similar bill has been proposed in the House.

— Murdoch’s Newsday bid faces hurdle, Elana Schor, guardian.co.uk, Friday April 25 2008

We’ll see if the Senate or Democrats have a spine this time.

Meanwhile, the entire mainstream press, except the New York Times, ignores that the president of the United States admits he personally authorized war crimes. Except for ABC, which broke the story, but then couldn’t be bothered to mention it during a “debate” it hosted between the remaining Democratic presidential candidates.

If every other major paper in NYC (and 3 out of the top 10 in the U.S.) is controled by Murdoch, how long before the NYTimes falls prey, too? With net neutrality we can still know about stories like this. Without it?

-jsq

Hamlet in DC: To Legislate or Not to Legislate, That is the Question

EdwinBoothasHamlet.jpg The U.S. Senate takes up net neutrality again, to legislate or not to legislate:
At a Senate Commerce Committee hearing entitled “The Future of the Internet” on Tuesday, Democratic politicians argued for passage of a law designed to prohibit broadband operators from creating a “fast lane” for certain Internet content and applications. Their stance drew familiar criticism from the cable industry, their Republican counterparts, and FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, who said there’s no demonstrated need for new rules, at this point.

— Net neutrality battle returns to the U.S. Senate, by Anne Broache, C|Net News.com, 22 April 2008

Some of the senators seemed to think the Comcast debacle indicated there was need for legislation:
“To whatever degree people were alleging that this was a solution in search of a problem, it has found its problem,” said Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.). “We have an obligation to try and guarantee that the same freedom and the same creativity that was able to bring us to where we are today continues, going forward.”

Kerry is one of the backers of a bill called the Internet Freedom Preservation Act, chiefly sponsored by North Dakota Democrat Byron Dorgan and Maine Republican Olympia Snowe, which resurfaced at the beginning of 2007 but has gotten little attention since. A similar measure failed in a divided Commerce Committee and in the House of Representatives nearly two years ago.

Unsurprisingly, Martin says he doesn’t need a law to enforce, because he can make it up as he goes along: Continue reading →

NFL v. Comcast: Expect this on the Internet

nfl.gif This is what we can expect to see on the Internet if the duopoly is left to its own devices:
NFL Network is filing a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission against cable TV giant Comcast in the latest legal wrangling between the two.

The network announced Thursday it had served Comcast with the required 10-day notice of its intent to file a complaint. NFL Network is accusing the nation’s largest cable operator of discriminatory and anticompetitive treatment in violation of the Cable Act of 1992.

The two sides have been feuding over Comcast’s decision to place NFL Network on a premium sports tier that customers must pay extra to receive. NFL Network sued Comcast in October 2006 over the move.

— NFL Network filing complaint with FCC against Comcast AP, 17 April 2008

The NFL Channel and the Amazon Channel. Whatever the duopoly thinks it can milk for extra revenue by putting it on a premium channel, that’s what they’ll do.

Defenders of the duopoly may claim they’re doing it to protect copyright, but note that in this case the content provider doesn’t even want it.

-jsq

ISPs Escalate Ignoring FCC

comcast.jpg Fox started the trend of ignoring the FCC when it does something they don’t like. Now the duopoly has gotten up to the same trick:
Comcast, AT&T, Time Warner Cable, and cable research company CableLabs were all invited to participate several weeks ago, but declined, Martin said. The commission again reached out to Comcast after the announcement this week that it would develop a P2P bill of rights with Pando Networks, but they again sent their regrets, he said.

— ISPs Give FCC Cold Shoulder at Internet Hearing, by Chloe Albanesius, PCMag.com, 04.17.08

You may recall at the previous hearing, at Harvard, FCC chair Kevin Martin couldn’t hear the difference between participant and consumer, while Comcast hired shills off the street to take up seats so people with things to say couldn’t. Now the duopoly is painting the FCC as unduly critical of themselves, and the press is going along with that, including the hometown Silicon Valley newspaper, the San Jose Mercury News, which should know better: Continue reading →

Abyss: What You Won’t Hear Without the Internet

tim-robbins.jpg Tim Robbins, famous actor, writer, director, and producer, was invited by the National Association of Broadcasters to give a talk. Then they turned off all the cameras. But they forgot to tell the audience to turn off their voice recorders:
Now some of you are concerned with that unrelenting pesky competition. You know, the new technologies; the Internets and satellite radio and television. The problem is there are too many people in this country that take the notion of creativity and invention too damn seriously. Just when one technology is centralized, conglomerated, monopolized, along come new technologies and delivery systems to threaten the good work born of deregulation. Just when we were getting close to a national playlist for our music, satellite technology is threatening to provide music that people actually want to hear. Just when we were close to a national news media, providing a general consensus on what the truth is, along comes the Internets that allow its users a choice on the kinds of news it watches. And the You Tube. My God we’ve got to stop them. Recently when we were about to enjoy our great national pastime of ‘tearing apart a presidential candidate with relentless repetition of ugly things his friend said’, You Tube provided the candidates reasoned response and millions watched and responded positively.

Well you here at NAB have the power to stop this dangerous technology. The question is, how? I respectfully suggest that you do what others have done when facing the competition of new technologies. Get compromising information on your enemy and expose them in a sex scandal. Or call them a racist, or better yet a traitor. That not only undermines your competitor, but provides the public with fantastic entertainment.

— The Power and Responsibility of our Nation’s Broadcasters, By Tim Robbins, The following is my opening keynote speech for the National Association of Broadcasters Show in Las Vegas, which I delivered Monday night. 14 April 2008

He had a fine time lampooning that the news media do all the time. And then he got serious: Continue reading →