Antitrust & Competition Policy

Thank God the Euro-crats are Saving Us from a Browser “Monopoly”

by on July 5, 2009 · 9 comments

Really, what would we do without European antitrust regulators protecting us from the evils of browser innovation? If Microsoft was allowed to actually bundle its Internet Explorer browser alongside its operating system we might actually do something really crazy… like perhaps try it! After all, the latest browser stats make it pretty clear most of us have a choice and that fewer and fewer of us rely on IE. As Erick Schonfeld noted on Tech Crunch today:

The new browser wars on on. More than a decade after Microsoft killed off Netscape with Internet Explorer, competition in the browser market has never been stronger. Just last week, Mozilla released Firefox 3.5, which has now been downloaded nearly 14 million times. Earlier in June, Apple released Safari 4. In March, Microsoft introduced Internet Explorer 8, and Google came out with a speedier beta of its Chrome browser. Some early data is coming in showing relative market share and how fast people are upgrading. If you look at the chart above from Statcounter, it indicates that since March Internet Explorer has lost 11.4 percent market share to other browsers. [..] Where did that go? It went to Firefox, Safari, and Chrome. Nearly 5 percent of that, or about half, went to Firefox 3.0, which currently has 27.6 percent market share. That doesn’t count last week’s upgrade.

08-09 browser stats

Alas, as I pointed out in my essay a few weeks ago (“European Regulators Think Consumers Too Stupid to Know How to Download a Different Browser“), some Euro-crats still seem to believe that changing browsers requires great detective skills to unearth alternatives.  It’s just pure poppycock and yet another sad example of how antitrust law is usually hopelessly behind the times and has absolutely nothing to do with protecting consumers or fostering innovation.

Now, please excuse me while I get back to surfing the Net via Firefox and Chrome (and Opera on my mobile phone). My God, how did I ever find these browser alternatives!

SHARE: 9 comments

Barbara Esbin: Exclusive Handset Deals Are Pro-Competitive

by on June 20, 2009 · 17 comments

Last summer, my PFF colleague Barbara Esbin and I explained that, while many consumers dislike not being able to get popular smartphones like the iPhone on the wireless network of their choice, such exclusive deals actually benefit consumers. Barbara summarizes her testimony (PDF) as follows:

the dynamic created by the exclusive arrangement between Apple and AT&T that produced the iPhone allowed the two companies to bridge the gap between the technologies of today and the disruptive innovations of tomorrow. Moreover, it is undeniable that the breakthrough success of the iPhone has spurred a wave of competitors. If every wireless carrier had been able to sell the iPhone when it was initially released, I noted, it seems unlikely there would have been as much carrier support for developing competing products like the Google G1, RIM Blackberry Storm, Samsung Instinct or Palm Pre.

SHARE: 17 comments

Free Press Hypocrisy over Metering & Internet Price Controls

by on June 18, 2009 · 150 comments

In response to my essay last night about this new Free Press campaign to layer price controls on the Internet by banning metered prices via Rep. Massa’s new bill (the “Broadband Internet Fairness Act“), George Ou and Richard Bennett reminded me of some of the contradictory statements that the (Un)Free Press crew have made on this issue.  Indeed, if you look back at what Free Press and their chairman have said about the matter over just the past 18 months, they seem to be whistling two very different tunes.

For example, George Ou reminded me of what Free Press had to say in its November 2007 filing in the FCC’s Comcast-Bit Torrent proceeding:

“More importantly, if Comcast is concerned that the collective set of users running P2P applications are affecting quality of service for other users on a cable loop… they could also charge by usage.” (p. 29)

[…]

“Indeed, in many nations, network providers do meter, and bill their customers on the basis of amount used. So the transaction costs of doing so must not be prohibitively high. Indeed, a network provider can apparently meter cheaply because, in most networks, users’ traffic to and from the Internet passes through a single gateway, the network access server.” (p. 31)

And Richard Bennett reminded me of what Tim Wu, chairman of the Free Press, had to say about metering to the Washington Post just one year ago:

“I don’t quite see [metering] as an outrage, and in fact is probably the fairest system going — though of course the psychology of knowing that you’re paying for bandwidth may change behavior.”

So, what gives?  Will the real Free Press please stand up? Does the Free Press believe in pricing freedom or price controls for the Internet?

SHARE: 150 comments

European Regulators Think Consumers Too Stupid to Know How to Download a Different Browser

by on June 11, 2009 · 30 comments

According to Ina Fried of CNet News, Microsoft plans to remove its Internet Explorer web browser from the new versions of Windows 7 when it ships it in Europe later this year. [Additional coverage at ZDNet.]  MS is apparently doing so to assuage the concerns of EU antitrust officials, who have been obsessed with the company for the past decade. [Update: Here is MS official announcement.]

Apparently, European officials think their citizens are too stupid to find an alternative browser.  I mean, seriously, how hard is it?  Does the competition lack name recognition such that consumers can’t find them?  Hmmm… Google and Apple seem to be pretty well known brands, and their browsers (Chrome & Safari) are pretty easy to find.  And then there’s Mozilla’s Firefox browser (my PC favorite) and Opera (my mobile phone favorite), which are outstanding browsers. [Incidentally, Firefox already has 31% share of the European market.]

OK, OK, the regulators might say, but these competitors are just too expensive!  Uh, no, wait… every one of them is free. So, strike that theory.

Well, the regulators need another theory then. How about illegal tying of products and services! You know, there’s only certain sites or services you can use with IE, right?   Nope, that theory doesn’t work either.  And does anyone believe that MS could really tie OS functionality to the use of IE? How long would the world tolerate Outlook e-mails or Word documents that only allowed linking to URLs via IE??  Come on.

OK, any other theories left? Not that I can think of. Which brings us back to the only theory the Euro-crats have left: people are sheep. They’ll take whatever MS bundles into the OS free, you see, and they will use it more than they use competing products.  Thus, we regulators have to save them from their own stupidity! The masses just don’t know what’s good for them!  These free, integrated services are harming them! And, therefore, the only remaining solution is to kill innovation by crippling functionality and removing the free offering. That’s pro-consumer! … or so say the European antitrust bureaucrats.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, a whole lotta innovation continues to take place. But shhhh.. don’t tell the Euro-crats. They need a company to pick on. Welcome to the Theater of the Techno-Absurd.

SHARE: 30 comments

What #googlefail Tells Us About Markets

by on May 18, 2009 · 10 comments

Google recently experienced failures of its core services — a phenomenon that quickly spawned the hashtag “googlefail” on the popular social networking platform Twitter.  These failures show that a company once thought of as the odds-on favorite for dominating the global market in all things web — the monolith of Mountain View — is looking more and more like a search-only player.

Big firms consistently fail to use their “market dominance” to take over adjacent markets, something that should give antitrust warriors in the Obama administration reason for pause.  The renewed call for tough antitrust enforcement comes at a time when Google, a poster-child for market dominance, simply can’t leverage its position at all.

Continue reading →

SHARE: 10 comments

Will the Government Be the New King of All Media?

by on May 15, 2009 · 10 comments

Howard Stern swore off free broadcast radio in 2004 in part because of federally mandated decency rules. The self-annointed “king of all media” may have stepped off the throne in doing so. Them’s the breaks in the competitive media marketplace, contorted as it is by government speech controls.

Some would argue that a new king of all media is seeking the mantle of power now that the Obama administration is ensconced and friendly majorities hold the House and Senate. The new pretender is the federal government.

And some would argue that the Free Press “Changing Media Summit” held yesterday here in Washington laid the groundwork for a new federal takeover of media and communications.

That person is not me. But I am concerned by the enthusiasm of many groups in Washington to “improve” media (by their reckoning) with government intervention.

Free Press issued a report yesterday entitled Dismantling Digital Deregulation. Even the title is a lot to swallow – Have communications and media been deregulated in any meaningful sense? (The title itself prioritizes alliteration over logic – evidence of what may come within.)

Opening the conference, Josh Silver, executive director of Free Press harkened to Thomas Jefferson – well and good – but public subsidies for printers and a government-run postal system model his hopes for U.S. government policies to come.

It’s helpful to note what policies found their way into Jefferson’s constitution as absolutes and what were merely permissive. The absolute is found in Amendment I: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . . .”

Among the permissive is the Article I power “to establish Post Offices and post Roads.” There’s no mandate to do it and the scope and extent of any law is subject to Congress’ discretion, just like the power to create patents and copyrights which immediately follows.

I won’t label Free Press and all their efforts a collectivist plot and dismiss it as such – there are some issues on which we probably have common cause – but a crisper expression of “dismantling deregulation” is “re-regulation.”

It’s a very friendly environment for a government takeover of modern-day printing presses: Internet service providers, cable companies, phone companies, broadcasters, and so on.

SHARE: 10 comments

Golden Age for Antitrust?

by on May 13, 2009 · 11 comments

Today the European Union issued the opinion explaining its decision to fine Intel $1.45 billion for offering discounts to large purchasers (see this,  this and this).

Although antitrust originated in the U.S., antitrust enforcement has become more active in other parts of the world where awareness of the limitations and dangers of overly-aggressive antitrust enforcement is still in the embryonic stages.  This has created regrettable forum-shopping opportunities for less-successful U.S. and foreign competitors.

Many smaller companies complaining of abusive practices by their larger rivals were so frustrated that they went overseas to the European Commission and to Asian authorities to find receptive enforcement officials.

Does this just sound awful, or not?

Continue reading →

SHARE: 11 comments

What the EU Doesn’t Get: Harming Competitors is Called Competition (and shouldn’t be illegal)

by on May 13, 2009 · 11 comments

The European Commission is a loose cannon when it comes to antitrust and competition law. It’s record $1.45 billion fine is emblematic of what the Commission just doesn’t get:  there’s a difference, a difference that matters, between consumer and competitor harm.

EU Commissioner for Competition Neelie Kroes said otherwise:  Intel had “used illegal anticompetitive practices to exclude its only competitor and reduce consumers’ choice — and the whole story is about consumers.”

No, the whole story is not about consumers, Ms. Kroes. It’s clear that the only harm that Intel has carried out is on it’s main rival AMD–and that’s called competition. Over at the ACT blog, my colleague Mark Blafkin has a good post that details the lack of consumer harm.

Here’s the main point–competition shouldn’t be illegal. But according to EU law, companies with a dominant position in the market have  a legal duty to not eliminate competition, while in the U.S. only monopoly power imparts this duty. U.S. culture, reflected (partially) in antitrust law, holds that the competitive process of driving other companies out of business makes an economy efficient and innovative.

SHARE: 11 comments

More on “Open vs. Closed” Technologies & Business Models

by on May 10, 2009 · 20 comments

Over at the Verizon Policy Blog, Link Hoewing has a sharp piece up entitled, “Of Business Models and Innovation.” He makes a point that I have often stressed in my debates with Zittrain and Lessig, namely, that the whole “open vs. closed” debate is typically greatly overstated or misunderstood.   Hoewing correctly argues that:

The point is not that open or managed models are always better or worse.  The point is that there is no one “right” model for promoting innovation.  There are examples of managed and open business models that have been both good for innovation and bad for it. There are also examples of managed and open models that have both succeeded and failed.  The point is in a competitive market to let companies develop business models they believe will serve consumers best and see how things play out.

Exactly right.  Moreover, the really important point here is that there exists a diverse spectrum of innovative digital alternatives from which to choose. Along the “open vs. closed” spectrum, the range of digital technologies and business models continues to grow and grow in both directions.  Do you want wide-open, tinker-friendly devices, sites, or software? You got it. Do you want a more closed, simple, and safe online experience?  You can have that, too.  And there are plenty of choices in between.

This is called progress!

SHARE: 20 comments

Cato Unbound Debate: Lessig’s Code at Ten (Part 3: Thierer response)

by on May 8, 2009 · 7 comments

The Cato Unbound online debate about the 10th anniversary of Lawrence Lessig’s Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace continues today with my response to Declan McCullagh’s opening essay, “What Larry Didn’t Get,” as well as Jonathan Zittrain’s follow-up.

In my response, “Code, Pessimism, and the Illusion of ‘Perfect Control,'” I begin by arguing that:

The problem with peddling tales of a pending techno-apocalypse is that, at some point, you may have to account for your prophecies — or false prophecies as the case may be. Hence, the problem for Lawrence Lessig ten years after the publication of his seminal book, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace.

I go on to argue that:

Lessig’s lugubrious predictions proved largely unwarranted. Code has not become the great regulator of markets or enslaver of man; it has been a liberator of both. Indeed, the story of the past digital decade has been the exact opposite of the one Lessig envisioned in Code.

After providing several examples of just how wrong Lessig’s predictions were, I then ask:

[W]hy have Lessig’s predictions proven so off the mark? Lessig failed to appreciate that markets are evolutionary and dynamic, and when those markets are built upon code, the pace and nature of change becomes unrelenting and utterly unpredictable. With the exception of some of the problems identified above, a largely unfettered cyberspace has left digital denizens better off in terms of the information they can access as well as the goods and services from which they can choose. Oh, and did I mention it’s all pretty much free-of-charge? Say what you want about our cyber-existence, but you can’t argue with the price!

Continue reading →

SHARE: 7 comments

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →