DOJ Defends Net Neutrality Condition, in House Hearing
The Justice Department has seen Internet “bottlenecks,” justifying net neutrality actions, DOJ Acting Assistant Attorney General Sharis Pozen of the Antitrust Division said Wednesday at an antitrust oversight hearing in the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Internet. She declined to name any of them. Also at the hearing, FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz raised concerns with ICANN’s plan to roll out hundreds of new generic top-level domains (gTLDs). Pozen said nothing new on DOJ’s lawsuit to block the AT&T acquisition of T-Mobile USA.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
"There are bottlenecks [on the Internet] that we have been alerted to that do exist,” said Pozen, defending DOJ’s net neutrality condition in the recent settlement with Comcast and NBCUniversal. “When we are alerted to such [problems], we will investigate them thoroughly and carefully to see if they are in violation” of antitrust laws, she said. Pozen said she couldn’t comment on any ongoing investigations. She defined a “bottleneck” on the Internet as a situation “where one website or some type of actor in the Internet space has access into or onto another place on the Internet and has a way of shutting off that access to other competitors to benefit itself.”
Rep. Ben Quayle, R-Ariz., criticized DOJ for the Comcast/NBCUniversal net neutrality condition. “Were you looking for a problem that didn’t exist … just because hey, it could theoretically happen down the road?” he asked. Pozen said the Antitrust Division is “very concerned with industries that are evolving and changing quickly” and seeks “to ensure an open and fair playing field.” DOJ’s remedy did that, she said.
The FTC is “very, very concerned” that ICANN’s plan to roll out new gTLDs will be a “disaster for consumers and for businesses,” Leibowitz said. The FTC has found that domain names are often registered using fraudulent names and contact information, he said. “We worry that if ICANN goes broadly and doesn’t ensure accuracy in its Whois database … this is going to be exponentially worse.” It could also be burdensome for businesses, he said. The FTC has talked to the Commerce Department about its concerns and the commission plans to reach out to ICANN, he said.
Antitrust laws are not being properly enforced, especially with regard to communications and Internet companies, said Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, D-Mich. Google and other companies “have acted repeatedly with impunity, engaging in unlawful, anticompetitive practices, knowing they can exploit the loopholes in a government system whose antitrust and criminal enforcement resources and commitment are not very strong,” Conyers said. With Google trying to buy Motorola Mobility, and Verizon “teaming up” with Comcast/NBCUniversal, “we need antitrust to become a top priority for our law enforcement system,” Conyers said. DOJ’s decision to block the AT&T/T-Mobile deal was a win for consumers, he said.
Subcommittee Ranking Member Mel Watt, D-N.C., asked if consumer privacy should be considered as part of antitrust review. The Google-DoubleClick merger “ignited” that debate, he said. He asked the witnesses to respond in writing on how they would incorporate privacy protection into traditional antitrust analysis.
Pozen reiterated DOJ’s objections to the AT&T/T-Mobile deal. She said the combination “would substantially reduce competition in mobile wireless telecommunications services across the U.S., resulting in higher prices, less innovation, and lower-quality service in an industry important to millions of American consumers and businesses.” Pozen said she couldn’t go into details since the matter is pending before the U.S. District Court in Washington. Watt asked Leibowitz’s opinion on whether the Antitrust Division’s lawsuit against AT&T/T-Mobile was appropriate. Leibowitz responded, “I certainly agree that it is a major merger” that “has a major effect on consumers."
On the FTC’s investigation of Google related to search market dominance, Leibowitz said the FTC so far is mostly collecting documents and asking questions. He said he couldn’t say more since the matter is ongoing.
Technology companies are an increasing focus for the FTC, said Leibowitz. “Without getting into the specifics of any investigation, it is certainly true that our efforts to police exclusionary or collusive conduct often involve high-tech products,” he said. Consumer privacy is a “significant priority” for the FTC, Leibowitz said. “Ever-evolving technologies, such as mobile devices, open up the riches of the Internet but also pose new threats,” he said. “The FTC has responded by bringing almost 100 spam and spyware cases, more than 30 data security cases, and nearly 80 cases for violations of Do Not Call in the past decade.”