The Archives

The collection of all scholarly commentary on law, economics, and more

Showing archive for:  “Telecom”

The (Conventional) 5G Chairman

Chairman Ajit Pai prioritized making new spectrum available for 5G. To his credit, he succeeded. Over the course of four years, Chairman Pai made available more high-band and mid-band spectrum, for licensed use and unlicensed use, than any other Federal Communications Commission chairman. He did so in the face of unprecedented opposition from other federal ... The (Conventional) 5G Chairman

Why Restoring Internet Freedom Was a Landmark Accomplishment

I am pleased to participate in this retrospective symposium regarding Ajit Pai’s tenure as Federal Communications Commission chairman. I have been closely involved in communications law and policy for nearly 45 years, and, as I’ve said several times since Chairman Pai announced his departure, he will leave as one of the most consequential leaders in ... Why Restoring Internet Freedom Was a Landmark Accomplishment

Great Job, Kid! (And Welcome to the Private Sector)

Many thanks to Geoffrey Manne for this opportunity to memorialize a few thoughts I have about Ajit’s service on the Federal Communications Commission. My remarks will be more about Ajit as a person rather than the substance and long laundry list of his accomplishments as chair. Others will do that, I’m sure. The first memory ... Great Job, Kid! (And Welcome to the Private Sector)

Introductory Post: Retrospective on Ajit Pai’s Tenure as FCC Chairman

Ajit Pai will step down from his position as chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) effective Jan. 20. Beginning Jan. 15, Truth on the Market will host a symposium exploring Pai’s tenure, with contributions from a range of scholars and practitioners. As we ponder the changes to FCC policy that may arise with the ... Introductory Post: Retrospective on Ajit Pai’s Tenure as FCC Chairman

The DOJ’s Antitrust Case Against Google: A Tough Slog, but Maybe an Intriguing Possibility?

The U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) antitrust case against Google, which was filed in October 2020, will be a tough slog.[1] It is an alleged monopolization (Sherman Act, Sec. 2) case; and monopolization cases are always a tough slog. In this brief essay I will lay out some of the issues in the case and raise ... The DOJ’s Antitrust Case Against Google: A Tough Slog, but Maybe an Intriguing Possibility?

Trade Promotions in High Tech

As one of the few economic theorists in this symposium, I believe my comparative advantage is in that: economic theory. In this post, I want to remind people of the basic economic theories that we have at our disposal, “off the shelf,” to make sense of the U.S. Department of Justice’s lawsuit against Google. I ... Trade Promotions in High Tech

Why the Federal Government’s Antitrust Case Against Google Should—and Likely Will—Fail

On October 20, 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and eleven states with Republican attorneys general sued Google for monopolizing and attempting to monopolize the markets for general internet search services, search advertising, and “general search text” advertising (i.e., ads that resemble search results).  Last week, California joined the lawsuit, making it a bipartisan ... Why the Federal Government’s Antitrust Case Against Google Should—and Likely Will—Fail

Building the Digital Future: Can the EU Foster a Dynamic and Crime-Free Internet?

The European Commission has unveiled draft legislation (the Digital Services Act, or “DSA”) that would overhaul the rules governing the online lives of its citizens. The draft rules are something of a mixed bag. While online markets present important challenges for law enforcement, the DSA would significantly increase the cost of doing business in Europe ... Building the Digital Future: Can the EU Foster a Dynamic and Crime-Free Internet?

Google and Shifting Conceptions of What It Means to Improve a Product

Judges sometimes claim that they do not pick winners when they decide antitrust cases. Nothing could be further from the truth. Competitive conduct by its nature harms competitors, and so if antitrust were merely to prohibit harm to competitors, antitrust would then destroy what it is meant to promote. What antitrust prohibits, therefore, is not ... Google and Shifting Conceptions of What It Means to Improve a Product

Rolled by Rewheel, Redux

The Finnish consultancy Rewheel periodically issues reports using mobile wireless pricing information to make claims about which countries’ markets are competitive and which are not. For example, Rewheel claims Canada and Greece have the “least competitive monthly prices” while the United Kingdom and Finland have the most competitive. Rewheel often claims that the number of ... Rolled by Rewheel, Redux

The Dishonesty of Conservative Attacks on Section 230

President Donald Trump has repeatedly called for repeal of Section 230. But while Trump and fellow conservatives decry Big Tech companies for their alleged anti-conservative bias, including at yet more recent hearings, their issue is not actually with Section 230. It’s with the First Amendment.  Conservatives can’t actually do anything directly about how social media ... The Dishonesty of Conservative Attacks on Section 230

Antitrustifying Contract: Thoughts on Epic Games v. Apple and Apple v. Qualcomm

In the hands of a wise philosopher-king, the Sherman Act’s hard-to-define prohibitions of “restraints of trade” and “monopolization” are tools that will operate inevitably to advance the public interest in competitive markets. In the hands of real-world litigators, regulators and judges, those same words can operate to advance competitors’ private interests in securing commercial advantages ... Antitrustifying Contract: Thoughts on Epic Games v. Apple and Apple v. Qualcomm