much more on Net neutrality and antitrust

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Faulhaber, Gerald" <faulhabe () wharton upenn edu>
Date: July 6, 2006 4:56:40 PM EDT
To: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Subject: RE: [IP] more on Net neutrality and antitrust

Dave [for IP]--

Of course the telcos are exquisite lobbyists, everyone knows they are,
and vilifies them for it, up to and including Google.  But if Vint's
quote is to be believed, it looks like Google is prepared to do the same
sort of lobbying at DoJ to get them to carry their water for them.  The
point of my note is that perhaps they should think of carrying their own
water (in the event of an anticompetitive fire;-) by instituting private
antitrust action rather than lobbying DoJ to do their work.  If we are
going to criticize the telcos for excessive lobbying, isn't it
hypocritical to contemplate doing the same thing?

Of course the MS case has nothing to do with NN; I never said it did.
The lesson I draw from the MS case is that it was private competitors
energetically lobbying DoJ that led to the case initiation, and it
appears (again, assuming the Vint quote accurate) that Google was about
to follow in their footsteps.

Incidentally, in spite of some recent mis-steps, I have enormous regard
for the Antitrust guys at DoJ.  They are smart, disciplined, relatively
removed from political influence, and serious about their economics.  We
are lucky to have them.  Not totally immune from lobbying, of course.

An aside: we may all hate lobbyists, even though we tend to lobby like
crazy ourselves (of course, WE are not the hated lobbyists).  But the
telcos are so much better at it than Google/Yahoo/MS; the applications
guys are just getting their butts kicked on this, and they haven't a
clue as to how to recover.  For students of the political process (who
actually enjoy watching their sausage being made), this is a textbook
lesson in how seasoned political operatives do their job and win.  Hope
the apps boys are taking notes.


Professor Gerald Faulhaber
Business and Public Policy Dept.
Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, PA 19104
Professor of Law
University of Pennsylvania

-----Original Message-----
From: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net]
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 3:47 PM
To: Gerald Faulhaber
Subject: Fwd: [IP] more on Net neutrality and antitrust



Begin forwarded message:

From: Daniel Weitzner <djweitzner () csail mit edu>
Date: July 6, 2006 3:41:48 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Cc: ip () v2 listbox com
Subject: Re: [IP] more on Net neutrality and antitrust

The Microsoft case seems like a poor analogy to anything having to do
with Internet Neutrality and antitrust. Though I'm not suggesting that
the conditions are, at this point, similar, I'd look more to the breakup
of AT&T, illustrating that it is possible for the Justice Department to
intervene in a way that produces significant innovation, economic
growth, and consumer benefit. (It also required a pretty tenacious
judge, of course.) Again, I'm not saying that the AT&T case of old is
like the current situation, but it's no more dissimilar than the
Microsoft case is to Internet Neutrality.

The question, as raised by this thread, isn't whether Microsoft
innovated or not. Rather, the question is whether Microsoft gained a
monopoly through abuse of market power. Professor Faulhaber criticized
Sun, Netscape and others as 'whining' and then lobbying.
The charge of 'whining' seems to have been refuted by the DC Circuit
Court of Appeals, which found that Microsoft did indeed have a monopoly
(upholding that part of a very controversial lower court ruling). The
Bush Administration did not seek to break up Microsoft but did require
significant remedies.

Is everyone whining in Prof. Faulhaber's view? It's possible to have
differing views on the Microsoft case without accusing anyone who seeks
government intervention with whining. This characterization reveals more
about the professor's general attitude about government intervention in
the marketplace for the public interest than it does about the substance
of either Internet Neutrality or the Microsoft case.

(I haven't seem Faulhaber complain about telco lobbying on Internet
Neutrality, so assume he's not totally opposed to that activity.)

Danny


On Jul 6, 2006, at 3:03 PM, David Farber wrote:

> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Gerry Faulhaber <gerry-faulhaber () mchsi com>
> Date: July 6, 2006 2:44:45 PM EDT
> To: Charles Pinneo <pinneo () sbcglobal net>
> Cc: dave () farber net
> Subject: Re: [IP] Net neutrality and antitrust
>
> No, MS purchased the Spyglass browser; they didn' t copy Netscape.
> And this is irrelevant to the point that indeed Sun and Netscape
> lobbied very hard and very long at the DoJ to get the Antitrust Div.
> to file the MS case. Previously, the FTC decided not to bring a case
> against MS, which is some evidence of the effectiveness of the
> Sun/Netscape lobbying strategy at DoJ.
>
> It is of no antitrust consequence that MS buys much of its innovative
> software, a strategy that many companies use.  Pharma, for example,
> outsources virtually all its biotech stuff.  Are we supposed to think
> this is an evil strategy?  Not only am I not rewriting history,
> Charles, I am perfectly comfortable with MS's strategy here and I do
> not feel they or anyone else needs to apologize for it.
>
> Professor Gerald R. Faulhaber
> Business and Public Policy Dept.
> Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA 19104
> Professor of Law University of Pennsylvania Law School
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Charles Pinneo" <pinneo () sbcglobal net>
> To: "Gerry Faulhaber" <gerry-faulhaber () mchsi com>; "Dave Farber"
> <dave () farber net>
> Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 10:01 AM
> Subject: Re: [IP] Net neutrality and antitrust
>
>
> > Gerry,
> >
> > What do you mean, "Sun and Netscape whined about Microsoft,"
> > Microsoft copied the Netscape browser and stole it from Netscape.
> > Microsoft never invented anything. Everything they made was invented

> > by other smaller Companies. Are you trying to reinvent history?
> >
> > Charlie Pinneo
> > pinneo () sbcglobal net
> > -----------------------------
> > On Jul 5, 2006, at 5:33 PM, David Farber wrote:
> >
> > > Begin forwarded message:
> > >
> > > From: Gerry Faulhaber <gerry-faulhaber () mchsi com>
> > > Date: July 5, 2006 3:18:08 PM EDT
> > > To: dave () farber net
> > > Subject: Re: [IP] Net neutrality and antitrust
> > >
> > > Dave [for IP]
> > >
> > > This is indeed the path we suggested...sort of.  Perhaps Vint was
> > > misquoted, but the news article makes him look like he expects the
> > > DoJ to bring his antitrust case for him when he asks for it.  This
> > > is very unlikely to happen, unless a BB ISP is egregiously
> > > anticompetitive.  If Google wants relief under A/T law, they will
> > > almost surely have to file a private case. This is not unusual;
> > > private A/T cases are rather common.
> > >
> > > The last time private firms lobbied the (Clinton) DoJ to institute
> > > an antitrust case was when Sun and Netscape whined about Microsoft;

> > > I suspect the DoJ folks don't see that as a great success, and are
> > > maybe not so likely to be the industry's cat's paw again.
> > >
> > > Professor Gerald R. Faulhaber
> > > Business & Public Policy Dept.
> > > Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA 19104
> > > Professor of Law University of Pennsylvania Law School
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Farber" <dave () farber net>
> > > To: <ip () v2 listbox com>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 10:11 AM
> > > Subject: [IP] Net neutrality and antitrust
> > >
> > >
> > > > seems that is the path we suggested
> > > >
> > > > Begin forwarded message:
> > > >
> > > > Google says bill could spark antitrust fight
> > > >
> > > > Vint Cerf, a Google vice president and one of the pioneers of the
> > > > Internet, warned that his company won't hesitate to file antitrust
> > > > complaints in the United States if high-speed Internet providers
> > > > abuse the market power they could receive from U.S. legislators.
> > > > There's still room for political maneuvering on both sides of the
> > > > Net neutrality argument before a bill gets passed.
> > > >
> > > > http://ct.zdnet.com/clicks?t=2802573-
> > > > cf4eb2b70d07133033c66f1cdd38477f- bf&s=5&fs=0
> > > >
> > > > -------------------------------------
> > > > You are subscribed as gerry-faulhaber () mchsi com To manage your
> > > > subscription, go to  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
> > > >
> > > > Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/
> > > > interesting-people/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------
> > > You are subscribed as pinneo () sbcglobal net To manage your
> > > subscription, go to  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
> > >
> > > Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/
> > > interesting- people/
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------
> You are subscribed as djweitzner () csail mit edu To manage your
> subscription, go to  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
>
> Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-
> people/



--
Daniel J. Weitzner                          +1.617.253.8036 (MIT)
Principal Research Scientist        +1.202.364.4750 (DC)
MIT CSAIL Decentralized Information Group
W3C Technology & Society Domain Leader
http://www.w3.org/People/Weitzner.html
blog: http://people.w3.org/~djweitzner/blog/






-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/