Research Programs
More
What are you looking for?
Showing 8 of 143 Publications by Ben Sperry
Popular Media As it begins its hundredth year, the FTC is increasingly becoming the Federal Technology Commission. The agency’s role in regulating data security, privacy, the Internet of Things, high-tech . . .
FTC Commissioner Josh Wright will give a keynote luncheon address titled, “The Need for Limits on Agency Discretion and the Case for Section 5 UMC Guidelines.” Project members will discuss the themes raised in our inaugural report and how they might inform some of the most pressing issues of FTC process and substance confronting the FTC, Congress and the courts. The afternoon will conclude with a Fireside Chat with former FTC Chairmen Tim Muris and Bill Kovacic, followed by a cocktail reception.
Full Agenda:
Filed under: antitrust, consumer protection, federal trade commission, international center for law & economics, law and economics, scholarship Tagged: Bill Kovacic, ftc, FTC Commissioner, FTC Technology & Reform Project, geoffrey manne, Josh Wright, Keynote, Law and economics, Technology & Reform Project, Tim Muris, todd zywicki
Popular Media Please join us at the Willard Hotel in Washington, DC on December 16th for a conference launching the year-long project, “FTC: Technology and Reform.” With . . .
Please join us at the Willard Hotel in Washington, DC on December 16th for a conference launching the year-long project, “FTC: Technology and Reform.” With complex technological issues increasingly on the FTC’s docket, we will consider what it means that the FTC is fast becoming the Federal Technology Commission.
The FTC: Technology & Reform Project brings together a unique collection of experts on the law, economics, and technology of competition and consumer protection to consider challenges facing the FTC in general, and especially regarding its regulation of technology.
For many, new technologies represent “challenges” to the agency, a continuous stream of complex threats to consumers that can be mitigated only by ongoing regulatory vigilance. We view technology differently, as an overwhelmingly positive force for consumers. To us, the FTC’s role is to promote the consumer benefits of new technology — not to “tame the beast” but to intervene only with caution, when the likely consumer benefits of regulation outweigh the risk of regulatory error. This conference is the start of a year-long project that will recommend concrete reforms to ensure that the FTC’s treatment of technology works to make consumers better off.
Convened by TechFreedom and the International Center for Law & Economics, the FTC Technology & Reform Project includes academics, practitioners, policy experts and several former FTC Commissioners and staffers. Our initial report, to be released around the December 16th event, will identify critical questions facing the agency, Congres, and the courts about the FTC’s future and will propose a framework for addressing them.
FTC Commissioner Joshua Wright will kick off the half-day conference with a luncheon keynote. Following his remarks, Project members will discus principal aspects of our initial report. The event will conclude with a networking reception. Attendees will include a wide variety of practitioners and scholars with expertise working at the Commission or counseling businesses about it.
RSVP Today!
When: Monday, December 16, 2013 11:30 – Registration opens 12:00 – 5:30 pm – Luncheon keynote & conference 5:30 – 6:30 p.m. – Reception
Where: The Willard Hotel 1401 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20004
Questions? Email [email protected].
Filed under: antitrust, consumer protection, federal trade commission, international center for law & economics, law and economics, truth on the market Tagged: Commissioner, Commissioner Wright, consumer, Federal Trade Commission, ftc, technology, Washington DC
TOTM The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) continues to be a hot button issue for many online businesses and privacy advocates. On November 14, Senator . . .
The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) continues to be a hot button issue for many online businesses and privacy advocates. On November 14, Senator Markey, along with Senator Kirk and Representatives Barton and Rush introduced the Do Not Track Kids Act of 2013 to amend the statute to include children from 13-15 and add new requirements, like an eraser button. The current COPPA Rule, since the FTC’s recent update went into effect this past summer, requires parental consent before businesses can collect information about children online, including relatively de-identified information like IP addresses and device numbers that allow for targeted advertising.
Read the full piece here.
TOTM Critics of Google have argued that users overvalue Google’s services in relation to the data they give away. One breath-taking headline asked Who Would Pay $5,000 . . .
Critics of Google have argued that users overvalue Google’s services in relation to the data they give away. One breath-taking headline asked Who Would Pay $5,000 to Use Google?, suggesting that Google and its advertisers can make as much as $5,000 off of individuals whose data they track. Scholars, such as Nathan Newman, have used this to argue that Google exploits its users through data extraction. But, the question remains: how good of a deal is Google? My contention is that Google’s value to most consumers far surpasses the value supposedly extracted from them in data.
Regulatory Comments "It’s been said, of the newest technology, that speed could change everything. If only we could cross a certain speed threshold, our basic infrastructure would catalyze new opportunities we can scarcely even conceive of..."
“It’s been said, of the newest technology, that speed could change everything. If only we could cross a certain speed threshold, our basic infrastructure would catalyze new opportunities we can scarcely even conceive of. All government needs to do is prime the pump: fund a demonstration project to prove that we can do it, and markets will follow. The demand may not be there yet, but “if you build it, they will come…”
“There are some impediments to the sort of broadband connectivity people actually do want — most importantly local and state regulations that reduce competition and increase the cost of new facilities. The FCC should consider ways to encourage state and local governments to reduce these regulatory barriers rather than create an expensive new program to subsidize a particular technology (fiber) picked because of an arbitrary, top-down decision that people should have a certain speed – even if they don’t yet want it. The FCC should heed the wisdom of Australia’s new Communications Minister who explained his government’s decision to abandon plans for a national fiber-to-the-home network in favor of subsidizing far less expensive, but slightly slower, fiber-to-the node connectivity…”
TOTM Susan Crawford recently received the OneCommunity Broadband Hero Award for being a “tireless advocate for 21st century high capacity network access.” In her recent debate with Geoffrey . . .
Susan Crawford recently received the OneCommunity Broadband Hero Award for being a “tireless advocate for 21st century high capacity network access.” In her recent debate with Geoffrey Manne and Berin Szoka, she emphasized that there is little competition in broadband or between cable broadband and wireless, asserting that the main players have effectively divided the markets. As a result, she argues (as she did here at 17:29) that broadband and wireless providers “are deciding not to invest in the very expensive infrastructure because they are very happy with the profits they are getting now.” In the debate, Manne countered by pointing to substantial investment and innovation in both the wired and wireless broadband marketplaces, and arguing that this is not something monopolists insulated from competition do. So, who’s right?
TOTM Today’s oral argument in the D.C Circuit over the FCC’s Net Neutrality rules suggests that the case — Verizon v. FCC — is likely to . . .
Today’s oral argument in the D.C Circuit over the FCC’s Net Neutrality rules suggests that the case — Verizon v. FCC — is likely to turn on whether the Order impermissibly imposes common carrier regulation on broadband ISPs. If so, the FCC will lose, no matter what the court thinks of the Commission’s sharply contested claims of authority under the Telecommunications Act.
Scholarship This article assesses the FCC’s current policies and rules regarding transaction reviews, concluding that the Commission’s current spectrum transfer review process harms consumer welfare.
This article assesses the FCC’s current policies and rules regarding transaction reviews, concluding that the Commission’s current spectrum transfer review process harms consumer welfare. In particular, the FCC’s spectrum screen as currently structured, its standard of review for spectrum transfers, its use of conditions, as well as the scope of its transaction reviews exceed legal limits, impede efficient markets for spectrum, and deter welfare-increasing transactions and investment.
First we explain the FCC’s current policies and decisions regarding transaction reviews and assess their appropriateness with respect to the Commission’s authorizing legislation, regulations and case law. With respect to the scope of its transaction reviews and its use of conditions in particular, we find that the FCC’s practices exceed their permissible limits.
Next we address the economics of the FCC’s policies and decisions, explaining and assessing the animating economic logic behind the FCC’s actions. We demonstrate that the FCC’s current spectrum screen and transaction review standards rest on the premise that spectrum concentration in markets inherently leads to anticompetitive behavior. Further, we explain the flaws in this premise.
In demonstrating and assessing the basis of the FCC’s transaction reviews, we discuss the particulars of the FCC’s spectrum screen in detail, focusing on its use of concentration metrics and claims that its full analysis (beyond the initial screen) investigates competitive conditions more broadly. As we discuss, the Commission uses HHIs and spectrum concentration measures improperly as de facto triggers for per se illegality, rather than triggers for further investigation. Further, none of the full analyses described by the Commission investigates an aspect of competition other than market or spectrum concentration; instead, they simply restate in more detail the structural analysis implied by the HHI test and spectrum screen.
Addressing the economics underlying the FCC’s actions, we demonstrate that both economic theory and evidence indicate that the presence of more competitors in telecommunications markets does not necessarily result in lower prices and better service for consumers. Particularly in industries (like wireless) that are characterized by rapid technological change, non-horizontal competitive constraints and shifting consumer demand, the threat of entry and the need for repeated contracts with input providers with market power operate to constrain strategic behavior, even in heavily concentrated markets.
The welfare effects of spectrum concentration are at worst ambiguous, and, as we demonstrate, as the market has grown more concentrated, investment, coverage and product diversity have increased while prices for consumers have decreased. These results are consistent with a more robust model of firm behavior in the industry that takes account of entry threats and technological change.
Next we undertake a detailed critique of the FCC staff’s analysis of the AT&T/T-Mobile merger, demonstrating that it exhibits the same flaws as the agency’s more cursory transaction reviews.
We conclude with a discussion of the policy implications and suggestions for reform.
