Yesterday was seemingly a good day for users of smartphones, tablets and other mobile devices. The Federal Communications Commission approved, with conditions, Verizon’s purchase of wireless spectrum from SpectrumCo, a consortium of cable companies. The more spectrum that’s put to use, the more we’ll ease the coming “spectrum crunch” as exploding data demands outstrip supply. This particular spectrum has sat unused for years, and the FCC’s approval of the deal (following on the Department of Justice’s approval last week) clears the way for some welcome relief.

The FCC’s decision seems measured, citing both benefits and risks of the deal to consumers and rejecting most of the claims of the deal’s staunchest critics. But this apparent reasonableness masks the true, arbitrary nature of FCC review: a costly, unsupervised game of “Mother, May I?”, requiring applicants to rearrange their businesses in ways the agency could neither require by regulation nor extract as concessions without exceeding the proper scope of its transaction review. Most troublingly, the FCC need not even make its extra-legal demands explicit. Because all future applicants know that the actual approval of this deal is far less significant to them than the process behind it, even yesterday’s good news comes with an asterisk.

It’s no secret that some at the agency — to say nothing of the self-proclaimed consumer advocates who aggrandize it –seek to manage the tech sector based largely on their unsubstantiated belief that “Big is Bad.” Yesterday’s order and the conditions imposed on the parties are animated by this assertion. But it’s by no means clear that consumers are well served by this approach; rather, this maligned concentration of spectrum has been accompanied by lower prices — along with enormous investment, expanded access and rapid innovation.

[From Gerald R. Faulhaber, et al., Assessing Competition in U.S. Wireless Markets: Review of the FCC’s Competition Reports (July 11, 2011), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1880964.]

Of course, sometimes big really is bad. The central challenge for policymakers is ensuring they don’t erroneously thwart beneficial deals and instead heed Nobel laureate Ronald Coase’s caution: “if [a regulator] finds something — a business practice of one sort or other — that he does not understand, he looks for a monopoly explanation.” That’s why, in theory, we limit agencies’ authority to review deals. But in practice, the FCC exceeds limits on its authority, applies a vague “public interest” standard with little analytical rigor, and avoids even that minimal rigor by pressuring companies into making “voluntary” concessions.

In this case, the FCC’s review of the commercial agreements accompanying the spectrum deal exceeded the limits of Section 310(d) of the Communications Act. As Commissioner Pai noted in his concurring statement, “Congress limited the scope of our review to the proposed transfer of spectrum licenses, not to other business agreements that may involve the same parties.” We (and others) raised this concern in public comments filed with the Commission. Here’s the agency’s own legal analysis — in full: “The Commission has authority to review the Commercial Agreements and to impose conditions to protect the public interest.” There’s not even an accompanying footnote.

Accepting the limits Congress has imposed on the FCC doesn’t require approving the Verizon/SpectrumCo deal — or any other. The DOJ is perfectly willing to use antitrust to block such deals, such as rejecting the AT&T/T-Mobile merger last year. Just last week, DOJ demanded concessions of the parties to this deal (although its analysis, too, was flawed). The key difference is that DOJ can block or condition approval of a deal only if it shows the deal would substantially harm consumer welfare. And DOJ bears the burden of showing this harm, measured against extensive case law and economic analysis. But parties before the FCC bear the burden of demonstrating that their transactions enhance competition and serve the “public interest.” That phrase “lacks any definite meaning,” as Ronald Coase noted more than 50 years ago. Little has changed.

The FCC falls prey all too easily to the problem Coase identified: overestimating the dangers of concentration and underestimating how much spectrum sales and other transactions can benefit consumers. Even the Obama DOJ has cautioned the FCC against “striving for broadband markets that look like textbook markets of perfect competition….” As industry evolves and competitors vie for scarce resources (especially in wireless broadband), they meet new competitive challenges with novel business arrangements and increased investment. Economies of scale may become more important, and concentration may increase, benefiting, rather than harming, consumers. But the FCC cries “Monopoly!” — without actually having to prove it.

Perhaps worse, having firms over a barrel, the FCC uses its leverage to regulate future conduct by extracting “voluntary” conditions in the name of the public interest –often conditions it couldn’t impose by regulation. That’s almost certainly what happened here with Verizon’s concession on data roaming. Verizon (but not its competitors) will be subject, for five years, to obligations the D.C. Circuit may soon rule the FCC has no authority to impose — much as Comcast “voluntarily” agreed to net neutrality conditions in its merger with NBC Universal even stricter than the regulations the D.C. Circuit seems likely to strike down for everyone else. This creates a patchwork of rules and obligations, coerced without sound economic justification, in a fashion largely unreviewable by courts, and in contravention of limits placed on the FCC’s authority by Congress and the courts.

This effectively grants the FCC unchecked power to stop transactions it doesn’t even have the authority to review, and to regulate companies in extra-legal ways it has no authority to.

Congress should rein in the FCC. The FCC Process Reform Act passed by the House in March (but now stalled in the Senate) is a good start, requiring that conditions be narrowly tailored to real harms the FCC actually has authority to regulate. But until Congress makes clear that the public interest standard is not a carte blanche and that the limits it explicitly imposed on the scope of the Commission’s reviewing authority are binding — or, even better, that the DOJ alone has the authority to analyze a transaction’s competitive effects — the FCC will continue playing games with our high-tech economy, even when it appears to be exercising restraint.

Cross-posted from CNET

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07RWvFoJJqI

Today at 11AM PT I will be participating on the live webcast “This Week in Law” along with TechFreedom Senior Adjunct Fellow Larry Downes. Denise Howell will be hosting and we will also be joined by fellow participant Evan Brown. This week we will be discussing various topics in tech policy including Senator Al Franken’s lambast of Facebook and Google, the newly opened antitrust investigation of Motorola Mobility by the European Commission, and the continued problem of spectrum crunch.

This Week in Law is recorded live every Friday at 11:00am PT/2:00pm ET and covers topics primarily in law, technology, and public policy. You do not have to register, just follow this link at 11:00am PT/2:00pm ET to watch.

Filed under: antitrust, general, net neutrality, politics, privacy

In yesterday’s Washington Post, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius makes an impassioned plea for skeptics to reconsider the Affordable Care Act. Secretary Sebelius argues that the Act will bring down health care costs by, among other things, assisting those who cannot afford health insurance coverage. Although expanding health insurance coverage is a worthy goal, bringing more folks into the health care system could result in higher prices for health care services. The housing market provides a nice example: although subsidized mortgage rates allowed more people to own homes, more buyers eventually meant higher home prices.

Read the full piece here.

Herb Hovenkamp has posted his new casebook on Innovation and Competition Policy to SSRN, where one can download the chapters individually.  This is a very nice development for students; and the book seems perfectly fit for a course on Innovation and Competition Policy — for which it was designed — but also appropriate for a variety of similarly-themed seminar courses.

Professor Hovenkamp describes the aims of the book here:

This is not an “IP/antitrust” casebook.  There are already excellent books in that field.  Only about half of the principal cases printed in this book are antitrust decisions.  I use this book to present issues of innovation and competition policy to students in a broader context, examining not only antitrust but also the intellectual property laws and including shorter examination of several other topics, such as telecommunications, net neutrality, and competition issues raised by the DMCA.  Brief attention is also given to the industrial organization literature on innovation.

This casebook begins with a chapter on patent scope and its implications for innovation, with brief coverage of the Schumpeter-Arrow literature and the problem of sequential innovation.  Then it looks in some detail at the problem of complementary relationships, addressed in antitrust mainly through the law of tying arrangements.  After that is a chapter on remedies issues, followed by chapters on the patent system, copyright, practices that restrain innovation, and intellectual property misuse.  Another chapter covers exclusionary practices and another a wide variety of collaborative arrangements, including pooling, standard setting, blanket licenses, and the like.  The final chapter focuses on vertical restraints and the post-sale (exhaustion) doctrine.

I hope to keep this book up to date on a regular basis and welcome any suggestions for revision or inclusion.  My overall goal, however, is to hold the book somewhere in the range of its current length.

 

Filed under: antitrust

Last week I linked to my new study on “search bias.”  At the time I noted I would have a few blog posts in the coming days discussing the study.  This is the first of those posts.

A lot of the frenzy around Google turns on “search bias,” that is, instances when Google references its own links or its own content (such as Google Maps or YouTube) in its search results pages.  Some search engine critics condemn such references as inherently suspect and almost by their very nature harmful to consumers.  Yet these allegations suffer from several crucial shortcomings.  As I’ve noted (see, e.g., here and here), these naked assertions of discrimination are insufficient to state a cognizable antitrust claim, divorced as they are from consumer welfare analysis.  Indeed, such “discrimination” (some would call it “vertical integration”) has a well-recognized propensity to yield either pro-competitive or competitively neutral outcomes, rather than concrete consumer welfare losses.  Moreover, because search engines exist in an incredibly dynamic environment, marked by constant innovation and fierce competition, we would expect different engines, utilizing different algorithms and appealing to different consumer preferences, to emerge.  So when search engines engage in product differentiation of this sort, there is no reason to be immediately suspicious of these business decisions.

No reason to be immediately suspicious – but there could, conceivably, be a problem.  If there is, we would want to see empirical evidence of it—of both the existence of bias, as well as the consumer harm emanating from it.  But one of the most notable features of this debate is the striking lack of empirical data.  Surprisingly little research has been done in this area, despite frequent assertions that own-content bias is commonly practiced and poses a significant threat to consumers (see, e.g., here).

My paper is an attempt to rectify this.  In the paper, I investigate the available data to determine whether and to what extent own-content bias actually occurs, by analyzing and replicating a study by Ben Edelman and Ben Lockwood (E&L) and conducting my own study of a larger, randomized set of search queries.

In this post I discuss my analysis and critique of E&L; in future posts I’ll present my own replication of their study, as well as the results of my larger study of 1,000 random search queries.  Finally, I’ll analyze whether any of these findings support anticompetitive foreclosure theories or are otherwise sufficient to warrant antitrust intervention.

E&L “investigate . . . [w]hether search engines’ algorithmic results favor their own services, and if so, which search engines do most, to what extent, and in what substantive areas.”  Their approach is to measure the difference in how frequently search engines refer to their own content relative to how often their rivals do so.

One note at the outset:  While this approach provides useful descriptive facts about the differences between how search engines link to their own content, it does little to inform antitrust analysis because Edelman and Lockwood begin with the rather odd claim that competition among differentiated search engines for consumers is a puzzle that creates an air of suspicion around the practice—in fact, they claim that “it is hard to see why results would vary . . . across search engines.”  This assertion, of course, is simply absurd.  Indeed, Danny Sullivan provides a nice critique of this claim:

It’s not hard to see why search engine result differ at all.  Search engines each use their own “algorithm” to cull through the pages they’ve collected from across the web, to decide which pages to rank first . . . . Google has a different algorithm than Bing.  In short, Google will have a different opinion than Bing.  Opinions in the search world, as with the real world, don’t always agree.

Moreover, this assertion completely discounts both the vigorous competitive product differentiation that occurs in nearly all modern product markets as well as the obvious selection effects at work in own-content bias (Google users likely prefer Google content).  This combination detaches E&L’s analysis from the consumer welfare perspective, and thus antitrust policy relevance, despite their claims to the contrary (and the fact that their results actually exhibit very little bias).

Several methodological issues undermine the policy relevance of E&L’s analysis.  First, they hand select 32 search queries and execute searches on Google, Bing, Yahoo, AOL and Ask.  This hand-selected non-random sample of 32 search queries cannot generate reliable inferences regarding the frequency of bias—a critical ingredient to understanding its potential competitive effects.  Indeed, E&L acknowledge their queries are chosen precisely because they are likely to return results including Google content (e.g., email, images, maps, video, etc.).

E&L analyze the top three organic search results for each query on each engine.  They find that 19% of all results across all five search engines refer to content affiliated with one of them.  They focus upon the first three organic results and report that Google refers to its own content in the first (“top”) position about twice as often as Yahoo and Bing refer to Google content in this position.  Additionally, they note that Yahoo is more biased than Google when evaluating the first page rather than only the first organic search result.

E&L also offer a strained attempt to deal with the possibility of competitive product differentiation among search engines.  They examine differences among search engines’ references to their own content by “compar[ing] the frequency with which a search engine links to its own pages, relative to the frequency with which other search engines link to that search engine’s pages.”  However, their evidence undermines claims that Google’s own-content bias is significant and systematic relative to its rivals’.  In fact, almost zero evidence of statistically significant own-content bias by Google emerges.

E&L find, in general, Google is no more likely to refer to its own content than other search engines are to refer to that same content, and across the vast majority of their results, E&L find Google search results are not statistically more likely to refer to Google content than rivals’ search results.

The same data can be examined to test the likelihood that a search engine will refer to content affiliated with a rival search engine.  Rather than exhibiting bias in favor of an engine’s own content, a “biased” search engine might conceivably be less likely to refer to content affiliated with its rivals.  The table below reports the likelihood (in odds ratios) that a search engine’s content appears in a rival engine’s results.

The first two columns of the table demonstrate that both Google and Yahoo content are referred to in the first search result less frequently in rivals’ search results than in their own.  Although Bing does not have enough data for robust analysis of results in the first position in E&L’s original analysis, the next three columns in Table 1 illustrate that all three engines’ (Google, Yahoo, and Bing) content appears less often on the first page of rivals’ search results than on their own search engine.  However, only Yahoo’s results differ significantly from 1.  As between Google and Bing, the results are notably similar.

E&L also make a limited attempt to consider the possibility that favorable placement of a search engine’s own content is a response to user preferences rather than anticompetitive motives.  Using click-through data, they find, unsurprisingly, that the first search result tends to receive the most clicks (72%, on average).  They then identify one search term for which they believe bias plays an important role in driving user traffic.  For the search query “email,” Google ranks its own Gmail first and Yahoo Mail second; however, E&L also find that Gmail receives only 29% of clicks while Yahoo Mail receives 54%.  E&L claim that this finding strongly indicates that Google is engaging in conduct that harms users and undermines their search experience.

However, from a competition analysis perspective, that inference is not sound.  Indeed, the fact that the second-listed Yahoo Mail link received the majority of clicks demonstrates precisely that Yahoo was not competitively foreclosed from access to users.  Taken collectively, E&L are not able to muster evidence of potential competitive foreclosure.

While it’s important to have an evidence-based discussion surrounding search engine results and their competitive implications, it’s also critical to recognize that bias alone is not evidence of competitive harm.  Indeed, any identified bias must be evaluated in the appropriate antitrust economic context of competition and consumers, rather than individual competitors and websites.  E&L’s analysis provides a useful starting point for describing how search engines differ in their referrals to their own content.  But, taken at face value, their results actually demonstrate little or no evidence of bias—let alone that the little bias they do find is causing any consumer harm.

As I’ll discuss in coming posts, evidence gathered since E&L conducted their study further suggests their claims that bias is prevalent, inherently harmful, and sufficient to warrant antitrust intervention are overstated and misguided.

Filed under: antitrust, business, economics, google, Internet search, law and economics, monopolization, technology Tagged: antitrust, Bing, google, search, search bias, Search Engines, search neutrality, Web search engine, Yahoo

Summary

Search engines produce immense value by identifying, organizing, and presenting the Internet´s information in response to users´ queries.1 Search engines efficiently provide better and faster answers to users´ questions than alternatives.

Recently, critics have taken issue with the various methods search engines use to identify relevant content and rank search results for users. Google, in particular, has been the subject of much of this criticism on the grounds that its organic search results—those generated algorithmically—favor its own products and services at the expense of those of its rivals. It is widely understood that search engines´ algorithms for ranking various web pages naturally differ. Likewise, there is widespread recognition that competition among search engines is vigorous, and that differentiation between engines´ ranking functions is not only desirable, but a natural byproduct of competition, necessary to survival, and beneficial to consumers.2 Nonetheless, despite widespread recognition of the consumer benefits of such differentiation, complaints from rival search engines have persisted and succeeded in attracting attention from a number of state, federal and international regulatory agencies. Unfortunately, much of this attention has focused on the impact upon individual websites of differences among search engines´ algorithmic methods of identifying and ranking relevant content, rather than analyzing these differences from a conventional consumer?welfare driven antitrust analysis.

For example, many of these complaints ignore the fact that search engine users self?select into different engines or use multiple engines for different types of searches when considering the competitive implications of search rankings.3 Rather than focus upon competition among search engines in how results are identified and presented to users, critics and complainants craft their arguments around alleged search engine “discrimination” or “bias.”4 The complainants must have in mind something other than competitive decisions to rank content that differ from the decisions made by rivals; bias in this sense is both necessary to and inherent within any useful indexing tool. Yet, critics have generally avoided a precise definition of the allegedly troublesome conduct. Indeed, the term “bias” is used colloquially and is frequently invoked in the search engine debate to encompass a wide array of behavior—generally suggesting a latent malignancy within search engine conduct—with some critics citing mere differences in results across engines as evidence of harmful conduct.5

The more useful attempts to define “bias,” however, focus upon differences in organic rankings attributable to the search engine ranking its own content (“owncontent bias”); that is, a sufficient condition for own?content bias is that a search engine ranks its own content more prominently than its rivals do. To be even more precise about the nature of the alleged “own?content bias,” it should be clear that this form of  bias refers exclusively to organic results, i.e., those results the search engine produces algorithmically, as distinguished from the paid advertisements that might appear at the top, bottom, or right?hand side of a search result page.6 Critics at the Senate’s recent hearing on the “Power of Google” were particularly vociferous on this front, accusing Google of having “cooked”7 its algorithm and of “rig[ging] its results, biasing in favor of Google.”8

Competition economists and regulatory agencies are familiar with business arrangements which give rise to concerns of own?content bias.9 Complaints and economic theories of harm assert that a vertically integrated firm (in this case, Google offers search results as well as products like YouTube and Google Maps) might discriminate against its rivals by “foreclosing” them from access to a critical input. Here, the critical input necessary for rivals´ success is alleged to be prominent placement in Google´s search results. The economics of the potential anticompetitive exclusion of rivals involving vertically integrated firms are well understood in antitrust. The conditions that must be satisfied for these concerns to generate real risk to consumers are also well known. Over a century of antitrust jurisprudence, economic study, and enforcement agency practice have produced a well?understood economic analysis of the competitive effects of a vertically integrated firm´s “discrimination” in favor of its own products or services, including widespread recognition that such arrangements generally produce significant benefits for consumers. Modern competition policy recognizes that vertical integration and contractual arrangements are generally procompetitive; it also understands that discrimination of this sort may create the potential for competitive harm under some conditions. Sensible competition policy involving vertical integration and contractual arrangements requires one to be sensitive to the potential consumer welfare?enhancing potential of such vertical integration while also taking seriously the possibility that a firm might successfully harm competition itself (and not merely a rival).

In addition to the failure to distinguish procompetitive conduct from anticompetitive behavior, critics´ allegations of own?content bias suffer deeper conceptual ambiguities. The perceived issue for Google´s rivals is not merely that Google links to a map when responding to search queries, suggesting one might be  relevant for the user; indeed, rival search engines frequently respond to similar user queries with their own or other map products. Rather, critics find problematic that Google responds to user queries with a Google Map. This is a critical distinction because it concedes that rivals´ complaints are not satisfied by the response that consumers are better off with the map; nor do critics pause to consider that perhaps the Google search user prefers the Google Map to rival products.10 Thus, critics brazenly take issue with the relationship between Google and the search result even where they concede Google produces more relevant results for consumers.11 Rather than focusing upon consumers, critics argue that the fact that Google is affiliated with the referred search result is itself prima facie evidence of competitively harmful bias.12 On its face, this argument turns conventional antitrust wisdom on its head. Conduct that harms rivals merely because it attracts consumers from rivals is the essence of competition and the logical core of the maxim that antitrust protects “competition, not competitors.?13

Critics´ failure to account for the potential consumer benefits from ?own?content bias? extends beyond ignoring the fact that users might prefer Google´s products to rivals´. Most critics simply ignore the myriad of procompetitive explanations for vertical integration in the economics literature. This omission by critics, and especially by economist critics, is mystifying given that economists have documented not only a plethora of procompetitive justifications for such integration, but also that such vertical relationships are much more likely to be competitively beneficial or benign than to raise serious threats of foreclosure.14

The critical antitrust question is always whether the underlying conduct creates or maintains monopoly power and thus reduces competition and consumer welfare, or is more likely efficient and procompetitive. To be clear, documenting the mere existence of own?content bias itself does little to answer this question. Bias is not a sufficient condition for competitive harm as a matter of economics because it can increase, decrease, or have no impact at all upon consumer welfare; neither is bias, without more, sufficient to state a cognizable antitrust claim.15

Nonetheless, documenting whether and how much of the alleged bias exists in Google´s and its rivals´ search results can improve our understanding of its competitive implications—that is, whether the evidence of discrimination in favor of one´s own content across search engines is more consistent with anticompetitive foreclosure or with competitive differentiation.

Critically, in order to generate plausible competitive concerns, search bias must, at minimum, be sufficient in magnitude to foreclose rivals from achieving minimum efficient scale (otherwise, if it merely represents effective competition that makes life harder for competitors, it is not an antitrust concern at all). It follows from this necessary condition that not all evidence of ?bias? is relevant to this competitive concern; in particular, Google referring to its own products and services more prominently than its rivals rank those same services has little to do with critics´ complaints unless they implicate general or vertical search.

Despite widespread discussion of search engine bias, virtually no evidence exists indicating that bias abounds—and very little that it exists at all. Edelman & Lockwood recently addressed this dearth of evidence by conducting a small study focused upon own?content bias in 32 search queries. They contend that their results are indicative of systemic and significant bias demanding antitrust intervention.16 The authors define and measure ?bias? as the extent to which a search engine´s ranking of its own content differs from how its rivals rank the same content. This approach provides some useful information concerning differences among search engine rankings. However, the study should not be relied upon to support broad sweeping antitrust policy concerns with Google.

The small sample of search queries provides one reason for caution. Perhaps more importantly, the non?random sample of search queries undermines its utility for addressing the critical antitrust policy questions focusing upon the magnitude of search bias, both generally and as it relates to whether the degree and nature of observed bias satisfies the well?known conditions required for competitive foreclosure. Further, evaluating their evidence at face value, Edelman & Lockwood misinterpret its relevance (Edelman & Lockwood in fact find almost no evidence of bias) and, most problematically, simply assume that own?content bias is inherently suspect from a consumer welfare perspective rather than considering the well?known consumer benefits of vertical integration. Despite these shortcomings, Edelman & Lockwood´s study has received considerable attention, both in the press and from Google´s critics, who cite it as evidence of harmful and anticompetitive search engine behavior.17 In the present analysis, as a starting point, we first “replicate” and analyze Edelman & Lockwood´s earlier study of a small, non?random sample of search queries in the modern search market. We then extend this methodology to a larger random sample of search queries in order to draw more reliable inferences concerning the answers to crucial questions for the competition policy debate surrounding search engine bias, including: (1) what precisely is search engine bias?; (2) what are its  competitive implications?; (3) how common is it?; (4) what explains its existence and relative frequency across search engines?; and, most importantly, (5) does observed search engine bias pose a competitive threat or is it a feature of competition between search engines?

Part I of this paper articulates an antitrust?appropriate framework for analyzing claims of “own?content bias” and delineates its utility and shortcomings as a theory of antitrust harm; it further evaluates Edelman & Lockwood’s study, methodology and analysis using this framework. Part II lays out the methodology employed in our own studies. Part III presents the results of our replication of Edelman & Lockwood and analyzes antitrust implications for the search engine bias debate; Part IV does the same for our larger, random sample of search queries. Part V concludes.

Economists have long warned against price regulation in the context of network industries, but until now our tools have been limited to complex theoretical models. Last week, the heavens sent down a natural experiment so powerful that the theoretical models are blushing: In response to a new regulation preventing banks from charging debit-card swipe fees to merchants, Bank of America announced that it would charge its customers $5 a month for debit card purchases. And Chase and Wells Fargo are testing $3 monthly debit-card fees in certain markets. In case you haven’t been following the action, the basic details are here. What in the world does this development have to do with an “open” Internet? A lot, actually.

Read the full piece here.

Milton Mueller responded to my post Wednesday on the DOJ’s decision to halt the AT&T/T-Mobile merger by asserting that there was no evidence the merger would lead to “anything innovative and progressive” and claiming “[t]he spectrum argument fell apart months ago, as factual inquiries revealed that AT&T had more spectrum than Verizon and the mistakenly posted lawyer’s letter revealed that it would be much less expensive to expand its capacity than to acquire T-Mobile.”  With respect to Milton, I think he’s been suckered by the “big is bad” crowd at Public Knowledge and Free Press.  But he’s hardly alone and these claims — claims that may well have under-girded the DOJ’s decision to step in to some extent — merit thorough refutation.

Read the full piece here.