Community Page
- techliberation.com/ Jump to website »
-
Subscribe -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
-
Recent Comments
- <i>I'd buy a newspaper that reported substance over he said/she said stenography mixed with tabloid fluff.</i> You might, but I think most of the evidence suggests that not very...
- This is too funny!
- Good point I Can't agree more ..... and its not if those people dnt want things to change ....
- “Sexting” is a current trend among an increasing number of teens. It involves texting sexual information (photos or words) to one another. Recent studies show almost 50% of all teens participate in...
- I think that there's actually a scarcity of news on the Internet. Where are the in-depth articles explaining the intricacies of Waxman-Markey (the substance, from experts, not the horse race...
2 years ago
2 years ago
Of course, I'm no lover FTC after-the-fact regulation either, but it's a hell of lot less onerous that what the FCC does on a daily basis. Abolish them both and I'd be happy. But if we can only get one out of the picture right now, it's a no-brainer: make it the FCC.
2 years ago
"Also, the FTC is willing to examine problems after the fact and not engage in preemptive regulation of industry behavior of market structures."
That's absolutely false. I've documented a number of industries where the FTC has engaged in preemptive regulation, health care being at the top of the list. The FTC has long forbidden various market structures for physician and hospital groups--based on no empirical evidence--and violated every norm of due process to enforce its views.
If you want an example of technology markets, just look at the FTC's long-running litigation against Rambus. There, the Commission is trying to assert control over patent policy and usurp the roles of not just the patent system but the Article III courts themselves. The result has been a litigation disaster that's enriched many lawyers at the expense of all industry participants. And Rambus is a case where the FTC definitely regulated first and asked questions . . . well, never.
Also, Gattuso's claim that we can "apply the same antitrust rules that apply to everyone else" is false and misleading. The very nature of antitrust is that different rules are applied differently based solely on the political judgment of regulators. If anything, it would be better for the FCC to simply make up a bunch of "neutrality" rules and enforce them semi-consistently than to give lawyers a total free hand in manufacturing antitrust claims after-the-fact.
2 years ago
2 years ago
And how exactly is "consumer welfare" a better standard than "public interest"? Frankly, most FTC cases I've seen use those two phrases interchangeably. The problem is "consumers" in the FTC's mind can mean large insurance companies, while the "criminals" are individual physicians or even self-employed management consultants who violate the FTC's mysterious and vague rules.
My real point here is not that the FTC is better or worse than the FCC. There's subjective value at work here. If you're the one getting screwed by the FTC, the FCC's abuses are irrelevant, and vice versa. But I have a real problem with this half-assed attempt to rationalize antitrust regulation--such as calling it "actual economics"--simply to make the FCC look worse by comparison.