UN, OAS Officials Concerned About US Net Neutrality Rollback; Wright Touts Antitrust
Two international officials criticized possible FCC repeal or weakening of net neutrality rules prohibiting internet traffic blocking, throttling and paid prioritization, requiring transparency, and imposing an internet conduct standard. "We express serious concern with the proposed rule changes, which may…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
significantly roll back protections for net neutrality and unduly interfere with freedom of expression online in the United States," said the comments Wednesday of David Kaye, U.N. special rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, and Edison Lanza, special rapporteur for freedom of expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States. "We urge the Commission to take all steps necessary to conduct a comprehensive review of its proposed rule changes, and ensure their compliance with applicable international standards as outlined in this submission." Some substantive reply comments were filed in recent days despite the commission's move to extend the Wednesday deadline to Aug. 30. Antitrust enforcement provides a "more reasonable framework for net neutrality regulation," said Josh Wright, a former FTC commissioner now associated with the Free State Foundation, in an FSF piece. There appears to be "confusion about the appropriate role of antitrust and its domain in broadband markets. Some even go so far as to claim relying upon antitrust law amounts to no regulation at all," wrote Wright, noting the FCC's proposed repeal of Communications Act Title II classification would return broadband jurisdiction to the FTC. "Antitrust law has developed a sophisticated 'rule of reason' framework to determine whether vertical agreements are procompetitive or anticompetitive. The rule of reason approach examines vertical agreements on a case-by-case basis by weighing costs and benefits and recognizing possible losses from enforcement errors that go in either direction. Despite the 2015 Order ban on vertical agreements by Internet service providers, rule of reason analysis would not similarly result in a total ban on vertical agreements because economics literature clearly indicates that while vertical agreements are capable of harming competition in the manner contemplated by net neutrality proponents, more often than not they are beneficial to consumers."