DISQUS

Federal Trade Commission Chairman William Kovacic obviously didn't get the message. He says "self-assessment" is the *only* way to go...

http://voluntarytrade.org/blog/?p=478

"And it seems odd–perhaps even an abuse of the position–for a regulator charged with enforcing competition rules to advocate for one business model over another."

I agree that it's an abuse, but it's not odd. Antitrust regulators have been advocating for and against particular business models for awhile now. I just filed an amicus brief in Rambus v. FTC making that exact point.

Why assume something has "gone so terribly wrong"? Maybe this is exactly what the process is designed to do. Some factions within the FCC simply be trying to wait out Sirius and XM in the hopes that they'll grow tired and quit the deal altogether.

Heck, just today the Federal Trade Commission "won" a challenge to a hospital merger when the parties threw in the towel -- after FTC staff took more than *two* years to review the deal.

"And yet more action in the offices of the countless economic consultancies that have sprung up, spouting reams of game theoretic nonsense in the pursuit of fat expert witness fees."

Sing it, sister. The Federal Trade Commission hands out expert witness fees like it was federal disaster aid. In the FTC's case long-running case against Rambus, even the agency's own administrative law judge took notice, as I explained in my brief to the D.C. Circuit:

http://www.voluntarytrade.org/joomla15/index.ph...

Unfortunately, Ballon and McQuillan spend most of their op-ed repeating the dangerous lie that antitrust laws protect consumers. Rather then focusing on the proposed price control board that would be controlled by the FTC and DOJ, the authors use a lot of scare words to mislead people into thinking retailer "price fixing" is a looming menace.

It's worth noting that the FTC itself has the unrestricted ability to demand businesses and individuals turn over their business records without the need for a warrant or even probable cause. The FTC's "compulsory process" can be invoked for almost any antitrust or "consumer protection" reason. The FTC routinely abuses this power to overwhelm businesses into pleading guilty to fabricated antitrust violations.

"What’s sad about this, of course, is that Microsoft still labors under ridiculous antitrust restrictions and government oversight efforts across the globe even though markets and technological innovation are doing a much better job of eroding the market dominance that those regulators fear."

Actually, I think the regulators fear markets and technological innovation more than Microsoft. That's why you're seeing the FTC taking steps to usurp control of standard-setting organizations (via the Rambus case and others) and why there's been a panicked rush to expand antitrust powers via wiretapping and eliminating due process for targets of antitrust investigations.

It's never good to bet on a politician standing against organized racism. Even the great "libertarian" Ron Paul can't help but pander to such hatred.

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission did the same thing in its Rambus decision--using antitrust as a Trojan horse for limiting patent royalties.

It's hard to take PFF seriously when it continues to insist that antitrust regulation and free markets are compatible.

Wow. This is an unbelievably stupid post. Anyone who thinks the FTC "are competition and consumer protection experts" who actually believe in free markets is ignoring the FTC's actual behavior over the past decade. I can refute everything argued in this post, but clearly the poster is more interested in publishing pro-FTC propaganda than promoting an honest discussion. I won't be wasting my time reading this website anymore.

Perhaps it's time to take bets on when Singapore--as barbaric a regime as exists today--executes its first blogger for challenging the state's authority.

It's not uncommon for Republicans to argue that "antitrust is not regulation." Even think tanks like the Progress and Freedom Foundation have taken that position.

PFF is not exactly a libertarian organization, particularly given their support for antitrust (and their recent hiring of a former FTC commissioner who endorsed price controls in health care.)

The simplest explanation for criminalizing "indecency" is that it would strongly discourage accused parties from contesting any civil charges along the same lines. Sensenbrenner is clearly concerned that media companies will start fighting FCC indecency findings, and the only way to prevent any discussion of the subject is to add the potential for criminal liability. Virtually no company will fight back if they believe their people will risk jail time.

The subtext of the indecency debate is media consolidation. It is the Democrats on the FCC--notably Michael Copps, a career government hack, who have been pushing for the stiffest indecency penalties. Their agenda is not right-wing puritanism, but rather left-wing micromanagement. Copps has been very clear that he wants to veto virtually any media merger that does not sufficiently promote "diversity". For example, he railed against a merger of two Hispanic media companies because of his belief that it would deny "competition" to Spanish-language media consumers. Copps went so far as to call proponents of the merger racist.

The Copps-Democratic theory is that bigger media means more indecency, and that forcing media companies to emphasize "localism" will keep "community standards" enforced.