If proponents of network neutrality, an Internet non-discrimination principle, truly care about preventing discrimination on the Internet, why do they turn a blind eye to the worst offender of gatekeeper discrimination on the Internet – Alphabet-Google?

Recently, the Internet Association, which Google co-founded and funds, criticized the Federal Communications Commission for its proposal on network neutrality and utility regulation of Internet Service Providers (ISPs). Internet Association President Michael Beckerman stated: “ISPs should not be able to use their position as gatekeepers to prioritize their own content over others.”

Apparently, the net neutrality movement has a hypocritical double standard on gatekeeper discrimination. It has one for their chosen opponents – ISPs, and another for their allies and patrons like Google.

They maximally regulate competitive ISPs as monopolies engaged in anti-competitive discrimination, when they are not on both counts. They stay silent and do nothing when a real monopoly anti-competitively discriminates.

How can net neutrality proponents be so incensed about an imagined ISP net neutrality problem and so indifferent to a real anti-competitive and discriminatory gatekeeper problem on the Internet – Google?

They must ignore the facts.

While Alphabet-Google is a competitive ISP offering Internet access via Google-Fiber and its Project Fi mobile broadband service, it is also the dominant provider of search services, search syndication, and search advertising, per the DOJ and FTC, and dominant in mobile operating systems, per EU antitrust authorities.

Now look who discriminates non-neutrally.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, May 18, 2017, Contact:  Scott Cleland 703-217-2407

What’s Wrong with This Picture? Pressure Groups and their Netopolies-Funders: Google, Facebook and Amazon, Hypocritically Demand Utility Regulation of Competitive Broadband ISPs to Prevent Commercial Discrimination or Blocking When the Netopolies are the Actual De Facto Utilities that Discriminate and Block as a Key Part their Business Models  

WASHINGTON D.C. – The following may be attributed to Scott Cleland, Chairman of NetCompetition:  

“Title II broadband regulation proponents sacrifice their credibility when they claim competitive companies are monopolies that require the strongest possible utility regulation, while simultaneously claiming Internet monopolies like Google, Facebook and Amazon, are competitive companies that should have no regulation at all.”

Let’s see what a winner-take-all, market failure looks like as it is happening before our eyes.

The Goobook digital ad cartel is continuing its outsized, abnormally-fast, revenue growth on top of the largest digital ad revenue bases by far. Consequently, their few remaining platform digital advertising competitors are weakening significantly per 1Q17 earnings reporting and other information.

This is how the relevant market players did in 1Q17.

Google (which is 90% digital advertising) grew revenues at a 22% annual rate, or an absolute revenue increase of +$17b to total $95b for the last year.

Facebook (which is basically all advertising) grew revenues at a 49% annual rate, or an absolute revenue increase of +$10b to total $30b for the last year.

Microsoft (which is 6.5% digital advertising) grew its search digital advertising revenues at an 8% annual rate or an absolute increase of +$.4b for a total of $5.7b in digital advertising for the last year. In 2015, Microsoft sold its display ad business to Verizon-AOL. It has little presence in mobile search advertising; and is not investing significantly in its search advertising business going forward since Facebook dropped Bing for search in late 2014. Microsoft keeps a search business to provide a search capability for its Cortana personal assistant.

What did the Senate confirmation hearing for President Trump’s nominee to head up the DOJ Antitrust Division, Makan Delrahim, tell us that’s relevant to the biggest pending global antitrust issue -- Google?

A lot.

Google is no longer politically protected from antitrust investigation in the U.S.

Let’s learn why.

It has gone from likely to clear that Makan Delrahim, will be the antitrust lead in handling the most consequential U.S and international antitrust matters, like Google, in the Trump Administration.

The hearing affirmed Mr. Delrahim is very well-known, highly-respected, and enjoys bipartisan support on the Senate Judiciary Committee. He received bipartisan letters of endorsement from 12 previous DOJ Antitrust Chiefs and all the Commissioners he served with on the Antitrust Modernization Commission.

In addition, as Deputy White House Counsel for nominations, who also shepherded Supreme Court Nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch, through the Senate confirmation process, he obviously enjoys the strongest trust, respect, and support from President Trump and Attorney General Sessions.

Tellingly, it is mid-May and we don’t have a nominee for FTC Chairperson.

As the EU’s Antitrust Chief, Margrethe Vestager, is expected to finalize the first of her three antitrust cases against Google’s abuses of dominance in June-July, practically that means Mr. Delrahim will be confirmed by then, and an FTC Chairperson will not. Thus Mr. Delrahim de facto will begin as the Google antitrust lead in the U.S.

Please don’t miss my latest The Hill Op-ed: “HBO’s John Oliver needs a 'net neutrality' reality check.”

Please don’t miss my latest The Hill Op-ed: “Internet giants, not broadband providers, are the top threat to consumers”.

Net neutrality proponents who summarily dismiss any potential for Congress to resolve net neutrality with a legislative compromise, might want to rethink that heroic assumption after closely reading the Pai-FCC’s Title II NPRM.

Apparently, Chairman Pai has figured out a way that could overturn the FCC’s 2015 Open Internet order, and in addition, practically neuter the going-forward precedential value of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ USTelecom v. FCC decision that upheld the legality of the 2015 FCC order.

Importantly, it is the continuation of the legal validation and legitimacy of the USTelecom v. FCC decision that gives net neutrality proponents their long-term hope that they could restore a Title II net neutrality regime in the U.S. with just a simple FCC majority vote in 2021 or 2025, just like they did in 2015.

But they also know that without the complete Chevron Deference in USTelecom v. FCC, the FCC does not have the legal authority to impose utility regulation on broadband providers.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, April 26, 2017, Contact:  Scott Cleland 703-217-2407

In Openly Previewing His Plans for Overturning the FCC’s 2015 Title II Open Internet Order, FCC Chairman Pai FCC is Doing the Right Thing for the Right Reasons in the Right Way, in Contrast to the Wheeler FCC Doing the Wrong Thing, for the Wrong Reasons, in the Wrong Way 

WASHINGTON D.C. – The following may be attributed to Scott Cleland, Chairman of NetCompetition: 

“FCC Chairman Pai is giving a clinic in FCC and regulatory leadership: in doing the right thing, i.e. starting the process of returning the FCC to the bipartisan, light regulatory, Internet approach that worked exceptionally well from 1996-2015; for the right reasons, i.e. the 2015 order was unnecessary, unwarranted and uncertain, and repealing it will promote economic growth, jobs, broadband deployment and competition; and in the right way, i.e. openly stating what the FCC will be doing and why, and promising the UNPRECEDENTED FCC TRANSPARENCY OF SHOWING A DRAFT FCC PROPOSAL TO THE PUBLIC THREE WEEKS BEFORE A PUBLIC VOTE!”

“If the previous FCC had not acted for the wrong reasons, i.e. because of inappropriate White House pressure, in the wrong way, i.e. claiming to be all for openness but running a non-transparent decision-making process, they would never have done the wrong thing: i.e. hyper-regulating an economically productive and competitive industry that had done nothing to warrant any regulation, let alone the strongest possible monopoly/utility regulation.”

NETCompetition.org is a pro-competition e-forum representing broadband interests.

Scott Cleland served as Deputy U.S. Coordinator for  International Communications and Information Policy in the George H. W. Bush Administration. 

Please don’t miss my latest The Hill op-ed: “Six definitions that are preventing consensus on net neutrality.”

Please don’t miss my latest The Hill op-ed:   “Google’s ad blocking exposes the company’s hypocrisy on net neutrality” (& copyright).