I've just come across this book, "Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New Gilded Age," which looks rather good.
It seems to take a predominantly US perspective to the issue of communications monopolies and, once I've read it, I'll try to come back and comment on whether the points Crawford makes seem applicable to non-US situations.
"Ten years ago, the United States stood at the forefront of the Internet revolution. With some of the fastest speeds and lowest prices in the world for high-speed Internet access, the nation was poised to be the global leader in the new knowledge-based economy. Today that global competitive advantage has all but vanished because of a series of government decisions and resulting monopolies that have allowed dozens of countries, including Japan and South Korea, to pass us in both speed and price of broadband. This steady slide backward not only deprives consumers of vital services needed in a competitive employment and business market—it also threatens the economic future of the nation.
This important book by leading telecommunications policy expert Susan Crawford explores why Americans are now paying much more but getting much less when it comes to high-speed Internet access. Using the 2011 merger between Comcast and NBC Universal as a lens, Crawford examines how we have created the biggest monopoly since the breakup of Standard Oil a century ago. In the clearest terms, this book explores how telecommunications monopolies have affected the daily lives of consumers and America's global economic standing."
Hi Neil,
ReplyDeleteI've just joined this blog. Interesting post. I'm interested in the author's main argument. As a former practising competition lawyer, I would have thought the HSR US merger control rules would have prevented anti-competitive monopolies being allowed. A thorough investigation of possible theories of harm regarding prospective mergers of large players would certainly ensue under the EU Merger Control Reg. Indeed, some accuse the EU Commission of being too cautious at the expense of innovation, which would otherwise result from post-merger efficiencies if deals were cleared, leaving Europe dragging behind the rest of the world. Too interventionist or not interventionist enough: you can't win!I wonder whether the author has an axe to grind about antitrust? All the best, Alison
I don't have much of an understanding of the approach that the US takes in terms of merger control, so it will be interesting to see what Crawford is arguing here. When I've had a chance to read it, I'll post back.
ReplyDeleteYou're spot on that getting things through the Commission can be a bit of a tortuous process, and that the line between enforcing an appropriate policy to prevent consumer harm through anti-competitive measures and causing consumer harm through preventing innovation is rather narrow. I think that this is especially true when it comes to working out what to do for the future of communications services, particularly in the mobile communications space. It may have been appropriate several years back for each operator to run an expensive radio access network but, now that they're facing competition in the form of over the top service provision, and with measures from the Commission to reduce the prices which they can charge, this is a real challenge — in-market consolidation, and cross-border network sharing deals, may prove ways to solve some of these pressures, but it is unlikely that they would satisfy the merger clearance process.