Forget Antitrust Laws. To Limit Tech, Some Say a New Regulator Is Needed | Hacker News Reader

Forget Antitrust Laws. To Limit Tech, Some Say a New Regulator Is Needed

nytimes.com

19 pointstysone4 comments

I hate to say it, but I'm concerned all the establishment of a regulator is going to do is push tech companies to lobby more heavily. Thus, the end result of this measure will be simply to cement the positions of established players with the capital to get policymakers on their side while denying new players access to the market.

It's hard to entirely defend against regulatory capture, but it's still often a useful hedge that in the time before regulatory capture happens the regulator might do at least enough good and set some lasting changes/precedents that will survive even its own bloated, captured "self" successor.

A regulator is first and foremost a public authority. In a modern democracy, it is assumed that any public entity or authority can and should be held publicly accountable for their policies such as they are.

In the case of the FCC, these are the rules:

> The FCC is directed by five commissioners appointed by the president of the United States and confirmed by the United States Senate for five-year terms, except when filling an unexpired term. The U.S. president designates one of the commissioners to serve as chairman. Only three commissioners may be members of the same political party. None of them may have a financial interest in any FCC-related business.

It means that while they don't have any financial interest in FCC-related business, their political color will push their policy making in one direction or the other. The posterchild here is Net Neutrality and how that the FCC ruled in favor of Title II and Section 706 of the Communications Act in 2015 (when Democratic party members held the majority vote), and how that decision was repealed in 2018 under Ajit Pai (when Republic party members held - and still hold - the majority vote). Regardless of your point of view, how the FCC functions is, by and large, a reflection of the dominant party doctrine at the time.

Regulatory bodies, such as the FCC, are directly held accountable by Congress - which are your elected representatives - and so the commisioners are called to regular hearings on various topics. For instance, a recent hearing about rural broadband funding limitations. [1] Or how the FCC failed to manage funding for COVID-19 Telehealth programs in rural areas. [2] Public interests group also urge representatives to take action. For instance, when it comes to the brittleness of the U.S. communication network which became clear after the wildfire blackouts. [3]

[1] https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/10/21173534/fcc-broadband-ru... [2] https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/telehealth/senators-cl... [3] https://www.publicknowledge.org/press-release/public-interes...

The worrying thing isn't that there isn't oversight, it's that a regulatory body escapes actionable oversight by Congress. Either because political incumbents allow that regulatory body to push policies which are harming the general public's interests, or because there's little framework that gives political incumbents a more direct levers to exert oversight, which is typically some type of control over funding and budget.

I guess, at the end of the day, public regulation done with integrity only happens against the backdrop of a healthy and stable democracy in which policy makers and political incumbents defend public interests at large. Whereas regulatory bodies allowed to cater to the business interests of a few private juggernauts should be seen as canaries in the coalmine: they indicate that there's more at risk then mere regulating of a free market place.

Hence why I feel taking the effort to stay informed about what such bodies actually do, who is in them, how they are goverend and then go vote accordingly at every opportunity is absolutely important.

What if americans don't want to limit tech.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com