Challenging a NYT Column Singing the Praises of Platforms and Dismissing Their Network Effects

The September 4, 2021 edition of the New York Times contains an article written by Professor Jonathan A. Knee entitled Network Effects are Overrated.  The author generally dismisses as benign, or ineffectual just about anything platform intermediaries have undertaken, despite the prevailing view that these ventures impose significant costs and benefits on consumers and society.

Professor Knee appears to dismiss the ability of platform operators to lock in subscribers and create incentives for more consumers to “get on the bandwagon.”  He also dismisses any sense that high market shares reflect a “winner take all” sweepstakes in play. Apparently, the ability to accrue scale efficiencies is not the same thing as exploiting network effects, the ability to expand the subscriber base at low incremental costs.

Professor Knee has great optimism in the ability of market entrants to capture market share and for consumers to vote with their eyes, ears, and pocketbooks and churn out of dominant platforms such as Netflix, Google, Facebook, EBay, PayPal, Uber and others.

The column curiously ignores one of the fundamental characteristics of platform intermediaries: the ability to profit from operating in a two-sided market serving both downstream consumers and upstream advertisers, data analytics firms, election meddlers, purveyors of disinformation, government surveillance agencies, and vendors.

Broadband platform intermediaries have unprecedented opportunities to get multiple bites of the apple as exemplified by Google’s ability to sell advertising, but also generate fees as the auctioneer of ad placements.  Put another way, platform intermediaries can spread fixed costs and accrue positive network effects while also generating multiple profit centers up and down a complete market “food chain.” 

Previous platform intermediaries had limited opportunities to exploit both sides of a market without jeopardizing profits.  Fior example, cable television operators and newspaper owners had to calibrate both advertising and subscription rates to maximize profits.  Attempts at gouging typically would reduce overall profits as consumers and advertisers pursued better value propositions.

Lastly, some readers of this blog may remember with fondness how Word Perfect software offered a better user experience than Microsoft Word. That notwithstanding, network effects over time forced people like me to get on the Word bandwagon, because sticking with Word Perfect guaranteed conversion and compatibility hassles.

Never underestimate the power of firms able to exploit network effects, economics of scale, and access to both sides of an integrated platform marketplace.

Cable Retransmission/Channel Placement Negotiations and Commercially Reasonable Internet Connections

            Back at the drawing board, Chairman Wheeler and staff have attempted to find the sweet spot where ISPs can negotiate paid traffic prioritization so long as it’s “commercially reasonable.”  Libertarians and a lot of other observers would conclude that all commercial negotiations reach a reasonable outcome between two willing parties.  So absent coercion or evidence of an unfair—okay call it unreasonable—trade practice, the negotiation should produce a mutually beneficial outcome.

            Such outcomes do not prevent one side from exercising superior bargaining leverage.

            In broadcaster-cable television retransmission consent negotiations, the former enjoys a superior bargaining position for two reasons: 1) broadcasters have exclusive access to “must see” television such as the regular season of professional football and 2) cable operators face severe restrictions on their ability to negotiate with a distant broadcaster if the local station imposes unreasonable demands. So arguably the deck is stacked in favor of broadcasters.

            What does the Commission do in this situation?  Nothing for two reasons: 1) the Commission lacks specific statutory authority to impose terms and conditions; and 2) the Commission wisely refrains from interfering with “marketplace driven” negotiations knowing that eventually the parties will reach closure, particularly after the regular NFL season begins.  The Commission limits its intervention to defining what constitutes good faith negotiations.

            I acknowledge that the consequences of regulatory reticence to act can more significantly harm consumers when ISPs cannot come to terms.  The pain threshold arrives almost immediately when access to the Internet cloud becomes congested, or when specific sites become inaccessible.  Many would assert that reliable and neutral Internet access has more significance than whether cable television subscribers can watch a football game. 

            Similarly the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has instructed the FCC that it lacks jurisdiction to supersede cable operators’ channel placement and content tiering decisions. Absent a “voluntary” commitment, as occurred when Comcast agreed to limits on its channel placement freedom, the FCC cannot mandate neutrality and fairness.  Comcast can place its owned and operated Golf Channel on the basic tier and relegate the Tennis Channel to a more expensive tier viewed by fewer subscribers.   Was this a commercially prudent decision, or one designed to disadvantage the Tennis Channel?  The court in effect said it does not matter.

            The FCC has a model in retransmission consent and case precedent that it may not consider applicable.

           

FCC Chairman Wheeler’s Open Internet Strategy Post Verizon v. FCC

            FCC Chairman Wheeler has released a statement outlining his thoughts on how the FCC lawfully can press on for open and neutral Internet access; see http://fcc.us/1c2RBzv.

             I appreciate what Chairman Wheeler has attempted to do: avoid any unlawful mission creep in light of the strong language in the Verizon decision, but also run as far as possible with Sec. 706 authority.  I do think the Commission can move forward with muscular transparency/disclosure requirements.  Just now Netflix subscribers don't know the cause of any service degradation so perhaps ISP disclosure requirements might provide some light on how frozen images came about even for subscribers to FIOS service operating at multi-megabit per second speeds.

    I do think the Chairman and the Commission will find a less than receptive D.C. Circuit should any order ignore the clear prohibition on the imposition of Title II common carrier requirements on ISPs.  I don't see much wiggle room in the no blocking, no discrimination area, nor am I as sanguine as the Chairman in terms of what deference the data roaming decision affords the FCC.  That decision emphasized the use of commercial negotiations and the limited role of the FCC and its ability to intervene. 

    One could draw a parallel between the duty to negotiate, commercially driven data roaming terms and conditions and the similar duty to negotiate retransmission consent between cable operators and local television broadcasters.  In both instances the FCC cannot act proactively and has limited powers even to resolve a protracted dispute. Unfortunately for broadband subscribers there won't be a specific "must see" television program that forces one side to capitulate, so degraded service and not so subtle abuses of last mile access may occur.

 

Post Network Neutrality Feud Number 1: The Netflix (Traffic) Jam

            As you know, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has invalidated network neutrality requirements that impose common carrier requirements.  In this blog and elsewhere I predicted an uptick in disputes between content providers and distributors in the absence of unquestionable authority for the FCC to intervene if necessary. 

To be clear I favor commercial negotiations that typically resolve interconnection compensation disputes.  However, I also suggest that the FCC have authority to resolve intractable disputes as a referee and mediator.

So along comes another dispute between Netflix and retail ISPs such as Verizon and Comcast.  See Drew FitzGerald & tzGerald   BiograShalini Ramachandran, Netflix-Traffic Feud Leads to Video Slowdown, The Wall Street Journal (Feb. 19, 2014); available at: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304899704579391223249896550?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories.

This really should not come as a surprise, even as retail ISPs already receive compensation on both sides of their two-sided market: 1) 3 digit margin monthly broadband retail subscriptions; and 2) transit payments from ISPs, particularly Content Distribution Networks for Netflix such as Level 3.

Retail ISPs want a third revenue stream on some notion that content sources, such as Netflix, are “bandwidth hogs” who should be throttled, or alternatively hit up for direct payments.  In particular it must tick off senior management at ISPs, owned by cable television companies, to see Netflix offer a $7.99 value proposition when cable content bundles are 10-15 times as expensive.

I agree that a direct payment should flow from Netflix if and only if it directly interconnects with a retail ISP.  If Netflix were to stop using CDNs and seek to interconnect directly with ISPs providing the last mile delivery Netflix surely should pay including the significant electricity used to power onsite proxy servers. 

But are retail ISPs right to demand payment from both the directly interconnecting upstream ISP/CDN and even farther upstream from the content source?

I don’t think so, but there’s nothing stopping retail ISPs from trying.  Apparently Verizon and others can degrade Netflix traffic delivery—intentionally or not—without much consumer pushback.  When consumers don’t get high resolution Netflix content, they do not even know whom to blame.  Has Netflix done something wrong, or has the last mile carrier?  Who operates the weakest and inferior link when multiple ISPs participate in the complete end-to-end routing of traffic?

Until retail ISPs lose customers or the debate in the court of public opinion expect more interconnection compensation disputes to arise and possibly mess with your Internet access experience.

What Can the FCC Do When ISPs Block or Degrade Certain Types of Traffic?

A group of pro network neutrality advocates have filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling and Formal Complaint in response to Comcast’s furtive traffic “shaping” and “management” tactics that have the effect of blocking or degrading peer-to-peer traffic. See http://www.freepress.net/docs/fp_et_al_nn_declaratory_ruling.pdf; and http://www.freepress.net/docs/fp_pk_comcast_complaint.pdf.

The group asks the FCC to issue preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting Comcast from engaging in such tactics, to fine Comcast and to declare that such tactics violate the Commission’s Policy Statement that establishe network neutrality “principles” (see http://www.publicknowledge.org/pdf/FCC-05-151A1.pdf).

While I endorse the groups’ efforts, I believe the petition and complaint would achieve greater impact had the authors addressed the issue of whether and how the FCC can act in the ways the group proposes. Specifically both the group and the FCC have to examine the breadth of jurisdiction and regulatory options available to the Commission under Title I of the Communications Act.

Both the petitioners and the FCC assume that the Commission can act to enforce the network neutrality principles articulated in a three page Policy Statement that devotes two sentences to the issue:

While acknowledging that it cannot assert conventional, Title II common carrier regulation, because ISPs provide information services and not telecommunications services, the FCC stated summarily that it “has jurisdiction to impose additional regulatory obligations under its Title I ancillary jurisdiction to regulate interstate and foreign communications.” According to the Commission that translates into having “the jurisdiction necessary to ensure that providers of telecommunications for Internet access or Internet Protocol-enabled (IP-enabled) services are operated in a neutral manner.

Also noted by the petitions was a sentence in the FCC’s its order assigning the information service classification to cable modem Internet access where the Commission stated its intent “to take action to address . . . conduct” that violates network neutrality.

I fully expect opponents of the petition and complaint to state that the FCC has neither the jurisdiction nor the intent to impose on ISPs such as Comcast what opponents will frame as common carrier obligations. So the Internet Policy statement has to be interpreted as lawfully imposing responsibilities that serve the public interest without imposing common carrier responsibilities, but which cannot constitute the kind of unlawful expansion of jurisdiction Justice Scalia predicted would occur in his dissent in the Brand X case. I examine the risk of overstating the scope of Title I “ancillary jurisdiction” in What Do Pizza Delivery and Information Services Have in Common? Lessons From Recent Judicial and Regulatory Struggles with Convergence, 32 RUTGERS COMPUTER AND TECHNOLOGY LAW JOURNAL, No. 2, 247-296 (2006).

The FCC has taken great pains to create a deregulatory “safe harbor” for information services providers. The Commission has managed to shoe horn DSL, cable modems, BPL and wireless Internet access into the information services classification which the Commission considers completely separate from regulated telecommunications services. To underscore the absoluteness of this dichotomy the Commission has come up with a tenuous differential based on whether a carrier “offers” telecommunications versus “provides” telecommunications. The former falls into the common carriage telecommunications service category, while the latter qualifies for private carriage of an information service, because the Commission chooses to subordinate the telecommunications component into a minor and integrated activity.

The FCC already has invoked its Title I ancillary authority to impose a number of traditional common carrier duties on Voice over the Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) providers and courts have deferred to the agency’s expertise absent a clear statutory mandate.

But at some point the FCC may go to the Title I well too often. I suspect the FCC will have to flesh out its authority to abrogate contracts between landlords and cable operators, particularly in light of the traction gained over the years by incumbent telephone companies that interconnection regulation, such as unbundling and line sharing, “confiscates” their property. Perhaps also the FCC will have to explain why it and not the Federal Trade Commission should act on what can be deemed a consumer protection matter.

At the very least the FCC will have to do more than unilaterally and summarily state that it has jurisdiction under Title I to impose network neutrality principles. The petitioners could have helped the Commission come up with a compelling rationale.

Bandwidth and Throughput Math

Part of my current research agenda involves a comparative assessment of U.S. broadband market penetration and next generation network deployment. I am glad to note that the incumbent wireline carriers, such as Verizon, belatedly have invested billions of dollars. But on the other hand, because I live in the hinterlands I can get broadband at staggeringly high rates compared to what other consumers play in U.S. cities and in other nations. So I see a mixed bag corroborated by the relatively poor comparative performance of the U.S. in unbiased measurements of market penetration, digital opportunity and network readiness conducted by the International Telecommunication Union, see http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/newslog/CategoryView,category,Broadband.aspx; the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, see http://www.oecd.org/document/9/0,2340,en_2649_34223_37529673_1_1_1_1,00.html#Data2005; and http://www.websiteoptimization.com/bw/0510/; and the World Economic Forum, discussed in a previous blog entry.

Part of the challenge in this research lies in normalizing the data, i.e., comparing apples to apples, and deciding what constitutes success. The data compilations consider most helpful identify the number of subscribers per 100 residents, a broadband measure of “teledensity,” and the cost per 100 kilobits per month. See the ITU’s Digital Life Internet Report, http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/publications/digitalife/.

But even before one looks at the data, it makes sense to achieve consensus on the definition of terms such as bandwidth and throughput. Ironically the much maligned Senator Stevens from Alaska got it right: the Internet is a bunch of tubes or pipes. For the Digital Literacy course I teach at Penn State I analogize bandwidth as the size of the pipe, e.g., half-inch bathroom pipe versus 12 inch water main pipes. For throughput the pipe analogy considers the number of gallons that flow through the pipes per minute.

I am trying to consider the value proposition of broadband access in terms of available bandwidth (dedicated or shared), the likely throughput and aggregate usage per month. This is where the math and the value proposition get curious. You might not know that cable systems typically allocate only 6 MegaHertz of bandwidth for shared Ethernet-type access to the Internet. So if I am sharing 6MHz or less with hundreds of other subscribers, my virtual bandwidth allocation is quite small, even though I get multi-Megabit per second throughput and “All You Can Eat” uncapped access. Bear in mind that dial-up Internet access derives about 50,000 bits per second (50kbps) from an allocated bandwidth of 3-4 kiloHertz. For DSL, the dedicated copper local loop bandwidth expands by about 1.25 MHz. See http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/dsl2.htm.

Internet access subscribers actually care little about bandwidth except for its impact on about throughput, the number of downloadable and uploadable bits per second. But getting back to the value proposition, the ITU (in the Digital Life publication) ranked the U.S. 10th globally in terms of prices per 100 kilobits per second for 2006 using a $20.00 monthly subscription. Because I pay double the imputed rate, my value proposition would rank about 18th globally. Of course if you can get multi-megabit per second service for less than $20 a month, your value proposition is better than the national average

So the U.S. has some ways to go before government and carrier officials can self-congratulate. Still no one in the U.S. can come close to the global best practices of $0.07 per 100 kbits/s in Japan. Put another way the average U.S. broadband price is 700% higher than the Japanese average.

Review of Latest Sidak Piece on Network Neutrality

Even as the piece probably will induce significant mashing of teeth among network neutrality advocates, I strongly recommend a recent article by Greg Sidak entitled A Consumer-Welfare Approach to Network Neutrality Regulation of the Internet; available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=928582. It’s a comprehensive document with many compelling and legitimate points.

I am not completely opposed to “access tiering” if an ISP can offer complete end-to-end enhanced routing without violating Service Level Agreements and without deliberately dropping packets and degrading service to “regular” peering and transit users. Greg makes some fair points about the right of a network operator to discriminate on price and QOS both downstream to end users and upstream to other ISPs and content providers. I’m not sure how this can be done in light of existing peering and transit agreements, which are largely best efforts, but the potential for a complete end-to-end, “better than best efforts” exists.

He and I part company on a number of issues including his conclusion that the broadband access marketplace is robustly competitive and therefore there is no risk of price squeezes, anticompetitive pricing of access tiering, collusion, etc. Greg sees a competitive marketplace, based on the inclusion of dial up Internet access and based on the FCC’s broadband penetration statistics. I don’t agree that VoIP easily routes via POTS Internet access, particularly because Vonage and others state their service requires broadband access. The FCC’s use of zip codes is a very flawed measure for determining whether consumers have competitive options. The zip code measure attributes access in terms of numbers of ISPs if even one potential subscriber exists, regardless of price. So just about every zip code area has satellite access despite the lack of significant cross-elasticities between a $100 a month service and a $50 service. BTW Greg reports an average price of $25 for broadband access! I’m paying $60, but then again I’m one of the extraordinarily rare U.S. consumers in one of those rare rural zip codes that has one and only one option, cable modem service, unless you include DBS.

Greg reiterates much of the private property common law taking arguments to justify the premise that network operators should have total control over their networks including the right to deny interconnection, refuse to carry specific content or applications, including unaffiliated ventures’ VoIP traffic, and the option of vertically integrating and favoring corporate affiliate’s traffic. He does not give much credence to the rights of DSL/cable modem subscribers to expect an unfettered bitstream pathway to the Internet cloud.

I was confused by Greg’s extensive examination of the Madison River case and his apparent endorsement of the lawfulness in a network operator’s option of blocking downstream carriage of specific bitstreams. He does not acknowledge that the FCC could engage in an enforcement action only because Madison River falls under Title II of the Communications Act, as a telecommunications service provider and not an ISP. Madison River refused to terminate telephony traffic. I don’t think Title I would have the same force as Title II if an ISP refused to terminate traffic, particularly if the traffic is deemed part of an information service.

Lastly I did not see much discussion of whether a network service provider has the ability and inclination to drop packets and create congestion. Absent robust inter-modal competition an ISP could accrue monetary benefits by punishing ventures that do not agree to take more expensive routing options and who trigger robust demand for their services by end user DSL and cable modem customers.