Who are the Big Internet Gatekeepers?

It sometimes strikes me as odd that regulators continue to believe network neutrality rules are necessary to restrain the “gatekeeper power” of internet service providers, since there now is relatively common understanding that gatekeeper power resides with content platforms and data aggregators. 

It is not the first time we have mistaken where “gatekeeper” power might exist. Compared to 1995, for example, neither regulators, industry nor consumers really believe browsers are a serious source of gatekeeper power. 

But that does not stop some from arguing that Google’s payments to Apple that make Google the default search engine on iPhones is similarly anti-competitive. 

It’s a complicated issue. On one hand it is not hard to change a browser default On the other hand, not many consumers seem to do so. 

The case of United States v. Microsoft Corporation was a major legal battle fought in the late 1990s and early 2000s between the United States government and Microsoft that was in large part about  preventing Microsoft from bundling Explorer with the operating system.

The case centered around whether Microsoft, the dominant player in the personal computer (PC) market at the time, had abused its monopoly power by bundling its Internet Explorer web browser with the Windows operating system. 

Google’s business deal with Apple that makes Google the default search engine similarly raises issues for some. 

But today’s potential gatekeepers are quite clear, and not related directly to search or browser market share, nor ISP market share. 

Instead, we tend to see danger in:

• Platforms: Social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube have become powerful gatekeepers, controlling access to vast audiences and shaping online discourse through algorithms and content moderation policies.

• Data-driven personalization: Search engines like Google and advertising platforms like Amazon leverage vast amounts of user data to personalize experiences and influence user behavior, creating targeted echo chambers and potentially manipulating information access.

• E-commerce dominance: Amazon and other major online retailers control a significant portion of online commerce, influencing consumer choices and shaping the online marketplace.

• Government regulation: Increased government involvement in regulating online content and data privacy adds another layer of gatekeeping power, raising concerns about censorship and control of information.

Worrying about ISPs as “gatekeepers” seems about as big an issue as web browsers and search being sources of antitrust danger. 

Granted, the antitrust arguments about “no charge to use” services is complicated, as it is next to impossible to cite the actual consumer harm for “free” products including search, email, browsers and social media. 

But even if an advocate uses some non-economic argument about harm, it is hard to see that browser, search or ISP choices and market share are the biggest dangers, in that regard.