The House Judiciary Committee Wednesday (June 23) began marking up a host of Big Tech-targeted antitrust bills that tech companies have labeled a threat to freedom of speech and an existential threat to U.S. competitiveness.

The package includes over a half dozen bills, including one whose name suggests why Big Tech is worried: "The Ending Platform Monopolies Act." That bill would, for example, disallow Amazon from selling its own products in competition to third parties using its marketplace, or prevent Google from favoring certain content in search results.

Also Read: Big Tech Asks Hill to Delay Antitrust Bill Markup

The Platform Competition and Opportunity Act of 2021, which would prohibit the purchase by a Big Tech platform of any other business unless it could prove that it is not purchasing a direct competitor.

The bills would give Federal Trade Commission and Justice Department more tools--and money through boosted merger fees--to oversee antitrust oversight of Big Tech.

But while the Democrats billed the bills as "historic, bipartisan legislation" necessary to rein in Big Tech abuses, Republicans were divided over their potential effectiveness and how much power regulatory and enforcement, they gave the government.

Even one of the bill's co-sponsors said he was now conflicted over how the new antitrust power the FTC and Justice got would be used.

Also Read: Hill Ponders Tougher Antitrust Stance on Big Tech

Still, the fact that there is some Republican support suggests some or all of the bills might actually make it into law, which is probably why tech associations are pushing back so hard  and talking in near apocalyptic terms about that prospect.

Committee chair Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) said one of the failures of the Telecommunications Act was that it did not check consolidation of the major communications players, first ISPs and now online platforms.

Ranking member Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said the key for Republicans was whether Democrats want to stop censorship of conservative speech online, including that of former President Donald Trump, then made it clear he did not think that would be the result.

Jordan argued that the bills don't break up big tech or stop censorship. Among other things, he said, the bills would give too much power to the FTC, which is now run by Lina Khan, a former staffer to the House Judiciary Democrats.

Jordan said the bills are about Big Tech and Big Government "marrying up and working together" to keep information from the American people.

There may be some things in the bills that are OK, he said, but as a package, they don't solve the problems that Republicans have with Silicon Valley.

Rep. David Cicciline (D-R.I.), chairman of the Antitrust Subcommittee, said the digital marketplace suffers from a lack of competition and that dominant platforms Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple, abuse that monopoly power with predatory behavior including disadvantaging competitors, including by burying or buying them.

He said the unregulated tech monopolies want nothing to change, but that America "has had enough" and Congress must curb their dominance. He said the bills were the beginning of that process.

Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.), ranking member of the Antitrust Subcommittee, clearly disagreed with the Jordan, the ranking member of the full committee. Buck strongly supported the bills and said they were, indeed, bipartisan. He said the legislation was a scalpel, not a chain saw, but that they would hold Big Tech accountable by dealing with the most important aspects of antitrust reform.

He said the bills, which were introduced earlier this month, were the culmination of am 18-month bipartisan investigation into the monopoly power of Big Tech to "routinely use their gatekeeper power to crush competitors, harm innovation, distort and destroy the free market and silence conservatives."

The Computer & Communications Industry Association, whose members include the major platform players, weighed in in advance of the hearing, saying the bills were anti-consumer for "singling out a handful of popular, consumer-centric businesses."

“These bills would harm consumers and thousands of smaller businesses that use digital services to reach worldwide markets," said CCIA president Matt Schruers. They put the U.S. economy and the U.S. position as a leader in innovation at risk. Instead of boosting U.S. innovation to compete with threats from abroad...these bills would disincentivize innovation by affording foreign rivals a free ride on a few U.S. companies’ R&D investments.”

The markup was turning into a marathon at press time. It took almost three hours before the first bill, which increased merger fees, passed on a bipartisan vote 29 to 12.

The Democrat-controlled House Judiciary Committee has reportedly introduced a package of bills meant to rein in Big Tech by, among other things, requiring interoperability and nondiscrimination against rivals.

Both Democrats and Republicans have called for tighter antitrust oversight of the biggest of Big Tech--Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google particularly--arguing they have essentially bought up to monopoly by buying smaller companies before they are large enough to raise red flags and that mammoth size and market power is a recipe for anticompetitive conduct.

According to Consumer Reports, which has pushed for many of the moves outlined in the bills, they would:

Also Read: Klobuchar Raises Caution Flag on Amazon-MGM

1. Require interoperability for large platforms to reduce barriers to entry and provide more choice for consumers without losing access to contacts or videos or other content amassed on a dominant platform.

2. Mandate nondiscrimination on those platforms, so they give the same functionality to competitors to their platforms and on similar terms.

3. Require large online platforms to justify acquisitions including by showing that they are not targeting a potential competitor or solidifying their dominance with the deal.

4. Increase pre-merger filing fees on the biggest mergers to give antitrust enforcers the resources to vet deals and police the marketplace.

Not surprisingly, Consumer Reports was pleased.

“These proposals will strengthen the ability of antitrust enforcers to protect and promote an open online marketplace, where competition can provide meaningful choices and options to consumers and to all who seek to reach them,” said George Slover, senior policy counsel at Consumer Reports, in a statement.

The Computer & Communications Association, whose members include Amazon, Google and Facebook, called the package an "interventionist" attempt to target a handful of tech companies and a shift from market-oriented principles.

Similar arguments have long been made by ISPs when they faced regulations mandating nondiscrimination and access.

“Rather than offer broad antitrust reform applicable across the U.S. economy, these proposed regulations focus upon a few companies whose competing products and services are very popular with consumers," said CCIA President Matt Schruers. "At a time when consumers are frustrated with higher prices and fewer options in other segments of the economy, it’s perplexing that the Committee would not prioritize broad reform....The House bills would put the government in charge of industrial organization. They disregard the principles that have governed the U.S. market economy and would stop successful tech companies from providing consumers with the products and services that improve their lives," he said. "If the House has its way, these bills will fundamentally affect how American users engage with the Internet services they know and love.”

Former special counsel Robert Mueller made it clear at the outset of his Hill testimony Wednesday (July 24), which was roadblocked across broadcast and cable outlets, that he would continue to let the report on Russian election meddling be his testimony, but that included that the President was not exonerated of the charge of obstruction of justice charge.

Mueller provided swift and sound-bite friendly affirmative answers to questions from Judiciary Committee chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), and other Democrats, including that exoneration question, as well as ones on whether he committed acts capable of obstructing, was not "exculpated" of the acts he was accused of committing, and could be indicted after he left office.

It was the first of two Democrat-led hearings Wednesday into Mueller's report.

Related: Mueller To Draw Broadcast Crowd

Republicans treated Mueller as a hostile witness, with ranking member Doug Collins (R-Ga.), peppering him with his own questions, but ones that Mueller had to repeatedly ask to be repeated, and Rep. John Ratcliff (R-Tex.) slamming the report, which he said "Democrats and socialists" were doing "dramatic readings" from.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) tried to get short answers, but Mueller said he had to find a citation in one case, or said something was not clear, or asked where Sensenbrenner was reading from, and to repeat the question, or that it was one of those areas he declined to discuss and directed him to the report.

Anchors and commentators had spent the minutes before the first hearing began in the Judiciary Committee, began suggesting the questions they would like answered, though many said they expected Mueller not to answer them.

The hearing began with a heckler being escorted out of the hearing room as Mueller entered.

Nadler, in his opening statement, said the themes were responsibility integrity and accountability, embodied by Mueller, who is a decorated Vietnam War veteran and former FBI director whose investigation of Russian election meddling secured 37 indictments.

He laid out a case of obstruction against the President using findings from the report, which he said brought the committee to the hearing Wednesday (July 24).

He said Congress needed to address the evidence he had uncovered and formally accuse the President of wrongdoing, which begins with the committee. "We will consider all appropriate remedies," giving the clear suggestion that could be a recommendation of impeachment.

Collins pointed out in his opening statement that the President did not shut down the investigation because he knew he was innocent. Russia meddled and the President didn't shut the investigation, and nothing in the hearing will change those facts, he said.

He said the takeaways form the hearing should be that Russia meddled, that the President did not collude in that effort, and that the country should not weaponize its power against private citizens -- in this case, candidate Trump.

But Collins said the hearing was long overdue to the degree that it should bring closure, something it did not appear to be doing at press time.

Screen grab via C-span.org.

Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), chair of the House Judiciary Committee, is retiring after his current term and after 25 years in Congress, the legislator said Thursday (Nov. 9) on his website.

The House Judiciary, which shares jurisdiction with the House Energy & Commerce Committee, has been active on numerous communications issues, including network neutrality, set-top boxes, intellectual property/copyright, cybersecurity and privacy, and internet taxation.

Goodlatte was reelected chair of the committee last December, but can't serve another term as chairman.

"With my time as chairman of the Judiciary Committee ending in December 2018, this is a natural stepping-off point and an opportunity to begin a new chapter of my career and spend more time with my family, particularly my granddaughters," he said.

"As a chairman of two critical committees, Congressman Goodlatte has always proven himself as a thoughtful, forward-thinking leader," said fellow Judiciary Committee member Darrell Issa (R-Calif.). "During his time in Congress, he's worked hard as a relentless advocate for internet freedom, a champion of strong intellectual property protections, and as an unyielding defender of our constitution. Virginia's 6th District has been served admirably under his leadership."

Judiciary Committee member Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.) said of the congressman's announcement.

“No Judiciary chairman has led the committee during a more intense season of technological advance and its policy implications than Chairman Goodlatte," he said. "Our Chairman understands that every question that the Judiciary considers today has to offer solutions for tomorrow. I continue to appreciate the example he has set and look forward to working with him on the ambitious agenda he’s laid out for the 115th Congress.”