You are here October 2011
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2011-10-21 16:32
For those seeking to better understand how communications competition has evolved, expanded, and accelerated to cloud communications competition, don't miss my new six-chart powerpoint presentation: "The Metamorphosis of Communications Competition," here.
My bottom line conclusion: The transformation of communications competition requires a transformation in communications law.
- Specifically, the world has changed with technology, but obsolete technology-specific laws have not.
- Communications policy obsolescence undermines infrastructure's utility and value and renders property less attractive and competitive.
I presented this new easy-to-understand framework for understanding exploding communications competition at a NetCompetition event today on Capitol Hill, which also featured excellent presentations by Jeff Eisenach, Managing Director of Navigant Economics, and Ev Ehrlich, President of ESC Company.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2011-10-24 11:26
Reports that Google is involved in financing a potential buyout offer of Yahoo’s core business indicate Google is playing with antitrust fire.
See my Forbes Tech Capitalist post here to learn why.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2011-10-25 17:00
Netflix has self-torpedoed themselves a third time in just the last three months.
See my Forbes Tech Capitalist post here to learn how.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2011-10-26 11:34
The New York Times editorial "How to Fix the Wireless Market," is embarrassingly uninformed and totally ignores massive obvious evidence of vibrant American wireless competition.
The NYT's conclusion, that more wireless regulation is needed because of "insufficient competition," results from cherry picking a few isolated facts that superficially support their case, while totally ignoring the overwhelming relevant evidence to the contrary.
The NYT completely ignores widely-available evidence of vibrant wireless competition and substitution:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2011-10-28 11:03
How could Google fail to meet the security needs of the City of Los Angeles in its trophy government cloud contract?
Learn why in my Forbes Tech Capitalist post here, entitled "Google Too Fast and Loose for LAPD."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2011-10-31 16:25
For those interested in powerful evidence that many parts of Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt's Senate antitrust testimony September 21st under oath were apparently false, deceptive or misleading, please don't miss Foundem's 29 minute annotated fact-checking video of Mr. Schmidt's testimony.
- Foundem, a British product search competitor that has filed an antitrust suit against Google in the EU, has both the expertise and detailed-knowledge-base to fact-check and challenge Google's apparently extensive prevarication before the Senate.
- Using Mr. Schmidt's own responses to questions under oath, Foundem repeatedly provides evidence that Google apparently provided false, deceptive or misleading answers to questions about potential illegal anti-competitive behavior by Google.
- The video is must viewing for investigators of Google's antitrust alleged violations at the EU, the FTC, the DOJ, Korea, the Attorneys General of at least Texas, California, and New York; as well as the members and staff of the Senate and House Antitrust subcommittees responsible for overseeing the enforcement of antitrust laws.
In a nutshell, the video shows how Mr. Schmidt's responses to several questions about whether Google biases its search results for Google's benefit apparently are untrue or deceptive.
It also provides strong evidence supporting the conclusions of Subcommittee Ranking Member, Senator Mike Lee that:
Pages
|
