“Monopolist” assertions devoid of facts or economic understanding – Part 18 of Broadband Internet Pricing Freedom Series

In a Washington Post piece, neither labeled as opinion or news analysis, author Timothy B. Lee, charged that “These charts show Comcast acting more and more like a monopolist,” but badly failed in backing up that highly pejorative “monopolist” assertion. 

Mr. Lee reprinted charts provided by Comcast to rebut a previous unsupported assertion by Mr. Lee that American “broadband speeds were stagnating.”

Mr. Lee’s attempted gotcha in his latest piece failed as a result of a demonstrably poor understanding of economics, competition, business and capitalism.

Implications of EU Ruling Google Abused its Search Dominance – My Daily Caller Op-ed – Part 28 Google Unaccountability Series

Please see my latest Daily Caller Op-ed – “Implications of EU Ruling Google Abused its Search Dominance” -- here.

 

Google Unaccountability Series

Part 0: Google's Poor & Defiant Settlement Record [5-1-12]

What European Broadband Lesson? -- Part 27 Net Neutrality Research Series

If the Washington Post had fact-checked Save-the-Internet’s spin, or even sought out an alternative viewpoint for balance, they easily could have avoided the obvious fundamental factual mistakes in their article: “What Europe can teach us about keeping the Internet open and free.”

First, Mr. Fung inaccurately attributed Save-the-Internet’s extreme and highly-controversial definition of net neutrality -- “all Internet traffic, no matter where’s its going or who it came from, should be treated the same” -- as the FCC’s “concept of net neutrality,” when the FCC’s compromise net neutrality definition was much less controversial and very different than the Post’s Save-the-Internet characterization.

Video: Why FCC Title II Reclassification of Broadband is a Legal Non-Starter – Part 6 of Title II Reclassification Series

Expect net neutrality proponents to pressure the FCC to reclassify broadband as a Title II common carrier telephone service, if as many expect, the D.C. Appeals Court overturns much, or possibly all, of the FCC’s Open Internet Order in the coming months.

Observers of the September 9th oral argument heard Judges Tatel and Silberman strongly question the legality of applying common carrier-like regulation to an unregulated information service.

If you want to know why it would be a legal non-starter for the FCC to then completely reverse course and try to reclassify broadband as Title II common carrier service, please listen to my video explanation, starting at 7:52. (The written version of my argument is part 5 of this post.)

Congress: Restore Our Rightful Privacy Ownership – My Daily Caller Op-ed – Part 2 of Privacy Theft Series

Please don’t miss my latest op-ed: “Congress: Restore Our Rightful Privacy Ownership” – here.

It makes the case that privacy is a form of property under the Constitution and that Congress must step up and legislate in order to restore Americans’ reasonable expectation of privacy online -- regardless of what technology is involved.

Own your privacy.

 

Privacy Theft Series

Professor Crawford’s Desperate Search for a Problem to Regulate – Part 26 Net Neutrality Series

Professor Susan Crawford’s Bloomberg op-ed, “New FCC Head Must Reclaim Authority over Telecom,” exposes a profound lack of substance, in being unable to identify any real market problem warranting FCC regulation.

Let’s review Professor Crawford’s litany of contrived policy problems.

First, she charges that ISPs are working “to ensure no regulator has any real authority over them.” No, ISPs are pointing out the unique excessiveness of having THREE government entities having authority over them on the same general matters. ISPs are not asking for any reduction in authority for the DOJ or the FTC. Specifically, Verizon is asking the D.C. Appeals Court to decide if the FCC exceeded its legal authority in imposing prophylactic common-carrier-like regulation on companies that have not done anything wrong.   

Video: Why Google’s WiSpy Wiretapping is Now Class Action Catnip – Part 36 Google’s Disrespect for Privacy Series

Last week a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel unanimously ruled that Google’s recording of peoples’ home WiFi signals without their knowledge or permission is indeed wiretapping.

For those interested in the implications of this ruling, please see a five minute video -- here -- where I explain what Google did; why the Ninth Circuit ruling is so significant and ominous for Google; why Google’s public story of how this happened is preposterous; and why it is now class action lawsuit catnip.

Thanks and kudos to Mike Wendy of Media Freedom for his video interview.

Google's Disrespect for Privacy Series

Part 1: Why Google is the Biggest Threat to Americans' Privacy; House Testimony [7-18-08]

5 BIG Implications from Court Signals on Net Neutrality – A Special Report -- Part 34 FCC Open Internet Order Series

Economic rationality, competition, and broadband pricing freedom are the big winners, and common carrier-like net neutrality was the big loser, if the Appeals Court panel decides Verizon v. FCC as expected.

Monday’s intense tag-team grilling of the FCC’s lawyer by Judges Tatel and Silberman left most observers thinking the Court will decide it is illegal for the FCC to impose common-carrier-like regulation on broadband providers -- regardless of what else they decide.  

NetCompetition Press Release on Verizon v. FCC Court Oral Arguments

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                           

September 9, 2013

Contact:  Scott Cleland                                                 

703-217-2407

 

 

“A Very Good Day for Broadband Pricing Freedom”

Google’s SpyGlass – Google’s Big Rest-of-World Trust Problem -- Part 35 of Google Disrespect for Privacy Series

Google can expect a big rest-of-world trust problem when it rolls out Google Glass overseas, because of: foreign fallout from Edward Snowden’s illegal disclosures of NSA surveillance activities; Google’s reputation for aggressive and pervasive spying on people’s privacy; and Google’s cavalier legal stance that people have “no legitimate expectation of privacy.”

Pages

Q&A One Pager Debunking Net Neutrality Myths