About Scott Cleland
![]() |
|
You are hereCorporate WelfareResponding to criticisms of my $7 billion estimate that Google fleeced taxpayers.Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2008-04-08 01:30Martin Geddes of Circle ID challenged my estimation methodology in reaching that Google fleeced the American taxpayer for $7 billion. With all due respect to Mr. Geddes, first his analogy of taking "a tasty apple, a yummy banana and a mouldy pear, is simply not analogous here. One doesn't pay $4.7b for a "mouldy pear." The regulations did not make the spectrum itself bad to eat, but simply restricted the use of the spectrum or in Mr. Geddes example how someone would be allowed to eat a good pear. People will pay less for a fruit if they are restricted on when and how they can eat it. Second, Mr. Geddes suggests I am confusing the American taxpayer with the American public. I most certainly am not. I am recognizing that there is a very specific law, the 1993 Budget Act, which effectively defines that the American public is the American taxpayer because the purpose of these spectrum auctions are to reduce budget deficits. One may not agree with how the law defines the American public in this instance, but that opinion doesn't change that it is the operative law here. My estimate in my blog was trasparent and simple so everyone could see how I got my figure.
Google unabashed about gaming the FCC auction process to fleece the taxpayer of ~$7billionSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2008-04-04 14:48Many have broadly swallowed Google's "spin" that Google really "won" by losing the 700Mhz auction -- without digesting the serious implications of Google's public admission.
So what's wrong with what Google did? First and foremost, Google's flagrant manipulation of the auction rules and process fleeced the American taxpayer out of at least $7 billion, by my estimate. Net neutrality is like an FDR "New Deal" for the Internet -- per two leading proponentsSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2008-03-28 11:40Two leading proponents of net neutrality, believe the push for net neutrality is akin to FDR's pushing for the "New Deal," which was the penultimate Big Government, wealth redistribution effort in U.S. history. We learn this candid admission of true beliefs from the Washington Post, which today lionized Ben Scott, the amiable leader of activist organization Free Press, in an article entitled: "Net Neutrality's Quiet Crusader."
Let's review the history here that Mr. Scott waxes nostalgically about. Radio in 1930's, TV in the 1950's, and cable in the 1980's -- was about Washington "shaping them market" by regulating these technologies and businesses much more than they were before. Google Board recommmends against applying Net Neutrality to GoogleSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2008-03-26 10:33Per Reuters, Google's board is recommending that its investors vote against a shareholder proposal from the New York City Employee Retirement System that asks Google to commit to abiding by Net Neutrality.
Bottom line Questions: Exposing the sanctimony of net neutrality activistsSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2008-03-04 13:19Enough of Net neutrality activists' hypocritical sanctimony over freedom, free speech and democracy! It is sickening. Net neutrality activists claim to support freedom, free speech, and democracy, but they really don't in practice. First, let's look at the recent activist whining from FreePress/SaveTheInternet about how the FCC network management forum at Harvard was somehow hijacked by Comcast sympathetic attendees or who these activists have derisively called "seat fillers." The Google Welfare Act of 2008Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2008-02-15 10:56Chairman Markey's newly introduced net neutrality bill should more aptly be called "The Google Welfare Act of 2008."
Let us cut through all the platitudes, spin, fluff and distractions in this bill of which there are many. Let us also remember the useful phrase: "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."
Why would the Markey bill trigger a cascade of new Internet regulations? Google's Schmidt is new Chairman of New America Foundation -- a force behind information commonsSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2008-02-08 18:45The ascension of Google's CEO Eric Schmidt to Chairman of the the Board of the New America Foundation puts a helpful spotlight on Google's activist agenda in Washington and the cozy relationship between Google and the New America Foundation. It's important to note that the New America Foundation is one of the two organizational parents of the "information commons" movement -- in that it coauthor-ed the "Saving the Information Commons" manifesto in 2002 with Public Knowlege, which laid the policy groundwork for a more communal Internet, where Internet infrastructure and digital content are supposed to be "open" "commons" or communally-owned by everyone. Google is one of the biggest proponents of this "open Internet" ideology where "open" is a codeword for "communal." The Information commons movement has conveniently defined the Internet commons as the property of others that they don't think that they should have to pay for ... e.g. communications companies' networks and content companies' content. (They conveniently have excluded Google from the commons obligation, apparently as long as Google preaches "openness" for everyone else...) Net neutrality is not a Democratic vs. Republican issue -- it is a fringe vs. mainstream issueSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2008-01-30 19:17Please don't miss the new NetCompetition.org one-pager I produced on the politics of net neutrality. I make the case that net neutrality is:
I made it available at the Internet Caucus event today.
Google's Regulatory Outlook 2008Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2008-01-18 18:33The big question for investors is why?
Google's Regulatory Outlook: Federal Trade Commission: Antitrust: Google jet's special NASA parking privileges -- Where's NASA's Inspector General on this?Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2008-01-04 10:59NBC11.com of San Jose posted an interesting reminder about Google's unique, highly suspect, and special deal with NASA, in which Google's founders get special parking privileges for their 767 "party plane" at NASA's Moffet Field, which is conveniently located just seven miles from Google's Silicon Valley headquarters. Where is NASA's Inspector General on this? Pages |