You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2014-10-01 10:37
European Commission Vice President for Competition Joaquin Almunia recently warned the European Parliament that “Microsoft was investigated [for] 16 years, which is four times as much as the Google investigation has taken, and there are more problems with Google than there were with Microsoft” per the FT article: “EU antitrust chief says Google case may be bigger than Microsoft.”
Why would the EC view Google as a bigger problem than Microsoft ever was?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2014-09-25 10:33
[Note: Please find “Google’s WorldWideWatch over the WorldWideWeb” White Paper -- here.]
The European Commission’s 28-month-old Google search Statement of Objections is out of date and myopic.
What’s changed since the May 2012 EC-Google search settlement baseline?
Google has extended its May 2012 billion-user search dominance, into three newly billion-user dominant platforms (mobile, video, and maps), resulting in new competition complaints of abuse of dominance and new potential EC investigations – with Google’s abuse of its data dominance a common thread.
Snowden’s NSA-revelations have changed everyone’s awareness of Internet surveillance and the vulnerability of personal data, contributing to the passage of much stronger data-protection legislation by the European Parliament and to a European High Court ruling on Europeans’ right to be forgotten.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2014-09-15 18:50
Dear European Commission Official,
Unfortunately, the EC has learned the hard way. Settlements with Google don’t work.
First, Google’s leaders interpret DG-Comp’s publicly-signaled preference for a competition settlement over law enforcement to be a sign of sovereign weakness, and a lack of confidence in the EC’s sovereign resolve and law enforcement.
Second, Google’s leaders also interpret the EC’s repeated willingness to settle -- with no admission of Google wrongdoing/culpability and no meaningful penalty for past abuses of dominance – to practically mean that the EC’s sovereignty, rule of law and deterrent capability are all negotiable and open to surrender if Google pushes back hard enough.
There is no other conclusion for Google’s leaders to reach. DG-Comp effectively surrendered its entire case three different times publicly: that Google is dominant, has abused its dominance, and warrants a fine and changed behavior.
In addition to that capitulation and pardon from responsibility for past abuses of dominance, DG-Comp also agreed to surrender the EC’s future sovereign authority to investigate Google search for five more years – almost the entire term of the next European Commission.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Sun, 2014-09-14 22:21
As one can see from the “de-competition” series below, this isn’t the first time the FCC has turned to de-competition policy.
FCC De-Competition Series
Part 1:Harms of a Potential New FCC De-Competition Policy – Reply Comments to FCC Open Internet NPRM [4-5-10]
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2014-09-09 18:25
FCC Open Internet Order Remand Request for Comments (GN Docket No. 14-28) Submitted by: Scott Cleland, Chairman of NetCompetition, September 9, 2014
The case against the FCC regulating broadband as a telephone utility is overwhelming. Please see eight strong arguments against FCC Title II reclassification of broadband below.
The Summary Case against FCC Title II Reclassification of Broadband
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2014-08-28 11:53
There are two core reasons the FCC should not try to preempt State muni-broadband laws.
I. Why FCC Preemption of States Rights would be Unconstitutional
First, the Supreme Court already has decided this issue effectively in favor of state rights. In Nixon v. Missouri Municipal League (2004) the Supreme Court rejected federal preemption of state prohibitions on telecom services. It specifically rejected the use of the FCC’s Title II section 253(a) authority to preempt state prohibitions of localities offering telecom services on constitutional federalism grounds.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2014-08-20 14:13
Pro-regulation interests often resort to highly misleading arguments to advance their cause. Fortunately that kind of deception ultimately exposes the weakness of their underlying argument and public policy position.
To promote Netflix’ “strong” version of net neutrality regulation and to oppose the Comcast-TWC acquisition, Consumerist just framed a very deceptive whopper competition argument: “Comcast says mobile data is competitive, but it costs $2k to stream Breaking Bad over LTE.”
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2014-08-04 11:18
Google-Android sacrifices users’ security, privacy and data protection to scale Android fastest so that Google can dominate mobile software and advertising.
This charge and analysis is timely and relevant because Reuters is reporting that European Commission competition authorities are “laying the groundwork for a case centered on whether Google abuses the 80 percent market share of its Android mobile operating system to promote services from maps to search.”
The purpose of this particular analysis is to help a user better understand how they are harmed by Google-Android’s disregard for data protection.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2014-07-07 22:41
Please see my latest Daily Caller op-ed: “Top 10 Failures of FCC Title II Utility Regulation.”
The FCC has had a failure-prone, seventy-year track record implementing Title II telephone regulation.
It is important to remember what the FCC did in the past with Title II authority, because those who don’t learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.
It is Part 56 of my FCC Open Internet Series.
FCC Open Internet Order Series
Part 1: The Many Vulnerabilities of an Open Internet [9-24-09]
Interconnection is Different for Internet than Railroads or Electricity – Part 55 FCC Open Internet Order SeriesSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2014-06-26 15:38
Some things are way too important to let slip by uncontested.
The FCC has asserted a foundational regulatory premise that warrants rebuttal and disproving, given that the FCC is considering if Internet access, and Internet backbone peering, should be regulated like a utility under Title II telephone common carrier regulation.
In an important speech on Internet interconnection last month to the Progressive Policy Institute, the very able and experienced Ruth Milkman, Chairman Tom Wheeler’s Chief of Staff, asserted that “communications networks are no different” than railroad and electricity networks when it comes to interconnection. “… At bottom… the fact is that a network without connections and interconnections is one that simply doesn’t work. Disconnected networks do not serve the public interest.”