January, 2010

The latest whistleblower of Google anti-competitive behavior, Adam Raff of Foundem, wrote an excellent op-ed in the New York Times last week that should not be missed, and that explained why Google is a much greater threat to an open Internet than anyone else. (To learn more about Google's monopoly bullying of Foundem, see "Foundem's Google Story" at www.searchneutrality.org.) 

What's also troublesome here is the reflexive bullying and impugning of the credibility of the victim by Google apologists, that apparently assume that if Google did something to Foundem, Foundem must have deserved it... because the Google apologists assume Google's search algorithm and business can do no wrong (even though they, nor any independent third party, has ever reviewed or audited Google's search algorithm or quality score for neutrality or anti-competitiveness.)

FreePress, which philosophically opposes competition policy, effectively is mocking antitrust law and authorities by cynically feigning to care about antitrust and competition in calling for an antitrust investigation of "TV Everywhere" efforts to enable authenticated paying video customers the additional convenience of accessing their paid-for content on any device at no extra cost. 

• FreePress is misrepresenting its latest report -- "TV Competition Nowhere" -- as antitrust analysis when it is standard FreePress villain-ization of broadband and media businesses.   

In their own words, FreePress is anti-competition, anti-property, and anti-business. 

Kudos to Pat Brogan of US Telecom for his first-of-a-kind analysis/ranking of how much different countries actually use the Internet per capita.

In a filing to the FCC on the National Broadband Plan, the DOJ Antitrust Division, the U.S Government's leading expert in assessing the state of competition in communications markets, implicitly rejected net neutrality proponents' core thesis of broadband market failure.

Only Google would think it was a good idea to have a Director of Security for Google Apps, Eran Feigenbaum, who is also a professional magician/mentalist. A ValleyWag post first spotlighted this frightening irony/bad joke. 

Let's review what a magician and mentalist does:

• Per Dictionary.com:
  • A "magician" is: "an entertainer who is skilled in producing illusion by sleight of hand, deceptive devices." 
  • A "mentalist" is: "a mind reader, psychic, or fortuneteller." 

Security is very serious business. Given that Google arguably has collected and stored more recent private information... on more people without their meaningful permission... than any entity in the world... one would think that Google would treat security as very serious business too.    

People want real security, not the illusion of security. Security is deadly serious; its not for show.

News reports that the DOJ, and not the FTC, will conduct the antitrust review of the Comcast-NBCU deal is a very good development for the companies. 

First, DOJ's filing to the FCC on the National Broadband Plan just this week showed that the DOJ clearly understands that the cable industry is competitive and that DBS competition has improved innovation, content choice, and customer service in the market, and that telecom competitive entry has provided pricing pressure to the cable market as well. (See pages 15 & 16 of the DOJ filing.) 

Google unwisely chose to trumpet Apple's purchase of Quattro as evidence that the mobile advertising market is competitive -- and by implication that the Google acquisition of Admob therefore should be approved.  

First, the FTC surely remembers that Google CEO Eric Schmidt indignantly said only last year that Google and Apple were not competitors, so there was no reason for Mr. Schmidt to have to step down from Apple's board, despite an FTC antitrust investigation into potentially illegal Google-Apple inter-lockiing directorates.

Facebook's about face on its respect for the privacy of its users is the latest evidence that there is indeed a "publicacy" movement/schoolof-thought that does not believe in user privacy because it stands in the way of their business, technology, or political model/agenda. 

Kudos to Marshall Kirkpatrick of ReadWriteWeb who in an important-to-read NYTimes piece, "FaceBook's Zuckerberg says the age of privacy is over," took Mr. Zuckerberg to task for his "classic bait and switch" privacy policy change.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:  Scott Cleland

January 12, 2010

703-217-2407

NetCompetition.org Submits Comments on FCC Open Internet NPRM

As the first expert witness to testify before Congress on what went wrong with Enron, the worst U.S. fraud/bankruptcy ever at that time, Google's announcement that it has applied to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for "blanket authorization...  to make sales of electric energy, capacity and ancillary services," and for "certain exemptions" from reporting and accountability... is eerily reminiscent of Enron Broadband's disastrous efforts to bring swash-buckling, gee-whiz technology to the energy futures market over a decade ago. 

• The hair standing up on the back of my neck tells me this latest scheme by Google to become an unregulated market maker in energy services could end very badly.

What's different between Enron and Google is that Enron was an energy company that entered into the tech and energy auction businesses, whereas Google is a tech and ad-auction business entering the energy business.

Deja Vu: What's eerily similar?