You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2010-05-03 12:46
"The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission has indicated he wants to keep broadband services deregulated" reports Cecilia Kang of the Washington Post.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2010-05-04 12:18
Google's core search advertising monopoly is understated substantially by many for several reasons.
1. Most cite second best source: Media reports tend to report the most frequent and publicized ComScore 65.1% retail market shares for Google in the U.S., not the more accurate and comprehensive Hitwise 70% retail market shares in the U.S. that the DOJ/FTC rely upon, (because Hitwise's sample size is much bigger than ComScore's.)
2. Most don't cite total share: Media reports almost never use Google's total market share because they almost always miss or forget to add in Google's wholesale share of searches to its retail share of searches.
Google misled investors about AdMob antitrust risk -- Google agreed to 23 times normal deal "kill fee"Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2010-05-05 13:27
New evidence suggests Google blatantly misled public investors about its own assessment of the antitrust risk involved in Google acquiring AdMob.
Now we learn from a Bloomberg/Business Week story:
It is important to put this $700m AdMob deal "kill fee" in perspective.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2010-05-05 22:26
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 5, 2010
Contact: Scott Cleland
“There’s no Title I ½”
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2010-05-07 12:13
The FCC is vastly understating the systemic risk involved in the FCC's radical "third way" regulatory surgery to the Internet, the communications sector and the economy.
I. Why this "third way" is a disaster waiting to happen:
The best way to understand what is going on here is to think of the Internet as a brain and the FCC's "third way" proposal as brain surgery to fundamentally rewire how the Internet brain operates at its most basic level.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2010-05-11 10:25
Kudos to Link Hoewing of Verizon Policy Blog for his excellent post systematically eviscerating New America's Foundation's fact-challenged attempt to argue that the U.S. is falling behind on broadband.
Facts are powerful and that's why net neutrality and Title II supporters like New America Foundation and their FreePress/Public Knowledge allies avoid facts like the plague.
The facts are overwhelmingly on the side that the U.S. is a world broadband leader.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2010-05-11 15:28
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2010-05-12 18:01
Whatever the Atlantic's national correspondent Mr. James Fallows calls his Atlantic cover story: "Google: Inside the company's daring plan to save the news (and itself)," it can't be journalism.
It was one of the most vacuous 12-page puff pieces I have ever read. Like Jeff Jarvis described: "It doesn’t break a single new nugget of news." It was the literary equivalent of a puppy jumping up incessantly to lick the face of the person in closest proximity.
How ironic is it that a journalist, that made a point of telling the reader that he taught journalism for several years, wrote the functional equivalent of Google PR brochure extolling all the good Google has done for journalism/newspapers -- with no journalistic critical thinking or balance.
It is hard to fathom that in twelve pages there were:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2010-05-13 14:24
Many are missing the forest for the trees in jumping to the conclusion that the two-week extension in the FTC's review of Google-AdMob means the FTC is reconsidering the FTC's staff recommendation to block Google-AdMob as anti-competitive.
To see the big picture and understand the likely outcome here that the FTC will block Google-AdMob, its helpful to run through the FTC's likely Google-AdMob checklist decision process.
1. Are Google and Admob competitors? Yes.
2. Is the market highly concentrated? Yes.
3. Are there barriers to entry? Yes.
4. Does Google have market power? Yes.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2010-05-14 13:55
There are many valid reasons why industry is highly skeptical of the FCC's many rhetorical assurances that nothing bad will happen from the FCC's planned regulation of broadband for the first time as a Title II common carrier service.
First, in response to the Comcast court decision, the FCC is hastily gambling away the benefits of broadband's proven "solid business foundation," in its longshot bet to win back an unproven "solid legal foundation" for the FCC.
Second, the assertion that there has never been an instance of FCC "un-forbearance," is no assurance, because the FCC has never before reversed an entire sector's regulatory status before either.