You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2010-10-04 10:52
After four years of FreePress' Chicken Little "the net neutrality sky is falling," faux-urgency tactics, the net neutrality movement has lost a lot of credibility and influence. We all know that the net neutrality sky has not fallen and that the broadband industry has not acted anti-competitively as claimed; on the contrary, the broadband industry has worked constructively and tirelessly to address the FCC's net neutrality enforcement concerns in a reasonable and constructive manner that promotes innovation, investment, growth and jobs.
No matter, FreePress is back at trying to manufacture some faux urgency magic by ginning up breathless op-eds from friendlies that the "time is now," that "there is a closing window of opportunity" to act on net neutrality. Rob Pegararo writes on cue: "It's put-up or shut-up time for net neutrality advocates," and the Seattle Times provides a little harmony in the dwindling net neutrality chorus in its editorial: "The time has passed for compromise on net neutrality."
FreePress' problem is that people have wised up to their repeated hysterical calls to "Save the Internet" from a problem that has never materialized as they recklessly warned. FreePress has failed miserably in finding or defining any real-world problem that needs radical intervention to fix.
This latest FreePress-generated media-manipulation-fest urging the FCC to regulate the broadband Internet as a 1934 telephone utility, still has no facts or true urgency behind it, only increasingly desperate faux urgency tactics.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2010-10-04 16:48
The SEC/CFTC report on the May 6th "Flash Crash" helps confirm that automated index trading technology was a contributing cause of the 2008 Financial Crisis and why recent financial reforms are not enough to address the ongoing destructive systemic vulnerability that automated index trading technology increasingly poses for financial markets going forward.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2010-10-06 12:09
In his latest display of no-self-awareness, Google's CEO Eric Schmidt, in an interview with the Atlantic, said:
Is Google's CEO the only sentient being on the planet that isn't aware that China is organized around the principles of China's National Communist Party?
"If China is best understood as a large, well-run business," why does Communist China censor and imprison their Chinese "customers" if they object too much to China's products and services?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2010-10-07 09:20
Why are the Big Four networks Fox, NBC, ABC, and CBS, not flocking to Google TV, the largest digital video distribution network in the the world -- by far? And why did Forrester's analyst characterize Google TV's programmer sign-ups to date as "underwhelming?"
The core reason is a profound vision and business model clash between existing programmers/distributors and Google Inc. Why?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2010-10-11 16:26
Google's blog post "What we're driving at" announced that Google has "developed technology for cars to drive themselves." Google stated: "Larry and Sergey founded Google because they wanted to help solve really big problems using technology... Our goal is to help prevent traffic accidents, free up people's time and reduce carbon emissions..."
This project raises some interesting questions no one has asked Google yet.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2010-10-12 10:23
FreePress continues to urge the FCC to ignore everything, but Title II chauvinism.
The list of what FreePress expects the FCC to ignore is growing to tragicomic proportions.
FreePress urges the FCC to:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2010-10-13 11:36
Google announced it is working on an economy-wide Google Price Index, but has not decided whether to make it public, per Google Chief Economist, Hal Varian, who spoke at the National Association of Business Economists conference this week.
I. Insider Trading
In March, Google CEO Eric Schmidt said: "One day we had a conversation where we figured out we could just try and predict the stock market... and then we decided it was illegal. So we stopped doing that."
Now any hedge fund (or market regulator not born yesterday) understands that if Google is actively working on a Google Price Index, Google has not stopped trying to use its uniquely comprehensive and timely, repository of sensitive market information to predict information highly useful to predicting the stock market.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2010-10-14 14:22
Much has changed since May when FreePress orchestrated a torrent of nasty criticism directed at the FCC Chairman when it was signaled to the Washington Post that he was considering leaving broadband de-regulated and not adopting a Title II broadband approach.
Since then, Google negotiated a proposed compromise with Verizon to resolve the net neutrality Gordian knot that importantly did not advocate Title II regulation of the broadband Internet.
Since then, House Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman also negotiated a proposed solution to the net neutrality Gordian knot that did not advocate Title II regulation of the broadband Internet.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2010-10-18 12:30
The current harm to consumers from the latest unnecessary incident of retransmission brinksmanship is the clear result of FCC regulatory failure.
Fellow ardent free marketer, Randy May of the Free State Foundation, has a dead on piece that I highly recommend that exposes that the current broadcast retransmission negotiating process -- as no "market" that a free marketer would recognize.
The reason some consumers currently are blacked out from their favorite sports programming is because the FCC has known for a long time, that it has a broken, out-of-date, and counter-productive retransmission negotiation process, and that it has not done anything to bring the process into the 21st century or to correct the dysfunctional imbalance that causes predictable serial disputes that harm consumers.
Simply, if the FCC spent less time on trying to fix potential unproven problems, like net neutrality and Title II regulation for which the FCC does not have legal authority, and more time on fixing actual problems harming consumers on their watch that they do have the authority to fix -- American consumers would be much better off.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2010-10-19 18:43
Google is right that they are the inverse/opposite of Apple, but not in the way that Google claims -- being open/neutral vs. being closed.