You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2011-03-01 14:52
"The Net Neutrality Debate in Europe is Over" per an excellent commentary by Ben Rooney in WSJ TechEurope.
For those who follow history, it is truly ironic, surprising, and just plain bizarre that Europe is more pro-competition on Internet policy than the U.S. FCC.
How can this be? To understand this wierdness, look at this remarkable development through the lens of industrial policy.
I posit the reason for this European policy outcome is the fact that Europe does not have a Silicon Valley lobby -- with an aggressive corporate welfare agenda seeking government special treatment, regulation of their competitors, and implicit bandwidth subsidies -- like the U.S. does.
The stark and ironic contrast between the FCC's European-style, interventionist, regulatory approach, and Europe's more American, non-interventionist, competitive approach can only be explained by the presence of the potent lobbying force of U.S. industrial policy national champions (Silicon Valley -- Google, eBay, Amazon, IAC) in the U.S. -- and the absence of European national champions seeking net neutrality in Europe.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2011-03-01 19:31
It will be telling to see if the FCC's proposed rule making Thursday on retransmission consent addresses the glaring issue of why prices ONLY go up in this obviously dysfunctional regulated, and out-of-date retrans marketplace, because the FCC's rules have never been updated to reflect the competitive entry, and great success of, strong DBS and telco competitors into the pay TV market.
In most every other FCC proceeding involving competition matters over the last fifteen years, the FCC has examined where industry pricing trends have gone directionally over time as a proxy for how competitive the market is and/or to learn if market power is at work.
It will be telling to learn if the FCC cares about competition policy and the state of competition in the pay TV market that the FCC has the direct statutory authority to oversee... given how focused the FCC has been over the last year to impose preemptive restrictions on broadband providers to address speculative harms to competition in the Open Internet Order based on questionable ancillary authority.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2011-03-03 22:38
Google's biggest-ever reordering of its search results this past week to reward what Google believes is high quality content and punish low quality content prompted an public epiphany this week that Google has the market power to effectively pick winners and losers in the online content market.
There are two big takeaways from this public epiphany that "Google is the de facto web content market:"
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2011-03-07 18:01
In a fit of hypocrisy and total lack of self awareness, the New York Times ran an editorial today that criticized the fairness and appropriateness of the very Internet business model, a "walled garden," that the New York Times is adopting "very shortly" in order to survive.
Simply, the New York Times hypocritical editorial position is that the New York Times Co., which owns newspaper and broadcast distribution infrastructure, has the business freedom to erect pay walls and adopt a walled garden business model in order to earn a profit off their property and to fund their expensive business infrastructure, but competitive broadband providers should be banned by the FCC from having the same business freedom as the New York Times.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2011-03-08 10:09
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2011-03-08 11:59
Brandy Sparkles, Google's roving PR crisis manager parachuted into London last night to snuff out any dissent or questions about Google's purchase of BeatThatQuote.com, a UK price comparison site Google is buying for a reported $37m.
After sizing up the SEOBook's charge that Google was being hypocritical in not following its own rules, Brandy Sparkles released the following statement:
"We are the Goog. We make the rules for others on the Internet and we can change them any time we want. That's the way this world works. Life is not fair and Google does not try to be.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2011-03-10 18:14
Google's deep aversion to securing the permission of others before doing something that affects them is central to Google's famed "innovation without permission" ethos. Sadly, it is also the wellspring of Google's infamous privacy and security problems.
Where does Google's deep aversion to permission come from? From Google's founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, according to their mentor Terry Winograd, in Ken Auletta's book "Googled."
This week we witnessed the latest high profile example of Google's deep aversion to getting the permission of others.
A few days ago, Google announced that it remotely disabled malware-infected Android applications without the permission of 260,000 Android users who bought or downloaded infected applications from Google's app store.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2011-03-14 11:37
Google's imaginary spokesmodel Brandi Sparkles explained the logic and thinking behind Google considering branding its new Social media effort and "Facebook Killer" service -- "Circles" -- in the following statement.
"After analyzing everything that everyone has ever said privately or publicly about the word "circles" in digital recorded history, Google's skynet computer decided that Google should name its secret "Facebook-killer" social media service -- drum roll please -- "Circles!!!" (Cue: The digital crowd and the media Googlerati should now roar with approval and delirium at witnessing branding perfection by artificial intelligence. Pretty cool! Pretty cool!)
Google's skynet computer liked the many connotations that spring to mind when one hears the words: "Google Circles."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2011-03-14 16:35
It will be surprising if the Republican FCC Commissioners and a bipartisan majority of Congress do not oppose the FCC's unwarranted war on wireless competition policy.
The linchpin of the FCC's de-competition policy to restore the FCC to its pre-1996 monopoly regulation glory days, and to put the FCC in more control of the communications sector going forward, is to politically define away the existence of "effective competition," in order to justify FCC regulation of the mobile Internet.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2011-03-17 13:41
Popular bipartisan interest in safeguarding consumers privacy in the U.S. and Europe confronts Google with a core strategic problem because Google's targeted advertising business model is no "privacy by design" and no "privacy by default."
Google's No Privacy By Design model is unique.