You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2012-06-06 09:52
6 June 2012
Dear Joaquín Almunia,
Thank you for your May 21 letter sharing your Google antitrust concerns, and for your offer of discussions to avoid "adversarial proceedings."
In this dispute among equals, we would like to counter with Google's concerns about your antitrust investigation.
First, no matter how many times we explain our business or how slowly we talk, your investigators can't seem to grasp the expanse of our algorithmic genius or the fact that our engineers are higher life forms not bound by the laws of man or nature. Going forward we will only talk to fellow gifted engineers.
Second, the velocity of Google's innovation and the fast-moving nature of these markets mean antitrust authorities can't keep up with us. By the time the EU figures out that we have monopolized one market, we will have monopolized many more. Surrender while you still can. Resistance is futile. Get over it.
FCC Special Access: Communications Obsolete-ism vs Modernism -- My Daily Caller Op-ed (Part 3 in Series)Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2012-06-08 12:08
Please read my latest Daily Caller Op-ed: "FCC Special Access: Communications Obsolete-ism vs. Modernism" here.
Obsolete Communications Law Op-ed Series:
Part 1: "Obsolete communications law stifles innovation, harms consumers"
Part 2: "The FCC's Public Interest Test Problem"
Precursor Special Access Research Series:
Part 5: "FCC: Forced Access Economics & Selective Math"
Part 4: "Special Access Facts Show More Not Less Competition"
Part 3: "What's the Broadband Plan Implementation Vision? Affirming Competition Policy? Or the Retro-genda?
Part 2: "Special Access Nostalgia for Telecom's Bronze Age is No Path to 21st Century Broadband Leadership"
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2012-06-12 11:49
In Google's own words...
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2012-06-13 08:56
ICANN is revealing the biggest expansion of top level domains ever.
Given Google is being investigated for antitrust violations on four continents for anti-competitively favoring its own content over competitors' content, and for monopolizing search advertising, the dominant monetization engine for Internet content, learning Google's strategic plans for how Internet content potentially could be reorganized going forward could be... revealing to say the least.
Will Google seek more names than others and why?
Will Google seek to control new domains that could be used to better compete against Google... in other words to create new barriers to entry to competing with its monopoly scale?
Are there anti-competitive conflicts of interest for Google representing itself as an unbiased search engine and owning the registry for entire new domains that cover immense swaths of future content?
Will Google have a new anti-competitive incentive to rank higher content that resides in one of its owned domain spaces over domain spaces owned by their competitors?
Does Google have any secret plans to monitor traffic in these new domain spaces like they had in secretly monitoring WiFi communications of tens of millions of homes in 33 countries around the world without authorization?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2012-06-14 09:27
Please read my latest Daily Caller Op-ed: "Obsolete Analysis Will Doom DOJ's Antitrust Probe of Cable" here.
Part 1: Obsolete communications law stifles innovation, harms consumers
Part 2: "The FCC's Public Interest Test Problem"
Part 3: "FCC Special Access: Communications Obsolete-ism vs. Modernism"
Part 7: "Broadband Pricing is Naturally Evolving to Usage Tiers"
Part 6: "Leaf Vision & Broadband Usage Caps"
Part 5: "Consumer Group's Advocacy Hypocrisy"
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2012-06-19 10:36
Is anyone paying attention to the profound antitrust implications of Google applying to ICANN to become the world's largest domain registrar for Internet Taxonomy 2.0 -- the next generation of Internet addressing and classification of information? Giving the world's dominant search engine -- that is already under antitrust investigation on four continents for favoring Google content over competitors' content -- the additional market power of controlling the allocation of new keyword domain-names which Google would then index for publishers, rank for users, and monetize for advertisers, is an unquestionable conflict of interest and a recipe for more Google monopolization.
ICANN's original Internet taxonomy 1.0 involved truly "generic" top level domains as like .com, .org, .net, .gov, .edu, .mil, organized around institutional purposes and around geography to recognize sovereign nation authority like .US, .UK, .JP, .NZ, etc.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2012-06-19 17:23
Thanks to Mike Wendy of Media Freedom for capturing my 3 minute explanation of why Netflix' net neutrality complaint to the DOJ against cable broadband usage pricing is specious.
You can view it here.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2012-06-20 09:43
If you want to gain a better grasp why the net neutrality debate often yields such confusing and contradictory uses of the words "liberty" and "freedom" when people argue for or against net neutrality, please read CEI's Ben Sperry's take: "Net Neutrality: Two Concepts of Liberty."
Well said Ben! Incisive, insightful and illuminating.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2012-06-21 13:59
The Supreme Court's 8-0 decision on FCC vs. Fox, vacated the FCC's indecency penalties against Fox and ABC for "fleeting expletives and momentary nudity" because the FCC violated constitutional "due process protection against vague regulations" for failing to provide fair notice of what would be "actionably indecent."
How is this decision relevant to net neutrality?
First, "net neutrality" is like "obscenity" or "indecency", in that it's often in the eye of the beholder, and is devilishly difficult to define definitively. The tweet-length provision of law in question (Section 1464) is: "Whoever utters any obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio communications shall be fined…"
The term "net neutrality" -- that proponents have gone so far as to hype as "the first amendment of the Internet" -- can be found nowhere in law. The concept is wholly organic to the FCC, in that it started as a concept in a speech that called for no regulation for it, became an unenforceable FCC policy statement, was then used as the basis for an enforcement action, and then became an FCC order that has been challenged in court for being unconstitutional, arbitrary and capricious, and without statutory authority.