You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-04-23 13:01
The WSJ reported DoubleClick Inc. "Defends its deal with Google" by "pledging that the information it collects about, and for, its graphical-advertising customers won't be shared with Google after the acquisition later this year."
Let's be real here. They really do think everyone is stupid.
Privacy issues are Google's achilles heel. Google is growing so fast and is so profitable largely because they are most aggressively arbitraging privacy law and american's privacy expectations. The FT said Google's brand is now number 1 in the world.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-04-23 11:02
It is very interesting and ironic that when Former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt was at the FCC he strongly advocated that "Spectrum Flexibility will Promote Competition and the Public Interest" in an article in IEEE magazine with Greg Rosston in the December 1995 issue.
While I often disagreed with then FCC Chairman Hundt when he diverted from promoting market-based competition by picking winners and losers through hyper-regulation, I must commend Mr. Hundt's logic and policy explained in detail in his IEEE monograph in 1995.
Ironically now, Mr. Hundt would financially benefit greatly, if the FCC rigs the 700 MHz auction to lower the value spectrum by requiring a license holder agree to net neutrality.
The primary impetus behind the 1993 Democratic Congress that passed the law requiring spectrum auctions is that the taxpayer was routinely being fleeced by the FCC granting spectrum by other processes than auctions.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-04-20 09:45
Google turned in another awe-inspring financial performance in 1Q07. Pick your news report for the basics. All you need to know is revenue growth was up 63%. Wow!
Let me translate some of the earnings call:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-04-19 10:25
Given my recent 10-page white paper which analyzes the antitrust and competitive implications of the Google-DoubleClick merger, I thought it would be helpful public service to pose some questions that reporters/analysts consider asking Google's CEO Mr. Schmidt on Google's earnings call.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-04-18 10:42
After almost a year of opposing quotes in articles on net neutrality, the NAM weekly radio show/podcast on business, finally afforded me the opportunity to debate Craig Newmark, the famous founder of Craig's List, one-on-one live.While
I said I was happy to discuss my current and past views with him because it was a tacit concession by him that the net neutrality side of the debate cannot win this debate on the merits and that their best chance is attacks on me as a leading spokesperson for the broadband sector on why the Internet should not be regulated.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-04-17 19:07
The people who still argue that the Internet is "neutral" have some explaining to do.
I feel kinda bad that all those well-intentioned people that fell for the original slogan of "net neutrality" were suckered into assuming the Internet was "neutral" and needed to stay that way.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-04-17 11:01
Today's WSJ editorial page hits the free-market nail on the head once again in its lead editorial: "The Spectrum Game"; it's about the FCC's upcoming decision on how to auction the 700 MHz of spectrum that is considered by the market to be "the Riviera beachfront property" of all spectrum potentially available.
WSJ understands this is the most valuable spectrum the FCC has ever auctioned.
I hope the FCC is wise enough to see through this net neutrality spectrum scam, and not effectively bypass Congress' authority by effectively legislating corporate spectrum entitlements unauthorized by Congress.
To guard against charges that there is an-under-the-table transfer of billions of dollars due the American taxpayer under the law, the FCC needs to be completely transparent and upfront about the implications their decisions have on auction proceeds.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-04-16 13:59
The news of Google acquiring Double-Click prompted me to spend a good part of my weekend analyzing the competitive implications of this seminal proposed acquisition for the future of the Internet.
My analysis focused on answering the following key questions of interest:
Summary of my conclusions:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Sun, 2007-04-15 15:45
It seems that having ~90% gross proift margins, a $145b market capitalization, and one of the highest-flying stocks in the market is just not enough resources for Google.
Not surprisingly, Google CEO Eric Schimdt's has come up with yet another creative new answer for who should pay for upgrading Internet capacity for video -- the American taxpayer! Certainly not Google!
Cost avoidance and sticking it to the taxpayer is part of a pattern for Google.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-04-13 12:52
MultiChannel News has a great write up of a tough speech on net neutrality by David Cohen, Executive Vice President of Comcast.
Kudos to Mr. Cohen for taking the gloves off and saying what needs to be said.