You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2017-01-12 14:57
By far the biggest competition problem facing U.S. antitrust and regulatory authorities is the Goobook Ad Cartel, the unaccountable dominant chokepoint for monetizing most online news, content, products and services.
The evidence is compelling that Google and Facebook have colluded to divide up and corner the online advertising market, and consequently, have deterred competition, devalued property and work, dehumanized privacy, and depressed economic growth and employment.
This unprecedented market power and winner-take-all outcome in such a vital sector of the economy is a direct result of purposeful U.S. non-enforcement of antitrust laws for online platforms, and the lavishment of most every public policy advantage upon them that one could imagine.
Let’s first examine Google and Facebook’s massive monopolies, then their collusion, and then who is harmed and how.
Google & Facebook’s Massive Monopolies
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2016-12-16 12:50
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2016-12-05 16:15
Apparently America does not have “equal justice under law” when it comes to media concentration limits.
Seldom can one find a starker commercial example of unequal legal, law enforcement, and regulatory treatment of very similar commercial activities than that between old media and Internet/new media companies concerning media concentration and antitrust enforcement.
Both legacy old media companies and Internet/new media companies are in the communications business, own and/or produce media of some type, and distribute media in different physical ways, consumption formats, and time/situation dimensions.
Please see this one-page graphic that illustrates how America’s media concentration double standard treats similar old and new media companies completely dissimilarly, and how it results in a predictable stark market share dichotomy.
Ultimately old media concentration has been limited by the traditional antitrust limits that apply to all industries and companies over the years.
That’s no longer true for Big-Internet companies like Google and Facebook.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2016-11-28 16:11
Please don’t miss my latest Daily Caller op-ed: “How U.S. Internet Commons Policies Lessen Growth Jobs & Security.”
It spotlights how U.S. Internet commons policies – where “free” means a price of zero and “open” means no property -- create winner-take all economic outcomes for the Netstablishment at the expense of everyone else.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2016-11-18 09:50
Google’s unprecedented Obama Administration influence and its self-serving anti-employment, anti-property, and pro-regulatory policy agenda, are on a collision course with the job-creating, pro-property, deregulatory Trump Administration growth agenda.
Keep watch to see who adapts to whom and how.
I. Google’s Unprecedented Lobbying Influence
Current Alphabet-Google Chairman Eric Schmidt enjoys the privilege of being the only corporate leader of a publicly-traded company on the President’s nineteen member Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2016-11-14 13:12
In the wake of a generally-unexpected election outcome, most everyone in the Internet space is grasping to understand the implications of an all Republican-led government and a Trump FCC, on their key issues.
The purpose of this analysis is to spotlight and explain the most predictable changes to expect. By design, it is not comprehensive, because some issues are naturally less predictable than others.
To be most accurate, this analysis will be high-level and strategic, not detailed and tactical, because the “what” and the “why” here are more predictable at this early stage than the specific “how,” “when,” and “who” -- for obvious practical reasons.
I. Why are some issues very predictable at this early stage?
First, the simple, hiding-in-plain-sight, premise here, is the process/values clarity and predictability that naturally flow from unified one-party control of the levers of government.
This is the fourth time in eighteen years there will be unified one-party control of government: the Democrats had it 1993-94 and 2009-10; and Republicans had it 2003-06 and now in 2017-18. History confirms the high-level strategic predictability of one-party control of the levers of government.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2016-11-04 11:25
Google is in the process of submitting its defenses to the EU antitrust charges that Google abuses its >90% dominance in search, mobile, and advertising. At the same time a new U.S. Administration soon will take a fresh look at U.S. antitrust enforcement, much like the EU did for Europe in late 2014.
So how did EU v. Google become the most consequential antitrust case of the young 21st century?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2016-10-27 13:52
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, October 27, 2016, Contact: Scott Cleland 703-217-2407
The FCC’s Broadband Privacy Rules Confuse Consumers with Partial, Inconsistent and Misleading Privacy Protection Because Their Personal Data Remains Unprotected from Every Entity but ISPs, and the FCC’s Privacy Rules Are Effectively at War with the FTC’s Consumer Protection Mission
WASHINGTON D.C. – The following may be attributed to Scott Cleland, Chairman of NetCompetition:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2016-10-26 19:57
To prove to the public once and for all that the FCC’s proposed broadband privacy rules are designed to benefit consumers and not special interests, the FCC has agreed to answer some reel questions from reel people about their reel privacy concerns just before they vote on the rules October 27.
These reel consumer questions were chosen by the FCC’s new artificial intelligence algorithm to determine which of the four million questions submitted in the FCC comments for this proceeding were the most open, neutral, competitive, non-discriminatory, unbiased, and FCC-supportive.
So that these reel consumer questions can be immediately re-tweeted, liked on Facebook, ranked on Google, and echoed by Amazon, the FCC’s algorithm will only chose consumer questioners who are willing to make their name and all personally identifiable information fully available to edge providers to monetize however they want, but not available at all to any ISP.
Top Questions for the FCC Commissioners on Broadband Privacy Rules
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2016-10-21 10:58
What does it tell us that no company ultimately bid to buy Twitter over the last month despite several reported brand-name interested buyers?
Twitter is the eighth-most-visited Internet site in the world; the best site in the world for real-time content; and is one of the few public companies in the marketplace that is growing revenue at a 20% annual rate – and no one even submitted a low-ball bid for Twitter? What is going on here?
Apparently, it tells us that there are only two companies in the world that could grow, leverage and monetize Twitter to make it worth roughly $20b under current circumstances – Alphabet-Google and Facebook -- and they both practically can’t buy Twitter for antitrust reasons.
Let’s analyze why.
First, Google and Facebook each individually would face unwanted serious antitrust risk.
Currently, Alphabet-Google is embroiled in this century’s biggest antitrust case in the EU.