You are here Facebook
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2011-12-14 12:20
The House Manager’s Amendment to the pending House Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) fixed the major legitimate problems with the original bill, effectively isolating the small but extremely vociferous minority of SOPA opponents, especially Google.
See my Forbes Tech Capitalist post here for a political outlook of the SOPA/PIPA anti-piracy legislation, which is likely to become law in 2012.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2011-12-05 18:24
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2011-12-02 14:47
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 2, 2011
Contact: Scott Cleland
703-217-2407
Verizon/SpectrumCo Deal Reflects Metamorphosis of Communications Competition
Broadband, Internet, & Cloud Computing Technologies Creating Omni-Modal Competition
WASHINGTON D.C. – Verizon Wireless’ purchase of 20 MHz of currently unused, near-nationwide AWS spectrum from Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Bright House Networks for $3.6b and reselling rights spotlights the extraordinary metamorphosis of communications competition being driven by broadband, Internet and cloud computing technologies.
The following quotes may be attributed to Scott Cleland, Chairman of NetCompetition.org:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2011-11-30 12:04
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2011-11-28 12:06
The only thing proponents of Net neutrality regulation and opponents of online piracy legislation appear to have in common is the boy-crying-wolf "censorship" rhetoric of FreePress' Save The Internet activists.
See my Forbes Tech Capitalist post here, "SOPA Opponents' Bogus Net Neutrality Comparisons."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2011-11-15 12:19
In compiling and ranking the top threats facing Google, I was amazed at the breadth, depth, diversity and seriousness of the threats and liabilities facing Google.
Please see my Forbes Tech Capitalist post here to learn the ranking of what threats to Google are most serious and why.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2011-10-26 11:34
The New York Times editorial "How to Fix the Wireless Market," is embarrassingly uninformed and totally ignores massive obvious evidence of vibrant American wireless competition.
The NYT's conclusion, that more wireless regulation is needed because of "insufficient competition," results from cherry picking a few isolated facts that superficially support their case, while totally ignoring the overwhelming relevant evidence to the contrary.
The NYT completely ignores widely-available evidence of vibrant wireless competition and substitution:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2011-10-21 16:32
For those seeking to better understand how communications competition has evolved, expanded, and accelerated to cloud communications competition, don't miss my new six-chart powerpoint presentation: "The Metamorphosis of Communications Competition," here.
My bottom line conclusion: The transformation of communications competition requires a transformation in communications law.
- Specifically, the world has changed with technology, but obsolete technology-specific laws have not.
- Communications policy obsolescence undermines infrastructure's utility and value and renders property less attractive and competitive.
I presented this new easy-to-understand framework for understanding exploding communications competition at a NetCompetition event today on Capitol Hill, which also featured excellent presentations by Jeff Eisenach, Managing Director of Navigant Economics, and Ev Ehrlich, President of ESC Company.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2011-10-19 15:33
A Google engineer's rant about how Google does not "get" platforms creates the opportunity to learn why Google does not aspire to be a platform like its competitors do.
- See my Forbes Tech Capitalist post here: "Why Google's not a Platform."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2011-10-14 14:28
Google's 3Q11 earnings call and release provided lots of new and relevant evidence to the many antitrust investigations of Google going on around the world.
- See my Forbes Tech Capitalist post here that explains the four big antitrust takeaways from the Google earnings call.
Pages
|