You are here October 2008
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2008-10-22 19:06
The professional complainers who assert there is little broadband competition, or that the U.S. is falling behind on broadband, will no doubt ignore the indisputable facts -- that Comcast just announced major speed upgrades for most of its users and a new set of superfast or wideband tiers for high-end users.
- Competition works!
- Just like cable modems competitively prompted telecom providers to roll out faster and cheaper DSL, Verizon's fast Fios service is prompting Comcast and others to roll out faster network speeds and offerings.
- Competition for broadband customers is alive and well!
- The reality is that competitive markets respond much better and faster to changes in demand, supply and innovation than regulators could ever hope to achieve with their red tape.
- I expect a muted response from net neutrality and national broadband policy proponents -- because the fact that competition is succeeding in increasing speeds and lowering effective prices -- just isn't part of their complaining narrative and their broadband sky is falling outlook.
- The Open Internet Coalition, Save the Internet and Free Press will somehow find bad news in this great news story for consumers -- or they will "ostrich" and ignore it happened so they can continue to complain uninterrupted by reality or the facts.
The Comcast DCOSIS 3.0 upgrade will "enable Comcast to double speeds for the majority of existing high-speed customers at no additional cost."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2008-10-23 09:50
Opponents of net neutrality should not miss an excellent op-ed opposing net neutrality in Europe, in the Wall Street Journal by Mr. Andrea Renda of the Center for European Policy Studies.
- Mr. Renda's conclusion is spot on:
- "...pre-emptive net neutrality regulation amounts to an effort to ban the advance and evolution of a market for fear of future anticompetitive behavior. Since its birth the Internet has been a vibrant source of innovation precisely because of the absence of prescriptive regulation. Now would be the wrong time to change that."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2008-10-23 12:48
Google and its minions expect all of Google's competitors to be 'open' -- but not Google.
- If openness and net neutrality are such important principles, why doesn't Google abide by them?
- And why don't Google's net neutrality allies insist that their leader, Google, lead by example, and not tarnish them with an obvious double standard?
Consider the following troubling and mounting evidence that Google itself is becoming the anti-competitive threat that they claim all their big competitors are.
Google's G1-phone (Android): Per CNET's review of the G1-phone, "There's no option to change the search box to use search from Microsoft or Yahoo." How is that open or neutral? Especially given Google's unquestioned dominance of search?
- Remember Google has 70% share of search queries per Hitwise, and now produces 95% of all Internet advertising profits in the US.
- Also remember the FCC's net neutrality principles clearly apply to Google: "...consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers and content providers."
Google's Chrome Browser: Google's new Chrome browser has an "omnibox" which bundles Google's dominant search business with the address bar.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2008-10-27 15:00
Hello? Is anyone with formal NASA oversight responsibilities looking out for the taxpayer?
· The New York Times Bits blog reported that Google executives added a fighter jet to "their growing fleet of private airplanes" which uniquely enjoy private landing/parking rights at NASA's Moffet airfield, a couple of miles from Google's headquarters -- an exceptional corporate perk by any measure.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2008-10-27 16:26
Google is not really for openness because Google won't allow 'open' auctions for its keyword advertising so bidders could track the bidding and have some influence over the outcome.
-
The reason Google won't allow 'open' key word auctions is that it would immediately expose how much Google anti-competitively self-deals and front-runs the auction to the advantage of Google and the disadvantage of Google's customers.
-
Google's real definition for 'open' is 'Google-favored.'
When it comes to openness and privacy, Google certainly does not lead by example.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2008-10-28 11:26
Google has reportedly signed onto the new Global Network Initiative, where it supposedly agrees that privacy is "a human right and guarantor of human dignity."
How does Google square this new high-minded assertion with its abysmal track record on privacy?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2008-10-28 16:02
Google, the most-sued intellectual property infringer in the world, just settled a class action lawsuit with authors and publishers for $125m and a revenue sharing deal going forward; this deal has much broader implications than most would think for Google, for other companies suing Google for theft, and for the pending Google-Yahoo ad partnership.
Implications for Google: After steadfastly maintaining that they had done nothing wrong and that they were protected by the concept of fair use, Google has now de facto conceded that it was broadly infringing on authors' and publishers' copyrights, while also signalling it feared losing in court.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2008-10-29 17:41
Google, in settling with authors/publishers for $125m over their copyright infringement lawsuits, has cleverly leveraged its market power to tip, and lock in, another Internet segment to de facto Google monopoly control – access to most of the world’s books online. The untold story here is how this settlement:
· Enthrones Google as the de facto gatekeeper to access most of the world’s books online;
· Establishes a “new model” for online content distribution;
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2008-10-31 18:20
Yahoo deserves a seat in the Sucker Hall of Shame for how badly it has bungled its strategic options over the last year.
- Reuters reports that "Google may scrap Yahoo deal" and reported that ""Yahoo wants the deal and they are willing to have Google sign anything at the Justice Department to have them do it," said the source."
In strategically choosing to go with an ad agreement with Google over a search deal with Microsoft, Yahoo bet the farm that the Google-Yahoo ad agreement could pass muster with the DOJ. oops!
- To make matters worse, Yahoo negotiated a one-sided desperate ad agreement with Google.
- They gave Google a poison pill of $250m if Yahoo were bought by another entity, (i.e. Microsoft), yet they did not protect their own interests by holding Google to a more standard firmer committment to do everything necessary to consumate a Google-Yahoo deal -- like fight for it in court.
- It will soon be apparent that Yahoo's lawyers and executives did not protect themselves very well legally.
Yahoo's leadership should be panicked now realizing that they were suckered badly by Google.
Pages
|
