Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2013-05-02 16:10
The CTIA just released its semi-annual statistics on the wireless industry’s performance, and its bad news for all those supposed data-driven, pro-regulation proponents who are in search of evidence or data to justify regulating wireless or wireless spectrum holdings.
The data are more powerful evidence of a competitive wireless industry. Hopefully, this data will nudge the FCC to begrudgingly conclude that the industry is indeed competitive, despite their blinders to the data.
Briefly, the U.S. wireless industry:
EU-Google: Too Powerful to Prosecute? The Problems with Politically Enabling Google – Part 22 Google Unaccountability SeriesSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2013-05-01 09:03
The EU blinked. It's obvious the EU does not want a high-profile political confrontation with Google over a search monopoly abuse enforcement action.
Last May, when the Competition authorities announced they had a preliminary Statement of Objections for four monopoly abuses against Google, the EU competition authority trumpeted their preference for a settlement over enforcement action in this case, i.e. ruling Google a search monopoly guilty of monopoly abuse that warranted a material fine. In extending their public deadlines for Google three times, and then tentatively accepting the immaterial search concessions Google proposed, it is obvious the EU bent over backwards to avoid politically confronting Google.
Submitted by admin on Fri, 2013-04-26 14:18
Ever wonder why there are so many never ending tech policy and political battles?
Why there are so many recurring:
Ever wonder why so many of the same people and entities are involved in the same tech policy and political battles over and over again?
The answer is it is an ideological struggle, but not the 20th century kind with which most people are familiar, for example like progressive vs. conservative, or republican vs. democrat. This is a new and different kind of ideological struggle between realspace and cyberspace that is unique to the 21st century and to the Internet Age.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2013-04-22 04:34
Competition is alive and well in the U.S. communications market.
Market forces have produced a barrage of big competitive developments in just a few weeks. Dish’s disruptive $25b bid for Sprint could offer consumers a new choice of a lower-price, faster-speed, all-wireless platform for the first time. Google’s disruptive ongoing expansion of Google Fiber from Kansas City to Austin Texas and Provo Utah signals more and new consumers could increasingly enjoy the choice of a new, much-faster, near-comprehensively-integrated broadband offering. And T-Mobile is disrupting in yet another major way with a new maverick wireless pricing model that offers no contract plans and relatively more a la carte pricing.
These developments are proof positive why competition is so far superior to regulation. Survival is a powerful motivator to disrupt, differentiate and innovate, just as the opportunity for large profit and market leadership are powerful motivators as well.
While regulators slowly fret over how they can solve yesterday’s problems by fiat or opaque subsidy, competition is automatically devising alternative solutions to today’s problems, and inevitably is working on different solutions to tomorrow’s problems.
The Evidence that Google Bamboozled the EU Competition Authorities – Part 21 Google Unaccountability Research SeriesSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2013-04-19 12:28
Look at the evidence to judge for yourself if Google bamboozled the EU Competition authorities.
Simply, compare the long list of major EU concessions to Google to the short-list of minor Google concessions to the EU – made in the EU-Google settlement negotiations to resolve the investigated problem of Google’s anti-competitive search bias.
The evidence shows Google dominated these negotiations. Given that most everyone would agree that the sovereign European Union is vastly more powerful than corporate Google, and given that the EU’s competition law and enforcement process is well-known to be very tough, a logical conclusion from the upside-down outcome of these negotiations is that Google successfully bamboozled the EU competition authorities.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2013-04-15 14:07
Please see my latest Daily Caller op-ed: "DOJ Joins FCC in Picking Wireless Winners & Losers" -- here.
* * * * *
Government Spectrum Waste Fraud and Abuse Research Series
Part 1: U.S. Government's Obsolete and Wasteful Spectrum Hoarding and Rationing
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2013-04-12 15:17
In advance of the Senate Antitrust oversight hearing for the DOJ and FTC Tuesday, please see my Daily Caller op-ed "DOJ & FTC Antitrust Report Cards" -- here -- to learn two of the big oversight questions for the hearing.
This is Part 20 in the Google Unaccountability Research Series.
Google Unaccountability Research Series:
Part 0: Google's Poor and Defiant Settlement Record
Part 1: Why Google Thinks It Is Above the Law
Part 2: Top Ten Untrue Google Stories
Part 3: Google's Growing Record of Obstruction of Justice
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2013-04-10 22:00
See the abbreviation list below for the translations of the SMS text abbreviations used by EU Competition Chief Joaquin Almunia and Google Chairman Eric Schmidt in negotiating the EU-Google antitrust agreement via texting -- per reporting by the New York Times.
BFFN = Best friend for now
BFLOW = But FTC looked the other way
CIINST = Call it innovation not special treatment
CITY = Can I trust you
EPPAA = EU privacy people are angry
EPPFLYAIT = EU privacy people feel like you are ignoring them
EPPDGTJ = EU privacy people don’t get the joke
EAG = EU admits guilt
GANG = Google admits no guilt
GDFTCST = Google demands FTC special treatment
IHNLMN = I have not lost my nerve
IMFEG = Investigation must fully exonerate Google
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2013-04-09 11:48
Six EU Nations Revolt against Google’s Virtual Colonialization of their Private Data – Part 32 Google’s Disrespect of Privacy Research SeriesSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2013-04-05 13:53
Ironically six of the original European colonial powers of yesteryear, the UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands, have aligned to resist the new virtual-colonial-power -- Google’s hegemony over online private data.
These six leading EU members, which comprise 75% of the EU economy, have jointly launched national investigations of Google’s privacy actions. That’s because Google has paternalistically rebuffed and ignored the EU belief that Google’s 2012 unification of its sixty privacy policies is a serious violation of European data protection law, because it does not allow any meaningful use transparency or user choice to opt-out of Google’s private data collection.