You are here Congress
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-08-29 18:50
Google openly represents its value in the marketplace as supplying users with "free" services: free search, free email, free docs/spreadsheet/other applications, free content, etc.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-08-29 10:13
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-08-28 10:58
The Progress and Freedom Foundation wisely hosted an outstanding and noteworthy presentation by Harvard Constitutional Law expert and scholar about how net neutrality violates the U.S. Constitution's first amendment protection of free speech.
I recommend a of blog post on this from PFF by Adam Theirer on Professor Tribe's presentation and the tour de force video is available as well.
The supreme relevance of this presentation is to debunk that net neutrality is "Internet freedom."
- Professor Tribe is a well-known and respected liberal thought leader; so it is highly noteworthy that he has not "drunk the liberal blogosphere's kool aid" that net neutrality is about "freedom."
- Professor Tribe clearly understands that corporations are afforded the constitutional right to free speech just like individuals are.
- Professor Tribe also sees net neutrality for what it is -- the opposite of "Internet freedom" -- the infringment of network owners clear freedom of speech protected by the US constitution.
Not only is net neutrality trying to address a bogus non-existent "problem," it is a bogus policy concept, because in part it fundamentally misrepresents itself as "Internet freedom" when it is exactly the opposite.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-08-28 10:11
Ted Hearn of Multichannel News has a dead on post 'Copps airbrushes role in FCC dereg binge" that I suggest anyone interested in the FCC's real bipartisan role in dealing with the "net neutrality" should read.
Ted's post exposes some serious political revisionism that is going on by the senior Democrat at the FCC in pandering to one of the most liberal. take-no-prisoners bloggers, Mr. Stoller of OpenLeft.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-08-24 21:09
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-08-24 16:26
I am very excited to be attending, and to be one of the speakers, at the Conservative Leadership Conference on "Conservatives and New Media" in Reno Nevada, October 11-13.
The left is massively more organized and involved in new media than conservatives, so I am thrilled to help the CLC, Chuck Muth et al -- build a formidable conservative counterweight to the liberal-dominated blogosphere and new media.
I heartily encourage like-minded folks to attend, learn, and get better at promoting free-market, limited government principles over the Internet.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-08-24 12:48
As a conservative, I embrace antitrust law as both a necessary law and as a time-tested, light-touch, free-market arbiter mechanism to prevent potential monopolization in the marketplace.
I also embrace antitrust enforcement as a conservative, because it is an outstanding mechanism to preserve free market competition and protect it from the natural inclination of Big Government to over-reach with its heavy hand of regulation.
Greg Sidak of Georgetown University and Hal Singer of Criterion Economics have produced an outstanding editorial in the Washington Times on this subject concerning the proposed XM-Sirius merger. I recommend that every conservative who cares about limited government should read it.
This explains why as a conservative, I have been so focused philosophically on highlighting the anti-competitive effects of the Google-DoubleClick merger and why I believe the FTC will ultimately block that transaction.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-08-22 21:51
Kudos to Steve Pociask of the American Consumer Institute for another outstanding piece of analysis that debunks the notion that the US wireless market is not competitive and requires net neutrality/open access regulation.
The powerfully straightforward conclusions are:
-
The US has more choice and less concentration in wireless than Europe;
-
Americans use their wireless almost four times as much as Europe;
-
US wireless prices are the lowest in the world save for Hong Kong.
What's wrong with that picture?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-08-22 17:10
Google has another big "oops!" problem where its actions in the marketplace do not match the line they are feeding to the FTC/EC antitrust investigators who are reviewing Google's proposed acquisition of dominant ad-server DoubleClick.
So what's the new big contradiction/problem?
- Google's lawyers have been arguing to FTC/EC authorities that Google is not a competitor to DoubleClick because Google only does search and DoubleClick only serves display ads.
- How can there be any antitrust problem if they don't compete argues Google?
- Well today Google's YouTube network has begun selling overlay ads to select videos running on YouTube.
- According to ComScore, YouTube is the Internet's most-visited video website with ~189 million visitors in July.
- That means that Google is now the exclusive ad server of display/rich media advertising to the largest video site in the world.
Its now hard for Google to still claim with a straight face that they aren't in the ad-serving business and that they don't compete directly with DoubleClick.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-08-22 13:47
Google continues its self-serving campaign of "open for you, but not for me."
The master of the double standard, Google loves to claim that Google is "open" and even has the gall to name its net neutrality coalition the "Open Internet Coalition."
However, does Google really support "open" principles? In other words, Google talks the talk, but does it walk the walk?
Elise Ackerman of the San Jose Mercury News had a noteworthy and relevant article on this issue: "Google's growth has come at a price."
Well Google, if openness is truly an important principle to Google, why not agree to make Google's search algorithm, which is the industry's ultimate "Black Box", "open" to all so all can benefit?
Pages
|