You are here
Google kicked a hornets nest in Book Settlement -- What the angry swarm tells us about Google's futureSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2009-09-01 18:55
If one listened to Google, their problem is two-fold:
As I have asserted many times before in this blog, Google is its own worst enemy.
So how did such an angry swarm of opposition engulf the Book Settlement making it increasingly unlikely to be approved by the Court?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2009-09-03 17:12
FreePress says the "FCC Should Set Bar High for Broadband Definition."
There is broad consensus behind promoting broadband access to all Americans soonest.
My creative solution is don't listen to FreePress.
If FreePress really believed in Universal Broadband and was trying to be constructive, it would not be pushing a counter-productive, unreasonable, and completely unaffordable "high-bar" broadband definition.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2009-09-04 12:39
However, it is more than that, as this eight-month, fifteen part privacy vs. publicacy series can attest.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2009-09-08 10:27
How could American taxpayers get stuck with a multi-trillion dollar tab that they weren’t even aware that they were running up? How could that huge tab still be allowed to run up unchecked today? For the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, the sad answer is one of the biggest root causes of last fall’s devastating financial crisis and one of the biggest continuing systemic risks to the financial system and the economic recovery.
A decade ago, in what may prove to be the most expensive bipartisan legislative mistake in U.S. history, a bipartisan policy became law that effectively ensured that no Federal regulator had oversight or enforcement jurisdiction over derivative financial instruments. The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (CFMA) created “legal certainty for excluded derivative transactions.” That law allowed a shadow derivative overlay system to be built literally on top of the public financial system, with none of the inherent accountability of the underlying financial system. In other words, a deliberate bipartisan U.S. government policy change a decade ago unwittingly created an unaccountable “black hole” market that sucked enormous value out of public markets, (Bear Stearns, Lehman, AIG, Fannie, Freddie, securitized sub-prime mortgages, etc.) while laundering the risk to the U.S. taxpayer.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2009-09-07 23:19
The New York Times' editorial board seems stuck in a time 1992 time warp in its "Competition in Cable TV" editorial that nonsensically disagrees with the DC Appeals Court for having the good sense to see what everyone can see -- that there is very active competition for video service in the U.S.
The New York Times acts like it is still 1992, that since then nothing has happened, and that the 1992 Cable Act and the 1996 Telecom Act didn't succeed wildly in promoting competition.
Thank goodness the DC Court of Appeals considers facts and is in touch with the reality of "Competition in Cable TV."
And that's not competition?!
It seems like The New York Times editorial board needs to get out and about more, a lot has changed since 1992 when they apparently last went outside.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2009-09-08 17:10
Harry Potter fans know there is "He-who-must-not-be-named."
Unbenownst to me until I read about it in Communications Daily, the National Telecommunications Cooperative Association (NTCA) cited my 12-08 Precursor research study in a submission to the FCC about how Universal Service may interact with the National Broadband Plan.
The reason I am blogging about this now is:
Given the interest in affordable universal broadband, I endeavored to explore the highly relevant issue about whether, Google, the entity that uses the most, and benefits the most, from Internet bandwidth, contributes to its cost recovery commensurate with its benefit.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2009-09-10 18:53
There's been scant analysis of how the Google Book Settlement process has been altered going forward given recent major developments:
To date the discussion of outcomes has been largely binary, will Federal District Court Judge Chin approve or disapprove the proposed Book Settlement?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2009-09-15 10:53
My latest Google antitrust white paper, "Googleopoly IV: The Googleopsony Case," is the first antitrust analysis which connects-the-dots between Google's search advertising selling monopoly and Google's information access buying monopoly or "monopsony" by explaining and documenting how Google is harming competition in digital: news, books, broadcasting, artwork, documents, and analytics; and harming consumers seeking quality digital information that is not free.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2009-09-14 21:04
The FCC's recent wireless innovation NOI has put a new spotlight on how innovation evolves in a competitive market.
With that focus in mind, I highly recommend reading Link Hoewing's very thoughtful post on Verizon's PolicyBlog: "Innovation and the evolution of technology markets."
It makes a lot of sense.