About Scott Cleland
You are here
February 2011
NetFlix' Open Internet Entitlement Hubris
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2011-02-01 17:07It appears as if Netflix' rocket stock and nosebleed market valuation has infected Netflix' CEO, Reed Hastings, with a bad bout of dot.com hubris fever complete with hallucinations that Netflix is somehow a needy online video provider entitled to new massive subsidies under the FCC's Open Internet order.
- In his recent letter to shareholders (see p. 9 under "Challenges)" Mr. Hastings launches a grandiose diatribe on what prices and pricing models competitive broadband ISPs should and should not be able to charge Netflix in the competitive market place.
- Mr. Hastings dreams Netflix is entitled to "no-charges" from ISPs for dumping more concentrated asymmetric Internet traffic on them than any entity has ever before generated, despite the fact that Netflix' proposed approach is completely contrary to the way that the Internet backbone peering marketplace has operated for over fifteen years.
- Mr. Hastings also dreams about what pricing models and prices competitive broadband ISPs should be allowed to charge their customers.
Alarm bells should be going off among Netflix' sophisticated shareholders.
Glass House Google Throws Stones
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2011-02-02 10:50The company that has copied all the world's information on its servers without permission and has a mission to "organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful," ironically has decided to be publicly indignant about the alleged copying of its public search information.
- It is the supreme irony that "glass-house Google" has accused Microsoft of copying Google's public search results.
- In a blog post Google shared its purpose behind its stone-throwing accusation: "...to those who have asked what we want out of this, the answer is simple: we'd like for this practice to stop."
It pathetically ironic that Google can comprehend that it does not like to have its own claimed private or proprietary information copied and made accessible to the world for free, but Google cannot comprehend why anyone else would not like Google to copy their private or proprietary information without permission and make it available to the world for free.
Let's review all of the other entities who like Google would "like for this practice to stop" -- by Google.
Could Google now possibly better understand why:
Test Case: Will FCC Respect President's Call for "Least Burdensome" Regulation?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2011-02-03 13:42The FCC has a bellwether opportunity at its February 8th meeting to approve a Broadband Data Modernization proposed rule making, that respects the President's new Executive Order that regulations should be the "least burdensome tools to achieve regulatory ends."
- The FCC has announced that its proposed rule is to "streamline and modernize the collection of data"... "while minimizing burdens on voice and broadband providers."
Why this is an important test case:
Google: 'Settlements 'R' Us?' Is Google Choosing Regulation?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2011-02-07 10:40Has Google shifted its legal strategy from its scorched earth legal tactics to more brand-friendly 'Settlements 'R' Us' political tactics?
- And is Google politically ramping up its lobbying against "search regulation" to try and minimize the restrictions it has to abide by in order to settle the phalanx of serious law enforcement investigations and lawsuits it is facing on antitrust, privacy and intellectual property?
I. There is emerging evidence that Google may be in settlement court-regulation-submission mode.
Regulatory Dissonance: FreePress' Tim Wu at FTC & Administration: No Burdensome Regulations
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2011-02-08 17:56If ever there was a prime example of "regulatory dissonance" it would be:
- An Administration engaging in a high-profile campaign to promote regulatory restraint to avoid and fix "burdensome regulations" (in an Executive Order, in the State of the Union, and in a Presidential Speech at the Chamber of Commerce in the span of two weeks), and
- The recent hiring of FreePress Chairman Tim Wu as a senior policy advisor at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
- (FreePress is well-known as the single most radical anti-capitalist, anti-property, hyper-regulatory activist group in D.C., and
- Tim Wu is well known for proposing sweeping preemptive regulation of competitive industries with no proof of a regulatory problem -- in pushing for preemptive net neutrality regulations that culminated in the FCC's Open Internet Order, and for preemptive "Carterfone" wireless regulations of the FCC's 700 MHz auctions.)
The Goolag Infopelago
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2011-02-09 12:43
Google's oft-stated goal to "change the world" and its famed mission to centralize all of the world's information to make it universally accessible, self-appoints Google to be the world's omni-information gatekeeper, distributor, librarian, publisher, editor, programmer, and broadcaster.
In building its Googleopoly, Google represented itself to everyone as unbiased and neutral in order to gain everyone's trust.
A core concern with Google's centralized information power and opaque black box system is that Google has the unaccountable power and constant opportunity to decide what information people around the world access, and also to decide what information Google does not want them to find.
Today in Politico's top story "Tech War: Google vs Microsoft" by Elizabeth Wasserman, I was quoted saying: "It's scary that the monopoly information access point of the world is going after voices of dissent."
- What do I mean about going after dissenters?
- Read Brian Deagon's Investors Business Daily 12-10 piece "When Analysts Look Over Their Shoulders," which chronicles how the Google Dissent Police bullies the press to not talk with, or quote, Google critics they don't like.
Will the FCC Lose the Future?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2011-02-10 11:41Do the actions of the FCC match the FCC's words of support for the President's commitment to the "least burdensome tools to achieve regulatory ends?"
- Does the FCC truly agree with the President's State of the Union that: "We can't win the future with a government of the past?"
- There is much troubling evidence that the FCC mindset is firmly wedded to the regulatory past and not committed to competitively "winning the future."
There are three disturbing trends at the FCC: preservationism, pessimism and silo-ism -- that all strongly indicate that the FCC's trajectory is more geared toward losing the future than winning the future.
I. FCC Preservationism (Shackling the future with the mindset, approaches and legacy networks/regulations of the past.)
Most of the last year the FCC has been obsessed with FCC historical preservation, i.e. strongly considering restoring the FCC to its past glory days with new Title II common carrier regulation of the Internet, but then settling on a 1934 era interpretation of the FCC's Title I authority at its most boundless.
Google: "Thinking big with a gig" or "Doing small at a crawl?"
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2011-02-11 18:01It has now been over a year since Google promised with great fanfare that it would "make a meaningful contribution to the shared goal of delivering faster and better Internet for everyone" by offering "ultra-high-speed broadband networks... with 1 gigabit per second fiber-to-the-home connections... at a competitive price to at least 50,000 and potentially up to 500,000 people."
What is taking so long for Google to do this?
Two Fatal Flaws in Google's Antitrust Defense -- Part VII Google Pinocchio Series
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2011-02-14 12:00Google search executive Amit Singhal exposed two fatal flaws in Google's antitrust defense in an excellent and revealing interview with James Temple of the San Francisco Chronicle.
The core of Google's antitrust defense (overall, in Google-ITA, and in the Google Book Settlement) are two foundational claims:
- Everything Google does is for users and is pro-user -- so tautologically Google cannot be doing anything wrong; and
- Everything Google does is innovative and is pro-innovation -- so tautologically Google cannot be doing anything wrong.
I. Does Google only work for user interests?
Beneath Google's saccharine claim that they only have users interests at heart, is a deep cynicism that everyone is stupid, especially antitrust authorities.
Does Google think antitrust authorities are so stupid that:
5 Questions for the FCC on Net Neutrality
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2011-02-15 19:07Here are five questions that would be helpful to have the FCC answer concerning net neutrality.
