You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2011-02-01 17:07
It 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.
Alarm bells should be going off among Netflix' sophisticated shareholders.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2011-02-02 10:50
The 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 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:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2011-02-03 13:42
The 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."
Why this is an important test case:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2011-02-07 10:40
Has Google shifted its legal strategy from its scorched earth legal tactics to more brand-friendly 'Settlements 'R' Us' political tactics?
I. There is emerging evidence that Google may be in settlement court-regulation-submission mode.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2011-02-08 17:56
If ever there was a prime example of "regulatory dissonance" it would be:
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."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2011-02-10 11:41
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.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2011-02-11 18:01
It 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?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2011-02-14 12:00
Google 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:
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:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2011-02-15 19:07
Here are five questions that would be helpful to have the FCC answer concerning net neutrality.