Submitted by Scott Cleland on Sat, 2007-03-31 17:46
As a fervent and principled advocate of free markets and competition, I have also been a long-time proponent of principle/precedent-driven anti-trust enforcement under the law. I truly believe that real competition is good and that real, legally-determined monopolization is bad.
Any principled antitrust analysis of the XM-Sirius merger will find this merger quite quickly to be a "no-brainer" decision -- that it is anti-competitive and illegal under long time anti-trust precedent and competition policy.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-03-30 17:05
Business Week's cover story is: "Is Google too Powerful?" is exactly the question a major publication that thinks ahead should be asking.
Business Week has done everyone a favor in posing this cover question because it will get folks looking at Google in a new way -- as the dominant antitrust concern of the market place in the decade ahead, like Microsoft was in the 1990's, AT&T was in the late 1970s/early 1980s and IBM was in the 1950s.
Mark my words, the words "Google" and "antitrust" will be heard much more frequently together -- in the years ahead -- as Google has gone from 35% to 50% market share today in a couple of years and is on path inexorably towards 60-70% share in the next few years.
While it is clearly debatable if Google is too powerful today...
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-03-29 18:44
I sincerely hope that everyone who cares substantively about the net neutrality issue, on either side of the debate, reads the new 2-1/2 page "Economists' Statement on Network Neutrality Policy" by the AEI-Brookings oint Center for Regulatory Studies.
We are still waiting to read a cogent, well-reasoned and supported piece of work that supports the policy of Net neutrality. All we have gotten is assertions, hypotheticals --virtually no facts or analysis from the other side.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-03-29 11:21
The NYT lead business article on Google entering radio advertising, "The Ad Search, Offline" is a shining example of the theme in my recent blog "Google-YouTube: What's really going on."
I got the "fox in the henhouse" title for this blog from the last quote in the NYT article:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-03-29 09:16
Hal Singer of Criterion Economics has a very good commentary today in Canada's Financial Post called "Not Neutrality."
Hal is a very clear thinker and anyone who quotes Milton Friedman in a supportive way is alright by me.
One passage of Hal's commentary really hits the nail on the head about how insidious net neutrality is:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-03-28 11:18
The latest research data from CTIA has some eyepopping big numbers on how much U.S. wireless providers are investing in wireless and broadband wireless competitive facilities.
Those NN proponents who dismiss that broadband is a competitive market and only getting more so, continually ignore the overwhelming facts available.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-03-27 19:15
The Future of Music has created a supposed new "coalition" "Rock the Net" to promote net neutrality by banding together music groups who have been suckered into fearing that the Internet will somehow be taken away from them -- without net neutrality legislation.
This is not about policy or legislation.
This is a cheap publicity stunt.
"Rock the net" is basically a bad "lip synching performance" by music groups singing liberal Moveon.org's pre-canned song.
"Lip synching" is the perfect metaphor for the supposed net neutrality grass roots "movement" overall.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-03-27 18:16
Google-YouTube like to spin that the billion-dollar copyright law suit from Viacom and the new online venture by NBC-Newscorp is just about "negotiating."
What's really going on is Google-YouTube is trying to disintermediate all video content and network companies.
Make no mistake. Google already has built the largest "audience" of any "network" in the world -- ever.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-03-27 08:24
The most relevant part of the FCC launching a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) into the net neutality issue was FCC Bureau Chief Tom Navin testifying that no one has formally complained about blocking and no one has formally petitioned the FCC on the matter.
The FCC is launching an NOI to cut through the hysteria and misdirection and finally get the facts on the record.
While I don't think this bogus and completely unsubstantiated issue is even worthy of an NOI, I can understand why the FCC would want to launch an NOI to ensure that no one can say the FCC is not taking this issue seriously.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-03-26 16:32
An article in the Register on the first significant NN debate in the UK is a wonderful read.
It is always helpful to get the reaction of an outside perspective to cut to the quick of an issue.
I reccommend reading the whole article.