Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2014-03-10 14:06
With due credit to "Ripley's Believe it or Not!®," so much odd and bizarre is happening in Washington in the "name" of "U.S. wireless competition criticism” that the topic calls for its own collection of: "Believe it or Not!®" oddities.
Softbank’s CEO Masayoshi Son, who bought Sprint for $21b in 2013 with public plans “to become the #1 company in the world,” tells U.S. regulators just eight months after he bought Sprint, that Softbank-Sprint cannot compete with either of America’s #1 and #2 wireless providers, Verizon and AT&T, unless Softbank can buy America’s #4 wireless provider -- T-Mobile!
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2014-03-05 14:33
As the dust has settled from the D.C. Circuit’s January 14thdecision to vacate and remand the FCC Open Internet Order for another try, and from FCC Chairman Wheeler’s February 19thstatement accepting the court’s invitation to propose open Internet rules that could pass court muster, what does it all this mean going forward?
First, we need to glean the key separate baseline takeaways from what the court ruled and also what Chairman Wheeler initially decided. Then we need to put them together to glean what the big going-forward takeaways are.
Court Decision Takeaways
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2014-02-27 16:51
To: All State Legislators, State Attorneys General, and State/Local Police Chiefs
In Reuter’s article, “Google Sets Roadblocks to Stop Distracted Driver Legislation,” we learn “Google is lobbying officials in at least three U.S. States to stop proposed restrictions on driving with headsets such as Google Glass.”
As your States carefully consider the potential safety repercussions of a rapidly increasing number of drivers using Google Glass on your State’s roads in the years ahead, it is in the public interest to be keenly aware of two important facts.
Why Google Glass is the Epitome of Distracted Driving
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2014-02-25 17:55
How come the company whose success depends entirely on the public being open, transparent and trusting towards Google, is so closed, secretive and distrusting toward the public?
How come the company with a mission to make the world’s information universally accessible, goes to such extraordinary lengths to cover up evidence in legal documents in public proceedings?
European media could learn an important lesson from their American media brethren about confronting Google’s extensive cover up of the evidence of their wrongdoing in legal proceedings.
In Europe, there was surprisingly little media pushback initially when Google and EC Vice President Joaquin Almunia first proclaimed a secret settlement of charges of Google’s abuse of its search dominance.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2014-02-24 14:53
Please see my latest Daily Caller op-ed: “The Narrowing Net Neutrality Dispute.”
It is Part 24 of my Broadband Internet Pricing Freedom Series.
Broadband Internet Pricing Freedom Series
Part 1: Netflix' Glass House Temper Tantrum Over Broadband Usage Fees [7-26-11]
Part 2: Netflix' Uneconomics [9-6-11]
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2014-02-19 16:51
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2014-02-19 10:27
Anyone interested in broadband policy should not miss the excellent new research of Roslyn Layton, an AEI Internet economist, who has studied European broadband progress as compared to America’s.
Let me flag two big research takeaways that should not be missed.
These findings affirm the wisdom of America’s market-led broadband policy that encourages facilities-based broadband competition over the EU’s lagging, common carrier, monopoly-unbundling, approach to broadband.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Sun, 2014-02-16 16:34
Dear European Commission Official,
The sovereign problems with the proposed Google-EC settlement are that it:
Simply it represents an unwarranted special EC pardon for Google’s illegal 90% search/search advertising dominance and its many illegal abuses of dominance.
Moreover, it is not in the EC’s interests to prematurely shut down the Google search investigation for the convenience of just one EC Directorate’s artificial timetable, when that would undermine the ongoing investigation of additional allegations of Google abuses of its search dominance, like Google search-Android tying, and when it would undermine the good efforts of other EC Directorates trying to get Google to be accountable to EU data protection, tax, copyright, patent, and other laws.
Making matters worse, the proposed settlement would have no deterrent capability to prevent more Google abuses of its dominance in the future. That’s because allowing Google to publicly claim it has done nothing wrong, when it has per the draft Statement of Objections, shields Google from the only thing Google cares about – potential harm to Google’s brand reputation with its users.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2014-02-13 16:27
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 13, 2014
Contact: Scott Cleland 703-217-2407
The Comcast-Time Warner Cable Merger is Pro-competitive,
The Communications Marketplace Has Never Been More Competitive,
And American Consumers Have Never Had More Communications Choices
Mobile & Cloud Competition & Innovation are Dynamically Changing Communications
WASHINGTON D.C. – The following quotes on the announcement of the Comcast-Time-Warner Cable merger may be attributed to Scott Cleland, Chairman of NetCompetition:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2014-02-12 12:23
For those interested in municipal broadband overbuilds and their effect on competition, please read my latest Daily Caller op-ed: “Government Broadband Overbuilds Are Anticompetitive.”
Big GoverNet research series:
Part 1: Cities learning there is no wireless “free lunch” [9-20-07]
Part 2: Why the Australian “Fiber Mae” Broadband Model Doesn’t Work for the U.S. [5-13-09]
Part 3: Why Broadband is not a Public Utility [8-21-09]