You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-09-27 09:44
Senator Kerry's recent echoing of the call for a "National Broadband Strategy" by House Telecom Chairman Markey and FCC Commissioner Copps -- is really a slick coordinated bicameral campaign to reverse current national communications competition policy and replace it with a Government industrial policy.
Calling for a "National Broadband Strategy" implies we don't have one when we do -- and it is the law of the land -- the 1996 Telecom Act -- and it was supported by over 95% of Democrats and Republicans when it passed during the Clinton administration -- and by the way it is working.
What's wrong with that national broadband strategy?
What's wrong with the progress and achievement of that strategy to date?
Lets review the facts, not the spin that those promoting a new industrial policy cannot support with facts.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-09-26 10:18
Art Brodsky of Public Knowledge comes to Google's defense in an extensive broadside attack on my credibility and integrity because I have the gall to stand up to one of his patrons -- Google -- by testifying tomorrow at the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust -- where I will show in great detail why the Google-DoubleClick merger is anti-competitive and why I recommend that it should be blocked by the FTC. Stay tuned.
Mr. Brodsky is not the first person to come after me for my provocative forward-thinking and unconventional views, nor will he be the last.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-09-25 11:40
Open Left, a close ally of Moveon.org, is unabashedly bragging about how it has successfully manipulated Google search results, with the intent to manipulate the Presidential general election, with its "Google-bombing" campaign of Republican Rudy Guliani.
This is far from the first time Google has enabled "Google-bombing".
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-09-25 10:59
A new antitrust analysis by leading academics in the field provides some very relevant and eyebrow-raising new third-party survey data that appears to debunk Google's main defense of the DoubleClick acquisition: that Google and DoubleClick are not competitors.
For those following this merger review closely, this study is a must read:
Why is this study important?
Great FT article on Google provides more evidence of Google's cultural aversion to internal controlsSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-09-21 13:30
Richard Waters of the FT produced a very insightful and newsy article on how Google reportedly passed on buying DoubleClick two years earlier over internal concerns about how that alignment of businesses could clash with Google's famed "don't be evil' highmindedness.
My big takeaway from this article was an undercurrent of Google's struggle over internal controls to ensure Google's "ethics" are carried out in practice.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-09-21 11:38
Reed Hundt's Frontline Wireless is proposing more changes to the FCC's 700 MHz auction rules upon reconsiderataion -- so watch your wallet!
Per today's Comm Daily:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-09-20 10:59
The New York Times (and others) reported yesterday Google's announcement that it was launching a "Gadget ads" program which is essentially display-ad-serving to "widgets' which are essentially "mini-websites" within websites.
It is getting harder and harder for Google antitrust lawyers to argue with a straight face that Google does not compete in the market of "display-ad-serving" with DoubleClick.
Antitrust officials should ask Google if they are colluding with DoubleClick to not compete while the merger is pending.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-09-20 10:20
It seems the "pixie dust" of "free" municipal wifi isn't so "magical" after all.
To quote one of my conservative heroes, the late great Milton Friedman, "there is no free lunch."
Bottomline: What I hope cities take away from this painful lesson is what they were taught when they were young: "if it looks too good to be true, it is."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-09-18 19:02
So what are the implications of Microsoft losing its antitrust appeal in the EU's Appeals court -- which was a page one story in all the major papers?
More and different than most may think.
The EU is signalling in it's harsh treatment of Microsoft, that the EU is going to be tough on "dominant" firms.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-09-18 10:56
The New York Times has twin articles today that provide fresh additional evidence of why the Google-DoubleClick merger is anticompetitive: "Google to sell Webpage ads on Mobile phones" and "Times stops charging for parts of its website."
The first article is yet more compelling evidence that Google's main merger defense -- that Google and DoubleClick don't compete in serving ads -- is simply bogus.