You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-11-16 14:21
The WSJ article today: “Google has even bigger plans for mobile phones” appropriately addresses the big “open” question of whether Google is serious about becoming a wireless carrier, because if it is, it will need to bid and win substantial spectrum in the upcoming FCC 700 MHz spectrum auction.
The WSJ article states: “the behind-the-scenes moves illustrate just how serious the Internet giant is about trying to reshape the wireless world.” The evidence in favor of Google’s serious entry into wireless is significant, as Google:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-11-15 10:59
Ironically, just as the EU is gearing up to conduct an "in-depth investigation" of the Google-DoubleClick merger, the FTC investigation is apparently wrapping up with a whimper. What accounts for this divergence in approaches to this merger review?
The first and obvious explanation is differences in the process and timing.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-11-13 20:26
EU antitrust authorities have launched a rare "in-depth investigation" of the Google-DoubleClick merger. What does this action mean?
First, in calling Google and DoubleClick "the leading providers" respectively of online advertising/intermediation services and ad serving technology, the EU has tipped its hand in its assessment of a central fact in the investigation that it views these two companies as #1 in the world in their specialties. This obviously troubles Google as they have portrayed DoubleClick as a minor player because of its smaller revenue base in the $300m range. The EU obviously did not buy that Google spin.
Second, the EU rejected Google's blanket assertion that "the parties' activities do not overlap" which is Google's fancy way of saying Google and DoubleClick are not competitors. Well the EU pointedly rejected that Google assertion of fact in stating: "The Commisssion will, in particular, investigate whether without this transaction, DoubleClick would have grown into an effective competitor of Google in the market for online ad intermediation." The obvious implication of this statement is that the EU does see Google and DoubleClick as competitors. And it has framed the question in a way that must trouble Google, which is that they are analyzing the merger through the lens of how competition would develop without this merger. hmmm
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-11-12 13:37
I thought you might enjoy the latest evidence that Googlers think of themselves as special, better than the rest of us, a form of American nobility, the elite of the elite.
From the recent Newsweek article: "Google goes globe-trotting":
This Newsweek article preceded the precious front page New York Times story of today: "Google Options Make Masseusse a Multi-Millionaire."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-11-08 13:22
If Professor Tim Wu is the "Father" of net neutrality, since he named the issue in 2002, I guess Gigi Sohn can be called the "Mother" of net neutrality because in 2002 her organization, Public Knowledge, birthed the original political manifesto on this type of thinking: "Saving the Information Commons."
Yesterday Ms. Sohn, the Mother of net neutrality, participated in a conference call for left-leaning bloggers to indoctrinate them into the right and wrong way to blog about FreePress/Public Knowledge's petition to the FCC on Comcast's network management.
Ted Hearn of MultiChannel News had a great story on this: "Sohn to bloggers: target Inouye"
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-11-07 19:02
I was very impressed with Ohio State law Professor Peter Swire's insightful analysis of why, in the context of the FTC antitrust review of the Google-DoubleClick merger, privacy harms are relevant to the traditional antitrust analysis.
In my Googleopoly analysis and my Senate Judiciary Subcommittee testimony on the Google-DoubleClick merger, I viewed the massive aggregation of customer clickstream data to be highly anti-competitive as it would create a tipping point and unsurmountable barriers for others to compete.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-11-06 16:53
The American Antitrust Institute, an independent non-profit advocacy organization just released its white paper:
Like my Googleopoly analysis from this July and my Senate Judiciary Subcommittee testimony in October, the aai concludes that Google and DoubleClick are indeed direct competitors and that: "the merger presents a relatively straightforward case for challenge under the horizontal and non-horizontal merger guidelines."
Bottom line: This merger obviously raises serious anti-competitive issues and I continue to believe it should be blocked, but that does not mean that I still think it will be blocked by the FTC -- I no longer do.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-11-05 17:27
First, the petitioners ignore the reason the FCC exists in the first place -- the absolute necessity for some network management in order for communications systems to function as needed.
Second, the petitioners ignore that "reasonable network management" of communications is directly analogous to reasonable traffic management of our roadways.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-11-05 10:59
Tim Wu, the "father of net neutrality" because he made up the term a few years back, was surprisingly candid in a CNET article that: "the whole net neutrality issue is really about a power struggle."
I also found another candid quote by the Moveon.org/FreePress folks that also tells us what they are up to:
Bogus petition against Comcast's reasonable network management is a back door ploy to reinstate common carriage for broadbandSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-11-02 08:15
The Moveon.org/FreePress petition to the FCC to declare Comcast's reasonable network management illegal, is a deceptive back-door scheme to reverse FCC deregulation of broadband as an information service and to (de facto) reinstate common carriage for broadband.
First, if managing out-of-control p2p traffic that is degrading and impairing the responsiveness and utility of the Internet for the many by the few is not "reasonable network management" then no network management is reasonable.