You are here
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.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-11-01 10:01
The American Consumer Institute did some more great work on the importance and impact of broadband. Kudos!
The summary table on page 48 encapsulates the study's findings well.
Why is net neutrality not Green?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-10-31 10:56
The unanimous passage of a new seven-year Internet Tax Moratorium, is powerful evidence of how far out of the political mainstream the net neutrality movement is.
Sound mainstream policies can attract near unanimity in Congress -- despite rampant partisanship.
If net neutrality was truly a long-standing "principle" of the Internet, like its proponents have claimed, it would attract strong political consensus.
Guardian reports: "Google Earth used to target Israel" with attacks -- Google's increasing liability...Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-10-29 18:20
The British paper, The Guardian, reported recently that: "Google Earth used to target Israel."
What is really scary about this coverage is the chillingly "open" video by the Guardian next to the written story that shows (about two-thirds of the way through the 4 minute video) how the "Palestinian militant" actually targets rocket attacks on Israel using Google Earth -- ostensibly to try and terrorize, kill and maim Israelis within Israel.
In another similar high profile problem, Google Earth was also careless in releasing restricted photos of the White House roof on Google Earth.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-10-29 10:24
I think I see the beginning of a backlash trend against those advocating unfettered "openness" on the Internet.
According to the Columbus Dispatch, the Ohio Fraternal Order of Police is pushing for legislation to limit the availability of police and firefighters' property records to anyone on the Internet.
I'll be surprised if their isn't a growing number of people, from all walks of life, who will want to protect their privacy/safety and be able to remove some of their information from public view on the Internet.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-10-25 18:03
With all due respect to all the folks I read often at Business Week, I have to challenge the thinking behind Stephen Wildstrom's column in Business Week where he shares that he switched his year-long position opposing new net regulation, largely because of Verizon's admitted mistake in delaying by one-day a text messaging approval code to NARAL.
After Verizon and the rest of the industry have handled literally billions upon billions of communications for years without significant similar incidents, one company makes an admitted mistake, takes full responsibility, immediately fixes it, changes its procedures so it won't happen again, -- and Mr Wildstrom's answer is to now throw the common-carrier regulatory book at Verizon and the whole industry?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-10-25 16:04
The plot thickens. Robert Cox of The Examiner has produced another must-read piece uncovering much more detail of the closeness of the Google-Moveon.org relationship: "New questions raised on Google, Moveon.org relationship."
What's new and fresh in this piece is the very detailed timeline that connects-the-dots of all of the coverage to assemble a compelling chonology that shows how Google did not follow its own policies and procedures, or even trademark law and practice, in order to censor other's free speech that would be critical of their close political ally Moveon.org.