You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-09-06 15:16
It is never a good omen for a merger's approval outlook, when EU antitrust authorities can't wait to investigate the impact of the merger and proactively inititiate their own antitrust investigation -- before their official process even gets started.
Google's antitrust lawyers have to be bummed by the development reported by Reuters that: "EU questions customers over Google-DoubleClick deal."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-09-06 13:02
The Financial Times had a noteworthy article about Google's role as an editor of content and defender of free speech -- when Google finds it convenient: "Thailand lifts Youtube ban after Google agrees to block some clips."
This article is an interesting juxtaposition to Google CEO Eric Schmidt's very recent comments on the importance of free speech at a speech before the Progress and Freedom Foundation.
The FT article is a good opportunity to review if Google's actions support Google's rhetoric when it comes to Google defending free speech...
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-09-05 18:38
A major reason why the stakes are so high in the FTC's review of the Google-DoubleClick merger is how remarkably fast online advertising is overtaking other advertising industry segments that have been around for decades.
An important development occurred just before the long Labor day weekend that I didn't want people to miss. Media Daily News reported that: "Internet displaces radio as fourth largest ad medium."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-09-04 18:06
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-08-31 16:22
I always enjoy reading the Britain-based Economist's take on things American because they bring a detached, across-the-pond, critical perspective that often is very illuminating.
Relevant to Google-DoubleClick merger:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-08-30 13:09
The recent front page Washington Post article: "Japan's warp-speed ride to Internet's future" made one interesting point:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-08-30 12:31
Kudos to the Wall Street Journal editorial page for the editorial "A Wireless Bounty" highlighting that US wireless competition is robust, better than the rest of the world, and does not need government intervention to fix non-existent problems.
It is essential for the truth to be trumpeted in the mainstream media, because those who favor more government regulation of communications markets will fabricate all sorts of false notions to justify the creation of a "bureaucrat-net."
Those advocating wireless net neutrality have systematically misrepresented the state of US wireless competition and the benefits US consumers enjoy from that world leading competitive market.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-08-29 18:50
Google openly represents its value in the marketplace as supplying users with "free" services: free search, free email, free docs/spreadsheet/other applications, free content, etc.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-08-29 10:13
The Washington Post's editors should have been more forthright and put a "news analysis" label on their front page story today "Japan's warp-speed ride to Internet future." If the Post had put the "news analysis label on the story, I would not be writing this critical analysis on why the story was not news but a thinly-disguised advocacy piece for net neutrality masquerading as news or straightforward unbiased reporting.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-08-28 10:58
The Progress and Freedom Foundation wisely hosted an outstanding and noteworthy presentation by Harvard Constitutional Law expert and scholar about how net neutrality violates the U.S. Constitution's first amendment protection of free speech.
The supreme relevance of this presentation is to debunk that net neutrality is "Internet freedom."
Not only is net neutrality trying to address a bogus non-existent "problem," it is a bogus policy concept, because in part it fundamentally misrepresents itself as "Internet freedom" when it is exactly the opposite.