You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2008-02-14 12:07
Given the flurry of comments to the FCC on the FreePress petition on Comcast's network management due yesterday, I produced a new NetCompetition one-pager on Net Neutrality vs. Reasonable Network Management. I find the one-page format is useful to crystalize my thinking and boil my thoughts down most succinctly.
The primary conclusions in the one pager are:
For those who don't want to use the one-page format or link above, I have copied the full text below:
Net Neutrality vs. Reasonable Network Management Net Neutrality has an inherent bias against network management.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2008-02-13 12:18
For Immediate Release
Contact: Scott Cleland
February 13, 2008
202-828-7800 Markey Net Neutrality Bill is “Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing”
WASHINGTON – Scott Cleland, chairman of NetCompetition.org, today released the following statement regarding Representative Ed Markey’s proposed net neutrality bill:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2008-02-13 00:01
The long-awaited new Net Neutrality bill is finally coming out from House Telecom Subcommittee Chairman Ed Markey and Rep. Chip Pickering -- it's now called "The Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008."
After reviewing the draft version circulating among the media this evening, here are my initial takeaways on the new proposed legislation.
First, the proposed legislation attempts to rebrand the controversial "net neutrality" issue as "Internet Freedom" and "broadband policy."
Second, the bill's primary purpose is a bold attempt to reverse longstanding United States broadband policy by amending Title I of the 1934 Communications Act. This Markey bill would:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2008-02-11 17:21
In reading most all the major press reports on the Microsoft-Yahoo bid, there has been plenty of reporting on the personalities, the price and the process, but precious little analysis of the core assumption whether Yahoo truly has a credible alternative strategic option -- in outsourcing its search to Google.
Would antitrust officials allow Yahoo to outsource its search function to Google? Highly unlikely.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2008-02-08 18:45
The ascension of Google's CEO Eric Schmidt to Chairman of the the Board of the New America Foundation puts a helpful spotlight on Google's activist agenda in Washington and the cozy relationship between Google and the New America Foundation.
It's important to note that the New America Foundation is one of the two organizational parents of the "information commons" movement -- in that it coauthor-ed the "Saving the Information Commons" manifesto in 2002 with Public Knowlege, which laid the policy groundwork for a more communal Internet, where Internet infrastructure and digital content are supposed to be "open" "commons" or communally-owned by everyone.
Google is one of the biggest proponents of this "open Internet" ideology where "open" is a codeword for "communal." The Information commons movement has conveniently defined the Internet commons as the property of others that they don't think that they should have to pay for ... e.g. communications companies' networks and content companies' content. (They conveniently have excluded Google from the commons obligation, apparently as long as Google preaches "openness" for everyone else...)
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2008-02-07 12:04
Kudos to Kim Hart's dead-on insights in her Washington Post article: "Some Businesses at Mercy of Google See Hope in Bid."
Well said. Enough said.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2008-02-06 19:09
Since the beginning of the year, Google's stock has fallen over 25% -- about 2-3 times the fall of the relevant indexes.
Why is Google its own worst enemy?
First, Google routinely alienates its friends and allies.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2008-02-04 17:12
Google must have been caught off guard last week by the Microsoft-Yahoo bid because they are reacting quite rashly and arguably in a way that is not in the best interests of their shareholders...
First, is it wise for Google to be proactively and angrily "kicking the antitrust bee hive" in the U.S. and in Europe when their DoubleClick acquisition is still pending with EU regulators?
Second, in leading the charge against Microsoft-Yahoo in Washington, has it occurred to any adult in Mountain View that this will only accelerate Washington interest and attention to adopt the FTC's (5-0) proposed behavioral advertising privacy principles/regulation, which would require opt-in and "affirmative express consent" before Google could use "sensitive data."?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2008-02-01 14:39
After last quarter's earnings report by Google, I questioned whether Google was more interested in "empire building" spending than in rewarding shareholders (see point three of this previous post.)
What blew away the "momentum pixie dust" surrounding Google's stock? At least for the time being?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2008-02-01 12:48
I can't say I'm at all surprised to see Microsoft seek to acquire Yahoo.