You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2010-01-04 18:16
FreePress, which philosophically opposes competition policy, effectively is mocking antitrust law and authorities by cynically feigning to care about antitrust and competition in calling for an antitrust investigation of "TV Everywhere" efforts to enable authenticated paying video customers the additional convenience of accessing their paid-for content on any device at no extra cost.
In their own words, FreePress is anti-competition, anti-property, and anti-business.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2009-12-14 13:54
Recent revelations indicate that the seriousness of the FTC's antitrust investigation of Google's proposed acquisition of AdMob will be ramping up.
Only eight months ago, Google CEO Eric Schmidt claimed Google and Apple were not "primary competitors" when a shareholder asked Mr. Schmidt to step down from Apple's board, because of an FTC antitrust investigation of Google for engaging in anti-competitive interlocking directorates per an AP story.
While everyone is distracted by the front-page news of Google launching its own Google-manufactured smartphone called Nexus One, what I find most interesting is that Google outbid Apple for AdMob by paying an exceptionally-high "multiple of up to ~16.7 times sales, the sort of price rarely seen in takeover deals since the heady days of the dot-com boom" per Reuters reports.
The Wall Street Journal also reported some very interesting new information/insights relevant to the FTC's Google-AdMob investigation:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2009-11-09 12:03
To see "smoking gun" proof that "net neutrality" is a made-up issue and argument, read the short but telling excerpt below from George Lakoff's Book: "Thinking Points" published October 3, 2006, when the only net neutrality incident at that time was the FCC's Consent Decree with rural telco, Madison River Communications in February 2005.
From Thinking Points, Chapter 8, The Art of Arguments:
"Thus, the argument for Net neutrality becomes an argument for government regulation in this form by the FCC.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2009-10-29 09:51
In a nutshell, Google basically asserted that it is acceptable for a benevolent provider of free services like Google Claus to discriminate and block calls as an information service voice provider, but it is unaccceptable for profit-seeking broadband voice and information service providers to discriminate or block calls.
Open Un-Neutrality – Will FCC Re-Distribute Internet Opportunity? For Consumers? Businesses? Investors?Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2009-10-19 10:46
In effectively reversing fifteen-year bipartisan U.S. communications policy from promoting competition and reducing regulation to promoting regulation and reducing competition, the FCC’s coming “Open Internet” regulations are anything but neutral; they pick sides and strongly skew outcomes.
FCC's concluding market power in the wrong place; See great ACI analysis: Broadband vs Internet profitsSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2009-10-08 13:01
Given that the apparent justification for new formal net neutrality rules is that fifteen-year policy has failed and that the market is unable to ensure consumer choice, the FCC will need to justify with facts that broadband providers indeed have market power to exercise anti-competitively.
Kudos to Larry Darby of the American Consumer Institute for his excellent and illuminating comparative financial analysis of the market power and profits of broadband companies vs. Internet companies. From his post:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2009-09-24 10:27
What an "Open Internet" does not mean is as important as what it does mean.
The word "open" has 88 different definitions per Dictionary.com and the word "open" has even more different connotations depending on the context. While the term "open" generally has a positive connotation to mean un-restricted, accessible and available, it can also have a negative or problematic connotation if it means unprotected, unguarded or vulnerable to attack.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2009-09-18 11:05
With due to credit to "Ripley's Believe it or Not!®," so much odd and bizarre is happening in Washington in the "name" of "wireless innovation" and competition that the topic calls for its own collection of: "Believe it or Not!®" oddities.
Skype co-founder Niklas Zennstom, the co-founder of illegal-music-downloading site Kazaa, who had to avoid entering the U.S. because of copyright-infringement liability... is now seeking a U.S. court injunction to shut down eBay's Skype for alleged copyright violations!
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2009-09-15 09:26
George Ou's good post yesterday on "Being Rational on Text Pricing" rightly takes to task the complaint that text messaging should be priced at marginal costs and ignore total costs, upgrade costs, or competition. It also prompts me to join in to address the issue.
Lets get to the quick here.
The folks arguing for text pricing to be based on marginal costs are trying to politically redefine traditional economics in the datatopian Chris Anderson vision of the "economics of abundance" -- that because the marginal cost of computer processing, storage, and bandwidth are getting increasingly small -- the price should be free!
Does anyone think that the infrastructure that enables the instantaneous reliable delivery of roughly a billion text messages every day wherever one happens to be -- costs basically nothing to pull off and thus should be free?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2009-09-07 23:19
The New York Times' editorial board seems stuck in a time 1992 time warp in its "Competition in Cable TV" editorial that nonsensically disagrees with the DC Appeals Court for having the good sense to see what everyone can see -- that there is very active competition for video service in the U.S.
The New York Times acts like it is still 1992, that since then nothing has happened, and that the 1992 Cable Act and the 1996 Telecom Act didn't succeed wildly in promoting competition.
Thank goodness the DC Court of Appeals considers facts and is in touch with the reality of "Competition in Cable TV."
And that's not competition?!
It seems like The New York Times editorial board needs to get out and about more, a lot has changed since 1992 when they apparently last went outside.