You are here
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 Fri, 2009-08-14 18:24
Why is Google's "bogus" claim bogus?
First, does Google think for a minute that antitrust enforcers' investigations have not assembled substantial evidence/quotes from Google itself about the importance of scale in search?
Where else will a viable competitive alternative to Google come from, if not from a Yahoo-Microsoft deal?Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2009-07-29 12:29
The core question at the heart of the DOJ's review of the proposed Yahoo-Microsoft search partnership is where else will competition to Google's increasing dominance come from, if not from the proposed Yahoo-Microsoft search partnership?
The DOJ has deep and current expertise in this market given their investigation of the Google-Yahoo ad partnership last fall and DOJ's current investigation of the Google Book Settlement. The DOJ also appreciates the facts that:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2009-07-21 20:53
It is relevant, interesting, and instructive to analyze what has happened since the DOJ's 11-05-09 action, and since the economic downturn, given that the DOJ concluded Google and Yahoo commanded 90% and 95% market shares at that time.
This relative revenue share transfer analysis is straight-forward.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2009-07-02 20:37
An unusual and notable pattern appears to be developing with Google and DOJ antitrust enforcers.
This is the second formal agreement in less than a year that Google has negotiated and drafted that has "crossed the line" prompting DOJ antitrust officials to have to formally and publicly investigate.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2009-07-02 17:03
The new industry-proposed "Self-Regulatory Principles for Behavioral Advertising" which Google publicly patted themselves on the back for today, conveniently do not apply to most all of Google's current advertising business.
As a big proponent of responsible self-regulation, I am disappointed when self-regulation is given a bad name when industry leaders badly game the system by conveniently self-defining themselves, for the most part, from being subject to much of the new self-regulatory guidelines.
Why am I pointing out this arbitrage of privacy laws?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2009-04-21 19:20
Yahoo's announced earnings confirm that Google continues to take substantial search advertising revenue and profit share in the first full quarter of financial results since the DOJ blocked the Google-Yahoo Ad Partnership as anti-competitive.
Google's dominance of search advertising profit share is even greater than that of revenues because historically the only other publicly-traded search advertising players with significant search advertising revenues: Microsoft, AOL, and IAC/Ask.com all consistently lose money in this search advertising segment.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2009-02-25 19:13
The recession has created new urgency for multiple content industries to find a better way to protect and monetize their property/content in the digital world. The dotcom bubble ethos that “information wants to be free” is like a gross mold destroying the incentives to create and distribute valuable content digitally. (Be sure not to miss the shocking analysis at the end of this post comparing revenue generation per user in the digital "ecommony" versus the real economy.)
The first point of this post is to connect-the-dots why several content industries are currently in the news actively pushing back against the "ecommony" anti-business model, where content owners are expected to effectively give away their valuable content to the open Internet/digital commons without the requirement of permission or payment.
The first broad and serious counter-movement by business may be in the offing to ensure that valuable content is indeed paid for when distributed digitally. Serious financial and business risk is driving creative thinking about how to better protect and monetize valuable content digitally.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2009-02-16 20:03
The FTC staff's revised behavioral advertising principles make it clear that the FTC understands the Internet’s growing privacy-publicacy fault-line. The FTC’s new guidelines are all about tackling the growing problem of unauthorized publicacy – meaning the tracking, collecting and “mashing-up” of information consumers reasonably expected to be kept private. (“Publicacy” is the opposite of privacy.)
Why are the FTC’s new guidelines a much bigger deal than most appreciate?
First, the new guidelines put a new and brighter privacy regulatory spotlight on Google, the world’s dominant behavioral-advertiser, and to a lesser extent, Yahoo, Google’s distant #2 competitor.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2008-12-23 16:24
The content and applications industries have yet to connect-the-dots of the U.S. Department of Justice concluding search advertising is a monopoly and that Google has pro-actively sought to further its monopoly in search advertising and search advertising syndication.
Simply, if the DOJ believes Google is a monopoly, then it follows that DOJ would believe it is illegal under antitrust law for Google to proactively disadvantage its competitors’ content/applications by favoring Google-owned content/applications over competitors’ content/applications on Google’s search advertising monopoly platform.