DOJ Rejects Broadband Market Failure Thesis

January 10, 2010 | Filed Under Budget, Business, Capitalism, Congress, Economy/Finances, Free Trade, Freedom, Google, Government, Corruption, Inernet, Jobs, Liberals, Net Neutrality, Scott Cleland, Socialism, Society/Culture, Taxes, Technology | Comments Off

-By Scott Cleland

In a filing to the FCC on the National Broadband Plan, the DOJ Antitrust Division, the U.S Government’s leading expert in assessing the state of competition in communications markets, implicitly rejected net neutrality proponents’ core thesis of broadband market failure.

This DOJ filing, which represents the most recent U.S. Government expert assessment of broadband competition, could make it extremely difficult for the FCC to legitimately conclude in the coming months the factual opposite — broadband market failure.

Without a sound factual finding of broadband market failure, it also could be extremely difficult for the FCC to legally justify preemptively mandating common-carrier-like regulations on un-regulated broadband information service providers in the FCC’s pending open Internet proceeding.

Let’s review the DOJ’s core broadband competitive conclusions, which are relevant to the alleged broadband market failure thesis and the FCC’s open Internet proceeding.
Read more

Google’s Open Double Standard: Fact-Checking Google’s Treatise on “The meaning of open”

December 27, 2009 | Filed Under Budget, Business, Capitalism, Computers, Democrats/Leftists, Economy/Finances, Google, Government, Corruption, Inernet, Liberals, Net Neutrality, Scott Cleland, Technology | Comments Off

-By Scott Cleland

Google posted its treatise on “The meaning of open” designed to redefine the word “open” in Google’s image. It is an important read because it is a bay window view into the altruistic way that Google yearns for the world to perceive it.

Like most all of Google’s PR, however, Google’s Treatise on “The meaning of open” may be “the truth” as Google sees it, but it is certainly not “the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”

I. Google’s Open Double Standard

Simply, Google is for “open” wherever it does not have a monopoly or dominant market position, however where it does, as in AdWords, AdSense and search advertising syndication, it is closed, to ensure that its dominance remains impregnable to competitors.
Read more

Googleopoly V — Why the FTC Should Block Google-AdMob

December 22, 2009 | Filed Under Budget, Business, Capitalism, Communism, Computers, Congress, Democrats/Leftists, Economy/Finances, Google, Government, Corruption, Inernet, Liberals, Scott Cleland, Society/Culture, Taxes, Technology | Comments Off

-By Scott Cleland

Below is the abstract of the latest white paper in my five-part “Googleopoly” series of antitrust white papers. The full white paper is at this link and at www.googleopoly.net.

Googleopoly V* — Why the FTC Should Block Google-AdMob

The Top Ten Reasons Why Google-AdMob Would “Substantially Lessen Competition”

Abstract: A Google acquisition of AdMob would eliminate Google’s only substantial rival platform in mobile in-application advertising and catapult Google from an estimated 25% share to over 75% share of this strategic gatekeeper market for monetizing mobile Internet applications. Combined with Google’s search advertising monopoly and dominance of mobile search advertising, Google’s acquisition of AdMob, “the world’s largest mobile advertising marketplace,” would likely tip the broader mobile advertising marketplace from a competitive to a monopoly trajectory. In short, the AdMob acquisition threatens to foreclose competition and facilitate monopoly in a strategic gatekeeper market essential to the Internet economy, which would harm: consumers, developers, advertisers, publishers, smart-phone manufacturers, and broadband providers.
Read more

Why Google is a Monopoly — Presenting the Case before the Federalist Society

December 9, 2009 | Filed Under Budget, Business, Capitalism, Democrats/Leftists, Economy/Finances, Free Trade, Freedom, Government, Corruption, Liberals, Scott Cleland, Society/Culture, Taxes | Comments Off

-By Scott Cleland

Federalist Society Forum:

“Is Google Monopolizing Something and If So What?”

National Press Club, Washington D.C., December 7, 2009
Remarks of Scott Cleland, President of Precursor LLC

Thank you for the opportunity to make the case that Google is: A monopoly and a digital information distribution bottleneck; andiIs engaged in pervasive, predatory, anti-competitive behavior that is seriously harming competition, the quality and choice of information, and consumers.

I believe it is not if, but when, the DOJ will be compelled by the facts and the harms to competition to file a Sherman Section 2 monopolization case against Google.

I will make four points in my opening remarks.
Read more

Critical Gaps in FCC’s Proposed Open Internet Regulations

December 3, 2009 | Filed Under Budget, Business, Capitalism, Computers, Democrats/Leftists, Free Trade, Google, Government, Corruption, Inernet, Liberals, Net Neutrality, Scott Cleland, Society/Culture, Technology | Comments Off

-By Scott Cleland

Like the FCC’s National Broadband Plan task force identified seven critical gaps in the path to the future of universal broadband, the FCC should resolve six identified “critical gaps” in the FCC’s proposed open Internet regulations before moving forward to regulate the Internet for the first time — by dictating Internet access pricing, terms and conditions or dictating what services which businesses can and cannot offer on the Internet.

Here are six critical gaps in the FCC’s proposed open Internet regulations:

Credibility Gap: The FCC isn’t “preserving,” but changing the Internet by regulating it for the first time.
Read more

Is FCC Declaring ‘Open Season’ on Internet Freedom?

November 22, 2009 | Filed Under Barack Obama, Budget, Business, Cable, Computers, Congress, Democrats/Leftists, Economy/Finances, Google, Government, Corruption, House of Representatives, Inernet, Jobs, Liberals, Net Neutrality, Scott Cleland, Socialism, Taxes, Technology, The Law | Comments Off

-By Scott Cleland

The FCC, in proposing to change the definition of an “open Internet” from competition-driven to government-driven is setting a very dangerous precedent, that it is acceptable for countries to preemptively regulate the Internet for what might happen in the future, even if they lack the legitimacy of constitutional or legal authority to do so, or even if there is the thinnest of justification or evidence to support it.

How can we ever hope to influence China, Iran and other undemocratic regimes to provide more Internet access and freedom to their citizens and businesses when our FCC is proposing a radical take back of existing Internet freedoms without legitimate authority or justification?

The grave mistake the FCC is making in the broader international context is claiming that private companies are the primary threat to Internet freedom and free speech, and not governments. History and common sense tell us only Governments have the effective coercive power to dictate real censorship.

The FCC is effectively declaring “open season” on well-established Internet freedoms.
Read more

Google-AdMob’s Antitrust Problems

November 17, 2009 | Filed Under Budget, Business, Capitalism, Computers, Congress, Democrats/Leftists, Economy/Finances, Free Trade, Google, Government, Corruption, Inernet, Liberals, Scott Cleland, Socialism, Society/Culture, Technology | Comments Off

-By Scott Cleland

Google’s acquisition of AdMob, “the world’s largest mobile advertising marketplace,” will receive serious antitrust scrutiny focused on whether the deal lessens competition by extending search advertising monopoly to mobile devices.

Expect the review process to be a magnet for a host of antitrust, competition, and privacy product/services concerns, much like the proposed Google Book settlement has been a magnet for antitrust, competition, and privacy content concerns.

First, Google is misleading with its blanket statement: “We don’t see any regulatory concerns with this deal.”

Not “any” concerns implies Google does not expect: any DOJ/FTC discussion over who reviews the deal; no second request for information; no CIDs (subpoenas); no hearings; or no serious competitor objections that authorities will have to explore. If that is true, why does Google say it could it take “several months” to close?
Read more

Why Google Is Not Neutral

November 13, 2009 | Filed Under Anti-Americanism, Business, Cable, Capitalism, Computers, Congress, Economy/Finances, Entertainment, Free Trade, Google, Government, Corruption, Inernet, Liberals, Net Neutrality, Scott Cleland, Society/Culture, Taxes, Technology | 2 Comments

-By Scott Cleland

After discussing whether Google should buy The New York Times, Google decided against it because it “would damage its ‘neutral’ identity,” per Ken Auletta’s just-published book “Googled: The End of The World as We know It.”

Google has long claimed to be neutral. Their corporate philosophy statement claims: “We never manipulate rankings to put our partners higher in our search results and no one can buy better PageRank. Our users trust our objectivity and no short-term gain could ever justify breaching that trust.”

As the world-leading corporate proponent of an industrial policy to mandate net neutrality for all its potential broadband competitors in cloud computing, and as the beneficiary of “The Google Loophole” in the FCC’s proposed open Internet regulations (para 104), it is fair to stress test whether Google’s claim of a “neutral’ identity is true or just cleverly-executed PR.

Is Google Neutral?
Read more

How FCC Regulation Would Change the Internet

November 6, 2009 | Filed Under 1st Amendment, Business, Capitalism, Computers, Congress, Democrats/Leftists, Economy/Finances, Free Trade, Freedom, Google, Government, Corruption, Inernet, Liberals, Media Bias, Net Neutrality, Scott Cleland, Society/Culture, Taxes, Technology | Comments Off

-By Scott Cleland

The FCC’s claims that their proposed net neutrality regulations would just “preserve” the open Internet are simply not true. The facts clearly state that the FCC’s proposed regulations would: Be a big change in FCC Internet policy; Implement big Internet policy changes without Congressional authorization; and Change the Internet in big ways. (The one-page PDF version of this post is here)

The FCC’s proposed net neutrality regs are a big change in FCC Internet policy; they would:

Replace the FCC’s voluntary net neutrality guidelines with mandated net neutrality regulations;
Selectively apply net neutrality regulations to only broadband and not to applications/content providers like the current principles do;
Add two completely new net neutrality principles that are not found in law or congressional policy:
Mandate the strictest non-discrimination requirement in the last 75 years;
Mandate public disclosure of detailed proprietary network management techniques for the first time;
Expand application of net neutrality to wireless and satellite broadband for the very first time;
Expand consumers access to content entitlement by adding entitlement to send/distribute content as well;
Redefine entitlement to competition in the current fourth principle, to favor resale competition over facilities-based competition;
Subject broadband companies to a new “Mother-may-I” FCC approval process for offering new managed services and for experimenting with new business models; and
Subordinate private standard-setting bodies, like the IETF, to new FCC omni-technical oversight/approval.

Takeaways from FCC’s Proposed Open Internet Regs

October 28, 2009 | Filed Under Budget, Business, Capitalism, Computers, Congress, Democrats/Leftists, Google, Government, Corruption, Inernet, Liberals, Scott Cleland, Technology | Comments Off

-By Scott Cleland

The FCC’s proposed Open Internet regulations (NPRM) are sweeping and audacious.

First, the FCC proposed rules are audaciously attempting to implement the introduced-but-never-passed Markey bill (HR 3458) entitled: the “Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009.” The purpose, premises, language and core positions are nearly identical for anyone willing to forensically compare the NPRM and HR 3458.

This presents a substantial legal problem for the FCC in that the premises and justifications undergirding their current NPRM can be found nowhere in existing law as the FCC’s own thin 28 line legal justification confirms (paras 83-87).
Read more

Open Un-Neutrality – Will FCC Re-Distribute Internet Opportunity? For Consumers? Businesses? Investors?

October 24, 2009 | Filed Under Business, Computers, Congress, Democrats/Leftists, Economy/Finances, Free Trade, Google, Government, Corruption, Inernet, Liberals, Scott Cleland, Society/Culture, Technology | Comments Off

-By Scott Cleland

In effectively reversing fifteen years of 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.

First, the FCC is proposing new preemptive business bans mid-game, the harshest, most disruptive form of economic regulation possible.
Second, the FCC is arbitrarily discriminating among increasingly similar and converging businesses, resulting in the arbitrary punishment of some businesses for what they allegedly might do, while rewarding others with protection from competition for what they allegedly might not do.
Third, the FCC is arbitrarily mandating one-way technology convergence without any supportable justification, i.e., banning distribution convergence into applications/content, while encouraging application/content convergence into distribution.

The chaotic result of this “open un-neutrality” will be regulation that is increasingly at war with inexorable technological convergence and economic efficiency — requiring ever-increasing FCC regulatory artifices to keep the Internet’s original technological layers, market segments and business models from naturally converging, evolving and competing.
Read more

The Internet as the Post Office?

October 21, 2009 | Filed Under Business, Capitalism, Computers, Congress, Democrats/Leftists, Economy/Finances, Free Trade, Government, Corruption, Inernet, Scott Cleland, Society/Culture, Taxes, Technology | Comments Off

-By Scott Cleland

I produced a new, brief, and different op-ed against the FCC’s proposed net neutrality rules that ran on BigGovernment.com today. It employs a new “delivery” metaphor that I believe most people will easily grasp and find compelling.

The Internet as the Post Office?

by Scott Cleland

Why force the private Internet to be as inefficient as the old public post office? For the first time, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) plans to regulate how private companies can deliver the quadrillions of broadband Internet packets that are sent over the Internet every day.

Americans know from experience that private companies competing for customers deliver better service than Government. Who thinks the Government can do a better job than private companies in designing, building, and managing broadband Internet networks? Who thinks the Government can run the Internet better, faster, cheaper, and more innovatively than private networks do now?
Read more

Why FCC proposed net neutrality regs are unconstitutional

October 19, 2009 | Filed Under Blogging, Business, Congress, Democrats/Leftists, Economy/Finances, Free Trade, Freedom, Government, Corruption, Inernet, Scott Cleland, Society/Culture, Technology | Comments Off

-By Scott Cleland

My NPR Online op-ed, “Net Neutrality Regulations Compromise Freedoms” makes the case why the FCC Chairman’s proposed net neutrality regulations are likely unconstitutional in multiple dimensions.

If you like the op-ed, please click on the “Recommend” check button above the title or at the end of the piece because that will keep the op-ed posted longer than otherwise:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113297709

My proposed title, which was supplanted for space concerns, was: “Taking Freedom From Some Takes Freedom From All.”

Below is the text of my NPR Online op-ed:
Read more

The Many Vulnerabilities of an Open Internet

September 29, 2009 | Filed Under Budget, Business, Capitalism, Computers, Congress, Economy/Finances, Government, Corruption, Inernet, Jobs, Liberals, Scott Cleland, Society/Culture, Technology | Comments Off

-By Scott Cleland

What an “Open Internet” does not mean is as important as what it does mean. Surely an “Open Internet” is not intended to mean what it certainly could mean: unprotected, unguarded, or vulnerable to attack. Thus, it is essential for the FCC to be explicit in defining what the terms — “Open Internet,” “net neutrality,” and Internet non-discrimination — don’t mean, as well as what they do 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 unrestricted, accessible and available, it can also have a negative or problematic connotation if it means unprotected, unguarded or vulnerable to attack.

When such an amorphous, multi-use term like “open” is proposed as a new effective purpose for the FCC, and a new formal basis for new economic regulation, it is essential that the term be defined very specifically, for what it is, and just as importantly, for what it is not.
Read more

Wireless Innovation Regulation — ‘Believe it or Not!’

September 23, 2009 | Filed Under Business, Computers, Economy/Finances, Free Trade, Government, Corruption, Inernet, Liberals, Scott Cleland, Society/Culture, Taxes, Technology | Comments Off

-By Scott Cleland

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, also 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!

Amazon, a leading proponent of net neutrality legislation to ban Internet providers from blocking any content, abruptly removed without permission thousands of copies of George Orwell’s books from Kindle reading devices… just like “Big Brother” would have done in “Nineteen Eighty Four“!
Read more

Googleopoly IV: Monopsony Control over Digital Info Competition — New White Paper

September 21, 2009 | Filed Under Business, Capitalism, Computers, Congress, Economy/Finances, Free Trade, Freedom, Government, Corruption, Inernet, Scott Cleland, Society/Culture, Taxes, Technology | Comments Off

-By Scott Cleland

My latest Google antitrust white paper, “Googleopoly IV: The Googleopsony Case,” is the first antitrust analysis which connects-the-dots between Google’s search advertising selling monopoly and Google’s information access buying monopoly or “monopsony” by explaining and documenting how Google is harming competition in digital: news, books, broadcasting, artwork, documents and analytics; and harming consumers seeking quality digital information that is not free.

(Googleopoly I was the first public analysis of why Google ultimately would emerge as a monopoly and Googleopoly II & III were the first public antitrust analyses why the DOJ should block the Google-Yahoo ad agreement, which the DOJ did block 11-5-08.)

Anyone trying to see-the-world-whole and and understand how the Internet’s digital information ecosystem fits together and is devolving– needs to read this white paper.
Read more

“Systemic Risk Laundering” — Financial Crisis Root Causes — Part II

September 17, 2009 | Filed Under Budget, Business, Capitalism, Computers, Congress, Democrats/Leftists, Economy/Finances, Google, Government, Corruption, Inernet, Liberals, Scott Cleland, Society/Culture, Taxes, Technology | Comments Off

-By Scott Cleland

How could American taxpayers get stuck with a multi-trillion dollar tab that they weren’t even aware that they were running up? How could that huge tab still be allowed to run up unchecked today? For the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, the sad answer is one of the biggest root causes of last fall’s devastating financial crisis and one of the biggest continuing systemic risks to the financial system and the economic recovery.

A decade ago, in what may prove to be the most expensive bipartisan legislative mistake in U.S. history, a bipartisan policy became law that effectively ensured that no Federal regulator had oversight or enforcement jurisdiction over derivative financial instruments. The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (CFMA) created “legal certainty for excluded derivative transactions.” That law allowed a shadow derivative overlay system to be built literally on top of the public financial system, with none of the inherent accountability of the underlying financial system. In other words, a deliberate bipartisan U.S. government policy change a decade ago unwittingly created an unaccountable “black hole” market that sucked enormous value out of public markets (Bear Stearns, Lehman, AIG, Fannie, Freddie, securitized sub-prime mortgages, etc.), while laundering the risk to the U.S. taxpayer.

Simply, in fostering an unaccountable marketplace that derived all its real value from public markets, the Government fostered systemic risk laundering from the unaccountable to the accountable, which ultimately left the U.S. taxpayer holding the bag. More specifically, with no accountability to fairly represent or disclose risk, too many did not. Too many figured out that they could launder huge financial risk with impunity, because most public investors assumed someone somewhere was ensuring that these derivative instruments were fairly represented, disclosed and accountable. Oops!
Read more

Top Ten Pitfalls of Wireless Innovation Regulation

September 1, 2009 | Filed Under Budget, Business, Capitalism, Democrats/Leftists, Economy/Finances, Free Trade, Freedom, Government, Corruption, Inernet, Liberals, Media Bias, Scott Cleland, Socialism, Society/Culture, Taxes, Technology | 1 Comment

-By Scott Cleland

Analysis of the potential pitfalls of wireless innovation regulation is a necessary complement to the FCC’s upcoming Notice of Inquiries into wireless competition/innovation and the DOJ’s review of wireless competition in order to ensure policymakers get a balanced view of the big picture.

What are the Top 10 Pitfalls of Wireless Innovation Regulation?

#1 Pitfall: Losing focus on universal broadband access

“Wireless innovation” appears to be the latest rebranding iteration of “net neutrality” and “open Internet” as the net neutrality movement searches for more mainstream support of their views.
Read more

Why Broadband is Not a Public Utility

August 31, 2009 | Filed Under Business, Congress, Democrats/Leftists, Economy/Finances, Free Trade, Freedom, Government, Corruption, Scott Cleland, Society/Culture, Taxes | Comments Off

-By Scott Cleland

The data and evidence show that broadband is not a public utility warranting economic regulation of prices, terms and conditions; this is contrary to the assertions of net neutrality proponents: the Markey-Eshoo Bill, FreePress, the Open Internet Coalition and Google’s Internet Evangelist Vint Cerf, among others.

Why is broadband not a public utility?

First, it is a competitive service, not a natural monopoly service.

A public utility presumes “natural monopoly” economics where economies of scale and scope preclude the possibility of competitive facilities/services.

Why proposed net neutrality bill is the most extreme yet

August 20, 2009 | Filed Under Anti-Americanism, Barack Obama, Budget, Business, Congress, Democrats/Leftists, Economy/Finances, Government, Corruption, Inernet, Liberals, Scott Cleland, Society/Culture, Taxes, Technology | Comments Off

-By Scott Cleland

While the latest net neutrality bill introduced in Congress has no chance of passage as drafted, it is a bay window view into how extreme the net neutrality movement has become and what they are seeking from the FCC via backdoor regulation.

The proposed Markey-Eshoo bill, HR 3458, which was drafted in close coordination with FreePress and the Open Internet Coalition, is much more extreme than previous bills in 2008 and 2006.

Why is this bill the most extreme version of net neutrality yet?

First, it is a completely unworkable framework.
Read more

A Maslow “Hierarchy of Internet Needs”? — Will there be

August 5, 2009 | Filed Under Barack Obama, Business, Communism, Congress, Conservatives, Constitution, Democrats/Leftists, Economy/Finances, Free Trade, Freedom, Government, Corruption, Inernet, Journalism, Liberals, Media Bias, President, Scott Cleland, Security/Safety, Socialism, Society/Culture, Taxes, Technology | Comments Off

-By Scott ClelandInternet priorities or a priority-less Internet?

A central policy question concerning the future of the Internet, cloud computing and the National Broadband Plan is whether there should be Internet priorities or a priority-less Internet?

The crux of the grand conflict over the direction of Internet policy is that proponents of a mandated neutral/open Internet insist that only users can prioritize Internet traffic, not any other entity.

To grasp the inherent problem and impracticality with a mandated neutral or priority-less Internet, it is helpful to ask if the Internet, which is comprised of hundreds of millions of individual users, has a mutual “hierarchy of needs,” just like individuals have a “hierarchy of needs,” per Maslow’s famed, common sense “Hierarchy of Needs” theory.

Briefly, renowned psychologist, Abraham Maslow, devised his common sense “Hierarchy of Needs” to explain inherent human priorities, i.e. that some human needs are more important or urgent than others.
Read more

Defining the Problem(s) is the Crux of the National Broadband Plan

July 29, 2009 | Filed Under Anti-Americanism, Congress, Democrats/Leftists, Economy/Finances, Google, Government, Corruption, Inernet, Scott Cleland, Society/Culture, Technology | Comments Off

-By Scott Cleland

FCC Broadband Coordinator Blair Levin described the crux of the National Broadband Plan in testifying before the Commission 7-02 as “identifying where there are currently ‘demonstrable public interest harms.’” That central task is essentially defining the problem(s) and is necessary to complete the last task of the plan: “identifying ways to lessen those public interest harms,” or recommending solutions. Defining the problem largely defines the range of recommended solutions.

The plural use of “harms” here suggests that the Plan could end up “identifying” more problems than the obvious core problem prompting the Plan — that not “all people of the United States have access to broadband capability.”

Levin’s choice of a classic organizational structure, background-problem-solution, is a wise, useful and simplifying approach for such an exceedingly complex endeavor.
Read more

What’s the Broadband Plan Implementation Vision? Affirming Competition Policy? or The “Retro-genda?”

July 23, 2009 | Filed Under Congress, Economy/Finances, Government, Corruption, Inernet, Liberals, Scott Cleland, Society/Culture, Technology | Comments Off

-By Scott Cleland

At core, Congress has asked the FCC to recommend to Congress HOW “to ensure that all people of the United States have access to broadband capability.” Arguably, the FCC’s main “fork-in-the-road” decision in developing its National Broadband Plan is whether to recommend to Congress to Re-affirm the current competition vision/law/precedent for broadband policy and build upon the strong foundation and momentum of facilities-based competition in the marketplace? or Design the more Government-centered broadband ecosystem policy recommended most prominently by FreePress /Open Internet Coalition members and rebuild the common carrier regulation regime of the twentieth century?

What engine of choice will the FCC recommend to Congress: Competitive forces and private investment? or Government forces and taxpayer money?

In other words, will the FCC: Affirm a competitive broadband ecosystem where consumers vote with their wallets about which innovations, technologies and companies succeed or fail on the merits? or Endorse a regulatory broadband ecosystem where regulators largely pre-determine which innovations, technologies and companies will be favored and, hence, win or lose?
Read more

What Do Broadband Stimulus Decisions Signal about Future Broadband & Net Neutrality Policy?

July 16, 2009 | Filed Under Business, Congress, Economy/Finances, Government, Corruption, Inernet, Liberals, Scott Cleland, Society/Culture, Technology | Comments Off

-By Scott Cleland

What do the Administration’s new “NOFA” guidelines, which implement the $7.2b broadband stimulus package, tell us about the trajectory for broadband and net neutrality policy going forward?

If one listened to just the public comments of net neutrality proponents one would miss a lot of important substance and clues about where broadband and net neutrality policy may be going, given that these new grant guidelines/conditions are the first major official broadband guidance stemming from the new Congress and the new Administration.

What do we know now that we didn’t know before the release of the NOFA guidelines?
Read more

Handset Exclusives Drive Growth & Broadband Adoption

July 8, 2009 | Filed Under Congress, Google, Government, Corruption, Inernet, Liberals, Scott Cleland, Technology | Comments Off

-By Scott Cleland

Why regulate tech/computer sales?

Handset marketing exclusives are a pro-competitive wellspring of wireless growth and broadband adoption. Marketing exclusives are also a legitimate, proven and widespread marketing practice that marshals maximum marketing resources for selected, potentially-hot-new-products in order to drive maximum sales and adoption.

Pro-regulation proposals calling for the FCC to ban smartphone/netbook marketing exclusives are unnecessary, and would also be highly counter-productive as they would undermine the Government’s important goals of stimulating the economy and promoting broadband adoption.
Read more

What If Columbo Investigated Special Access?

June 28, 2009 | Filed Under Business, Congress, Economy/Finances, Government, Corruption, Inernet, Liberals, Science, Scott Cleland, Society/Culture, Taxes, Technology | Comments Off

-By Scott Cleland

A new coalition of some struggling broadband competitors, NoChokePoints.org, is making claims that the “special access” market is being “choked” by lack of competition and is urging the FCC to reverse course and regulate lower prices for these competitors.

“Special access” is basically the business-to-business leasing market of the copper wire connections that link many buildings and cell towers to the Internet backbone at DS1 (1.5 Mbs) and DS3 (44.7 Mbs) speeds.

My House Internet Privacy Testimony — ‘a consumer-driven, technology/competition neutral privacy framework’

June 21, 2009 | Filed Under Budget, Business, Congress, Democrats/Leftists, Economy/Finances, Free Trade, Google, Inernet, Liberals, Scott Cleland, Technology | 1 Comment

-By Scott Cleland

Today I testified before a Joint House Subcommittee hearing of the Energy & Commerce Committee on “The Potential Privacy Implications of Behavioral Advertising.”

A one-page summary is below and the full testimony is here.

Summary Testimony of Scott Cleland, President, Precursor LLC

“Why A Consumer-Driven, Technology/Competition-Neutral, Privacy Framework Is Superior to a Default ‘Finders Keepers Losers Weepers’ Privacy Framework”

Before the Joint House Energy & Commerce Hearing on Behavioral Advertising, June 18, 2009
Read more

Indexing into the Ditch — Financial Crisis Root Causes — Part I

June 17, 2009 | Filed Under Budget, Business, Democrats/Leftists, Economy/Finances, Government, Corruption, Inernet, Liberals, Scott Cleland, Society/Culture, Technology | Comments Off

-By Scott Cleland

Despite the widely held view that indexing is the safest way to invest, indexing helped recklessly drive our financial system and economy into the ditch last fall.

While there’s consensus the financial crisis warrants “new rules of the road” and better policing to protect against systemic risk, all the rules and oversight in the world can’t keep us out of the ditch in the future if index vehicles continue to drive the wrong way against oncoming traffic.

And “stress testing” whether bank vehicles can survive head-on crashes, completely misses the point that indexers should not be driving the wrong way on the freeway.

The National Broadband Plan “Fork-in-the-Road”

June 15, 2009 | Filed Under Business, Congress, Democrats/Leftists, Free Trade, Google, Government, Corruption, Inernet, Scott Cleland, Society/Culture, Technology | Comments Off

-By Scott Cleland

A scan of the major comments just delivered to the FCC on the National Broadband Plan (which is due to Congress February 2010), spotlighted the big broadband policy “fork-in-the-road” decision that the FCC now has before it.

One road of the fork-in-the-road continues down the road of: Promoting facilities-based competition;Encouraging private investment in a wide diversity of technologies; and Facilitating a cooperative public-private partnership to address unserved broadband areas and lagging adoption of widely available broadband.
Read more

Why New WH Cybersecurity Focus is a Game-Changer — for the Internet and Net Neutrality

June 6, 2009 | Filed Under Anti-Americanism, Barack Obama, Business, Censorship, Democrats/Leftists, Economy/Finances, Free Speech, Free Trade, Google, Government, Corruption, Inernet, Journalism, Liberals, Media Bias, President, Scott Cleland, Security/Safety, Socialism, Society/Culture, Technology | Comments Off

-By Scott Cleland

President Obama’s new approach to cybersecurity likely is more of an Internet game-changer than many appreciate. Initial reporting and commentary has been superficial and has not connected dots or analyzed the broader logical implications of this new policy emphasis and trajectory.

Why is it a game-changer for the Internet?

First, it formalizes a new leading priority for the Internet.
Second, it formalizes the lack of cybersecurity as the Internet’s leading problem.
Third, it practically redefines what “open Internet” means.
Fourth, it practically takes any extreme form of net neutrality off the table.

Moreover, the new cybersecurity focus will likely have a practical effect on the trajectory of Internet 3.0, which embodies cloud computing (where security has not been a primary priority by many); the Mobile web (where security has always been a very high priority); and the Internet of Things (where security will be imperative to prevent theft, intrusion, and sabotage).

« Previous Page — Next Page »