Why Viacom Likely Wins Viacom-Google Copyright Appeal

-By Scott Cleland

Viacom is ultimately likely to prevail in its appeal of the lower court decision in the seminal Viacom vs. Google-YouTube copyright infringement case.

If one only reads either the lower court’s decision or the press reports of it, without considering likely appellate arguments and the broader constitutional context of copyright protection, it is easy to mis-read the likely ultimate outcome here.

Both sides agreed to an expedited summary judgment process in the lower court because both sides fully expected this case to ultimately be decided at the appellate level, and most likely by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Continue reading


Why Viacom Likely Wins Viacom-Google Copyright Appeal”


The FCC’s ‘Blight Touch’ & ‘Muddle Ground’

-By Scott Cleland

Clearly proponents of net neutrality and public-utility regulation of broadband, have learned how to manipulate language and metaphors to mask and move their agenda; what they haven’t learned is that the language and metaphors used to promote policy changes must be true in order to make legitimate, successful, and lasting public policy.

The communications plan for the FCC’s proposed broadband regulation of the Internet is full of fiction, fantasy and misdirection. What’s increasingly obvious is that proponents of preemptive proscriptive broadband regulation think people are stupid, that they don’t know what words mean and that they will gullibly swallow whatever is said without thought or question.
Continue reading


The FCC’s ‘Blight Touch’ & ‘Muddle Ground’”


FCC Broadband “Believe it or Not!”

-By Scott Cleland

With due credit to “Ripley’s Believe it or Not!®,” so much odd and bizarre is happening at the FCC in the “name” of “broadband” that the topic calls for its own collection of: “Believe it or Not!®” oddities.

The FCC insists that its Title II reclassification effort to regulate broadband networks is not “regulating the Internet,” when the law the Supreme Court and the FCC all define the Internet to include broadband networks!

The FCC, certain that the D.C. Circuit Court decision on Comcast vs. the FCC was incorrect, decided not to appeal to the Supreme Court!

The FCC, an administrative agency created, funded, and overseen by Congress, completely ignored a majority of Members of Congress who wrote the FCC opposing FCC reclassification of broadband as a common carrier!

The FCC plans to justify new broadband Title II regulation with some regulatory forbearance by arguing that the market facts simultaneously warrant both more, and less, broadband regulation — at the very same time!

The FCC claims the “soundest legal foundation” for broadband is the opposite of what the DC Circuit Court, Congress, legal experts and industry think is sound!

The FCC justified pursuing its Title II reclassification effort by characterizing it as the “broad consensus” view, but the non-partisan Association of State Legislatures and a bi-partisan majority of Members of Congress opposed the FCC in writing!

The FCC claims it has an open mind in approaching the Notice of Inquiry, but a majority of FCC votes, are on record already supporting new broadband regulation!

The FCC claims ‘immaculate mis-conception’ to explain how “series of tubes,” the FCC appears intent on officially declaring the Internet a series of telephone lines!

Strange but true.

“Believe it or Not!®”
_________________
Scott Cleland is one of nation’s foremost techcom analysts and experts at the nexus of: capital markets, public policy and techcom industry change. He is widely-respected in industry, government, media and capital markets as a forward thinker, free market proponent, and leading authority on the future of communications. Precursor LLC is an industry research and consulting firm, specializing in the techcom sector, whose mission is to help companies anticipate change for competitive advantage. Cleland is also Chairman of NetCompetition.org, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Precursor LLC and an e-forum on Net Neutrality funded by a wide range of broadband telecom, cable and wireless companies. He previously founded The Precursor Group Inc., which Institutional Investor magazine ranked as the #1 “Best Independent” research firm in communications for two years in a row. His latest op eds can be seen at www.precursorblog.com.


Americans want online privacy — per new Zogby poll

-By Scott Cleland

American consumers clearly want online privacy, per a national poll conducted over the weekend by Zogby International, that was commissioned by Precursor LLC.

In a nutshell, over 80% of Americans are concerned about the security and privacy of their personal information on the Internet; about 90% of Americans consider some common industry behaviors to be unfair business practices; and about 80% of Americans support a variety of stronger consumer protections of their privacy online.
Continue reading


Americans want online privacy — per new Zogby poll”


Google’s ‘Total Information Awareness’ Power

-By Scott Cleland

A one-page graphic of all the information Google has…

To help you picture both the enormity and unprecedented power of what Google knows about you and the world’s information—public, private and proprietary—I have organized all the world’s information types that Google collects onto a one-page chart/PDF: “Google’s ‘Total Information Awareness’ Power.”

For those who really want to understand Google and its impact on most everyone and most everything, please read and study this one-page chart/PDF, because much valuable work and insight has gone into it.

While the chart is visually packed with information that many may find difficult to unpack or digest, the chart itself is an apt metaphor for both how much information Google has, and also how difficult it is for all of us to get our head around all the information Google routinely collects and uses.

A short refresher on where the term “Total Information Awareness” came from and why it is aptly employed here.
Continue reading


Google’s ‘Total Information Awareness’ Power”


FCC Exceptionalism and Supremacy?

-By Scott Cleland

Often stepping back to gain perspective, and to try and see the forest for the trees can be highly instructive. However, if one steps back to see the big picture of how this FCC is attempting, unilaterally, to change U.S. Internet policy, the view is surreal.

Increasingly, this FCC is becoming an island. It is insisting on self-asserting its exceptionalism and its supremacy over the Internet and It is ignoring an overwhelming amount of important and contrary input, advice and evidence from Congress, the Courts, DOJ, FTC, past FCCs, industry and the public.

Simply, this FCC increasingly appears to view itself as exceptional and as the supreme authority on and over the Internet, unconstrained by Congress, the courts, law, economics, markets or the public.
Continue reading


FCC Exceptionalism and Supremacy?”


FTC’s Google-AdMob Antitrust Checklist

-By Scott Cleland

Many are missing the forest for the trees in jumping to the conclusion that the two-week extension in the FTC’s review of Google-AdMob means the FTC is reconsidering the FTC’s staff recommendation to block Google-AdMob as anti-competitive.

Google is cleverly trying to misdirect the focus off Google being the actual #2 in-app mobile advertiser, which is buying the actual #1 AdMob market leader, by talking up the potential competitive advertising threat of a distant #3 player Quattro being bought by non-advertising company Apple.

To see the big picture and understand the likely outcome here that the FTC will block Google-AdMob, its helpful to run through the FTC’s likely Google-AdMob checklist decision process.
Continue reading


FTC’s Google-AdMob Antitrust Checklist”


FCC Understating Systemic Risks of “Third Way” — Why It’s a Disaster Waiting to Happen

-By Scott Cleland

The FCC is vastly understating the systemic risk involved in the FCC’s radical “third way” regulatory surgery to the Internet, the communications sector and the economy.

The FCC’s proposed “third way” is an elaborate public relations facade that disguises huge problems and fatal conceptual/practical flaws that will become painfully obvious over time.

The FCC’s proposal is long on politics and soothing rhetoric, but short on real world practicality or legitimacy; it predictably will ultimately collapse under its own weight, complexity and hubris — unfortunately leaving exceptional carnage in its wake.

Simply, this proposal is too inherently contradictory and mind-numbingly complex, and too big not to fail.
Continue reading


FCC Understating Systemic Risks of “Third Way” — Why It’s a Disaster Waiting to Happen”


The Multi-Billion Dollar Impact of FCC Title II Broadband — for Google & Entire Internet Ecosystem

-By Scott Cleland

Investors understandably have focused first on whether or not the FCC will upend the broadband Internet sector by deeming broadband a Title II common carrier service for the first time, and second whether or not the FCC actually has the legal/constitutional authority to do so.

However, as a result of that political and legal focus, what has been almost completely ignored is the potential multi-billion dollar impact of such an FCC decision, which by definition, would make all currently unregulated and un-metered Internet traffic bits, regulated and metered “telecommunications” tele-bits for the first time.

Simply, deeming broadband Title II legally could compel bit metering and bit payments in the U.S. for the first time.
Continue reading


The Multi-Billion Dollar Impact of FCC Title II Broadband — for Google & Entire Internet Ecosystem”


Chart: How Google-AdMob Creates a Bottleneck; How New DOJ/FTC Merger Guidelines Affect the Deal

-By Scott Cleland

Given the FTC is very likely to disapprove Google’s acquisition of AdMob soon, I have prepared a one-page chart that illustrates the core reason the deal is anti-competitive: it would create a substantial bottleneck for advertisers and publishers entering the in-application mobile advertising market.

To help people get up to speed on the deal and the likely FTC disapproval coming up, I have also pulled together a 30-page Google-AdMob backgrounder, which includes a one-page summary, charts, the top 10 reasons the deal is anti-competitive, why Google is a monopoly, how Google has abused its monopoly and why Google’s main antitrust defenses, like “competition is one click away,” are specious.

Continue reading


Chart: How Google-AdMob Creates a Bottleneck; How New DOJ/FTC Merger Guidelines Affect the Deal”


Google’s Liability Decade: Why Google’s Leadership Ducks Investors

-By Scott Cleland

The abrupt change, that Google’s CEO Eric Schmidt will no longer be accountable to shareholders on Google’s earnings calls, should prompt investors to ask why?

Google claimed that they wanted to put more focus on Google’s strong financials, but they did not disclose any more than Google’s usual barest minimum of information to investors. The most obvious reason for this abrupt change is the literal explosion of real franchise liabilities and risk overhangs to Google that reared their ugly heads this past quarter. Had CEO Schmidt been available to answer investor questions, Google’s exploding liabilities could have dominated the Q&A and the investment narrative coming out of the earnings call.

What has changed, and what Google has been not been open about, is the very serious ripening of three different types of going-forward franchise risks (antitrust, privacy/security and intellectual property) that cumulatively herald a de facto change in Google eras: from the roaring “Growth Decade” of 2000-2009, to the more unpredictable “Liability Decade” of 2010- 2019.
Continue reading


Google’s Liability Decade: Why Google’s Leadership Ducks Investors”


Why FCC’s broadband public option is a lose-lose gamble

-By Scott Cleland

The FCC would be making a longshot, bet-the-farm gamble, if it decided to mandate the broadband public option, i.e., deeming broadband to be a common-carrier-regulated service and regulating the Internet essentially for the first time.

It would be a classic lose-lose gamble because the FCC is very likely to lose in court — accomplishing nothing, but damaging the hard-built trust, cooperation and commitment necessary for public-private partnerships to be able to get broadband to all Americans fastest. Also everyone else would lose from the irreparable damage to private broadband investment, innovation, growth, jobs and America’s broadband ranking in the world.

I. Lose in Court:

It is a given that the FCC would be sued; and it is very likely that the Appeals Court and/or the Supreme Court would overturn any FCC unilateral assertion of authority to deem broadband a common carrier service. It is also likely that the court would stay such an FCC action from going into effect because of the likelihood of the petitioners winning on appeal and because of the easy case that it would cause irreparable harm.
Continue reading


Why FCC’s broadband public option is a lose-lose gamble”


FCC deeming broadband to be regulated opens Pandora’s Box

-By Scott Cleland

Proponents of the FCC asserting new “deeming authority,” to “deem” broadband to be a regulated phone service and thus subject to the FCC’s existing Title II telephone authority, have not even begun to answer the most fundamental questions of what such a foundational change would mean.

Premature characterizations that this nouvelle, regulatory “deeming” would somehow be easy, clean or containable, simply have not thought through the potential chaos, havoc and uncertainty that such a radical, foundational and over-reaching regulatory “deeming” would wreak on:

  • Legal/policy precedent, clarity and stability;
  • Business investment and innovation — assumptions, incentives, models and practices;
  • Economic growth, private investment and job creation;
  • Industry financial stability, contracts and debt covenants; and
  • Trust, cooperation and respect the FCC needs to fulfill its mission and its National Broadband Plan.

Continue reading


FCC deeming broadband to be regulated opens Pandora’s Box”


Harms of a Potential New FCC De-Competition Policy — Reply Comments to FCC Open Internet NPRM

-By Scott Cleland

The FCC’s proposed Open Internet Regulations and/or the oft-rumored potential re-classification of broadband as a Title II telephone service effectively would create a new FCC “de-competition policy.” (For the one-page PDF submitted to the FCC click here.)

A new FCC “de-competition policy” would:

  • Supplant market-based competition policy with outdated common carrier regulation policy;
  • Shift the FCC’s primary purpose from promoting competition to promoting openness;
  • Replace the core mechanism for advancing consumer welfare from a voluntary, bottom-up, market-based competition system to a coerced, top-down, centralized, FCC regulation system; and
  • Remove users from being in charge of the Internet to the FCC asserting control over the Internet.

Continue reading


Harms of a Potential New FCC De-Competition Policy — Reply Comments to FCC Open Internet NPRM”


GBC: Google Broadcasting Co. — World Unicaster

-By Scott Cleland

First there was one-to-many broadcasting, then many-to-many Internet narrowcasting… now it appears we are moving next to a one-to-many GoogleNet unicasting future where every company and individual may simply become a subordinate channel on the Googleopoly advertising network, and where content largely would be found only via Google’s mono-search guide.

To better understand this troubling ongoing transformation, connect the dots below:

Google TV:

  • NYT: “Google and partners take aim at the TV;” “The move is an effort by Google and Intel to extend their dominance of computing into television, an arena where they have little sway.”
  • WSJ

Continue reading


GBC: Google Broadcasting Co. — World Unicaster”


FTC now very likely to oppose Google-AdMob

-By Scott Cleland

The FTC is now very likely to file an injunction in Federal Court to block Google’s proposed acquisition of AdMob, if Google does not walk away from the deal, given that Bloomberg reports that the FTC is “seeking sworn declarations from Google Inc. competitors and advertisers.”

Why such signed declarations are particularly indicative of the likely outcome is that the FTC has moved largely from an investigative phase to largely a prosecution phase.

Given reports of signed declarations, a preliminary decision has been made by the FTC investigative staff (with the assent of, or direction from, the FTC Chairman), that the deal would “substantially lessen competition.” In other words, the FTC staff believe the deal would be a violation of antitrust law.

Remember, neither the FTC nor competitors/advertisers take lightly the signing of legal declarations about what would be said under oath in a court of law under the penalty of perjury.
Continue reading


FTC now very likely to oppose Google-AdMob”


Google-AdMob: An FTC Antitrust Enforcement Watershed — Lessons from Google-DoubleClick & EU

-By Scott Cleland

Will the FTC strictly enforce antitrust laws in its review of Google’s AdMob acquisition? Google-Admob is a watershed decision for the FTC given that Google recently blew off the DOJ’s serious antitrust objections to the pending Google Book Settlement; The EU opened a preliminary investigation of antitrust complaints against Google from companies in the UK, France and Germany; and The DOJ had to play backstop to the FTC and block the Google-Yahoo Ad Agreement, less than a year after the FTC incorrectly assumed in their 4-1 approval of the Google-DoubleClick deal that Yahoo and others would provide sufficient competition to Google and Google acquiring DoubleClick would not “substantially lessen competition” or tip Google to a monopoly.

A recent New York Post article: “FTC inclined to approve Google’s acquisition of AdMob” states the deal “may just squeak by federal regulators.”

It’s pretty obvious the article’s source came from the Google camp and not the FTC, given the political nature of the source’s views: the FTC “will likely not rule until Obama nominees” are confirmed by the Senate, strongly implying that the:

Administration’s close political ties with Google would trump any career staff law enforcement findings of fact or the law and the lone FTC vote against the 4-1 Google-DoubleClick deal approval, Commissioner Jones-Harbor, will no longer be at the FTC.

Why is this Google spin on the FTC’s inclination likely false?
Continue reading


Google-AdMob: An FTC Antitrust Enforcement Watershed — Lessons from Google-DoubleClick & EU”


Foundem FCC Filing Documents Google Search Network Discrimination; Window into EU-Google Antitrust Case

-By Scott Cleland

Foundem, a UK vertical search competitor to Google, documents serial anticompetitive discrimination on Google’s search network, in a data-driven filing to the FCC in the FCC’s Open Internet regulation proceeding.

It is logical that the data-driven analysis in Foundem’s public FCC filing is an integral part of Foundem’s antitrust case against Google, which Foundem recently submitted to the EU, but which has not been released yet.

Therefore, Foundem’s FCC filing may be the best publicly available window into what the EU investigation of Google’s anticompetitive practices entails.

In essence, the Foundem filing accuses Google of monopolistic self-dealing and bundling.
Continue reading


Foundem FCC Filing Documents Google Search Network Discrimination; Window into EU-Google Antitrust Case”


How much should Google be subsidized?

-By Scott Cleland

Pending FCC policy proposals in the National Broadband Plan and the Open Internet regulation proceeding would vastly expand the implicit multi-billion dollar subsidies Google already enjoys, as by far the largest user of Internet bandwidth and the smallest contributor to the Internet’s cost relative to its use.

Interestingly, the FCC’s largely Google-driven policy proposals effectively would:

  • Promote Google’s gold-plated, 1 Gigabit broadband vision for the National Broadband Plan at a time of trillion dollar Federal budget deficits;
  • Recommend a substantial expansion of public subisidies for broadband that would commercially benefit Google most without requiring Google to contribute its fair share to universal broadband service; and
  • Regulate the Internet for the first time in a way that would result in heavily subsidizing Google’s out-of-control bandwidth usage.

I. Does Google need more subsidies?

Google is one of the most-profitable, fastest-growing, cash-rich companies in the world, with over $10b in annual free cash flow, 17% revenue growth and ~$25b in cash on hand.
Continue reading


How much should Google be subsidized?”


FCC: Forced Access Uneconomics & Selective Math?

-By Scott Cleland

The FCC just signaled it is considering requiring forced access and more special access as part of its soon to be released National Broadband Plan.

Colin Crowell, a top aide to FCC Chairman Genachowski told Bloomberg that mandating that competitors lease their facilities to other competitors “has a lot of appeal as part of a national strategy” in order to help small businesses grow and aid job creation.
Continue reading


FCC: Forced Access Uneconomics & Selective Math?”


FCC Reclassification is Eminent Domain, but with No Just Compensation or Authority

-By Scott Cleland

At core the FCC’s contemplation of reclassifying, or effectively treating, unregulated broadband info services as regulated telecom services, would be tantamount to the FCC declaring “eminent domain” over private broadband providers, i.e. justifying a government takings of private property for public uses, but doing so “without just compensation” or any statutory authority.

The U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment requires: “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

A gaping missing element in all the FCC’s discussions of all the new “public uses” it envisions for broadband in its pending National Broadband Plan and its proposed preemptive Open Internet regulations is any consideration at all of the potential hundreds of billions of dollars of un-budgeted liability to the U.S. Treasury that could result from the takings of private network property without just compensation — at a time of skyrocketing trillion dollar Federal budget deficits and rapidly mounting public debt.

The FCC appears to be operating under the sweeping and heroic presumption that any prospective FCC regulatory action it may take here is essentially cost-free to the U.S. taxpayer and will be completely shouldered by broadband shareholders; in other words, the Fifth Amendment appears to be irrelevant to FCC decisionmaking.
Continue reading


FCC Reclassification is Eminent Domain, but with No Just Compensation or Authority”


GoogleMonitor.com Launches Today

-By Scott Cleland

Will spotlight Google’s lack of transparency and accountability

WASHINGTON – A new web site designed to make Google more transparent and accountable launched today. GoogleMonitor.com is a crowd-sourcing site which will keep watch on the Web’s top watcher of everyone.

“Google is the most powerful company in the world, dominates the Web’s business model for information discovery and monetization, and watches most everything that happens on the Web,” Scott Cleland of Precursor LLC and GoogleMonitor.com’s publisher said. “Given all that un-checked power, Google has a dangerous dearth of transparency and accountability.”
Continue reading


GoogleMonitor.com Launches Today”


Unintended Consequences: Balkanizing the Internet

-By Scott Cleland

The big missing part of the policy debate over how to best ensure continuation of an open Internet, i.e. through existing policy or the FCC’s proposed preemptive regulations, is what makes the Internet universal?

The Internet is near universal because it is entirely voluntary. All of the Internet’s signature elements are voluntary, not mandated by government(s).

Internet Protocol (IP) is a networking protocol that became universal precisely because it offered the ability for everyone to communicate in basically the same “language.” No one was required to use/adopt IP; people voluntarily adopted it because it was better and offered the most universal networking opportunity. Moreover, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), whose “mission is to make the Internet work better,” is an entirely voluntary collaborative process that functions outside of any government(s) control.

The Domain Name System (DNS), essentially the Internet’s address system, rapidly became universal precisely because people voluntarily recognized its essential value and adopted it. No country owns, controls or approves the Internet’s addresses; it’s a voluntary market process.
Continue reading


Unintended Consequences: Balkanizing the Internet”


DOJ Rejects Broadband Market Failure Thesis

-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.
Continue reading


DOJ Rejects Broadband Market Failure Thesis”


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

-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.
Continue reading


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


Googleopoly V — Why the FTC Should Block Google-AdMob

-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.
Continue reading


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


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

-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.
Continue reading


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


Critical Gaps in FCC’s Proposed Open Internet Regulations

-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.
Continue reading


Critical Gaps in FCC’s Proposed Open Internet Regulations”


Is FCC Declaring ‘Open Season’ on Internet Freedom?

-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.
Continue reading


Is FCC Declaring ‘Open Season’ on Internet Freedom?”


Google-AdMob’s Antitrust Problems

-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?
Continue reading


Google-AdMob’s Antitrust Problems”