September, 2009

With the German Government just the latest angry hornet joining the growing swarm of opposition stinging the Google Book Settlement, how did Google's book digitization initiative go so wrong? 

If one listened to Google, their problem is two-fold:

• First, it is just a bunch of Luddite ingrates who are too small-minded to grasp Google's magnanimity to humankind and world knowledge.  
• Second, without competitors spreading misinformation, there would only be a world chorus of gratitude.

As I have asserted many times before in this blog, Google is its own worst enemy.

Mr. Ben Scott of FreePress answered many softball questions in a lengthy interview on the Open Video Alliance.

FreePress says the "FCC Should Set Bar High for Broadband Definition."

• Am I missing something?
• How would that recommendation promote universal broadband anytime in the foreseeable future?
• Doesn't the FCC need to knock down barriers to achieve universal broadband, not go out of its way to erect new insurmountable barriers to achieving the bipartisan goal of universal broadband soonest?

There is broad consensus behind promoting broadband access to all Americans soonest.

• The FCC's Broadband Coordinator, Blair Levin, just blogged candidly that he was worried that there were not sufficient incentives or funds to achieve Universal Broadband and asked for creative solutions "that will deliver the synergies of broadband to the entire nation."

My creative solution is don't listen to FreePress.

Why did it take a high-profile FTC letter to Google for Google to finally make public a simple privacy policy for their be-leaguered Book Settlement after privacy has been a major Book Settlement issue for months?

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.  

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." 

Harry Potter fans know there is "He-who-must-not-be-named."

• Well it appears that there is also a potentially multi-billion subsidy of a company that just may be "the-subsidy-that-must-not-be-named."

Unbenownst to me until I read about it in Communications Daily, the National Telecommunications Cooperative Association (NTCA) cited my 12-08 Precursor research study in a submission to the FCC about how Universal Service may interact with the National Broadband Plan. 

The reason I am blogging about this now is:

There's been scant analysis of how the Google Book Settlement process has been altered going forward given recent major developments:

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.

The FCC's recent wireless innovation NOI has put a new spotlight on how innovation evolves in a competitive market.

With that focus in mind, I highly recommend reading Link Hoewing's very thoughtful post on Verizon's PolicyBlog: "Innovation and the evolution of technology markets."  

It makes a lot of sense.