The Precursor Blog by Scott Cleland

Google's Schmidt: "Because we say so" on why you can trust Google's Privacy Dashboard

Scott Cleland — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:16:24 -0400

In discussing Google's new "Privacy Dashboard," Fox Business' Neil Cavuto asked Google CEO Eric Schmidt about the ability to delete private information.

Mr. Cavuto: "How do I know you are deleting it?
Mr. Schmidt: "Because we say so."

Not being one to accept Google's legendary PR spin without a grain of skepticism, lets review the real significance of Google's new "Privacy Dashboard."

First, to be fair to Google, the privacy dashboard is indeed an incremental improvement over what Google users had before, because it aggregates what was in 21 different places before, into a single more convenient "dashboard."

Why Google Is Not Neutral

Scott Cleland — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:40:27 -0400

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."

eBay: "there will be only one winner in online payments;" FCC's Open Internet regs are catnip for netopolies

Scott Cleland — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:30:46 -0400

eBay is licking their chops at the prospect of the FCC's open Internet regulations locking in their dominance of:

Online auctions (95% share);
P-2-P voiceware (via #1 Skype's ~500m users);
Classified ads ( #1 in revenues); and
Online payments (via eBay's #1 PayPal).

Like Google, eBay knows that "openness" is industrial-policy-speak for:

"Open" Internet = benefit without cost for "Piggy-backer" Google

Scott Cleland — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:21:00 -0400

As the lead bankroller of the "open Internet" slogan that the FCC now proposes to adopt as new U.S. policy without Congressional authorization, Google knows what an "open Internet" is supposed to mean: Google gets the benefits of the Internet without its costs.

"Who... has the greater potential to make things worse for everyone?"

Scott Cleland — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:51:06 -0400

Kudos to Gordon Crovitz' WSJ column that highlighted the wisdom of Larry Downes, author of "The Laws of Disruption" who cut to the crux of the net neutrality debate in asking the simple pointed question: which is the bigger threat to the Internet -- the FCC or companies? His answer: the FCC.

Larry Downes: "U.S. consumers have plenty of reasons to be suspicious of both the FCC and the communications industry." His advice: "Consumers should ask themselves which of these powerful interests is more likely in the end to abuse its power. Who, in other words, has the greater potential to make things worse for everyone?"
His answer seems sensible: "Absent any evidence of serious market failure yet, I'd much rather deal with the devil I know than a resurgent FCC."

How FCC Regulation Would Change the Internet

Scott Cleland — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:17:35 -0400

The FCC's claims that their proposed net neutrality regulations would just "preserve" the open Internet are simply not true. The facts are clear that the FCC's proposed regulations would:

Wireless investment already is "unleashed!"-- FCC net neutrality regs would only leash it

Scott Cleland — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:52:54 -0400

The WSJ op-ed, "Net Neutrality: Spur to Entrepreneurship, an open network will unleash investment" is a dystopian and nonsensical assertion that it is Government that "unleashes" investment, when everyone's common sense knows that Government regulation is all about putting leashes on businesses and investment!

Competition and market forces have already unleashed $300 billion in cumulative U.S. wireless investment per CTIA!

Google Voice's Plea for Special FCC Treatment

Scott Cleland — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:51:59 -0400

Google responded to the FCC's questions that effectively address whether or not Google Voice should be subject to the FCC's proposed net neutrality regulations.

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.

"How did the commission come to acquire this power?"

Scott Cleland — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:24:45 -0400

"How did the commission come to acquire this power?" was the core question that Ronald H. Coase asked in a seminal paper he wrote about the FCC in 1959.

Kudos to Jeff Eisenach and Adam Theirer for an outstanding must-read article in The American, "Coase vs. the Neo-Progressives" that celebrates Mr. Coase's brilliant, ahead-of-his-time insights, and his exceptional clarity-of-thought in asking that profound question fifty years ago -- that couldn't be more appropriate to ask the FCC today.

How did the FCC acquire the power to regulate the "open Internet?

The FCC did not "acquire this power," the FCC is proposing to simply assume and assert this power by tech elite acclamation.