Scott Cleland 's Techdirt Comments
Latest Comments (26)
-
On the post: Congress Trying To Regulate Certain Wireless Spectrum Issues… In A Payroll Tax Bill?
-
On the post: There Is No Such Thing As Search Neutrality, Because The Whole Point Of Search Is To Recommend What's Best
Scott Cleland ( profile ), 30 Jun, 2010 @ 11:59amMore on Search Neutrality
Mr. Masnick,
I thought you would like to see my latest piece on why search neutrality is important and why Google is anti-competitively discriminating with its monopoly search business. See: http://precursorblog.com/content/google-were-biggest-kingmaker-earth-googleopoly-update
Scott Cleland
Precursor LLC
Publisher, GoogleMonitor.com and Googleopoly.net -
On the post: Why Google's Street View WiFi Data Collection Was Almost Certainly An Accident
Scott Cleland ( profile ), 24 Jun, 2010 @ 05:58amGoogle apologia?
Mr. Masnick,
It appears that you are ignoring a lot of relevant information...
My longer reply can be found at:
http://precursorblog.com/content/is-mr-masnick-becoming-googles-go-apologist
Scott Cleland
President, Precursor LLC
Publisher, GoogleMonitor.com & Googleopoly.net -
On the post: A Recommendation Is Not The Same As Corruption
Scott Cleland ( profile ), 24 Jun, 2010 @ 05:55amGoogle Apologia
Mr. Masnick,
Thanks for your reply to my post. My reply can be found at:
http://precursorblog.com/content/is-mr-masnick-becoming-googles-go-apologist
Scott Cleland
President, Precursor LLC
Publisher, GoogleMonitor.com & Googleopoly.net -
On the post: There Is No Such Thing As Search Neutrality, Because The Whole Point Of Search Is To Recommend What's Best
Scott Cleland ( profile ), 19 Jun, 2010 @ 02:10pmGoogle's lack of search neutrality
Mr. Masnick,
With all due respect, I had to challenge your head-in-the-sand views on Google's lack of search neutrality. see my post: http://precursorblog.com/content/mr-masnick-ostriching-search-neutraltiy
Scott Cleland
Precursor LLC
Publisher GoogleMonitor.com, and Googleopoly.net -
On the post: How Google's Anti-Microsoft Lobbying Effort Came Back To Bite Them
Scott Cleland ( profile ), 19 Mar, 2010 @ 11:11amGoogle's biggest mistake
My vote for Google's biggest mistake ever was seeking a partnership with the NSA on cybersecurity that was outed on the front page of the Washington Post. Not only is this alliance totally at odds with what Google has always represented to everyone publicly, this puts the 53% of their business that is international at risk. Now foreign goverments are not just worried about Google's bad privacy record, they now have to worry if its just an front/effort to collect information for American spy agencies. see: http://www.precursorblog.com/content/did-google-over-react-china-cybersecurity-breach-security-googles-achilles-heel-part-vii
Scott Cleland publisher of GoogleMonitor.com -
On the post: And, Of Course, Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Google Over Buzz
Scott Cleland ( profile ), 21 Feb, 2010 @ 03:48pmGoogle Buzz Class Action
Mr. Masnick thank you for your explanation. Let me agree with your conclusion that some attacks on Google are misguided.
We can agree to disagree on this case, but I believe this one and many many others are not misguided. You admit Google made a mistake and handled it badly and that Google has issues. A court case is a normal forum for a person who believes they are aggrieved by another to get redress. In that process they will have to prove harm. My criticism is why reflexively bash people and question their motives before they have their day in court?
Let me also state that many challenges of Google that are completely warranted and justified. Several different copyright industries have sued Google for serial infringement. This is not the first serious dust-up Google has faced on privacy/security related issues. And on Antitrust, my analysis has been spot on and early, and the US Government has implictly agreed with my assessment of Google's monopolistic anticompetitive behavior in three instances, Google-Yahoo, Google Books, and Microsoft-Yahoo so I am not unjustifyably "attacking" Google, I like others am presenting information and cases that are proven to have great merit with both the Bush and Obama antitrust authorities.
Your rebuttal would also be stronger if you did not feel the need to resort to ad hominem attacks. You don't need to, you are perfectly capable of making your case strongly without them.
Respectfully,
Scott Cleland
Precursor LLC
Publisher of www.GoogleMonitor.com -
On the post: And, Of Course, Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Google Over Buzz
Scott Cleland ( profile ), 19 Feb, 2010 @ 09:03amGoogle Buzz Class Action
Mr. Masnick,
I had to challenge your reflexive apologia for Google Buzz in blaming the Google Buzz victims in my precursorblog.com post.
http://www.precursorblog.com/content/techdirt-blames-google-buzz-victims
Scott Cleland
Precursor LLC
Publisher of GoogleMonitor.com -
On the post: According To WSJ, Google Not Just A 'Thief' But A 'Digital Vampire'
Scott Cleland ( profile ), 25 Jun, 2009 @ 01:46pmMike is search advertising competitive like you imply?
Mike
With all due respect, the crux of your strong defense of Google depends on whether the search advertising market is competitive or not. I analyzed Google's slogan -- competition is but "a click away" -- and found it can't withstand close scutiny of the facts or logic. It is untrue and deceptive. See: http://www.precursorblog.com/content/what-one-click-away
Are you officially claiming the search advertisiing business is fully competitive?
Scott Cleland Precursor LLC -
On the post: The Smear Campaign Against Larry Lessig And Free Culture
Scott Cleland ( profile ), 30 Apr, 2008 @ 08:48amIn defense of Sydnor's understanding of freedom
This is Scott Cleland, Chairman of NetCompetition.org, an e-furum funded by broadband interests.
Having blogged against Professor Lessig's Orwellian doublespeak in his usage of the word "free" and others, I have to chime in with a strong defense of Tom Sydnor's outstanding deconstuction of Professor Lessig's thinking in his book "Free Culture."
For my full comments see my post on the subject:
http://www.precursorblog.com/node/738 -
On the post: No, Google Did Not Fleece Taxpayers Out Of $7 Billion
Scott Cleland ( profile ), 16 Apr, 2008 @ 12:32pm11th comment from Cleland -- new evidence against Google
This is Scott Cleland again, I found some new evidence today that confirms my thesis that Google gamed the auction by improperly bidding against itself.
See: http://www.precursorblog.com/node/720 -
On the post: Is It That Difficult To Understand The Difference Between Public Data And Private Data?
Scott Cleland ( profile ), 16 Apr, 2008 @ 11:36amGoogle's abysmal record on privacy
This is Scott Cleland, President of Precursor LLC and Chairman of Netcompetition.org putting my "two cents" again on one of Mr. Masnick's blogs strongly defending Google when Google may not be fully worthy of such a vigorous defense.
Google has serious privacy "issues" which I highlighted and documented with many links to mainstream sources -- in this Precursorblog post on Google and privacy -- http://www.precursorblog.com/node/665 -
On the post: No, Google Did Not Fleece Taxpayers Out Of $7 Billion
Scott Cleland ( profile ), 16 Apr, 2008 @ 07:26ama tenth comment from Cleland -- Congressman on gaming of system
Mr. Kerton,
You must not have dug very deeply, or the news you read is only from like-minded blogs/sources, but how could you miss the Bloomberg news service coverage: "Google 'gamed' airwave sale, Republican lawmakers say." http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a.ocUgM0IJ5Y
It was also picked up here as well: http://www.phonemag.com/google-blamed-for-700mhz-auction-bid-shortfall-042383.php
IDG PC world also picked it up: http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/144666/lawmakers_complain_that_google_gamed_auction.html
Even the Wall Street journal mentioned that lawmakers were concerned the open access rules depressed C block prices.
Mr. Kerton, as a research analyst you need to get out more and read more. All you would have had to do was Google it to find that "congress even mentioned Google's role in the auction."
Scott Cleland
Chairman, NetCompetition.org -
On the post: No, Google Did Not Fleece Taxpayers Out Of $7 Billion
Scott Cleland ( profile ), 13 Apr, 2008 @ 02:30pmA ninth comment by Cleland and some humor to enjoy
Before I get back to the debate, I thought we all could benefit from some humor, so we don't take ourselves too seriously -- I am linking to a post that should get at least a grin or two from anyone following this thread. It's relevant for a "Techdirt" debate thread because the "source" for this post was the fictional site "GoogleDirt." http://www.precursorblog.com/node/592
Back to the debate.
I have to address one of the anonymous commenters who had some ok things to say but couldn't resist the ad hominem attack that I am a fascist. As a poli sci major in college and an avid student of twentieth century european history particularly WWII, I am not sure our commenter understands what fascism is/was or for that matter how to identify a modern day fascist... For an ephitet like that to have any sting it has to have a scintilla of truth which this one does not. Fascism allowed no debate, no freedom of speech, no criticism of the Government or its allies, no respect for individual liberty or for the rule of law, and they were prone to violence against those who opposed them. If anyone was being ganged up on for sticking up for my constitional freedom of speech while enduring ad Hominem attacks, in this debate, I think it would be me here.
With all due respect to Mr. Kerton, you appear to be frustrated in this debate that I don't "cry uncle" and concede you are right. Why the need for the ad hominem attacks that your logic is better because you are unpaid, or that I am just a proverbial "little boy who cried wolf"? In reviewing your previous comments -- they were intelligent, well argued, and among the most informed of all the commenters. You can do fine on the merits -- why undermine the record and let fair-minded people dismiss your good analysis when it is laced with ad hominem attacks? I do hope we can continue the debate on the White Spaces issue because that argument is much more clear cut as we don't have to argue about estimation methods we can just argue the law and the merits of giving away what should be auctioned.
Mr. Masnick,thank you for your patience, fairness and learned restraint from ad hominem attacks. Let me try again as you seem genuinely interested in why I could hold onto such a contrary view as you do given the same analysis or facts.
It is not a contradiction. My choice of selecting a simple straightforward estimation method involved a clear tradeoff, and you are pointing to the fact that I made a trade-off for a legitimate purpose, clarity and "openness" to say I am being contradictory -- that does not logically follow. I also was upfront in calling my estimate and estimate. You may not be aware that most of your argument is that my estimate is not perfect, and I concede an estimate is by definition not perfect. Proving it is not perfect does not prove it has no merit. Most fair-minded people can see that I was not intent on making the $7b point but the broader point that Google fleeced the taxpayer by manipulating the auction. You all still have not come close to disputing that finding -- by the way you have largely confirmed it by obsessing over the number and not the principle.
Lastly, the "logical pretzel" you have discovered is yours in trying to prove why someone could hold a different opinion from you. Opinions emerge from different values, assumptions, priorities, and perspectives. Your frustration with me is that I think differently than you all, and have different beliefs. Embrace diversity of thought and opinion. Its much more interesting and productive than the anonymous, gang swarm bullying that many blog commenters consider "debate". -
On the post: No, Google Did Not Fleece Taxpayers Out Of $7 Billion
Scott Cleland ( profile ), 11 Apr, 2008 @ 05:43aman eighth comment from cleland
Mr. Masnick
#1 is not a contradiction since A and B were the only unencumbered blocks so they represent the only available pool of blocks/prices to compare with C. To accept your logic would be to accept there can be no comparison between unencumbered blocks and encumbered blocks and that's not reasonable or logical.
#2 is not a cotradiction becuase Google informed us in the NYTimes article it was not participating with the same purpose as othere who participated and respected the rules and fair representation -- they only were in the auction to trigger the conditions. if goog was honest and straightforward and not manipulating it would have put in one bid for $4.6 b and be done with it. simulating competition by bidding against oneself to mask your deception is still deception. By the way the 4.6b researve price was way below the average market rate in the A and B blocks. so you suggesting it is a contradiction is a basic misunderstanding of my point and the trigger price.
sorry for the typos I only have a moment now to comment. -
On the post: No, Google Did Not Fleece Taxpayers Out Of $7 Billion
Scott Cleland ( profile ), 10 Apr, 2008 @ 05:37pma seventh comment from Cleland
I am responding to Mr. Masnick's #35 comment.
No one got fleeced in the price difference of the A and B blocks because they were market driven auction blocks not skewed by Google's open access conditions. Compeitive bidders in the marketplace bid different amount for different regions because different regions are more valuable than others. More people = more value. If you better understood markets and auctions you would not even suggest that the A and B blocks should deliver the same price per MHz.
My simple transparent averaging of the two blocks is the basic technique any person uses to compare two groups of numbers overall that are not identical. Using average prices between the blocks is a perfectly legitimate shorthand calulation method. How would you calculate it more accurately Mr. Masnick? You only offer increasing levels of minutia criticism without offering your answer of what it should be. It is very easy to criticize but harder to problem solve oneself. What is your estimate? and why did you choose that estimation method?
Who got fleeced in the C block was the American taxpayer because: Google's open access conditions, google's $4.6 billion opening and de facto bid ceiling signal that violated the spirit of the FCC anti-collusion rules, google's deceptive bidding against itself to fake a competitive bidding situation, and finally Google's exit from the auction once it triggered the auction and did not fulfill trying to be a third national broadband provider --were all cumulatively deceptive misrepresentations that suppressed the competitive price at the auction which shortchanged the taxpayer. Sorry for the long run on sentence but I wanted to put it all in there so you can't legitimately say I didn't try to explain how google fleeced the taxpayer.
Please prove the superiority of your analysis of the situation by offering a superior estimate of the amount the auction was skewed by the google conditions.
I will also include the following answer to Mr. "anonymous coward" his self appellation not mine. Your comment was one of the better in the string. why by anonymous or think of yourself as cowardly? -- you are more than capable of engaging in an intelligent debate in your own identity, unless your identity would tell us something you don't want disclosed.
Let me respond to your final summary comment that open competition is better than market control. I am all for open and competitive markets that is what free market advocates like myself seek and seek to preserve. We free marketeers cherish liberty and want limited government. Google and the much of the "open" movement have twisted the meaning of what they mean by "open" to be more about government intervention to impose artificially pre-determined outcomes that favor one set of business models or companies over another. "Open" is also increasingly being thrown around not in the literal sense of what open means -- the opposite of closed -- but to mean communal or public owned property as the information commons movement defines it. I view this communal twisting of the free market principle of "openness" into a communalist -- anti-property rights concept -- to threaten the core of our free market Internet.
In closing if you want to be further riled up, I have argued against another pet rock that many of you care about -White spaces -- in my latest blog http://precursorblog.com/node/709
I suspect that post will prompt some comments as well... -
On the post: No, Google Did Not Fleece Taxpayers Out Of $7 Billion
Scott Cleland ( profile ), 10 Apr, 2008 @ 01:38pmA sixth comment from Cleland
Mr. Masnick,
I have said in previous comments that there may be intangible value to openness. I certainly concede that you and other commenters "value" openness -- but you keep asking for something of me that the law, the FCC, or common sense don't require. Why should I estimate the intangible value you and others put on openness conditions? Isn't that for you to do? Why are you delegating to someone who disagrees with you the staff work to make your point? Am I missing something here? You want me to estimate an intangible value you have in your head but I don't have in my head. A mind reader I am not.
Lets talk about the blocks and why I compared the "c" block to the A and B blocks. First, I hope we can agree that the 'D" block was an unmitiaged disaster in that it did not come close to the reserve price and there was no competitive bidding. That's becuase the buildout conditions and the lack of any business control allowed in the rules to mitigate risk made that block toxic.
The A and B blocks were the roughly comparable blocks differing primarily by geopgraphic configuration.
I looked at several ways to make my point. I considered a more elegant model with multiple assumptions but thought it would be a disservice to be complex when I could be most clear and straightforward by choosing the simplest easiest to understand and easiest to replicate model/estimate. What I find most annoying is if people make an estimate but provide incomplete info so one has to guess how they drived it or make their own assumptions.
I find it amusing that you find yourselves arguing the train of thought that I was too open, transparent, honest, too straightforward.
I guess one can't win, if you are straightforward you get criticized for not being detailed enough and if you are too detailed the criticism would be what are you trying to hide?
We should agree to disagree on this point. You and some of your commenters want me to accept your world view, concede your framework for estimating value, and think the way techies think. It's not really an argument it is a presumption of unilateral disarmanment by me in a debate. That makes no sense to me. -
On the post: No, Google Did Not Fleece Taxpayers Out Of $7 Billion
Scott Cleland ( profile ), 10 Apr, 2008 @ 08:12ambriefly a fifth comment from Cleland
Mr. Kerton,
Thank you for your thoughtful argument.
The flaw in your charge that my argument falls short is that you don't accept the premise of the 1993 law and the FCC auction rules as the foundation for judging the outcome here. I can't think of a more legitimate or sound fouundation for a argument of this type than the law and the FCC rules.
By declaring that Mr. Kerten's personal-devised cost-benefit calculation is the one that should be operative here is weak at best. If his personal opinion was taken as the operative final word here --anyone could waltz into a court of law or the FCC and say I have a better construct than the law of the operative jurisdictional authority and therefore I am right and my personal outcome should rule. Constitutional democracies do not work by blog acclamation but by due process and the rule of law.
Many many people may agree with you Mr. Kerton that your foundational construct for the argument is better and more in line with the way it "should be." I certainly understand its emotional appeal among techdirts tech parochial readership.
Once again I resort to reminding everyone that my argument is based on the legal/economic reality of the law and the FCC rules -- your first beef is not with me but the law and the US Congress and the FCC.
I respect your right to question the back of the envelope $7 billion calculation -- I was clear and transparent in how I came up with the number, do you have a clear and transparent alternative methodology for how much the competitive price was suppressed by Google's highly unusual bidding behavior? Everyone reading this far would be interested I would think. -
On the post: No, Google Did Not Fleece Taxpayers Out Of $7 Billion
Scott Cleland ( profile ), 09 Apr, 2008 @ 01:30pmA fourth Cleland comment
Please see my latest addition to this debate string on my blog:
http://www.precursorblog.com/node/707
Scott Cleland
Chairman NetCompetition.org -
On the post: No, Google Did Not Fleece Taxpayers Out Of $7 Billion
Scott Cleland ( profile ), 08 Apr, 2008 @ 01:47pmThird Comment by Cleland
Derek,
Kudos on an excellent post. You have an obviously strong grasp of different types of auctions, and different types of spectrum arrangements, and the economics of opportunity costs to different players.
Thank you for conceding what you consider is a "small point" -- that there is an opportunity cost to the taxpayer here.
I won't quibble with your analysis here other than to say the the "small point" you agree with was my main point and the primary reason for my Friday blog post.
Where we disagree, is that all these different examples (TV, Nextwave, WiFi) are not as analagous as you suggest. They all operated with a different factual and legal predicates making them unfair to lump together logically. TV licenses were granted decades ago in return for a "public interest obligation" way before the 1993 law. WiFi was not 700 MHZ super-premium-quality spectrum like this acution which generated $19b. And Nextwave was a total travesty because of legal mistakes the FCC made that were disastrous. The American Taxpayer was hurt in that instance as well like you wisely point out.
As I said in my last comment -- of course spectrum has other tangible and intangible "value" other than the auction price. I don't think I said that -- that is the characterization you all have heaped on me.
I have not tried to say there is no other value. I'm just not letting Google escape from the legal reality of the 1993 Budget Act or the FCC's anti-collusion rules because they or their sympathizers don't like the law or the rules and want to make up their own by blog comment acclamation.
I stick by my main and not so "small" point. Google manipulated the FCC auction per my Friday blog costing taxpayers real dollar value and I offered my simple, clear, and transparent estimate of what the size of that lost value was to the American Taxpayer --$7 billion.
You all may want to chase rabbits because like ad hominem attacks it changes the subject.
I will remain on subject which is Google manipulated the FCC's auction to its benefit and to the detriment of the American taxpayer.
Scott Cleland
Chairman Netcompetition.org
check the constitution...
You asserted, "at the very least, I think everyone can agree that they have no business (at all) being in a payroll tax bill."
Mike,
I know that most people call it the "payroll tax bill" but under the U.S. Constitution Article I Section 7: "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives." The spectrum provisions you mention directly effect the amount the U.S. can raise in revenues for the US Treasury.
Thus constitutionally, they have a basis for being in this bill.
respectfully,
Scott Cleland, NetCompetition.org