Richard, the big question on everyone's mind right now is how does Google's recent announcement of walled garden applications for Sprint WiMax fit with your support for open access and net neutrality in general? On first blush it looks like Google is advocating open networks for everyone but Google.
I was not aware that the Sprint deal was a walled garden... from what I read, it was more a set of defaults that the customer could change.
Similar to Firefox defaulting to Google as its search engine, but you can adjust it. The defining factor of a walled garden is that you cannot change the provided applications.
This latest post still does not address the basic flaws in the Google argument:
(1) the "blocking premium" analysis is only valid when there is a single incumbent or when the incumbents are colluding (as assumed by the Covington & Burling article cited for support in the last Google post), which if agreed-upon is already illegal and even when merely parallel can be thwarted with secret and simultaneous bidding (all that is required to undermine the entire analysis of the CAP article cited for support in Google's last post), because the acquiring incumbent bears the full cost of the new license but all incumbents—and this includes DSL and cable modem providers—get the benefit of reduced competition;
(2) still no explanation of how the price at which third parties could purchase upstream services would be calculated—and by whom—nor an explanation (at least no economic explanation) of why vertical integration through the service chain, which is generally procompetitive, would be bad here; and
(3) still no explanation of why licensees should be barred from price discrimination in the sale of wholesale wireless services, when price discrimination is generally procompetitive, increasing output and reducing prices for the lowest-intensity users (i.e. the poor).
Stop dressing up your populist argument in pseudoeconomics! There is not a single problem raised that secret, simultaneous bidding would not address, and this entire initiative is distracting your enormous lobbying power away from things that really are bad, such as the lack of truly national licenses.
The long-term goal of the FCC should not be tied solely to the short-term returns associated with the auction. There is a concept called return-on-investment (or ROI). The auction should produce the maximum ROI to the US Government (i.e., the American taxpayer) over the life of the spectrum.
I know that’s a really difficult concept for the the FCC to grasp.
Maximizing ROI for the auction would mean preventing the telcos and its sock-puppets — who are already longtime beneficiaries of taxpayer largesse — from bidding to force new lifeblood into the competitive landscape.
I'd love to see an ROI calculation from our govenment which imposes tight accounting rule on businesses and an alice-in-wonderland based systems on their own.
Looks like google got 3 our of 4 and their upto $4.6 B bid is now a floor not a ceiling.
Richard, the big question on everyone's mind right now is how does Google's recent announcement of walled garden applications for Sprint WiMax fit with your support for open access and net neutrality in general? On first blush it looks like Google is advocating open networks for everyone but Google.
ReplyDeleteI was not aware that the Sprint deal was a walled garden... from what I read, it was more a set of defaults that the customer could change.
ReplyDeleteSimilar to Firefox defaulting to Google as its search engine, but you can adjust it. The defining factor of a walled garden is that you cannot change the provided applications.
This latest post still does not address the basic flaws in the Google argument:
ReplyDelete(1) the "blocking premium" analysis is only valid when there is a single incumbent or when the incumbents are colluding (as assumed by the Covington & Burling article cited for support in the last Google post), which if agreed-upon is already illegal and even when merely parallel can be thwarted with secret and simultaneous bidding (all that is required to undermine the entire analysis of the CAP article cited for support in Google's last post), because the acquiring incumbent bears the full cost of the new license but all incumbents—and this includes DSL and cable modem providers—get the benefit of reduced competition;
(2) still no explanation of how the price at which third parties could purchase upstream services would be calculated—and by whom—nor an explanation (at least no economic explanation) of why vertical integration through the service chain, which is generally procompetitive, would be bad here; and
(3) still no explanation of why licensees should be barred from price discrimination in the sale of wholesale wireless services, when price discrimination is generally procompetitive, increasing output and reducing prices for the lowest-intensity users (i.e. the poor).
Stop dressing up your populist argument in pseudoeconomics! There is not a single problem raised that secret, simultaneous bidding would not address, and this entire initiative is distracting your enormous lobbying power away from things that really are bad, such as the lack of truly national licenses.
Daniel -
ReplyDeleteThe long-term goal of the FCC should not be tied solely to the short-term returns associated with the auction. There is a concept called return-on-investment (or ROI). The auction should produce the maximum ROI to the US Government (i.e., the American taxpayer) over the life of the spectrum.
I know that’s a really difficult concept for the the FCC to grasp.
Maximizing ROI for the auction would mean preventing the telcos and its sock-puppets — who are already longtime beneficiaries of taxpayer largesse — from bidding to force new lifeblood into the competitive landscape.
I'd love to see an ROI calculation from our govenment which imposes tight accounting rule on businesses and an alice-in-wonderland based systems on their own.
ReplyDeleteLooks like google got 3 our of 4 and their upto $4.6 B bid is now a floor not a ceiling.
What next big guy?