October 26, 2011
The New York Times editorial “How to Fix the Wireless Market,” is embarrassingly uninformed and totally ignores massive obvious evidence of vibrant American wireless competition.
The NYT’s conclusion, that more wireless regulation is needed because of “insufficient competition,” results from cherry picking a few isolated facts that superficially support their case, while totally ignoring the overwhelming relevant evidence to the contrary.
The NYT completely ignores widely-available evidence of vibrant wireless competition and substitution:
- U.S. wireless customers are getting much more value for less money! The average local monthly wireless bill is down for the same number of minutes and for 111% more data usage!
- U.S. wireless customers use roughly four times more minutes of use than customers in most every other country in the world.
- U.S. wireless customers have more choice of handsets, over 600, than most any nation in the world.
- The U.S. leads the world in next generation 4G subscribers showing that the U.S. is leading in infrastructure private investment and innovation — obvious indicators of a vibrant competitive wireless market.
Most embarrassing of all is the NYT’s myopic fixation on texting and the price per text versus cost, which totally misses the importance of the wide competitive availability of free and better substitutes.
The NYT is ignoring that users can and do use free texting/messaging/communications services via:
- Apple’s ichat, messaging or Facetime;
- Facebook’s messaging or video chat;
- Microsoft-Skype’s calling or video conferencing;
- Google Voice, Hangout video conferencing, Google + messaging; or
- Twitter messages.
Simply, the NYT’s claim of insufficient wireless competition is shockingly uninformed — the editorial board should read its own business technology section more to get into the 21st century, because the era of black rotary phones, and brick-size cellphones has long since passed, as most every other person in America has long recognized.
- At a minimum, the NYT’s should get its facts straight before recommending intrusive government intervention and economic regulation of a marketplace that is very well serving wireless customers.
October 25, 2011
Netflix has self-torpedoed themselves a third time in just the last three months.
See my Forbes Tech Capitalist post here to learn how.
October 21, 2011
For those seeking to better understand how communications competition has evolved, expanded, and accelerated to cloud communications competition, don’t miss my new six-chart powerpoint presentation: “The Metamorphosis of Communications Competition,” here.
My bottom line conclusion: The transformation of communications competition requires a transformation in communications law.
- Specifically, the world has changed with technology, but obsolete technology-specific laws have not.
- Communications policy obsolescence undermines infrastructure’s utility and value and renders property less attractive and competitive.
I presented this new easy-to-understand framework for understanding exploding communications competition at a NetCompetition event today on Capitol Hill, which also featured excellent presentations by Jeff Eisenach, Managing Director of Navigant Economics, and Ev Ehrlich, President of ESC Company.
October 12, 2011
Given that Apple and Google are the #1 and #2 most valuable brands in the world and that Google has invaded all of Apple’s markets in the last few years as a new competitor, it is illuminating and instructive to compare and contrast the radically different visions, values, and standards, of Apple’s former leader Steve Jobs and Google’s current CEO Larry Page.
See my Forbes Tech Capitalist post: “Jobs’ Apple Standard vs. Page’s Google Standard” here.